Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 09/07/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Without Pruitt, Industry Expects Less Heavy-Handed Superfund Focus
Jul 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Scott Pruitt's resignation as EPA administrator could produce a shift in how the Superfund program is handled -- moving from what industry sources say was a heavy-handed focus from the administrator's office and unpredictable cleanup decisions to more deliberative decisions rooted in legal authorities -- although sources doubt an abrupt 180-degree turn will occur. -
(ACC Mentioned) INSIGHT: Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science
Jul 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The EPA’s proposed rule on Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science is a major step toward enhancing the public’s understanding of the science used in regulations that the agency issues and increasing their confidence in its decisions. -
Wheeler Aims for Improved Transparency at EPA
Jul 9, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Emily Holden
EPA is promising less secrecy under its new boss. -
Pruitt's Legacy At EPA
Jul 9, 2018 | Forbes
By Susan E. Dudley
The abrupt end last week to Scott Pruitt’s controversial tenure as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has left observers speculating on what EPA’s policy will look like under new leadership. -
2 EPA Nominees Start Working at Agency Before Senate Confirmation Votes
Jul 9, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has hired two officials nominated for senior positions to work at the agency before the Senate has had a chance to vote on them. -
(ACC Mentioned) Formidable Formaldehyde
Jul 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
Often, the biggest challenge for chemical risk assessors is a lack of data for the substance of concern. And, when they can access an appreciable volume of data, the biggest problem is likely to be that it is not very good. -
Coming Together on Cosmetics
Jul 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Warmington
Divergent regulations in different countries and regions are perhaps the main block to truly global industries – and few more so than cosmetics, where regulations are often fiendishly complex. -
Standing Among Giants
Jul 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
With more countries adopting regulations and policies to identify and manage the hazards and risks associated with chemicals of concern, the need for safer alternatives is growing exponentially. -
Danish Test Finds High Phthalate Levels in Plastic Balls
Jul 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The Danish Consumer Council's Think Chemicals initiative has found high levels of phthalates in six plastic ball products on the market. -
LNG Awakening Part 2: U.S. Exports on the Rise, But Limited Infrastructure in Thirsty Global Markets a Big Concern
Jul 9, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Leticia Gonzales
For all the economic benefits that liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports are expected to bring to the United States, including bringing an estimated $30 billion back into the domestic economy, a lack of infrastructure to support demand and complex regulatory regimes in some of the fastest growing markets have left industry experts cautiously optimistic about growth potential. -
U.S. Refining Capacity Staying Put Despite Oil Boom
Jul 9, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Even as U.S. oil production continues to grow, the nation's refining capacity is barely budging, the research firm Morningstar said Monday. -
Natural Gas Pipeline Designed to Meet Ohio Demand Gets Favorable EA from FERC
Jul 9, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
FERC has issued a favorable environmental assessment (EA) for RH energytrans LLC’s Risberg Line Project, which would move 55,000 Dth/d of natural gas from northwest Pennsylvania to northeast Ohio to meet increasing demand. -
EPA Moves to Delay Refinery Standards — Again
Jul 9, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
EPA is seeking to again give oil refineries more time to meet one set of requirements in its updated emission standards released in late 2015. -
Transportation Watch (The SCOTUS Version)
Jul 9, 2018 | Politico
By Stephanie Beasley
President Donald Trump is expected to announce his Supreme Court pick to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy tonight. -
EPA Sends OMB Its Latest Redo of an Obama-Era Rule
Jul 9, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
EPA has sent a long-stalled final rule affecting "project aggregation" requirements under its New Source Review permitting program to the White House Office of Management and Budget for a standard review. -
EPA to Publish Plan for State 'Good Neighbor' Compliance
Jul 9, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
EPA is pressing ahead with plans to rely on the status quo to satisfy states' "good neighbor" obligations tied to compliance with its 2008 ground-level ozone standard. -
Starbucks to Eliminate Plastic Straws by 2020
Jul 9, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Kimberly Chin and Julie Jargon
Starbucks Coffee Co. SBUX +1.88% plans to phase out single-use plastic straws from its more than 28,000 company-operated and licensed stores by 2020 in an effort to reduce its global waste footprint.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
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) Without Pruitt, Industry Expects Less Heavy-Handed Superfund Focus
Jul 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Scott Pruitt's resignation as EPA administrator could produce a shift in how the Superfund program is handled -- moving from what industry sources say was a heavy-handed focus from the administrator's office and unpredictable cleanup decisions to more deliberative decisions rooted in legal authorities -- although sources doubt an abrupt 180-degree turn will occur.
“I would say this can only be good for the return to a sense of good science and deliberative process in the Superfund program,” one industry source says of Pruitt's departure.
Pruitt “was hell-bent for speed” on Superfund cleanups, mostly focused on “shovels in the ground,” and was “very heavy-handed with regional staff,” the source says of Pruitt's handling of Superfund cleanups.
President Donald Trump announced Pruitt's resignation in a July 5 message on Twitter, following months of ethics scandals. Deputy EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler became acting administrator July 9, a role he could fill for much of the rest of Trump's current term.
During his 16 months in office, Pruitt took a keen interest in the Superfund program, launching a series of reforms aimed at speeding cleanups and centralizing remedial decisions costing more than $50 million in the administrator's office, removing responsibilities that had previously been delegated to regions or the waste office.
He recently broadened that role, signing a memo in April that gave the administrator's office a role in a variety of significant decisions for cleanups at the high-cost sites.
In some cases, he selected cleanup remedies that were stricter than what the Obama administration had proposed, drawing concern from industrial parties that have otherwise welcomed the administration's deregulatory agenda.
For instance, he signed a Record of Decision (ROD) for cleanup at the San Jacinto Waste Pits near Houston that adopted requirements that imposed cleanup requirements of $115 million, an increase over the estimated $97 million proposed by the Obama administration.
The industry source notes some RODs under Pruitt did not make sense, appearing to be inconsistent with administrative procedures -- such as the time needed to review the administrative record or running a decision by the contaminated sediment technical advisory body.
Such decisions have prompted rare public litigation threats from industry. Justin Savage, an attorney at the law firm Sidley Austin, at a June 22 American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education forum warned of a “greater push to try to take discovery and maybe even challenge” cleanup decisions where an industry party's cleanup responsibilities increased significantly under a Pruitt decision.
While Savage did not list particular sites, he said his clients have the perception that EPA, particularly Pruitt, "has been very aggressive in selecting remedies, which in turn can drive up costs and cause other concerns."
The former EPA official says that since many of Pruitt's decisions are in place or in process, “some of the suits likely will need to go forward.” This source adds, “I can't see the agency doing a 180-degree turn so quickly after Pruitt pushed them in a different direction."
A second industry source says lawyers have been actively preparing for those suits, and that Pruitt had been warned about them during his tenure.
Early Test
An early test of how Wheeler will act on cleanups will come before the end of the current fiscal year when the agency is slated to finalize a cleanup decision for the high-profile West Lake Landfill site in Bridgeton, MO, which is contaminated with radiation.
Despite a push by PRPs at the site against agency consideration of an excavation remedy, EPA in February announced Pruitt was backing a proposed cleanup remedy there to partially excavate contaminated soil.
While Wheeler does not appear to have a record on Superfund, the second industry source believes he is more policy-oriented than Pruitt, and a “big supporter” of the regions.
As a result, this source is optimistic that Wheeler will rely on regional offices when it comes to Superfund decisions, rather than consolidating those decisions at headquarters. Industry parties believe that some of the Superfund decision-making and process will revert back to the regions where it was focused before Pruitt, the source says.
With high-cost cleanup site decisions, Pruitt pulled all the decision-making back to his office, without seeming to consider regional staff's technical advice, this source contends. This source expects Wheeler to take more of a collaborative approach.
The first industry source says Pruitt's Superfund decisions followed along the lines of those under the Obama administration, only they were “more extreme” and he wanted them implemented in one-twentieth the time. This source says under Wheeler, the established business community might now be included in Superfund decisions, whereas Pruitt ignored industry groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers, American Chemistry Council and American Petroleum Institute when it came to individual decisions about Superfund cleanups.
“I doubt that [Wheeler] will be as unpredictable on cleanup decisions as Pruitt was -- he actually understands the program and what the authorities of the Agency actually are,” the former EPA official says in an email response to questions.
But an EPA source expresses concern that Superfund cleanups will become weaker under Wheeler. The source notes that the one program area on which Pruitt was not “anti-environment” was Superfund -- where the source says he strengthened cleanups since the last administration.
The source says Wheeler lacks a track record on Superfund, but says he has generally taken anti-environment positions and therefore may take a similar stance on Superfund issues.
As to whether Wheeler will maintain Superfund as a core focus of the agency, as Pruitt did, it remains unclear. Pruitt announced a host of reforms for the Superfund program last July, with a heavy focus on redevelopment of sites and speeding cleanups.
One source with a coalition representing community groups expects there may not be a change in maintaining Superfund as a priority because this source believes it was a focus of Trump's as well. This source says stakeholders will have to “wait and see” but doubts EPA will walk away from that priority “especially because it's the only program other than lead in water that they are doing.” The Trump EPA has stressed deregulatory actions for most other major environmental laws, and sought to pull back climate regulatory plans that had been put forth under the Obama administration.
One industry attorney says while the regulatory reforms advocated by Pruitt in other programs are expected to continue under Wheeler, Superfund cleanup remedies may be an area that sees a shift.
Redevelopment Focus
However, sources believe Pruitt's focus on redevelopment of Superfund sites may be retained. The former EPA official notes that the redevelopment focus is a priority of both Peter Wright, a top official with chemical giant DowDupont who Trump nominated to head EPA's Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM), and the office's number two political official Steven Cook.
And a second industry attorney says there is no reason to believe the focus on redevelopment will change as “EPA has had this desire for some time, across several administrations."
The first industry source believes some of the reforms could be dropped, with “mainline PRPs” pushing against some of the measures that may have produced a windfall to redevelopers via PRPs' cleanups.
Sources also believe Wright's nomination will fare better now that Pruitt has stepped down, especially as much of his confirmation hearing drew Democrats' concerns over Pruitt's ethics scandals.
Nevertheless, the sources doubt the confirmation could go forward before the mid-term elections, though Wheeler announced July 6 that he had appointed Wright as special counsel, a role that will formally bring him into the agency even before his confirmation.
Wright's nomination will likely be helped “because you take the cloud of Pruitt out of the mix,” the first industry attorney says. If Wright is confirmed, this source believes Wheeler will refer more to Wright than Pruitt would have, and that Wright will have more of an opportunity to shape the Superfund program.
As a long-time Superfund attorney, Wright will know what needs to be fixed in the program, the source adds.
It is unclear, however, whether Wright's nomination will receive a vote before the traditional slow-down in Congress occurs as the mid-term elections approach, according to the second industry source.
A third industry source doubts Pruitt's departure will “move the needle” for Wright, noting the “toxic” environment on Capitol Hill and the limited amount of floor time between now and the mid-term elections, particularly as the Senate weighs a Supreme Court nominee.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/without-pruitt-industry-expects-less-heavy-handed-superfund-focus
-
(ACC Mentioned) INSIGHT: Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science
Jul 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The EPA’s proposed rule on Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science is a major step toward enhancing the public’s understanding of the science used in regulations that the agency issues and increasing their confidence in its decisions. Improving transparency in government is an ideal we should all embrace—especially when it comes to the regulations that affect our health, environment, livelihoods, and economy.
Protecting Privacy
One of the arguments that critics of the proposed rule made, often before the rule was even released or read, is that the Environmental Protection Agency will use it as a pretext for “throwing out” research that includes personal privacy information.
The proposed rule protects personal privacy information and takes critical steps to safeguard confidential business information, proprietary interests, and intellectual property rights. More important, it clearly states that it includes nothing that “compels the disclosure of any confidential or private information in a manner that violates applicable legal and ethical protections” and is sensitive to national and homeland security concerns.
This isn’t a new idea. In 2013, the Obama White House directed federal agencies (including the EPA and the National Institutes of Health) to create plans that increase public access to government-funded scientific research data while protecting private information. In 2016, the Obama EPA released its Plan to Increase Access to Results of EPA-Funded Scientific Research.
The thrust of the proposed EPA science transparency rule is in many ways the same as the policy put in place in 2016 by the agency’s former Administrator Gina McCarthy and EPA Science Adviser Dr. Tom Burke, which states, “the goals of this plan are to … increase public access to research data while protecting proprietary interests, intellectual property, and personal privacy.”
In addition, NIH is firmly in support as well, noting: “Sharing data reinforces open scientific inquiry, encourages diversity of analysis and opinion, promotes new research, makes possible the testing of new or alternative hypotheses and methods of analysis, supports studies on data collection methods and measurement, facilitates the education of new researchers, enables the exploration of topics not envisioned by the initial investigators, and permits the creation of new datasets when data from multiple sources are combined.
“In NIH’s view, all data should be considered for data sharing. Data should be made as widely and freely available as possible while safeguarding the privacy of participants, and protecting confidential and proprietary data.”
And here is what the EPA’s recently proposed rule says:
“Enhancing the transparency and validity of the scientific information relied upon by EPA strengthens the integrity of EPA’s regulatory actions and its obligation to ensure the Agency is not arbitrary in its conclusions. By better informing the public, the Agency [is] enhancing the public’s ability to understand and meaningfully participate in the regulatory process.
“Where the Agency is making data or models publicly available, it shall do so in a fashion that is consistent with law, protects privacy, confidentiality, confidential business information, and is sensitive to national and homeland security.”
In addition, advancements have been made—and continue to be refined—to protect location privacy, which is often referred to as “geomasking.” These new approaches can protect location privacy while allowing for localized epidemiological analyses—such as the investigation of disease clusters.
Clearly, those plans, like the proposed rule, were intended to increase transparency, while recognizing that federal agencies have a responsibility to protect personal privacy, confidential business information, proprietary interest, and intellectual property rights. Many of the critics of the EPA’s new proposalsupported that effort when the Obama administration set it forth.
Best Available Science
The proposed rule also focuses on addressing the over-reliance by some EPA programs on default assumptions and approaches that frequently result in inflated health risk estimates. These inflated risks create misperceptions and confusion about true risks and can lead to unwarranted and costly risk management decisions.
It’s time to integrate the best available 21st century science and advances in scientific knowledge into risk assessment decision-making. That will require the EPA and other government agencies to recognize the tremendous advances made in scientific research during the past 40 years on how chemicals interact with biological systems at different exposure levels. Failure to do so wastes investments in research and undermines the development of new science-based risk assessment practices and effective public health science policy.
All this is an approach that a strong bipartisan majority of Congress supported in the 2016 amendments to Section 26 of the Toxic Substances Control Act: When it comes to the science, the EPA should “show its work.” Here is exactly what the proposed rule says on the issue:
“EPA shall evaluate the appropriateness of using default assumptions, including assumptions of a linear, no-threshold dose response, on a case-by-case basis. EPA shall clearly explain the scientific basis for each model assumption used and present analyses showing the sensitivity of the modeled results to alternative assumptions. When available, EPA shall give explicit consideration to high quality studies that explore: A broad class of parametric dose-response or concentration-response models; a robust set of potential confounding variables; nonparametric models that incorporate fewer assumptions; various threshold models across the dose or exposure range; and models that investigate factors that might account for spatial heterogeneity.”
Backed by the best available 21st century science, the American Chemistry Council has long advocated moving away from outdated default assumptions and models. To ensure that chemicals in commerce are safe, we should harness the power of modern science and knowledge about the ways chemicals interact with the human body and the environment at different levels of exposure. It’s a disservice to everyone if the reliance on default assumptions and approaches persists and the best available science continues to be relegated to the sidelines.
Rising Above Political Fray
The goal of providing more transparency in government and using the best available science in the regulatory process should be ideals that we all embrace. It’s critical that we rise above partisan politics and ideologies when approaching topics as important as these. We hope moving forward that critics of the proposed rule will act as constructive participants in the public commenting process. The American Chemistry Council and our industry certainly plan to do so.
Cal Dooley is the president and chief executive officer of the American Chemistry Council. Prior to joining the council, he served as president and CEO of the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the Food Products Association. Earlier, Dooley represented the 20th District of California as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1991 to 2004.
The opinions expressed here do not represent those of Bloomberg Environment, which welcomes other points of view.
https://www.bna.com/insight-strengthening-transparency-n73014477153/
-
Wheeler Aims for Improved Transparency at EPA
Jul 9, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Emily Holden
EPA is promising less secrecy under its new boss.
Andrew Wheeler takes over today as acting administrator after Scott Pruitt resigned amid a cloud of scandal and accusations of violating public records laws.
An EPA spokesman says Wheeler wants to improve the agency’s relationship with the public and the press.Wheeler once worked as a career employee at EPA during the administration of George H.W. Bush, before long stints on Capitol Hill and as a lobbyist for coal companies and other businesses.
“As with any change in leadership you can expect a change in approach, and in this case a change in tone as well. Acting Administrator Wheeler has already stated that he puts a premium on transparency and that transparency helps the Agency so people know and understand what we are doing,” EPA public affairs official John Konkus told POLITICO.
“I think you can take that mindset and apply it across the board when it comes to how EPA will be communicating with the media and the public going forward,” he added. “A lot of the specifics in regards to how we will change the approach to calendars, schedules, briefings, etc. will be worked out over the coming days and weeks, but a change is coming.”
In a shift from Pruitt, Wheeler plans to announce travel and speeches in advance and publish his calendars "frequently," Konkus said. And top EPA officials also plan more media briefings on policy announcements.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Jul 9, 2018 | Forbes
By Susan E. Dudley
The abrupt end last week to Scott Pruitt’s controversial tenure as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has left observers speculating on what EPA’s policy will look like under new leadership. The consensus seems to be that, while we should expect less scandal from Deputy Administrator Andrew Wheeler—who is serving as acting Administrator and may be there for some time—his policies won’t differ dramatically.
So, what regulatory achievements can Scott Pruitt claim for his tumultuous 16 months at EPA’s helm? And what can we expect as his successors work to continue President Trump’s “deregulatory” agenda?
JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images
Largest regulatory rollback in EPA's history?
In accepting Pruitt’s resignation, President Trump tweeted “Scott has done an outstanding job, and I will always be thankful to him for this.” The Washington Post said Pruitt “relentlessly pursued President Trump’s promises of deregulation” and the New York Times declared that he “began the largest regulatory rollback in the agency’s history.”
Indeed, he did begin to take steps to slow down or reverse several of his predecessor’s regulatory priorities. In particular, he took advantage of litigationover the most sweeping and contentious Obama EPA rules to review and delay their implementation. For example, he convinced a federal court to stay litigation on the 2015 Clean Power Plan while his team evaluated the plan’s constitutionality, and has committed to review EPA’s contentious “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule that also faces litigation in several jurisdictions. The Wall Street Journal also reports that Pruitt was instrumental in persuading Trump to withdraw from the Paris climate accord.
When it comes to actual deregulation, though, Pruitt’s record is surprisingly incomplete. As at other agencies, EPA has issued significantly fewer new regulations than in previous years. During his tenure as administrator, EPA has finalized only 15 actions compared to 38 rules finalized during the same period in the Obama administration. But slowing the pace of new regulation is not the same as “rolling back” existing rules.
Of the 15 final actions Pruitt has presided over, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) classifies five as “deregulatory,” two as “regulatory” and eight as neither. Only one of the so-called deregulatory actions actually removes an existing requirement; in response to a petition, it exempts certain treated railroad ties from being classified as solid waste when used as fuel. One action imposes user fees on electronic manifest submissions (raising questions as to why it is considered deregulatory) and the other three extend compliance deadlines for regulations issued in the previous administration. Extensions provide head room to review and modify not-yet-effective rules in the future, but are not exactly rollbacks.
The two completed actions identified as regulatory are also rather modest in scope. One requires public notice for combined sewer overflows into the Great Lakes, and the other establishes reporting requirements for manufacturers, users or importers of mercury.
The only “economically significant” final action EPA has taken during this administration is its renewable fuel standard issued last December. Although OMB’s accounting does not classify it as such (it is labeled “other”), this action is decidedly regulatory. As I have observed in previous columns, renewable fuel mandates are costly to consumers and the environment, and only serve to enrich powerful special interests.
Looking ahead
The paucity of actual regulatory or deregulatory activity over the last year-and-a-half partly reflects the reality that changing existing policies through rulemaking takes time and resources. Once a regulation is in place, any changes to it require careful analysis of likely impacts, public notice supporting and explaining the proposed change, and the consideration of public comment and interagency review. Complying with these statutory and administrative requirements can take years. Particularly when reversing regulatory requirements established by a previous administration, development of a robust public record is essential for new policies to withstand the inevitable legal challenges.
EPA’s agenda of regulatory and deregulatory activities lists 128 actions underway in various stages of rulemaking. These comprise 41 deregulatory actions of which four are economically significant (with estimated dollar impacts in the hundreds of millions or billions), and likely to get a lot of attention. They include repeals of the prior administration’s clean power planand truck glider rules, modification of vehicle economy standards, and reconsideration of oil and gas sector emissions standards.
These actions will constitute a significant legacy if, and only if, Pruitt’s successor(s) are able to follow through to the “final action” stage, and then successfully defend them from challenges in court. Trump tweeted that he had “no doubt that [Deputy Administrator] Andy [Wheeler] will continue on with our great and lasting EPA agenda.” Wheeler will have his hands full, but supporters and critics alike suggest that, with his more modest demeaner and greater experience in Washington (he has worked at EPA, on Capitol Hill, and in a law firm), he may be more effective at implementing the Trump agenda than his predecessor.
Susan Dudley is Director of the GW Regulatory Studies Center. From April 2007 - January 2009 Dudley served as the Administrator of OIRA in the Executive Office of the President.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/susandudley/2018/07/09/pruitts-legacy-at-epa/#7bc03b554ce6
-
2 EPA Nominees Start Working at Agency Before Senate Confirmation Votes
Jul 9, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has hired two officials nominated for senior positions to work at the agency before the Senate has had a chance to vote on them.
Peter Wright and Chad McIntosh both started work Monday as “special counsels” to acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler, according to an EPA staff-wide email that Wheeler’s chief of staff Ryan Jackson sent Friday. The email was obtained by The Hill.
The hirings come as both Wright and McIntosh have nominations pending before the Senate to lead the Office of Land and Emergency Management and the Office of International and Tribal Affairs, respectively, a fact that the top Senate Democrat overseeing the EPA says is concerning and an attempt to avoid the confirmation process.
Jackson said in his email that both men will advise Wheeler on matters related to the offices for which they have been nominated. Those offices are currently being led by career employees.
The Environment and Public Works Committee, which is responsible for vetting Wright and McIntosh for their positions, held a confirmation hearing for them less than three weeks ago and has not voted on whether to advance the nominations to the full Senate. The deadline for them to answer written questions from the panel isn’t until the end of the day Monday.
Sen. Tom Carper (Del.), the top Democrat on the committee, said the news of their hiring is “troubling,” and a bad start for Wheeler’s tenure at the EPA’s helm.
“I just wrote to Mr. Wheeler today urging him to restore the public’s trust in the EPA,” Carper said in a statement.
“To announce that EPA will bring on Mr. Wright and Mr. McIntosh on the day that Administrator Pruitt departs — before they have even responded to Senators’ post-hearing questions and without notifying the Environment and Public Works Committee, the committee that has jurisdiction over the agency — not only breaks with past norm and precedents, but shows incredibly poor judgment, especially when we should be turning over a new leaf.”
The EPA said Wright’s and McIntosh’s positions are in line with the law and legal decisions regarding what candidates can do while their nominations are pending.
“Neither will be performing any duties that are reserved for the position for which they have been nominated,” an agency spokesman said.
Kevin Minoli, the EPA’s top ethics official, said in his own statement that the agency “will ensure we are in compliance with the law at all times” regarding Wright and McIntosh’s work.
Before his EPA job, Wright was a high-ranking attorney for Dow Chemical Co., which is responsible for some of the Superfund pollution sites that his office at the EPA oversees. McIntosh led Ford Motor Co.’s environmental programs before retiring last year.
Both nominees signed ethics agreements after they were nominated earlier this year, in which they agreed to recuse themselves from matters that have a “direct and predictable effect on the financial interests” of their most recent employers.
Wright’s and McIntosh’s hirings were first reported by E&E News.
Under the Trump administration, the EPA has previously hired at least two other nominees before their confirmation: Susan Bodine, the current head of the enforcement office; and Michael Dourson, who withdrew his nomination to lead the chemical office amid mounting Senate opposition.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/396080-2-epa-nominees-start-work-before-senate-confirmation-votes
-
(ACC Mentioned) Formidable Formaldehyde
Jul 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
Often, the biggest challenge for chemical risk assessors is a lack of data for the substance of concern. And, when they can access an appreciable volume of data, the biggest problem is likely to be that it is not very good.
Formaldehyde is one of a small number of substances for which there is plenty of high quality, relevant data. Even so, the US EPA has encountered significant difficulties during its ongoing risk assessment of the substance under the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) programme.
The agency created some of those challenges itself because the draft it published in 2010 attracted strong criticism, not least from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS). However, the data seems to present technical challenges too. The EPA will need to show clearly that it has overcome these in its final assessment if it is to have any chance of satisfying all the stakeholders involved.
Leukaemia link
The IRIS programme concluded in its draft assessment that there was a causal link between formaldehyde exposure and leukaemia. Industry still disputes this. The scientific evidence can be divided into three streams:epidemiological (human);animal; and mode of action (MoA).
The human data - derived from studies of workers exposed to formaldehyde - are, at best, inconsistent, with some studies showing no link and others showing a weak link, says Kimberly White, who manages the formaldehyde panel of the American Chemistry Council (ACC). Furthermore, the studies that do show a link, such as the Zhang study of 2010, are flawed.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of peer-reviewed animal studies, Dr White says, and these all show no link between inhaled formaldehyde and leukaemia. Therefore, the MoA data - those indicating how an effect would occur - are key.
These data show that inhaled formaldehyde does not reach the bone marrow, where it would need to arrive to cause leukaemia, she says. In fact, it does not pass beyond the nasal tract. They also demonstrate there is a threshold for adverse effects - that is, an exposure level below which they are not expected.
Bernard Goldstein, a physician and emeritus professor of environmental and occupational health at the University of Pittsburgh, says that he remains "less than convinced" that formaldehyde causes leukaemia. Nonetheless, he is critical of many aspects of the ACC position.
Professor Goldstein was part of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc) working group that assessed formaldehyde in 2012. The working group was split on the leukaemia risk, with the majority finding the evidence "sufficient" and a minority, which included him, finding it "limited".
Professor Goldstein says that industry has taken the wrong approach to the human data by re-analysing the data from the Zhang study, instead of repeating the study with a different cohort to eliminate potential confounding factors. This found "no association between individual formaldehyde exposure estimates and frequency of aneuploidy [which is indicative of leukaemia] among those exposed".
Professor Goldstein criticised this ‘Mundt paper’ in a letter to the editor of Critical Reviews in Toxicology, arguing that, if anything, it reinforced the original findings. He also says that industry seems to think that anything less than a ‘perfect study’ is unacceptable. "The gold standard for a human study is that of a potential new treatment in which neither patient nor physician knows who is receiving the experimental medicine and who the placebo," he says.
"This is not possible for environmental studies without the unacceptable approach of secretly administering a potential poison. Replication occurs by repeating the study in different populations, using different investigators and investigative approaches, not by exhaustively searching for blemishes in the original study."
Additionally, rats and mice in general make poor models for investigating leukaemia, Professor Goldstein says, meaning that negative animal data should be treated with caution.Within this context, there are differing views about what the EPA needs to do during its redrafting process. The ACC says it is concerned that the agency is merely "restructuring" its draft assessment of formaldehyde and not revisiting the science, including consideration of MoA.
In the 2010 draft, the EPA failed to integrate all the evidence streams properly, and this failure - which the ACC says was clearly identified by the NAS - led to the conclusion that formaldehyde causes leukaemia. During a meeting in January, the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) and IRIS staff allegedly told the ACC they were not revisiting the science at all.
In contrast, Jennifer Sass at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a US NGO, says that the NAS did not question the conclusions of the assessment and that this is key: they were concerned first and foremost that the IRIS programme had not shown exactly how it arrived at its conclusion. "Essentially, they didn’t show their workings," Dr Sass says.
Beyond formaldehyde
The debate over formaldehyde has a long way to go and the implications are not yet clear. Of course, it may have an impact on use of the substance, which is produced and sold in vast quantities. The ACC estimates that direct production in the US alone is worth $11.8bn.
There is generally accepted evidence that formaldehyde exposure causes nasal cancer, Professor Goldstein says. Therefore, the substance is already considered carcinogenic and the debate about leukaemia seems unlikely to have much regulatory significance, whatever the outcome.
Conversely, nasal cancer is far less common than leukaemia, which may at least partly explain the huge attention the formaldehyde assessment has attracted from stakeholders across the board. Earlier this year, three Senate Democrats suggested in a letter to the EPA that the revised draft had been completed last autumn but not yet released, owing to industry pressure.
The debate may also have broader implications. The EPA’s assessment is seen as a bellwether for the future direction of the IRIS programme, and even that of US regulatory science under the current administration.
The NAS criticism of the draft led the EPA to launch a systematic overhaul of the programme. Recent outputs show that the agency has made changes. In particular it has implemented a new approach to the integration of evidence streams based on the concept of ‘systematic review’.
Furthermore, the NAS said in a report published in April that the EPA had made "substantial progress" in incorporating its recommendations. The new approach can be seen in, for example, the programme’s draft protocol for the assessment of chloroform, published in February.
Dr White, meanwhile, says that the ACC is concerned that the EPA has not published a new IRIS handbook, comprehensively outlining all the processes. There are also questions about how the assessment of formaldehyde fits into the programme’s new "portfolio approach" to meet "specific decision contexts", she says. The EPA has already finalised its rule on standards for emission of formaldehyde from composite wood products, which Dr White describes as "addressing key consumer exposure".
The ACC enquired about other regulatory drivers at the January meeting. Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) staff indicated that they were engaged in activities that could be informed by an IRIS assessment of formaldehyde, according to Dr White. However, the discussion suggested that those activities would finish before the final version becomes available.
Whatever the final outcome of the debate, important lessons about the nature of regulatory risk assessment of chemical substances are already apparent. In particular, the scientific discourse has shown that data challenges are not limited to ensuring there is enough and that what you have is useful - you also need to make sure it fits together in a consistent and convincing way.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68429/formidable-formaldehyde
-
Jul 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Warmington
Divergent regulations in different countries and regions are perhaps the main block to truly global industries – and few more so than cosmetics, where regulations are often fiendishly complex. Nonetheless, some in the industry and its trade associations see real hope of greater convergence. The industry, says Dr John Humphreys of Procter & Gamble, mostly wants:freedom to innovative by formulation and claim; relevant, implementable and consistent regulations, with minimum approval by regulatory authorities necessary; consistent global labelling to ensure what products contain and do; and a level playing field between importers and local manufacturers, which still does not always exist. Its key global advocacy principles to that end are that:companies should be responsible for product safety, quality and efficacy, while regulators should focus on in-market control;enforcement should transition from pre-market registration to in-market control and notifications; regulatory processes should be transparent and consistent, with a common registration and notification format, if one is needed; andsafety assessment should be risk-based, not precautionary, with minimal use of – and consistency in – both positive and negative lists, and validated non-animal tests should be used."Much of the change that we have seen is based on EU legislation, largely because Europe was the first region to have reasonably well thought-through, logical legislation for cosmetics," Dr Humphreys says. Some elements have since been adopted and adapted into legislation in the Asian countries, Latin America and some Middle East and African markets. "China’s Cosmetics Supervision and Administration Regulations (CSAR) represents the pinnacle of our success in moving from a heavily legislated, pre-market system to at least a position where they are thinking about in-market control. There is a long way to go, but we have learned a lot along the way," he says. Industry also needs to think about what regulators want, Dr Humphreys continues. They want the products sold in their markets to be safe and effective and to comply with national policy, including, for instance, protecting local jobs and industries. In many countries, regulators’ hostility to counterfeits is driven as much by a desire to protect the tax base as consumer safety. "They also want legislation that is effective and ensures safety. And all of this must be done within their capability and capacity. European-style regulation that requires large number of qualified people to go out into the market and audit errant companies may well be beyond what some countries can actually afford or actually do," he says. Tools already there?Francine Lamoriello, executive vice president of global strategies at the US Personal Care Products Council (PCPC), says that the industry already has tools to promote regulatory convergence in place, notably:international and multilateral fora, such as International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation (ICCR) and the International Standards Organisation (ISO); International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredient (INCI) names;regional economic alliances and cooperation; industry collaboration; and, most importantly free trade agreements (FTAs). As well as the traditional FTA focus on reducing or eliminating tariffs and avoiding technical non-tariff barriers to trade, it is increasingly recognised that divergence in regulatory systems inhibits trade and economic competitiveness and that convergence could have the opposite effects, Ms Lamoriello says. "FTAs can be used to promote regulatory best practices by committing partners to certain disciplines," she says. "They can help to eliminate practices that hinder market access and limit innovation. They can promote regulatory cooperation among partners and even mutual recognition of each other’s standards and practices. What they cannot do, in and of themselves is draft ‘global’ regulations. That remains the responsibility of national regulators." As an example, she cites the recently renamed Comprehensive & Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), now comprising 11 countries after the US’s withdrawal earlier this year. This is the first such agreement to promote the concept of ‘regulatory coherence’ as a means of eliminating trade barriers. The TPP’s specific horizontal chapter on this subject refers to the use of good regulatory practices in creating measures to facilitate domestic policy objectives and enhance regulatory cooperation between governments. Through this, Ms Lamoriello says, companies commit towards regulatory convergence. The TPP also has a ‘technical barriers to trade’ chapter, which recognises how regulatory practices and divergences can be trade barriers. It contains various sectoral industry annexes, one on cosmetics, which commits the partners to convergence and affirms that they will adopt a risk-based, transparent approach to cosmetic regulations, Ms Lamoriello says. "It specifically states that all parties ‘must take into account that cosmetics products are generally expected to pose less potential risk to human health or safety than medical devices or pharmaceutical products’. Cosmetics are not drugs and should not be regulated like drugs," she adds. This chapter also commits partners to consider:international standards and approaches in regulating cosmetics;moving away from pre-market approvals – which some partner states still have – to post-market enforcement; and looking at regulators’ technical capacity, in order to avoid delays.In addition, it eliminates the need for reauthorisations and renewals where pre-market approval still exists, as well as separate authorisations for shade or fragrance variations, and commits governments not to require animal testing where validated alternatives exist, though they can use existing animal data. Among other means of facilitating trade, the chapter commits governments to permit over-labelling after clearing customs and not requiring authorisation or notification numbers on packages – "which is a big, big problem", Ms Lamoriello says. It also eliminates the ability to require certificates of free sale. Nafta at delicate momentThe North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) likewise has a regulatory coherence chapter that builds on the example of TPP and has similar objectives. Negotiations are currently stalled and the US is threatening to pull out of Nafta too, "but we did make very good progress on cosmetics". Nafta’s cosmetics chapter actually goes farther than TPP’s; it entirely eliminates pre-market approvals and could be the basis of similar agreements in future deals. Still being negotiated is the alignment of the full use of INCI without translation in Nafta countries. Perhaps most commercially significant of all, in Ms Lamoriello’s view, is a bilateral appendix that will commit Canada to eliminate certain practices for over-the-counter (OTC) products based in drug regulation that are currently significant barriers to trade, due to the need for quarantining and active ingredient testing. For these agreements to work on the ground, of course, requires enforcement. However, partner states have to pass implementing regulation through their parliaments where necessary and set up committees to monitor it, Ms Lamoriello says. Industry must keep a watching brief to alert the authorities to any backsliding. The key things that the PCPC and its member companies learned from the whole process, according to Ms Lamoriello, were that:consensus among members about the key barriers faced and their priority objectives from a FTA is important;trade negotiators, who rarely know about cosmetics regulations in other countries, need "tremendous support", including: detailed explanations of current regulations and barriers; information on economic impacts and their significance as a trade barrier; timely response on compromises; and industry support for outcomes;regulators’ views of their role in trade policy differ, which can help or hinder efforts – some want to promote trade, while others do not see that as part of their role;more ambitious objectives are possible when regulatory systems are similar, as was the case with the US and Canada; andclose collaboration and cooperation between partner associations is critical.All agree that this is not the easiest time for FTAs, with Nafta’s future in doubt and mutual imposition of tariffs between the US and EU taking place. Indeed, cosmetics was one of the sectors hit by EU retaliation for the Trump administration’s tariffs on iron and steel. Nonetheless, the long-term direction of travel still seems to be in the opposite direction to that. ICCR and IACElsa Dietrich, international relations manager at Cosmetics Europe, notes that the ICCR has "promoting regulatory convergence" as one of its key aims, alongside consumer safety and minimising trade barriers. This multilateral framework brings together five regulatory bodies and seven industry bodies from the US, the EU, Japan, Canada and Brazil, plus seven observers. ICCR produces guidelines covering subjects including alternative tests, allergens, nanotechnology and international standards. Its key successes since being founded in 2007 have included:setting up the framework for International Cooperation on Alternative Test Methods (ICATM), through which validation bodies communicate;endorsing ISO 22716 standard on good manufacturing practice (GMP), which is science-based and has helped facilitate trade; anddeveloping principles for handling traces of impurities and/or contaminants in finished cosmetic products, which led to recommendations for acceptable traces.Also pushing in this direction, says Juan Carlos Castro Lozano, executive director of Colombia’s Cosmetics Chamber of Commerce (ANDI), is the International Associations Collaboration (IAC). This is a body of national and regional associations mainly in cosmetic and personal care, which seeks to develop common positions on matters of interest to the industry. It was to IAC, Mr Castro says, that ANDI brought the Colombian regulators to learn about best practices in other countries. "We seek always to communicate those best practices and share them, not only with industry but also with regulators." In 2016, Colombia’s Supreme Court issued Resolution 0689, that all soaps and detergents had to have very low phosphorus levels and be biodegradable, as part of policies to prevent or reverse pollution in large parts of the Bogotá river. Translating a text into Spanish, however, led to cosmetic soaps being included, even though no cosmetic soaps used in Colombia contain phosphorus. ANDI sought the help of Cosmetics Europe "to bring the regulators to understand how the law should work, what the correct definitions are and how, if Colombia is to be integrated into more FTAs, we cannot separate ourselves with one initiative," says Mr Castro. They worked to:modify the scope of the resolution according to OECD practices;exempt cosmetic and medicinal soaps and formulated ‘phosphate-free’ detergents from the phosphorus requirement;implement in-market inspection, surveillance and control; andadopt a conformity declaration system."In that sense, we managed to get a change in the law, which just came out on 4 May," Mr Castro says. "By having those best practices and being able to share them with other associations, we got the law right. Colombia entered into the OECD in late May and this was one of the changes it had to make in order to join." Since 2016, he adds, Cosmetics Europe has been working to create a toolkit that will help promote best international practices, with drivers for alignment being:responsible speed to market, including consistent, effective in-market control and enforcement mechanisms;freedom to innovate, make novel products and novel and competitive claims; andreduced complexity, with aligned notification or approval process, safety assessment process and ingredient palettes.There’s an app for thatDr Humphreys concludes: "The key external lessons we have learned over the past few years start with framing advocacy. You must be careful not to alienate the regulator by simply advocating adopting EU legislation." Technical training is a very important component of successful advocacy, he adds, especially when advocating that nation states move to in-market control. "Regulators cannot do that if industry is unable to carry out the risk assessments, if certain companies are not predisposed to act with integrity or if they themselves are not scientifically trained. Government and industry both need to invest in that." In-market control can sound like a loss of control and/or jobs to regulators, so it falls to industry to explain that staff currently examining dossiers and registrations can be redirected to looking at products on the market, Dr Humphreys observes. It is not very likely, in his view, that there can be an International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) for cosmetics, which lack the health or economic benefits that are needed to encourage that. "I do believe that initiatives like ICCR and ICA will help and I’m hopeful that at some point in the future we can move towards mutual recognition," he says. "My favourite saying is ‘Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence’. If we are always fighting for an absolute victory for industry, the chances are that we will end up with little that we actually like. It is better to have an 80-for-20 mindset, to compromise, be agile in our thinking and go after the things that are really important for us as an industry." The cosmetics industry, he believes, should have one advocacy message, globally. To this end, it should spend time planning and aligning its goals and strategies, within companies and within and across associations. Without this, it faces extra work at best or, at worst, turning the regulator into an adjudicator between competing opinions. "Global coordination is vital but it must combine on-the-ground awareness with a global corporate outlook," says Dr Humphreys. "In advocacy, technical depth is critical but trade support ensures that the advocacy is compelling, so that lawmakers know the economic benefits as well as the costs of what industry is advocating." Key future challenges and opportunities, in his view, include legislation driven by mounting conservatism or to constrain commerce, traceability, efficacy, cosmetovigilance and global convergence driven by the mobile app. This has positives, such as the dematerialisation of labelling, making regulatory compliance easier and facilitating product information at the point of purchase. However, there are also some likely unintended consequences, because consumers will be able to identify ingredients that are banned elsewhere or claimed to be, Dr Humphreys admits. "Unfortunately, I think we will end up with a race to the bottom, where regulations in one country may allow an ingredient that another doesn’t, but nonetheless consumers elect to move away from those ingredients or disbelieve claims made for them. Either way, I think the app may be the main means of global convergence in the next five years."
https://chemicalwatch.com/68430/coming-together-on-cosmetics
-
Jul 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
With more countries adopting regulations and policies to identify and manage the hazards and risks associated with chemicals of concern, the need for safer alternatives is growing exponentially. To address this, initiatives have been set up that aim to connect small companies that have developed alternatives with larger firms which have the capital to bring them to the marketplace.
Examples include the ‘start-up network’ of the Green Chemistry and Commerce Council (GC3), a US-based multi-stakeholder group, and the German authority-run International Sustainable Chemistry Collaborative Centre’s (ISC3) innovation hub. More recently, Echa has been putting an emphasis on substitution, through its recently established supply chain network.
Bringing together the right organisations to advance the uptake of safer alternatives is at the core of all three initiatives. ISC3 says on its website that it supports potential entrepreneurs by "identifying and evaluating emerging technological trends and facilitating the transfer of research results into industrial applications".
Echa’s network - part of the agency’s substitution strategy – is holding workshops that bring together users of hazardous substances, their suppliers and downstream customers, providers of alternatives and those helping in their development and implementation, such as technological support or funding organisations. These will identify obstacles in substituting a substance, as well as the solutions available.
Before either of these were launched, the GC3 created its start-up network and now has a ‘strategic connections’ programme. "We have selected a pool of experts, who have a wide variety of relevant expertise and have agreed to assist our start-ups with directional advice and support on a variety of business and technical topics," it says on the GC3 website.
Start-ups, it continues, are an important driver of innovation; however, many lack the connections to the strategic partners that they need for product evaluation, co-development, licensing and investment. For those not familiar with the term, a start-up company is defined as a newly emerged business that has a product, solution or process for a particular market need.
However, while the start-up business community has emerged as a key piece of the puzzle - with entrepreneurs and small companies aiming to address the absence of effective and available alternatives - creating the right environment for them to bring their alternatives to the market remains a challenge.
Delegates from across supply chains at the recent 13th GC3 roundtable, an annual forum for business leaders to exchange strategies and best practices, agreed that start-ups particularly need to overcome:complex supply chains;the existing infrastructure of established chemical industry suppliers;price/performance challenges; andsupply in terms of one plant versus the incumbents’ numerous and fully depreciated global plants.
One panellist, Tess Fennelly, CEO of start-up company Remooble, says that there is a need for more brand owners that can help start-ups to understand what the needs and requirements are to serve their market. At the other end of the chain, large chemical companies, which can be enticed to invest in a "complementary or disruptive technology", need to get on board too, she says.
Ms Fennelly stresses that going it alone as a new green chemistry start-up is challenging and highlighted the recent demise of two companies. Bioamber, a renewable materials company that was established in 2008, filed for bankruptcy in May, while Verdezyne, a company converting yeast for the production of renewable chemicals, recently announced that it was closing its operations.
Low oil prices over the last few years have created an unstable market for some renewable chemicals companies, which are unable to compete on costs. Despite this, there have been some examples of success. Natureworks, a company that captures greenhouse gases and converts them into materials, has been "afforded staying power as they grow" by partnering with a major trading company, Cargill, says Ms Fennelly.
Communicating needs
Through its experience with Natureworks, Cargill’s bioindustrial senior marketing manager Audra Wendt, who was another GC3 roundtable panellist, says that better communication is key for these type of partnerships to succeed and work for both parties.
"Start-up companies are coming up with some innovative solutions but we need to communicate and help shape the areas that get focus and are invested in," she says. "We don’t want start-ups just creating alternatives where there isn’t a need, so is there a way to direct their innovations through collaboration with the bigger, broader industry to identify areas and problems that need solutions?"
This, continues Ms Wendt, would guide the entrepreneurial community and help them - through companies that have more financial backing - to scale up their technologies. "By helping focus new innovations that better address market needs beyond a greener footprint, you can change the perception of that innovation from a ‘nice-to-have product’ to a ‘need-to-have solution’."
Management buy-in
However, it can be just as hard for the larger companies to come up with capital for safer alternative solutions, says Rene Molina, global business leader for DuPont’s textiles material brand Sorona. Start-up projects and opportunities compete with other expansions and projects being considered by the company.
"We get a lot of questions from management. For top level buy-in to support and invest in a potential solution, we need to address how a project will become profitable going from start-up through the pilot and commercial phases," Mr Molina says.
The start-ups, he added, have to have a strong chance of succeeding and becoming a profitable option in order to be accepted and invested in. "Creating demand and properly conveying your value proposition is key. A start-up may come with an enticing solution but when the company carries out a metric for scaling it up, it can reveal a number of issues, such as difficulties in creating customer demand, costs, performance and process issues," he says.
Regulation
Dr Patrick Harmon, BASF’s industry manager in North America, says that bringing a new material or substance to the market involves large costs related to R&D. Moreover, with the further implementation over the years of REACH and the new TSCA, "there is more testing required than ever before".
This is not a bad thing, he says, but it does involve additional costs. That factor is likely to impede some companies, particularly smaller ones, from fully developing and achieving large scale supplies of green alternatives. Before you get people to invest, you need to have a market and the availability of new chemical products is inhibiting this.
"I have found that start-up companies have a lab-scale or pilot plant-scale substance," Dr Harmon says. "Sometimes we’re looking at things we need five or ten years down the line, which means this sort of scale isn’t an issue."
"However, I have ideas for some products that I’d like to see available in a couple of years and, unfortunately, the new materials and substances at this scale are not commercially available," he adds. "While there is demand for green chemistry in certain sectors and applications, there is a big need to create stronger demand across the marketplace."
Downstream
Performance, scale and cost are also issues for downstream industries. "We have a large fabric care business and we promise consumers superior cleaning and care, so formulating substitution materials with both scale and equal performance is difficult," says Todd Cline, head of Procter & Gamble’s North American R&D team for the Fabric Care division.
Mr Cline says that his team has worked through this by formulating its plant-based product line from the ground up, learning and developing further as it grows, so there is more flexibility in incorporating new materials. The company has also been actively involved in the GC3 Preservative Project to identify safe and effective preservatives for personal care and household products, which is a need across many companies.
For fabric care specifically, Mr Cline and his team are searching for surfactants (or substitutes for them) that are renewable, can deliver cleaning performance and can be scaled up to meet business needs. The company is also looking for green chemistry-based chelates with similar efficacy profiles to synthetic and renewable or biodegradable polymers.
To source new, safer chemicals, companies need to connect more effectively with their industry peers, their suppliers and innovative start-ups to articulate these technical needs and build trusting relationships that can spur new alternatives, says Professor Joel Tickner of the University of Massachusetts’ Lowell Centre for Sustainable Production and director of the GC3.
"To ensure safer product ingredients, brands need to know what suppliers are putting into the products, and suppliers need to know what materials have been researched," Professor Tickner says. And while start-ups hold the key to developing solutions, there is also a critical role for government in addressing the challenges of incumbency by incentivising research, partnerships, new manufacturing operations and the adoption of more sustainable chemistries, he adds.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68458/standing-among-giants
-
Danish Test Finds High Phthalate Levels in Plastic Balls
Jul 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The Danish Consumer Council's Think Chemicals initiative has found high levels of phthalates in six plastic ball products on the market.
It tested 34 products, comprising a variety of balls, including footballs and tennis balls, bought in Danish shops and online in April this year.
The tests revealed:five cases of diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP) content between 0.5% and 57.7%;two cases of di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) content between 9% and 26.8%; andone case of DBP content of 0.14%.
Both DIBP and DEHP are classified as reproductive category 1B and are banned in toys.
Consumers should not buy balls that have a 'chemical' smell or a sticky surface, Think Chemicals said, because this could be a sign they contain phthalates.
Think Chemicals has passed the results to the Danish EPA, which is now considering whether to withdraw the products from sale.
The tests were part of a Danish enforcement campaign on phthalates used in toys. This will be completed by the end of the year, the EPA said.
EU member states are expected to vote later this month on a proposal, developed by Denmark in cooperation with Echa, to ban four phthalates, including DIBP and DEHP, in consumer products.
The phthalates are on the REACH candidate list of SVHCs for their endocrine disrupting properties. A majority of member states backed the proposal last year, although the vote was delayed due to opposition from some countries.
Hazardous chemicals in products, such as toys, were identified as the second biggest risk to health and safety in the EU market last year.
In April, a fifth of 255 toy samples tested, as part of a major European market surveillance exercise, were deemed non-compliant with regulations that restrict the content of substances of concern. Phthalates were the most common chemical found.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68428/danish-test-finds-high-phthalate-levels-in-plastic-balls
-
Jul 9, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Leticia Gonzales
Note: This is the second in a three-part NGI series titled “Navigating the Nascent LNG Market Through A Choppy World Trade Sea,” which explores the emerging global liquefied natural gas market and the challenges it poses to buyers and sellers seeking to capitalize on the worldwide expansions underway.Part two of a three-part series (See Part One)
For all the economic benefits that liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports are expected to bring to the United States, including bringing an estimated $30 billion back into the domestic economy, a lack of infrastructure to support demand and complex regulatory regimes in some of the fastest growing markets have left industry experts cautiously optimistic about growth potential.
China surpassed South Korea as the second largest importer of LNG in 2017 with imports averaging 5 Bcf/d, exceeded only by Japanese imports of 11 Bcf/d, according to data from IHS Markit and official Chinese government statistics. Imports of LNG by China, driven by government policies designed to reduce air pollution, increased by 1.6 Bcf/d (46%) in 2017, with monthly imports reaching 7.8 Bcf/d in December. An expected surge in 2018 could put China in direct competition with Japan for the No. 1 spot.
The surge in gas demand over the past year led to “severe strains” on China’s gas infrastructure, “as retail and wholesale prices increased sharply and LNG imports ramped up beyond notional capacity limits,” BP plc chief economist Spencer Dale said in a June webcast to discuss BP’s 67th annual Statistical Review of World Energy. The strain also led to widespread gas rationing, with households given priority over industrial use.
“Some of these tensions and strains simply reflect the speed with which gas demand expanded. There’s a limit to how quickly LNG imports can be increased,” Dale said. “Imported pipeline gas didn’t grow by as much as perhaps expected. But the strains also highlighted the underlying weakness of gas infrastructure in China. The network of pipelines across China is incomplete leading to significant distributional issues. Even more important, gas storage capacity in China is inadequate to match the fluctuations in demand.”
Effective gas storage in China is about 3% of consumption, compared to 20% in the United States and Europe, according to BP. “These types of structural issues can’t be fixed overnight and are likely to constrain the extent at which Chinese gas demand outside of the power sector can grow in the near-term,” Dale said.
Japan, meanwhile, increased its LNG imports for the first time in three years, importing 83.63 million metric tons (mmt) in 2017, an increase of 0.4% year/year, according to data by Japan’s Ministry of Finance. Aside from China’s projected demand surge in 2018 that could see imports surpass those in Japan, Japan is likely to remain the top importer of LNG until around 2028, analysts at consultancy Wood Mackenzie have said.
In 2017, Japan’s year/year (y/y) growth was largely due to the sheer amount of nuclear generation that has remained offline following the Fukushima nuclear incident in 2011. Out of more than 40 operable nuclear generation reactors in the country, only four are in service. A cold winter also drove the need for more LNG, with December imports alone increasing 5.4% y/y to 7.95 mmt.
Given Japan’s long history importing LNG, it is ahead of the curve compared to other Asian countries when it comes to having adequate infrastructure in place to support demand. The country has 33 operating import terminals, and pipeline infrastructure is designed to connect to these terminals and nearby markets. The same is true for most Asia Pacific markets, with the exception of Southeast Asia, making an integrated national market virtually impossible.
China, meanwhile, plans to double the amount of natural gas in its primary energy mix to 10% by 2020, according to a directive jointly published by 13 governmental agencies. But aside from LNG import terminals, much of China’s pipeline infrastructure was built for domestic gas or imports from central Asia.
India also has plans of its own to double the share of natural gas in its generation mix to 15% by 2022, but it has only four import terminals. The country would need more than 15 to meet its expected demand, according to Narendra Taneja, a spokesman for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.
“China and India have big ambitions to increase the amount of gas they use in their energy mix. But for now, their reach is exceeding their grasps,” an official with an LNG consultancy told NGI.
Indeed, the baton for new LNG demand is being passed from developed to emerging markets in the Asia-Pacific region for several reasons, according to Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. researchers. First, one billion people are expected to urbanize in Asia over the next 20 years, which would drive 65% of world energy demand growth. Second, the energy mix is shifting firmly toward gas and renewables because of chronic pollution across many cities. Third, indigenous gas supply is declining across Southeast Asia, which is creating material deficits in supply to be filled with imports.
“We estimate LNG demand will grow at 6%” compound annual growth rate (CAGR) through to 2030, “which is above most industry estimates of 4-5% CAGR,” Bernstein researchers said. “The LNG market will require over 200 mmt per year (mmty) of new supply through to 2030, or roughly 20-30 mmty in new capacity additions to 2025.
China’s LNG Infrastructure Expanding
China plans to bring online three LNG import terminals this year, increasing the total number of its facilities to 20. State-run China Petrochemical Corp.’s (Sinopec) $2 billion onshore Tianjin terminal in the north received its first cargo in early February from the ConocoPhillips-operated Australia Pacific LNG, Sinopec said. The first phase of Sinopec’s Tianjin LNG project has the capacity to receive 3 mmty, the equivalent of 4 Bcf/d. Sinopec is also pushing forward with a second phase for the Tianjin terminal.
ENN’s $1.5 billion Zhoushan LNG facility, China’s first privately owned import facility, is the second terminal expected to come online in three phases beginning this year with a total planned capacity of 10 mmty. Located on the country’s east side, phase one of the terminal now under construction would be able to receive up to 3 mmty. Phase 2 would increase by 2020 the receiving capacity to 6 mmty.
China National Offshore Oil Corp.’s (CNOOC) Shenzhen Diefu facility in the southern city of Shenzhen in the Pearl River Delta region, rounds out the three import terminals commencing service this year. The facility has a nominal capacity of 4 mmty. CNOOC has eight import terminals in operation, and the Shenzhen Diefu facility would be its ninth. In early June, the company said construction had begun on the first phase of its 10th facility, the Zhangzhou LNG import terminal in Longhai City, near the entrance to the Gulf of Xingu. The first phase would have a receiving capacity of 3 mmty; a planned second phase of the terminal would double the LNG-handling capacity.
China’s existing LNG import facilities are largely concentrated in its southern provinces, with eight terminals comprised of the Fujian, Yuedong, Dapeng, Dongguan, Zhuhai, Beihai, Hainan and Haikou terminals. Dongguan and Haikou are small-scale facilities. Four LNG import terminals serve the northern part of the country -- Dalian, Caofeidian Tangshan, Qingdao and Tianjin, while China’s eastern provinces are served by five LNG import terminals -- Rudong, Qidong, Shanghai, Wuhaogou and Ningbo.
China’s three largest LNG suppliers today are Australia, Malaysia and Qatar, while pipeline imports come from central Asia and Myanmar. The United States, with its vast low-cost gas resources, expects to capitalize on the expected surge in Chinese demand by exporting LNG to the country. But infrastructure takes time to build, and China’s dense population has made development even more difficult, sources told NGI.
“A lot of industry is built along the coastline, but those cities are huge and overcrowded. Now, the government is urging facilities to be built more inward. That’s going to mean more new demand along pipelines,” the LNG consultant’s official told NGI.
In the meantime, China has turned to road tankers and tank containers to increase LNG imports. While many of these units distribute shipments from small-scale domestic liquefaction plants, most of them load at the country’s import terminals.
“The problem with that is that you lose some of that LNG very quickly. There’s only so much storage you can build,” said Redwood Markets CEO Ajay Batra, who has nearly 30 years of energy midstream and trading/marketing experience.
This past winter, China still was unable to meet demand even as several of its import terminals operated above nameplate capacity and the country increased its use of LNG trucking. The country ultimately had to allow more coal to be burned than they wanted.
Still, CNOOC plans to go the road tanker route to distribute LNG arriving at its Fangchenggang facility, a small coastal LNG distribution terminal on the Gulf of Tonkin near the Vietnam border that is expected to enter service later this year.
Besides the usual problems of financing and building facilities, the administration of President Trump has created heightened concern that a trade war, mainly with China, but with U.S. allies as well, could unravel the progression of a world LNG market. That possibility will be examined in the third part of this report: “Second-Wave LNG Developers Optimistic About Future Despite Growing Trade Disputes.”
India’s Import Goals ‘Aggressive’
In India, the push to more than double its gas use for electricity in the next four years would require imports to increase to more than 70 mmty; the country currently only has about 20 mmty of receiving capacity, Taneja said at an industry conference in February. Plans, however, are in full swing to get three LNG import terminals in service by 2019.
The lack of infrastructure in India is an acknowledged issue among LNG developers in the United States, according to the Center for LNG Executive Director Charles Reidl. “They want aggressive build-outs with aggressive timelines to build that network to shore.”
Indeed, the Adani Group is set to help bring online sometime this year a 5 mmty facility at Mundra on India’s west coast. The terminal, partly owned by Adani, would have receiving, storage and regasification facilities and would be connected to Gujarat State Petronet’s existing pipeline network at Anjaar, Gujarat. Adani also has plans for an import terminal at Dhamra in Odisha. In April, the company said it had signed a long-term agreement with Indian Oil Corp. (IOC) to provide LNG regasification services to the state-run refiner at the Dhamra terminal. Under the agreement, IOC has purchased 3 mmty of regasification capacity for 20 years.
The Dhamra terminal, expected in service during the second half of 2021, is to be expandable up to 10 mmty. The facility is to have two full containment type tanks of 180,000 m3 capacity each and have a jetty capable of handling the largest Q-max fleet from Qatar. The terminal also is to be capable of reloading LNG to service proximate markets via the marine route and be able to accommodate road tankers.
In addition, Atlantic Gulf and Pacific (AG&P) of Manila plans to bring online a 1 mmty import terminal at India's Karaikal Port by late 2019 and has also executed a supply deal with PPN Power. The project, which could be expanded to 2 mmty, uses a standardized design and modular approach developed in Houston.
The AG&P import facility would complement one being built by Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. at Ennore, 186 miles to the north. More than 90% of construction is completed at the 5 mmty facility, with a “dry run” scheduled for August and full commissioning set for the fall. The project is expandable up to 15 mmty.
Despite the lofty build-out goals, Reidl said U.S. developers are finding some reassurance in the joint task force formed in April made up of a team of U.S. and Indian industry experts. The task force has a mandate to “propose, develop and convey innovative policy recommendations to the Government of India in support of its vision for natural gas in the country's economy,” according to a joint statement after the inaugural meeting of the India-U.S. Strategic Energy Partnership.
“The fact that you’re seeing engagement from administrations on those issues is a positive sign they’re trying to advance what they’re doing,” Reidl said. “It’s an important one for infrastructure development in india.”
Two of India’s four LNG import terminals in operation are Petronet LNG Ltd.’s 5 mmty Kochi terminal and its Dahej terminal, already a 5 mmty facility with construction underway to expand capacity by another 10 mmty. Ratnagiri Gas and Power operates the 5 mmty Dabhol terminal in the state of Maharashtra, nearly 200 miles from Mumbai.
A Royal Dutch Shell plc subsidiary owns the majority stake in the 5 mmty Hazira import facility and is seeking to double capacity to 10 mmty. In March, the company also announced plans to add a truck loading facility at the Hazira site, noting the growing demand from industrial users with no access to supply from the grid.
Together, these facility imports supply about 6.5% of the country’s energy needs.
Panama Canal Concerns Easing
Aside from the lack of infrastructure in place in fast-growing export markets, the means to transport LNG volumes is also causing some concern that second-wave developers will not be able to get their product to market. The primary route for many Lower 48 LNG exports, largely concentrated along the U.S. Gulf Coast, is the Panama Canal.
But the majority of the Canal’s business comes from container ships carrying consumer goods, not LNG cargoes, according to the Panama Canal Authority (PCA). In early June, the PCA announced that it had set a new monthly tonnage record of 38.1 million tons (PC/UMS) after facilitating the transit of 1,231 vessels in May 2018.
The previous record was established in January 2017, when 1,260 vessels transited 36.1 million tons (PC/UMS) through the waterway, just a month after setting the record with 35.4 million tons (PC/UMS) transited by 1,166 vessels in December 2016. The container ship segment contributed highest tonnage (36%), breaking its segment record with 13.8 million tons (PC/UMS) transited by 229 vessels.
Until recently, only one LNG vessel had passed through the Canal’s waters on a single day, and the Canal still offers only one reservation per day to LNG shippers. However, that’s more than the roughly 5.5 LNG vessels that currently transit the waterway each week, according to PCA’s Jose Ramon Arango, a senior specialist in the liquid bulk segment.
“The Canal offers more than enough capacity to meet the demand for LNG shipments, and remains flexible and in constant coordination with customers around the world to provide safe, efficient and reliable service,” Arango told NGI.
In April, LNG tankers Gaslog Hong Kong, Gaslog Gibraltar and Clean Ocean entered the canal on a staggered basis from the Pacific side. While this was the first time the Canal had transited three LNG vessels through its Neopanamax locks, there have been more than a dozen instances where two ships have crossed the waterway in a 24-hour period day, the PCA said in a statement following the milestone event
PCA, considering the competitiveness of the waterway, completed an expansion in June 2016, Arango said. In designing the third set of locks, it included the possibility of a fourth set of locks should demand from the global maritime industry grow further.
“Whether a fourth set of locks will be considered will depend on in-depth analysis of current and future demand, and we are not able to speculate or assume any specifics regarding a project not yet confirmed,” Arango said. That said, PCA expects to transit as much as 11 mmty in 2018, around 20 mmty in 2019 and 30 mmty by 2020.
Any further expansion of the Canal would likely take time, Redwood Market’s Batra said, noting the multiple delays in getting the 2016 expansion online. “These guys are trying to get a sense of how much business they want to get out of this. Their bread and butter comes from cargoes. LNG isn’t a cash cow yet.”
Meanwhile, the PCA would need to tweak its business model to accommodate the new business coming from LNG. Container vessels attempt to stick to their schedules. “With LNG vessels, there’s a lot more variability. To say this vessel will hit the Canal on this certain date is very difficult,” a global marketing agent for LNG told NGI.
Without an increase in the number of LNG ships allowed to pass daily through the Canal, U.S. exporters would have to seek alternatives to move their product to market. But, other options do not appear as viable.
The obvious destination of choice would be South America, given its proximity to the United States, but countries like Argentina have huge shale reserves of their own. The Vaca Muerta Shale in western Argentina is considered among the most prospective unconventional shale oil and gas plays outside North America. Meanwhile, Brazil isn’t importing as much LNG as it has in the past, and most of its power is sourced by hydroelectric generation.
“The other option is Europe, but they’re a big market for Russian gas. Gazprom has lowered their price significantly in order to protect market share,” the LNG consultancy official told NGI. Meanwhile, Russia also hasn’t given up the idea of expanding its pipeline gas system.
Gazprom has proposed the controversial Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline, which would have 55 bcm (1.94 Tcf) of transport capacity, and would run 1,200 kilometers (745.6 miles) under the Baltic Sea. It would connect the Russian port of Ust-Luga, near St. Petersburg, to Greifswald in northeast Germany. Gazprom expects to enter the pipeline into service in 2019.
Last April, Gazprom signed long-term financing agreements with five European energy companies for 50% of the total cost of the project: France's Engie SA, Austria's OMV, Royal Dutch Shell plc and Germany's Uniper SE and Wintershall Holding GmbH.
The European Union (EU) abandoned its efforts to block Nord Stream 2 in April and began an effort to negotiate with Russia over the pipeline. Poland had led a group of EU countries -- mostly in Eastern Europe and the Baltics -- in opposition to the pipeline, arguing that it would make them too reliant on Russia for natural gas. Shifting Russian gas deliveries to the new pipeline could also hurt Ukraine, which depends on transit revenue from Gazprom for existing pipelines that traverse Ukraine.
In an effort to reduce its dependence on mainstay supplier Russia, the EU has developed the so-called Southern Gas Corridor. The project includes the Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP), South Caucacus Pipeline (SCP) and the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP). Gas pipeline supplies began moving earlier this month from Azerbaiijan to Turkey through TANAP initially from the BP-operated Shah Deniz II field via the SCP. Europe is to begin receiving gas from the system by 2020 via TAP.
In the meantime, industry experts are hopeful that recent discussions between Panama Canal executives and the LNG industry are a step in the right direction. Cheniere Energy Inc.CEO Jack Fusco in May said “the Panama Canal is an important piece of infrastructure for both Cheniere and our customers, and our ability to utilize it efficiently is important, especially as a preferred route to growing demand centers in Asia.”
All three LNG vessels that transited the Canal on April 17 were enroute to Cheniere’s Sabine Pass facility in Cameron Parish, LA, Fusco noted. The company is working with the PCA, which “has demonstrated significant cooperation and support” to increase LNG trade, Fusco said.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114985-us-lng-exports-on-the-rise-but-limited-infrastructure-in-thirsty-global-markets-a-big-concern
-
U.S. Refining Capacity Staying Put Despite Oil Boom
Jul 9, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Even as U.S. oil production continues to grow, the nation's refining capacity is barely budging, the research firm Morningstar said Monday.
Refinery capacity in 2017 was 18.6 million barrels per day, virtually the same as the previous year, even as crude production continues to set records, hitting 10.5 million barrels per day in April.
"Primary crude distillation capacity is not expected to increase more than a tiny fraction in 2018 either," said Sandy Fielden, director of oil and products research at Morningstar. "Although major oil companies like ExxonMobil have announced plans to expand existing Gulf Coast refineries to process additional shale crude in the coming years, there is little talk of building new large-scale plants."
RELATED: U.S. crude stocks unexpectedly rise
Even with capacity holding steady, refineries are running near full speed, producing a record 17.8 million barrels per day of fuel one week in June.
While the large refiners sit on the sidelines, not everyone is waiting to build, Fielden said, "with plans under way from several small players to build greenfield plants in North Dakota and Texas."
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/U-S-refining-capacity-stays-put-despite-oil-boom-13059472.php
-
Natural Gas Pipeline Designed to Meet Ohio Demand Gets Favorable EA from FERC
Jul 9, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
FERC has issued a favorable environmental assessment (EA) for RH energytrans LLC’s Risberg Line Project, which would move 55,000 Dth/d of natural gas from northwest Pennsylvania to northeast Ohio to meet increasing demand.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff concluded “that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the natural and human environment.”
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission were the cooperating agencies in preparing the EA. Now that it’s completed, FERC’s environmental review schedule puts the project on track for a federal authorization deadline of Sept. 27. The Commission is accepting public comment on the EA until July 30 [CP18-6-000].
The project would take gas from an interconnect with Tennessee Gas Pipeline in Crawford County, PA, to help meet peak day supply deficits and new industrial demand in Ashtabula County, OH. Utility Dominion Energy Ohio entered into a binding precedent agreement as the foundation shipper for 40,000 Dth/d.
At the time RH energytrans filed for a certificate of public convenience and necessity late last year to construct the 60-mile pipeline, North Atlantic Iron Corp. expressed interest in contracting for 15,000 Dth/d of firm transportation. The company plans to build a pig iron plant in Ashtabula on Lake Erie.
RH energytrans wants to recertify and use 31.6 miles of 8-inch and 12-inch diameter gas pipeline in Crawford County and Erie County, PA. From Erie County, the company would build about 28 miles of 12-inch diameter pipe in a new right-of-way to traverse the state line and terminate at a new delivery point that interconnects with Dominion’s distribution system in North Kingsville, OH.
The project would also include installing 728 hp of compression, launcher/receiver facilities, mainline valves, a meter station and other equipment.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114984-natural-gas-pipeline-designed-to-meet-ohio-demand-gets-favorable-ea-from-ferc
-
EPA Moves to Delay Refinery Standards — Again
Jul 9, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
EPA is seeking to again give oil refineries more time to meet one set of requirements in its updated emission standards released in late 2015.
Under a proposed rule signed by then-Administrator Scott Pruitt two days before he announced his resignation last week, refineries would get a fresh extension on meeting maintenance vent standards that would push the current compliance deadline back to Jan. 30, 2019.
The planned extension "will have an insignificant effect on emission reductions and no effect on cost," according to the proposed rule, set for publication in tomorrow's Federal Register.
Under the 2015 update, the original deadline had been February 2016. After effectively granting extensions twice before, EPA is pursuing a new postponement because of "challenges" that refinery owners and operators continue to face in meeting the new standards, the proposal says.
Maintenance vents are used as needed only during plant startups, shutdowns, maintenance or inspections when the equipment is emptied, depressurized, degassed or placed into service.
The 2015 regulations required that the hydrocarbon content of the vapor be no more than 10 percent of the "lower explosive limit" before its release.
Among other changes, some refineries have indicated a need to add control equipment, which would require additional engineering design, site preparation and installations, the draft rule says. Once it's published, EPA will allow 30 days for written comments; a public hearing will be held upon request.
In April, the agency had already proposed technical corrections and clarifications to vent requirements as part of a package projected to save the industry some $77 million in upfront capital expenses and $11.5 million in yearly compliance costs "without sacrificing environmental protection," according to an official summary at the time (Greenwire, April 9).
But those proposed changes have also created uncertainty and thus affected the ability of refinery owners and operators "to fully invest in compliance solutions," according to the draft rule scheduled for publication tomorrow.
The updated New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, published in December 2015, apply to almost 150 refineries nationwide.
At that point, EPA predicted they would eventually cut annual releases of toxic air pollutants by 5,200 tons, accompanied by a reduction in emissions of ozone-forming volatile organic compounds of 50,000 tons per year.
Litigation challenging the standards brought by both industry and environmental groups has been on hold since early 2016 while EPA officials work on addressing various petitions for administrative reconsideration.
In a Friday status report filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, an agency lawyer said the consolidated lawsuits "should continue to be held in abeyance."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/07/09/stories/1060088565
-
Transportation Watch (The SCOTUS Version)
Jul 9, 2018 | Politico
By Stephanie Beasley
TODAY’S THE DAY: President Donald Trump is expected to announce his Supreme Court pick to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy tonight. Judges Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Raymond Kethledge are widely believed to be the top contenders for the slot. While none seem to have an especially strong transportation background, those issues will certainly come up during the tenure of whoever is selected. So, we took a look at some upcoming cases of interest:
— Depending on how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rules, the Association of American Railroads’ case against DOT over a 2008 passenger rail law could again be kicked up to the high court. DOT is now arguing that the court should sever a provision in the law that allows STB to mediate any disputes between the FRA and Amtrak over co-written performance metrics, in order to remedy the court's past issues with the law. The appellate court’s three-judge panel heard oral arguments for the case back in March. And it previously ruled that allowing FRA and Amtrak to co-author metrics and standards was unconstitutional.
— Another major case that could come up is a California-led lawsuit filed to the D.C. Court of Appeals in May over EPA’s attempt to roll back Obama-era fuel emissions standards. But it probably won’t be heard until this fall, and then the decision would have to be appealed “so the Supremes could hear it probably in the fall of 2019 term,” said Jeff Davis, a senior fellow at the Eno Center for Transportation. Here’s more background on the case from Pro’s Energy team.
— The high court still has a pending request to review an appeals court decision overturning a multimillion dollar fraud verdict against guardrail manufacturer Trinity Industries.
WELCOME TO MONDAY: Thanks for tuning in to POLITICO’s Morning Transportation, your daily tipsheet on all things trains, planes, automobiles and ports. Stephanie is your driver. Send tips, scoops and song requests to @Steph_Beasley or sbeasley@politico.com.
I was born right here, November forty three /Dad was a captain in the army / Fighting the Germans in Sicily / My poor little momma / Didn't know a soul in L.A. / So we went down to the Union Station / Made our getaway
LISTEN HERE: Follow MT’s playlist on Spotify. What better way to start your day than with songs (picked by us and readers) about roads, rails, rivers and runways?
EPA NULLIFIES CAP ON TRUCK GLIDERS: EPA has told the manufacturers of glider trucks that the agency will not enforce a strict 300-unit production cap for 2018 and 2019, freeing companies to roll out as many as ten times that number of trucks for those years. An Obama-era rule would have limited each manufacturer starting in 2018 to just 300 gliders, new truck cabs with refurbished engines, after EPA studies found gliders are significantly more polluting than new engines. That cap “would effectively destroy the glider industry,” three glider makers, including Tennessee’s Fitzgerald, wrote to EPA one year ago. Spokeswoman Molly Block said in a statement on Sunday that EPA is "exercising its enforcement discretion" through 2019 for any glider makers who stick to a looser production cap that applied in 2017 and was based on each company's previous output. That will give glider companies “regulatory certainty” to continue selling thousands of vehicles while EPA continues to work on its proposed repeal of the glider rule, she added. The enforcement change was first reported Friday by The New York Times.
IT WAS ALL GOOD JUST A YEAR AGO: Michael Grunwald takes a deep diveinto why Trump turned his back on funding the Gateway Project despite earlier assurances to New York and New Jersey lawmakers that he would support it. Trump was in a “bipartisan mood” when he met with a group that included Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), former Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) last September about the $30 billion program and seemed to have even “embraced an Obama administration commitment for federal taxpayers to foot half the bill,” Michael writes. But the tides turned when Trump approached Schumer after the meeting about supporting a border wall and he refused. The administration has since made a mission of trying to derail the project. “Gateway might be the most vivid current illustration of America’s literally crumbling infrastructure—and of the dysfunctional zero-sum politics that often stymies efforts to fix it,” Michael adds.
** A message from PlanetM – Michigan, where big ideas in mobility are born:As the whole world jumps on the mobility bandwagon, only Michigan provides access to an ecosystem of knowledge, innovation, expertise and infrastructure that allows mobility companies to thrive. That’s why Michigan continues to rank as number one in the nation in research spending-to-venture capital investment ratio. Learn more at PlanetM.com **
DOWN THE TRACKS: MT’s rail readers may have noticed recently that FRA hasn’t renewed the charter for its Railroad Safety Advisory Committee since it expired on May 17. An agency spokeswoman said last week that “refinements are being made to” a rechartering proposal for the panel, which aims to develop new regulations through industry, labor and other stakeholders. An industry source said FRA asked for RSAC members’ resumes late last year as part of a departmental review of its Federal Advisory Committees; given the lapse, they’re not considered members anymore, per an email the agency sent Friday that MT obtained.
MIXED REVIEWS: The DOT inspector general said Friday that while FAA is doing a good job of identifying security risks to its Data Communications system, it’s not mitigating those risks fast enough, and two major deadlines have slipped significantly. DataComm "will play an important role in air traffic controller to flight crew communication" as the FAA continues to modernize the air traffic system. Pros can read more here.
STILL BUZZING AROUND: A federal appeals court on Friday upheld FAA’s small drone rule, beating back a challenge from a model aircraft hobbyist who’s had previous success against the agency, our Lauren Gardner writes. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit wasn’t swayed by John A. Taylor’s arguments that the rule improperly regulates model aircraft and was “arbitrary and capricious.” Pros may remember Taylor from a case he won in the same court last year against FAA over its drone registration rule; Congress reinstated the requirement in a 2017 defense authorization law.
HOLLINGSWORTH TALKS TRUCKER ISSUES: MT caught up with Rep. Trey Hollingsworth (R-Ind.) on Friday to discuss commercial truck driver’s license issues. Hollingsworth is one of the lead cosponsors of a bill (H.R. 5358 (115)) that would help to reduce a driver shortage by allowing 18-20 year-old truckers on interstate highways. He said he was pleased that FMCSA last week announced the launch of a three-year pilot that would allow 18-20 year-olds with the military equivalent of a commercial truck license to operate interstate. However, he added, the House should still pass its bill this year because it's broader and requires “extra safety training and an extra apprenticeship program over and above the basic CDL level." "We are working really hard to see if we can get it to the floor this year because it is really important, because it’s such an acute problem. And this isn’t a problem that time will solve," Hollingsworth said.
TORT REFORM: An assortment of heavy-hitters from the drone industry wroteto the Uniform Law Commission late last week to express concern that the ULC’s model tort law on drones would “give property owners a right to establish no-fly zones prohibiting any unmanned aircraft from flying below 200 feet” — an authority the groups say is best left to the FAA. The letter also accuses the ULC of redefining the tort such that no one has to be adversely affected by the presence of the drone — “the mere presence of an unmanned aircraft of any size for any period within 200 feet over private property (or any structure on it) causes a per se injury.”
THIS WEEK:
Tuesday — NTSB launches a two-day investigative hearing into recent Amtrak crashes.
Wednesday — The Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency hosts an all-day conference to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the passage of the Inspector General Act. A House Transportation subcommittee holds a meeting on counterdrone issues. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee holdsa hearing on infrastructure loans. A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee holds a hearing on drugged driving.
Thursday — FMCSA hosts a public meeting on automated driving systems. Union Pacific CEO Lance Fritz will discuss trade and technology at a National Press Club luncheon.
Friday — Reps. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) and Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.) host a panel discussion on how drone operators collect and process data.
NEED A LYFT? Lyft announced Friday that it would offer discounted rates to D.C.-area residents affected by weekend transit station closures this month. Steve Taylor, general manager for Lyft Mid-Atlantic, said the company was excited to provide “convenient, reliable, and affordable transportation” while WMATA makes improvements to its system. However, Lyft and Uber opposed the city’s recently approved proposal to raise the tax on ride-hailing services from 1 percent to 6 percent to help pay for its share of metro funding, and said the move could result in fare hikes.
FOR YOUR RADAR: Be sure to check out this short Q&A POLITICO’s Daniel Lippman had with Jill Zuckman of SKDKnickerbocker, who celebrated her birthday on Friday. As many Pros know, Zuckman was assistant to the secretary and director of public affairs for former DOT Secretary Ray LaHood. It turns out that she’s also a prolific baker and budding surfer.
THE AUTOBAHN:
— "Shortage of truck drivers hits LI businesses, pushes up wages." Newsday.
— "As bike shares spread coast to coast, cities look to Seattle for clues on how to regulate the industry." The Seattle Times.
— “TSA is recruiting security officers in a tight labor market.” CNBC.
— “How control of Congress could swing on a fight to repeal California’s gas tax.” The New York Times.
— “Schumer needs Dems united on SCOTUS. That won’t be easy.” POLITICO.
— “With ridership falling, Metro will spend $2.2 million to study bus business model.” The Washington Post.
THE COUNTDOWN: DOT appropriations run out in 84 days. The FAA reauthorization expires in 84 days. Highway and transit policy is up for renewal in 815 days.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-transportation/2018/07/09/transportation-watch-the-scotus-version-273144
-
EPA Sends OMB Its Latest Redo of an Obama-Era Rule
Jul 9, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
EPA has sent a long-stalled final rule affecting "project aggregation" requirements under its New Source Review permitting program to the White House Office of Management and Budget for a standard review.
The rule would make final the agency's reconsideration of that 2009 rule. Those Obama-era regulations required proposed expansions or other changes to power plants and other facilities to be "aggregated into a single project" if they were substantially related for purposes of determining whether NSR restrictions should apply, according to an EPA summary.
The 2009 rule had been stayed during the reconsideration, the summary said. EPA sent the revised version to OMB on Friday, according to the reginfo.gov site.
It marks the latest in a series of changes to the NSR program under EPA air chief Bill Wehrum. The agency has already said it will not challenge companies' forecasts of emissions that could result from a new project.
It has also moved to compress that forecasting process and make it easier for businesses to show that proposed new plants or expansions will not significantly affect air quality when applying for permits under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program, a part of the NSR requirements that applies to areas in attainment with air quality standards.
Wehrum, who represented a host of industry clients as an attorney in private practice before returning to EPA last November, had also made a priority of streamlining the NSR program when previously serving in the air office from 2001 to 2007 during the George W. Bush administration.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/07/09/stories/1060088569
-
EPA to Publish Plan for State 'Good Neighbor' Compliance
Jul 9, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
EPA is pressing ahead with plans to rely on the status quo to satisfy states' "good neighbor" obligations tied to compliance with its 2008 ground-level ozone standard.
The agency has tentatively determined that a 2016 update to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) will address those obligations for almost all of the 22 states covered by the rule, according to the proposal set for publication in tomorrow's edition of the Federal Register.
"Therefore, after the CSAPR update is implemented, these states are not expected to contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with regard to the" 75 parts per billion standard, the draft rule says.
An Aug. 1 public hearing is scheduled at EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C.; agency officials are also seeking written feedback by Aug. 31 on the reliability of its modeling data and other issues in the proposal.
EPA must sign off on the final version by Dec. 6 under a court order handed down last month by U.S. District Judge John Koeltl of the Southern District of New York (E&E News PM, June 13).
Koeltl's ruling came in a lawsuit brought by New York and Connecticut after EPA missed last August's deadline for deciding how states needed to address the good neighbor requirements, which apply to ozone-forming pollution that wafts downwind beyond their borders.
Ozone, a lung irritant that is the main ingredient in smog, is spawned by the reaction of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds in sunlight.
In the suit, New York and Connecticut had alleged that emissions from five upwind states were imperiling efforts to bring the New York City metro area into compliance with the 2008 standard (E&E News PM, Jan. 17).
EPA released its proposal last month (E&E News PM, June 29). New York and Connecticut regulators have since voiced disappointment that their federal counterparts don't want to go beyond the CSAPR update by, for example, further tightening NOx standards for coal-fired power plants.
"Unless EPA does its job of reducing emissions, New Yorkers will suffer not only a public health burden, but will be required to suffer the additional economic burden of further controls on New York businesses to compensate for EPA's failures," a spokeswoman for the state's Department of Environmental Conservation said in a statement last week.
In 2015, EPA further tightened its ozone air quality limit to 70 ppb. Implementation of that standard is still in its early stages.
After delivering two batches of attainment designations this past November and April, EPA must make the third and final round — covering eight counties in the San Antonio area — by July 17, under a court-ordered schedule set in a separate lawsuit brought by advocacy groups and Democratic-leaning states (Greenwire, May 18).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/07/09/stories/1060088553
-
Starbucks to Eliminate Plastic Straws by 2020
Jul 9, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Kimberly Chin and Julie Jargon
Starbucks Coffee Co. SBUX +1.88% plans to phase out single-use plastic straws from its more than 28,000 company-operated and licensed stores by 2020 in an effort to reduce its global waste footprint.
The food and beverage retailer said Monday that it would switch to a strawless lid or alternative-material straw in place of plastic straws. The company has already designed and developed a strawless lid that it expects to become a standard for its iced coffee, tea and espresso beverages.
The strawless lid can be found in more than 8,000 stores in the U.S. and Canada. The company has also piloted the lid to go along with its Starbucks Draft Nitro beverages in China, Japan, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.
Starbucks Chief Executive Kevin Johnson said the announcement was a “significant milestone” for the company’s global aspirations to deliver its food and beverages “in more sustainable ways.”
The company said the move would eliminate more than one billion plastic straws annually from Starbucks stores.
Global companies are slowly joining the movement to ban plastic straws as they weigh its impact on the environment, particularly in oceans, where eight million metric tons of plastic enter the ocean every year, according to the Ocean Conservancy.
This is also part of a broader campaign to ban straws across the country, while pressure from legislation in several U.S. cities has also prompted companies to be more vocal about reducing their plastic waste.
Seattle, where Starbucks is based, was the first city in the U.S. to ban the use of plastic straws, effective July 1.
Celebrities and advocacy groups have been taking to social media to pressure companies to ban plastic straws and stirrers, arguing that it’s not only wasteful but harms marine life when the items get dumped in the ocean. The #StopSucking movement gained traction when a 2015 YouTube video showing a sea turtle with a straw stuck in its nose went viral.
As You Sow, a non-profit that advocates for corporate social responsibility, requested in a shareholder proposal at Starbucks’s annual meeting in March that the coffee chain issue a report on its sustainable packaging efforts and develop a more comprehensive plan to eliminate packaging waste, including plastic straws. The proposal, which Starbucks recommended shareholders vote against, failed to get a majority. Starbucks said that it “has consistently established sustainability goals, and transparently reported on progress and acknowledged challenges.”
In a separate announcement Monday Chicago-based Hyatt Hotels Corp. said it planned to move away from single-use plastic straws. The company said after Sept. 1, straws and picks will be available by request only at its more than 700 properties world-wide and “eco-friendly alternatives” will be provided where available.
Last week, McDonald’s Corp. said it began testing plastic straw alternatives across its 14,000 restaurants in the U.S. which it plans to roll out globally. The chain already started phasing out plastic straws in about 1,300 restaurants in the United Kingdom and Ireland, the company said.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/starbucks-plans-to-cut-plastic-straws-from-stores-globally-by-2020-1531134924?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
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