Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - 9/20/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Trade Policy And Manufacturing: The Case Of The Chemicals Industry
Sep 18, 2018 | Forbes
By Thomas Duesterberg
The Trump administration’s announcement on Monday of a new round of tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods has dangerous repercussions for the rapidly growing U.S. chemicals sector. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Slams California Prop 65 Law as 'Disaster'
Sep 19, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The American Chemistry Council has labelled California’s Proposition 65 law an "unmitigated disaster" in a stinging rebuke delivered at Chemical Watch’s Safer Chemicals in Products conference in Boston. -
(ACC Mentioned) Foam Insulation Groups Challenge US NGO Criticism
Sep 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Foam insulation groups say that an NGO report that cautioned against their products "ignores science" and focuses too heavily on the mere presence of a chemical in a product. -
(ACC Mentioned) Academics Clash with FDA over Clarity-BPA Results
Sep 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
Academic studies conducted in the US by the CLARITY-BPA consortium show that bisphenol A can cause adverse health effects at low doses, according to three of the principal investigators. -
US Pharmacy Giant Rite Aid Adopts Chemical Management Policy
Sep 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
US pharmacy Rite Aid has announced it has established a company chemical policy and greatly expanded its restricted substance list. -
Clorox to Disclose Disinfectant Ingredients on Labels
Sep 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
US cleaning products giant The Clorox Company has announced plans to fully disclose all ingredients in its EPA-registered household disinfectants on the product labels. -
Consumer Health NGO Raises Concerns over Recycled Plastic FCMs
Sep 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
The consumer rights NGO Safe Food Advocacy Europe (SAFE) claims several plastic recycling processes due to be approved for the manufacture of food contact materials (FCMs) have not been properly assessed for chemical migration. -
Echa Plans REACH Data Makeover to Improve Access to Alternatives
Sep 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Echa has said it plans to publish a new, "easy-to-digest" shortlist of safer alternatives to hazardous substances compiled from REACH authorisation applications. -
Echa Round-Up
Sep 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Rac and Seac: CLH, restriction and authorisation Opinions -
U.S. Gas a No-Go for Chinese Buyers Despite Weaker Tariff
Sep 20, 2018 | Bloomberg (In E&E Energywire)
By Stephen Stapczynski and Dan Murtaug
Even with China's smaller-than-threatened tariff on U.S. natural gas, American cargoes may still be kryptonite for Chinese traders trying to navigate the ongoing trade war. -
Enviros Challenge New Atlantic Coast Permits
Sep 20, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
A coalition of environmental groups is heading to court to fight a set of new permits that recently prompted federal regulators to reauthorize construction on the Atlantic Coast pipeline. -
Canada Transport Ministry Fast-Tracks Crude Oil Rail Car Phase-Out
Sep 20, 2018 | Oilprice.com
By Irina Slav
Canada’s transport ministry will fast-track a phase-out of two models of rail cars for the transportation of crude oil and condensate as oil exports by rail hit record levels, the Minister of Transport Marc Garneau said in a statement. -
Calif. Rest Break Rules Don’t Cover Hazmat Truckers, Feds Say
Sep 20, 2018 | Bloomberg Law
By Jon Steingart
Truck drivers who transport hazardous materials aren’t eligible for meal and rest breaks required by California law, according to the U.S. Transportation Department. -
A New Challenge for Sensors: 24 Million More Americans Breathing Unhealthy Air Than Previously Thought
Sep 20, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Millie Chu Baird
Most counties in the United States have just one – if any – air pollution monitor to help determine if their air is healthy to breathe. -
EPA to Abandon Restrictions Against Chemical Linked to Climate Change
Sep 20, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
The Trump administration is planning to do away with an Obama-era regulation that restricted a known greenhouse gas from being used as a refrigerant in household appliances. -
Weak Co2 Prices Not Enough to Reduce Emissions — Study
Sep 20, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Carbon prices are spreading throughout the world's largest economies. The only problem for climate hawks: They're nowhere near high enough to produce a meaningful reduction in carbon emissions. -
Exxon Mobil, Chevron Join Climate Initiative
Sep 20, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Three of the United States’ largest oil and natural gas companies are joining a major fossil fuel–backed international coalition to battle climate change.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Trade Policy And Manufacturing: The Case Of The Chemicals Industry
Sep 18, 2018 | Forbes
By Thomas Duesterberg
The Trump administration’s announcement on Monday of a new round of tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods has dangerous repercussions for the rapidly growing U.S. chemicals sector. This huge U.S. industry has opposed the “tariff-first” trade policy of the administration, as the first rounds of Trump tariffs have resulted in retaliation patterns negative for this industry. Is there a better approach to taking on the obvious mercantilism of China and unfair trade practices in other parts of the world? A multilateral approach, in coordination with our traditional trading partners, would lessen the damage to the U.S. chemicals sector and could ultimately be more effective.
Now that tariffs on China have been expanded, there could be a sizable disruption to the promising growth path of this dynamic, export-oriented industry. With more than 800,000 workers and output well over $800 billion per year, the U.S. chemicals industry is one of the pillars of our manufacturing sector, and a key part of the Trump administration’s plan for economic revitalization. Corporate tax cuts and a lighter hand of regulation since 2016 have strengthened it considerably. The shale gas revolution has been a powerful force for growth in recent years, as natural gas and associated liquids are the leading feedstock for the chemicals industry, accounting for around two-thirds of raw material input in its production. Competitors such as Europe, Japan, and China rely on more expensive petroleum for basic feedstock and are at an inherent disadvantage due to the cost differential. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) estimates that the new investment in chemicals production publicly announced and linked directly to shale gas is more than $200 billion since 2010 and counting. Fifty-three percent of the investment is already completed and 80,000 new jobs are expected between 2015-2025 because of shale-related investment. Fixed capital investment in the industry grew by 40 percent since the end of the Great Recession and 2016, and accounted for 26 percent of all fixed capital investment in manufacturing in 2016.
Trade policy has aided the rise of this industry. The three biggest markets for U.S. exports, which account for nearly 20 percent of total output of all chemicals and plastics, are Canada, Mexico, and China. Exports to Mexico and Canada have more than tripled since the inception of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the United States had a trade surplus of around $20 billion in chemicals in 2017. Pharmaceutical exports to China have grown by 650 percent since 2007. Although it has a small trade deficit with the Middle Kingdom in this sector, much of this is likely due to intra-company trade between U.S. firms operating in China and their parent in the United States. Seventy percent of all U.S. chemical imports are from intra-company trade. Worldwide, the United States has a small trade deficit in chemicals, although it would be a surplus if imports of pharmaceuticals from Ireland were not counted. (U.S. firms relocated production of final product to Ireland in the last few decades to take advantage of its extremely low corporate tax rate.) The ACC estimates that a properly executed North American trade agreement could expand U.S. exports by another 34 percent in the next seven years.
According to the ACC, the Section 301 tariffs on China, which have already spurred retaliation by the Chinese, are a dangerous threat to the industry. In the second wave of U.S. tariffs imposed on Chinese products implemented in August, 54 percent of the products affected were in the chemicals and plastics industry. The U.S. list for the latest round of tariffs targets $15 billion worth of chemicals and plastics products from China, the majority of which have no alternative foreign sources of supply. In its testimony to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the ACC notes that “significant disruptions of supply chains … would significantly disadvantage the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers.”
