Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 09/08/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Growth Seen Hitting 3% in 2018, But Risks to Outlook Mount After This Year
Aug 9, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Josh Zumbrun
Economists are revising up their projections for growth in U.S. output this year, but disputes with U.S. trading partners, a fading boost from fiscal stimulus and rising short-term interest rates leave them thinking strong growth won’t last much longer than that. -
(ACC Mentioned) Circular Reasoning: Why Chemical Manufacturers Are Engaging In The Circular Economy
Aug 9, 2018 | Manufacturing.net
By Stefan Guertzgen
As one of the world’s best-known manufacturers of the rolling rubber objects that populate landfills by the millions—automotive tires, specifically—Michelin seemingly was destined for a role in the Circular Economy. -
(ACC Mentioned) Sustainable Chemistry Bill Reintroduced in US Senate
Aug 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Two US senators have reintroduced a bill to encourage the development of chemicals and products with improved environmental and human health impacts. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry-Backed Group Keeps Fighting Foam Ban
Aug 9, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Gerald Porter Jr. and Corinne Ramey
An industry-backed group called the Restaurant Action Alliance is continuing to fight New York City’s impending ban on foam containers, despite restaurant owners saying they are largely unconcerned or no longer use such packaging. -
Deputy Chief of Staff to Depart
Aug 9, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Byron Brown, EPA's deputy chief of staff for policy, is leaving the agency. -
US EPA Round-Up
Aug 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) programme has announced a 30-day extension to the comment period on its draft assessment plan for naphthalene. -
PART 3: EPA Rams Through Its Reckless Review Scheme for New Chemicals Under TSCA, Your Health Be Damned (Blog)
Aug 9, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
I’ve been blogging over the last week about how political appointees at EPA are starting to clear new chemicals to enter commerce based on a new – apparently unwritten and certainly not public – review process that ignores the law and will put the health of the public, workers and the environment at greater risk than even under the weak reviews conducted before Congress’ 2016 overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
The EPA’s Latest News on Asbestos Has a Lot of People Nervous
Aug 9, 2018 | Popular Science
By Jennifer Lu
Asbestos is arguably one of the most well-known cancer-causing agents, and one that the Environmental Protection Agency has been trying to regulate on and off for decades. -
US NTP Announces Meetings on Alternative Toxicological Methods
Aug 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US National Toxicology Program (NTP) has announced meetings on alternative toxicological methods. -
New California Proposition 65 Warning Requirements Apply to the Outdoor Recreation Industry
Aug 9, 2018 | Lexology
By Nate Davis, Michael Dill and Brent Johnson
New Proposition 65 regulations take effect on August 30, 2018. -
Children Exposed to Lead in Drinking Water at Day Care Centers
Aug 9, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Susan Little
More than 4 million American children spend at least part of the day at child care centers. -
French Agency Calls for CMR Restriction in Feminine Hygiene Products
Aug 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The French Agency for Food, Environment and Occupational Health and Safety (Anses) has called for restrictions under REACH to limit the presence of carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR) substances in feminine hygiene products. -
Trade Group Warns of 'Over Regulation' of Four Phthalates
Aug 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
A proposed 'double listing'of four phthalates on the REACH authorisation list is "unnecessary over-regulation" which could place "excessive burdens" on industry, says trade association European Plasticisers. -
Echa Round-Up
Aug 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa is seeking comments on applications for authorisation for two uses of chromium trioxide. -
Industry Asks for Time to Review Proposed Cobalt Metal Classification
Aug 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The metals industry has asked Echa for more time to address concerns about specific concentration limits in the proposed classification of cobalt metal as a category 1B carcinogen. -
The Trump Administration Wants to Open Public Lands in California to Fracking, Linked to Quakes in Other States
Aug 9, 2018 | Los Angeles Times
By Scott Martelle
The federal government on Wednesday posted notice that it is considering opening up 400,000 acres of public land in California, and 1.2 million acres for which the government holds mineral rights, to fracking, the controversial oil and gas drilling practice linked to earthquakes in Oklahoma and groundwater pollution there and in other states. -
Europe Shows It's Getting Serious About Buying U.S. LNG
Aug 9, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Anna Shiryaevskaya and Naureen S Malik
European nations are far behind Mexico and China when it comes to receiving liquefied natural gas from the U.S., but the region is making its biggest effort to date to change that. -
Trump Winning Over Fastest Growing Oil Market at Iran's Risk
Aug 9, 2018 | Bloomberg (In Houston Chronicle)
By Debjit Chakraborty
One of Iran's biggest oil customers is buying more U.S. crude as President Donald Trump sticks to his pledge to squeeze the Persian Gulf nation's energy trade. -
At 'America First Energy Conference', Solar Power Is Dumb, Climate Change Is Fake
Aug 9, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
Pumping carbon dioxide into the air makes the planet greener; the United Nations puts out fake science about climate change to control the global energy market; and wind and solar energy are simply "dumb". -
China’s Tariff Turnaround: U.S. Crude Oil Drops Off the Target List
Aug 9, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Chuin-Wei Yap
As China made good on its threat to impose 25% tariffs on $16 billion worth of U.S. imports, one big-ticket item originally on its hit list was conspicuously missing: crude oil. -
(ACC Blog) Congress and the White House Rein In a Flawed Chemical Security Regulation
Aug 9, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
By Bill Erney and Matthew J. Eggars
Numerous national security issues dominate the attention of policymakers today – border security, cybersecurity, North Korea, and Iran easily come to mind. -
NJ Transit Slates Rail Improvements, Expansion in FY19
Aug 9, 2018 | Progressive Railroading
New Jersey Transit's board yesterday adopted a $1.46 billion capital program for fiscal-year 2019 that includes projects to improve and expand its rail system. -
Ewire: Elections May Erode GOP Members in House Climate Caucus
Aug 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
Increasing expectations that Democrats will do well in House races this November and potentially gain control of the chamber could have a major effect on one group of lawmakers that aims to begin addressing climate change in a bipartisan way. -
Western Governors Urge Congress to Uphold State Permit Power
Aug 9, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
Western governors called on Congress today to stop undermining states' authority to regulate water pollution.
Industry and Association News
LCSA
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Growth Seen Hitting 3% in 2018, But Risks to Outlook Mount After This Year
Aug 9, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Josh Zumbrun
Economists are revising up their projections for growth in U.S. output this year, but disputes with U.S. trading partners, a fading boost from fiscal stimulus and rising short-term interest rates leave them thinking strong growth won’t last much longer than that.
The average estimate for growth in 2018 reached 3%, up from 2.9% last month and up from 2.4% a year ago, according to The Wall Street Journal’s monthly survey of private economists. The average forecast predicts by the middle of next year the unemployment rate will drop to 3.6%. If the forecast is realized, it would be the lowest unemployment rate in nearly 50 years.
Consumer spending and business investment were robust in the spring, thanks in part to tax cuts that put more money in household pockets and gave businesses a higher after-tax return on their investments.
“The tax cuts and jump in federal spending will keep the economy buzzing for another 12 months,” said Bernard Baumohl, chief economist of the Economic Outlook Group. “Beyond that, however, I expect to see dark clouds forming that would signal a recession is near.”THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Mr. Baumohl isn’t alone in a dour outlook after the boost from last year’s tax cuts begins to fade and because rising tariffs between the U.S. and its trading partners could lead to repercussions for the economy. Businesses that were enthused about the tax relief could hold off from hiring and investing in the face of trade uncertainty, several economists said.
“Prospects of trade war are eroding business confidence from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” said Kevin Swift, the chief economist of the American Chemistry Council.
The chemicals industry is among those facing tariffs on imports, and the association has criticized the tariffs.
The average forecast for growth in 2019 was 2.4%, little changed in recent months. By 2020, the average forecaster projects economic growth will slow to 1.8%, down from estimates earlier this year of 2%.
The Trump administration has said 3% growth or better can be sustained. Other government forecasters, including the Federal Reserve, are projecting a slowdown from the elevated growth rate of 2018.
Inflation, as measured by the consumer-price index, is forecast to remain above 2% through 2020, a backdrop that will require the Fed to continue raising interest rates, ending next year with its benchmark federal-funds rate at about 3%. The Fed held its benchmark rate near zero for much of the expansion and begin gradually lifting it in 2015.
Higher Fed rates, while containing inflation, could also help tamp down growth.
The pace of job creation is expected to slow somewhat. Over the past year, the economy added about 200,000 jobs a month. Over the next year, the panel estimates an average of 167,000, although some slowdown is to be expected as the economy simply has fewer unemployed people to pull into the labor market.
While the immediate outlook for the rest of 2018 is strong, economists see an 18% chance of a recession beginning in the next 12 months. Those are the highest odds since President Trump’s election 21 months ago.
A number of major trade decisions hang over the economic outlook. The resolution of negotiations over the North American Free Trade Agreement is still unclear, potentially jeopardizing extensive trading relationships with Mexico and Canada. The administration is also considering imposing tariffs on imports of automobiles and auto parts., though tentative negotiations are under way with the European Union that could avert at least some of those tariffs.
The economists in the survey placed the odds of a Nafta pullout at about 29% and the odds of auto tariffs at 31%. Like with a recession, most think it will probably be avoided, but view the risks as uncomfortably high.
Asked to assess the risks to their forecasts, 58% of economists saw “downside risks,” meaning they think that if their forecasts are wrong, it is because the economy will have performed worse than they expected. But 31% saw “upside risks,” scenarios in which the economy performs better.
“If we avoid a trade war, and remove the threats of a trade war, we could see more much-needed business investment in the economy,” said Diane Swonk, chief economist of Grant Thornton
The Journal’s survey of 57 business, financial and academic economists was conducted Aug. 3-7. Not every forecaster answered every question.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/growth-seen-hitting-3-in-2018-but-risks-to-outlook-mount-after-this-year-1533823205
-
(ACC Mentioned) Circular Reasoning: Why Chemical Manufacturers Are Engaging In The Circular Economy
Aug 9, 2018 | Manufacturing.net
By Stefan Guertzgen
As one of the world’s best-known manufacturers of the rolling rubber objects that populate landfills by the millions—automotive tires, specifically—Michelin seemingly was destined for a role in the Circular Economy.
Michelin further embraced that role last October with its acquisition of U.S. specialty chemicals company Lehigh Technologies, which produces a material called micronized rubber powder (MRP) from waste tires. These powders are capable of replacing oil- and rubber-based feedstocks in a variety of applications, including production of high-performance tires. It’s exactly the type of business, and the type of closed-loop, zero-waste process, that manufacturers are pursuing as they move away from the traditional linear “take-make-dispose” model of creation and consumption, to a circular model in which materials are continuously looped back into the value chain for re-use, resulting in less energy and resource consumption.
Chemical manufacturing, and plastics in particular, have emerged as a key target for the Circular Economy movement. And for good reason:
• An estimated 95 percent of plastic packaging material value, or $80-$120 billion in economic value, is lost annually because of a short first use, according to a 2016 report by the World Economic Forum.
• 72 percent of plastic packaging is not recovered, according to the WEF report; 40 percent ends up in the landfill and 32 percent leaks out of the collection system.
• Plastic waste causes $13 billion in damage each year to marine ecosystems, the United Nations estimates.
Although Europe is the movement’s epicenter, the circular economy has become a global imperative. In July, China and the European Union (EU) agreed to cooperate on circular economy initiatives. In the United States, meanwhile, the American Chemistry Council’s Plastics Division this spring committed to a goal of recycling or recovering all plastic packaging used in the U.S. by 2040, and along the way, to make all plastics packaging recyclable or recoverable by 2030.
“Together with our value chain partners we intend to transition to increasingly circular systems for designing, manufacturing, recycling, and recovering our plastic packaging resources,” explained Steve Russell, the ACC’s vice president of plastics.
As the Michelin-Lehigh alliance illustrates, some manufacturers view that transition as an opportunity to cultivate new business opportunities while closing the loop on their products. But the business case for embracing the Circular Economy extends well beyond the creation of new, high-value product applications. It also gives chemical producers an opportunity to optimize their manufacturing processes, to increase vertical integration of the supply chain, reduce resource consumption, and gain greater control over the entire product lifecycle, including the ability to sustainably manage the end-of-life of a product such as tires.
Realizing these benefits takes a creative strategic vision along with a robust digital technology foundation, one that enables a manufacturer to explore, design, and scale up new products and processes quickly and efficiently. Here are several ways technology is positioning chemical manufacturers to capitalize on the opportunities the Circular Economy presents:
• A digital platform can enable rapid development of innovative products and services in a collaborative fashion. Manufacturers can bring together suppliers, customers, and other relevant parties, relying on the “wisdom of the crowd” to design products that fit the tenets of the circular economy: built-to-last, built-to-repair, and/or built-to-recycle products, made from homogeneous materials to facilitate full recycling at end of life. This open innovation could be guided by goals that are commonly agreed-upon via blockchain. During the design process, machine learning tools attached to that platform can predict the environmental performance and impact of a new product, forecasting its carbon footprint along the entire lifecycle.
• Such a platform can enable manufacturers to track and trace production materials (including rare earth and noble metals, etc.) “cradle to cradle,” along their entire lifecycle, using blockchain, allowing them to authenticate the origin of raw materials, which helps to reinforce fair trade and labor practices.
• Digital tools can be the catalyst to optimizing manufacturing and business processes across an enterprise to gear up for the Circular Economy. With machine learning tools, manufacturers can predict new product quality in the manufacturing process while minimizing waste and energy consumption. Additive manufacturing and 3D printing technologies allow manufacturers to explore innovative applications for high-value materials (such as high-performance composites) with little to no waste or inventories, for example.
• An open digital platform can transform a manufacturer into a network orchestrator. For example, instead of funding construction of a new recycling plant, a group of investors could create a collaborative trading platform, enabled by a blockchain, to trade derivatives that represent a physical amount of a chemical product. Once a critical threshold of investment in a buyback program has been reached, initial investors are repaid at a premium for the assets that they currently hold, with compensation being either monetary, or in an equivalent of the chemical product. Platform owners retain full ownership of their business.
• A digital platform with embedded and regularly updated safety and compliance requirements can enable manufacturers to monitor and measure the impact of changes in regulatory requirements on their products and services in real-time, allowing them to design products, formulations, and composites to meet prevailing regulatory standards in specific markets—and to rapidly adjust those products or find acceptable alternatives as regulations change. Using machine learning tools, manufacturers also gain the ability to rapidly simulate the impact of new regulatory policies and laws on sales in certain regions or countries.
Whether the market is Europe, China, the U.S., or elsewhere, digital technologies figure to play a key role in helping chemical manufacturers develop the low-carbon innovations they’ll need to thrive in the Circular Economy. When earlier this year the CO2Value Europe Consortium launched the H2020 BioRECO2VER project to pursue more efficient, sustainable processes for commercially producing platform chemicals like isobutene and lactate from carbon dioxide, it acknowledged facing formidable technical and economic barriers. “To name a few: gas pretreatment costs are still too high, gas transfer in the bioreactors is suboptimal, product recovery costs are still too elevated, and the scalability has not sufficiently been proven.”
Overall, companies setting the foundation now for operating with visibility, focus, and agility through becoming “Intelligent Enterprises” are predestined to gain a first mover advantage in addressing the circular economy and help the world to become a safer, cleaner, and better place.
https://www.manufacturing.net/article/2018/08/circular-reasoning-why-chemical-manufacturers-are-engaging-circular-economy
-
(ACC Mentioned) Sustainable Chemistry Bill Reintroduced in US Senate
Aug 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Two US senators have reintroduced a bill to encourage the development of chemicals and products with improved environmental and human health impacts.
Senators Chris Coons (D-Delaware) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) are behind the bipartisan Sustainable Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2018 (S3296).
In line with a similar bill introduced in 2015, it seeks to coordinate federal programmes and activities in support of sustainable chemistry.
The legislation does not aim to modify regulations, nor does it authorise new spending. Instead, it seeks to "better coordinate federal activities in sustainable chemistry and encourage industry, academia, nonprofits and the general public to innovate, develop and bring to market new sustainable chemicals, materials, products and processes."
Specifically, it calls for the development of a "roadmap for sustainable chemistry" to identify ways in which federal agencies can incentivise the development of such processes and support federal research on them, among others.
"We can do much more to ensure the things all around us – from our laundry detergent to our cars – are produced in a way that maintains their high quality while protecting our health and our planet," said Mr Coons. The bill represents an "opportunity to maintain our scientific leadership and ensure the sustainability of our chemical enterprise for years to come".
The legislation has been endorsed by several groups, including:business cooperatives the GC3 Sustainable Chemistry Alliance and the American Sustainable Business Council;chemical companies and organisations such as the American Chemistry Council, the American Chemical Society, Dow, DuPont, BASF and Ashland; anddownstream companies like Procter & Gamble and Beautycounter.
"It is critical for government and industry to work together to accelerate innovations in chemistry that will help solve critical sustainability challenges, while protecting the US business of chemistry’s global competitive advantage," said ACC president and CEO Cal Dooley on the bill.
The measure has been referred to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.
https://chemicalwatch.com/69427/sustainable-chemistry-bill-reintroduced-in-us-senate
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry-Backed Group Keeps Fighting Foam Ban
Aug 9, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Gerald Porter Jr. and Corinne Ramey
An industry-backed group called the Restaurant Action Alliance is continuing to fight New York City’s impending ban on foam containers, despite restaurant owners saying they are largely unconcerned or no longer use such packaging.
The group says on its website that it represents “thousands of small business owners throughout the five boroughs of New York.” The group has close ties to a major foam manufacturer, Dart Container Corp., according to people formerly involved with the group.
The latest salvo in the group’s multiyear attempt to fight the ban is an appeal, filed last month, of a judge’s ruling that cleared the way for city officials to prohibit foam takeout containers, cups and packing peanuts.
Expanded polystyrene foam—commonly, although incorrectly, called Styrofoam—has been the subject of a protracted battle between New York City officials and large industry players, particularly Dart. Under the ban, which goes into effect in January, restaurants, stores and manufacturers aren’t allowed to have or use foam. Businesses with annual revenue of less than $500,000 can apply for exemptions, city officials said.
A spokeswoman who represents the Restaurant Action Alliance and Dart didn’t respond to requests for comment on ties between the two. In a statement last month about the appeal, Dart officials argued that foam is recyclable and therefore shouldn’t banned.
The fight over foam began in February 2013 with a proposal by then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
In April 2015, the Restaurant Action Alliance and other plaintiffs—11 restaurant owners, foam manufacturers and recyclers—sued the city, saying they would “be irreparably harmed if this ban goes into effect.”
This June, state Supreme Court Justice Margaret Chan cleared the way for the ban to go forward.
If restaurants and convenience stores once were worried about eliminating foam, today the ban has been met with a collective shrug. An employee at one Brooklyn restaurant, whose owner is one of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs, said the establishment had stopped using foam a couple of years ago.
“Our members haven’t expressed that much concern,” said Kevin Dugan, government affairs director for the New York State Restaurant Association.
Herman Tang, manager at Chinese restaurant Wu Liang Ye in Manhattan, said eliminating foam containers wasn’t a problem for customers or the restaurant’s finances.
Until last year, the restaurant used foam containers for takeout orders, but Mr. Tang said he hasn’t received any pushback since switching to plastic. “The customers need to get used to it,” Mr. Tang said. “Everybody is doing it, moving away from Styrofoam.”
Aly Gaber, owner of Alex Halal Food in Manhattan, said his operating costs won’t be drastically hurt when he switches away from foam containers next year.
The Restaurant Action Alliance, the first plaintiff listed on legal documents, first appears in city records in 2013.
The alliance was managed by Mercury Public Affairs LLC, a lobbying and communications firm, according to two people familiar with the group. From 2013 through 2016, Dart paid Mercury $267,500 to lobby New York City officials about the ban, records show.
From 2013 through this year, Dart spent a total of $1.8 million lobbying in New York City, records show. The American Chemistry Council, an industry group, has spent $2.6 million lobbying local officials about foam, and, in 2013, contributed $824,500 to the Restaurant Action Alliance. That year the restaurant group’s contact on city records was an American Chemistry Council lobbyist.
Frank Liesman, Dart’s general counsel, said in a statement that the company “is legally participating in the legislative process, trying to protect our business and the businesses of our customers.”
The American Chemistry Council and Mercury declined to comment.
Arguments on appeal now revolve entirely around whether foam can be recycled.
Dart and other industry players have long argued foam is recyclable and have offered to pay for a foam recycling program in New York City.
But experts unconnected to the industry disagree. Deepak Rajagopal, an assistant professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said recycling foam is energy intensive, which ultimately translates to high costs for cities.
“[Foam] doesn’t degrade,” Dr. Rajagopal said. “It doesn’t make sense to recycle it, even if you could.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/industry-backed-group-keeps-fighting-foam-ban-1533833481?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1
-
Deputy Chief of Staff to Depart
Aug 9, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Byron Brown, EPA's deputy chief of staff for policy, is leaving the agency.
Brown joined EPA in the early days of the Trump administration. He was one of several former aides to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) to land at the agency.
"Byron has been with EPA since day one of the Trump Administration and has been an invaluable member of our staff," acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement.
"We wish him the best on his future endeavors and thank him for his dedication and hard work implementing President Trump's agenda."
Sources told E&E News that tomorrow will be Brown's last day at EPA.
Before coming to EPA, Brown was senior counsel for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under Inhofe when he was the panel's chairman. He also had been senior counsel and oversight director for the House Natural Resources Committee and, prior to that, a top lawyer at EPA.
As one of the top Trump officials at EPA, Brown had a hand in several of the administration's major policy moves at the agency. He sat on an EPA task force for regulatory reform looking to pare back agency rules.
While at EPA, Brown had recused himself from matters that could affect his spouse's employer, petroleum giant Hess Corp., according to his recusal statement he signed last September. That same statement also noted he was brought on at EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act's special hiring authority as an "administratively determined" (AD) appointment.
As an AD hire, Brown was not considered a political appointee and didn't have to sign President Trump's ethics pledge. That could affect his work outside of EPA, since he would not be held to the same "revolving door" restrictions as someone who did sign the pledge, including not lobbying one's former agency for five years after leaving government service.
Over the past year, other AD hires at EPA converted to political appointee jobs and signed Trump's ethics pledge, but it's not clear if Brown was one of those converts. An EPA spokesman didn't respond to a question on whether Brown remained an AD hire or not.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/08/09/stories/1060093765
-
Aug 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Napthalene IRIS draft planThe EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) programme has announced a 30-day extension to the comment period on its draft assessment plan for naphthalene. A webinar to discuss the plan will be held on 23 August. Registration for the event closes on 21 August.
The consultation will now run until 5 September.TSCA information requests
The US EPA has submitted amendments to two existing information collection requests (ICRs). Both are renewals, with comment periods closing on 1 October.
One of the ICRs deals with the partial update of the TSCA section 8(b) inventory database, production and site reports (chemical data reporting).
Under TSCA, as amended by the Lautenberg Act, the EPA must compile and keep current a complete list of chemical substances manufactured (including imported) or processed in the US. It updates this every four years. However, the current ICR that permits it to demand this information expires on 31 October.
The agency says the total number of potential respondents to its requests is 5,662, each of which will be expected to respond once every four years. It estimates the number of hours' work involved will be just over 716,000.
The other ICR concerns lead training, certification, accreditation and authorisation activities. In particular, the collection involves third-party notification to inform occupants of housing about the dangers of lead-contaminated dust and lead paint debris that can occur during renovations. It also covers individuals and firms carrying our lead-based paint activities in houses and facilities frequented by children.
The ICR renewal estimates that more than 770,000 respondents will be affected, causing a workload of more than 5.25m hours. The current ICR expires on 31 January 2019.PFAS meetings
More than 150 people have participated in the EPA's latest 'community engagement' event on on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). The two-day event, held in Colorado Springs from 7 August, discussed the agency's priorities for tackling problems caused by the manmade chemicals. PFAS compounds are known to enter the environment and have led to concerns about their environmental and health risks.
Previous community engagements have been held in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. Another has been announced for Fayetteville in North Carolina on 14 August.Extension of TSCA 'problem formulations' consultation
The extension to the comment period on the risk evaluations of the ‘problem formulations’ for the first ten substances subject to risk evaluation under the recently amended TSCA has been announced in the Federal Register.
Originally scheduled to end on 26 July, the consultation will now do so on 16 August. The move, previously announced in an EPA memo, comes after requests from four NGOs and an industry coalition for additional time to review the documents, which further refine the scope of the substances’ upcoming assessments. Investigation into Vermont city chemical vapours
The EPA has begun an investigation into the presence of underground chemical vapours in Vermont's largest city, Burlington, in conjunction with the state's environmental conservation department (VT DEC).
Reports emerged last month of soil gas concentrations of perchloroethylene (PCE, or Perc) and trichloroethylene (TCE) in one area of the city. VT DEC also said there were suggestions that the chemicals are being found in indoor air in buildings in the area.
Perc and TCE are often associated with dry cleaning and degreasing solvents. Both substances are among the first ten named for evaluation under the recently amended TSCA.
https://chemicalwatch.com/69450/us-epa-round-up
-
Aug 9, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
I’ve been blogging over the last week about how political appointees at EPA are starting to clear new chemicals to enter commerce based on a new – apparently unwritten and certainly not public – review process that ignores the law and will put the health of the public, workers and the environment at greater risk than even under the weak reviews conducted before Congress’ 2016 overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The first green light was given to a fragrance chemical intended for use in a wide array of everyday consumer products. Here is its formal name, a simpler synonym used by its manufacturer, and an identifier called a CAS number:
Late in the review process EPA switched to analogue chemicals to estimate toxicity that are 500-fold less toxic than the analogue identified by the company and EPA's own models.
Name: Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, bis[2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]propyl] etherSynonym: Jeffamine diacrylamideCAS: 1792208-65-1
In this post I want to look more at what is known – and not known – about the chemical’s hazards. While the chemical is a polymer, it includes “low molecular weight (LMW) components” that are the primary hazard concern.
First, very few measured health and environmental data were submitted by the manufacturer in its premanufacture notification (PMN), which EPA reviewed and approved without imposing any conditions or testing requirements. This is typical of PMNs and, indeed, this PMN actually included more measured data than most do. The submitted data, all commissioned by the manufacturer, consisted of three in vitro studies and one human patch test study to assess skin sensitization; and two in vitro studies to assess genotoxicity. Results for those two health effects were reported to be negative.
All of the other health and environmental hazard information submitted by the company or developed and examined by EPA were estimated, not measured, data. The estimates were derived either by: 1) using EPA models that predict a given characteristic (e.g., acute toxicity to fish) based on a chemical’s physical-chemical properties, or 2) identifying other chemicals that are considered structurally related to the LMW components of the PMN chemical – called “analogue chemicals” – and assuming the measured data available for those chemicals is the same for the LMW components of the PMN substance (this is sometimes called “read-across”).
The PMN submitter’s assessment
In this case, which is not common, the company that submitted the PMN actually, on its own, ran the EPA models and identified an analogue chemical, whereas usually EPA does that as part of its review. Included with the PMN was a “summary assessment” that provided the company’s estimates for various health and environmental effects. The company clearly noted that the best analogue for its chemical, based on structural similarity, was a chemical in the acrylamides category. Indeed, it was the company that indicated that “Jeffamine diacrylamide” is a synonym for its chemical.
As I noted in the first post in this series, acrylamides are one of a set of “chemical categories” EPA uses to flag new chemicals that could pose serious health or environmental concerns. I suggested that similarity to the acrylamides category is a red flag that likely is why EPA professional staff raised concerns about the PMN substance from the start and recommended restrictions. Here is EPA’s description of the hazard concerns for this category (p. 5):
Based on analogy to acrylamide per se, members of the class are considered potential carcinogens, heritable mutagens, reproductive and developmental toxicants, and toxic to aquatic organisms. Acrylamides are also potential neurotoxins based on data for a number of low molecular weight acrylamides.
In its own determination document clearing Jeffamine diacrylamide to enter commerce without restriction, EPA identifies these toxicities and more, noting “the potential for the following human health hazards: irritation, mutagenicity, developmental/reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, and carcinogenicity.”
The company’s summary assessment identified moderate concerns for persistence, aquatic toxicity hazard, cancer health hazard, and non-cancer health hazard. The latter two rankings were based on the company’s selection and use of an analogue chemical from the acrylamides category.
EPA’s final assessment reverses course
All we have to go on, at least for now, to discern how EPA went from raising concerns to declaring this chemical safe for any use in any amount by any company is EPA’s determination document, which is, at best, a high-level summary of its risk assessment. This short document omits critical information that would be needed for anything approaching an independent evaluation of its conclusions. Whether EPA will make its full risk assessment and other analyses public or not remains to be seen. Still, some things jump out as concerning even in reading the summary.
In its summary, EPA now says the PMN chemical’s LMW components fall into two of EPA’s chemical categories: acrylamides (as before) and acrylates. EPA then says, with scant explanation and without providing any data or analysis, that it decided to use analogue chemicals from the acrylates category rather than from the acrylamides category, asserting they are “more predictive.” This is convenient, given that EPA regards the former as posing little to no health concerns and the latter as posing among the greatest. Here is what EPA’s chemical categories document says about acrylates (p. 8):
As a result of testing conducted under an agreement between the Agency and the Specialty Acrylates and Methacrylates (SAM) Panel of the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), EPA no longer controls new chemical acrylates … as a category [of concern] based on health concerns.
The switch in analogues makes a monumental difference: The toxicity data EPA cites in its determination document show that the acrylates analogues are 500-fold less toxic than is acrylamide. (EPA cites a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) for systemic toxicity of 250 milligrams/kilogram/day for the acrylate analogues. The study EPA cites for acrylamide set a NOAEL of 0.5 mg/kg/day for the systemic effect of neurotoxicity.)
Clearly, EPA did not make the most health-protective choice.
Notably, the decision to switch analogues appears to have been EPA’s. Just this past Tuesday, EPA added an asterisk and note to its “not likely” determination for this chemical (search for “P-16-0510” in the table here) that reads:
*In 2016, EPA’s original screening analysis for this PMN resulted in the interim finding listed to the Interim Status column. In response to EPA’s recommendation, the submitter requested EPA perform an assessment using read-across for a particular analogue (an acrylamide). In considering the submitter’s request, EPA identified additional analogues which it deemed more predictive (acrylates) than the submitter’s suggested analogue for conducting a reasoned evaluation for the PMN substance. EPA conducted risk evaluation with both analogues and based on the analogue EPA deemed most predictive concluded the PMN substance was not likely to present unreasonable risk.
Indeed, other documents submitted by the company based on running EPA’s own models identified acrylamides – and never acrylates – as the relevant category. For example, a chemical profile the company generated using EPA’s PBT Profiler flagged the chemical as belonging to the acrylamides category as well as the ethylene glycol ethers category; and in applying EPA’s OncoLogic model, which predicts carcinogenic potential, the company also identified acrylamide functional groups as the relevant characteristic of its chemical.
So EPA’s selection of a different set of analogues radically departed from the key structural alert identified by both the company and EPA’s own assessment tools. EPA then goes on to use hazard data for the far less toxic acrylates analogues to calculate risks and conclude the chemical is not likely to present an unreasonable risk. EPA’s document claims it also calculated risks based on acrylamide as the analogue – but then only presents the results for the acrylates analogues, one more reason why EPA should make the full risk assessment public.
Another curious feature of the summary document is that, in presenting the final results of its human health risk assessment, EPA repeatedly notes that its calculated margins of exposure (MOEs) “exceed the benchmark MOEs” and hence are safe. But EPA never states how large the exceedances are – critical to knowing whether EPA found the chemical quite safe or only marginally safe. Why wouldn’t EPA provide the specific MOE values it calculated for the reader to be able to compare them to the benchmark MOEs it does specify? This omission matters, given the substantial uncertainties associated with the calculation of MOEs in the first place. I won’t speculate further on the reasons for the omission, but can also be remedied by EPA making its full risk assessment public.
Whatever one may think of EPA’s heavy use of analogue data as well as its decision to switch the analogues it used to do its risk assessment, the fact is that use of analogues inherently carries with it a significant degree of uncertainty. Even subtle differences in chemical structure can mean significant differences in how a chemical behaves in the environment and in our bodies as well as its toxicity.
So what happens if EPA is wrong in its analogue choice? What if the chemical it has just given carte blanche approval is actually more toxic than the analogues?
In the past, when EPA relied on analogue data for new chemicals and was concerned about their reliability, EPA would require testing of the actual new chemical to verify whether its choice of analogue was sound. Such testing might be required up front, but more often as a condition imposed on a PMN submitter, for example, limiting its ability to expand manufacture of a chemical beyond a set limit without first submitting the required data. That way, EPA could review the test results and determine whether any changes in conditions applicable to the chemical were needed.
Of course, all of this was achievable because the chemical was subject to an order. Yet now, there is no order. So not only are there no limits placed on the chemical’s production and use, there will be no testing to ascertain whether EPA’s risk assessment based on analogues was sufficiently protective.
The title to this blog series uses a term I did not choose lightly: “reckless.” I hope these posts help readers to understand just how reckless EPA’s new chemical review process has become.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/08/09/part-3-epa-rams-through-its-reckless-review-scheme-for-new-chemicals-under-tsca-your-health-be-damned/
-
The EPA’s Latest News on Asbestos Has a Lot of People Nervous
Aug 9, 2018 | Popular Science
By Jennifer Lu
Asbestos is arguably one of the most well-known cancer-causing agents, and one that the Environmental Protection Agency has been trying to regulate on and off for decades. The toxic construction material, banned in other 55 other countries, made the news earlier this week amidst fears that the EPA is easing the way for an uptick in asbestos manufacturing.
In fact, asbestos never left the U.S. market, though there are certain restrictions limiting its uses. Instead, the EPA plans to track asbestos imports for review every time a manufacturer wants to use them for a new purpose, as is required by the law. But since the current EPA has eyed more lenient regulations on everything from pesticides to air pollution from cars and coal-fired power plants, environmental groups fear that the “new uses” review could signal an uptick in asbestos manufacturing, despite its dangers to public health, rather than a move toward the total ban the EPA sought under the Obama administration.
Congress enacted the Toxic Substances Control Act in 1976 to "comprehensively regulate chemicals and toxic substances that we come into contact with in the everyday," starting with asbestos, says Melanie Benesh, a legislative attorney at the Environmental Working Group. "Because it's one of the toxic substances that everyone has heard of and knows is bad, it's become a poster child for this law and why it is broken."
Asbestos is an umbrella term for six naturally-occurring fibrous minerals that contain some amount of silicon and oxygen. Greek for "unquenchable," asbestos doesn't evaporate, dissolve, burn, or react readily with most chemicals, making it an ideal insulation and fireproofing material. Asbestos can be found in attic and wall insulations, vinyl floor tiles and roof shingles, around hot water and steam pipes, and in automobile brakes.
Because the filamentous material is easily friable, or crumbled to a powder when handled, asbestos is easily inhaled into the lungs, where it can cause mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive cancer that grows in the tissue lining around the organs.
Between 1999 and 2015, the Center for Disease Control counted 45,221 deaths from malignant mesothelioma in the United States. Though most deaths occurred in people 85 or older, the fact that people younger than 55 were also dying from mesothelioma suggests that occupational and environmental asbestos exposure was still a problem. Asbestos is also associated with lung cancer and other lung diseases. In light of its toxicity, the Environmental Protection Agency banned most asbestos products in 1989, only to have the rule overturned in court. As a result, certain asbestos products are restricted in the U.S., but asbestos is still allowed in other productions.
In 2016, Congress updated the Toxic Substances Control Act in an attempt to strengthen it, and asbestos was put back on EPA's roster as one of the first ten chemicals for review.
The agency released a framework in June 2017 for how it would evaluate exposure risks from asbestos being produced now or in the foreseeable future. The guidelines allow EPA to exclude legacy sources of exposure from consideration—for example, asbestos installed into the frames of schools and older buildings using outdated production methods.
“They're only going to look at a very narrow use for asbestos and ignore that people might be exposed to it from older cases,” says Rena Steinzor, a professor of environmental law at the University of Maryland. But failure to account for pre-existing routes of asbestos exposure could downplay the overall risk and lead to a less protective evaluation.
The material easily crumbles when handled, and inhaling the dust can cause health problems.
DepositPhotos
Separately, to stay on top of future uses, the EPA is requiring manufacturers to give them at least 90 days notice before importing asbestos to make new asbestos products the EPA doesn’t currently know about. The rule also forbids companies from making new asbestos products until the EPA has review each new use, which include certain types of adhesives, sealants, roof coatings, gaskets, pipeline wrap, sealant tape, and vinyl floor tile, to name a few.
On the one hand, the rule makes sense because the EPA needs some time to decide whether the new uses are okay, Steinzor says.
“But why not just ban them when we know asbestos are not safe,” Benesh points out.
The market seems ready to take advantage of the EPA’s mixed signals.
A Russian asbestos mining company, perhaps sensing an opportunity, posted photos of its products stamped with a seal bearing Donald Trump's face on Facebook. The social media caption read, "Donald is on our side!"
President Trump, who made his businesses in the real estate sector, has expressed support for asbestos as a maligned construction material in the past. In 2012, he tweeted that the World Trade Center would not have burned down if it had been fire-proofed with asbestos.
Meanwhile, asbestos imports to the U.S., which have declined overall and in the last few years, rose 45 percent between 2015 to 2016 to 700 metric tons. Ninety-five percent of the asbestos entering the U.S. in 2016 came from Brazil, with Russia supplementing the rest. However, Brazil banned asbestos mining, use and commercialization in November of 2017.
"Maybe five or ten years ago, you wouldn’t think anyone would be reintroducing asbestos to the marketplace," says Steinzor. "It's a sign of the times that this is happening.”
https://www.popsci.com/epa-asbestos
-
US NTP Announces Meetings on Alternative Toxicological Methods
Aug 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US National Toxicology Program (NTP) has announced meetings on alternative toxicological methods. These are scheduled for 5-6 September in Research Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina and 19-20 September 2019 in Bethesda, Maryland.
For September's meeting, it is possible to register to attend or receive the webcast. A preliminary agenda is now available on the NTP website.
https://chemicalwatch.com/69466/us-ntp-announces-meetings-on-alternative-toxicological-methods
-
New California Proposition 65 Warning Requirements Apply to the Outdoor Recreation Industry
Aug 9, 2018 | Lexology
By Nate Davis, Michael Dill and Brent Johnson
New Proposition 65 regulations take effect on August 30, 2018. We invite you to take a deeper dive into what the Proposition 65 changes mean for your outdoor recreation company and learn what you can do to implement and bolster your compliance plan.
BACKGROUND: Approved by California voters in 1986, Proposition 65 ("Prop 65") is a right to know initiative that provides information to the public about potential exposure to toxic chemicals. Prop 65 requires businesses with 10 or more employees that do business in California, including out-of-state businesses that sell products in California, to include a warning message on their products when they contain chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. There are nearly 900 chemicals identified as causing such harm by California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA"), which maintains a list of such chemicals that is available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list. Under Prop 65's existing "safe harbor" provision, a chemical that exists at an exposure level below the safe harbor level is exempt from the Prop 65 warning requirements.
NEW REGULATIONS: The OEHHA adopted new regulations that will take effect on August 30, 2018. The new regulations revamp the current warning system by changing the manner in which the safe harbor warnings operate. The new regulations provide more explicit guidelines for businesses concerning the types of warnings that their products must contain. The guidelines are designed to limit "over-warning," while also making the warnings more useful for the public. The new regulations include several new requirements for product warnings, including:
PRODUCT WARNING REQUIREMENTS:A triangular yellow warning symbol;The word WARNING in bold capital letters;Language stating that the product "can expose you to" a Prop 65 chemical rather than it "contains" such a chemical;The internet address for OEHHA's new Prop 65 regulations, www.p65warnings.ca.gov;"Tailored" language specifying the type of harm that one may be exposed to (e.g., cancer, reproductive harm or both); andThe name of at least one of the chemicals necessitating the inclusion of a Prop 65 warning (from the OEHHA list).
The following are examples of the new warning in both long-form and the permitted short-form:
OR
Additionally:Where the sign, label, or shelf tag for the product is not printed in yellow, the symbol may be printed in black and white; for example:
In some cases, the Prop 65 warning must also be provided in a language other than English (see www.P65Warnings.ca.gov for more information);For products purchased over the internet, the website must, prior to the purchase of a product, provide a warning itself or a hyperlink to the warning clearly marked with the word "WARNING" on the product display page; andThe warning must be "prominently displayed" and "must be displayed with such conspicuousness as compared with other words" on the product.
IMPORTANT CHEMICALS: Prop 65 applies to all types of industries. Take a look at this list of main chemicals used in the Outdoor Industry, that can be subject to Prop 65 regulation.
EFFECTIVENESS: Businesses are not required to update their warnings for products manufactured before August 30, 2018, as long as the warnings on these products comply with the previous regulations.
ENFORCEMENT: The primary enforcement agency for violations of Prop 65 is the California Attorney General's Office, however enforcement actions may also be initiated by public officials from California cities whose population exceeds 750,000. Additionally, private actions may be brought by any individual for violations of Prop 65. A company in violation of Prop 65 can be subject to penalties of up to $2,500 per violation, per day.
WHAT'S YOUR PROP 65 IQ?: How does your knowledge of Prop 65 stack up? Take our interactive Q&A session.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=009ade09-c463-47a5-8ce1-1e07d382b5d5
-
Children Exposed to Lead in Drinking Water at Day Care Centers
Aug 9, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Susan Little
More than 4 million American children spend at least part of the day at child care centers. How widespread is lead contamination of the tap water at these facilities?
Because only seven states require child care centers to test for lead, it’s impossible to say. But a recent study by the Environmental Defense Fund is alarming: Drinking water at more than half of the child care centers tested in four states had lead levels that could harm children’s health.
Seven States Require Child Care Facilities to Test for Lead in Drinking Water
SOURCE: Environmental Defense Fund, via Infogram.com
EDF tested the drinking water at 11 child care facilities in Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi and Ohio. Collectively, these facilities cared for more than 1,000 children, most of whom were under the age of 6 and from low-income families.
Researchers found that the water at seven of the facilities contained lead levels that exceeded the level EDF scientists determined was protective of children’s health. Water at five of the facilities had lead levels well above the Environmental Protection Agency’s so-called action level, and at two facilities, the water had about six times as much lead as the action level.
The EPA’s action level is 15 parts per billion, or ppb, of lead in drinking water. Water agencies with lead levels above 15 ppb must act to reduce the water’s lead content. But health experts believe the 15 ppb action level still exposes children to too much lead. For their tests, EDF scientists determined a safe level of exposure was 3.8 ppb.
The facilities EDF evaluated served as few as 25 children and as many as 213. Nine facilities were in commercial buildings and two were in converted homes. The buildings were constructed between 1910 and 1995, but lead was highest in facilities built in 1956 and 1990. EDF found lead pipes in two buildings, but the primary sources of lead contamination were lead faucets and fixtures.
Lead is a severe neurotoxin that can cause health damage that lasts a lifetime. Even small amounts of lead can lower a child’s intelligence, cause behavior and learning problems, slow growth, and harm hearing. Ongoing lead exposure significantly affects a child’s intelligence, and if not stopped, will continue to harm their nervous system development. The best way to protect children from lead is to eliminate sources of lead exposure all together.
Children absorb half of the lead they ingest and if a child is malnourished, they will absorb lead faster. According to the EPA, as much as one-fifth of a child’s exposure to lead is from drinking water. The EPA also estimates that up to 60 percent of formula-fed infants’ lead exposure can come from water used to mix formula.
In California, the state legislature is considering EWG-sponsored legislation to require water testing in child care centers. AB 2370, by Assembly Member Chris Holden, D-Pasadena, would require licensed child care centers – facilities that care for more than 700,000 children a year – to test their drinking water for lead contamination and ensure that the contamination is abated. An EWG-requested state budget appropriation would also provide grants to help child care centers conduct testing, and replace leaded fixtures and pipes.
The bill has enjoyed broad bipartisan support. It passed the Assembly unanimously and is pending a vote in the state Senate.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/08/children-exposed-lead-drinking-water-day-care-centers#.W2xu39Uza6I
-
French Agency Calls for CMR Restriction in Feminine Hygiene Products
Aug 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The French Agency for Food, Environment and Occupational Health and Safety (Anses) has called for restrictions under REACH to limit the presence of carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR) substances in feminine hygiene products.
Its recommendation follows an expert appraisal of the health risks of products including tampons, sanitary towels, panty liners and menstrual cups, published in a report by Anses last month.
Two expert committees, established by the agency, identified various chemicals in very low concentrations which did not exceed health thresholds.
Currently there is no specific regulation governing the composition, manufacture or use of feminine hygiene products, but they are subject to ‘horizontal’ legislation, including the general product safety Directive (GPSD).
The Anses report concluded the existing regulatory system is "insufficient, due to the presence of hazardous chemicals in these products".
It called for restrictions under REACH Annex XVII, based on the substances identified in the expert appraisal.
These included:polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs);dioxins and furans;di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP); andpesticides.
Although the substances did not exceed health thresholds, the committees concluded there was "uncertainty" about whether they posed a risk, because consumers could potentially also be exposed from other sources.
The committees also recommend that standards are developed to regulate testing of feminine hygiene products, based on regulations for medical devices and food contact materials. Commission project
Anses is supporting a Commission project to restrict the presence of CMR substances in feminine hygiene products, according to its report.
Disposable textiles, such as feminine hygiene products, were excluded from the scope of the proposed restriction on CMRs in textiles, because they use additional materials to form the absorbent core of the products.
"In the framework of discussions on this restriction proposal, the Commission identified absorbent hygiene products, including feminine hygiene products, as a possible future case for developing a proposal to restrict CMRs in them," an EU source told Chemical Watch.
The Anses report "will be useful in the Commission’s considerations on appropriate next steps", they added.‘Beyond legal compliance’
The agency also called for manufacturers to improve the quality of raw materials used in the products and revise certain manufacturing processes in order to eliminate or reduce the presence of hazardous substances.
But a spokesperson for Edana, the European trade association which represents manufacturers of absorbent hygiene products, said its members had "very extensive product safety procedures throughout their supply chains, going far beyond legal compliance".
Also, the report's conclusion that the chemicals identified did not exceed health thresholds "provides evidence of the effectiveness of the horizontal regulation applied on feminine hygiene products," they told Chemical Watch.
The spokesperson said the benefits of any additional regulation must be evaluated, taking into consideration alternative voluntary industry guidelines mentioned in the GPSD.
Edana is "open to a dialogue with competent authorities on the merits of various possible approaches", they added.
https://chemicalwatch.com/69023/french-agency-calls-for-cmr-restriction-in-feminine-hygiene-products
-
Trade Group Warns of 'Over Regulation' of Four Phthalates
Aug 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
A proposed 'double listing'of four phthalates on the REACH authorisation list is "unnecessary over-regulation" which could place "excessive burdens" on industry, says trade association European Plasticisers.
The low molecular weight phthalates – DEHP, DBP, DIBP and BBP – are currently on the authorisation list (REACH Annex XIV) for their reprotoxic properties, after being identified as substances of very high concern (SVHCs) in 2008 and 2009.
In 2014, DEHP was identified as a SVHC due to its endocrine disrupting properties for the environment. And last year, all four phthalates were identified as SVHCs for the same for human health.
The European Commission is now preparing to amend the entries of the four substances, to include these ED properties. Consequently some currently exempted uses may require authorisation.
For example, the inclusion of environmental hazards among the intrinsic properties of DEHP would make the authorisation requirement applicable to food contact materials and certain medical devices, which are currently exempt.‘Excessive burdens’
European Plasticisers published a statement on it website, saying the updating of the authorisation list to include endocrine disrupting properties "will oblige DEHP producers, medical devices producers and recyclers of flexible PVC to face a new challenge regarding the authorisation process."
This "puts excessive burdens on the industry, weakens policy predictability and hence undermines the European industry from investing and staying competitive in a global market," it adds.
Michela Mastrantonio of European Plasticisers told Chemical Watch, the four phthalates "have already been thoroughly evaluated and regulated" and said "double-listings and overlaps should always be avoided".
The European plasticiser market has "already adapted to the regulatory and market pressure with an important major shift from the use of these classified LMW phthalates to the use of non-classified high molecular weight phthalates and other plasticisers," she added.
A public consultation into amending the authorisation list ended on 6 August and responses are now being considered by the Commission.
Meanwhile, last month EU member states voted unanimously in favour of a proposal to restrict the four phthalates in articles. Prior to the meeting, NGOs called on member states to include food contact materials in the scope of the proposed restriction.
Ms Mastrantonio said that European Plasticisers supports the restriction "as it is meant to ensure a level playing field for European companies versus importers of articles manufactured outside the EU" but believed the restriction should be limited to non-authorised uses.
https://chemicalwatch.com/69429/reach-authorisation-update-for-phthalates-unnecessary-says-trade-group
-
Aug 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Consultation on chromium trioxide usesEcha is seeking comments on applications for authorisation for two uses of chromium trioxide. These are for:the functional chrome plating of engine valves for automotive applications. The applicants are Mahle Ventiltrieb and Mahle Polska with a requested review period of 12 years; andan industrial formulation of a chromium trioxide solution below 0.1% w/w concentration for the passivation of copper foil, used in the manufacture of lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) for motorised vehicles. The applicants are Doosan Electro-Materials, Luxembourg Sarl and Doosan Energy Solution, with a requested review period of 15 years.
The deadline for comments is 3 October.Opinion on sodium dichromate available
The consolidated opinion of the Echa risk assessment and socio-economic analysis committees (Rac and Seac) for one use of sodium dichromate by H&R Ölwerke Schindler and H&R Chemisch-Pharmazeutische Spezialitäten is now available.Substance evaluation on furfuryl alcohol
The conclusion document is now available for furfuryl alcohol. It was added to the Corap list in 2013 and evaluated by Poland.
https://chemicalwatch.com/69465/echa-round-up
-
Industry Asks for Time to Review Proposed Cobalt Metal Classification
Aug 9, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The metals industry has asked Echa for more time to address concerns about specific concentration limits in the proposed classification of cobalt metal as a category 1B carcinogen.
Echa's Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) adopted an opinion last year for the harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) of cobalt metal for all routes of exposure with a specific concentration limit (SCL) of 0.01% w/w.
In a document shared at the meeting of the Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) on 12 June, industry association body Eurometaux questioned the "appropriateness" of the methodology used to calculate the carcinogenic potency and generate the SCL.
Referred to in Echa's classification, labelling and packaging (CLP) guidance, ‘T25’ is a tool to determine the carcinogenic potency of substances by using comparison with a database of organic substances that are known oral carcinogens. By this approach, Rac calculated the carcinogenic potency of cobalt metal as "high".
But Eurometaux questioned the method’s suitability for substances generating local cancers via inhalation, and also more specifically, for inorganic metals.
It asked Echa for more time to evaluate these concerns and, if needed, to review the methodology for inorganics. ‘Large impacts’
In a paper submitted to the European Commission in May, and circulated at Caracal, the Cobalt Institute also asked for more time, saying that the proposed 0.01% SCL will lead to "potential large" impacts for both industry and society.
These include:unintended consequences for the circular economy from reduced re-use of several final slag-related materials and for the high recycling rate of steel scrap;the unintentional presence of cobalt above the proposed 0.01% SCL in some materials, could have indirect impacts on high value supply chains (eg for nickel and stainless steel); andimpacts on competitiveness by imposing direct costs of compliance across many EU sectors that would not affect non-EU firms.
The use of cobalt metal is "especially crucial" as a precursor in the manufacture of chemicals for batteries for various portable consumer goods, as well as the emerging market for electric vehicles, the institute said. Some uses, it said, would be restricted despite REACH dossiers showing safe use.
The institute recommended the adoption of the generic concentration limit (GCL) for carcinogenicity of 0.1% rather than the SCL of 0.01%, as this would "mitigate most of the impacts". It could be used "at least as an interim measure", while the SCL methodological aspects on potency, bioavailability and all routes are resolved.Review
Echa discussed the industry reaction at the Caracal meeting, and concluded that while the potency categories based on T25 "are indeed simplistic", they could not be regarded as "wrong per se".
Rac recognised that some aspects decreased the concern of high potency carcinogenicity of cobalt, but these were not sufficient to move it to a lower potency group, the agency said. Most carcinogens would normally fall into the medium potency range, it added.
However, Echa said that setting up an expert meeting to discuss and review the methodology for deriving SCLs for carcinogens "would be of interest". It added that there should be careful consideration of the best framework, because the review could result in an update of the CLP Guidance.
Eurometaux told Chemical Watch it would welcome a temporary GCL for cobalt metal "to allow the expert group to clarify whether the concerns raised above are justified or not". The GCL could then be reviewed according to the outcomes of the expert group discussions.
The industry body has launched a review of the substances classified as category 1 carcinogen based on inhalation data in animals. It is asking the data holders to "review and/or to calculate the T25 potency" of these to provide a first overview of the applicability of the method. This work will be shared with authorities and stakeholders after the summer.
In another Caracal paper, Germany's environment ministry and the Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Baua) said it supported an update of the methodology, but raised concerns over how long a re-evaluation of the T25 method concerning inhalation of inorganic materials would take.
"We foresee that appropriate data need to be gathered and evaluated and suggest that also the toxicological expertise from Rac is included in the evaluation process of the new method. Therefore the procedure and scheduling to implement the SCL needs to be clarified."
https://chemicalwatch.com/69481/industry-asks-for-time-to-review-proposed-cobalt-metal-classification
-
Aug 9, 2018 | Los Angeles Times
By Scott Martelle
The federal government on Wednesday posted notice that it is considering opening up 400,000 acres of public land in California, and 1.2 million acres for which the government holds mineral rights, to fracking, the controversial oil and gas drilling practice linked to earthquakes in Oklahoma and groundwater pollution there and in other states.
The land at stake lies in Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare and Ventura counties, the Bureau of Land Management said.
The announcement is just the latest anti-environment move by the Trump administration that directly affects California. It’s unclear whether the administration is purposefully attacking California to punish the state for its deep and vocal opposition to Trump policies, or whether the state simply falls victim to the president’s bone-headed approach to the environment.
Also on Wednesday, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross directed the National Marine Fisheries Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to make available water whose use is governed by the Endangered Species Act for California firefighting — even though firefighters say they don’t need it.
"Secretary Ross’s directive is nothing more than a smokescreen designed to weaken these protections that [National Marine Fisheries Service] scientists determined are necessary to keep these native fish from going extinct,” said Kate Poole, senior director of the water division for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Ross’s move followed Trump’s confused (I know) tweets about the fires being such a problem because California water is “foolishly being diverted into the Pacific Ocean.” Um, no. And fire officials say they have all the water they need to fight the fires. The biggest factor is bone-dry forests, a exacerbated by climate change-related droughts.
But wait — there’s more. The administration earlier announced that it would sell leases for off-shore oil and gas wells in nearly every part of federal waters – except Florida, where the Republican governor squawked and where the president just happens to have his “Winter White House” at Mar-A-Lago. The likelihood of additional drilling off California’s coast isn’t very high – the feds might sell leases but the state controls how and where that oil comes ashore, and good luck getting those permits.
The president also has targeted the Obama-era Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, which sets aside specific areas in a 10.8 million acre parcel in California for solar and wind farms — in places where they would case the least environmental damage. Trump wants to open up more of that land for energy production, and is reviewing whether to open more space for off-road vehicles, mining and grazing.
And don’t forget his effort to deny California’s the right to set motor vehicle emissions standards for vehicles sold and operated here, and to weaken fuel economy standards— which would have a significant impact on California air quality.
All this from an administration run by a guy who thinks climate change is a hoax, that he can resurrect the coal industry (slowly dying because of market forces favoring cheaper energy sources), and that it is in the nation’s best interests to ramp up energy production from fossil fuels.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-ol-enter-the-fray-the-trump-administration-wants-to-open-1533823401-htmlstory.html#nt=card
-
Europe Shows It's Getting Serious About Buying U.S. LNG
Aug 9, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Anna Shiryaevskaya and Naureen S Malik
European nations are far behind Mexico and China when it comes to receiving liquefied natural gas from the U.S., but the region is making its biggest effort to date to change that.
European Commission trade officials will travel to Washington on Aug. 20 to follow up on an energy agreement last month between the Commission’s President Jean-Claude Juncker and U.S. President Donald Trump. Europe pledged to import more LNG in a bid to diversify imports, while America is seeking new markets for its expanding production of the fuel. Russia is currently Europe’s biggest supplier.
“The European Union is ready to facilitate more imports of liquefied natural gas from the U.S. and this is already the case as we speak,” Juncker said in a statement on Thursday. “The growing exports of U.S. liquefied natural gas, if priced competitively, could play an increasing and strategic role in EU gas supply.”
Europe received about 10 percent of total U.S. exports last year, up from 5 percent in 2016 after the American shale gas revolution went global with the opening of the Sabine Pass export facility on the country’s Gulf of Mexico coast. Since then, Europe has imported more than 40 LNG cargoes from the U.S., or 2.8 billion cubic meters, the Commission said.
Still, that’s just a fraction of Europe’s demand of almost 550 billion cubic meters last year. Most gas arrives by pipelines from Russia and Norway, as well as in LNG tankers from Qatar, the biggest producer of the super-chilled fuel. As the region’s own fields deplete and nuclear and coal plants are decommissioned, demand for the fuel is rising.
European buyers are taking a closer look at U.S. gas after Brent oil futures, a key pricing component for much of the LNG sold across the globe, soared to a 3 1/2-year high earlier this year, Greg Vesey, chief executive officer of Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd., said Wednesday in an interview in New York.
Russian gas supplies to Europe are also linked to crude, and moves in the commodity affect gas prices at the region’s hubs. U.S. supplies, in contrast, are tied to low-cost shale gas at the benchmark Henry Hub in Louisiana.
The discount for Henry Hub versus futures at the U.K’s National Balancing Point has widened to about $5 per million British thermal units, the most for this time of the year since 2013.
“Now the prices actually make sense with where crude is going, the spreads are there and it’s worthwhile to talk about U.S. gas,” said Vesey, whose company is developing an export terminal in Louisiana.
While potential buyers from Europe had previously insisted on locking in supplies based on their local benchmarks, they’re now asking for document details based on Henry Hub, Vesey said.
Europe has also pledged to reduce its increasing dependency on the Russian fuel by supporting the development of new LNG terminals. And while Trump has a vision of Europe becoming a “massive buyer” of U.S. LNG, the product will still have to compete with lower-cost gas arriving from Siberian fields.
Europe Likely to Disappoint Trump as Big Buyer of U.S. LNG
So far, the economics work against large-scale U.S. LNG volumes sent to Europe, but that may change as the global market for the fuel expands, Citigroup Inc. said in May.
To facilitate LNG trade with the region, the U.S. needs to lift its requirement for prior regulatory approval of exports to the EU, the Commission said. The bloc has also committed to help finance LNG infrastructure projects and is supporting new terminals from Croatia to Greece and Ireland.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-09/europe-shows-it-s-getting-serious-about-getting-more-u-s-lng
-
Trump Winning Over Fastest Growing Oil Market at Iran's Risk
Aug 9, 2018 | Bloomberg (In Houston Chronicle)
By Debjit Chakraborty
One of Iran's biggest oil customers is buying more U.S. crude as President Donald Trump sticks to his pledge to squeeze the Persian Gulf nation's energy trade.
State-run refiner Indian Oil Corp., which had been buying U.S. crude in the spot market, signed a term tender to purchase American oil for delivery every month between November and January, according to Finance Director Arun Kumar Sharma. That will help more than double the company's shipments from the U.S. so far this year compared to last fiscal year.
"This tender is the first step toward future imports of U.S. crude oil through term contracts," Sharma said in a phone interview on August 8.
A greater commitment to U.S. crude may help shield India from supply disruptions when sanctions on oil aimed at curbing the Islamic republic's nuclear program begin in early November. It also gives American producers greater inroads to the fastest-growing oil consumer, a market that's currently dominated by Middle-Eastern suppliers.
American oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. is said to be courting Asian refiners with rare long-term U.S. crude export deals in a bid to expand its trading scope. Long-term contracts -- which involve the sale of cargoes of a certain quality, volume and price over a set period from as little as 6 months to multiple years -- for American oil are uncommon and most deals are done on a spot basis after a decades-long export ban was lifted in late 2015.
Crucial Strategy
"Long-term contracts will be central to the U.S. strategy," said Abhishek Kumar, a senior energy analyst at Interfax Energy in London. "That ensures the U.S. will have customers for its hydrocarbons in the medium-to-long term."Indian Oil agreed to buy 6 million barrels of U.S. crude through the term-tender, taking its American crude purchases to 16 million barrels in total since April. That compares to its previous year's spot purchases of 6.6 million barrels from the shale producer.
RELATED: Trump tests oil markets in pulling out of Iran nuclear deal
The nation's biggest refiner said in May that it plans to nearly double its oil imports from Iran to 7 million tons during the financial year that began in April. But Trump's push to isolate the Islamic Republic is forcing it to prepare alternative plans. Indian Oil is still awaiting direction from its government on Iranian crude imports, Sharma said.
The ratcheting up of trade tensions between the U.S. and China could also help oil buyers in India, the world's third-biggest crude consumer, according to Interfax's Kumar. China's largest refiner, Sinopec, will delay making purchases from America, while Beijing has rejected Trump's call for its allies to cut to zero purchases from Iran.
"This presents India with an opportunity to negotiate hard, given the country's energy needs are rising and the U.S. is a more-than-willing supplier in present circumstances," he said.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Trump-winning-over-fastest-growing-oil-market-at-13143666.php
-
At 'America First Energy Conference', Solar Power Is Dumb, Climate Change Is Fake
Aug 9, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
Pumping carbon dioxide into the air makes the planet greener; the United Nations puts out fake science about climate change to control the global energy market; and wind and solar energy are simply "dumb".
These are among the messages that flowed from the America First Energy Conference in New Orleans this week, hosted by some of the country’s most vocal climate change doubters - and attended by a handful of Trump administration officials.
The second annual conference, organized by the conservative thinktank the Heartland Institute, pulled together speakers from JunkScience, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and the Center For Industrial Progress, along with officials from the U.S. Department of Interior and the White House for panels that included: “Carbon Taxes, Cap & Trade, and Other Bad Ideas,” “Fiduciary Malpractice: The Sustainable Investment Movement,” and “Why CO2 Emissions Are Not Creating A Climate Crisis.”
The day-long conference reflected the political rise of global warming skeptics in Donald Trump’s America that is occurring despite mounting scientific evidence – including from U.S. government agencies - that burning oil, coal, and natural gas is heating the planet and leading to drought, floods, wildfires, and more frequent powerful storms.
ADVERTISEMENT
A similar conference blasting the link between fossil fuels and climate change last year drew then-Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt, who was appointed by Trump to reverse Obama-era climate initiatives and roll back regulation hindering drillers and miners but who has since resigned in a flurry of ethical controversies.
The U.S. officials who joined included White House Special Assistant Brooke Rollins, Interior Department Assistant Secretary Joe Balash, and Jason Funes, an assistant in the office of external affairs at Interior. They praised the administration’s moves to clear the way for oil industry activity, and steered clear of commenting on climate change.
But their presence gave climate change doubters at the conference a boost: “It’s a step in the right direction,” said self-described climate change doubter Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama, referring to the U.S. officials in attendance.
In an email, Interior Department spokeswoman Heather Swift said department officials “speak at thousands of conferences every year and share ideas with a diverse group of individuals.” A White House spokesperson did not immediately comment.
Tim Huelskamp, president and CEO of the Heartland Institute, said the views presented at the conference – once on the fringes of U.S. politics – would be proven right.EDITORS’ PICKSWar Without EndA Year After Deadly Rally, a Protester Runs CharlottesvilleWhat the Mystery of the Tick-Borne Meat Allergy Could Reveal
ADVERTISEMENT
“The leftist claims about sea level rise are overblown, overstated or frankly just wrong,” he said in an interview. Regarding the United Nations' findings on climate change, he said it was "fake science" motivated by a desire for "power and control."
“COMING SOON”
Evidence of sea level rise, however, is strewn across the state that hosted the conference.
New Orleans has been ravaged repeatedly by hurricanes that scientists say will become stronger and more frequent due to climate change. And the rest of Louisiana is losing coastline at one of the fastest rates on the planet due to sea level rise and encroaching industry, according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
"It’s a nice world they live in," said Steve Cochran, campaign director of Restore the Mississippi River Delta, an environmental consortium involved in coastal restoration programs, referring to the attendees of the America First Energy Conference. "It’s not the world we live in."
The Governor’s Office of Louisiana, a state that has earmarked tens of billions of dollars to fend off coastal erosion and relocate a Native American tribe from a sinking offshore island, did not respond to requests for comment about the conference.
In the conference exhibit hall, the words “Coming Soon!” in big orange letters framed a Heartland Institute advertisement for the fifth volume in its “Climate Change Reconsidered” book series. Attendees also passed around a book titled “Dumb Energy: A Rant Against Wind and Solar Energy.”
The more than 40 speakers praised Trump for withdrawing from the Paris climate accords, a global agreement to fight climate change mainly by cutting carbon emissions; and for rolling back regulations to allow oil companies to lead the biggest energy surge in the nation’s history.
ADVERTISEMENT
But they warned that proponents of the U.S. oil and gas boom are still locked in an epic struggle with climate activists in academia and within federal agencies.
“The deep state is real,” said Congressman Clay Higgins, a Louisiana Republican, addressing the conference. “They’re certainly anti-fossil fuel.”
Higgins joked about renewable energy sources, like wind and solar, saying there is probably a conference somewhere in the United States where people are talking about “how the future of the world’s engine will be provided by rainbow dust and unicorn milk.”
David Legates, professor of climatology at the University of Delaware, argued that increased carbon dioxide emissions will not only leave the planet unharmed, but benefit plant life by allowing them to consume water more efficiently.
“So, you would expect, therefore, that this will be a greener planet,” Legates said.
Funes of the Interior Department spoke on a panel called “The Future of Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas,” alongside Joe Leimkuhler, vice president of drilling at LLOG Exploration Co. and Fred Palmer, who joined Heartland in 2016 after retiring from coal company Peabody Energy.
"Oil production under President Trump has increased 2 million barrels per day since the beginning of his administration," Funes said. "The U.S. is exporting four times as much oil as it exported a decade ago."
On the sidelines of the conference, Funes said he only attended the conference to speak about the nation’s surging oil production, and he refused to comment about the views of other speakers.
ADVERTISEMENT
Efforts to reach Balash and Rollins were unsuccessful.
But on the dinner keynote address, Balash embraced the most obvious mutual terrain between the conference organizers and the Trump administration – the U.S. deregulation push.
“Last year, this administration rolled back 22 regulations for every one that it proposed,” Balash said. “Unfortunately, I think we need about a decade of that to get back to a reasonable place.”
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/08/09/us/09reuters-usa-climatechange.html
-
China’s Tariff Turnaround: U.S. Crude Oil Drops Off the Target List
Aug 9, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Chuin-Wei Yap
As China made good on its threat to impose 25% tariffs on $16 billion worth of U.S. imports, one big-ticket item originally on its hit list was conspicuously missing: crude oil.
Oil had been one of a slate of targets China listed in June for tariffs to counter those the Trump administration threatened on Chinese imports. The gambit jeopardized a budding relationship: Over the past two years China has become the biggest buyer of U.S. crude-oil exports, last year taking a fifth of the total.
But oil was off Wednesday’s final list. China’s Ministry of Commerce didn’t explain the omission and didn’t immediately respond to questions. Its statement accompanying the list called the U.S. measures “unreasonable” and said China had to counter them “to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests and the multilateral trading system.” The dollar-for-dollar retaliation against the U.S. tariffs is set to take effect Aug. 23.
Analysts and industry insiders said the change could signal that China is reassessing its bluster, given its slowing economy, the ease with which crude sellers can find new buyers—and, most of all, its climbing reliance on foreign oil. China depends on imports for 70% of its energy needs, and the International Energy Agency forecasts that will climb to 80% by 2040.
“China would be shooting itself in the foot if they tax [crude oil] imports,” Shane Oliver, an analyst at AMP Capital Markets, said. “China’s economy is heavily dependent on oil.”China's crude-oil importsSource: General Administration of Customs.million barrels
Though the volume China buys from the U.S. has risen some 200-fold in the past two years, American crude still accounts for only 3% of Chinese imports. China’s biggest suppliers are Russia and Saudi Arabia.
Playing against China’s interests: The light sweet crude that has become a mainstay U.S. product has sold at a discount to medium sour grades—which China’s traditional suppliers tend to produce—for most of the past two years. Medium grades require more refining and are more polluting.
In recent years refiners in Asia, including China, have begun to retool their plants to handle the strain of petroleum the U.S. produces; if China drives U.S. crude from its markets, other Asian buyers could easily step in.Related Video
Here's How China Can Escalate a Trade Dispute With the U.S.China has pledged to retaliate against U.S. tariffs in “equal scale and equal strength.” In addition to tariffs, here are three ways Beijing could hit back at Washington. Photo composite: Adele Morgan/The Wall Street Journal
“The U.S.’s light crudes aren’t going to go away,” said Erik Norland, senior economist at CME Group. “If it’s not exported to China, it will be exported someplace else, and those could be other countries in this region or other parts of the world.”
Another explanation that industry executives glean is that China is laying the groundwork to continue importing Iranian crude oil, even after U.S. sanctions on Iran are restored in November.
“Adding a tariff to U.S. crude reduces the chance of the U.S. issuing them a waiver to buy Iranian crude,” Dan Eberhart, chief executive of Canary LLC, a Colorado drilling services company. “It risks aggravating the U.S. even further.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-tariff-turnaround-u-s-crude-oil-drops-off-the-target-list-1533814362?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=4
-
(ACC Blog) Congress and the White House Rein In a Flawed Chemical Security Regulation
Aug 9, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
By Bill Erney and Matthew J. Eggars
Written by Bill Erney, senior director, American Chemistry Council, and Matthew J. Eggars, vice president, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Numerous national security issues dominate the attention of policymakers today – border security, cybersecurity, North Korea, and Iran easily come to mind. While these are weighty subjects, it’s also important that we don’t lose sight of other key economic and homeland security priorities, including protecting our nation’s chemical manufacturing facilities.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) commend Congress for passing and the president for signing H.R. 5729, the Transportation Worker Identification Credential Accountability Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-230). This bipartisan legislation, authored by Rep. John Katko (R-NY), constructively addresses a critical screening program for workers who access high-risk chemical facilities.
The new law pushes the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to complete a long overdue review of the effectiveness of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) program before compelling chemical entities to implement the Coast Guard’s 2016 TWIC reader rule.
Two years ago, Congress mandated a study of the TWIC reader pilot in response to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that raised serious questions about the weaknesses of the program. Among its conclusions, GAO said, “With potentially billions of dollars needed to implement the TWIC program, it is important that DHS provide effective stewardship of taxpayer funds and avoid requiring [chemical facilities] to invest in a program that may not achieve its stated goals. DHS estimates that implementing the TWIC program could cost the federal government and the private sector a combined total of as much as $3 billion over a 10-year period.”
In addition to granting DHS additional time to assess the TWIC program, the Katko legislation halts the implementation of the defective reader rule, which would force companies to install and use TWIC cards with readers at considerable expense. Without the much-needed pause provided by H.R. 5729, the new regulation was set to become effective later this month.
What’s notable, the Coast Guard’s 2013 proposed rulemaking benefited from broad industry input. However, when the final requirements surfaced in 2016, it became apparent that the agency made problematic amendments to the rule without sufficient justification and engagement with the business community, striking many as a clear violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
The scope of the final rule went well beyond what officials initially suggested and departed from established Coast Guard policy. In particular, the regulation increased both the number of facilities and the number of points of entry subject to the rule. We estimate that there would be a massive 276% increase in the number of facilities covered from 532 to approximately 2,000 as a result of the unwarranted change in scope.
The statute that authorized the TWIC reader rule, the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA), allows the Coast Guard to impose security measures (e.g., TWIC readers) on covered entities only to the extent that they’re necessary to deter or mitigate transportation security incidents. Yet the final rule neither acknowledged nor justified the dramatic increases in regulated facilities—and the corresponding hike in businesses’ compliance burdens—compared with the proposed rulemaking. The bottom line is that the TWIC reader requirement is faulty and out of step with the White House’s executive order to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs.
The U.S. Chamber and ACC have significant concerns with the TWIC reader rule. Still, we are pleased that Congress and the White House responded quickly to an urgent business, security, and policy need. Chemical security stakeholders in the public and private sectors are trying to achieve the same goal—enhanced security and resilience at high-risk facilities. The new law creates an opportunity for DHS, the Coast Guard, and industry to move ahead on a new and improved TWIC reader rule that leads to a stronger worker screening program and improves chemical facility security.
You can also read this blog on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s blog here
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2018/08/congress-and-the-white-house-rein-in-a-flawed-chemical-security-regulation/
-
NJ Transit Slates Rail Improvements, Expansion in FY19
Aug 9, 2018 | Progressive Railroading
New Jersey Transit's board yesterday adopted a $1.46 billion capital program for fiscal-year 2019 that includes projects to improve and expand its rail system.
The program allocates funds for state-of-good-repair work on transit stations and infrastructure, positive train control installation and other safety initiatives, NJ Transit officials said in a press release.
The budget sets aside $23 million for the agency's ongoing PTC installation. About $291 million will go toward rail infrastructure improvements, including $17 million for bridges, $3 million for a drawbridge replacement design, and $14 million for the Portal Bridge North project.
Also, $30 million has been budgeted for rail station improvements and $34 million for the Hudson-Bergen light-rail system's Northern Branch expansion.
Moreover, the capital program includes money for investments in the Northeast Corridor, system expansion and support for local mobility programs.
Meanwhile, the board adopted a $2.32 billion FY19 operating budget with no fare increases.
More than half of the operating budget will go toward costs associated with labor and fringe benefits. The budget also allows for the expansion of personnel in key areas within bus, rail, light rail, police operations and strategic administrative support services, according to the agency.
These positions include training instructors, trainmasters, road foremen, regional supervisors, engineers and conductors.
More than 40 percent of the operating budget revenue comes from passenger fares, with the remainder covered by state and federal sources.https://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/NJ-Transit-slates-rail-improvements-expansion-in-FY19--55336
-
Ewire: Elections May Erode GOP Members in House Climate Caucus
Aug 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
Increasing expectations that Democrats will do well in House races this November and potentially gain control of the chamber could have a major effect on one group of lawmakers that aims to begin addressing climate change in a bipartisan way.
A report in Think Progress notes that more than half of the GOP members of the House Climate Solutions Caucus are either retiring from Congress or are “facing strong competition in their re-election bids.” That means the caucus could look much, much smaller when the new Congress is seated in January.
The group only allows lawmakers to join in bipartisan pairs, and it currently includes 43 Republicans and the same number of Democrats. The report cites a “long list of Democratic members waiting to join,” which underscores the GOP's long-standing aversion to climate policy.
The story notes that seven Republican lawmakers in the group are retiring, and one member, Rep. Mark Stanford (R-SC), will be retiring involuntarily after losing his primary contest. Overall, 22 Republicans in the caucus might not be serving in Congress next year, the story says.
That includes co-chairman Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL), whose Miami district overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and is considered one of the top pickup opportunities for Democrats this year.
Curbelo recently made waves for introducing a landmark carbon tax proposal – landmark because it is the first major climate legislation from a sitting Republican lawmaker in almost a decade – that some consider a “template” for further discussion on thorny issues, including its proposed moratorium on EPA greenhouse gas rules in exchange for a tax and how to give enough certainty to both industry and environmentalists.
Even so, Curbelo only attracted one Republican caucus member – Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), who is considered another member at risk of losing his seat – to co-sponsor the bill.
Further, only he and six other Republicans refused to support a non-binding resolution dubbing a carbon tax “detrimental” to American families and the economy.
That small tally included three other climate caucus members: Reps. Fitzpatrick, Mia Love (R-UT), and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL).
Ros-Lehtinen is retiring, and another caucus member who is leaving Congress, Rep. Ryan Costello (R-PA), voted “present.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-elections-may-erode-gop-members-house-climate-caucus
-
Western Governors Urge Congress to Uphold State Permit Power
Aug 9, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
Western governors called on Congress today to stop undermining states' authority to regulate water pollution.
The Western Governors' Association and other groups pointed to multiple attempts — both in Congress and from the White House — to weaken a provision of the Clean Water Act that gives states authority to approve, deny or place conditions on permits, Section 401.
"Section 401 in particular represents a vital state authority," WGA policy adviser Ward Scott said in an interview. "It is often the only opportunity for states to engage in the permitting of facilities that would potentially impact their water."
WGA, which represents 19 states and three Pacific territories, and nine other groups wrote a letter for congressional leaders saying attempts to limit Section 401 represent a threat to the cooperative relationship between state and federal regulators that was the goal of the Clean Water Act.
"To implement the CWA," the letter says, "Congress purposefully designated states as co-regulators under a system of cooperative federalism that recognizes state interests and authority."
The group points to several efforts to reform the law that it says will limit states' Section 401 authority, including recent appropriations language and infrastructure bills. Further, similar changes were outlined in the White House's infrastructure proposal and regulatory agenda.
In most of those cases, changes to Section 401 are billed as an effort to streamline permitting.
But the WGA said those efforts are misguided. Its members support streamlining permitting for infrastructure projects, and they claim that Section 401 is working.
Further, EPA's website states that Section 401 certification shouldn't "add another layer of bureaucracy or cause delays."
"In most cases, Section 401 certification review is conducted at the same time as the Federal agency review," EPA's website says. "Section 401 review allows for better consideration of State- or Tribe-specific concerns in the federal permitting process."
WGA said efforts to reform Section 401 belie political talking points that tout support for state authority in the regulatory process.
"The emergence of this issue is a reflection of fair-weather federalism," WGA Executive Director Jim Ogsbury said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/08/09/stories/1060093761
Industry and Association News
LCSA
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested