Preview Newsletter

AM ACC Clips Report - October 1, 2018

Congressional Hearings

Hearing on Positive Train Control Implementation
Oct 3, 2018 | Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation

Location: 253 Russell / 10:00 AM.
Hearing on science in EPA regulation
Oct 3, 2018 | Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Insight

Location: 406 Dirksen / 2:15 PM

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Washington Weighs Stronger Role In Plastic Ocean Pollution
Sep 28, 2018 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken

Worries over plastic waste and ocean pollution had a rare day in Congress Sept. 26, with calls at a Senate committee for Washington to take a much bigger role in managing plastic, even if there was no clear consensus on what exactly that means.
(ACC Mentioned) Study: Plastics Packaging Helps Cut Waste Generation
Sep 28, 2018 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson

There's a general view that the more prosperous people become, the more they consume and the more trash they create.
(ACC Mentioned) 6 Most Important Things in Business Today
Oct 1, 2018 | 24/7 Wall St.
By Douglas A. McIntyre

Business economists are mildly optimistic about the economy in the mid-term future. According to NABE Vice President Kevin Swift, CBE, chief economist, American Chemistry Council:
U.S. Reaches Trade Deal With Canada and Mexico, Providing Trump A Crucial Win
Oct 1, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Adam Behsudi ,Alexander Panetta and Doug Palmer

Trade ministers from the U.S., Mexico and Canada have reached a deal to revamp the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Trump administration announced late Sunday night.
EPA Counsel Seeks To Ensure 'Durable, Defensible' Deregulatory Efforts
Sep 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds

Even as the Trump EPA faces a mixed record defending its deregulatory agenda, EPA General Counsel Matt Leopold says he wants to ensure that rule changes implementing the administration's rollbacks are “durable and defensible” so that its policies will endure, arguing the policies will save billions while also reducing pollution.
'Secret Science' Rule On The Agenda For Hearing
Oct 1, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly

Some five months after then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt unleashed an uproar with a proposal to restrict the agency's use of scientific research, the locus of the debate will return this week to where it began: Capitol Hill.

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Data to Influence Which of 73 Substances EPA Spotlights
Sep 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

Industry, environmental groups, and others could influence upcoming EPA decisions on dozens of chemicals, feeding into the agency’s selection of 40 it must review next year.
Lacking Consensus, EPA Offers Split Approach For TSCA Prioritization Plan
Sep 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad

Faced with a congressional deadline under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA has released its plan for how it will prioritize chemicals for possible assessment and regulation, though limited stakeholder consensus appears to have led the agency to pursue a split approach for short- and long-term efforts.
EPA Announces its Working Approach for Identifying Chemicals for Prioritization
Sep 29, 2018 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On September 28, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it was releasing the approach it will use to identify chemicals that could be included in the next group of risk evaluations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) titled “A Working Approach for Identifying Potential Candidate Chemicals for Prioritization” (Working Approach).

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Double Dose: EPA Report Underscores Dangers From Another Toxic Chemical In River Parishes
Sep 29, 2018 | The Advocate
By Della Hasselle and Nick Reimann

Just three years ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency declared that St. John the Baptist Parish had the highest cancer risk from airborne pollutants of any similar jurisdiction nationwide because of the “likely carcinogen” chloroprene, resulting in controversy and a federal lawsuit aimed at a local chemical plant.
Worker Exposure Considered as EPA Picks Chemicals to Spotlight
Sep 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

Worker exposure when making or using chemicals will be considered by the EPA as it decides which 40 chemicals to review for safety next year, according to a Sept. 28 strategy.
Have We Learned Anything In The Last 4 Decades When It Comes To Allowing Chemicals Like PCBs Onto The Market?
Sep 28, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison and Stephanie Schwarz

The Science section of today’s New York Times reports “Killer Whales Face Dire PCBs Threat” – more than four decades after Congress largely banned PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls).
Bayer Stung by Science Journal Correction on Roundup Safety Study
Sep 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joel Rosenblatt, Peter and Lydia Mulvany

Bayer AG’s defense of Roundup weed killer may take a hit after an academic journal said Monsanto Co. didn’t fully disclose its involvement in published research finding the herbicide safe.
Ban Roundup in Breakfast-Cereal Grains, Environmental Group Says
Sep 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker

The U.S. should ban use of a common weedkiller to dry cereal crops in an effort to sway the industry here and abroad, organic food companies and an environmental group said.
Calif. First in Nation to Test for Microplastics in Drinking Water
Oct 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily C. Dooley

Water suppliers in California will be the first in the nation required to test for microplastics in drinking water under a bill signed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) Sept. 28.
California Cosmetics Animal Testing Bill Becomes Law
Oct 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin

California Governor Jerry Brown has signed into law a bill banning the sale of cosmetic products and ingredients tested on animals.
NGOs Petition US EPA To Require Asbestos Reporting
Oct 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch

Six NGOs have petitioned the US EPA to amend its TSCA chemical data reporting rule (CDR) to require reporting for asbestos.

Energy News

(ACC Blog) SPF Insulation Meets Energy-Efficiency Needs for Multifamily Homes
Sep 28, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
By Stephen Wieroniey

Designers and specifiers building or upgrading a multifamily home must consider the energy efficiency of the building and select the right insulation during the design phase of the project.
Mexico Could Phase Out LNG Imports by 2020, Boost Shale Gas Production
Oct 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Karn Dhingra

Mexico could phase out liquefied natural gas imports as soon as 2020, while ramping up domestic shale gas production.
Power to the Permian? Spotty at Best, Outrun by a Fracking Boom
Sep 29, 2018 | Bloomberg
By David Wethe

The Permian Basin, which produces almost 4 million barrels of oil a day, has expanded so quickly that suppliers of the electricity needed to keep wells running are struggling to keep up.

Chemical Security News

(ACC Mentioned) Preparing For Unprecedented Storms
Oct 1, 2018 | ChemEngOnline
By Dorothy Lozowski

This year, hurricane season in the U.S. has been active again, with Hurricane Florence battering North Carolina and its surroundings last month
Dozens of Worker Safety Rules May Be Open to Challenge After Ruling
Sep 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington

The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission found a 46-year-old construction rule protecting workers invalid Sept. 28.

Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Congressional Hearings

Hearing on Positive Train Control Implementation

Oct 3, 2018 | Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation

Return to headline | Return to top
Hearing on science in EPA regulation

Oct 3, 2018 | Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Insight

Return to headline | Return to top

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Washington Weighs Stronger Role In Plastic Ocean Pollution

Sep 28, 2018 | Plastics News

By Steve Toloken

Washington — Worries over plastic waste and ocean pollution had a rare day in Congress Sept. 26, with calls at a Senate committee for Washington to take a much bigger role in managing plastic, even if there was no clear consensus on what exactly that means.
Cal Dooley, CEO of the American Chemistry Council, pushed for a larger role for pyrolysis and waste-to-energy. He wanted new laws to put those technologies on the same regulatory playing field as recycling and manufacturing — and not label them as hazardous materials as they sometimes are today — so that they can attract more investment.
But others, like Jonathan Baillie, chief scientist of National Geographic, pushed for plastic bag fees and financial incentives like deposits to boost bottle recycling, noting that Norway recycles 97 percent of its plastic bottles. The U.S. recycles about 30 percent.
Baillie urged senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee to have Washington set broad parameters for plastics use, which would mark a new step for the federal government in a policy area traditionally left to states and cities.
"Perhaps the time has come to examine the feasibility of a federal regulatory approach that would provide minimum standards on plastic use and recycling," Baillie said. "The approach could provide incentives and mandates — carrots and sticks — for states to adopt the right recycling protocols and provide national standards for plastic import, manufacturing and use."
Several senators said they were looking for input for future legislation and noted that ocean waste is a bipartisan issue of concern to both Republicans and Democrats. It was not clear what direction that legislation could take.
There was consensus on the need to encourage more innovation in technology and collection of recyclable materials. The hearing came the same week as both the Senate and House passed a small piece of legislation, the Save Our Seas Act, to bolster federal marine debris programs.
At the hearing, speakers from ACC, National Geographic and Coca-Cola Co., along with senators, all said there was a strong role for business and the public sector to develop new technology and approaches to material collection and recycled content use.Looking beyond US borders
Some senators suggested the United States should look to other countries.
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., noted that Rwanda had outlawed plastic bags as a step toward beautifying the country. He said he'd been to all 54 countries in Africa and called Rwanda a "clean, pristine country" because of President Paul Kagame's efforts.
"Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting this ... but the first thing [Kagame] did was outlaw plastic bags," Inhofe said. "I think we ought to really sit down and look and see some of things he has done successfully and emulate those."
Inhofe also noted the Sept. 19-21 meeting of the G7 economic bloc in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and its plastics charter to develop "innovative social and technological solutions for more sustainable management of plastics throughout their lifecycle." Inhofe urged U.S. policymakers to study it.
"A lot of heavyweights were involved in those decisions and discussions in Nova Scotia," he said. "They have excellent suggestions."
Committee Chairman John Barrasso, R-Wyo., noted research that shows that 80 percent of plastic waste in the ocean comes from Asia, and said plastic makes up the vast majority of marine debris.
"We want to know what private industry, what local and state governments, what the federal government and what international institutions should do to address this crisis," Barrasso said.
Delaware Sen. Tom Carper, the ranking Democrat on the committee, noted there is bipartisan interest in finding solutions, even if "figuring out how to implement them will not be easy."
He noted concern over microplastics increasingly showing up in food and drinking water, and he said he recognized market challenges like China's ban on recycled plastic imports taking away the end market for 30 percent of U.S. plastic waste.
"We, as a nation, will need to invest in better waste management and recycling infrastructure to address challenges like this," Carper said. "We will also need to find a creative way to finance these investments. Further, we may want to consider proposals to incentivize the use of recycled plastics for manufacturing purposes."
Carper also asked what the panel saw as the "root cause" of the plastic ocean waste problem.
Dooley said it's a lack of waste management infrastructure in developing economies.
"In those developing economies, they have a host of public needs — some of it is nutrition, some is education, some of it is health care, and some of it also is waste management systems," Dooley said. "When they prioritize them, oftentimes the waste management investments come very low on the list."
Dooley said the plastics industry needs to do more to support collection of plastics both in the United States and globally.
"The industry, the resin producers and the plastics producers, have to do a better job of investing in the technology that facilitates the recovery of this material so that it can go more easily into that recycled content," Dooley said.
But others on the panel, including scientist Kara Lavender Law with the Sea Education Association, urged a shift away from disposable plastics and toward generating less waste.
Baillie said that plastics use has grown several hundredfold in the last 70 years, but waste management has lagged woefully behind.
"There is nothing inherently bad about plastics. But in 1950, we were producing 2.3 million tons [of plastic] and now it's 500 million tons," Baillie said. "That's a massive increase, and we haven't moved to that closed-loop economy."
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20180928/NEWS/180929906/washington-weighs-stronger-role-in-plastic-ocean-pollution

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Study: Plastics Packaging Helps Cut Waste Generation

Sep 28, 2018 | Plastics News

By Jim Johnson

There's a general view that the more prosperous people become, the more they consume and the more trash they create.
But a study from City College of New York shows that the correlation between economic prosperity and, ultimately, waste generation is "decoupling" in the United States.
Essentially, the amount of trash that's being created is not keeping up with overall economic growth and personal spending over time.
And the greater use of plastics is a factor in that phenomenon.
"We're seeing that as there is economic growth in the U.S., the amount of waste that's being generated is not following at the same rate," said Demetra Tsiamis, associate director at the Earth Engineering Center at City College of New York.
"So it's decoupling essentially. One of the things that we wanted to understand is why, first, is that trend happening," she said.
Tsiamis, along with Center Director Marco Castaldi and student Melissa Torres, recently published an article exploring the issue in a journal called Waste Management.
"One of the things that we know is that plastics have really grown in our waste stream since around the 1960s when it was started to be used quite more frequently. So that's what we also wanted to see: whether the plastic material had an impact on this decoupling trend," she said.
The college started research after being contacted by the American Chemistry Council, a trade group, to explore the possibility of decoupling in the United States.
Emily Tipaldo, director of plastics packaging and consumer products at ACC, said her group saw this trend in Europe and wanted to support research to determine if this was also occurring in the United States.
While ACC provided partial funding to help conduct the research, Castaldi said the relationship was kept at arm's length to allow for independent findings.
"I think the main thing is that this study demonstrates the benefits of plastics and using plastics from a different angle, from the waste management generation angle," Tipaldo said. "And it's one that's not particularly intuitive, even for some of us who deal with plastics day in and day out."
The use of plastics has exploded over the past 50 years, and the material has pushed out paper, glass and metal in many applications.
"Although the benefits of plastic materials have been shown through numerous applications, the impact on waste generation has not been very clear," reads the report's conclusion.
Plastics use has increased by 83 times the amount since 1960, the researchers said.
But municipal solid waste (MSW) generation in the united states has only increased about threefold in those years, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The study concludes that a decoupling between MSW generation rates and economic growth began in the late 1990s.
"Plastics play a role in the decoupling due to materials substitution that reduce the overall weight of MSW and downgauging that reduces the amount of material needed," the conclusion states. "Decoupling would still occur without plastics, but it would be delayed by an estimated 32 years. This indicates that other factors are influencing the decoupling as well and should be further understood."
Tilpado hit on the evolving design of plastic packaging as it relates to waste generation.
"I think that's really where you see, when you get into the details of the study, the shift toward designing better plastic packaging, designing lighter plastic packaging, more efficient plastic packaging. For instance, since 2000, plastic packaging was downgauged at about 3 percent per year," she said.
"It's an interesting angle to look at the data and how the use of plastic packaging has provided the benefit of society being able to use the products that we love and generate less waste by doing so," Tipaldo said. "That point is not intuitive to a lot of people."
Tsiamis said the study could help put plastics in a different light regarding overall waste management.
"I think the big takeaway for me is we do see a lot of attention, especially currently in the media, regarding to plastics pollution. And there is this movement in some ways to say, 'Oh, the way we solve our waste problem is by removing this type of material from our waste stream,'" Tsiamis said. "I think from doing this study what we saw from the data that we had is that that's not necessarily the case."
Castaldi said there is "not one silver problem that's going to solve everything."
"This was another way of getting the message out there that it's really going to take a concerted effort where we understand what the materials that we have to us are good for, what they are not good for and then how to best recycle, reuse and dispose of them," he said.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20180928/NEWS/180929909/study-plastics-packaging-helps-cut-waste-generation

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) 6 Most Important Things in Business Today

Oct 1, 2018 | 24/7 Wall St.

By Douglas A. McIntyre

California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that mandates companies must have a certain number of female board members. According to The Wall Street Journal:
California became the first state to require companies based within its borders to put female directors on their boards, adding to pressure on boardrooms across the country to give more women a seat at the table.
California Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday signed a bill mandating that all publicly traded companies with headquarters in the state have at least one woman on their boards by the end of next year. By 2021, companies with at least five directors would need to have two or three female directors, depending on the size of the board, according to the new law. Those that don’t face financial penalties.
Rising oil prices have raised the issue of whether crude could hit $100 a barrel. According to The Wall Street Journal:
Oil prices are again marching higher, prompting talk that crude could reach $100 a barrel for the first time since 2015’s crash.
Brent crude, the global benchmark for oil prices, jumped 4.1% in the third quarter to $82.72 a barrel, the highest level in nearly four years. Brent’s fifth consecutive quarterly advance marks its longest such streak since 2008. U.S. crude edged down from its most recent multiyear high, falling 1.2% to $73.25 a barrel last quarter, though it has risen in five of the past six weeks. Investors have grown more bullish ahead of Nov. 4, the U.S. sanctions deadline for companies to stop buying Iranian oil.

Canada, the United States and Mexico made a deal to salvage NAFTA. According to The New York Times:
The United States and Canada reached a last-minute deal to salvage the North American Free Trade Agreement on Sunday, overcoming deep divisions to keep the 25-year-old trilateral pact intact.
The deal came after a weekend of frantic talks to try and preserve a trade agreement that has stitched together the economies of Mexico, Canada and the United States but that was on the verge of collapsing. After more than a year of tense talks and strained relations between President Trump and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, negotiators from both sides came to a resolution just ahead of a midnight deadline set by the White House.
Business economists are mildly optimistic about the economy in the mid-term future. According to NABE Vice President Kevin Swift, CBE, chief economist, American Chemistry Council:
Despite concerns over trade policy, NABE Outlook panelists are slightly more optimistic about the U.S. economy in 2018 than they were three months ago, especially regarding prospects for the industrial sector of the economy. Other indicators of real economic activity show light vehicle sales remaining elevated and housing continuing to improve.
China claims its economic growth will no longer be red hot. According to CNBC:
Over the weekend, a private survey showed growth in China’s factory sector stalled after 15 months of expansion, with export orders falling the fastest in over two years, while an official survey confirmed a further manufacturing weakening.
Tesla Inc. (NASDAQ: TSLA) CEO Elon Musk sent a note to his workers about the company’s bright future. According to CNBC:
Elon Musk believes Tesla is “very close” to turning a profit after years of burning through cash, but warned that Sunday would prove pivotal to the car marker achieving an “epic victory” on its production goals.
On the heels of a turbulent last few weeks that culminated in Tesla reaching a settlement with securities regulators, the company is expected to report third quarter production numbers this week.
https://247wallst.com/media/2018/10/01/6-most-important-things-in-business-today-288/

Return to headline | Return to top
U.S. Reaches Trade Deal With Canada and Mexico, Providing Trump A Crucial Win

Oct 1, 2018 | PoliticoPro

By Adam Behsudi ,Alexander Panetta and Doug Palmer

Trade ministers from the U.S., Mexico and Canada have reached a deal to revamp the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Trump administration announced late Sunday night.
The new pact, which is being called the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, is a major step toward completing one of Trump’s signature campaign promises and gives the president a concrete policy win to tout on the campaign trail this fall. It also sets the stage for what is sure to be a high-stakes fight to get the agreement passed by Congress before it can become law.
The Trump administration already formally notified Congress at the end of August of its plans to sign a new pact and faced a deadline of the end of September to provide a draft of the agreement.
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said in late August that officials are planning to sign with their Canadian and Mexican counterparts by the end of November — a date that would also satisfy Mexico, which is eager to have current President Enrique Peña Nieto sign the deal before his successor takes over Dec. 1.
“It’s a great win for the president and a validation for his strategy in the area of international trade,” a senior administration official said on a call with reporters late Sunday.
People briefed on the outlines of a revamped deal described changes in language governing dairy imports, dispute resolution between countries, limits on online shopping that can be done tax free, and limits on the U.S. threat of auto tariffs.
“It’s a good day for Canada,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said as he left the office late Sunday night. He said he would save other comments for an official announcement on Monday.
A formal vote in Congress won’t be held until 2019, and it is still an open question whether lawmakers — including members of the president's own party who have often clashed with him on trade — will fall in line to support the deal.
Republicans are expected to pay close attention to the final details regarding dispute settlement and intellectual property issues, while Democrats will likely be looking for stricter labor and environmental standards.
Lawmakers from both parties, along with powerful business and industry groups, are also examining whether new provisions, such as stricter automotive rules, may end up making life more difficult for domestic companies rather than easier.
A senior administration official highlighted the “great result” on dairy issues that was achieved. The pact opens up the Canadian dairy market to U.S. exports at a level higher than the 3.25 percent market share the Obama administration negotiated under the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
The official also said that Canada agreed to eliminate a recent milk-ingredient pricing program that U.S. farmers complained had dried up demand for their exports of the product.
In exchange, Canada was able to preserve dispute settlement language. Canada has historically insisted on an international panel to judge whether the U.S. improperly uses duties as a commercial weapon.
Canada also agreed to an “accommodation” to its auto exports in response to tariffs Trump is expected to impose on vehicle imports for national security reasons, the senior administration official said. That arrangement will likely involve Canada agreeing to a side deal that would restrict its auto exports to a level well above the current volume of trade that flows south of the border, sources close to the talks said.
Lighthizer had hoped to reach an agreement by the end of 2017, a timeline that was extended until the end of March. The three nations failed to make that deadline but have been meeting almost continuously in Washington since as they sought to reach compromises on issues that have been both technically and politically challenging for all three countries.
Now, depending on the outcome of November's midterm elections, control of the House of Representatives may well turn over to Democrats, who may have little incentive to work with a president from the opposite party to ratify a deal that they may not like.
One strategy that circulated earlier this year was a plan to force a vote by withdrawing from the existing NAFTA agreement before the new one takes effect — thus forcing members of Congress to choose between the renegotiated deal or no deal at all.
Trump indicated last month that he would pursue such tactics, telling reporters in the Oval Office that he would "be terminating the existing deal and going into this deal."
Several prominent lawmakers, however, expressed cautious optimism with the new pact.
“Maintaining a trilateral North American deal is an important prerequisite to preserving and extending those gains and the Trump administration has achieved that goal,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. “I look forward to reviewing this deal to confirm it meets the high standards of Trade Promotion Authority.”
Under the TPA, Congress will take a straight up-or-down vote without amendments. Those rules also have a series of other steps that also must be followed before the deal can be passed.
Even without congressional approval, having the preliminary deal in hand will give the administration and vulnerable Republicans up for reelection at least the skeleton of a policy achievement to use on the trail.
Officials have said that changes made to automotive rules to increase the amount of content that must be sourced from within NAFTA countries should play well in manufacturing states concerned about the offshoring of jobs.
Meanwhile, leading congressional Democrats say they’re not yet convinced that the new deal represents a significant shift from past trade policies that have rarely earned their support.
“The bar for supporting a new NAFTA will be high,” said Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), the ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee.
Democrats and their backers in labor unions and environment groups will be looking for a deal they feel can be adequately enforced in terms of upholding worker rights and environmental protections.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said the ability of the deal to enforce those provisions will be a “crucial test” for a new agreement.
The country’s largest organized labor group also stressed that it will be studying the labor language closely.
“The text we have reviewed, even before the confirmation that Canada will remain part of NAFTA, affirms that too many details still need to be worked out before working people make a final judgment on a deal,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement.
It remains unclear at this point what the preliminary deal means for the steel and aluminum tariffs the Trump administration has put in place as well as the retaliatory duties Canada and Mexico imposed. Many industry sources and others close to the talks have long expected that reaching a deal would lead the U.S. to lift the tariffs, a move that would lead Canada and Mexico to follow suit.
A senior U.S. administration official said a possible exemption for Canada remains on a separate track from the broader trade negotiations and there was no agreement yet on that issue.
Mexican Economy Secretary Ildefonso Guajardo said in late August that those tariffs — as well as Mexico's retaliatory duties on $3 billion in U.S. products like agricultural goods — would be enforced until the countries are closer to signing an agreement later this year.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/09/us-reaches-nafta-deal-with-canada-providing-trump-crucial-trade-win-776754

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Counsel Seeks To Ensure 'Durable, Defensible' Deregulatory Efforts

Sep 28, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Dave Reynolds

Even as the Trump EPA faces a mixed record defending its deregulatory agenda, EPA General Counsel Matt Leopold says he wants to ensure that rule changes implementing the administration's rollbacks are “durable and defensible” so that its policies will endure, arguing the policies will save billions while also reducing pollution.
Leopold told a Sept. 27 meeting of the D.C. Bar that he is seeking to bring a long-term perspective to the Office of General Counsel so “that when this administration is gone, our agenda outlives this particular moment, and the good things survive and move on and continue to provide regulatory certainty to industry, to states, and local governments."
In far-reaching remarks to the Bar's session, “Meet the GC,” Leopold addressed the legal underpinnings of deregulation, its economic benefits, and the potential for the Supreme Court to revisit the Chevron doctrine, under which courts defer to agency's reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes, among others.
But the agency's effort so far to revise a slew of Obama-era rules comes as courts have struck down as unlawful several Trump administration delays of the previous administration's rules.
Most recently, a federal appellate court vacated an EPA rule seeking to delay implementation of strict Obama-era facility safety rules while a district court reversed EPA's two-year delay on implementing the Obama EPA's 2015 Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction standard in 24 states.
In addition, courts have rejected efforts to delay methane standards for new oil and gas facilities and required the agency to implement a proposed ban on the pesticide chlorpyrifos after former Administrator Scott Pruitt sought to reverse it.
Leopold argued that such rulings are harmful to businesses. “There's a lot of inefficiency in environmental regulation,” Leopold said, arguing that court decisions striking down revision rules cause uncertainty, harming business decision-making and the economy.
As such, he said the general counsel's office seeks to ensure the “defensibility and durability” of the administration's revision rules.
He said that EPA's legal authority for revising the previous administrations rules stems from Justice William Rehnquist's concurring decision in the Supreme Court's 1983 ruling in Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., as well as subsequent rulings that it spawned, which Leopold said defended an administration's right to change its regulatory approach as reflecting “the will of the people."
“As lawyers we look at whether the change of position can be articulated” in a rational manner, Leopold said, adding that while administrations have authority to change course doing so for purely political reasons “is not enough.”
In remarks to the Bar Association, Leopold highlighted the administration's successes in revising rules and said additional policies are slated for revision.
So far 26 deregulatory actions have saved the economy $1.5 billion, he said, adding that EPA has identified an additional 49 deregulatory actions that could save the economy upward of $100 billion.
In selecting rules for revision, Leopold said EPA, in consultation with the White House Office of Management and Budget, is taking a hard look at past rules justified largely on co-benefits, which do not result directly from reductions in the specific pollutants targeted by a rule, “It's something, obviously, to consider,” Leopold said, “but there's a question of whether co-benefits alone should justify an action at the agency."
Greenhouse Gas Rules
In defending the EPA's Aug. 21 proposed Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule that would provide a narrow replacement for the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP) utility greenhouse gas standards, Leopold argued that the United States has already achieved significant emissions reductions in recent years, and that the rule would continue the trend while boosting the economy.
Between 2005 and 2016, GHG emissions fell 12 percent, the largest decline of any country. He said criteria air pollutants have declined 73 percent since 1970 during a period of significant economic growth.
“We approach ACE with the backdrop that there have been substantial gains made, and we want to continue and advance those gains while being sensitive to economic growth” and addressing the cost of regulations, he said.
Leopold called assertions that replacing the Obama CPP with ACE would lead to an increase in deaths “incorrect,” saying that the new rule would bring co-benefits, including reductions in particulate matter that would affect health outcomes, while also decreasing GHG emissions from power plants, though by less than the Obama-era rule.
Similarly, Leopold argued that the Trump administration's proposal to freeze vehicle GHG and fuel economy standards after model year 2020 would reduce GHG emissions, while bolstering safety and consumer choice.
In addition to defending EPA's pending revisions of Obama-era rules, Leopold argued that courts should defer to the agency's technical expertise.
Noting that EPA is staffed with biologists, toxicologists and numerous other experts, he said, “It seems to me that the executive is in a much better position to make those judgments than a court that lacks those resources.”
Should the Supreme Court seek to revise Chevron, he said, “I hope that courts still feel the need to defer to EPA on technical judgments."
But Leopold was less clear on whether courts should defer to agency's statutory interpretations not derived from technical judgments, saying that there are questions of how Chevron should be applied in other circumstances.
He cited the D.C. Circuit's Aug. 21 ruling in Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al., v. EPA, et al., where the court vacated and remanded Obama-era coal ash standards, as an example of where courts declined to defer to agency expertise despite agreement between the Trump and Obama administrations.
The unanimous three-judge panel held that the Obama administration’s coal ash rule was not stringent enough, particularly in its treatment of inactive and unlined waste impoundments.
While EPA officials under the Trump and Obama administrations deemed certain ash impoundments would not pose a risk of adverse effects to human health and the environment, the court decided the impoundments did pose a risk.
Leopold also appeared to downplay Pruitt's 2017 directive barring settlements of lawsuits seeking to enforce statutory deadlines. While industry and the Trump administration has faulted the approach as “sue-and-settle,” environmentalists have argued the cases merely seek to hold EPA to its statutory obligations.
While commending the spirit of Pruitt's 2017 directive barring so-called “sue-and-settle” agreements, Leopold also acknowledged that the agency must sometimes settle deadline suits in cases where Congress has imposed unattainable statutory deadlines. Leopold said that the agency has settled “only two” such cases since January, he added that the agency would consider similar resolutions when appropriate.
But he defended Pruitt's directive, saying the goal “was to ensure that the agency's policy-making function was not commandeered by the judicial process,” and not expand the scope of any agency obligation beyond statutory requirements. He said that goal remains “a bedrock principle” of EPA's negotiating decisions.
“We know that Congress has created certain statutory schemes that are incredibly difficult for the agency to meet and sometimes we don't have a good defense” in court, he said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-counsel-seeks-ensure-durable-defensible-deregulatory-efforts

Return to headline | Return to top
'Secret Science' Rule On The Agenda For Hearing

Oct 1, 2018 | E&E Daily

By Sean Reilly

Some five months after then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt unleashed an uproar with a proposal to restrict the agency's use of scientific research, the locus of the debate will return this week to where it began: Capitol Hill.
On Wednesday, a Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee will hold a hearing billed as providing oversight of "implementation of sound and transparent science in regulation." Witnesses will include two academics who have written favorably on the proposed rule as well as the head of a scientific organization who is vehemently opposed.
Chairing the hearing will be Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who has introduced S. 1794, which was one impetus for Pruitt's proposed rule for "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science."
Rounds was also at EPA headquarters when Pruitt unveiled the blueprint in late April (E&E News PM, April 24). A Rounds spokeswoman could not be reached for comment Friday, but in an email, a committee aide described the hearing's purpose as taking expert testimony and looking for opportunities for statutory and regulatory changes.
Press staffers to Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), ranking member of the EPW Subcommittee for Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight, also could not be reached Friday. No one from EPA is on the witness list.
But the hearing will likely revolve around the principle that EPA should only use scientific studies in drafting regulations for which the underlying data are "transparent" and "reproducible." Rounds' bill would bar the agency from tapping any research that doesn't meet the standard. The proposed rule, which has drawn thousands of public comments, takes a similar tack.
Supporters say that EPA is currently relying on "secret science" to craft new rules. Foes say that the true purpose is to stymie the use of valid research that might justify the need for stronger regulations to protect air quality and public health.
Among the witnesses will be Robert Hahn, a visiting professor at Oxford University. In a May op-ed for The Washington Post, Hahn wrote that people who mocked the proposed rule should have first read it.
"Taking steps to increase access to data, with strong privacy protections, is how society will continue to make scientific and economic progress and ensure that evidence in rule-making is sound," Hahn wrote.
Also testifying at the request of the Republican majority is Edward Calabrese, a toxicologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. In written comments, Calabrese hailed one aspect of the proposal — which would change the default model for cancer risk assessment — as "correct and long overdue."
Taking a contrary view will be Rush Holt, a former Democratic congressman from New Jersey who now heads the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "Don't try to reform the scientific process; it has served us well and will serve us well," Holt said at a hearing last year of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee (E&E Daily, Feb. 8, 2017).
EPA has not set a timetable for issuing the final version of its proposal. More than a year after Rounds introduced his bill, it has not moved out of the EPW Committee.
The draft rule has also caught the attention of EPA's Science Advisory Board, which in June voiced interest to Pruitt in reviewing the proposal's "scientific and technical basis."
Pruitt, dogged by allegations of spending and ethical improprieties, resigned soon after. In a reply to board Chairman Michael Honeycutt last Wednesday, EPA air chief Bill Wehrum said that his office had been charged with coordinating the agency's response on that issue and others raised by the panel. Although the process has taken "slightly longer than expected," Wehrum wrote, the response should be forthcoming shortly.
"We want to ensure that the information provided to the board," he said, "is up to date and comprehensive in order to facilitate meaningful engagement on these important regulatory science issues."
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, Oct. 3, at 2:15 p.m. in 406 Dirksen.
Witnesses:Edward Calabrese, professor of toxicology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Robert Hahn, visiting professor, Oxford University Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment.Rush Holt, CEO, American Association for the Advancement of Science.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/10/01/stories/1060100137

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Data to Influence Which of 73 Substances EPA Spotlights

Sep 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

EPA opens dockets to collect information on 73 chemicals
Perspective on near-, long-term strategy to select chemicals for risk assessment sought
Industry, environmental groups, and others could influence upcoming EPA decisions on dozens of chemicals, feeding into the agency’s selection of 40 it must review next year.
The input of other federal departments and other Environmental Protection Agency program offices also will be factors in the chemical program’s selection process as it considers environmental, health, and control information submitted on 73 chemicals.
“EPA will also collaborate with other federal agencies to identify any information that may be useful in the selection of candidate chemicals, and during prioritization and risk evaluation,” according to a Sept. 28 strategy.
Wanted: Data
The EPA invited companies, trade associations, labor groups, environmental organizations, and others Sept. 28 to submit information about 73 chemicals that may be candidates for the shorter list of those that it prioritizes for risk evaluations.
The 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments require the EPA to focus on 40 chemicals next year and designate 20 as “high priority.”
That designation means the agency must launch a detailed risk evaluation. Being under that scrutiny could prompt customers to avoid the high-priority chemicals, and the risk assessment could eventually lead to restrictions of the chemicals’ uses or environmental releases.
The agency also must designate 20 of the 40 chemicals as low-priority. That designation means the chemicals wouldn’t get further scrutiny from the EPA’s chemicals office unless new injury or environmental damage information emerges.
The EPA must complete its selection process, called “prioritization,” by Dec. 22, 2019.
Emerging Criteria
The EPA’s plan to tap other agencies and regulatory programs offers clues about how it will select chemicals, Martha Marrapese,a partner in the Washington office of Wiley Rein LLP, told Bloomberg Environment.
“This appears to signal that EPA plans to search for candidates or reasons to nominate them that go outside the TSCA program,” Marrapese said by email.
Once it designates a chemical as among the batch of 40 chemicals it will prioritize initially—or that will be examined down the road—TSCA gives the chemicals program one year to decide whether it has enough good data to make a high- or low-priority risk determination for compounds.
The EPA may also consider pragmatic and workload issues, for example by leveraging evaluations it’s already done on solvents such as 1- bromopropane, carbon tetrachloride, 1-4 dioxane, methylene chloride, n-methylpyrrolidone, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene.
Information Poor
The American Chemistry Council and the advocacy coalition Safer Chemicals Healthy Families are urging parties interested in chemical policy to offer the EPA information about workplace exposures, environmental releases, and company controls.
Information that shows how a chemical may or may not affect the body, data that helps the EPA understand how a chemical moves through the air, water, or soil, and other relevant information also would be of interest, according to the EPA’s prioritization strategy.
Data the agency gets—or fails to get—will help the agency not only with the first 40 chemicals, but with the law’s requirement that the EPA continue prioritizing chemicals for scrutiny into the future, Liz Hitchcock, acting director of the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families coalition, told Bloomberg Environment.
The EPA is required under TSCA to keep designating chemicals in commerce as high priorities for risk evaluation long after it finishes categorizing the first 40 chemicals.
Jeffery Morris, director of the EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, has also emphasized that the agency will continue to designate low-priority chemicals beyond the 20 TSCA requires.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/chemical-data-to-influence-which-of-73-substances-epa-spotlights

Return to headline | Return to top
Lacking Consensus, EPA Offers Split Approach For TSCA Prioritization Plan

Sep 28, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Maria Hegstad

Faced with a congressional deadline under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA has released its plan for how it will prioritize chemicals for possible assessment and regulation, though limited stakeholder consensus appears to have led the agency to pursue a split approach for short- and long-term efforts.
EPA Sept. 28 released a white paper, “A Working Approach for Identifying Potential Candidate Chemicals for Prioritization,” which indicates that for the short-term, the agency will follow an approach where it will select chemicals based on statutory language that requires at least half of priority chemicals be drawn from the Obama administration's list of work plan chemicals, which identified 90 substances for priority assessment.
But the white paper also outlines a new, long-term approach that EPA is developing for use in the future, using a strategy to group or “bin” chemicals by toxicity and other attributes.
TSCA requires EPA to have at least 20 high priority chemicals under evaluation by December 2019. The law also sets strict deadlines for EPA to complete assessments for priority chemicals, complete such assessments generally within three years.
But the law did not detail how the agency should prioritize substances for evaluation, though it said the agency should draw at least half of the substances for the initial rounds of review from the Obama administration's list of 90 substances identified for its so-called TSCA work plan.
EPA calls the process pre-prioritization because of the strict time line surrounding what the statute describes as prioritization for chemical risk evaluation. TSCA requires EPA to have at least 20 chemicals under evaluation by December 2019. To ensure it stays on schedule, EPA said that it expects to have crafted a process for identifying chemicals for prioritization, with the goal of identifying at least 20 high-priority and 20 low-priority chemicals to ensure staff will have started the high priority chemicals’ risk evaluations by deadline.
EPA is in the midst of assessing the first ten chemicals, based on requirements in the 2016 law that required the agency to select all ten from the 90 work plan chemicals.
For the next chemicals to be selected, the white paper outlines an approach consistent with the statute requiring that at least half of the subsequent batches be drawn from the work plan list -- until all 90 have been prioritized.
After EPA selected its first group of 10 chemicals for assessment and designated another group of chemicals as PBT for exposure analysis and action under section 6(h), 73 “remain to be prioritized from the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan,” the white paper states.
The near-term plan appears to respond to comments from numerous industry, Defense Department and other stakeholders, who said in comments earlier this year that the agency should base its approach on the risk-based process the Obama administration developed for selection work plan chemicals.
For the low priority chemicals, EPA indicates that it will take another approach largely supported by industry, basing these selections in part on the agency's Safer Chemical Ingredients List (SCIL), designated by its voluntary chemical alternatives assessment Safer Choice program.
Next Round
EPA explains that for the group of chemicals that must be selected next, its “approach is to primarily look to the 2014 Work Plan for high-priority potential candidates as TSCA requires that at least 50 [percent] of the chemicals undergoing risk evaluation as of December 2019 must come from the 2014 Work Plan.” TSCA further requires that EPA has some 20 high-priority assessments underway at all times thereafter, and that these subsequent groups of chemicals also be half from the work plan until it is exhausted.
EPA explains that it will consider three factors in determining the next group of chemicals thought to be high priority and selected for the prioritization process: “overarching Agency priorities,” including those of EPA offices or other federal agencies; a survey of the “information and checking quality data elements in a step-wise approach that ensures responsible and timely completion of the process according to TSCA timelines” and mindfulness of EPA's “workload and resource constraints, given the statutory deadlines and other requirements.”
It is possible for chemicals not on the workplan to be included in the list, if they meet these priorities.
EPA explains that its “approach is intended to screen out information-deficient candidate chemicals that would hinder EPA’s ability of performing scientifically sound risk evaluations from the initial selection of 20 high and 20 low-priority candidates. The scientific underpinnings of a risk evaluation need to be strong enough to support a risk determination and inform potential future risk management activities.”
Jeff Morris, director of EPA's toxics office, touched on these concerns last February, in a meeting with agency staff when he said technical specialists in EPA's Safer Choice program could be particularly helpful in selecting the 20 chemicals expected to be low priority. The Safer Choice program developed the SCIL of chemicals it deemed better alternatives to various classes of chemicals that the program reviews as part of its Safer Choice labeling program for cleaning products.
Morris explained his concern that if any of the chemicals thought to be low priority are determined not to be a low priority during the year-long TSCA prioritization evaluation, it becomes a high priority chemical and must move with the other high priority chemicals directly to risk assessment. Such a scenario would further “stress an already stressed program,” he said.
EPA says that it “may identify substances from multiple sources,” for its low priority candidates, among them the SCIL, the Bush EPA's EPA’s Chemical Assessment Management Program (ChAMP) and the “Organization for Economic and Co-Operation Development (OECD) Screening Information Data Sets (SIDS) assessment documents.”
EPA also leaves open the possibility of more collaboration with industry in selecting future chemicals thought to be low priority. The chemical industry has voiced much interest in EPA's development of a list of low priority chemicals, which are then not considered for further assessment. Industry representatives have urged EPA to identify more than the minimum 20 chemicals required in the statute as low priority.
'Volunteer Sponsor'
EPA notes in the white paper that stakeholders suggested that in the future “they may wish to volunteer to sponsor the development of information that could be used by EPA to identify candidates that may be designated as low-priority chemicals, beyond the required 20. The experience that EPA and stakeholders gain in designating the first 20 low-priority chemicals could set the stage for an enhanced stakeholder role in designation of additional substances. Similarly, the experiences EPA and stakeholders gain in designating the first 20 high-priority chemicals could also set the stage for an enhanced stakeholder role.”
For future chemical selections, the agency says it “is considering a longer-term approach to bin the remaining chemicals (those not included on the 2014 TSCA Work Plan) on the TSCA active inventory. EPA currently expects to use an approach that integrates available information from both [new alternative toxicity testing methods (NAMs)] and traditional approaches, covering the domains of hazard, exposure, persistence, and bioaccumulation for human and ecological domains, to group chemicals based on information availability and hazard and exposure potential.”
EPA describes the long-term approach in the new white paper as a “first step of developing this approach,” adding that there will be another white paper and future public workshops. EPA explains that stakeholders suggested the approach would be useful, and notes that its Canadian counterpart agency is undertaking such an exercise.
“The bins will be defined using a combination of binning scores and information availability,” EPA explains. The binning scores included in the approach will incorporate human hazard relative to exposure, ecological hazard, genotoxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation, further building upon prioritization approaches used in the TSCA 2012 Work Plan process and the objectives identified for integrating NAMs in the Canadian Chemicals Management Plan (CMP). Consistent with stakeholder feedback, this approach integrates NAMs to fill gaps when traditional testing data are not available.”
EPA explains that its aim for the future binning approach will be to “attempt to identify a portion of the Active Inventory that can be set aside as not containing candidates for high-priority designation, so that EPA can focus on chemicals that are most likely to meet the statutory standard of high priority chemicals.”
EPA adds that “Over the near-term (FY 2019), EPA expects that the substances evaluated in the binning approach will include the non-confidential active TSCA inventory.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/lacking-consensus-epa-offers-split-approach-tsca-prioritization-plan

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Announces its Working Approach for Identifying Chemicals for Prioritization

Sep 29, 2018 | The National Law Review

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham

On September 28, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it was releasing the approach it will use to identify chemicals that could be included in the next group of risk evaluations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) titled “A Working Approach for Identifying Potential Candidate Chemicals for Prioritization” (Working Approach). EPA states that the information set forth in this document is “intended to describe the general approaches EPA may consider to identify existing chemicals as potential candidates for prioritization,” and the ultimate goal of these approaches “is to identify potential candidates from which EPA will select candidates for prioritization, consistent with its regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 702.5.”
EPA also released the pre-publication version of the Federal Register notice of availability of the Working Approach and “A Summary of Public Comments By Topic” (Summary). The pre-publication notice states that EPA will be opening a public docket to accept comments on the Working Approach until November 15, 2018. These comments will inform a public meeting to be held in early 2019. Upon publication of the Federal Register notice, EPA will open 74 chemical-specific public dockets, one for each of the 73 remaining chemicals on the 2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments that have not received manufacturer requests for EPA evaluation and an additional general docket for chemicals not on the Work Plan. These dockets will be open until December 1, 2019. A link to the list of these dockets is available here.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-announces-its-working-approach-identifying-chemicals-prioritization

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Double Dose: EPA Report Underscores Dangers From Another Toxic Chemical In River Parishes

Sep 29, 2018 | The Advocate

By Della Hasselle and Nick Reimann

Just three years ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency declared that St. John the Baptist Parish had the highest cancer risk from airborne pollutants of any similar jurisdiction nationwide because of the “likely carcinogen” chloroprene, resulting in controversy and a federal lawsuit aimed at a local chemical plant.
Now, there’s more sobering news for residents in the River Parishes: Another, potentially more toxic chemical called ethylene oxide has likely been released into the air in excessive amounts, according to the most recent National Air Toxics Assessment, an EPA report released once every three years.
Ethylene oxide — a chemical the EPA says is a proven carcinogen, or cancer-causing agent, for humans — is produced throughout the United States but is put out in disproportionately high amounts in St. Charles Parish, where scientists say residents in one census tract face the highest risk in the country of developing lymphoid or breast cancers from it.
And it isn't just St. Charles. Plants throughout the Mississippi River's industrial corridor between Baton Rouge and New Orleans are releasing the chemical, raising health concerns for residents in St. John and Ascension parishes, among others.+7

The man-made chemical, used in the production of antifreeze and polyester and to sterilize medical equipment, has been produced in Louisiana for decades. On the west bank of St. Charles, ethylene oxide has been made at the Union Carbide Corp. plant since the late 1960s.
A spokeswoman with Dow Chemical Co., which owns Union Carbide, acknowledged that the company is one of the largest producers of ethylene oxide in the country but says it has “safely produced” it in St. Charles Parish since Dow took ownership of the plant in 2001.
Before the acquisition, two petrochemical plants located in Taft and Hahnville functioned as separate facilities. The plant operations were then merged into one 2,000-acre complex in Hahnville, renamed St. Charles Operations after Dow bought Union Carbide.
“Dow is compliant with the current EPA regulations,” said Ashley Mendoza, the company’s public affairs manager. “We have always operated within our permitted emission standards.”
While the plant has long met those industry standards, scientists’ understanding of the dangers associated with the chemical has changed over time, according to the EPA. It was only in 2016 that the chemical was categorized as a carcinogen.
The change in classification brings greater demand for tighter regulation that could bring down acceptable emission levels. Agency scientists say they will now review the Clean Air Act and “evaluate opportunities” to reduce the emissions nationwide.
The EPA will also determine whether more immediate emission reduction strategies are necessary in local areas, scientists said in a release. Based on the data, those areas could include St. Charles and St. John parishes.A slow process
But the process could take time. First, the agency has to figure out just how much of the chemical is permeating the air.
To do that, the EPA will have to develop new monitoring techniques because current methods, including traditional air quality monitoring, aren’t sensitive enough, according to the agency.
“Facility emissions testing, combined with air-quality modeling, can provide a more complete picture of ethylene oxide in the air ... than air-quality monitoring can currently provide,” the EPA scientists said.
In the meantime, residents in St. John worry that they’re facing a double whammy of dangerous chemical exposures.
Union Carbide is just downriver from Denka Performance Elastomer in LaPlace. Denka is the only plant in the country producing chloroprene and was the focus of the previous air toxins report released in 2015.
“I just feel like I want to vomit. I feel like I want to cry," said a tearful Cindy Russo, who lives in LaPlace. "I just feel so helpless. And you know, these two chemicals we’re talking about — that’s just two. There’s hundreds of other chemicals being manufactured out there.”
At a recent meeting of the activist group Concerned Citizens of St. John, Wilma Subra, an environmental scientist with the Louisiana Environmental Action Network, called ethylene oxide “much more toxic” than chloroprene.
Chloroprene is categorized as a "likely carcinogen," according to the EPA, whereas the classification for ethylene oxide was changed to "carcinogenic to humans" two years ago.
And while exposure to chloroprene can result in symptoms like breathing ailments, skin conditions and rapid heartbeat, Subra said limited evidence shows ethylene oxide could cause spontaneous abortions, damage to developing fetuses and harm to the brain and nervous system.
As she presented a 23-page report on the chemical, many audience members gasped. Some wiped away tears.
“I’m scared to breathe,” said Tish Taylor, a member of the group.
Ethylene oxide, which appears in gas and liquid forms, has been around since 1859, when it was first prepared by a French chemist named Charles-Adolphe Wurst.
During World War I, it was used as a precursor in making the chemical weapon mustard gas. Production was altered in 1931 by French chemist Theodore Lefort, who figured out how to make it directly from ethylene by using silver as a catalyst.
The chemical is now used primarily as an intermediate, meaning it is used to make other chemicals, and as a sterilizing agent for medical equipment. It’s also used as a fumigating agent for spices.
As a gas, the chemical has the odor of ether — a slightly sweet smell, according to scientists.
The EPA officially deemed the chemical to be a carcinogen in a report issued in December 2016, but it had said in draft reviews as early as 2014 that the chemical could cause cancer to people who breathe it in over a long term.
Scientists with the agency found the chemical to be carcinogenic to laboratory animals, inducing tumors in the lymphatic system, brain, lung, uterus and mammary gland, according to a 2014 assessment.
The agency also said there was evidence that it was dangerous to humans and caused lymphoid and breast cancers in exposed workers.
Based on the studies and evidence, the EPA determined that over a lifetime — measured as 70 years — a person could contract those cancers if they were exposed to 0.003 micrograms per cubic meter constantly, every day.
By comparison, chloroprene is considered risky at a constant exposure of 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter, the EPA has said.Risk in River Parishes
As of 2016, there were 118 industrial facilities releasing ethylene oxide in the U.S., according to the NATA report, which was released this year but uses emissions data from 2014.
Thirteen of those facilities are in Louisiana.
In one census tract in St. Charles Parish — just across the river from the Union Carbide plant — constant exposure to the emissions would result in an estimated 710 people out of a million contracting cancer. That's a jaw-dropping figure, considering that the upper limit of what national regulators deem acceptable is 100 people in a million. The national average is just 1.3 people in a million.
The risk varies widely even in tracts that neighbor each other in a single parish. In St. Charles, for example, the risk ranges anywhere from 19 to 211 people per million. In the six census tracts encompassing St. John, the cancer risk ranges from 182 to 317 people per million, according to the NATA map — all above the acceptable level.
In 2016, Union Carbide deliberately released an estimated 30,700 pounds of ethylene oxide, and an estimated unplanned 5,100 pounds of the produced gas also escaped into the air, according to an EPA database. The only U.S. industrial facility releasing more ethylene oxide into the air is in Port Neches, Texas, according to a separate EPA database.
In St. John Parish, a chemical company called Evonik Materials Corp. also added to the area’s emissions of the carcinogen. Data collected from the EPA show it released about 1,300 pounds into the air in 2016.
By comparison, the EPA data show other plants released minimal pollution in producing the chemical.
The fact that the EPA hasn’t begun monitoring the air quality or the chemical emissions coming from the plants came as a surprise for some River Parishes residents who have been closely tracking the EPA's air quality data on chloroprene for more than a year now.
But Subra said that ethylene oxide isn't one of the chemicals the EPA is testing for right now, in part because the chemical was so recently categorized as a carcinogen, and in part because the equipment in place now isn't sensitive enough to measure for it.
“You can’t just do a canister test for it,” Subra said, underscoring that because such tiny amounts are thought to cause health risks, it has to be measured in thousandths of a microgram per cubic meter.
The EPA has estimated the cancer risk, however, based on how much of the chemical the plants put out each year. The science isn’t perfect, as estimates based on production are different from measuring how much of the chemical actually escapes from the facility into the air, and also how much of it sticks around in communities after wind and other environmental factors come into play.
Local government officials said little when shown the results, with a spokeswoman for the St. Charles Parish administration, Adrienne Bourgeois, saying that “it would be inappropriate to comment on this matter at this time." Baileigh Rebowe, a spokeswoman for the St. John administration, did not return a call seeking comment.
Gregory Langley, a spokesman with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, said the department is aware of the NATA report and plans to meet with facilities producing ethylene oxide to discuss "possible emissions reduction options," but that there is "no timetable for reductions or monitoring at present."
He also underscored that the LSU Tumor Registry shows no increased incidence of cancers associated with ethylene oxide in St. Charles and St. John parishes.
Moreover, Langley said that industry would be challenging the science behind the NATA report. The industry's trade association, the American Chemical Council, will be filing a "request for correction," asking the EPA to withdraw the data behind the study, he said.
Chuck Brown, the DEQ secretary, has challenged previous EPA recommendations.
When the latest NATA study showed St. John had the highest risk of cancer from airborne pollutants due to chloroprene, Brown told Parish Council members and residents that there was "no smoking gun" and that the health-based exposure limit the EPA suggested for emissions was not "enforceable."
Regarding chloroprene, he also said the best way to cut emissions is to maintain a good "working relationship" with the plant.High risk from chloroprene
The latest NATA report has created a feeling of déjà vu for many members of the Concerned Citizens of St. John, which was formed after the EPA’s previous report was released in 2015.
That study found St. John the Baptist Parish had the highest risk of cancer anywhere in the nation due to chloroprene.
Environmentalists traced the chloroprene risk back to the Denka plant in LaPlace. After the study, the company agreed with state regulators to cut emissions of chloroprene — which had been spewing from its plant in St. John for decades — by 85 percent.
Denka spent the better part of 2017 working to achieve that goal amid withering criticism from local environmentalists, retrofitting the plant with more than $35 million worth of equipment that officials said would reduce the discharge of toxic chemicals.
While the company had drastically reduced ambient chloroprene readings by the middle of 2018, that decline didn’t immediately relieve pressure on the company to do more. That’s because scientists said emissions hadn’t dropped to what the EPA considers a safe level, and local activists continue to insist that the plant is a health hazard.
That’s what led 13 St. John residents to file a lawsuit against Denka demanding the plant stop or significantly reduce production until the plant reaches a level of 0.2 micrograms of chloroprene per cubic meter of air, which the EPA calls the upper limit for safe exposure.
Attorneys for Denka argue that the 0.2 threshold is far too low, and that the 13 residents failed to prove that chloroprene from the plant is responsible for the health issues they allege they have suffered.
Denka filed a motion to dismiss the suit, and U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman sided with the company, calling the lawsuit “wholly defective” in a July 26 ruling. He did, however, give the 13 plaintiffs a chance to file amended claims, which they did on Aug. 9. The judge could rule on the amended lawsuit at any time.
In the meantime, residents say they’re still shocked that companies in Louisiana are permitted to release chemicals in amounts the EPA says put human health at risk.
“I’m just as shocked as I was the first time,” said Russo, the LaPlace resident. “I’m dumbfounded that ... we can be put in this situation, that it has come down to this, that these things are allowed to happen so that other people can make profits.”
https://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/environment/article_09c60174-c0e7-11e8-b695-aff562a31e0f.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Worker Exposure Considered as EPA Picks Chemicals to Spotlight

Sep 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

EPA releases strategy to pick 40 chemicals that it will review next year
Dockets open for 73 chemicals, some likely to be among the 40
Worker exposure when making or using chemicals will be considered by the EPA as it decides which 40 chemicals to review for safety next year, according to a Sept. 28 strategy.
The Environmental Protection Agency released the strategy it will use to select 40 chemicals by early next year.
As required by the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments, the agency must consider worker exposures to chemicals as it reviews the compounds’ potential to injure people or the environment.
After it selects the 40 chemicals, the EPA will vet them throughout 2019 to divide them into 20 “high-priority” and 20 “low priority” bins. The designations and reviews are required by the TSCA amendments.
The high-priority designation means the agency would launch a detailed evaluation that could prompt customers to avoid them or eventually lead to restrictions of the chemicals’ uses or environmental releases.
Customers Sensitive
Chemical manufacturers prefer to have their products deemed “low priorities,” as being scrutinized can discourage customers from buying the chemicals or products containing them.
The low-priority substance designation would mean no immediate threat of regulation under the agency’s chemicals statute. Instead, the EPA’s chemicals office would set them aside unless new scientific data suggested they posed a greater potential to injure people or the environment than the agency realized.
The extent of workers’ exposure that the EPA will or won’t consider as it reviews chemicals has been debated since TSCA defined workers as part of the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations its chemical risk decisions need to consider.
Unions, Industry Divide
Industry groups have argued the agency has unreasonably assumed workers’ exposure may be higher than it is.
On the other hand, labor and environmental health groups have argued the agency is underestimating worker exposures by choosing to ignore some ongoing uses of chemicals. For example, the EPA will not take maintenance workers’ potential exposure to asbestos in buildings into account as it evaluates the risks of that chemical.
The EPA also invited companies, trade associations, labor groups, environmental organizations, and others to submit information about 73 chemicals that already were on a list of compounds it has selected for detailed review before 2016.
The agency provided contact information to help interested parties know which EPA staff is managing each of those 73 chemicals.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/worker-exposure-considered-as-epa-picks-chemicals-to-spotlight

Return to headline | Return to top
Have We Learned Anything In The Last 4 Decades When It Comes To Allowing Chemicals Like PCBs Onto The Market?

Sep 28, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Richard Denison and Stephanie Schwarz

The Science section of today’s New York Times reports “Killer Whales Face Dire PCBs Threat” – more than four decades after Congress largely banned PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls).
Concentrations of the chemicals in the blubber of orcas living in waters off the coasts of industrialized countries remain high, and new research indicates the contamination presents an existential threat to the survival of these populations.
Reading the article brought to mind concerns we have raised in recent comments to EPA on proposed rules it has issued for new chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
PCBs and TSCA
When Congress passed the original TSCA in 1976, it banned the manufacture, processing, and distribution of PCBs “other than in a totally enclosed manner.” It also authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow manufacture, processing, and distribution of PCBs “in a manner other than in a totally enclosed manner” if EPA found that the activity would “not present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment.”
EPA’s implementation of these requirements and allowances resulted in a phase-out of manufacture of PCBs, with some uses EPA deemed not to be totally enclosed allowed to continue.
PCBs are emblematic of a large group of chemicals of high concern. Congress imposed restrictions on PCBs because PCBs had been found to be PBTs – persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic – exceedingly slow to break down in the environment and capable of building up in the food chain to the point of harming the health of humans or other organisms due to their toxicity.
EPA’s PBT policy for new chemicals
Concern over the potential for new chemicals to be introduced into commerce that might be or degrade into PBTs led EPA in 1999 to adopt a new policy and establish a “Category for Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic New Chemical Substances,” under which it would more closely scrutinize, require testing of, and impose market restrictions on new chemicals expected or suspected to be PBTs. The restrictions could range up to a “ban pending testing” for chemicals deemed to be very persistent and very bioaccumulative. EPA stated: “Because of the increased concern, more stringent control action would be a likely outcome, up to a ban on commercial production until data are submitted which allow the Agency to determine that the level of risk can be appropriately addressed by less restrictive measures.”
In recent months, EPA has issued five “batches” of proposed significant new use rules (SNURs) for new chemicals for which it earlier negotiated consent orders under section 5 of TSCA. Those orders were issued because EPA had determined either that these new chemicals “may present an unreasonable risk” or that EPA lacked sufficient information to conduct a reasoned evaluation of the chemicals’ risks. In some cases, EPA also found that there will be significant production and there will or may be substantial human exposure to the chemical.
EDF has carefully reviewed these proposed SNURs, and to date has submitted comments on the first four batches (the fifth one is still open for public comment). EDF strongly supports the issuance of SNURs for these chemicals to ensure that EPA is notified in advance of companies seeking to deviate from certain conditions when manufacturing, processing, distributing, using, or disposing of the chemicals, so that EPA can conduct a review of the potential risks.
EPA deviates from its own policy
However, as we conducted our review of the proposed SNURs, we were struck by just how many of these chemicals EPA indicated may be PBTs. As we dug deeper, we found that for many of these potential PBTs, the evidence indicated they also are likely to meet EPA’s criteria for being both very persistent and very bioaccumulative. Specifically:EPA indicated that as many as 21 of the new chemicals may be PBTs.As many as 15 of these appear to meet EPA’s criteria for being designated both very persistent and very
When we looked at the testing requirements and conditions being imposed on these chemicals through the consent orders and SNURs, however, we found frequent, serious deviations from EPA’s own PBT policy. Among other concerns:With respect to testing, in a number of the cases EPA has imposed less testing than its policy calls for, and in at least three cases, EPA required no testing at all.For those chemicals meeting EPA’s criteria for being both verypersistent and very bioaccumulative, EPA has allowed those chemicals to enter commerce even in advance of the testing required under its policy having been conducted.
More detail is available in our comments here and here.
It is disturbing that EPA is failing to adhere to its own longstanding policy regarding new chemicals that are potentially PBTs.
This situation also suggests that we have yet to learn the lessons we should have learned from PCBs, chemicals that are still wreaking havoc in our environment decades after Congress called for them to be banned.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/09/28/have-we-learned-anything-in-the-last-4-decades-when-it-comes-to-allowing-chemicals-like-pcbs-onto-the-market/

Return to headline | Return to top
Bayer Stung by Science Journal Correction on Roundup Safety Study

Sep 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Joel Rosenblatt, Peter and Lydia Mulvany

Toxicology publication will issue an ‘Expression of Concern’
Disclosure comes as Roundup lawsuits are scheduled for trial
Bayer AG’s defense of Roundup weed killer may take a hit after an academic journal said Monsanto Co. didn’t fully disclose its involvement in published research finding the herbicide safe.
A correction issued by Critical Reviews in Toxicology—a journal that analyzes health risks of chemicals—may bolster arguments that Monsanto, acquired by Bayer this year, ghost-wrote safety reviews as lawyers try to convince juries that Roundup causes cancer.
Monsanto has defended the independence of the 2016 review, and the journal isn’t changing the papers’ scientific findings. But the journal’s publisher said Sept. 26 it is issuing an “Expression of Concern” linked to the articles because the authors “have been unable to provide an adequate explanation to why the required level of transparency was not met on first submission.”
Allegations that Monsanto ghostwrote scientific literature to rebut claims that a key chemical in Roundup causes cancer, and emails supporting them, were featured at the first trial over the herbicide resulting in a $289 million verdict against the company in August.
“The correction in itself it might not be that big a deal if the plaintiffs’ lawyers have the dirt on Monsanto,” said Thomas G. Rohback, a trial lawyer in the New York office of Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP who isn’t involved in the Roundup litigation. “What’s more telling is the nature and extent of the involvement, and the reason for the misstatement.”
‘Non-Substantive’
Monsanto spokesman Sam Murphey wrote in an email that the articles in question are “a small part of an extensive body of research” showing glyphosate-based herbicides are safe.
The company’s influence on the articles was “non-substantive,” such as providing formatting assistance and giving a history of regulatory overview, Murphey said. “The scientific conclusions are those of the authors and the authors alone.”
Bayer faces litigation by more than 9,500 plaintiffs in the U.S., mostly farmers, who blame exposure to glyphosate for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The next trial may be sometime between December and February.
The correction stems from the journal’s requirement that any potential author conflicts must be disclosed. The initial disclosure statement indicated Monsanto’s involvement was limited to paying a consulting firm to develop the journal supplement entitled “An Independent Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate.” It declared that no Monsanto employees or attorneys reviewed manuscripts submitted to the journal.
Internal Emails
Internal emails filed in litigation revealed that Monsanto scientists were heavily involved in organizing, reviewing, and editing article drafts.
“Although I’m glad the journal is now on record finding that they were misled when publishing these articles, a retraction is more than warranted for this situation,” said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental advocacy group.
“Furthermore the journal appears to be allowing the phrase ‘an independent review’ to remain in the title of the issue. There is nothing independent about this review by any stretch of the imagination,” he said.
Critical Reviews in Toxicology agreed with authors to correct the disclosure statements for three of the supplement’s articles, Elaine Devine, a spokeswoman for the journal, said in an email. She said the authors couldn’t agree by a deadline on disclosures about two other articles.
The Expression of Concern “will remain on the scholarly record,” she said in the email.
Corrections are appropriate when “the author/contributor list is incorrect” but “there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings,” according to guidelines issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics, a Britain-based nonprofit.
An Expression of Concern is warranted, the guidelines say, when evidence of author misconduct is “inconclusive,” or when “there is evidence that the findings are unreliable, but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/bayer-stung-by-science-journal-correction-on-roundup-safety-study

Return to headline | Return to top
Ban Roundup in Breakfast-Cereal Grains, Environmental Group Says

Sep 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Tiffany Stecker

Petition targets oats in breakfast cereal
Most oats in the U.S. come from Canada
The U.S. should ban use of a common weedkiller to dry cereal crops in an effort to sway the industry here and abroad, organic food companies and an environmental group said.
The Environmental Working Group and eight organic food companies petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency on Sept. 27 to prohibit glyphosate, a common weedkiller, as a drying agent in oats and other grains.
While using glyphosate as a drying agent is rarely done in the U.S., it’s common in Canada, and the groups said they hope EPA action would convince the industry at large to make changes.

Farmers in Canada often use glyphosate—the main ingredient in Bayer AG’s Roundup herbicide—and other pesticides on cereal crops shortly before harvest to reduce uneven growth caused by humidity. It allows grains to ripen evenly and can allow farmers to collect their crops earlier.
The petition also asks the agency to reduce the “tolerance” or level of residue allowed on food to 0.1 parts per million, which could effectively force changes in other countries that provide grains to the U.S. market. The current tolerance is 30 parts per million for grain cereal.
“The goal here is really to ask the market to shift,” Emily Griffith, a policy attorney with the Environmental Working Group, told Bloomberg Environment.
Oats Targeted
The Environmental Working Group is targeting oats, which are abundant in breakfast cereals. Americans consume about 2.6 million metric tons of oats per year, according to the Agriculture Department’s Foreign Agricultural Service, but produce less than 1 million metric tons.
An Environmental Working Group report from last month found traces of glyphosate in popular breakfast cereals such as Cheerios and Quaker Old Fashioned Oats. The organization concluded that the levels of glyphosate exceeded what they considered “safe"—although that view clashes with the EPA, whose regulators set the safety threshold 300 times higher than the environmental group.
Quaker Oats Co., owned by PepsiCo, told Bloomberg Environment it sources most of its oats from Canada. In the U.S., glyphosate is allowed as a preharvest defoliant or desiccant to dry crops by grain growers in areas including North Dakota, EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones told Bloomberg Environment.
Quaker Oats said it is working to address consumer concerns over glyphosate.
“While our products comply with all safety and regulatory requirements, we are happy to be part of the discussion and are interested in collaborating with industry peers, regulators and other interested parties on glyphosate,” the company said in a Sept. 27 statement to Bloomberg Environment.
A tighter limit in the U.S. would push Canada and other countries to revise their own regulations, Griffith said.
“If we have this more protective standard, they’ll be forced to meet it,” she said.
Pre-Harvest Glyphosate Rare in U.S.
Regulatory agencies around the world—including the EPA and the European Food Safety Authority—have said the chemical doesn’t cause cancer.
But in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded that glyphosate is a “probable” carcinogen, sparking lawsuits against Monsanto Co. Bayer bought Monsanto in June in a $63 billion merger.
“Preharvest glyphosate applications, while only used on about 3 percent of U.S. wheat acres, are an important crop protection option for farmers,” Bayer AG spokeswoman Charla Lord told Bloomberg Environment in an email. The company has long stood behind the herbicide’s safety.
Bayer now faces more than 9,000 lawsuits in federal and state courts from non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients claiming that using Roundup caused their cancer. In a California case, a former groundskeeper recently won a $289 million verdict from Monsanto after getting cancer.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/ban-roundup-in-breakfast-cereal-grains-environmental-group-says

Return to headline | Return to top
Calif. First in Nation to Test for Microplastics in Drinking Water

Oct 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Emily C. Dooley

Elevated levels of microplastics in fish, ocean water detected but its prevalence in drinking water is unclear
Bill requires a standard to test for microplastics by 2021
Water suppliers in California will be the first in the nation required to test for microplastics in drinking water under a bill signed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) Sept. 28.
Authored by Sen. Anthony Portantino (D), SB 1422 orders the state Water Resources Control Board to adopt a definition of microplastics by July 2020 and within a year establish a standard to test drinking water. Testing, reporting, and disclosure to the public would be required for four years.

No other state has required testing, but California is “usually ahead of everybody else,” said Alan Roberson, executive director of the Arlington, Va.-based Association of State Drinking Water Administrators.
Microplastics are tiny pieces of plastic that pass easily through water filtration systems. They include microbeads, the plastic particles that until recently were used in hundreds of products ranging from body scrubs to cosmetics to toothpastes. They are emerging contaminants of concern and have been detected in elevated levels around San Francisco Bay, but their prevalence in drinking water is unclear.
That lack of information and a suggestion from a constituent prompted Portantino to file the legislation.
“We test for a lot of things, but we don’t test drinking water for microplastics,” Portantino told Bloomberg Environment Sept. 19. “As we’ve become more dependent on plastics, we should know what we’re drinking.”
The Assembly appropriations committee estimated the cost of the bill at about $2.45 million from the Safe Drinking Water Account or general fund over three years to implement the provisions of the bill, including staff costs of $150,000 annually.
For and Against
More than two dozen groups, including nonprofits 5 Gyres Institute, Californians Against Waste, Center for Biological Diversity, Environmental Working Group, Greenpeace, and Surfrider Foundation supported the bill.
“We see this as a common sense bill,” the 5 Gyres Institute Co-Founder and Director of Global Strategy Anna Cummins told Bloomberg Environment Sept. 21. “The right to clean water is a human right.”
She said the field of microplastics was an emerging science but that detecting the contaminants at low levels in ocean habitats is possible and could be used for drinking water.
“It’s a field with a lot of future research needed,” Cummins said.
The bill also faced heavy opposition.
The California Municipal Utilities Association, Association of California Water Agencies, and California Water Association opposed the legislation. They said the requirement jumped ahead of current technology and that no vetted standard methodology exists to test for microplastics, nor does the state have accredited labs that could do the work.
“We feel that it’s premature and it bypassed important public processes,” said Lawrence M. Morales who is president of the East Pasadena Water Co. and the California Water Association, which represents 100 regulated water utilities.
Human health risks also are unclear, said Morales, who wants the state to form an expert panel to study health risk and effects before taking more action.
“We don’t see how it can be implemented as it’s written,” he told Bloomberg Environment Sept. 19. “There needs to be more study to determine how this is going to be implemented.”
The legislation also jumps over normal provisions for regulating water and surveying for microplastics without knowing health affects could be confusing to customers, according to Bart Koch, section manager for environmental health and safety for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

“So far the studies that have been conducted are in raw water,” Koch said. “We don’t know what the occurrence in treated water is.”
Microplastics Mysteries
The Environmental Protection Agency convened a microplastics expert panel in June 2017, with several priorities emerging, including a need to create methods to research and characterize human exposure and impacts in drinking water.
“The development of reliable, reproducible and high quality methods for microplastics quantification and characterization is fundamental and of paramount importance for understanding microplastics risks,” the EPA said a December 2017 report from the panel workshop.
Water suppliers also said no known approved method exists to remove microplastics in drinking water.
“You couldn’t go to a commercial lab and say, ‘Hey, can you test for this,’ ” Roberson told Bloomberg Environment Sept. 21.
Microplastics in food also is a concern. Researchers from University of California, Davis, and Hasunudd University in Indonesia sampled fish from markets in Indonesia, California, and New Jersey, and found that 25 percent of the fish sampled contained plastic, according to a 2015 report.
“Some of these plastics absorb other toxins and end up in fish that we consume,” said Thomas Mumley, assistant executive officer of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, which has an ongoing project to monitor for microplastics through the San Francisco Estuary Institute.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/calif-first-in-nation-to-test-for-microplastics-in-drinking-water

Return to headline | Return to top
California Cosmetics Animal Testing Bill Becomes Law

Oct 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch

By Kelly Franklin

California Governor Jerry Brown has signed into law a bill banning the sale of cosmetic products and ingredients tested on animals.
Its aim is to bring the state's requirements in line with other global standards, such as the EU's, and represents the toughest cruelty-free policy in the US, according to a legislative analysis document on the measure.
The law expands California's existing prohibition on using animal tests for cosmetics when a validated alternative exists, to also cover their use to achieve compliance with federal, state or international requirements.
Earlier versions of the the bill (SB 1249) were fiercely opposed by industry groups, which said it would impose an "unworkable framework that could harm manufacturers and severely handicap American cosmetic exports".
But the measure was amended in the legislative session's final days to include broader exemptions for animal tests conducted to achieve compliance with other bodies. Industry groups dropped their opposition as a result.
The Personal Care Products Council (PCPC) praised the adoption of the new law. "The California Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act is pragmatic legislation that balances animal welfare, regulatory requirements, and decades of science," said Lezlee Westine, president and CEO of the trade group.Questions remain
The exemptions in the law allow some flexibility for manufacturers selling in global markets where animal testing may be required, or where federal or state regulators request them to resolve safety issues around ingredients.
The law was also narrowed to apply only to testing conducted by, or on behalf of, the manufacturer, and not by unrelated third parties, such as a federal agency or university.
But Kathleen Sanzo, a partner at law firm Morgan Lewis, wrote in a recent blog post that the law's exemptions also raise "a few unanswered questions, given the lack of clarity in some of the terms used".
These include how widely an ingredient must be used to fall under the exception, and how a manufacturer will demonstrate that the information derived from an animal test conducted for conformance with a foreign requirement has not been used to substantiate the product's safety in California.
Ingredient and product manufacturers will need to put into place a compliance programme to demonstrate adherence to the law, she said. And alternative safety tests may need to be devised for new product formulations.
The requirements apply to new products and components sold or imported after 1 January 2020. Cosmetics and ingredients sold in California or tested on animals prior to that date are not covered.
Governor Brown's signing of the bill closely follows his giving the green light to a separate measure aimed at cosmetics, AB 2775.
Adopted as law earlier this month, it requires cosmetics used in professional settings to bear a label listing product ingredients, from 1 July 2020.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70517/california-cosmetics-animal-testing-bill-becomes-law

Return to headline | Return to top
NGOs Petition US EPA To Require Asbestos Reporting

Oct 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch

Six NGOs have petitioned the US EPA to amend its TSCA chemical data reporting rule (CDR) to require reporting for asbestos.
The TSCA section 21 petition, filed on 25 September, argues that additional data on asbestos is necessary to support the substance's ongoing risk evaluation. The uses identified in asbestos's TSCA problem formulation are "limited, vague and incomplete", it says.
"Without adequate information on ongoing importation and use of asbestos and asbestos-containing products, the risk evaluation will fail to provide a meaningful picture of the threat that asbestos poses to public health and citizens will be in the dark about exposure to asbestos in their communities and places of employment," the petition adds.
The NGOs want the EPA to amend the TSCA CDR rule, which comes under section 8(a) of TSCA, to:require that asbestos be reported under the CDR rule, in order to collect information on its current import and use. The substance is currently exempted from reporting as it is 'naturally occurring';lower the reporting threshold, eliminate exemptions for impurities and its presence in articles, and require processors to report "in order to assure that EPA has the information on asbestos necessary to meet its TSCA responsibilities";block such reports from being protected as confidential business information.
The petitioning organisations are:the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO);the American Public Health Association (APHA);the Center for Environmental Health (CEH);the Environmental Working Group (EWG);the Environmental Health Strategy Center (EHSC); andSafer Chemicals Healthy Families (SCHF).
https://chemicalwatch.com/70621/ngos-petition-us-epa-to-require-asbestos-reporting

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

(ACC Blog) SPF Insulation Meets Energy-Efficiency Needs for Multifamily Homes

Sep 28, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters

By Stephen Wieroniey

Designers and specifiers building or upgrading a multifamily home must consider the energy efficiency of the building and select the right insulation during the design phase of the project. Energy-efficient buildings not only help building occupants save on their monthly energy usage, but they help reduce potential impacts to the environment. And it’s not just something many building occupants want, it’s increasingly becoming a requirement for builders and specifiers. To meet these new requirements, it’s critical for builders and specifiers to understand the construction materials available so they can make the best possible decision.
Whether it is new construction, a renovation or a retrofit job, spray polyurethane foam insulation (SPF) is well positioned to meeting energy-efficiency requirements and client demands for building comfort. SPF offers a multi-attribute solution to insulating, air-sealing and improving the strength of buildings with one product, saving time during construction, increasing comfort, making building maintenance easier and increasing the resilience and durability of the structure. When used in a retrofit job, SPF can also address some of the problems often found in chronically under-maintained buildings and make them more efficient and sustainable.
Because it offers one of the highest R-values on the market, SPF helps makes homes more energy efficient and helps avoid the generation greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change. In addition, when properly installed and fully cured the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found SPF is inert and nontoxic. 1Thermal Performance
SPF can offer the highest R-value per inch, which means greater potential energy savings. Typical R-values for SPF range from 3.5-7.0 per one inch of thickness. The higher R-value allows certain SPF products to provide the same energy savings in half the amount of space that may typically be required.Air Sealing
SPF is applied on-site as a liquid. When the SPF cures, it expands in place to insulate and seal the spaces seen and unseen. SPF’s unique application process allows it to create a layer of protection that provides a consistent air seal for walls, roofs, ceilings or floors, which helps minimize air leaks and saves energy. Other insulation products usually need additional products (building wrap or tape) to air seal the building envelope – adding to the savings potential of SPF.
Sealing gaps with spray foam can also minimize air-borne sound transmission. Open-cell foam can reduce high frequency noise, and closed-cell foam can reduce low-frequency noise. A combination of open- and closed-cell foams can help maximize noise reduction – certainly a valuable attribute in a multifamily building.Building Strength and Resilience
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which responds to natural disasters, has classified SPF insulation as highly resistant to floodwater damage, saying, “These materials can survive wetting and drying and may be successfully cleaned after a flood to render them free of most harmful pollutants.” 2
Applying closed-cell spray foam in the cavities of the walls increases durability of the wall system3 because of the foam’s ability to conform and adhere to the surface upon which it is sprayed. When the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) examined buildings following Hurricane Katrina in Pascagoula, Miss., it found that buildings with SPF roofs performed remarkably well. The SPF kept the roofs intact and prevented moisture from entering the buildings, and it also protected the roofs from hail and debris. Only one of the buildings with an SPF roof had notable damage and, in that case, it was minor, affecting a mere one percent of the roof. 4
Closed-cell SPF insulation can be applied below the roof deck to help secure the roof by essentially gluing the roof deck to the structure. A roof deck insulated with ccSPF has demonstrated an ability to withstand wind speeds found in category 4 hurricanes (130-156 mph). Moreover, ccSPF below the roof deck performs as a secondary water barrier in the event shingles and underlayment are torn off by high winds.The Clear Choice
For many reasons, SPF continually proves itself to be the clear choice for builders and specifiers who need to meet energy-efficiency requirements because its multifunctional nature allows it to upgrade the building in many ways and it makes housing stock more durable, comfortable and appealing. For more information about SPF, please visit whysprayfoam.org.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2018/09/spf-insulation-meets-energy-efficiency-needs-for-multifamily-homes/

Return to headline | Return to top
Mexico Could Phase Out LNG Imports by 2020, Boost Shale Gas Production

Oct 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Karn Dhingra

State-owned Cenagas manages transportation of gas in Mexico
Director says Mexico needs gas, but hopes to get it domestically
Mexico could phase out liquefied natural gas imports as soon as 2020, while ramping up domestic shale gas production.
Mexico would seek to produce shale gas domestically over the coming years, but the country’s demand is so large that piping gas in from the U.S. continues to make economic sense at this point, David Madero, the director of Cenagas, the country’s state-owned natural gas pipeline network, told Bloomberg Environment.
“That may involve the building up Pemex [the Mexican state-owned petroleum company], which the new administration has said it wants to do,” Madero said Sept. 27.
In 2014, Cenagas took over the management of 5,600 miles of pipelines from Pemex. By 2020, Cenagas is expected to have nearly 12,500 miles of pipelines under its management.
Cenagas also expects gas piped in from shale fields in Texas and New Mexico to replace liquefied natural gas imports brought in on ships, Madero said. As the country phases out LNG imports, Cenagas will use the country’s existing LNG terminals to strategically store excess natural gas, Madero said Sept. 27 at an event in San Antonio.
Mexico will likely need natural gas to power its economy for at least the next 20 years as the country tries to meet its renewable energy goals and eventually transition to a low-carbon economy, Madero said. Mexico wants to power half of its economy with renewable energy by 2050.
By 2019 or 2020 the country will have more gas than demand and could start having it traded at wholesale, Madero said.
After recently meeting with energy officials from President-elect Andres Lopez Obrador’s incoming administration, Madero said he was confident most of the country’s energy reforms would stay in place and Mexico’s energy sector would continue to attract foreign investment.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/mexico-could-phase-out-lng-imports-by-2020-boost-shale-gas-production

Return to headline | Return to top
Power to the Permian? Spotty at Best, Outrun by a Fracking Boom

Sep 29, 2018 | Bloomberg

By David Wethe

America’s fastest-growing source of energy has a power problem.
The Permian Basin, which produces almost 4 million barrels of oil a day, has expanded so quickly that suppliers of the electricity needed to keep wells running are struggling to keep up. The Delaware portion alone consumed the equivalent of 350 megawatts this summer, tripling the load from 2015. That’s enough to power about 280,000 U.S. homes. And providers say the draw is likely to triple again by 2022.
Providers are rushing to build new power lines, but it takes three to six years to get them up and working. In the meantime, drillers are bemoaning the reliability of the system and desperately seeking alternatives, exploring the use of solar and natural gas to fuel power-generating gear on-site.
The electrical grid in West Texas “was not set up to withstand that much power going through it," said Marco Caccavale, a vice president at the oilfield services company Baker Hughes. "Plain and simple, you have reliability challenges."
Power is just one more oilfield complication in a region struggling to deal with extraordinary growth over an incredibly short period of time. Worker and pipeline shortages are major concerns, along with the growing levels of water and sand needed for fracking. Meanwhile, highways initially designed for minimal use are gridlocked in the day and deadly at night.
Conventional drilling with vertical wells in the region reached an apex in 1973, producing about 763 million barrels for the year. Output then steadily declined, falling to 309 million barrels in 2006. That threatened to turn a hot and dry region with few large communities back into a dusty afterthought requiring minimal electricity.
Then, fracking hit.
The iconic 40-horsepower “nodding donkeys” that power vertical wells draw about 30 kilowatts each. But since the advent of fracking a decade ago, they’re being supplanted by sophisticated equipment that needs more and more power to operate. At the same time, the well count has grown dramatically, rising by 33,483 since 2006, according to Austin-based Drilling Info Inc.
Shale wells developed using fracking can run horizontally for miles. To lift oil out, companies now depend on electric submersible pumps that individually draw about 300 kilowatts, according to Toni Jameson, an electrical-engineering consultant who leads a coalition of Permian companies studying the issue.
"Power is the last thing that anybody really ever thinks about," Jameson said. "Most operators and producers out here, they’re here to produce. No one thinks about power until they realize, ‘We can’t produce that well without it.’"One-Lane Road
The industry has studied the use of solar and wind at well sites, she said, but found the costs were high and that they couldn’t provide the power and consistency needed to run the new oilfield machinery. The Permian power grid is the equivalent of a one-lane country road, she said, adding, "we need about a 12-lane highway in both directions."
The oilfield’s big-ticket items, drilling rigs and frack pumps, still mainly run on diesel engines, and aren’t affected by power outages. But for a well that’s moved past the drilling stage and into its longterm production phase, power is often the No. 1 operating cost.
Determined to find alternatives, the industry is experimenting with gear that can run off the natural gas produced in nearby wells. Gas-compressor sales in the region are up, which suggests more field gas is being processed locally to be used to generate power, James West, a New York-based analyst at Evercore ISI, said in an email.Gas-Fired Turbine
Baker Hughes is working with several customers on a pilot project to power its electric submersible pumps from a gas-fired turbine, which can be more powerful than a diesel generator and requires less maintenance. The world’s second-biggest oilfield service provider sees its turbines filling a void in areas where the electrical grid hasn’t yet expanded, or where power cuts out too often.
The production process isn’t the only factor draining the region’s power, however. The ability to handle sand and water, vital ingredients in fracking, are also involved. It’s become a key factor in determining where to place pumps for moving water to the frack job, according to Bill Zartler, the chief executive officer of Solaris Midstream.
In some areas expensive generators have had to be used temporarily to run the pumps because there were no power lines to hook into, according to Zartler. In other spots, it’s been able to tap into customers’ electricity lines, he said.
There are solutions coming down the line.Electrification Projects
Dave Stover, CEO at Noble Energy Inc., told analysts and investors in August the Houston-based explorer is working on an electrification project to solve that problem too. "Some of the supply of electricity is not that reliable in the southern Delaware Basin," Stover said. "We’ve got some dollars going toward an electrification project that will help improve reliability there."
Noble has a distribution system in place already, and anticipates constructing two substations near their wells in early 2019 to help relieve the load on the local distribution system.
Diamondback Energy Inc. is also in the process of building its own electrification project in Reeves County, estimating it will eventually cut costs by about $60,000 per well each month.
Meanwhile, Oncor Electric Delivery Co. LLC, the biggest electric utility in the Permian, is spending $450 million to put new and upgraded transmission lines into the region by the end of 2021, according to Geoff Bailey, a company spokesman.
Oncor has seen its demand grow 79 percent in the oil patch over the past 12 months, with as much as 400 percent growth in certain spots in the basin over the past two to three years.
Oil explorers in the Permian "do a very good job of keeping their operations humming regardless of where the price of oil is at," Bailey said. "We’re in regular contact with them to make sure we’re meeting their needs.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-29/power-to-the-permian-spotty-at-best-outrun-by-a-fracking-boom

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

(ACC Mentioned) Preparing For Unprecedented Storms

Oct 1, 2018 | ChemEngOnline

By Dorothy Lozowski

This year, hurricane season in the U.S. has been active again, with Hurricane Florence battering North Carolina and its surroundings last month. While wind speeds labeled it as a Category 1 hurricane at landfall, the enormous, slow-moving storm caused great damage, and tragically, loss of life. At the time of this writing, the event has been downgraded to a tropical storm, but the relentless rain and the storm-related tornadoes are continuing to wreak havoc in multiple states, even far inland from the original site of landfall.

FLOODING
Scenes of the record-setting, unprecedented flooding caused by Florence — homes, roads and vehicles submerged under water, and people and pets being rescued in boats — are reminiscent of the scenes we witnessed last year with the also unprecedented flooding from Hurricane Harvey in the Gulf Coast. Flooding can cause serious safety concerns and consequences for industrial facilities. At the time of this writing, for example, there are reports that Florence’s heavy rain caused a collapse of a coal-ash landfill at a former coal-fired power plant (closed since 2013) in North Carolina. Concerns are that the coal ash could contaminate nearby waterways.

Last year, record-setting flooding from Hurricane Harvey caused failures of several safety systems at Arkema’s Crosby, Texas plant that ultimately led to fires and explosions of temperature-sensitive organic peroxides when cooling capabilities were lost. Twenty-one people who were exposed to vapor from the decomposing peroxides on a nearby public highway sought medical attention, and more than 200 people were evacuated from within a 1.5-mile radius around the plant.

While safety systems were in place and safety plans were followed at the Crosby site, they were insufficient for the unprecedented extreme flooding that occurred. In its final report on this incident that was issued earlier this year,* the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB; www.csb.org) said that “other companies also might be unaware of the potential for flood risks to create process safety hazards at their facilities if flood-related information is not typically compiled or assessed in required safety analyses.” And understanding flood-plain elevations and historical flooding events at facilities may be more important than ever. According to the CSB report, “In recent years, flooding from extreme rainfall events has increased and according to a 2015 EPA report, this trend is projected to continue…” The CSB report offers several recommendations, including the development of more comprehensive guidance for extreme weather events, which do appear to be happening more frequently.

ANOTHER PRECEDENT
Another unprecedented outcome from Hurricane Harvey is the indictment this August against Arkema’s chief executive and the Crosby plant manager for the events that took place. The American Chemistry Council (ACC; www.americanchemistry.com) stated that this indictment “sets an alarming and unreasonable precedent of seeking to hold people responsible for acts of nature.”

While the results of the legal actions have yet to unfold, the seemingly more-frequent extreme weather that is being experienced globally calls for a re-assessment of what can be done to better prepare for unprecedented events.
https://www.chemengonline.com/preparing-unprecedented-storms/?printmode=1

Return to headline | Return to top
Dozens of Worker Safety Rules May Be Open to Challenge After Ruling

Sep 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Adam Allington

Requirement for eye-wash stations was found to be improperly applied
Ruling could have implications for construction safety rules
The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission found a 46-year-old construction rule protecting workers invalid Sept. 28.
The rule covered workers whose skin or eyes came into with contact hazardous chemicals.
The implications of the commission’s ruling are significant, as dozens of worker safety rules for construction workers under the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Actmay now also be open to challenge. That act bars the government from buying goods from manufacturers that don’t adhere to minimum labor and safety standards.
The three-member review commission found in Secretary of Labor v. Kiewit Power Constructors Co. that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration had improperly applied rules under Walsh–Healey to the construction industry.
The Kiewit case is the first to challenge OSHA’s practice in the early 1970s of applying manufacturing requirements to construction regulations without going through a public comment period for the new construction rule.
Quick-Drenching Rule Overturned
Kiewit, based in Omaha, Neb., objected to 29 C.F.R. 1926.50(g), which sets a requirement for some construction sites to have emergency equipment on hand enabling to workers to flush hazardous substances from their eyes and skin.
“Since this standard was improperly promulgated and added as a new standard, the Secretary cannot now enforce an alleged violation of that standard,” the commission found.
Art Sapper, an attorney with Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart P.C. representing Kiewit, declined Bloomberg Environment’s request to comment on the record.
Act Improperly Applied to Construction
The Walsh–Healey Act’s standards were promulgated through a normal public notice and comment period, those rules the secretary of labor applied to the construction sector were not and therefore were illegally applied, according to the commission.
“We conclude that section 6(a) did not authorize the Secretary to apply the quick-drenching standard to construction employers without notice-and-comment rulemaking,” according to the ruling.
Department of Labor senior appellate attorney Scott Glabman told Bloomberg Environment in January that the rule was correctly applied. A comment period wasn’t necessary because the requirement previously existed for manufacturers, he said.
“At the time, OSHA was allowed to enact construction rules based on existing manufacturing regulations without asking for public comment,” Glabman argued.
The case is Sec’y of Labor v. Kiewit Power Constructors Co., OSHRC, No. 11-2395, 9/28/18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/dozens-of-worker-safety-rules-may-be-open-to-challenge-after-ruling

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Add recipients

Suggested