Retaliatory tariffs from China already cover over $2 billion in U.S. plastics and chemicals products, and . There is also collateral damage to the chemicals sector from Chinese retaliation, because the “crop protection” products used by soybean farmers will be affected if new markets cannot be found to replace the lost Chinese sales.
Observers are optimistic that some form of a new North American pact will be completed in the coming month, but the tit-for-tat battle continues with China. It is legitimate to ask if the hypothetical but known risks of this policy are worth the likely costs, at least in the short to medium term.
For the capital-intensive chemicals industry, regaining lost market share is very costly. Many chemical products require lengthy and costly approval processes in each country, making losses of existing markets even more damaging. Escalation of the trade war with China may also jeopardize China’s plan for substantial imports of U.S. liquified natural gas (LNG). This in turn could result in a slowdown of new exploration and development of this domestic resource that is needed to keep the markets supplied, since shale gas wells require constant renewal.
It would be vastly preferable, and probably more effective, if Trump were to form alliances with some of our traditional trade allies to bring concerted action against China through the World Trade Organization. Other industrialized nations are imperiled by Chinese industrial policies as well, and there is already a trilateral U.S.-EU-Japan dialogue on means to counter Chinese threats to WTO rules. It is true, as United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer has consistently documented, that the WTO process moves at a glacial pace, but a united front would certainly get the attention of the Chinese and bring them to the table. It would also remove China’s justification for retaliation, since that would in principle require WTO sanction if they wanted to pose as defenders of the current trading system, as they tiresomely repeat.
The current path of U.S. trade policy risks serious harm to a bedrock U.S. manufacturing sector that has a historic opportunity for growth. China’s mercantilism and flaunting of WTO rules deserves a vigorous response, but a unilateral one places all the risk on the U.S. economy and workers." style="box-sizing: border-box; width: 578.354px;">
The Trump administration’s announcement on Monday of a new round of tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods has dangerous repercussions for the rapidly growing U.S. chemicals sector. This huge U.S. industry has opposed the “tariff-first” trade policy of the administration, as the first rounds of Trump tariffs have resulted in retaliation patterns negative for this industry. Is there a better approach to taking on the obvious mercantilism of China and unfair trade practices in other parts of the world? A multilateral approach, in coordination with our traditional trading partners, would lessen the damage to the U.S. chemicals sector and could ultimately be more effective.
Now that tariffs on China have been expanded, there could be a sizable disruption to the promising growth path of this dynamic, export-oriented industry. With more than 800,000 workers and output well over $800 billion per year, the U.S. chemicals industry is one of the pillars of our manufacturing sector, and a key part of the Trump administration’s plan for economic revitalization. Corporate tax cuts and a lighter hand of regulation since 2016 have strengthened it considerably. The shale gas revolution has been a powerful force for growth in recent years, as natural gas and associated liquids are the leading feedstock for the chemicals industry, accounting for around two-thirds of raw material input in its production. Competitors such as Europe, Japan, and China rely on more expensive petroleum for basic feedstock and are at an inherent disadvantage due to the cost differential. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) estimates that the new investment in chemicals production publicly announced and linked directly to shale gas is more than $200 billion since 2010 and counting. Fifty-three percent of the investment is already completed and 80,000 new jobs are expected between 2015-2025 because of shale-related investment. Fixed capital investment in the industry grew by 40 percent since the end of the Great Recession and 2016, and accounted for 26 percent of all fixed capital investment in manufacturing in 2016.
Trade policy has aided the rise of this industry. The three biggest markets for U.S. exports, which account for nearly 20 percent of total output of all chemicals and plastics, are Canada, Mexico, and China. Exports to Mexico and Canada have more than tripled since the inception of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the United States had a trade surplus of around $20 billion in chemicals in 2017. Pharmaceutical exports to China have grown by 650 percent since 2007. Although it has a small trade deficit with the Middle Kingdom in this sector, much of this is likely due to intra-company trade between U.S. firms operating in China and their parent in the United States. Seventy percent of all U.S. chemical imports are from intra-company trade. Worldwide, the United States has a small trade deficit in chemicals, although it would be a surplus if imports of pharmaceuticals from Ireland were not counted. (U.S. firms relocated production of final product to Ireland in the last few decades to take advantage of its extremely low corporate tax rate.) The ACC estimates that a properly executed North American trade agreement could expand U.S. exports by another 34 percent in the next seven years.
According to the ACC, the Section 301 tariffs on China, which have already spurred retaliation by the Chinese, are a dangerous threat to the industry. In the second wave of U.S. tariffs imposed on Chinese products implemented in August, 54 percent of the products affected were in the chemicals and plastics industry. The U.S. list for the latest round of tariffs targets $15 billion worth of chemicals and plastics products from China, the majority of which have no alternative foreign sources of supply. In its testimony to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the ACC notes that “significant disruptions of supply chains … would significantly disadvantage the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers.”
Retaliatory tariffs from China already cover over $2 billion in U.S. plastics and chemicals products, and . There is also collateral damage to the chemicals sector from Chinese retaliation, because the “crop protection” products used by soybean farmers will be affected if new markets cannot be found to replace the lost Chinese sales.
Observers are optimistic that some form of a new North American pact will be completed in the coming month, but the tit-for-tat battle continues with China. It is legitimate to ask if the hypothetical but known risks of this policy are worth the likely costs, at least in the short to medium term.
For the capital-intensive chemicals industry, regaining lost market share is very costly. Many chemical products require lengthy and costly approval processes in each country, making losses of existing markets even more damaging. Escalation of the trade war with China may also jeopardize China’s plan for substantial imports of U.S. liquified natural gas (LNG). This in turn could result in a slowdown of new exploration and development of this domestic resource that is needed to keep the markets supplied, since shale gas wells require constant renewal.
It would be vastly preferable, and probably more effective, if Trump were to form alliances with some of our traditional trade allies to bring concerted action against China through the World Trade Organization. Other industrialized nations are imperiled by Chinese industrial policies as well, and there is already a trilateral U.S.-EU-Japan dialogue on means to counter Chinese threats to WTO rules. It is true, as United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer has consistently documented, that the WTO process moves at a glacial pace, but a united front would certainly get the attention of the Chinese and bring them to the table. It would also remove China’s justification for retaliation, since that would in principle require WTO sanction if they wanted to pose as defenders of the current trading system, as they tiresomely repeat.
The current path of U.S. trade policy risks serious harm to a bedrock U.S. manufacturing sector that has a historic opportunity for growth. China’s mercantilism and flaunting of WTO rules deserves a vigorous response, but a unilateral one places all the risk on the U.S. economy and workers.
Thomas J. Duesterberg is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute. Previously, Dr. Duesterberg was executive director of the Manufacturing and Society in the 21st Century Program at the Aspen Institute.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasduesterberg/2018/09/20/trump-trade-policy-and-manufacturing-the-case-of-the-chemicals-industry/
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Slams California Prop 65 Law as 'Disaster'
Sep 19, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The American Chemistry Council has labelled California’s Proposition 65 law an "unmitigated disaster" in a stinging rebuke delivered at Chemical Watch’s Safer Chemicals in Products conference in Boston.
The ACC’s senior director of regulatory and technical affairs, Karyn Schmidt, said problems with the law are "rife and it's time to put it to bed".
Proposition 65 requires businesses to provide warnings, typically in the form of labels or signs, for exposures to chemicals that cause cancer or reproductive harm. California maintains a list of chemicals it has determined present these effects, which currently holds around 900 substances.
The aim is that, by requiring the disclosure of this information, California's citizens can make informed decisions about their exposure.
The agency behind Prop 65, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha), has hit back at the criticism, defending the legislation in an interview with Chemical Watch.
But the law has been heavily criticised by industry, which says that it creates consumer confusion and fear, and imposes unnecessary and costly regulatory and legal burdens.
These concerns came to the fore in recent months, after significant amendments took effect on 30 August on how ‘clear and reasonable warning’ must be provided.
Ms Schmidt said that in the early days of Prop 65 – which was introduced in 1986 – there was some low-hanging fruit, such as lead in jewellery, where the statute did create some pressure on industry to reformulate. But "that time has passed," she said.
"We're now dealing with the statue that is being inappropriately applied to baby food, to infant formula, to coffee," she continued. She highlighted a recent legal case where a superior court judge ruled that coffee must carry a Prop 65 warning.
In response, an spokesperson from Oehha told Chemical Watch that the law has led to the reformulation of numerous products to remove or reduce exposures to hazardous chemicals.
Many of these have involved children’s products and in many cases the safer reformulations have been implemented nationwide, such as lead removed from baby bibs and cadmium from jewellery.
Positive effect
David Roe, a public interest lawyer formerly of NGO the Environmental Defense Fund and someone who helped design the law, told Chemical Watch that Ms Schmidt’s criticism neglected the good the law has achieved.
"The key point is how much positive effect Prop 65 has had, eliminating and reducing toxics exposures invisibly." No company reformulating a product or a waste stream ever announces it publicly, he said – the visible cases are "just the tip of the iceberg".
Because Prop 65 does not require companies to reduce chemical concentrations, the many reformulations that have occurred have been "easy and voluntary", said Mr Roe.
"They were all quite doable, without hurting any products functionally or economically – no company has ever claimed otherwise," he said.
"In other words, those were all unnecessary exposures in the first place, which could be eliminated easily once the threat of a spotlight on them was raised," he said.
If it had been too expensive or difficult to eliminate or reduce them, companies always had the legal option to keep them the same, and comply with Prop 65 with a warning, he added.
'Useless model’ for risk management
"Prop 65 conflates ingredient disclosure with safety," said Ms Schmidt. "Safety has got to be based on risk … but the law is grounded with a notion that you are entitled to knowledge and disclosure if there is any exposure to a chemical regardless."
Mr Roe, however, said that Prop 65 is "all about risk".
The law "very explicitly" exempts exposures that are below a defined ‘safe harbour’ risk level, he said. But "industry seems extremely reluctant to know about risk levels for its chemicals, and certainly unwilling to be responsible for knowing."
"In effect, Ms Schmidt is saying the industry doesn’t want to have to figure out risk for its own products," he added.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70446/acc-slams-california-prop-65-law-as-disaster
-
(ACC Mentioned) Foam Insulation Groups Challenge US NGO Criticism
Sep 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Foam insulation groups say that an NGO report that cautioned against their products "ignores science" and focuses too heavily on the mere presence of a chemical in a product.
The criticism has come in response to a report authored by the Energy Efficiency for All NGO partnership, which ranked insulation and air-sealing products based on their chemical composition and potential health effects, as well as their performance and costs.
Foam insulation materials were among the products the authors cautioned against using in their report, A Guide to Healthier Upgrade Materials, due in part to their containing certain halogenated flame retardants or isocyanates. And a co-author has defended the study in a statement to Chemical Watch.
But Stephen Wieroniey, director for the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Center for the Polyurethanes Industry, told Chemical Watch the report "presents a simplistic approach to complicated issues, and it ignores decades of established and accepted science".
And Betsy Bowers, executive director of the expanded polystyrene foam group EPS-IA, said the report "does not have data to support a widespread boycott of foam plastic insulation materials".
"The absence of credible, scientific and specific sources calls into question the validity of the guide’s claims," added Justin Koscher, president of the Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association (Pima).
"A close look reveals that the authors rely inappropriately on sources unrelated to the manufacture and use of building insulation," he told Chemical Watch.
Points of criticism
Among concerns raised by the industry groups is that the report focuses on what chemicals a product contains, without appropriate regard for other attributes, such as thermal, fire, moisture and environmental performance.
"Time and time again we’re reminded that selecting products based on a single attribute stifles innovation, drives up costs by eliminating options, and leads to poorly performing, and expensive to run, homes and buildings," said Mr Koscher.
The ACC added: "Simply identifying chemicals by potential hazard offers an incomplete picture of both the ingredient and the product itself, and misses important factors needed to accurately account for safe use of chemicals in building products."
And groups also disputed that the presence of a chemical indicates a health concern. Speaking on behalf of the spray polyurethane foam (SPF) industry, the ACC’s Mr Wieroniey said that the product is "inert and non-toxic when fully cured". The finding, he said, is upheld by the US EPA.
Ms Bowers also raised several points regarding the authors’ focus on halogenated flame retardants, which serve an "important purpose" in building materials.
She noted that NGOs have "failed repeatedly" in their efforts to change building codes and remove requirements that flame retardants be used in foam insulation materials.
"They simply did not present compelling or even sufficient test data or fire performance analysis to ensure fire safety standards would be maintained in the absence" of these substances, she told Chemical Watch.
Furthermore, both the EPS and extruded polystyrene foam (XPS) industries have completed a voluntary phase-out of HBCD from their products. The report, however, indicates the presence of the substance as a cause for concern with their use.
Industry groups also said that the report fails to take a full lifecycle view of products, ignoring the energy efficiency attributes of foam insulation, while also neglecting "environmental challenges" posed by materials that the NGOs endorsed.
"Decisions about chemical ingredients must be based not on the mere presence of any chemical, but on scientific approaches that consider how and how much of a chemical is in a product and whether occupants may come in contact" with them, added the ACC.The report authors were not persuaded by the foam insulation groups' arguments, however. "The most reliable way to avoid exposure is to avoid the use of the toxic chemicals all together," Rebecca Stamm, senior researcher at report co-author Healthy Building Network (HBN), told Chemical Watch. "Energy-efficiency materials containing toxic chemicals can adversely affect residents, workers, adjacent communities, and locales as far away as the Arctic," and that alternatives with fewer worrisome ingredients are already available, the EEFA report says.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70455/foam-insulation-groups-challenge-us-ngo-criticism
-
(ACC Mentioned) Academics Clash with FDA over Clarity-BPA Results
Sep 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
Academic studies conducted in the US by the CLARITY-BPA consortium show that bisphenol A can cause adverse health effects at low doses, according to three of the principal investigators. The results run contrary to the Food and Drug Administration's assertion that the chemical causes "minimal" health effects, based on results from the project's core studies.
The Consortium Linking Academic and Regulatory Insights on BPA Toxicity was established six years ago by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the FDA. The idea behind it was groundbreaking: it gave the FDA the lead on assessing BPA using a standard guideline (core) study, while also sending some of the rodents and tissues to 14 independent researchers in the US to carry out non-guideline tests.
In February, the FDA published its initial review of the core results, reporting minimal effects. Last week, Barry Delclos, research pharmacologist at the FDA's National Center for Toxicological Research, reiterated that "BPA did not elicit clear, biologically plausible, adverse effects, particularly below 25,000 micrograms per kg of body weight per day," according to core results. Conclusions from the core study were "largely agreed to by the review panel", he added, during an FDA webcast.
Some results from the academic studies have been published in a selection of journals but next year the NTP plans to bring all of the results together into one report. Based on data already published or in press, a number of the principal investigators are convinced that effects seen at very low doses are significant and should be taken seriously by regulators.
"Remarkably consistent across most studies, including the core study, are low-dose effects, at 2.5, 25 and 250 micrograms per kg body weight," conclude researchers from three of the studies, led by Gail Prins from the University of Illinois at Chicago, principal investigator for a CLARITY-BPA prostate cancer study.
Her lab found that BPA increased prostate cancer risk, "with the greatest effect at the lowest BPA dose".
In a webcast hosted by Carnegie Mellon University, Professor Prins said that "at this point in time, 75 endpoints have been published so far, with significant effects. Half of them are in the low-dose group.
"Statistical or biological significance
Steven Hentges, senior director of the American Chemistry Council's polycarbonate/BPA global group, agrees that "statistically significant findings were reported in both the core study and the grantee studies, some of which were observed at low doses".
"Such findings would be expected due to the statistical methods typically used for evaluating significance but statistical significance is not equal to biological significance or relevance, which can only be determined with further evaluations of the data," he told Chemical Watch.
"It’s not clear that all grantees conducted similarly rigorous evaluations of biological significance. To date, results have been published from only five of the 13 grantees, now 4.5-5.5 years after biological samples were provided to [them]."
Apples and oranges
"We are set to meet the goal of merging the 'apples' from the FDA and the 'oranges' from the independent scientists into an integrated, coherent dataset," writes Jerrold Heindel, former scientific programme administrator at the NIEHS and CLARITY-BPA architect.
Although recently retired, Dr Heindel retains a strong interest in seeing the project's original goals met. "Recent developments have me worried that the FDA is short-circuiting the process. In violation of the agreement we all had at the beginning, the FDA appears to be rushing to judgement without the full integration of both the apples and oranges datasets," he writes in Environmental Health News.
"I've seen enough of the data to be confident that there are low-dose impacts of BPA in both the guideline studies and the academic research," he added.
"These low-dose effects are a problem because we can't consider them to be spurious," said Patricia Hunt from Washington State University's Center for Reproductive Biology, during the Carnegie Mellon webcast. "The expectation that you are going to see a linear dose-response is simply not valid. These non-monotonic dose-responses are expected for these types of chemicals."
Professor Hunt did not take part in CLARITY-BPA but described it as a "flawed study". "I would argue that the strength of CLARITY-BPA is not in what it is going to tell us about the risk that BPA poses for our health but the lessons that it provides in guiding similar initiatives in the future," she said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70439/academics-clash-with-fda-over-clarity-bpa-results
-
US Pharmacy Giant Rite Aid Adopts Chemical Management Policy
Sep 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
US pharmacy Rite Aid has announced it has established a company chemical policy and greatly expanded its restricted substance list.
The move will see the Fortune 500 drugstore chain's RSL expand from eight to 69 substances. In the first instance, the aim is to eliminate the substances from its own formulated private brand items.
However, the company, which has more than 4,500 stores across the US, says its longer-term goal is to extend the policy to cover all of the products sold in its shops.
And, Rite Aid says, the chemical policy will be a key consideration of product and vendor selection, as all of its current and future products will be screened against the expanded RSL and the Beauty and Personal Care (BPC) stewardship list.
The motivation behind the policy, Rite Aid told Chemical Watch, came from its commitment to "improving the health and wellness of our customers". This, it added, includes ensuring the products it sells are safe and healthy.
Daniel Miller, the company’s senior vice president of pharmacy and regulatory affairs, said this commitment extends to "making sure that we’re meeting our customers’ expectations when it come to the ingredients found in the items we sell".Rite Aid policy
In 2016, Rite Aid began working with suppliers to get rid of eight chemicals of concern from its own formulated brands: triclosan, formaldehyde, toluene, butylparaben, propylparaben, dibutyl phthalate (DBP), diethyl phthalate (DEP) and nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs).
The company says it is on track to eliminate these chemicals from its private brands by 2020.
The newly established chemical policy includes six initiatives scheduled for 2018. Under these Rite Aid will:
· publicly disclose its RSL, expand its remit beyond regulatory requirements and increase the number of substances included to 69;
· move from survey-based assessments of RSL compliance to automated screening using UL's WERCSmart and PurView platforms;
· expand its chemical policy to cover formulated products made by national brands. These will be screened against the RSL and the BPC list;
· align its activities with other retail sector initiatives;
· encourage suppliers to avoid ingredients on the RSL and BPC list, and use alternatives identified as safer chemicals by the EPA's Safer Choice programme; and
· promote ingredient disclosure to consumers by suppliers – either on the packaging or online.
On the final point Rite Aid says it has not yet begun widespread implementation of the initiative.Chemical choices and suppliers
Rite Aid says the initial eight chemicals on the RSL were chosen because of assessments of the levels of concern linked to their environmental and health effects. The list has been expanded "based on prevalence, consumer concern and alignment with retail sector initiatives".
The company has a cross-functional team responsible for its chemical policy strategy, development and implementation planning.
The next stage of its work is to create a clear set of guidelines for vendor implementation. This will be shared with suppliers in the coming weeks. Then, it says: "With clear guidelines and expectations established, conversations with our suppliers will occur continuously and in various forms."
"We intend to provide ongoing feedback and reporting to our suppliers on their specific products and our progress toward our goals," the company added.
Next year the company will begin reporting to stakeholders on:
· progress towards 100% elimination of the first eight chemicals on the RSL from the Rite Aid private brand; and
· the number of new products launched in a year that are free of these chemicals.
It will also expand the chemical programme to include over the counter medications, vitamins, supplements and food and drinks.
In developing its policy Rite Aid has been working with NGO Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families and its Mind the Store Campaign which ranks US retailers for their efforts to eliminate chemicals of concern.
The campaign's director Mike Schade applauded the company for its efforts and said: "Retailers like Rite Aid can play an important role in driving harmful chemicals out of commerce and promoting safer alternatives."
https://chemicalwatch.com/70453/us-pharmacy-giant-rite-aid-adopts-chemical-management-policy
-
Clorox to Disclose Disinfectant Ingredients on Labels
Sep 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
US cleaning products giant The Clorox Company has announced plans to fully disclose all ingredients in its EPA-registered household disinfectants on the product labels.
The effort will cover 350 products sold through US retail channels, Clorox says. Labels will be updated "over time", as and when labelling changes are reviewed and approved by regulators.
Clorox has already committed to adding all intentionally added ingredients to the labels of 300 household and professional cleaning products that are not registered as disinfectants, consistent with a new California cleaning products disclosure law.
The statute demands that cleaning product labels disclose all ingredients included on certain hazardous substance lists, such as California's Proposition 65, with no minimum threshold.
But it excludes disinfectants registered with EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticides Act (Fifra), as the federal law imposes its own labelling rules. Fifra requires labels to include the active substances in a product, while it holds that other ‘inert ingredients’ are considered confidential business information.
‘Above and beyond’
Clorox wants to go "above and beyond the requirements of the law", CEO Benno Dorer said in a press release.
In 2011, Clorox became the first in the industry to post online all of the preservatives, dyes and fragrances present in its cleaning and disinfecting products sold across the US and Canada. It is now extending that disclosure to product labels for all of its cleaning, disinfecting and laundry products sold in US retail outlets.
"Because ingredients may play an important role in purchasing decisions for consumers, we chose to add ingredient listings on-pack for our US retail products", the company told Chemical Watch.
The voluntary labelling does not extend to the company’s professional registered products. The company said purchasing decisions for these products are "driven more by efficacy", but that it will continue to disclose ingredient information online, except where contractual obligations bar it.
Clorox also clarified that with regard to fragrance ingredients, its labels will include the word ‘fragrance’, and direct consumers to SmartLabel for more ingredient information, including fragrance components.
"We will be asking our suppliers for the ingredients in our fragrances, and encouraging them to share them," said Clorox.
It noted that the California law does allow fragrance suppliers to declare certain ingredients as confidential business information (CBI). But fragrance ingredients on a California-designated list, and all fragrance allergens present at or above 100 parts per million (ppm) will be disclosed.
NGOs ask for more
Consumer advocacy groups welcomed the new policy. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said it "applauds Clorox for recognising that consumers need meaningful ingredient transparency for all of the cleaning products they buy" and encourages other major brands to follow suit.
Some, though, want the company to take further steps.
Women’s Voices for the Earth said Clorox should up the ante on its transparency efforts by disclosing more detailed information about the methods and criteria it uses to screen products for chemical safety.
"For example, many of [Clorox’s] disinfecting products contain ammonium quaternary compounds, which have been linked to asthma and reproductive harm," said Sarada Tangirala, WVE’s director of corporate accountability.
US Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG) wants to see Clorox eliminate hazardous substances from its products entirely.
"We do applaud Clorox for adding ingredient disclosures to the labels – that goes above and beyond what most companies do," said Kara Cook-Schultz, the NGO's toxics director.
"The next step is for these companies to take harmful chemicals out, so that consumers can feel safe about the products they buy," she said.
Growing trend
There has been increasing pressure for ingredient transparency in cleaning products in the US.
Beyond California’s law, New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation recently published the final version of its own cleaning product disclosure policy.
And large industry players, such as Unilever, Procter & Gamble and SC Johnson, are all increasing disclosure efforts, with fragrance ingredients being a particular focus.
"More and more companies like Unilever and Procter & Gamble are disclosing what is in their products," said Ms Cook-Schultz. "Clorox's decision is part of an encouraging trend."
https://chemicalwatch.com/70434/clorox-to-disclose-disinfectant-ingredients-on-labels
-
Consumer Health NGO Raises Concerns over Recycled Plastic FCMs
Sep 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
The consumer rights NGO Safe Food Advocacy Europe (SAFE) claims several plastic recycling processes due to be approved for the manufacture of food contact materials (FCMs) have not been properly assessed for chemical migration.
Industry and other activists disagree, however.
The European Commission is preparing to fast-track the approvals of 140 recycling processes for plastics to be used in FCMs.
All of them – mostly concerning polyethylene terephthalate (PET) – were risk assessed by the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa). It found 137 of them safe, and filed three assessments as "inconclusive".
But SAFE is concerned that Efsa’s assessments alone fail to prove that chemicals leaching from the recycled plastics pose no danger to human health.
This is because they focus on the start of the recycling processes – the input materials and processing conditions – rather than on the finished recycled products, says Floriana Cimmarusti, director general of the NGO.
"We are lacking a serious analysis of the chemicals that are in the finished product, at the end of each recycling process," she told Chemical Watch.
Plastics can absorb hazardous chemicals during the waste management process, such as brominated flame retardants which, Ms Cimmarusti says, "have regularly been found in plastic items intended for FCMs; a clear indication that waste electric and electronic equipment (WEEE) has been used in the process".
A UK study released earlier this year, for instance, found bromine and heavy metals in black plastic food contact items, which is often sourced from WEEE.
Fast-tracked approvals
Ms Cimmarusti suggests that regulators up the ante by analysing samples of recycled plastics for levels of hazardous chemicals "before giving the processes the final okay".
The 140 upcoming decisions, however, will be fast-tracked for approval through the comitology procedure, the European Commission confirmed to Chemical Watch.
The Commission is preparing its draft approvals to bring before the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (SCoPAFF) for a vote in the autumn.
If there is a positive vote by the SCoPAFF, the Commission will adopt them directly without scrutiny by the European Council or Parliament.
The target for adoption is the end of the year.
Isolated criticism
Other advocacy groups haven’t echoed SAFE’s concerns over the recycling processes.
When asked about chemical hazards in recycled plastic FCM, NGO CHEM Trust pointed to recycled paper and cardboard as a bigger concern that needs addressing. Unlike these materials, EU laws on recycled FCMs already cover plastics, CHEM Trust noted.
NGO the Food Packaging Forum (FPF) said it was not aware of any concerns relating to the scientific opinions prepared by Efsa on the 140 processes.
From the industry side, Plastics Recyclers Europe said the processes have been "thoroughly assessed by Efsa ... eliminating cause for concern".
"Recycled plastics have been used in food contact applications for more than a decade in accordance with the requirements set by national legislations," says Casper van den Dungen, the trade body’s vice president.
Efsa’s assessments, he adds, are guided by "different national experiences, resulting in high requirements for recycling processes for food contact applications. We see these assessments as a fair analysis for recycling processes approved for food contact applications".
Tracking chemicals in recycled materials has been on the EU’s radar this month. In early September, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution calling for "full consistency" between waste and chemicals policies, to make sure chemicals of concern are caught early on in the waste stream.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70401/consumer-health-ngo-raises-concerns-over-recycled-plastic-fcms
-
Echa Plans REACH Data Makeover to Improve Access to Alternatives
Sep 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Echa has said it plans to publish a new, "easy-to-digest" shortlist of safer alternatives to hazardous substances compiled from REACH authorisation applications.
In January, the agency published its substitution strategy, in which it said it intends to further share and improve access to information. It has also faced growing calls from NGOs and EU member states for more information on alternatives to be made public to encourage substitution of SVHCs.
The agency told Chemical Watch it plans to publish the new document in the coming months. While the layout and functionalities are yet to be determined, "at a minimum" it would be a single spreadsheet, it said.
The document will contain no new data but will allow an easier search of alternatives. About 90% of the data concerning authorisations and downstream user notifications is already made public, Echa said, adding it has to "strike a balance" while being "as transparent as possible".
The agency has also recently revamped its webpages on substitution, adding several new pages and features. They include news with substitution-related events, a list of funding and technical support programmes and links to substitution networks.
Call for more data
Recently France, Germany, Italy and Norway asked Echa to reveal more information on substitution possibilities in authorisation applications.
Their comments appeared in separate papers submitted after the June meeting of the Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) where stakeholders discussed five of 16 actions recommended by this year’s REACH Review report – one of which is to promote substitution of SVHCs.
France said research on alternatives should be done at an early stage of the authorisation process and "even at the candidate list step". Echa could then "work on the availability of the technical information for all parties".
It also suggested the creation of a network of experts for each substance and each use that Echa's Socio-economic Analysis Committee (Seac) could use during the authorisation process.
Germany argued that some producers of alternatives are reluctant to discuss their ideas in public, while large end-users have "limited desire" to position themselves clearly on the market for safer alternatives.
"This suggests that – to allow dissemination of good ideas – substitution thinking needs to be communicated more broadly," it said.
Meanwhile, Norway said it supports the view expressed by some member states that Echa should make authorisation data more available for "all parties" to use.
Workshops and funding
All four countries said they were planning to roll out industry workshops on substitution from next year. These include:
· France: a workshop with the textile industry. Additionally, it has provided funding for a project on chromium VI substitution in the aeronautical industry;
· Norway: the Environment Agency is planning a workshop in early 2019 in cooperation with national industries;
· Italy: three workshops and conferences on substitution have been held since June last year. Two more are in the pipeline – one on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) and another on substitution in textiles; and
· Germany: a January workshop planned on the substitution of chromium VI in surface plating treatments.
Meanwhile, industry association Eurometaux said it will hold a workshop on substitution on 7 November in Brussels.
And in a separate paper, NGO the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) called for the urgent establishment of an EU substitution support office, as well as a network of support centres to help SMEs all around Europe.
NGOs have criticised the European Commission for its "vague" REACH Review actions, saying they neglect SVHC substitution.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70432/echa-plans-reach-data-makeover-to-improve-access-to-alternatives
-
Sep 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Rac and Seac: CLH, restriction and authorisation Opinions
Echa's Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) has adopted Opinions on 14 substances for harmonised classification and labelling (CLH). They include two fragrances, citral and geraniol, for skin sensitisation, two organotin stabilisers used in plastics and an azole fungicide for reprotoxicity, as well as a number of biocides and pesticides.
Both the Rac and the Committee for Socio-economic Analysis (Seac) also agreed to a restriction proposal on a group of perfluorinated substances C9-C14 PFCAs (PFNA, PFDA, PFUnDA, PFDoDA, PFTrDA, PFTDA), their salts and precursors. It will apply to the manufacturing, use, placing on the market and import of the group within the EU.
Proposed by Sweden and Germany, the restriction is intended to prevent a switch by industry using PFOA-based substances to longer-chain PFCAs, after the restriction for PFOA, its salts and PFOA-related substances become effective in 2020.
Seac agreed the draft Opinion on this restriction proposal. A public consultation on the socio-economic aspects was launched on 19 September and will remain open until 19 November.
In other business the two committees:
· agreed an Article 77(3)(c) request to review a proposal for an additional derogation to the restriction of PFOA, its salts and PFOA-related substances; and
· discussed and adopted six Opinions on applications for authorisation on the uses of chromium trioxide for [formulation and] chrome plating, dichromium tris(chromate), strontium chromate and pentazinc chromate octahydroxide in the aerospace and defence sectors.
Additionally the committees' consolidated Opinions on two uses of bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) by Vinyloop Ferrara are now publicly available.
Consultation on proposed restriction of PAHs in sports pitch granules
The Netherlands has submitted a proposal to restrict the placing on the market of granules and mulches for use as infill material in synthetic turf pitches or in loose form on playgrounds if these materials contain more than 17mg/kg of the sum of the eight pycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the scope of Annex XVII entry 50.
The consultation runs from 19 September to 19 March 2019. However, the rapporteurs for the Rac and Seac say they would welcome early comments by 16 November to assist them in preparing an Opinion.
CLH consultation on 2-phenoxyethanol
Echa is looking for comments on the harmonised classification and labelling proposals for 2-phenoxyethanol.
Comments are invited on the acute toxicity, serious eye damage/eye irritation, specific target organ toxicity – single exposure and repeated exposure hazard classes.
The substance is mainly used as an active substance in biocidal products and as an ingredient of various industrial, professional and consumer products. This includes cosmetics and personal care products, laboratory chemicals, lubricants and greases, metal working fluids, polymers, coating products and inks and toners.
The deadline for comments is 16 November.Targeted CLH consultation
The proposal for the harmonised classification and labelling of hexyl 2-(1-(diethylaminohydroxyphenyl)methanoyl)benzoate, submitted by Germany, was subject to a public consultation which ended on 12 January.
On 4 September, additional information (experimental studies) was submitted relating to the aquatic toxicity of the substance.
Targeted consultations for CLH proposals are used where further information is needed on a particular hazard class, or if comments are sought on a specific additional document. As they are targeted, the length of the commenting period is determined on a case-by-case basis. It is normally shorter than the usual public consultation on a CLH proposal.
In this case interested parties are invited to submit comments on the relevance of the findings and their quality by 1 October.https://chemicalwatch.com/70415/echa-round-up
-
U.S. Gas a No-Go for Chinese Buyers Despite Weaker Tariff
Sep 20, 2018 | Bloomberg (In E&E Energywire)
By Stephen Stapczynski and Dan Murtaug
Even with China's smaller-than-threatened tariff on U.S. natural gas, American cargoes may still be kryptonite for Chinese traders trying to navigate the ongoing trade war.
Chinese buyers will seek to avoid purchasing U.S. liquefied natural gas as long as any tariffs are in place because of the risk that duties may rise further and possibly without warning, according to officials from four importers. While they said they would prioritize cargoes from other suppliers, they couldn't entirely rule out buying U.S. shipments. The officials asked not to be identified discussing procurement strategy.
China announced Tuesday a 10 percent tariff on American goods, including LNG, starting Sept. 24 in retaliation for a similar-sized levy imposed by the U.S. That China struck below the 25 percent duty it threatened last month was met with relief, with gas futures in New York jumping more than 4 percent while companies that develop U.S. export projects, such as Tellurian Inc. and Cheniere Energy Inc., saw their shares rally.
But the ongoing trade tensions are seen turning off buyers in China, the world's biggest and fastest-growing natural gas market. That could go for both taking individual, or so-called spot, cargoes, as well as tying themselves to projects with long-term spending and supply commitments in the U.S., where more than a dozen projects are seeking about $139 billion in investments.
"For a Chinese buyer, the overall risk profile for procuring U.S. LNG remains heightened," Saul Kavonic, Credit Suisse Group AG's director of Asia energy research, said by email. "Even with a smaller tariff, there has likely been some longstanding damage done to the perception of reliability of U.S. LNG supply in the eyes of Chinese buyers who will shape the next wave of global LNG projects."
U.S. LNG sales are linked to the nation's benchmark Henry Hub gas price, which is down about 1 percent this year, while supply from most other exporters is tied to oil, which has gained 18 percent over that period. That's made American fuel cheaper than other sources, an advantage that's being eroded by tariffs.
China may shift its buying from the U.S. to other exporters, including Australia, Qatar and Papua New Guinea, according to Bloomberg Intelligence analysts Lu Wang and Kunal Agrawal.
PetroChina Co. signed a deal earlier this month with Qatargas Operating Co. to purchase 3.4 million tons of LNG annually, the Chinese company's biggest supply deal, while inking a midterm contract with the PNG LNG project earlier this year. PetroChina's parent, China National Petroleum Corp., signed a deal to buy U.S. LNG from Cheniere in February. CNPC didn't respond to requests for comment.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/09/20/stories/1060098371
-
Enviros Challenge New Atlantic Coast Permits
Sep 20, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
A coalition of environmental groups is heading to court to fight a set of new permits that recently prompted federal regulators to reauthorize construction on the Atlantic Coast pipeline.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission this week gave Dominion Energy Inc. the green light to restart work on the 600-mile natural gas pipeline from West Virginia to North Carolina. FERC made the call after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service reissued permits that were previously struck down by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (Energywire, Sept. 18).
Two lawsuits filed yesterday in the same court by the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) contend that the new NPS permit is nearly identical to the original and that the new FWS permit ignores data showing that the project would jeopardize critically endangered species.
"These agencies again ignored the law in their rush to give the Atlantic Coast pipeline the approvals it wanted," said SELC attorney D.J. Gerken. "These agencies work for the public, not the developers of an unnecessary pipeline even two FERC commissioners concluded is not in the public interest."
Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur, a Democrat, last year issued a rare dissent on a decision to approve the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley pipelines (Energywire, Oct. 16, 2017). Democrat Richard Glick, who joined the commission in November 2017, has echoed her concerns.
SELC filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and the Virginia Wilderness Committee.
"By turning a blind eye to the research that shows the Atlantic Coast pipeline jeopardizes Virginia's rivers, forests, plants and animals, the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service are endangering our communities," said Mark Miller, executive director of the Virginia Wilderness Committee. "We will fight to ensure our state's natural resources are afforded the protections they deserve."
Separately, state agencies in New Jersey and Delaware yesterday challenged a certificate of public convenience and necessity granted by FERC in relation to the 120-mile PennEast gas pipeline through northeast Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/09/20/stories/1060098971
-
Canada Transport Ministry Fast-Tracks Crude Oil Rail Car Phase-Out
Sep 20, 2018 | Oilprice.com
By Irina Slav
Canada’s transport ministry will fast-track a phase-out of two models of rail cars for the transportation of crude oil and condensate as oil exports by rail hit record levels, the Minister of Transport Marc Garneau said in a statement.
The phase-out will involve all DOT 111 tank cars and unjacketed CPC 1232 cars—cars without thermal protection—and will take place by November this year, instead of April 2020, for unjacketed CPC 1232 cars that carry crude, and by January 2019, instead of April 2025, for DOT 111 cars and COPC 1232s for condensate shipment.
The move has been prompted by the strong increase in oil and condensate shipments by rail as Canada’s pipeline network is insufficient to handle the increased production, which necessitated, as per the statement the removal of the “least crash-resistant rail tank cars for crude oil and other dangerous goods” sooner than initially planned.
Canadian crude-by-rail exports jumped to a record in June 2018, exceeding 200,000 bpd for the first time and nearly doubling compared to June last year, Canada’s National Energy Board (NEB) said in its latest crude oil exports data, in a sign that Canadian producers are increasingly using the railroad option to move their crude to market because pipeline capacity out of Canada is full.
The initial deadline for the phase-out of the two types of tank cars came after the 2013 oil train disaster in Lac-Megantic. Following the tragedy, both Canada and the United States tightened their rail car safety standards to avoid another accident of this kind. However, when the initial phase-out deadlines for DOT 111 and CPC 1232 cars were approved, Canada was pumping a lot less crude and pipeline capacity sufficed. Now, with production on the rise as prices recover, pipelines are not enough.
Oil shipments by rail will continue to grow in the future as well: there are no new oil pipeline projects in progress. The only one that won the approval of the federal government, the Trans Mountain expansion project, has been delayed once again following a court ruling suspending all work on it.
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Canada-Transport-Ministry-Fast-Tracks-Crude-Oil-Rail-Car-Phase-Out.html
-
Calif. Rest Break Rules Don’t Cover Hazmat Truckers, Feds Say
Sep 20, 2018 | Bloomberg Law
By Jon Steingart
Truck drivers who transport hazardous materials aren’t eligible for meal and rest breaks required by California law, according to the U.S. Transportation Department.
The state requirements create an “unnecessary delay” in transporting explosives, such as TNT and dynamite, the Transportation Department says in a notice that’s scheduled to publish in the Federal Register Sept. 21. As a result, California’s meal and rest break rules don’t apply to drivers transporting hazardous materials, the DOT says.
California requires a 10-minute rest break after four hours of work and a 30-minute meal after 10 hours. Federal law requires a 30-minute break in an eight-hour period and is flexible with when a driver may take it. It also limits the number of consecutive hours a driver may work.
The DOT determination comes in response to a July 2016 application by the National Tank Truck Carriers Inc., a trade group that asked DOT to evaluate whether federal hazardous material transportation law pre-empts California’s meal and rest break requirements. Forcing trucks with explosive cargo to stop for driver breaks can be dangerous because “freight at rest is freight at risk,” the NTTC said.
https://www.bna.com/calif-rest-break-n73014482698/
-
Sep 20, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Millie Chu Baird
Most counties in the United States have just one – if any – air pollution monitor to help determine if their air is healthy to breathe. Because of the high cost associated with such monitoring, the Environmental Protection Agency relies on data from this limited network along with sophisticated modeling to understand the risks people face in their neighborhoods – with millions possibly falling through the cracks as a result.
Researchers at Resources for the Future used satellite data to measure fine particulate matter concentrations, finding that 24 million more Americans than previously thought live in misclassified areas that don’t meet federal air quality standards.
Beyond the eye-popping conclusions, RFF’s study demonstrates why new technology is needed to fill the gaps in data. One of the biggest opportunities here are nimble and increasingly affordable sensors that can transform how we measure and track pollution.
The researchers at RFF compared satellite data on ground-level particulate matter, or PM2.5, with areas the EPA had designated as out of compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
They found misclassified areas that had no monitors, or monitors that were too far apart to detect pollution. Others yet had monitors on the edge of hot spots, which means they missed peak concentrations.
These are all shortcomings that a new generation of sensors can – and are beginning to – address.
As air pollution sensors continue to improve, they’re also becoming cheaper as the market for such technology expands. It makes it possible for communities and researchers to create low-cost networks that monitor for a range of pollutants in areas that currently lack sufficient coverage.
Mobile sensor data led community to call for action
Today, the advent of smaller mobile sensors is allowing us to attach instruments to Google Street View cars and even city fleet vehicles to see just how much air quality is changing block to block.
Our recent study in Oakland showed that air pollution can be as much as eight times higher on one end of the block than the other, which can dramatically affect the health of residents.
In that city, people are already using the data from our study to push for emission reductions under AB 617, California’s new air quality law that seeks to reduce pollution in the state’s most affected neighborhoods.
Coupled with other emerging sources of pollution data – such as satellites, which the RFF researchers acknowledged have their own limitations – sensors can bring a clearer picture of those 54 misclassified counties.
Technology advances like this can empower neighborhoods, improve public health and open doors for innovators eager to explore new opportunities to shape our future. It can begin fill those huge data gaps the RFF study revealed, starting today.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2018/09/20/new-challenge-sensors-24-million-more-americans-breathing-unhealthy-air-previously
-
EPA to Abandon Restrictions Against Chemical Linked to Climate Change
Sep 20, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
The Trump administration is planning to do away with an Obama-era regulation that restricted a known greenhouse gas from being used as a refrigerant in household appliances.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) late Wednesday announced it's proposing a rule to rescind a 2016 regulation that would have phased out the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in appliances. The chemical, known greenhouse gas, is frequently used as a refrigerant substitute in air conditioners and refrigerators.
EPA said the new rule is based off the agency’s own determination that the previous rule “exceeded its statutory authority” by a extending a refrigerant management requirement meant for ozone depleting substitutes, to the gas which in itself does not contribute to ozone depletion.
The agency added that the new rule does not affect current requirements for other ozone-depleting refrigerants.
Taken to task over the legality of the Obama regulation by two refrigerant manufacturing companies, the Trump Administration defended the rule but lost in an Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Court last August.
Environmentalist groups among other organizations appealed the verdict to the Supreme Court but the Trump administration this August announced the appeal was unnecessary as it planned to change the regulation, and asked the court to not take up the case.
Sensing a legal challenge may hinder EPA’s implementation of the 2016 rule, a bipartisan group of senators introduced a bill in February that would give the agency the authority to regulate the greenhouse causing chemical due to its air pollution, not relying on a connection to ozone depletion.
At the time Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) said the bill, called the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, “continues support for American development and manufacturing of next-generation HFC-alternatives, while also protecting our environment and helping the U.S. meet its obligations under the amended Montreal Protocol — a true win-win.”
Carper on Thursday decried EPA’s decision to abandon the regulation altogether.
“I believe the federal government has a moral responsibility, not only to help our communities be better prepared for climate-fueled events, but to also address the root causes of these events. Unfortunately, this action is yet another reminder the Trump Administration isn’t willing to take even the smallest step to address climate change or protect Americans from the threats of extreme weather,” he said in a statement.
He said he was still hopeful that the bill he introduced with Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) would pass.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/407614-epa-to-abandon-restrictions-against-climate-change-linked-chemical
-
Weak Co2 Prices Not Enough to Reduce Emissions — Study
Sep 20, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Carbon prices are spreading throughout the world's largest economies. The only problem for climate hawks: They're nowhere near high enough to produce a meaningful reduction in carbon emissions.
That is the conclusion of a report issued yesterday by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The findings echo the analysis of previous studies and underscore the challenges facing countries, states and cities coming out of the recent climate summit in San Francisco.
The analysis identified a gap of 76.5 percent between real climate costs and carbon prices implemented today across 42 OECD and Group of 20 countries. The gap has narrowed by 3 percent over the last three years, the report found.
At that rate, carbon prices would not accurately reflect climate costs until 2095.
"The gulf between today's carbon prices and the actual cost of emissions to our planet is unacceptable," OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría said in a statement. "Pricing carbon correctly is a concrete and cost-effective way to slow climate change. We are wasting an opportunity to steer our economics along a low-carbon growth path and losing precious time with every day that passes."
The analysis arrives at a critical time for international climate efforts, as carbon-cutting programs are rolled back in major economies like the United States and Australia and global fossil fuel consumption continues to rise.
Many economists have long favored carbon taxes as the most cost-effective way to tackle rising global temperatures. Making high-emitting technologies costlier to use prompts a shift to lower-emitting ones, they reason. Yet few countries have put in place the sort of carbon tax that would produce meaningful emission reductions.
An abundance of carbon credits and exemptions for major emitters has plagued emission-trading systems in Europe and California, making credits cheap and hindering their effectiveness.
"I don't think that's an issue with carbon prices as opposed to climate policies," said Noah Kaufman, a research scholar at Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy. "You just have weak climate policies around the world."
Policies intended to boost renewables are partially to blame. There is little need for power companies to purchase carbon credits when they are required to buy wind and solar, said John Reilly, co-director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.
Those policies produce emission reductions — but at a higher cost than a carbon price.
"There is this odd reluctance of policymakers to let a carbon tax work so they put all these policies in place," Reilly said.
He added, "By hiding the policies in the price of cars, the price of electricity and the price of other things, we don't have a carbon tax. We just have high costs. People like to hide the costs because they don't easily see it, whereas if you have a carbon price out there it is easily identified."
A series of recent developments, though, have provided a glimmer of hope for would-be carbon taxes. The United Kingdom's adoption of a carbon tax in the power sector produced a 58 percent drop in emissions from 2012 to 2016.
Carbon prices in the European Union also reached their highest level in a decade this summer following a series of reforms meant to limit the oversupply of credits and expand the number of industries subjected to the cap.
The biggest development of all may be in China, the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, which has taken steps toward its own emissions trading program. China's move has the potential to narrow the gap between global carbon prices and climate costs to 63 percent in the early 2020s, OECD found.
The OECD report compared effective carbon rates — taxes on fossil fuels, carbon taxes and emission-trading credits — against estimated climate costs, which it projected at €30 ($35) per ton of carbon. The result is a carbon pricing gap, the difference between actual carbon rates and climate costs.
The organization found that countries with larger carbon pricing gaps tend to have more energy-intensive economies. Russia and China, for instance, have gaps of 100 percent and 90 percent, respectively, OECD found.
Less energy-intensive economies, by contrast, have less ground to make up. OECD measured the gap in Spain at 51 percent, Ireland at 42 percent and France at 41 percent.
The carbon pricing gap in the United States, the world's second-largest emitter, was 75 percent.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/09/20/stories/1060098949
-
Exxon Mobil, Chevron Join Climate Initiative
Sep 20, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Three of the United States’ largest oil and natural gas companies are joining a major fossil fuel–backed international coalition to battle climate change.
Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and Occidental Petroleum Corp. all announced that they’re joining the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) Thursday, in the lead-up to the major Climate Week event in New York City next week, where the group will have a meeting.
The group was launched in 2014. Initially, United States–based companies avoided the initiative, and it was dominated by foreign companies like BP, Total and Royal Dutch Shell.
“It will take the collective efforts of many in the energy industry and society to develop scalable, affordable solutions that will be needed to address the risks of climate change,” Darren Woods, CEO of Exxon Mobil, said in a statement.
“Our mission is to supply energy for modern life and improve living standards around the world while minimizing impacts on the environment. This dual challenge is one of the most important issues facing society and our company.”
Chevron CEO Michael Wirth said the company wants “to work constructively on addressing the risks of climate change.”
The OGCI said its membership of 13 companies now accounts for about 30 percent of global oil and gas production.
The group works toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions in oil and gas industry operations and pushing for investments in new technologies that could reduce emissions.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/407599-exxon-chevron-join-climate-initiative
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested