Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - July 26, 2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Requests Us to Remove $2.2bn Worth of Chems, Plastics from Proposed China Tariffs
Jul 25, 2018 | ICIS
By David Haydon
US President Donald Trump’s administration risks losing thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in chemical investments by not excluding $2.2bn worth of chemicals and plastic products from its second list of tariffs against China, a senior American Chemistry Council (ACC) official testified on Wednesday. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Asks Us Not to Impose Tariffs on Chemicals, Plastics
Jul 25, 2018 | Platts
By Kristen Hays
The American Chemistry Council's director of international trade Wednesday asked the Trump administration to remove all chemicals and plastics from a $16 billion list of tariffs on Chinese goods awaiting implementation, saying the US chemical industry will suffer while China strengthens its competitive edge. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Plastics Groups Say Tariffs Will Hike Costs, Cut Access to China
Jul 25, 2018 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
U.S. plastics industry lobbying groups were out in force this week against President Donald Trump’s latest tariffs on Chinese imports, arguing that the escalating trade conflict could shut off U.S. plastics exports to China and make U.S. companies less competitive internationally. -
Hurdles Remain for Energy, Environment Bills
Jul 26, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna
While this year's annual appropriations process is further along than usual, Congress once again faces a host of familiar stumbling blocks to it completing the bulk of its spending work on time. -
Senate Avoiding Big Debates as EPA-Interior Bill Progresses
Jul 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The Senate is thus far sidestepping big clashes over environmental and energy issues while making slow progress this week on a fiscal year 2019 EPA-Interior spending measure. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA OK’d Apparent Violations of Chemicals Law
Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA allowed companies that made new chemicals months or years ago to submit required information much later—in one case more than two decades later—than federal chemicals law permits. -
Democrats Query EPA Plan to Weaken TSCA Reviews
Jul 25, 2018 | Inside EPA
Senate Democrats who pressed for the June 2016 reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) are requesting meetings with EPA toxics officials, citing press reports that the Trump administration may weaken its proposed framework for reviewing new chemicals, and arguing that other changes have already deviated from the law. -
Democratic Senators Question Shift in TSCA New Chemicals Approach
Jul 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Democratic senators have pressed the US EPA over reports it is "weakening" its approach to reviewing new chemicals under the amended TSCA. -
EPA Extends Comment Period for TSCA Problem Formulation Documents and Systematic Review Document
Jul 25, 2018 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On July 24, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it was extending the comment periods for all ten problem formulation documents and the systematic review approach document in Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluations that were published on June 11, 2018, by 21 days; -
(ACC Mentioned) ‘Environmentally Friendly’ Firefighting Foams Still May Be Toxic
Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
The discovery that a key ingredient in firefighting foams was contaminating drinking water supplies—and costing billions in cleanup and legal fees—prompted a reformulation to a substitute designed to be less toxic. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Toxicity Assessments by U.S. EPA to Be Reshaped, If Bill Passes
Jul 26, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
Industry and other federal agencies would have more opportunities to sway the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s toxicity assessments of chemicals under a bill a congressional committee approved July 24. -
States Take Lead on Fluorochemicals But Press EPA for More
Jul 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
States are taking the initiative to keep fluorinated chemicals out of drinking water, but that is leading to a patchwork of regulation nationwide unless the EPA steps up, state officials warned July 25. -
Draft EU Regulation to Ban Eyebrow Dye Substance
Jul 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The EU has notified the WTO of a draft Commission Regulation, aimed at prohibiting the use of the substance 2-chloro-p-phenylenediamine, its sulphate and dihydrochloride salts, in hair, eyebrow and eyelash dye products. It would add it to the list of prohibited substances in Annex II of the cosmetic products Regulation. -
U.S. to Speed Approval of Small Gas Export Projects in New Plan
Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Adams-Heard
The U.S. Department of Energy issued a new rule to accelerate approval of small-scale liquefied natural gas export projects. -
Europe to Become ‘Massive’ Buyer of U.S. LNG, Trump Says
Jul 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik and Ryan Collins
Europe will build more terminals to import U.S. liquefied natural gas, the head of the European Commission told President Donald Trump during a meeting aimed at averting a transatlantic trade war. -
Trump's Export Push May Require Congressional Muscle
Jul 26, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
The Trump administration is hoping to beef up its "energy dominance" agenda by easing federal permitting of small-scale liquefied natural gas exports — but any grander gestures would require some heavy lifting by Congress. -
Appeals Court Tosses Major Challenge to FERC Eminent Domain Use
Jul 26, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
An appeals court has halted a sweeping challenge to how the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission uses eminent domain for natural gas pipelines. -
Plan to Stop Russian Cyberattacks on Power Grid Needed, Trump Told
Jul 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam McQuillan and Rebecca Kern
The White House needs a plan of action to guard against Russian cyberattacks on U.S. energy infrastructure, a pair of senators urged President Donald Trump in a July 25 letter. -
Cantwell, Graham Urge Trump to Act on Russian Grid Threats
Jul 26, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Blake Sobczak
Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are calling on the White House to investigate reported Russian hacking intrusions into the U.S. power grid. -
Shuster Infrastructure Bill Boosts WIFIA But Stops Short Of Senate Approach
Jul 25, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
A draft bill floated by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA), the departing chairman of the House transportation committee, proposes a series of steps to bolster EPA's nascent water infrastructure loan guarantee program but stops short of backing the more far-reaching overhaul that the Senate is expected to vote on this summer. -
(ACC Mentioned) Skipping Plastic Straws Might Not Do Much to Stop Marine Pollution, Experts Say
Jul 26, 2018 | Channel NewsAsia
By Aqil Haziq Mahmud
Saying no to plastic straws might feel like a conscientious effort to reduce marine litter, but this global movement does little to stem the pollution, experts said. -
Trump’s Deregulators Emboldened by Kavanaugh Pick for High Court
Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy and Josh Eidelson
Trump administration officials were putting the finishing touches on a strategy to roll back car pollution standards when they received a boost from an unexpected source: the Supreme Court. -
Energy Companies Praise GOP Lawmaker’s Carbon Tax Bill
Jul 25, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A group of companies in oil, natural gas, chemical manufacturing, utilities and other industries are praising a Republican lawmaker’s legislation to impose a carbon tax. -
Oregon’s Lower Carbon Emission Limits Could Cost Power Plants
Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Future fossil-fuel power plants in Oregon will have to pay millions of dollars more to offset carbon dioxide emissions that exceed state limits after those standards were lowered by 9 percent. -
Youth Plaintiffs Seek to Allow Climate Suit to Proceed
Jul 25, 2018 | Inside EPA
Attorneys for 21 youth plaintiffs are urging the Supreme Court to reject the Justice Department's (DOJ) emergency request to halt their constitutional case alleging the federal government has failed to adequately respond to climate change, amid a series of extraordinary steps by the government to avoid having officials be deposed on climate science. -
Congress Sends Ocean Plastics Bill to White House
Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would get more authority to deal with plastic pollution in the oceans under a bill that is heading to the president’s desk. -
Cement Plants’ Compliance ‘Holiday’ Riles Environmental Groups
Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Giving Portland cement manufacturers a six-month window to show their previously idled plants are meeting national toxic emissions limits outraged environmental groups that say the EPA’s move is illegal.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Jul 25, 2018 | ICIS
By David Haydon
US President Donald Trump’s administration risks losing thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in chemical investments by not excluding $2.2bn worth of chemicals and plastic products from its second list of tariffs against China, a senior American Chemistry Council (ACC) official testified on Wednesday.
ACC Director of International Trade Ed Brzytwa told officials from the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) that the proposed Section 301 trade action against China is happening during a crucial moment for the US chemical industry.
“Costs in the US will go up, not just for our member companies, but also downstream industries that buy US-made chemicals, including farmers and manufacturers,” Brzytwa said.
The low-cost production of chemicals in the US has attracted more than $194bn in new chemical industry investment, the ACC noted, and sparked a US manufacturing renaissance.
The ACC warned both risk being undermined by the imposition of US tariffs, and retaliation.
“The chemicals and plastics appearing on List 2 invite retaliatory tariffs from China, and by virtue of that retaliation, inadvertently give China the upper-hand over our growing industry,” Brzytwa said.
“Due to shale gas and lower costs to produce and export chemicals, US chemical manufacturers are competitively advantaged compared to Chinese producers if there are no US tariffs and China does not otherwise retaliate.”
Long-standing issues with China can be resolved through negotiation and enforcement of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, Brzytwa said, as opposed to “the blunt instrument of tariffs that could make the world’s most important economic relationship even more difficult”.
The ACC noted that 54 of the 114 products on China’s second list are chemicals, plastics, and plastics products, which would impact $5.4bn in US exports to China.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) also testified at the hearing, saying the administration's tariffs on steel and other imported goods are already hurting the oil and natural gas industry by increasing the difficulty for sourcing parts.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/07/25/10244844/acc-requests-us-to-remove-2-2bn-worth-of-chems-plastics-from-proposed-china-tariffs/
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Asks Us Not to Impose Tariffs on Chemicals, Plastics
Jul 25, 2018 | Platts
By Kristen Hays
The American Chemistry Council's director of international trade Wednesday asked the Trump administration to remove all chemicals and plastics from a $16 billion list of tariffs on Chinese goods awaiting implementation, saying the US chemical industry will suffer while China strengthens its competitive edge.
"Costs in the US will go up, not just for our member companies, but also the downstream industries that buy US-made chemicals, including farmers and manufacturers," Ed Brzytwa, also a former negotiator with the Office of the US Trade Representative, said Wednesday in prepared remarks for the second day of USTR public hearings on the issue in Washington.
"These tariffs will weaken the competitiveness of the US chemicals industry and the US as a whole," he said.
Brzytwa referred to a list of $16 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods that the US aims to impose, the second round of $50 billion in tariffs on top of those for steel and aluminum imposed in March.
The first round of $34 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods was implemented on July 6, and China responded with tariffs on US goods of equal value, largely agricultural crops and automobiles.
The second round of $16 billion in tariffs would involve chemicals and plastics made with them, and China has released a more chemical- and plastics-heavy list of retaliatory tariffs of the same value that would be implemented in response.
President Donald Trump has also announced plans to impose an additional $200 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods that also includes a slew of chemicals and plastics, but that list cannot be implemented before September, to allow for its own round of public comment and hearings.
The US chemical industry trade group has strongly opposed any tariffs involving chemicals amid escalating US-China trade tensions, particularly in light of $194 billion in announced investments in chemical manufacturing.
Bountiful cheap US ethane prompted chemical manufacturers to commit to building a slew of steam crackers and derivative plants along the US Gulf Coast, Pennsylvania and potentially Ohio, and the first wave of such plants began starting up in 2017.
So far three of these crackers are operating and five more will follow suit through 2019, including the imminent startup of ExxonMobil's new 1.5 million mt/year cracker in Baytown, Texas, near Houston. Of the 13 polyethylene plants starting up in the same span, seven are operating and six more will come online this year and next.
A second and potential third wave of newbuild crackers and derivatives plants are on tap for 2020 and beyond, including Shell's complex in western Pennsylvania, the first of its kind in the ethane-rich US Northeast.
Most if not all the new resin output from the waves of new infrastructure will be exported, and most of that will target Asia, largely China.
But if China retaliates with tariffs on US chemicals and resins as expected, the US will lose the edge it gains from cheap ethane compared with the more costly naphtha that feeds most Asian crackers.
"Due to shale gas and lower costs to produce and export chemicals, US chemical manufacturers are competitively advantaged compared to Chinese producers if there are no US tariffs and China does not retaliate," Brzytwa said.
He added that such retaliation would make it prohibitive to supply China's "large and growing demand for chemicals."
The $16 billion US list of tariffs targeted for Chinese goods includes lubricating oils, multiple grades of polyethylene used to make plastic bags and food packaging, expandable polystyrene used to make foam food containers and polypropylene used often in automobile plastics. US receipts of such chemicals from China are minimal, but the list also targets plastics made with them, the likes of which fill big-box store shelves.
China's list of $16 billion in US goods that would face retaliatory tariffs includes export-reliant resin and chemical feedstocks, such as resin produced by all the newbuild infrastructure that is turned into finished products overseas.
"We believe China may have targeted US chemicals exports because it is an area where the United States is poised to grow the most," Brzytwa said. "That China has included these products on its tariff list is a recognition of the competitiveness of the US chemicals industry and the challenge it poses to China's own fast-growing chemicals industry."
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/petrochemicals/072518-acc-asks-us-not-to-impose-tariffs-on-chemicals-plastics
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Plastics Groups Say Tariffs Will Hike Costs, Cut Access to China
Jul 25, 2018 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
U.S. plastics industry lobbying groups were out in force this week against President Donald Trump’s latest tariffs on Chinese imports, arguing that the escalating trade conflict could shut off U.S. plastics exports to China and make U.S. companies less competitive internationally.
The American Chemistry Council testified July 25 before a special panel in Washington and the CEO of the Plastics Industry Association, Bill Carteaux, provided written comments, arguing against the Trump administration’s plans for 25 percent tariffs on Chinese imports.
The U.S. government is asking for comments on proposed tariffs against 152 chemical and plastics imports worth an $2.2 billion, with most of that being plastics materials and products, according to ACC.
Since July 6, the U.S. government has been levying 25 percent tariffs against $34 billion worth of Chinese imports, including Chinese made machinery and molds for plastics.
But the additional plastics tariffs in the July 24-25 hearing would be part of the next round, against an additional $16 billion in Chinese imports.
Carteaux said tariffs on the 152 products, part of a U.S. list called Annex C, would raise prices in the U.S. manufacturing supply chain and be a “net negative” for U.S. industry.
“Small- and medium-sized companies in the plastics industry will be subjected to a profit squeeze due to higher costs of inputs of production,” Carteaux wrote, noting that plastics companies supply a broad range of end-markets such as medical, automotive, building and construction, electronics, consumer products and packaging.
“The effect of higher tariffs on plastics materials and products on those industries will be net negative,” he wrote. “We urge [the U.S. Trade Representative] to pursue other strategies that would instead lead to greater market access of plastics materials and products in China.”
The association said that for the products proposed in this latest round of tariffs, the U.S. had a trade surplus of $1.2 billion in 2017, making tariffs on those products “a solution in search of a problem.”
The trade picture for the U.S. plastics industry is complex – the machinery and mold sectors, for example, have a trade deficit with China, and tariffs were put on those Chinese imports in the July 6 round of tariffs. Broadly speaking, the U.S. plastics processing sector also has a trade deficit with China.
But the associations said the picture is quite different for the products at issue in this hearing.
ACC said that the Trump administration’s tariffs against plastics materials will backfire and hurt industry growth, because the U.S. industry is already more competitive in materials production than China, thanks to low-cost shale gas feedstocks.
“The U.S. plastics industry, in particular, is highly competitive and does not need protective trade policy, especially at the cost of jeopardizing access to global customer markets,” said Ed Brzytwa, ACC’s director of international trade.
In retaliation for the U.S. tariffs, China has said it would impose its own 25 percent tariffs against about $3 billion in U.S. plastics exports.
ACC said that would risk pricing the U.S. resin sector out of China’s growing market, and notes that the U.S. plastics materials sector has a trade surplus with China, which it expects to grow.
“China’s retaliation against U.S.-made chemicals will… make it prohibitive to supply China’s large and growing demand for chemicals,” he said. “We believe China may have targeted U.S. chemicals exports because it is an area where the United States is poised to grow the most.”
Brzytwa also said ACC is worried about what comes next in trade policy: $200 billion in additional tariffs proposed on Chinese goods, including $16 billion in additional chemicals and plastics imports from China, that will be the subject of hearings in Washington in August.
As well, ACC is about retaliation against U.S. companies for those tariffs, along with fallout in the chemical industry from the economic disruption from tariffs proposed on automobile imports against many other countries, and the already in place tariffs on steel and aluminum.
The group argues against tariffs and wants to see the U.S. government pursue other methods of addressing trade problems with China.
“We strongly believe that these long-standing problems should be addressed through constructive negotiation and enforcement at the World Trade Organization where possible, rather than through the blunt instrument of tariffs that could make the world’s most important economic relationship even more difficult,” he said.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20180725/NEWS/180729932/us-plastics-groups-say-tariffs-will-hike-costs-cut-access-to-china#
-
Hurdles Remain for Energy, Environment Bills
Jul 26, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna
While this year's annual appropriations process is further along than usual, Congress once again faces a host of familiar stumbling blocks to it completing the bulk of its spending work on time.
The House heads out for a six-week recess at the end of this week without agreement between the two chambers on spending levels and continued disagreement on policy riders. An initial meeting of the conference committee on the first minibus bill, H.R. 5895 (115), which contains the Energy and Water title, has been delayed at least until September. And most lawmakers already acknowledge that a short-term spending bill will be needed to fund at least a portion of the government.
Once House lawmakers return in September, they’re scheduled to have just 11 legislative days before the government runs out of funding. Senate leaders are planning to cancel all but a week of their August recess to squeeze in more time to work on spending bills and approve executive branch and judicial nominees.
Senators have pushed to leave off controversial environmental riders that have tripped up spending negotiations in previous years. This week, Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) praised the Senate's commitment to "regular order" in the spending process. "It is evident that appropriators on both sides of the aisle have embraced a willingness to sacrifice partisan riders for the good of the process," he said.
But the House has resisted that approach. The chamber added a full repeal of the Waters of the U.S. regulation to its Energy and Water title and riders barring the use of the social cost of carbon in federal rulemakings and blocking an Obama-era methane rule to its Interior and Environment section, among others.
The Senate hopes as soon as Thursday to pass a four-title spending package, H.R. 6147 (115), that includes the Interior-Environment, Agriculture, Financial Services and Transportation-HUD titles, setting up another potentially divisive conference committee in the fall. The White House has voiced concerns the package includes billions more than its budget request for both EPA and Interior, but stopped short of threatening a veto.
Appropriators downplayed the challenges in interview this week, saying they were confident a deal could be reached after the August recess.
“We ought to be able to do this the first week we’re back in September,” Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who leads the subcommittee responsible for Energy and Water title, told reporters. “There will be a CR for some bills — not for ours.”
Outside experts said the process has played out better than in recent years, especially since Congress only wrapped up its work on a fiscal 2018 omnibus this spring, but there are doubts about how many of the bills would actually make it to President Donald Trump’s desk before Sept. 30.
“Congress will almost definitely pass a CR in September. The only question is how big,” Josh Huder, a senior fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University, told POLITICO. “The hope is Congress is able to fund several agencies through a normal-ish type process, though recently it's always been better to remain skeptical.”
After signing the omnibus earlier this year, the president said he would not sign such a massive package again. Since then, President Donald Trump has pushed lawmakers to pass spending bills more quickly and tried to pressure Democrats on controversial issues such as his request for a border wall. (Neither chamber has yet taken up a DHS spending bill, which would include border security funding.)
"The Senate should get funding done before the August break, or NOT GO HOME. Wall and Border Security should be included," Trump tweeted in May.
Part of the problem is that Congress never passed a budget this year, meaning House and Senate appropriators have been writing their bills based on differing assumptions of how much money the government should spend in fiscal 2019. House and Senate leaders are continuing to negotiate over a top-line spending target, and how to divide spending among the various subcommittees.
“We have a couple of other issues to work out, but I think once we get an allocation, we’ll be able to work everything out,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the energy and water subcommittee chairman in the upper chamber.
Simpson and Alexander have to close a billion-dollar gap between their two bills — the House wants $43.7 billion for energy and water programs, compared to the Senate's $44.7 billion — in addition to deciding whether the WOTUS rider survives and compromising on other areas of disagreement. Not to mention unrelated sticking points on the other bills it is packaged with, such as a fight over veterans health care that led to the first minibus conference meeting being canceled two weeks ago.
Shelby said he remained hopeful Congress could complete work on many of the bills, but acknowledged significant differences between the House and Senate bills would complicate those efforts.
"It’s brick by brick by brick work," Shelby told reporters.
Meanwhile, lawmakers on either side of Capitol Hill continue to snipe at each other. Several senators scoffed at the lower chamber’s lengthy August recess given how much appropriations work remains, while their House counterparts dismissed the idea the Senate bills contained no policy riders.
“They’ve got policy riders just like we do and we’ll negotiate them out just like we always do,” Simpson said. “But for them to come out and say, ‘Oh, we’ve kept ours free of any controversial riders.’ It’s bullshit. It’s just not true.”
Some Democrats view the delay in the first minibus conference differently, arguing the holdup suggests they won’t be able to work through the differences between the House and Senate versions of far more controversial spending packages.
“The issue is just whether Republicans want to do appropriations bills or not,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a conferee on the first minibus, told POLITICO. “Right now, it doesn’t feel like they actually want to do appropriations bills given how long it’s taken to get the easy one."
Amid the skepticism, many of the eternally optimistic appropriators say they’re sticking to their goals of getting the bills across the finish line.
“You just have to take everything one at time,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who leads the subcommittee responsible for EPA and Interior funding, told reporters. “I’m feeling pretty good about where we are right now.”
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/07/hurdles-remain-for-energy-environment-bills-709068
-
Senate Avoiding Big Debates as EPA-Interior Bill Progresses
Jul 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The Senate is thus far sidestepping big clashes over environmental and energy issues while making slow progress this week on a fiscal year 2019 EPA-Interior spending measure.
The EPA-Interior spending measure (H.R. 6147) now bundled into a “minibus” spending bill that also includes financial services, transportation and housing, and financial services funding, is still expected to pass later this week. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) urged their colleagues to file amendments by 1 p.m. on July 26 to speed what has been near-glacial progress, with just a half-dozen amendments voted on since July 23.
Thus far, the Senate has avoided any tough votes on roughly two dozen environment and energy amendments that have been filed; none of them have yet been granted a vote on the floor. The House, by contrast, took dozens of votes on energy and environment amendments.
“You’ve got to watch the House of Representatives once in a while to see how votes really work,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told Bloomberg Environment July 25.
The Senate did vote on an amendment July 25, offered by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), that would have impacted EPA and Interior program funding, but it was rejected. Paul sought an across-the-board 11.39 percent cut from minibus funding, including EPA-Interior spending; it was defeated on a 25-74 vote.
Among the amendments filed on the Senate spending package was a Republican measure to repeal the Obama-era Waters of the U.S. rule from Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah). That rule, which the Trump administration is working to rescind through the regulatory process, defined the scope of waters and wetlands subject to Clean Water Act permits and other federal pollution control requirements.
Another amendment , filed by Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), would permanently authorize the Interior Department’s Land and Water Conservation Fund. The funding is primarily financed from revenue from federal oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf.
Democrats have readied their own measures, including an amendment from Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) to bar the EPA from modifying or repealing its endangerment finding, a conclusion that underpinned the Obama administration’s climate rules.
Another one by New Jersey Democrat Bob Menendez would bar the Trump administration from going forward with a plan to allow drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf in the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and North Atlantic, and off the Florida coast.
The EPA funding under the bill would be held at just over $8 billion in the Senate measure. That amount is slightly above the House-passed version, which would hold EPA funding roughly the same as the current year.
Congressional appropriators are hoping to package what are usually a dozen individual spending bills in hopes of avoiding the now-annual ritual of short-term funding extensions or massive government-wide omnibus spending bills to keep the government open.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/senate-avoiding-big-debates-as-epa-interior-bill-progresses
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA OK’d Apparent Violations of Chemicals Law
Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA allowed companies that made new chemicals months or years ago to submit required information much later—in one case more than two decades later—than federal chemicals law permits.
A law firm chemist and an attorney told Bloomberg Environment the late notices are, essentially, paperwork errors.
But the late notices could reflect the Environmental Protection Agency’s failure to record previously submitted information or the agency’s failure to ensure companies are filing a required document by the Toxic Substances Control Act’s deadline, Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, told Bloomberg Environment.
“In either case, companies were making chemicals not on the inventory, and the public had no ability to know those chemicals were in commerce,” Denison said. “That’s why it matters.”
The EPA declined repeated requests to speak with Bloomberg Environment about the late documents. It also wouldn’t comment on whether some chemical manufacturers have violated TSCA.
Instead, the agency provided a statement explaining why it has allowed companies to submit required information late.
Notices of CommencementChemical manufacturers have filed documents called notices of commencement (NOCs) late because the EPA is bringing a decades-old chemical inventory up to date, the agency said. The 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments required the agency to update that inventory, which lists chemicals that are or have been in U.S. commerce.
At least 162 out of 399—or 41 percent—of the commencement notices the EPA has published in the Federal Register since January 2017 were late, according to Bloomberg Environment’s analysis. “Late” means more than 30 days had passed between the date a company began to manufacture a new chemical and the date it notified the EPA.
Failing to file the required commencement notice within 30 days violates both the original and amended TSCA.
The most outdated commencement notice Bloomberg Environment found involved a company that began to make what was then a new chemical on March 26, 1996. The company notified the agency of its manufacture date on Nov. 15, 2017, more than 21 years later than the law requires, according to a May 22 EPA Federal Register notice.
Most of the other late commencement notices Bloomberg Environment found were filed months or years after they were supposed to be submitted.
The agency’s announcements don’t identify companies that file commencement notices.
Artifact of Update EffortsThe EPA said the late notices are an artifact of its efforts to update the TSCA inventory. As required by the amended TSCA, the agency will break the decades-old inventory into two parts: a list of chemicals active in commerce and a list of ones that used to be.
Chemical manufacturers had until Feb. 7 to let the EPA know their chemical is being made and sold in the U.S. by filing a “notice of activity.”
As some manufacturers tried to file the required activity notice, they realized the chemical they have been making wasn’t on the TSCA inventory, the EPA said. Companies can only submit activity notices for chemicals on the inventory, and new chemicals get listed after the EPA records its receipt of a commencement notice.
As the agency searched its records to figure out why some companies could not find their chemicals on the inventory, the EPA realized it was missing records of receiving some commencement notices, the agency said.
If the chemical manufacturer had its original commencement notice, the EPA allowed the company to resubmit that document and then file its activity notice, the agency said.
“The commencement dates for these more recently processed notices of commencement, therefore, are older as they represent the actual date that the substances were commenced in the past,” the agency said.
The EPA didn’t explain how it is handling situations where neither it nor the manufacturer have commencement notices.
Mistakes HappenSometimes the agency fails to process a commencement notice correctly, said Richard E. Engler, director of chemistry with the Washington office of Bergeson & Campbell P.C.
In such cases, the agency seems to be allowing companies to resubmit the required commencement notice, said Engler, who worked at the EPA for 17 years reviewing new chemicals.
“Not filing within 30 days is a violation, but a fairly minor one,” he said. The agency’s focus this year is making sure its TSCA inventory is accurate, he said.
“We understand that attendant to the reset, EPA has in some limited cases requested documentation from companies where the agency did not have its copy of the original records available,” Karyn Schmidt, senior director of chemical regulation, regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, told Bloomberg Environment by email.
That’s not surprising, since the EPA’s records may go back decades to the late 1970s when the original inventory was created, she said. The EPA moved from paper to electronic commencement notices as late as 2011, she said.
“These and other administrative issues were expected to arise as part of the ordinary housekeeping function of the inventory reset,” Schmidt said. “We encourage EPA to continue working towards completing an accurate and complete inventory when the reset process is finished later this year.”
More Than 200 Late NoticesAt least 208 of 504 required commencement notices have been late since TSCA was overhauled, Denison said.
At least 134 of the 208, or roughly two-thirds of the chemicals with late commencement notices, don’t appear to be on the most recent TSCA inventory, which the EPA released in April, he said.
That means dozens, if not hundreds, of chemicals have been in commerce without being on the inventory, which violates the law, Denison said.
The Environmental Defense Fund has filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s rule describing the procedures by which it would update its inventory, but late commencement notices aren’t among the issues raised in that lawsuit.
The agency could have explained its reasons for allowing the late notices in the Federal Register announcements that it has published, he said.
The agency’s clarification leaves many questions unanswered, Denison said. These questions include have chemical manufacturers gained a commercial advantage by making chemicals that were not on the inventory, he said.
Another question is whether chemical manufacturers reported these chemicals under the agency’s Chemical Data Reporting rule, which requires companies to periodically report the molecules they make, he said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-okd-apparent-violations-of-chemicals-law
-
Democrats Query EPA Plan to Weaken TSCA Reviews
Jul 25, 2018 | Inside EPA
Senate Democrats who pressed for the June 2016 reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) are requesting meetings with EPA toxics officials, citing press reports that the Trump administration may weaken its proposed framework for reviewing new chemicals, and arguing that other changes have already deviated from the law.
In a July 24 letter, to Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, six Senate Democrats, led by Sens. Tom Udall (NM), ranking Democrat on the appropriations panel that funds EPA, and Tom Carper (DE), ranking Democrat on the Senate environment committee, raise concerns that EPA is planning “even more sweeping, weakening changes” to its process for reviewing new chemicals under TSCA.
“Unlike with the draft framework EPA proposed late last year, which was made available through a public meeting and public comment, in this case we understand EPA plans to move forward without public notice and without describing in writing the changes it is making and how they are justified under the revised TSCA,” the senators say.
“We write now to raise our serious concerns about EPA's intentions, and to request that your staff brief our offices about the planned changes prior to moving to implement them,” the letter adds.
The letter comes in the wake of reports, including from Inside EPA, that the agency has abandoned its controversial framework for how it will review new chemical uses under the revised law in the face of a lawsuit from environmentalists.
The “New Chemicals Decision-Making Framework” sought to streamline reviews by dropping use of enforceable orders as an interim step in regulating new chemicals and allowing the agency to proceed directly from premanufacture notices to issuing significant new use rules (SNURs).
The Natural Resources Defense Council has challenged the review framework, and while industry attorneys have argued the lawsuit faces standing hurdles because the framework is not final, they also have said the litigation appears to have dissuaded EPA from implementing the review framework.
More recently, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) -- citing reports from Bloomberg Environment -- said in a blog post that Trump administration appointees are considering abandoning the framework.
EDF says that the framework would have inappropriately allowed EPA to narrow the scope of its review to only the intended uses of a new chemical, while addressing other reasonably anticipated uses through a SNUR.
The group says that EPA is now planning to approve new chemicals for their intended use without pursuing a SNUR -- essentially shirking the law's requirement to consider reasonably foreseen uses.
“EPA apparently intends to so narrowly define 'reasonably foreseen' as to render it effectively the same as 'intended,' ignoring the obvious fact that Congress clearly distinguished between the two,” EDF says.
“This, too, flies in the face of the law, which requires EPA to impose restrictions whenever it finds a new chemical may present an unreasonable risk.”
Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Ed Markey (MA), Cory Booker (NJ), and Jeff Merkley (OR) also signed the letter.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/democrats-query-epa-plan-weaken-tsca-reviews
-
Democratic Senators Question Shift in TSCA New Chemicals Approach
Jul 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Democratic senators have pressed the US EPA over reports it is "weakening" its approach to reviewing new chemicals under the amended TSCA.
Six senators central to the negotiations to reform TSCA – including Tom Udall (D–New Mexico, pictured), Tom Carper (D–Delaware) and Edward Markey (D–Massachusetts) – wrote to the agency's acting administrator Andrew Wheeler this week raising "serious concerns about EPA's intentions" with regard to the new chemicals programme.
The senators cite press reports that indicate the EPA is looking to make "more sweeping, weakening changes to its review of new chemicals".
And they raise concern that, unlike programme changes that were publicly consulted on through a draft framework document last year, the EPA appears to be planning to "move forward without public notice and without describing in writing the changes it is making and how they are justified under reformed TSCA".Shift in policy
The senators' letter follows a report by Bloomberg Environment last week that the EPA will be further shifting its stance on new chemicals reviews beyond the changes outlined in the 2017 New Chemicals Decision-Making Framework.
In a blog post, the Environmental Defense Fund highlighted concerns with one such adjustment, which involves what it calls plans to "decouple completely" new substance approvals from significant new use rules (Snurs).
Under its framework document, the agency signalled that in cases where it has concerns about reasonably foreseen, but not intended, uses of a new substance, it would issue a "not likely to present an unreasonable risk" finding for the pre-manufacture notice (PMN) together with a Snur. The latter would require businesses to notify the agency before taking up a potentially concerning use, and allow an EPA review before it could move forward.
But EDF lead senior scientist Richard Denison said he has learned that the agency will be moving away from this practice. The agency instead "apparently intends to so narrowly define 'reasonably foreseen' [uses] as to render it effectively the same as 'intended'" – a move which he says ignores the statutory requirement to consider known or reasonably foreseen uses when conducting reviews.
And he said the agency "may also loosen the threshold for making a 'not likely' finding to such a degree that EPA would have to prove a risk is highly probable before it could place any conditions on a new chemical".
He raised further concerns that the agency is "intent on never imposing testing requirements on new chemicals".'Deviated from statute'
According to the Democratic senators, passage of the Lautenberg Act brought about "substantial strengthening of TSCA's provisions governing EPA's review of new chemical substances".
And while the agency at first began to implement these provisions in a manner "faithful to both the letter and the spirit of the law", it has since narrowed its scope of reviews and corresponding risk determinations "in a manner that deviated from the statute".
They are requesting that the EPA provide a briefing on its planned changes prior to implementing them.
The EPA did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68993/democratic-senators-question-shift-in-tsca-new-chemicals-approach
-
EPA Extends Comment Period for TSCA Problem Formulation Documents and Systematic Review Document
Jul 25, 2018 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On July 24, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it was extending the comment periods for all ten problem formulation documents and the systematic review approach document in Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluations that were published on June 11, 2018, by 21 days; comments on these documents are now due by August 16, 2018. EPA states that although the comment period will end in 21 days (August 16, 2018), “EPA will try to consider any additional comments received after this date. However, incorporation of late comments may not be included in the documents for peer review. There will be an additional comment period following the publication of each of the draft risk evaluations.”
Links to the problem formulation dockets are available in our blog item “EPA Releases Problem Formulations Documents on First Ten Chemicals; Systematic Review Approach Document; and Asbestos SNUR” and a more detailed analysis is available in our memorandum “EPA Takes ‘Three Important Steps’ Intended to Ensure Chemical Safety.”
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-extends-comment-period-tsca-problem-formulation-documents-and-systematic-review
-
(ACC Mentioned) ‘Environmentally Friendly’ Firefighting Foams Still May Be Toxic
Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
The discovery that a key ingredient in firefighting foams was contaminating drinking water supplies—and costing billions in cleanup and legal fees—prompted a reformulation to a substitute designed to be less toxic.
But now the safety of that replacement compound is being questioned as a growing body of research suggests the foams developed with C-6 may be just as dangerous.
“These newer, C-6 based firefighting foams share many of the same characteristics, including significant toxicity concerns—although to date, they have yet to face the same scientific scrutiny,” David Andrews, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, told Bloomberg Environment.
Often called forever chemicals because they don’t break down in the environment, two compounds—perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)—were used widely in products such as non-stick cookware, stain-resistant carpet and textiles, and practically every barrel of fire suppressant foam produced from the 1970s through the 1990s.
“There are a variety of C-6 replacement chemicals, including ones like GenX, that are linked to cancer, immune toxicity, cholesterol and liver issues just like PFOA,” Andrews said.
‘Voluntary Stewardship’In 2006, the EPA brokered a voluntary deal with the eight U.S. companies making PFOS/PFOA to phase out their use in certain products, including firefighting foam, by 2015.
However, the agency stopped short of banning the chemicals outright and has yet to set federal limits for them in groundwater.
In response to the growing concerns about pollution, chemical companies, including 3M Co., Ansul Inc., and National Foam Inc., reformulated their products by cutting two carbon atoms from the eight-chain “C-8” molecules.
Following its 2015 spinoff from DuPont, Chemours became the largest U.S. producer of fluorochemicals, including those used to make fire suppressant foams. Chemours declined to comment to Bloomberg Environment.
The EPA said it has evaluated hundreds of PFAS alternatives up through 2015 and determined that so-called short chain molecules of C-6 or less, while still persistent in the environment, “are generally less toxic and less bioaccumulative in wildlife and humans.”
Toxicity Questions RemainBut many chemists and toxicologists say those assertions are far from certain, especially given the relative lack of testing that has been done on short-chain foams.
“There have been several recent studies that show even these shorter-chain forms can accumulate in breast milk, in blood. It depends on how strict your definition of bio-accumulation is,” said Jennifer Field, a chemist at Oregon State University who studies fluorochemicals.
Short-chain fluorochemicals are more water soluble, making it easier for them to be absorbed by plants, and then eaten by humans or animals, Field said.
Others point out that in some cases, shorter chains may display even greater toxicitythan long-chain molecules.
“These compounds are toxic. What we have to do now is determine what level of toxicity is acceptable,” said Jamie DeWitt, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at East Carolina University.
DeWitt told Bloomberg Environment that even shorter chain molecules still persist in the environment and, at certain concentrations, can even lead to increased instances of cancer.
“I think this designation of long versus short chain has created some confusion. It gave companies the opportunity to say, ‘We’re going to switch to C-6 and now everything is fine.’ Well, we don’t know if that’s necessarily the case,” DeWitt said.
Best Use for High-Intensity FiresIn the event of a catastrophic fire, such as a plane crash, firefighters operate by the “three minute rule.” The first two minutes involve getting to the fire, and the last is devoted to saving lives.
“I think these foam chemistries provide a very significant benefit when used in emergency situations, for high-hazard fires,” said Steve Korzeniowski, a longtime executive from DuPont’s fluorochemical division now working as a Pennsylvania consultant.
Moreover, Korzeniowski told Bloomberg Environment that firefighters no longer dump foam directly on the ground during equipment testing and training exercises.
“Those days are long gone,” he said. “Regardless of the foam chemistry in question, it’s just not getting into the environment the way it once was.”
In response to the criticisms of the newer C-6 foams, Korzeniowski told Bloomberg Environment that most chemicals come with some degree of hazard. But of the foams now available on the market, all have passed toxicology tests through EPA’s new chemicals review program.
“In our view, they are safe,” he said. “There is an enormous amount of published data that supports the C-6 products.”
Korzeniowski cited a 2008 study by DuPont finding that short-chain fluorocarbons are not as bioaccumulative—the buildup of chemicals in an organism—as previously thought. A 2017 study funded by the American Chemistry Council, he said, found no evidence of endocrine disruption in mammals or fish.
EPA Weighing Additional RegulationIn 2009, the EPA established a provisional health advisory of 400 parts per trillion for PFOA, which was later lowered to 70 ppt in 2016. Washington state recently enacted a law taking effect in July 2020 that sets tougher contamination levels than what the EPA recommends.
Several states have asked the agency to address the issue by promulgating a maximum contaminant limit, or MCL, for PFOA and PFOS. However, others are concerned that PFOA/PFOS regulations could impose new costs and divert resources from other drinking water issues.
Before resigning as EPA administrator earlier this month, Scott Pruitt identified contamination from fluorochemicals as a priority he wanted to address. As part of its larger effort to consider designating PFAS as hazardous substances, the agency is hosting several public engagement events across the country. The next ones are scheduled for Horsham, Pa., on July 25, and Colorado Springs, Colo., on August 7.
Korzeniowski said industry would welcome a single nationwide regulation, but cautioned against being overly restrictive with pollution standards.
“I can’t tell you what the right contamination benchmark should be,” he said. “Some people would say it should be zero—but that’s just not going to happen.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/environmentally-friendly-firefighting-foams-still-may-be-toxic
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Toxicity Assessments by U.S. EPA to Be Reshaped, If Bill Passes
Jul 26, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
Industry and other federal agencies would have more opportunities to sway the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s toxicity assessments of chemicals under a bill a congressional committee approved July 24.
The legislation, H.R. 6468, would require EPA to consider hazard assessments from industry, other federal agencies, states, academic researchers, or international agencies if those analyses meet standards laid out in the legislation. Many Democrats oppose the bill, saying it would amplify industry’s influence of assessments. It could also give federal agencies facing pollution liability, such as the Defense Department, more clout over EPA assessments, which are used to set cleanup standards.
The measure would also recast the agency’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), a program that Republican lawmakers have attacked and President Donald J. Trump has proposed to defund. IRIS chemical assessments are now centralized in the EPA Office of Research & Development. The bill would disperse that work among EPA regulatory programs that oversee commercial chemicals or pollution released to air, water, or land.
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), the sponsor of the bill, says this change would allow regulatory offices to tailor chemical assessments to their specific needs.
H.R. 6468 has the backing of the major lobbying arm of the U.S. chemical industry, the American Chemistry Council. The EPA regulatory programs “are in the best position to understand the current human health and environmental challenges that require the development of chemical assessments,” writes ACC CEO Cal Dooley in a letter of support to Biggs.
But Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.), who opposes the bill, says divvying up the job of chemical assessments among EPA’s regulatory programs introduces opportunities for agency political appointees to sway outcomes of assessments. Assessments should remain the job of scientific experts in a part of EPA that doesn’t regulate, he argues.
Plus, if programs focus only on their own regulatory needs, he says, assessments may not be complete. For instance, McNerney says, if EPA’s air pollution regulation office assesses a chemical’s toxicity for possible regulation under the Clean Air Act, it may not consider exposure to the compound via drinking water.
The Science, Space & Technology Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives voted along party lines to approve the measure. It now goes to the full House for a vote.
Given its Republican majority, the House may pass the bill. But it’s unlikely the Senate would take it up before the November general election.
https://cen.acs.org/policy/legislation-/Chemical-toxicity-assessments-US-EPA/96/i31
-
States Take Lead on Fluorochemicals But Press EPA for More
Jul 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
States are taking the initiative to keep fluorinated chemicals out of drinking water, but that is leading to a patchwork of regulation nationwide unless the EPA steps up, state officials warned July 25.
While the Environmental Protection Agency has set an non-enforceable health advisory for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, in drinking water, states said they need clearer guidance and more resources to detect and manage risks from those chemicals.
“I’m here to say that states cannot do this work alone,” Lisa Daniels, acting deputy secretary for water programs at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, said at a forum organized by the EPA. “Failure to address PFAS at the national level will continue to put the public health at risk.”
Once widely used in nonstick cookware, fire-retardant upholstery coatings, and other consumer products, PFAS chemical compounds don’t break down easily in the environment and can remain in the body for a long time. Studies show long-term exposure may affect liver and immune system function, increase blood cholesterol levels, cause developmental delays, and increase cancer risk.
The event took place near the the Willow Grove Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base in Horsham Township, Pa., and the former Naval Air Warfare Center in Warminster Township, Pa., where fire-fighting drills using chemical-laden foams are suspected to have contaminated the groundwater.
EPA Process Only BeginningFormer EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in May announced plans to label two common fluorinated chemicals—perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)—hazardous substances and explore whether enforceable standards on those substances are needed.
But that process is just beginning and could take years. States have been left to set their own standards, often at levels much lower than the EPA’s 70-parts-per-trillion health advisory level.
Todd Keyser, a hydrologist at the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control’s Division of Waste and Hazardous Substances, called on the EPA to speed up that process.
“Give the states something more concrete to work with,” he said, urging the EPA to provide consistency on the approach to all PFAS compounds so that states would not develop a patchwork of regulations that create confusion.
“We need to have something to stand upon as we discover more,” he said, rather than every state “doing different things for different logical reasons but being inconsistent.”
Several States Moving ForwardCalifornia, New Hampshire, and Vermont have already moved forward with their own standards and New York and New Jersey have said they will follow suit.
States are also looking to the EPA for resources to help them manage those chemicals, such as expanding laboratories capable of doing the necessary research.
“There are only a handful of laboratories nationwide that can handle these compounds,” Keith Mensch, the state’s drinking water program administrator in Delaware’s Health and Social Services Department’s Division of Public Health. “If there’s funding available, or even if the EPA can just expedite the certifications needed, that would be helpful.”
Scott Mandirola, deputy cabinet secretary at West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection, said resources are also needed for smaller affected communities such as Martinsburg, W.Va., which had to shut down its water filtration plant in 2016 after fluorochemicals were found at unsafe levels.
“It’s important that communities can act fast with the expectation that they could potentially be reimbursed,” he said.
The EPA is planning to hold another PFAS community engagement in Colorado Springs, Colo., on Aug. 7-8. Another future session is planned in North Carolina.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/states-take-lead-on-fluorochemicals-but-press-epa-for-more
-
Draft EU Regulation to Ban Eyebrow Dye Substance
Jul 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The EU has notified the WTO of a draft Commission Regulation, aimed at prohibiting the use of the substance 2-chloro-p-phenylenediamine, its sulphate and dihydrochloride salts, in hair, eyebrow and eyelash dye products. It would add it to the list of prohibited substances in Annex II of the cosmetic products Regulation.
An Opinion published by the Commission's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) in October 2013 said that, due to a lack of available data, the substance could not be considered safe for consumers. The SCCS categorised it as "at least a 'strong' sensitiser".
The proposed date of adoption of the regulation is in the fourth quarter of this year, with entry into force 20 days from publication in the EU's Official Journal. The provisions of the regulation will then apply six months later.
There is a 60 day public consultation on the notification.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68991/draft-eu-regulation-to-ban-eyebrow-dye-substance
-
U.S. to Speed Approval of Small Gas Export Projects in New Plan
Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Adams-Heard
The U.S. Department of Energy issued a new rule to accelerate approval of small-scale liquefied natural gas export projects.
Developers seeking to export no more than 51.75 billion cubic feet per year, or about 0.14 billion cubic feet per day, under the new rule, will no longer be subject to a “public interest review” by the Energy Department—a step previously required for all shipments to countries that don’t have a free trade agreement with the U.S.
“The so-called ‘small-scale rule’ will further unleash American energy by reducing the regulatory burden on American businesses,” and by making it easier for LNG exporters to ship fuel to trading partners in the Caribbean, Central America, and South America, Energy Secretary Rick Perry said in a press release.
The Energy Department is in charge of approving LNG exports, while the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission permits the infrastructure required to super-cool the gas to a liquid for transport.
Most projects in the U.S. seek to export much larger volumes. Cheniere Energy Inc.’s flagship Sabine Pass facility in Louisiana was approved to export as much as 803 billion cubic feet per year, or about 2.2 billion cubic feet per day, of LNG to non-free trade agreement countries from its first four units.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/us-to-speed-approval-of-small-gas-export-projects-in-new-plan
-
Europe to Become ‘Massive’ Buyer of U.S. LNG, Trump Says
Jul 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik and Ryan Collins
Europe will build more terminals to import U.S. liquefied natural gas, the head of the European Commission told President Donald Trump during a meeting aimed at averting a transatlantic trade war.
“They want very much to do that, and we have plenty of it,” Trump said, referring to the U.S. shale boom, which has unleashed record supplies of the heating and power-plant fuel. “They will be a massive buyer, and they will be able to diversify their energy supply.”
Imports to Europe are poised to rise almost 20 percent by 2040 from 2016 levels, according to the International Energy Agency. While Russia has long been the region’s top supplier, it’s now facing significant challenges from both the U.S. and Qatar, rivals with vast natural gas reserves.
Trump and the Commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, spoke to the media after meeting at the White House. The comments quickly sparked investor reaction for both Cheniere Energy Inc., America’s largest exporter of LNG, and Tellurian Inc., which is working to get its export project in Louisiana approved.
Startups by 2020The comments come as at least four new U.S. LNG export projects are slated to start up by 2020. Since early 2016, the U.S. has shipped 41 cargoes of LNG to Europe, according to ship tracking data compiled by Bloomberg. That’s about 10 percent of U.S. LNG exports.
Europe is looking to step up gas imports with its largest production field in the Netherlands slated to shut and France moving toward shutting nuclear power plants.
“There are plenty of supply options here to be able to meet increased European demand,” said Jason Feer, global head of business intelligence at Poten & Partners Inc., in a telephone interview. European demand is rising as domestic production declines.
After Cheniere began shipping gas two years ago from its Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana—the first to send shale output abroad—the U.S. became a net exporter of the fuel for the first time since the 1950s. This year, Dominion Energy Inc. opened the first export facility on the East Coast, providing a quicker route to European buyers.
Europe is “one of the biggest surprises” in terms of rising demand for gas, Tom Earl, chief commercial officer at U.S. LNG developer Venture Global LNG, said at a conference in Amsterdam in May. Venture Global, which is building an export terminal in Louisiana, has already signed supply deals with BP Plc and Portugal’s Galp Energia SGPS SA.
Many of the continent’s buyers, particularly in Eastern Europe, are eager for alternatives to Russian supply. Gas flow to Europe was disrupted twice, in 2006 and 2009, over a pricing dispute between Russia and Ukraine. Meanwhile, Lithuania and Poland have built terminals to import cargoes of liquefied natural gas from overseas, reducing their reliance on Russia.
But Russia relies on gas exports for its budget revenue and Europe is its biggest customer, meaning the nation will “protect its turf at all costs,” Manas Satapathy, a managing director for energy at Accenture Strategy, said in a telephone interview.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/europe-to-become-massive-buyer-of-us-lng-trump-says
-
Trump's Export Push May Require Congressional Muscle
Jul 26, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
The Trump administration is hoping to beef up its "energy dominance" agenda by easing federal permitting of small-scale liquefied natural gas exports — but any grander gestures would require some heavy lifting by Congress.
And given the current state of play, particularly in the House, such a move could provide fresh fodder for a Capitol Hill showdown.
Front and center is the Energy Department's latest move to finalize a rule aimed at fast-tracking smaller exports — no more than 51.75 billion cubic feet of gas per year — to countries without free-trade agreements with the United States (Energywire, July 25).
DOE's rule would only apply to small projects that qualify for an exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act, namely shipments of liquefied gas to Caribbean islands or countries in Central or South America that don't require large tankers. The rule takes effect late next month.
DOE Assistant Secretary of Fossil Energy Steven Winberg told reporters on a call yesterday he's hopeful the rule for small-scale projects will drive business in that sector. But when asked about expanding such treatment to larger terminals, he said no such plans are in the works — and Congress would need to get involved.
"The DOE does not have existing authority, so it would require an act of Congress to make that happen," Winberg said.
In the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Republican Rep. Bill Johnson of Ohio, a top supporter of LNG shipments, has floated legislation to scrap DOE oversight of LNG exports.
The agency determines whether a project is in the public interest, whereas the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission reviews the physical terminal for safety issues.
At least two Democrats are backing Johnson's bill, H.R. 4605, including Reps. Henry Cuellar of Texas and Tim Ryan of Ohio. Other co-sponsors are Republican Reps. Bob Latta of Ohio, Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, Bill Flores of Texas and Jeff Duncan of South Carolina.
Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said in a statement yesterday, "I thank Congressman Johnson for his efforts on this matter and I hope we can get his legislation to the House floor for a vote soon."Pushback
Still, the bill has also triggered pushback and questions of national security.
The committee's top Democrat, Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey, raised concerns about scrapping DOE's review during a hearing in January and questioned whether such a process would allow members to direct money for favored projects in legislation without regard to merit or other competitive processes (E&E News PM, Jan. 19).
Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) asked, "Shouldn't we be careful before we greenlight unlimited LNG exports without consideration of our national security interests?"
The Trump administration has taken a multipronged approach to boosting the export and sale of the nation's shale gas, with officials like former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt jumping into the fray to boost exports while traveling in Morocco.
And today, Energy Secretary Rick Perry is scheduled to travel to the Cove Point export terminal near Lusby, Md., to attend a ribbon-cutting ceremony. The facility exported its first tanker of LNG in April (Energywire, April 17).
Winberg, a former executive for Consol Energy Inc., said yesterday there is 21.35 billion cubic feet per day of U.S. LNG exports authorized for sale and 11 billion cubic feet under construction.
Also yesterday President Trump, in a press conference with European Commission Presient Jean Claude Juncker, touted a deal for Europe to buy more U.S. gas.'Slow go'
Export boosters say there may be larger gains to be made off Capitol Hill.
LNG Allies President and CEO Fred Hutchison said Johnson's bill would be helpful. Even more helpful, he said, would be a blanket exclusion from any tariffs for steel being used to construct an LNG export terminal and a fully functioning Export-Import Bank.
That's because the larger issue, Hutchison said, is that companies eager to export domestic liquefied gas are facing challenges in hammering out financing, raising equity and getting loans from the banks. All of that hinges on companies securing contracts to sell the LNG abroad.
"We've seen some movement toward new contracts in this space in recent weeks, but it's just been a slow go," Hutchison said. "People have looked at availability of LNG now and over the course of the next couple years and viewed it as the market will be adequately supplied."
Winberg yesterday said Perry is "well aware" of the consternation among LNG exporters about the imposition of steel tariffs and quotas and has been in discussions with other administration officials, for both LNG and in the broader oil and gas space.
He then pivoted to emphasize the secretary's success in pushing the president's agenda of selling domestic energy.
"I've had the privilege of being on the road with him several times overseas, and every time, every single time, he's been promoting U.S. energy, U.S. energy equipment and the commodity," Winberg said. "That goes beyond natural gas, he also promotes coal, oil and nuclear."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/07/26/stories/1060091217
-
Appeals Court Tosses Major Challenge to FERC Eminent Domain Use
Jul 26, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
An appeals court has halted a sweeping challenge to how the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission uses eminent domain for natural gas pipelines.
In a high-stakes ruling yesterday, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that a lower court was right to dismiss legal arguments from a group of Virginia and West Virginia landowners concerned about FERC's approval of EQT Corp.'s Mountain Valley pipeline.
The litigants were taking aim at FERC's practice of letting pipeline builders use eminent domain authority to take land once their project is approved. That practice is unconstitutional, the landowners say, because it violates property rights protected under the Fifth Amendment.
But according to the 4th Circuit, the courts have no jurisdiction to hear the complaint because the landowners didn't go through FERC's standard administrative process for pipeline challenges. The ruling affirms the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia's decision to dismiss the claims late last year.
"Ultimately, we agree with the district court that Congress implicitly divested the district court of jurisdiction to hear claims of the kind brought by Plaintiffs and instead intended for such claims to come to federal court through the administrative review scheme established by the Natural Gas Act," the 4th Circuit opinion said. "As a result, the district court correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to review the matter."
Under the Natural Gas Act, pipeline challengers must raise their concerns with FERC and wait for an agency decision on the matter before going to a federal appeals court. The landowners argued that their case, a broad constitutional challenge, is distinct from routine pipeline complaints raised under the NGA.
Plus, they argued, waiting for FERC to finish its administrative process would deprive them of meaningful judicial review. The commission routinely issues "tolling orders" to give itself more time to consider rehearing requests from challengers. Pipeline construction and land acquisition are usually well underway before the process is complete.
The 4th Circuit panel — Judges Stephanie Thacker, Roger Gregory and James Wynn Jr., all Democratic appointees — appeared sympathetic to the landowners' concerns during oral arguments in May (Energywire, May 14).
The court addressed the issue in yesterday's unanimous opinion.
"To be sure, we acknowledge the possibility that FERC's use of a tolling order in certain cases may, in effect, deny a plaintiff meaningful judicial review, regardless of whether the Natural Gas Act could, in theory, provide such recourse," Wynn wrote for the court.
The judges concluded, however, that the landowners in this case had not made detailed arguments about how FERC's process could harm them.
A lawyer for the challengers framed the decision as a "temporary setback" in the broader fight against FERC's eminent domain practices.
"We are currently evaluating the Court's opinion and will decide in the coming days which path to take forward in this case," Gentry Locke attorney Justin Lugar said in a statement. "We note as well that this is but one of many cases currently working through the system — not only in our region, but across the country — and we are optimistic that there is much yet to be decided regarding the Mountain Valley Pipeline and the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, among others."
Lugar added that "it is only a matter of time before we start seeing results in courts across the country." He didn't specifically address whether the landowners plan to ask the 4th Circuit to reconsider its ruling. They have 45 days to make such a request.More brewing challenges
Challenges to FERC's eminent domain process have been gaining traction over the past year. A win for landowners in any of the cases would spark major changes to how pipelines are approved and built (Energywire, Sept. 13, 2017).
Niskanen Center attorney David Bookbinder, an advocate for pipeline permitting reform, zeroed in on the 4th Circuit's acknowledgement that tolling orders could at times keep landowners from the judicial review they deserve.
"I read the 4th Circuit decision as saying, 'You're on the right track. You have a valid argument, but you haven't convinced us that your plaintiffs are the right ones to make it,'" he said.
A more compelling challenge to FERC's eminent domain process "is brewing out there somewhere," he added.
Multiple lawsuits similar to Lugar's have already been filed in district courts in Ohio, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C. The Ohio suit was tossed last year. The New Jersey court heard arguments yesterday for whether to dismiss that case. The D.C. litigation, which involves both the Mountain Valley and Atlantic Coast pipelines, has been moving forward more slowly.
Carolyn Elefant, an attorney representing landowners in the D.C. case, said she disagreed with yesterday's 4th Circuit decision but doesn't think it has implications for her case. She noted that D.C. Circuit case law is more favorable than the 4th Circuit precedent relied on in yesterday's decision. Further, she said, her case looks less like a pipeline challenge that would be subject to FERC's administrative processes.
"Because we are not asking to vacate the certificates, but only the exercise of eminent domain thereunder, our action is not a collateral attack on the FERC decision nor does it supplant the federal appeals court's power under the NGA to review the FERC certificate," she told E&E News.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/07/26/stories/1060091229
-
Plan to Stop Russian Cyberattacks on Power Grid Needed, Trump Told
Jul 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam McQuillan and Rebecca Kern
The White House needs a plan of action to guard against Russian cyberattacks on U.S. energy infrastructure, a pair of senators urged President Donald Trump in a July 25 letter.
Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) requested a written analysis of Russian cyberattacks to the electric grid, pipelines, and other energy facilities within 90 days. Their letter also asked for an evaluation of previous attacks, chances of new attacks, and counteractive measures being put in place.
Several pipeline operators confirmed hackers shut their third-party communications systems down this past spring.
“Despite overwhelming evidence of destabilizing threats to the U.S. electric grid and recent reports of Russian hacking of the control rooms of U.S. electric utilities, the federal government has not laid out a comprehensive threat assessment or taken sufficient action to protect critical U.S. energy infrastructure,” a statement from Cantwell’s office said.
The head of the Energy Department’s Office of Electricity told lawmakers in June that it is “only a matter of time” until cyberattacks on the nation’s electric grid become more sophisticated.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee July 25 that Trump is aware of Russian cyberattacks and assured committee members that the president intends to hold Russia accountable whenever he believes it is warranted.
March AlertThe two senators referred to a March 2018 alert based on analytical work from the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which highlights targeting from the Russian government against U.S. energy, nuclear, water, and aviation organizations.
The DHS and FBI unpacked a “multi-stage intrusion campaign” by Russian government hackers, who aimed to penetrate small commercial facility networks with malware, password crackers, and phishing attacks.
Hackers reportedly sought out specific targets and exploited loopholes in Microsoft Office email attachment functions to gain access to organization networks. The attackers then reportedly downloaded tools from a remote server, which they then renamed and disguised as ordinary files.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/plan-to-stop-russian-cyberattacks-on-power-grid-needed-trump-told
-
Cantwell, Graham Urge Trump to Act on Russian Grid Threats
Jul 26, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Blake Sobczak
Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are calling on the White House to investigate reported Russian hacking intrusions into the U.S. power grid.
"We have reason to be alarmed," the two lawmakers said in a letter addressed to President Trump yesterday, citing a March alert from the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI that called out "a multi-stage intrusion campaign by Russian government cyber actors."
The senators also pointed to recent comments from a senior DHS official who warned that the hacking campaign had claimed "hundreds" of victims in critical U.S. industries.
That official, Jonathan Homer, clarified in a briefing yesterday that the "hundreds" figure referred to the number of organizations targeted. Still, the chief of DHS's industrial control systems group said there were "quite a number that were compromised," including at least one power generator.
Cantwell, ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has long pushed the Trump administration to take more aggressive action against hackers who target U.S. energy infrastructure (Energywire, Oct. 27, 2017).
Graham, who sits on the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, joined her yesterday in requesting a "thorough analysis" of Russian cyber warfare capabilities against energy infrastructure.
The lawmakers also urged Trump to review "the extent to which the Russians have already attempted cyber-intrusions into our electric grid, pipelines, and other important energy facilities; and what steps your administration is currently taking to combat these Russian cyber warfare capabilities and intrusions into our energy facilities."
Trump administration officials have cited cybersecurity as a top-tier concern, though the president has vacillated on his intelligence community's conclusions on Russian interference in 2016 U.S. elections (Energywire, July 17).
Energy Secretary Rick Perry moved to establish a stand-alone cybersecurity office within DOE to combat cyberthreats to the energy sector. However, the agency has proposed trimming budgets for several other offices tasked with handling general grid threats, as Cantwell and Graham observed in their letter.
"We believe the federal government needs to take stronger action prioritizing cybersecurity of energy networks and fighting cyber aggression to match your Department of Energy's outward facing commitment," they wrote.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/07/26/stories/1060091209
-
Shuster Infrastructure Bill Boosts WIFIA But Stops Short Of Senate Approach
Jul 25, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
A draft bill floated by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA), the departing chairman of the House transportation committee, proposes a series of steps to bolster EPA's nascent water infrastructure loan guarantee program but stops short of backing the more far-reaching overhaul that the Senate is expected to vote on this summer.
Shuster's legislation, unveiled July 24, signals a wide-divide in Congress on how to overhaul EPA's Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program and raises doubts on whether rural and other water utilities will be able to convince lawmakers to back the Senate's approach, which seeks to earmark portions of EPA's existing WIFIA funds for smaller entities.
By contrast, Shuster's bill -- which increases the program's authorized funding levels, lowers participants' match requirements and other measures -- is winning praise from drinking water utilities that oppose the Senate legislation.
“We couldn't be happier to see this,” Tommy Holmes, American Water Works Association (AWWA) legislative director, told Inside EPA. The bill “reauthorizes WIFIA at a healthy level,” and changes to the funding formula would likely lessen the impact on the federal government and allow the bill to receive a neutral budget score from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), he said.
Congress established WIFIA as a pilot program in 2014, modeled on a similar transportation infrastructure funding program known as the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act. WIFIA allows EPA to provide low-interest federal loans and loan guarantees from the U.S. Treasury that cover up to 49 percent of large infrastructure and water reuse projects, with utilities or states responsible for coming up with the remaining 51 percent of the project.
But rural and other smaller utilities are concerned that the current program limits their access to the funds. They have advocated for pending water resource legislation in the Senate, which contains a provision that would create a subset of WIFIA loans specifically for state financing agencies.
The Senate environment committee attached the legislation, known as Securing Required Funding for Water Infrastructure Now (SRF WIN), to pending legislation authorizing Army Corps of Engineers projects.
But the Senate committee recently had to scale back the legislation to overcome a CBO estimate that found an earlier version of the program would reduce federal revenues by $2.6 billion over 10 years and open the door to a point of order that would require 60 votes to overcome.
And sources say there may be several holds on the Senate bill, S. 2800.
An environment committee spokesman says Chairman John Barrasso (R-WY) “continues to work with [Majority] Leader [Mitch] McConnell [R-KY] on timing” for the water resources bill. “The Chairman expects the bipartisan bill to pass the Senate this summer,” the spokesman says.
Supporters of the Senate legislation, which include the National Rural Water Association and the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, argue the changes are necessary to provide additional funding for small and rural communities. But opponents, which include AWWA, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies and the Water Environment Federation, charge the Senate bill will hamstring WIFIA and reduce overall federal water infrastructure funding.
Shuster's Draft Bill
But Holmes says leadership of the House transportation and energy committees -- the two committees that address water issues -- appears to have no interest in the Senate's approach.
That could make it harder for the Senate language to survive a House-Senate conference on the water resources bill, which has already passed the House.
Shuster's draft bill floats a series of steps that appear aimed at putting the current WIFIA program on stronger footing, including boosting authorized funding levels and lowering participants' match requirements.
While the law currently requires WIFIA to fund 49 percent of a project's cost and the recipient to cover the remaining 51 percent, Shuster's discussion draft would change those percentages to have the federal government provide 80 percent of the funding for a project and only require 20 percent in matching funds, according to a section-by-section summary of the bill.
The bill would authorize funding for WIFIA at $6 million annually rather than the current $2.2 million.
Additionally, while removing WIFIA's pilot status, the bill would expedite EPA's consideration of WIFIA applications from state financing agencies, allow EPA to waive application processing fees for such agencies, and waive the need for duplicate environmental and engineering reviews for most states.
The bill would also formally authorize on-going EPA efforts to help municipalities develop watershed-based plans to achieve water quality standards, require EPA to establish simplified procedures for communities to obtain assistance through the clean water state revolving fund, reauthorize EPA grants to states to help them implement the CWA and reauthorize EPA's nonpoint source management program.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/shuster-infrastructure-bill-boosts-wifia-stops-short-senate-approach
-
(ACC Mentioned) Skipping Plastic Straws Might Not Do Much to Stop Marine Pollution, Experts Say
Jul 26, 2018 | Channel NewsAsia
By Aqil Haziq Mahmud
Saying no to plastic straws might feel like a conscientious effort to reduce marine litter, but this global movement does little to stem the pollution, experts said.
One industry observer told Channel NewsAsia that the real problem lies with poor waste management systems in countries that leak huge amounts of garbage into the ocean.
“The best that can be said about the collective actions to eliminate straws is that it’s good at raising awareness, but that’s not the solution,” said Mr Steven Russell, plastics division vice president at the American Chemistry Council, which represents multi-national chemical and plastic manufacturers.
Mr Russell was in Singapore earlier in July to meet with waste companies, plastic companies and consumer brands on working together to solve global waste management problems.
The anti-plastic straw movement is believed to have taken off in 2015, after a video showing a sea turtle with a straw stuck up its nose went viral.
Soon enough it spread globally, with cities like Seattle and Mumbai and companies like Starbucks and Ikea ditching the eco-unfriendly straws.
In Singapore it is no different: KFC is just one in a growing list that includes Millennium Hotels and Common Man Coffee Roasters to have signed up.
“If you have eyes, you see the images,” Mr Russell said. “Everybody feels understandably compelled to act, so the impulse to reduce what we use is a good one.”
“ENVIRONMENTAL MALPRACTICE”
So, what exactly is the problem with the movement? Mr Russell feels it could lull companies and individuals into thinking they’ve done enough to save the ocean, given the relatively short attention such issues get.
“It would be a shame to think we’ve banned straws – we’re done,” he said, dusting off his hands. “That would be environmental malpractice to address only 0.2 per cent of the waste stream. We’re not helping the ocean.”
In a recent report on science website phys.org, a pair of Australian scientists estimated that there are up to 8.3 billion plastic straws strewn across coastlines around the world.
Seems like a big number, but even if all those straws were suddenly swept to sea, they would only make up less than 1 per cent of the 8 million tonnes of plastic estimated to enter the ocean in a given year. (Plastics make up about 80 per cent of marine litter.)
This whopping figure, derived in a 2015 study published in the journal Science, is equivalent to five normal-sized plastic bags filled with plastic entering the ocean along every 0.5m of coastline in the world.
“The only thing that is going to help the ocean is getting serious about managing waste in places where it’s not managed,” Mr Russell added.
UNCOLLECTED WASTE
These places are likely to be middle-income countries with rapidly growing economies, the study noted, as they lack the waste management systems to handle all that extra waste.
China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Sri Lanka were ranked as the top five producers – out of 192 countries – of mismanaged plastic waste in 2010. This was based on an analysis of people living within 50km of the coast.
Mismanaged plastic waste refers to trash that can possibly enter the ocean.
“If people in those places aren’t served by waste collection, if they don’t have a place to put their used things, these fall from their hands to the ground, river and ocean,” Mr Russell explained, highlighting the growing consumer class in such countries.
In this respect, Singapore fares much better. The city-state produced about 6,500 tonnes of mismanaged plastic waste in 2010, coming in at 114th. (China generated almost 9 million tonnes.)
For countries that need help, Mr Russell said an upcoming initiative will see consumer brands set up a fund and offer low to no-interest loans to help communities in Asia improve their waste management. This model is similar to the Closed Loop Fund in North America.
The loans can be used to purchase new garbage bins or invest in recycling technology, for instance.
“That model is being adapted for an Asian context with a focus on Indonesia and perhaps India,” Mr Russell said, adding that the initiative will be announced in October at the Our Ocean Conference in Bali.
FISHING GEAR
While Mr Russell might be speaking as an interested party, his argument is shared by more neutral observers.
Bloomberg columnist Adam Minter wrote that “straws make up a trifling percentage of the world's plastic products, and campaigns to eliminate them will not only be ineffective, but could distract from far more useful efforts”.
The movement, he argued, should instead pressure global seafood companies to mark their fishing nets and gear, which studies said make up a good chunk of plastic garbage in the ocean. This holds a person or company accountable when the gear is abandoned.
Ms Olivia Choong, who co-founded the environmental group Green Drinks Singapore, said the current movement is “not effective in removing marine litter because straws are only one of many things that make it to the marine environment”.
“Plastic bags, Styrofoam boxes and cigarette butts are some common things found at beaches,” she said. “Sometimes slippers too.”
Nevertheless, Ms Choong added that plastic straws are a “good starting point” when it comes to reducing single-use plastics.
“FIRST STEP”
Plastic-Lite Singapore founder Aarti Giri agreed, saying the movement is a “great first step in the right direction”.
Noting that plastic straws are among the top 10 items littered along beaches and waterways, she said cutting down on them “will definitely help” reduce plastic gunk in the ocean and its harmful effects on marine life.
“Anti-straw movements have a larger effect of creating awareness in the minds of consumers on the overall negative environmental impact of disposable plastics, not just straws," she added.
“They also help in reducing the number of disposable plastic straws used in Singapore on a day-to-day basis, which also has a positive overall environmental impact from (saving) the energy and material resources used in the manufacturing and logistics of these straws."
Still, Ms Giri called for the effectiveness of such campaigns to be measured using studies with statistical data. “I sincerely hope for this movement to be a progressive one and not one that terminates at plastic straws,” she stated.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Short of starting a campaign to mark fishing gear or improve trash collection in Indonesia, what else can you do to stop marine pollution?
Ms Giri said taking part in beach clean-ups can help raise awareness on plastic pollution and develop a fondness for the environment. But this should translate to behavioural changes, like bringing your own bag and bottle when going out.
“If we cannot transfer this awareness towards being able to reduce usage of the plastics we litter pick, it will not have a positive difference,” she added.
In particular, Ms Giri said to avoid Styrofoam containers as they are light and easily washed into the sea. They also break up easily, making it tedious to pick up during beach clean-ups.
And then there’s the obvious. Don’t litter, said Ms Choong, especially at the beach. “There is so much trash that can be found on our shores, brought in through water currents from somewhere else, or generated by residents,” she added.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/skipping-plastic-straws-might-not-stop-marine-pollution-10555340
-
Trump’s Deregulators Emboldened by Kavanaugh Pick for High Court
Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy and Josh Eidelson
Trump administration officials were putting the finishing touches on a strategy to roll back car pollution standards when they received a boost from an unexpected source: the Supreme Court.
The announced retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, a swing vote on the court, and the plan to replace him with a reliable conservative in Brett Kavanaugh, energized the regulators. They plan to go with the boldest option, including a challenge to California’s ability to set its own limits, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
Similar conversations are going on at agencies across the government as they develop plans to dial back Obama-era rules governing everything from the environment to labor relations. Political appointees are growing more confident of prevailing in court and contemplating being more aggressive as a result, according to the people.
Their optimism is rooted in the expectation that Kavanaugh will be confirmed to the Supreme Court and bring with him the same willingness to rein in regulations that has marked his judicial career. During his tenure on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which hears most lawsuits challenging federal agencies, Kavanaugh has voted to restrain regulators that stray beyond their congressional mandates.
Reinforcing Confidence“The likelihood of Justice Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is affecting how political appointees in federal agencies think about the deregulatory agenda right now,” said Mike McKenna, a Republican energy strategist. “It is expanding their sense of the possible, and it is enforcing and reinforcing their confidence that more aggressive actions are likely to withstand judicial scrutiny.”
The first evidence of this new attitude may be the Trump administration’s coming proposal to revoke California’s authority to regulate automobile greenhouse gas emissions and slam the brakes on federal rules boosting fuel efficiency. The proposal amounts to a frontal assault on the nation’s most populous state as well as one of former President Barack Obama’s signature efforts to combat climate change.
The White House was already reviewing a draft of the vehicle standards proposal by the time Kennedy announced his retirement June 27, and the major thrust of the measure has not been altered by subsequent interagency negotiations. But inside the Transportation Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, officials believe Kavanaugh’s nomination gives them more room to maneuver.
“It has increased their level of confidence,” said Myron Ebell, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment. “Kavanaugh has been a very sane voice on regulatory restraint for a very long time on the court, and I don’t see that he’s going to change his views on things.”
The new dynamic—or, really, the prospect of it—also could entice businesses to challenge more regulations in federal court. “It will embolden the business community to challenge existing regulations and increase the burden and risk for pro-labor, pro-consumer and pro-environment administrations to issue new protections in the future,” said Jordan Barab, who previously was a deputy assistant secretary at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
To be sure, Kavanaugh’s confirmation in the narrowly divided Senate is not guaranteed, nor are any of his future votes on questions over the legitimacy of federal rules.
But Kavanaugh’s record on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit indicates he is willing to restrain federal agencies when they are acting without Congress’s explicit instruction -- and likely to give them a long leash when it comes to removing regulations. He is a staunch advocate of the separation of powers, ensuring that administrative agencies stay within their constitutional bounds.
In cases where former President Barack Obama’s agencies strained the bounds of legislative authority, a narrower approach by the Trump administration could be bolstered by the high court.
Slam DunkIt isn’t a slam dunk, though.
Jody Freeman, a Harvard environmental law professor and an architect of the Obama administration’s fuel efficiency pact with California, said it’s not clear how Kavanaugh would view key legal questions around the fuel economy rollback.
“I don’t think we have enough of a record on Kavanaugh’s views of state powers and federalism to be confident about how this particular challenge would come out,” she said.
At the National Labor Relations Board, which sets precedents dictating what employees have workplace organizing rights and what kinds of worker protests are protected, Republican appointees could “shift labor law violently to the right” secure in the knowledge that a Supreme Court majority with Kavanaugh would uphold them, said Michael Duff, a University of Wyoming law professor and former agency attorney.
The new legal landscape could discourage regulators at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration from pro-labor moves, while emboldening employers to challenge the agency’s enforcement, said Deborah Berkowitz, a former chief of staff there.
Challenge OSHA“It would encourage employers to challenge every single thing regarding worker safety and health right up to the Supreme Court,” she said. “It would encourage employers that don’t want to provide safe conditions to thumb their nose at OSHA and the law and just start challenging every agency action.”
David Lopez, who was general counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and is now incoming co-dean at Rutgers Law School - Newark, said “I know everyone in that town who practices law at the highest level knows who’s on the court, and they count the votes on the court.”
For pro-business appointees at agencies seeking to loosen regulation, “It certainly would not be unreasonable for them to think they have a little bit more latitude in terms of what they do.”
The idea is just beginning to take hold in some federal agencies, but business lobbyists and some activists are already looking for ways to exploit Kavanaugh’s nomination.
For instance, Ebell and other conservatives could highlight the shifting legal landscape as they push the EPA to revisit and reverse its landmark conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and the environment, a ruling that provided the legal foundation for rules stemming them.
The message is that “better times are around the corner in terms of some of these court decisions,” Ebell said. “Over the coming months if Kavanaugh is confirmed, I think we will have a stronger argument to go to the EPA and say, ‘You really need to consider the endangerment finding.’ ”
With Kavanaugh on the court, “some Obama rules will get a hard look if deference goes away,” said Michael Lotito, co-chair of the Workplace Policy Institute at the management-side law firm Littler. However, he said, the process for rule-making either to reverse old rules or to create new ones will be “cumbersome and time-consuming—as they should be.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/trumps-deregulators-emboldened-by-kavanaugh-pick-for-high-court-corrected-1
-
Energy Companies Praise GOP Lawmaker’s Carbon Tax Bill
Jul 25, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A group of companies in oil, natural gas, chemical manufacturing, utilities and other industries are praising a Republican lawmaker’s legislation to impose a carbon tax.
Companies including BP America, Shell, PG&E Corp., Dow Chemical Co., DuPont, Equinor US, National Grid and General Motors signed onto a letterWednesday to Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) that stopped short of endorsing the bill, but called it a welcome development toward meaningful climate change legislation.
Curbelo’s bill, the Modernizing America with Rebuilding to Kick-start the Economy of the Twenty-first Century with a Historic Infrastructure-Centered Expansion Act, or Market Choice Act, would repeal fuel taxes and replace them with a $24-per-metric-ton tax on carbon dioxide emissions. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) has also signed onto it.
“We welcome your demonstrated commitment to finding common ground on federal policies that can mitigate the effects of climate change,” the companies said, adding that the bill “represents an opportunity for both parties to engage in substantive dialogue on the risks and opportunities posed by climate change, and to craft legislative solutions that benefit citizens in many different areas of the United States.”
Many of the companies, like BP and Shell, have endorsed the general idea of a carbon tax previously.
Oil companies stand to benefit from policies to combat climate change, since they could further push away the transition from coal and toward natural gas.
Many of the other companies on the letter have aggressive internal sustainability policies that include commitments to reduce the emissions that they cause.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/398880-energy-companies-praise-gop-lawmakers-carbon-tax-bill
-
Oregon’s Lower Carbon Emission Limits Could Cost Power Plants
Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Future fossil-fuel power plants in Oregon will have to pay millions of dollars more to offset carbon dioxide emissions that exceed state limits after those standards were lowered by 9 percent.
The new Energy Facility Siting Council standards that went into effect July 18 mean that new power plants or existing ones seeking to make changes to their facilities must comply with lifetime carbon dioxide emissions calculated for a 30-year period or offset excess emissions. The offsets are typically made by paying for projects that mitigate emissions of carbon dioxide, a major greenhoues gas.
The council changed the standard from .675 pounds of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour to .614 lbs/kw/hr. Regulators multiply the lifetime excess carbon dioxide by $1.90 per ton to calculate the size of the check the utility must write to offset its excess emissions, Max Woods, the council’s senior policy adviser, and Jason Sierman, an energy policy analyst, told Bloomberg Environment in a July 24 telephone interview.
It would cost almost $6 million more to comply with the new standard for a new hypothetical plant—$16.26 million versus $10.38 million under the old standard, according to calculations in the notice of rulemaking. But the cost as a percentage of the total cost to site, build, and operate the plant over 30 years is just 0.49 percent, the notice said. The estimate was based on a hypothetical plant capacity of 370 megawatts with an emissions rate of .782 pounds of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour (exceeding the standards) and operating at 90 percent capacity for 30 years.
Utilities Don’t ObjectWoods said there was no pushback to the new standard from industry and utilities, which were represented on a rulemaking advisory committee.
“The rule hadn’t been updated in almost 20 years,” Woods said.
Portland General Electric Co. spokesman Steve Corson told Bloomberg Environment in a July 24 email that the department is merely following the Oregon law in developing its standard.
“They relied appropriately on technical information regarding current turbine capabilities to update the standard,” Corson said.
Tom Gauntt, a spokesman for PacifiCorp, said the company participated in the process but did not have particular concerns about how it was carried out.
Bloomberg Environment also sought comment from utilities Northwest Natural and Calpine Hermiston Power, but neither immediately responded.
Under the Oregon statute, regulators set carbon dioxide standards at 17 percent below the emissions rate of the most efficient U.S. natural gas plant, which Woods and Sierman said they identified as the Grand River Energy Center in Chouteau, Okla.
$30 Million for MitigationThe Climate Trust, a Portland, Ore.-based nonprofit, receives the offset payments from the power plant owners and uses the funds to support mitigation projects around the state.
The roughly $30 million dollars The Climate Trust has received since the first one in 2001—minus administrative costs—have helped fund a co-generation facility at Oregon State University; dairy digester projects to turn methane emitted by manure into usable biogas; and programs to improve forest management and grasslands preservation to enhance carbon sequestration, Sheldon Zakreski, the trust’s CEO, told Bloomberg Environment in a July 24 telephone interview.
While the tighter carbon dioxide standards could mean increased offset payments, Zakreski said a political wild card could be in play that could see power plants cutting their emissions significantly instead of paying to offset their exceedances. The Legislature’s overwhelmingly Democratic majority has asserted its intent to pass a carbon-pricing regime in the 2019 session—possibly some variant of cap and trade.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/oregons-lower-carbon-emission-limits-could-cost-power-plants
-
Youth Plaintiffs Seek to Allow Climate Suit to Proceed
Jul 25, 2018 | Inside EPA
Attorneys for 21 youth plaintiffs are urging the Supreme Court to reject the Justice Department's (DOJ) emergency request to halt their constitutional case alleging the federal government has failed to adequately respond to climate change, amid a series of extraordinary steps by the government to avoid having officials be deposed on climate science.
The youth in a July 23 response brief in United States of America, et al. v. United States District Court for the District of Oregon, et al. say the federal defendants have already conceded that the “plaintiffs have made a prima facie case of injury-in-fact and are already in the 'danger zone' from climate change.”
They add that DOJ is “mischaracterizing” the case to the high court, and “without any credible claim of harm, Defendants ask this court to micromanage the district court and stay proceedings in this urgent constitutional case,” which is slated to go to trial in the district court in late October.
Their brief comes in response to DOJ's July 17 application to the high court for a stay of the suit, one of a series of steps the Trump administration is taking to shut down the litigation, which is slated to go to trial this fall.
In addition to filing the emergency petition, DOJ asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit for the second time to halt the case, known at the district court as Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, via a writ of mandamus. The appellate court rejected that request in a per curiam July 20 order that said the government can seek to challenge individual discovery requests but cannot seek to preemptively block all discovery.
The second rejection means the case is ripe for Supreme Court consideration since DOJ's stay request said it was contingent on the 9th Circuit's response to its mandamus petition.
DOJ has also asked Oregon district court Judge Ann Aiken to dismiss the case via a motion for judgment on the pleadings, where the government also seeks to dismiss President Donald Trump as a defendant, and a motion for summary judgment. Aiken held a July 18 hearing on those requests last week but has not yet issued a ruling. Further, DOJ moved for a protective order against all discovery at the district court, claiming it is “categorically inappropriate because it would violate” the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution's separation of powers.
The youth's lawyers note that the government's petition to the high court to stay the case includes alternative requests -- such as asking that court to grant its own mandamus order via a direct dismissal of the suit or order a stay of discovery and trial until the government's pending dispositive motions are resolved -- that they are not addressing in the instant response. “As requested by the Court, Plaintiffs respond herein only to Defendants' request for a stay pending further review and reserve the right to respond separately to Defendants' alternative requests if invited by this court.”
They cite the 9th Circuit's March 7 rejection of DOJ's original mandamus petition, noting that at the time defendants did not request high court review of that denial, “instead requesting from this Court two extensions of their deadline for review, belying their present claims of any supposed 'emergency' or impending harm.”
And they note the second 9th Circuit denial this month finds, “No new circumstances justify this second petition, and we again declined to grant mandamus relief.” The appellate court also says, “The government's fear of burdensome or improper discovery does not warrant mandamus relief in the absence of a single specific discovery order.”
The youth lawyers say DOJ is inaccurately portraying the case and argue that the government's claims are not supported by the record.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/youth-plaintiffs-seek-allow-climate-suit-proceed
-
Congress Sends Ocean Plastics Bill to White House
Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would get more authority to deal with plastic pollution in the oceans under a bill that is heading to the president’s desk.
The House passed S. 756 on a voice vote. The bill has already passed the Senate unanimously. The White House didn’t respond to questions about whether President Donald Trump would sign the measure.
The legislation renews a marine debris program at NOAA and would also give the agency’s head the power to declare a “severe marine debris event.”
Plastics that don’t biodegrade easily can collect in the ocean and wash up on beaches in the U.S. and elsewhere, which is what happened after the 2011 tsunami off the coast of Japan.
In addition to giving the head of NOAA more authority, the bill would also remove a requirement that local communities match private contributions for plastic pollution cleanup.
At a House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing on the bill last month, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) said this requirement was a problem after the tsunami because it hindered efforts by the Japanese government to pay to remove plastic from U.S. beaches.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/congress-sends-ocean-plastics-bill-to-white-house
-
Cement Plants’ Compliance ‘Holiday’ Riles Environmental Groups
Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Giving Portland cement manufacturers a six-month window to show their previously idled plants are meeting national toxic emissions limits outraged environmental groups that say the EPA’s move is illegal.
Cement manufacturers will have up to 180 days to demonstrate compliance at plants that restarted operations after being idle for an extended period of time under an Environmental Protection Agency final rule, published July 25. But that decision could draw legal challenges from environmental groups opposed to the EPA’s decision not to update the toxic air pollution standards for the industry.
The “compliance holiday is illegal,” said Emma Cheuse, a staff attorney with the nonprofit Earthjustice, which had opposed the six-month window as part of the EPA’s proposed update to the cement kiln standards.
“EPA lacks the authority allow facilities to operate without meeting the limits on air toxics pollution,” Cheuse said.
The EPA said the manufacturers would still be on the hook for meeting the pollution limits and the 180-day extension is simply a time during which they must complete the process of testing to show compliance.
“It is reasonable to expect that a kiln operating the same controls that previously resulted in compliance would continue to be in compliance when operating the same equipment in the same manner,” the EPA said.
What has frustrated the environmental groups even more is that the EPA said it won’t establish new toxic emissions limits and isn’t requiring additional pollution controls for the 91 Portland cement manufacturing facilities across the country.
Advocates Push for New ControlsThe EPA said it wasn’t requiring additional controls because it knew of no developments in practices, processes, and control technologies to reduce emissions, an assertion that at least two environmental nonprofits—California Communities Against Toxics and Downwinders at Risk—hotly dispute.
They said many cement manufacturers in the European Union, including LafargeHolcim, are installing a technology known as selective catalytic reduction to reduce emissions of fine airborne particles, associated with myriad respiratory illnesses and developmental problems.
The Portland Cement Association, which counts LafargeHolcim among its members, told Bloomberg Environment that they welcomed the EPA’s decision.
“We do think that timeframe is adequate and necessary for a company to go through the process of bringing a plant online—including the planning, pre-testing and notification of relevant agencies and the public,” Portland Cement Association spokeswoman Holly Arthur said in a July 25 email.
Selective catalytic reduction technologies are employed regularly at coal-fired power plants to reduce particulate pollution as well as emissions of nitrogen oxides and other chemicals.
“I see no reason why they can’t be installed at cement kilns, which operate in the same way by burning mostly coal, but also other materials like tires and municipal waste,” Jane Williams, executive director for the Rosamond, Calif.-based California Communities Against Toxics, told Bloomberg Environment.
However, the EPA agreed with the cement manufacturers that said using this technology at cement kilns would be problematic because the composition of raw materials used by kilns is different from those of power plants.
Cement Industry Continues to BoomMeanwhile, the U.S. will continue to produce cement without facing any new regulatory barriers.
The U.S. was the world’s third-largest cement producer in 2017, with an output of 85.9 million tons, trailing China and India, according to Sonia Baldeira, Bloomberg Intelligence’s senior analyst for infrastructure and building materials.
“There have been no massive shutdowns due to regulatory pressure in the U.S., and the industry is growing and will continue to grow in 2018 and 2019,” Baldeira told Bloomberg Environment.
That is a response to growing demand, and the EPA decision to not impose any additional toxic air pollution controls is helping it, Baldeira added.
LafargeHolcim is expected to retain the lion’s share of the U.S. cement production market at 25 percent in 2017 and 2018. Bloomberg Intelligence reported that LafargeHolcim increased its New York plant’s capacity by 27 percent to 1.9 million tons in the first quarter of 2017 by replacing replacing wet kilns with a more energy-efficient dry line.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/cement-plants-compliance-holiday-riles-environmental-groups
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested