Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 06/12/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Expert: 'No Single, One-Size-Fits-All Solution' to Plastic Waste Problem
Dec 6, 2018 | Phys.org
By Jeff Falk
Governments, businesses and people around the world must play major roles in managing the rapidly growing plastics economy and the waste it produces, according to an expert in the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy. -
Rice University Report: 'One-Off' Fixes for Plastic Waste Aren't Helpful
Dec 6, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
China's ban on plastic waste imports this year has sent the recycling industry into turmoil and put new pressure on plastic manufacturers and governments to find better solutions for the plastic waste problem, a new policy briefing from Rice University concludes. -
Senate Confirms Trump’s Controversial Energy Pick
Dec 6, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Senate confirmed President Trump’s pick for a key energy agency Thursday over Democrats' objections that he is too biased for the job. -
Emails Show Staff Wary of Pruitt's Science Board 'Agenda'
Dec 6, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Maxine Joselow and Sean Reilly
Career staffers at EPA expressed alarm after former Administrator Scott Pruitt signaled plans to alter the makeup of the agency's scientific advisory boards, newly released emails show. -
US Congress Considers Bill to Increase Impact of IRIS Risk Assessments
Dec 6, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Congress is considering a measure that would expand the regulatory heft of assessments completed under the US EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) programme. -
The Consequences of Status Quo Chemical Policy Are Becoming Increasingly Clear
Dec 6, 2018 | Environmental Health News
By Thomas Zoeller
Chemicals are manufactured for use in almost everything with which humans come into contact including food, plastics, personal care products, clothing and building materials. -
Toxicity Prediction Team Asked to Justify Reproducibility Claims
Dec 6, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
A group of toxicologists has called for the team behind a widely publicised computational tool for predicting chemical toxicity to justify "bold claims" that it can outperform animal test reproducibility. -
California Extends Consultation on Prop 65 Clarifying Amendments
Dec 6, 2018 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has scheduled a public hearing and extended the consultation on proposed amendments to providing ‘clear and reasonable’ consumer product warnings under Proposition 65. -
Canada Provisionally Links Talc and Ovarian Cancer
Dec 6, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The Canadian government has provisionally found that talc is harmful to humans via a "causal effect" between perineal exposure to talc and ovarian cancer, and has floated plans to prohibit or restrict the substance in certain cosmetics. -
Toy Slime Health Hazards: What You Need to Know
Dec 6, 2018 | Healthline
If you’ve spent any time shopping for your kids this holiday season or watching videos with them on YouTube, then you know that toy slime is having a moment. -
Echa Round-Up
Dec 6, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa's Committee for Socio-economic Analysis (Seac) adopted its final Opinion to restrict the manufacturing, use, placing on the market and import of C9-C14 PFCAs – PFNA, PFDA, PFUnDA, PFDoDA, PFTrDA, and PFTDA – their salts and precursors. -
Data Timetable 'Under Review' in a No-Deal Brexit
Dec 6, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Britain will keep "under review" the timescale for companies to submit full data packages to register chemicals under a UK REACH equivalent in the event of a no-deal Brexit, a senior official at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said. -
Cefic Says SVHC Equivalency Must Be Judged ‘Case-by-Case’
Dec 6, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
Cefic says EU regulators should stick to a case-by-case approach when considering whether REACH substances cause equivalent concern for the environment. -
Reporter's Notebook: U.S. Oil Industry Still Depends on OPEC
Dec 6, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
From 2011 through July 2014, U.S. oil prices frequently hovered above $100 a barrel, and the industry boomed as if Spindletop gushed all over again. -
Fight Brewing Over Well Plugging Liabilities in Appalachia
Dec 6, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Diversified Gas & Oil plc is doubling down on its well plugging obligations across the Appalachian Basin, defending its commitment to the process in West Virginia, where it’s being challenged by a skeptical landowner rights organization that’s concerned about how far the company is willing to go to fulfill its responsibilities. -
Tellurian Secures MOU with Vitol to Supply LNG from Driftwood Export Project
Dec 6, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Tellurian Inc. has secured a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Vitol Inc. to supply 1.5 million metric tons/year (mmty) of liquefied natural gas (LNG) for at least 15 years from the planned Driftwood LNG export facility on the Louisiana coast. -
Manchin’s Likely Senior Role on Key Energy Panel Rankles Progressives
Dec 6, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green and Timothy Cama
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) is likely going to be the top-ranking Democrat on a powerful energy committee in the next Congress — and that is not sitting well with various voices on the left. -
FERC's Narrow GHG Reviews For Gas Pipeline Approvals Face Court Tests
Dec 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) narrow reviews of greenhouse gas and climate issues in its approvals of natural gas pipelines and other energy projects are facing their first tests in a pair of lawsuits in a key appellate court, after that court earlier required broad GHG considerations for a separate pipeline. -
Target to Pay $7.4M After Probe Found It Illegally Dumped Hazardous Waste in California
Dec 6, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Emily Birnbaum
Target has agreed to pay $7.4 million as part of a settlement with California after a state investigation found that it illegally dumped hazardous waste in California. -
Amazon Workers Hospitalized Over Bear Repellent Fumes
Dec 6, 2018 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
An automated machine punctured a can of bear repellent at an Amazon warehouse in New Jersey yesterday, releasing fumes that sickened workers and sent two dozen to hospitals, officials said. -
PATH’s PTC System Secures FRA Certification
Dec 6, 2018 | Railway Technology
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in the US has certified that the Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) railroad’s system-wide signal upgrade has fulfilled all regulatory requirements for Positive Train Control (PTC). -
EPA: New Rule Based on 'Data,' Not 'Wishful Thinking'
Dec 6, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Niina Heikkinen
EPA is slated to release a proposed rule today that would relax control requirements for greenhouse gas emissions for new and modified power plants. -
California Officials Give Final Approval to Requiring Solar Panels on New Homes
Dec 6, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Avery Anapol
California has officially cleared the way for a new rule requiring solar panels to be built on all new houses. -
Ewire: Global CO2 Rises After Years of Staying Relatively Flat
Dec 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
A series of reports are projecting that global carbon dioxide levels will increase by nearly 3 percent this year after several years of remaining mostly flat, highlighting Trump administration efforts to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and the gap between countries' climate goals just as negotiators are meeting to adopt rules implementing the Paris deal.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Expert: 'No Single, One-Size-Fits-All Solution' to Plastic Waste Problem
Dec 6, 2018 | Phys.org
By Jeff Falk
Governments, businesses and people around the world must play major roles in managing the rapidly growing plastics economy and the waste it produces, according to an expert in the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy.
Rachel Meidl, fellow in energy and environment at the Baker Institute, outlined her insights in a new issue brief, "Plastic Waste Management: Are We on the Right Path to Sustainability?" Her brief discusses the key elements and causes of the plastics problem and explores policy actions for reducing reliance on single-use plastics.
Plastic production has surged over the past 50 years, from 15 million metric tons in 1964 to 335 million metric tons in 2016, according to Meidl's brief. Since 1950, nearly 8.3 billion metric tons of virgin plastic have been produced and 6.3 billion tons of plastic waste have been generated, of which 9 percent has been recycled, 12 percent incinerated and 79 percent accumulated in landfills or abandoned in the environment. The largest industrial sector contributing to the waste problem is the packaging industry, which produces single-use plastic designed for disposal, and Meidl said this is where the majority of policy reform is concentrated.
"There has been an enormous rise in global policy actions directed toward dealing with plastic waste from 2014 onwards," Meidl wrote. "Governments have been increasingly implementing policies and taking action to curb the consumption of single-use plastics in recent years."
Currently, more than 60 countries have introduced bans or levies on single-use plastics, which a United Nations Environment Programme report concluded are the most effective tools to reduce the use of disposable plastic items when properly planned and enforced, Meidl said. Additionally, the European Parliament recently endorsed a proposal requiring all member nations to ban single-use plastics by 2021. The proposal also calls for 90 percent of plastic bottles to be recycled by 2025.
"There is an undeniable, complex relationship in the plastics economy," Meidl wrote. "Plastics ubiquitously deliver many societal benefits and offer technological, safety and medical advances. Yet, the findings of the UN report and the global reactions that followed, some immediate and precipitous, reveal a growing global momentum to address plastics management. Ten of the 13 selected case studies in the UN report focus on banning single-use plastics. However, the outright ban of plastics with no other available or affordable alternatives, or focusing exclusively on the promotion of understudied plastic alternatives as a singular solution, are simply not practical or global strategies given the world's entangled relationship with this commodity."
Absent in the UN recommendations are suggestions to fund, build and improve waste management and recycling technology, infrastructure and regulations, Meidl said.
"If the objective is to divert plastic waste from the environment, a mechanism must be created to support technological innovation and an operational framework that would sustain it," she wrote. "This is especially relevant since China's filing with the World Trade Organization last year, which ceased imports of 24 types of waste beginning January 2018, with 16 more items that will be banned by the end of 2019."
China imports two-thirds of the world's plastic waste, of which 89 percent is polymer groups often used in single-use plastic food packaging (polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene, and polypropylene), Meidl said.
"This import ban, projected to displace up to 111 million metric tons of plastic waste by 2030, will upend recycling economics, disrupt the global supply chain and further exacerbate the need to globally manage plastics," Meidl wrote. "China, as well as countries exporting to China, will be forced to establish and improve domestic waste management strategies to account for the prohibition."
Meidl concluded, "Ultimately, there is no single, one-size-fits-all solution to the plastics issue. Governments, businesses and individuals all play major roles in exploring data-driven pathways for improving how we manage the plastics economy. Rethinking, recalibrating and refining the functioning of such a complex value chain requires greater effort and cooperation by all key players, from plastics producers to recyclers, retailers and consumers. Any model should move beyond incremental, singular one-off solutions and have a shared vision to drive investment and innovation in the right direction. Regardless of our cultural values and belief system about plastics, they are significant components in the global economy. Increasing their sustainability can bring new opportunities for modernization, competitiveness and job creation, consistent with global economic, energy and environmental objectives."
Meidl, who joined the Baker Institute in July, is a former deputy associate administrator at the U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Prior to her role in federal government, Meidl was the director of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council in Washington, D.C., where she advanced a broad range of regulatory and policy issues that involved enforcement, compliance, investigations and litigation.
https://phys.org/news/2018-12-expert-one-size-fits-all-solution-plastic-problem.html
-
Rice University Report: 'One-Off' Fixes for Plastic Waste Aren't Helpful
Dec 6, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
China's ban on plastic waste imports this year has sent the recycling industry into turmoil and put new pressure on plastic manufacturers and governments to find better solutions for the plastic waste problem, a new policy briefing from Rice University concludes.
The oil industry often points to plastics – and the petrochemicals behind them – as key to supporting future demand for oil in the face of flattening demand for gasoline. Houston is one the biggest petrochemical hubs in the country, accounting for about 42 percent of the nation's petrochemical manufacturing capacity, according to the Greater Partnership of Houston.
But plastic trash poses an existential problem for the industry as it seeks to meet rising demand for plastics in emerging countries.Unlimited Digital Access for 99¢Read more articles like this by subscribing to the Houston Chronicle SUBSCRIBE
NEW HOME: Marathon Oil heading to west Houston digs
Since 1950, 6.3 billion tons of plastic waste have been generated, of which 79 percent wound up in landfills or littered in the environment, according to the Rice University briefing.
Now more than 60 countries have introduced bans or levies on single-use plastics – but perhaps most significant is China's refusal to import waste from polymer groups often used in single-use plastic food packaging (polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene, and polypropylene), the Rice University report suggests. Many chemicals for these plastics are produced in the Houston area.
"This import ban, projected to displace up to 111 million metric tons of plastic waste by 2030, will upend recycling economics, disrupt the global supply chain and further exacerbate the need to globally manage plastics," wrote Rachel Meidl, fellow in energy and environment at the Baker Institute, in the briefing written in late November but released Tuesday.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Rice-University-report-One-off-fixes-for-13445456.php?src=hp_totn
-
Senate Confirms Trump’s Controversial Energy Pick
Dec 6, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Senate confirmed President Trump’s pick for a key energy agency Thursday over Democrats' objections that he is too biased for the job.
The 50 to 49 vote along party lines means Bernard McNamee, a Republican and former high-ranking political official at the Energy Department under Trump, can take his spot in the five-person Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
GOP Sen. Thom Tillis (N.C.) was absent from the floor vote.ADVERTISEMENT
McNamee’s history in the Trump administration and working for the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation have raised significant objections from Democrats that he can’t live up to the expectation that FERC commissioners should be independent and neutral when it comes to energy fuel sources.
He has been an outspoken advocate of fossil fuels, harshly criticized renewable energy and cast doubt on the science of climate change, including in a video of a speech that surfaced in recent weeks. McNamee also served a key role in pushing the Trump administration’s ongoing attempts to bail out uneconomic coal and nuclear power plants.
“He has lied about how the renewable energies impact the electric grid. He has called support for clean energy ‘organized propaganda,’ and pitched the debate between fossil fuels and renewables in his words as a clash between liberty and tyranny," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the Senate floor Thursday before the vote. "My Republican friends, these words sound absurd.”
“At a time when average Americans are feeling the devastating effects of climate change right now, we should not elevate someone so biased in favor of fossil fuels that caused these problems in the first place,” he added.
To Republicans, McNamee is a highly qualified candidate who knows how to keep his personal opinions in check.
“His obvious qualifications and his commitment to fairness and impartiality earned him a bipartisan vote out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last month with a favorable recommendation,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) “I hope the same common sense will prevail today so we can move this nominee forward with the bipartisan vote he well deserves.”
That bipartisan committee vote was due to Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who told McNamee in his confirmation hearing that he supports his past statements on fossil fuels and coal.
But Manchin voted against his confirmation due to the video, first published by Utility Dive, and McNamee’s apparent doubt of climate change science.
“After viewing video footage, which I had not previously seen, where Bernard McNamee outright denies the impact that humans are having on our climate, I can no longer support his nomination to be a FERC commissioner,” Manchin said in a statement Wednesday, after voting against a procedural motion to move forward on the confirmation.
“Climate change is real, humans have made a significant impact, and we have the responsibility and capability to address it urgently.”
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/420058-senate-confirms-trumps-controversial-energy-pick
-
Emails Show Staff Wary of Pruitt's Science Board 'Agenda'
Dec 6, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Maxine Joselow and Sean Reilly
Career staffers at EPA expressed alarm after former Administrator Scott Pruitt signaled plans to alter the makeup of the agency's scientific advisory boards, newly released emails show.
The staffers worried the move would further politicize the boards, which are supposed to offer impartial scientific advice, according to the emails obtained by the Government Accountability Project through the Freedom of Information Act.
In February 2017, Pruitt indicated he wanted to take a fresh look at the boards, which are tasked with providing advice on air quality, pesticides, drinking water safety, hazardous waste and more.
In particular, the former administrator said he wanted to examine whether board members who received agency grants brought a certain bias to the panels.
On Feb. 16, 2017, a top official in EPA's Office of Research and Development reacted with alarm to a Bloomberg story titled, "Pruitt could alter air science advisory panel direction at EPA."
"These committees ... [are] becoming increasingly the focus of political agendas, which adds to the difficulty of demonstrating science in an objective way," wrote Andy Miller, associate director for climate at EPA.
Miller added, "The politicization is not likely to decrease and there will always be someone who is going to be unhappy and claims bias."
Alan Vette, deputy director for air, climate and energy research at EPA, questioned why Pruitt was focusing on board members who receive grants from the agency, rather than industry.
"I'd imagine many [Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee] & [Science Advisory Board] members have received industry funding for their research as well as funding from EPA & other govt agencies," Vette wrote. "We know how deep EPA's pockets are and they aren't that deep."
Vette continued, "On principle alone Pruitt has an argument. But it's weak overall and there's a very strong underlying agenda to it."
He added in a later message, "As we've seen just about every level of appointment and deliberation is becoming much more political in nature."
Rosemary Keane, a former research communications associate at EPA, suggested that the agency's communications office clear up any confusion about Pruitt's remarks.
"We need to define our space before we have it defined for us," Keane wrote. "That's where the Communications Office could come in, ideally. It would be interesting to see how the SAB Staff Office has (or has not) publicly responded to these kinds of allegations of people being appointed and biased because of funding."
Pruitt ended up issuing a sweeping directive in October 2017 that prohibited scientists who receive EPA grants from serving on the agency's nearly two dozen federal advisory committees (E&E News PM, Oct. 31, 2017).
The former administrator framed the directive as a step to ensure the panels' objectivity. But the move rattled many in the scientific community, who noted that EPA already had clear conflict-of-interest laws in place for the advisers (Greenwire, Oct. 18, 2017).
While EPA has since enforced the directive unevenly, the ban has forced some committee members to give up their seats rather than surrender their agency funding. The policy is also the target of three pending lawsuits brought by advocacy groups and researchers. EPA documents released in one of those challenges show that the agency cribbed heavily from Republican members of Congress in developing the new membership standards (Greenwire, May 24).
Chris Zarba, who headed the Science Advisory Board staff office last year, has since retired. In a June court filing on behalf of the plaintiffs in one of the suits, Zarba warned that Pruitt's policy had "seriously damaged" EPA's ability to attract qualified scientists (Greenwire, Sept. 21). Acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler, who took over after Pruitt resigned in July, has so far left it in place.
In defending the ban on service by grant recipients, EPA attorneys have argued that the agency's administrator has virtually unfettered authority to make advisory panel appointments and that the lawsuits should accordingly be dismissed. On Tuesday, however, plaintiffs in one suit countered that the Supreme Court's decision last week in an Endangered Species Act case "reaffirmed the strong presumption in favor of judicial review of agency action."
In that unanimous opinion, the high court handed private landowners a win, in part because the justices found that a Fish and Wildlife Service economic analysis was subject to judicial review (Greenwire, Dec. 3).
In Tuesday's filing, lawyers for Physicians for Social Responsibility and other advocacy groups said the court's decision showed that judicial review "is also available of whether EPA arbitrarily and capriciously exercised any discretion that remains to it under federal ethics law."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/12/06/stories/1060108951
-
US Congress Considers Bill to Increase Impact of IRIS Risk Assessments
Dec 6, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Congress is considering a measure that would expand the regulatory heft of assessments completed under the US EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) programme.
The bill (S 6391 / HR 7189), introduced by five Democratic lawmakers representing Illinois, aims to "close existing loopholes that both benefit the chemical industry and allow the EPA to do nothing if a risk assessment they conduct finds that a chemical is more harmful than previously thought", according to its backers.
The impetus for the bill’s introduction stems from emissions of ethylene oxide from medical sterilisation facilities in two Illinois counties, where residents have seen a higher risk of cancer. The substance was found to be carcinogenic when inhaled under a 2016 IRIS assessment.
And although much of the legislation focuses on the EPA’s air toxics programme, its adoption would have broader implications for the agency’s IRIS programme and how it handles toxicity findings.
Specifically, the legislation would require the EPA to:"take into consideration" data obtained through a substance’s IRIS assessment when conducting a rulemaking on it;publish final IRIS assessments in the Federal Register within 180 days of their completion; andidentify facilities that are a significant source of any substance an IRIS assessment has determined poses a risk, and take steps to publicise, monitor and determine if those facilities pose an adverse health risk.
The bill also calls for blocking the EPA Administrator from moving the IRIS programme outside of the Office of Research and Development (ORD), and authorises appropriating $20m per year for the agency to carry out duties under IRIS.
A subsection of the legislation further addresses the Department of Health and Human Service’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). These provisions include requirements around quarterly coordination with programme offices of the EPA, and timetables for reassessing substances once they have undergonen a completed IRIS assessment.
Introduced in a ‘lame-duck’ session without bipartisan support, the "Expanding Transparency of Information and Safeguarding Toxics (EtO is Toxic) Act of 2018" is unlikely to get traction before the newly elected Congress convenes early next year.
But its introduction signals that state-level toxicity issues are likely to remain a driver for federal legislation in the coming year, and that the EPA’s IRIS programme may remain in Congress’s sightlines.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72644/us-congress-considers-bill-to-increase-impact-of-iris-risk-assessments
-
The Consequences of Status Quo Chemical Policy Are Becoming Increasingly Clear
Dec 6, 2018 | Environmental Health News
By Thomas Zoeller
Editor's note: This is adapted from a lecture Zoeller gave at the 51st Session of International Seminars on Planetary Emergencies: Science for Peace the World Over, in Erice, Italy, in August. It has been lightly edited.
Chemicals are manufactured for use in almost everything with which humans come into contact including food, plastics, personal care products, clothing and building materials.
In addition, manufactured chemicals contaminate our environment in ways not always anticipated in air, dust, food and water.
Most of these chemicals are derived from crude oil; in fact, petrochemical production is now driving oil demand. This demand for petrochemicals is expected to increase.
It is therefore important to recognize that only a few – and a minuscule percentage – of chemicals with which we come into contact have been tested for human safety.
The cause of chemical exposures to the human population is profit and convenience. If the production and use of chemicals resulting in human exposures were not profitable, they would not be produced and used.
If consumers did not feel that products containing petrochemicals were worth the money, they would not buy them.
A hidden issue is that consumers most often are unaware of the chemicals to which they are being exposed.
Would they think it was worth the money if they knew?Born pre-polluted
Credit: Edward Cisneros/Unsplash
Every baby born – at least in the developed world – has well more than 100 industrial chemicals in their bloodstream at birth, demonstrating that they are exposed in utero.
In other words, humans are born pre-polluted.
This is a well-known situation among governments, so it is important to ask not only why and how the human population has become exposed to hundreds of chemicals, but also why we allow it to continue.
If a man in a suit were to knock on your door every morning offering a teaspoon of clear liquid to your children, you would certainly decline the offer, even if they said it was "government approved."
So why do we accept it when the exposures are "hidden"?
If chemical exposures are benign, then these questions are not important. However, there is sufficient scientific evidence to conclude that chemical exposures are currently causing harm to the human population, and that their effects profoundly increase health care costs, decrease the quality of life for millions of people, reduce cognitive function and increase the expression of neurobehavioral disorders, and that at least some of these effects can be passed from one generation to the next without further chemical exposure.
These are observations that have been confirmed by many of the world's most credible scientific organizations including the World Health Organization, the United Nations, many medical societies, and international groups of independent health science professionals.
We are, in short, affecting not only individuals and populations, but also human society and its future as we know it.
Why does it continue?
Credit: Jonathan Chng/Unsplash
To begin to understand why we continue to contaminate the human population, it may be useful to break this large question down into more focused questions.
For example:Why do suppliers of products continue to make products with chemicals for which there is evidence of harm?Why do consumers continue to ignore known risks?Why do regulators (government agencies charged with public health protection) continue to approve chemicals for which there is evidence of harm?
Within this context, it is germane to emphasize that an important mechanism by which chemical exposures can harm the general population is by interfering with hormones. This is important because hormones control many – if not most – processes of human development and physiology.
In addition, the few chemicals that are evaluated for safety are evaluated by a strategy that is tuned to identify acute toxicity, not endocrine disruption.
We know for certain that a variety of chemicals and chemical classes affect human health by interfering with hormone systems. These include lead, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and other flame-retardants, perchlorate, some pesticides, BPA and other estrogenic chemicals.
In general, there are two inter-dependent reasons to explain each of these questions posed above. The first is that governments employ an antiquated discipline that informs us about toxicity and safety. This system is based on the 400 year-old concept that the "dose makes the poison."
The implication of this concept is that everything is toxic at some dose. In this way, arsenic is the same as water – it just takes more water to kill a person than it does arsenic.
This false equivalency supports a regulatory system that calculates the risk of harm to humans exposed to a variety of chemicals from pesticides designed to interact with biological systems to plasticizers, flame-retardants or heavy metals that are used only for their product functionality.
But, what is the harm that risk calculations are designed to prevent? Operationally, those harms, or adverse effects, are defined by the tests employed to evaluate the hazard. Cancer studies identify carcinogens; reproductive studies identify reproductive toxicants; endocrine studies identify endocrine disruptors; immunology studies identify immune toxicants.
These tests are prescribed studies with measurements that have been approved by various committees. However, there is good reason to question both the sensitivity of these measurements to identify hazards, and the degree to which they reflect hazards to the human population.
In addition, hazard identification is only the first step in calculating risks; the potency of the chemical and the exposure of humans to the chemical must then be determined to calculate risk.
A significant issue is that "potency" is a relative measure.
For example, researchers who work for or with industry defined the potency of chemicals that act like the female hormone estrogen by their ability to affect the weight of a rat uterus. This is a standard measure of estrogen activity used by industry and by the government, but there are other, more sensitive measures, such as the ability of estrogen to affect brain development.
Therefore, risk calculations of chemicals that act like the female hormone estrogen (e.g., BPA) are often based on its ability to affect the weight of a rat uterus. The lack of sensitivity of traditional measures of potency of chemicals to interfere with hormones is generalizable across endocrine systems.
In addition, if the measurement (e.g., uterine weight) is not plausibly reflective of a risk of disease or disability in the human population, it is difficult to understand why it is employed other than that it is the traditional measure.
Likewise, estimates of exposures are error prone at best. For example, reports of the effect of perchlorate in drinking water on thyroid function in newborn babies used measures of perchlorate exposure in municipal water supplies in Las Vegas, Nevada (contaminated) compared to Reno, Nevada (not contaminated) as a surrogate measure of exposure.
Perchlorate is known to inhibit thyroid function and thyroid hormone is essential for normal brain development. Therefore, calculating the risks associated with perchlorate exposure has important public health implications. However, more recent studies demonstrate that everyone is exposed to perchlorate, independent of municipal water contamination; therefore, risk estimates were flawed based on these early reports using city of residence as a surrogate for exposure to perchlorate.
A second reason that the status quo of human chemical exposures continues is that financial self-interest motivates campaigns to confuse both the public and regulatory agencies with the goal of limiting or avoiding regulations. The strategies employed, well-documented in a number of legal cases, range from outright fraud and corruption to the selective manipulation of information to make a chemical or product appear safe.
These two categories of explanations for the status quo are not mutually exclusive. The "principle" that the "dose makes the poison" lends itself quite readily to manipulation because it creates a false equivalency between chemicals that are causing harm in the human population and those (e.g., water) that are not. Moreover, it relies on potency as a primary metric, when potency is neither relevant to hazard identification nor an absolute metric.
There are two additional issues: One is that regulatory decisions are made by government agencies in secret collaboration with the industries that manufacture the chemical. It is secret because the data provided to regulatory agencies are proprietary.
However, the people from government and industry involved in these negotiations and decisions are not experts in human health and therefore must necessarily make decisions based on traditional ways of interpreting traditional data.
The second is that there seems to be a general acceptance that petrochemical-based products are required for modern life and that environmental regulations negatively impact market competitiveness.
The concept that petrochemical-based products are required for modern life implies necessarily that we cannot manufacture safer products using bio-based feedstocks and green chemistry. This is a particularly unflattering and pessimistic view of human society and it should be summarily rejected.
The concept that environmental regulations negatively impact market competitiveness has been refuted over and over again by a variety of economic studies.
Thus, when governments overtly move to restrict or eliminate environmental regulations, they are acting neither to protect public or environmental health nor to protect the market. Rather, they are acting to protect the market share of industries currently dominating the market.
In other words, the chemical industry and regulatory system has evolved to maintain itself rather than to protect public health.
Implications of inaction
Credit: rawpixel/Unsplash
The consequence of this status quo is becoming increasingly clear. Non-communicable disease now results in more deaths per year than communicable diseases, and these chronic diseases profoundly impact quality of life and the global economy.
The human health effects of exposures to only a few endocrine disruptors for which there is sufficient data alone cost the economy hundreds of billions of dollars per year, not to mention impacting quality of life.
In addition, there is a cultural cost to the status quo of chemical regulations.
A large number of chemicals are known to affect brain development and cognitive function. Loss of IQ as well as increasing the incidence of neurobehavioral disorders in generations of children can have profound effects on society. It is germane here that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recently reported that the incidence of autism in the U.S. is now 1 in 40 children.
Moreover, there is increasing evidence that the health effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals can be passed from one generation to the next.
What will be required for the status quo to change?
We must first admit that this status quo is not sustainable and is responsible for contributing significantly to human health and global economic challenges. That admission will provide the political will to begin to change this status.
It isn't simply a matter of loving our children more than we love money.
Rather it is a matter of clearly evaluating the system we have created and the price we are paying for its maintenance. It may not be uncommon that human enterprises reach a point where more effort goes into maintaining the status quo than adapting to new data to refine and improve the system.
But we can and should do better, both for our future and for our economy.
Reducing chemical exposure should be considered "low hanging fruit."
Dr. R. Thomas Zoeller, Ph.D., is Professor of Biology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. His research focuses on the role of thyroid hormone in brain development and the mechanisms by which environmental endocrine disruptors can interfere with thyroid hormone action in the developing brain.
https://www.ehn.org/the-consequences-of-status-quo-chemical-policy-are-becoming-increasingly-clear-2622271479.html?rebelltitem=3#rebelltitem3
-
Toxicity Prediction Team Asked to Justify Reproducibility Claims
Dec 6, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
A group of toxicologists has called for the team behind a widely publicised computational tool for predicting chemical toxicity to justify "bold claims" that it can outperform animal test reproducibility.
"Rasar" was developed by Thomas Hartung from the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) at Johns Hopkins University, Thomas Leuchtefeld and Dan Marsh from ToxTrack, and safety science company Underwriters Laboratories (UL).
UL commercialised the tool, first via REACHAcross, launched in 2017 with a "simple" version of Rasar, and more recently via the Cheminformatics Tool Kit, which incorporates a 'data-fusion' version.
Dr Luechtefeld worked on the original predictive software for his PhD with Professor Hartung before co-founding ToxTrack, which created the commercial REACHAcross product for UL.
The tool combines read-across with Qsars to give "read-across structure-activity relationships". It incorporates classification and labelling information from Echa, data from PubChem, and a dataset on acute oral toxicity curated by the US National Toxicology Program.
The data-fusion version of Rasar uses all available data, rather than only the modelled hazard, to boost reproducibility and is aimed at predicting chemical classifications under the UN's Globally Harmonized System (GHS). In July, the researchers reported that, in some cases, their data-fusion tool may be better at predicting a chemical's toxicity than standard animal tests.
Now, a group of Qsar experts, led by Ivan Rusyn from Texas A&M University and Alexander Tropsha from the University of North Carolina, have asked the Rasar team to "clarify ambiguities".
Professors Rusyn and Tropsha were both involved in creating Toxvalue.org, a free in silico tool for generating quantitative risk estimates for chemicals that uses Qsar models developed using existing toxicity values from US federal and state agencies.
Writing in the journal Toxicological Sciences, they voice concerns that Rasar's extensive press coverage and commercial availability "may encourage the regulatory bodies to accept Rasar as a decision support tool without extensive validation".Accuracy issue
They question the high level of accuracy that the Rasar team assigns to the tool, given the uncertainty associated with information in the related database.
Professor Rusyn and colleagues consider that "the predictivity of a Qsar model may not be greater than the experimental uncertainty" and that "model accuracy and experimental reproducibility cannot be equated or compared".
Professor Hartung, Dr Marsh and Dr Leuchtefeld have published a response entitled Missing the difference between big data and artificial intelligence in Rasar versus traditional Qsar.
They say that "the Rasar models are not traditional Qsars, wherein a highly curated, small training dataset is used to predict a single property based on chemical descriptors." They point out that the model uses data on over 100,000 chemical structures, calculates over five billion similarities, and simultaneously makes 190,000 predictions for nine hazard endpoints.
They also touch on why they have not made the full modelling data set publicly available. "The practical truth is that sometimes data cannot be shared … We think the modelling community can understand restrictions on data sharing, especially when these are imposed by the regulatory or industrial entity, which owns the data, as is the case here."
Validation is "necessary for the proper growth and use of computational methodologies within toxicology and chemistry", they state. "We invite any researcher or regulatory entity to contact us with any similar or new questions, concerns, or ideas. Continuing the dialogue will only further advance the field."Seeking answers
Professors Tropsha and Rusyn are not satisfied by the published response.
"Our letter requested additional information on the data, modelling and prediction accuracy, information that we deemed as necessary for wider acceptance of this potentially promising approach. Unfortunately, we did not find answers to most of our specific inquiries and we remain of the opinion that it is difficult to accept Rasar model accuracy," as stated in the 2018 publication, said Professor Rusyn. Meanwhile, Professor Tropsha complained that the Rasar team had "cherry picked" comments in the letter.
The Johns Hopkins team created an automated predictive tool in 2016, using linguistic search engines to harvest data on 10,000 chemicals registered under REACH. However, Echa claimed that the team did not have permission to use all of the data in the database and the two parties failed to reach agreement.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72591/toxicity-prediction-team-asked-to-justify-reproducibility-claims
-
California Extends Consultation on Prop 65 Clarifying Amendments
Dec 6, 2018 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has scheduled a public hearing and extended the consultation on proposed amendments to providing ‘clear and reasonable’ consumer product warnings under Proposition 65.
Proposed last month, the amendments seek to clarify where responsibility lies for providing consumer product exposure warnings, as laid out under section 25600.2 of the law.
More specifically, they seek to address "questions and requests for clarification" that Oehha has received with regard to the duty for intermediate businesses in the chain of commerce to satisfy their obligation to provide a warning.
The proposed changes follow a 2016 update to how how ‘clear and reasonable’ warning must be provided under the state’s right-to-know scheme, which requires companies to disclose if people will be exposed to substances listed as carcinogens or reproductive toxicants. Oehha, which oversees Prop 65, adopted other clarifying amendments in 2017.
The public hearing will take place in Oakland, California on 3 January. Comments will be accepted through 11 January.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72634/california-extends-consultation-on-prop-65-clarifying-amendments
-
Canada Provisionally Links Talc and Ovarian Cancer
Dec 6, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The Canadian government has provisionally found that talc is harmful to humans via a "causal effect" between perineal exposure to talc and ovarian cancer, and has floated plans to prohibit or restrict the substance in certain cosmetics.
Canada’s preliminary finding has come in a draft screening assessment for talc, a naturally occurring mineral used in a wide variety of commercial and consumer uses.
The assessment focused on inhalation and perineal exposure to certain personal care products containing cosmetic- or pharmaceutical-grade talc.
According to the government’s draft assessment, available human studies in peer-reviewed literature indicate a "consistent and statistically significant positive association between perineal exposure to talc and ovarian cancer". Further, it adds, "available data are indicative of a causal effect".
Available human studies in peer-reviewed literature indicate a "consistent and statistically significant positive association between perineal exposure to talc and ovarian cancer"
Given the potential for perineal exposure to talc from several self-care products – including baby powder, diaper and rash creams, genital antiperspirants and deodorants, body wipes and bath bombs – the government has identified potential harm to human health.
The draft also flags concern with non-cancer lung effects from inhalation exposure. Margins of exposure between air concentrations following use of loose powders and effects observed in animal studies are considered "potentially inadequate to address uncertainties in the health effects and exposure databases", it says.
With regard to other risks, the assessment found low risk of harm to the environment, despite its meeting persistence criteria. It also did not identify critical effects from oral or dermal routes of exposure.
The assessment proposes to conclude that the substance meets one of the toxicity criteria set out under section 64 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (Cepa). If this finding is upheld, it would result in the substance’s being recommended for addition to schedule 1 – the country’s list of toxic substances – and risk management rules to address the risk it poses.
Alongside the draft assessment, Canada published a risk management scope that outlines proposed actions under consideration. This includes measures to "prohibit or restrict" talc in certain cosmetics that can be inhaled or used perineally, by amending Health Canada’s Cosmetic Ingredient Hotlist.
It also mentions public communications efforts to help avoid inhalation or perineal exposure to the substance.J&J says weight of evidence 'does not support conclusion'
If made final, the finding could also have implications for the ongoing litigation facing such companies as Johnson & Johnson, which has been battling thousands of claims in the US and Canada that its baby powder has caused ovarian cancer. The company is in the process of appealing several decisions against it, under which it has been ordered to pay tens of millions of dollars.
Regarding Canada’s assessment, however, the company told Chemical Watch that "the weight of the evidence does not support this draft conclusion".
"The weight of the evidence does not support this draft conclusion," J&J said
According to J&J, the assessment appears to rely on "a select review of the evidence and does not appear to include the largest, most recent studies on the use of cosmetic talc".
The company said it continues to stand by the safety of cosmetic talc and will respond to the government’s consultation.Next steps
The Canadian government notes that its proposed conclusions and risk management plans are preliminary and subject to change.
It intends to publish the draft screening assessment and risk management scope in the Canada Gazette on 8 December. This will start a 60-day comment period, to conclude on 6 February.
Canada plans to finalise its screening assessment and propose a risk management approach in winter 2020.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72592/canada-provisionally-links-talc-and-ovarian-cancer
-
Toy Slime Health Hazards: What You Need to Know
Dec 6, 2018 | Healthline
If you’ve spent any time shopping for your kids this holiday season or watching videos with them on YouTube, then you know that toy slime is having a moment.
Oozy, gooey, stretchy, and coming in all different colors and textures, toy slimes are fascinating to make and play with.
But do you know what’s actually in them?New warnings
A consumer advocacy group recently singled out toy slime as being potentially hazardous to children.
In their annual Trouble In Toyland Report, the United States Public Interest Research Group warns that, of forty toys tested, six slime products contained “dangerously high” levels of boron, a mineral often used in in a variety of industrial and consumer products including detergents and fertilizers.
According to USPIRG, some of the toy slimes tested contained up to 4,700 ppm (parts per million) of boron — more than 15 times the allowance in toys of this kind in the European Union.
However, the United States does not have official safety standards for boron content in consumer products.
“To keep kids safe, it may be necessary to limit boron content in children’s toys or, at least, explicitly label toys that are high in boron content,” the authors wrote.
The products named in the report include: Kangaroos Original Super Cool Slime, Kidsco Glow in The Dark Slime, and Toysmith Jupiter Juice Slime. All of the slimes with high boron content are available through major retailers Amazon and Walmart.How boron can affect health
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), boron is a known irritant that can affect the skin, eyes, nose, and throat.
If ingested, it can irritate the gastrointestinal tract leading to stomach upset, vomiting, diarrhea, or other GI distress.
If ingested in large quantities, boron can be fatal. A lethal dose of boron is estimated to be between 15 to 20 grams for adults and 5 to 6 grams for children, consumed over a short period of time.
Small children will put lots of things in their mouths, but that is a lot of boron to eat. One expert recently told CNN, that to reach a toxic level of boron, a child would have to eat “multiple containers.”Is toy slime really unsafe?
While it may be concerning to know that there is a potentially harmful mineral used to make toy slime, the truth is that boron is generally recognized as being pretty benign.
It is not a known carcinogen and isn’t going to be absorbed through the skin.
“The amounts that are used in these products tend to be pretty low and below the low levels where you would likely see any serious concerns. So for most users, that means that the likeliest kinds of concerns would be irritations of the skin,” Dr. Ken Spaeth, chief of occupational and environmental medicine for Northwell Health System, told Healthline.Homemade hazards
Homemade slimes, on the other hand, can be more problematic.
Many recipes call for glue, water, and borax, the colloquial term for sodium tetraborate, a boron-containing chemical compound. Borax, again, is generally considered pretty safe, but like boron, is also a skin and GI irritant.
Your typical Elmer’s wood glue (the white stuff we all used in grade school) is also pretty harmless.
“It ought to be done with some adult supervision so that the borax is not being misused or used carelessly, but if it’s being used responsibly I think it’s not likely to pose any major concerns,” said Spaeth.
However, borax is still a chemical and can cause harm.
In one incident, detailed by parenting blog Romper, an 11-year-old girl received third-degree burns and blistering on her hands after finishing a batch of homemade slime.
Borax is typically diluted with water when used for making slime and doctors believe that she may not have sufficiently diluted the borax before using it. The girl may also have had an allergic reaction.
“A measuring error or spillage might occur where there could be a higher exposure,” said Spaeth.
Other things to keep in mind when making homemade slime is that other constituents — sparkles, pieces of plastic, or foam — used to modify the texture of the slime can contain toxic elements or represent a choking hazard.
However, “it’s hard to make a broad statement about those kinds of items,” said Spaeth.
If you’re in the market for toy slime, like anything, it pays to be a savvy consumer and know about what you’re buying — especially if it’s for kids.
Despite consumer warnings, boron is unlikely to cause any real health problems, unless consumed in large quantities.
If making slime is something you enjoy with your kids, you probably don’t need to worry as long as you’re providing proper supervision. And if you’re really worried, there are plenty of homemade slime recipes that are borax free.
The bottom lineA consumer advocacy group has warned that certain toy slimes contain dangerously high levels of boron, a mineral used in detergents and other consumer products. Boron can irritate the skin, eyes, nose, throat, and gastrointestinal tract. However, it is not a carcinogen and generally considered safe unless consumed in large amounts.
If making slime at home, make sure to closely supervise the activity and don’t leave kids unattended around borax.
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/is-that-slime-in-the-toy-isle-toxic#The-bottom-line
-
Dec 6, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Seac adopts restriction Opinion on C9-C14 PFCAsEcha's Committee for Socio-economic Analysis (Seac) adopted its final Opinion to restrict the manufacturing, use, placing on the market and import of C9-C14 PFCAs – PFNA, PFDA, PFUnDA, PFDoDA, PFTrDA, and PFTDA – their salts and precursors. The committee's move comes in support of a proposal by Germany and Sweden.
Seac explained its adoption by saying the restriction is "intended to prevent a switch by industry using PFOA-based substances to longer-chain PFCAs to fulfil the same role in the end products after the restriction for PFOA, its salts and PFOA-related substances become effective in 2020".Opinions on tattoo inks and permanent make-up
The agency's Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) has adopted its final Opinion in support of a proposal to restrict the placing on the market and use of tattoo inks and permanent make-up containing a wide range of chemicals. These include carcinogens, mutagens, reprotoxicants, sensitisers and irritating substances.
The Opinion was prepared by Echa in collaboration with Denmark, Italy and Norway.
And the Seac agreed its draft Opinion on the same proposal. It has now asked for public comments, with the consultation period running from 12 December to 11 February 2019.
Both committees also discussed and adopted three final authorisation Opinions:an Opinion on an application for authorisation for the use of chromium trioxide to modify properties of surfaces made of plastic; andtwo Opinions on review reports for the use of PVC recyclate containing DEHP.Rac finalises six Opinions on harmonised classification and labelling
In other business, the Rac concluded Opinions for harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) on the following five industrial chemicals:2-ethylhexyl 10-ethyl-4,4-dioctyl-7-oxo-8-oxa-3,5-dithia-4-stannatetradecanoate (DOTE) mostly used in articles, in formulation or re-packing, at industrial sites and in manufacturing;2,4-dinitrophenol used as an intermediate in the manufacture of other chemicals and as an additive in the manufacture of textiles, leather and fur. Also used (without formal authorisation) as a weight loss agent;dibenzo[def,p]chrysene, which belongs to the group of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs);resorcinol diglycidyl ether used as an epoxy resin and as a reactive diluent in the production of other epoxy resins; andUvinul A Plus used in cosmetics and personal care products as a UV filter.
The committee also concluded its Opinion on lead, and 13 other substances, including four biocides and nine pesticides.New CLH proposals and intentions
Germany has submitted CLH proposals to Echa for:
4,4'-oxydi(benzenesulphonohydrazide) with proposed harmonised classifications of self-reactive, aquatic chronic 1 and aquatic chronic 1, M+factor=1; and
toluene-4-sulphonohydrazide with proposed harmonised classifications of aquatic chronic 1 and aquatic chronic 1, M+factor=1.
The agency has also received three CLH intentions from Belgium for:
2,2-dimethylpropan-1-ol, tribromo derivative with proposed harmonised classifications of mutagenicity 1B and carcinogenicity 1B;
3-methylpyrazole with proposed harmonised classifications of acute toxicity 4, skin corrosion 1B, eye damage 1, reproductive toxicity 1B and Stot Re 1; and
4,4'-sulphonyldiphenol.Holiday closure dates
Echa will be closed from 24 December until 2 January. Its contact forms will also be unavailable between 12:00 on 21 December and 10:00 on 3 January 2019 (Helsinki time).
However, the dossier submission and communication tool REACH-IT, biocides submission tool R4BP 3, Cloud Services and the Pic notification tool ePIC will remain open.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72620/echa-round-up
-
Data Timetable 'Under Review' in a No-Deal Brexit
Dec 6, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Britain will keep "under review" the timescale for companies to submit full data packages to register chemicals under a UK REACH equivalent in the event of a no-deal Brexit, a senior official at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said.
James Dancy, head of EU exit – chemicals, faced a flurry of questions at a conference in Liverpool from industry delegates alarmed by the two-year window Defra has set for data supporting registrations and authorisations once the UK leaves.
"We can keep those periods under review," Mr Dancy told around 90 participants at Wednesday's Brexit conference.
But due to the REACH principle of 'no data, no market', "bringing that into UK law, we can't really avoid the need for getting hold of that data," he said.
"If we are to be a respected regulatory agency globally … if we sit there as a UK regulator without any data at all, how are we going to do authorisations and restrictions in the future?"
The UK agency may look at substance evaluations somewhere down the line, he said, and then "we would find ourselves in pretty difficult situation".
The data requirement for UK REACH is anything but welcome amid an estimate last week that it would cost industry as much as £1bn (€1.12bn) on top of huge sums already spent for EU registrations of the same chemicals.
John Hibbs, business development manager at Solvay, a Belgium-based international chemical and advanced materials company, said industry wanted a "satisfying explanation" of why full data was required.
"We've had: 'We have no choice.' We've had: 'It's a legal requirement.' … But we'd love to see the legal argument behind that legal requirement," said Mr Hibbs, who also chairs the British Association for Chemical Specialities (BACS).
"Can you give us a solid justification why UK industry needs to re-spend all this money effectively just to stand still?"'Take the risk'
The conference was organised jointly by Defra, the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (Beis), the Health and Safety Authority (HSE) and ACA, to address industry concerns over Brexit. Similar events were held in London and Leeds.
According to the government's guidance on no-deal Brexit, businesses with EU REACH registrations 'grandfathered' into the UK have two years from the day of the UK's departure to provide the HSE with the full data package held on Echa's IT system. However, some basic information needs to be given within 60 days.
Meanwhile, a huge number of downstream users relying on imported chemicals – many of them SMEs without EU registrations – are faced with the prospect of having to submit new registrations within the same timeframe, with a 180-day "grace period" for basic data.
And, if instead their suppliers choose to appoint a UK-based only representative to take on the UK REACH obligations, then a full registration (with full data) is due within 180 days, according to additional guidance published this week.
Mr Hibbs from BACS said there could be as many as 150,000 new downstream user registrations in the UK, according to his rough calculations. And several delegates at the conference said it was better to move manufacturing operations outside the UK than incur the costs and risk of not meeting the deadlines.
But Niall Mackenzie, director for energy, materials and agritech at Beis, sought to allay those concerns, advising companies to notify even if the timeframes looked too short now. "My own opinion is that common sense will apply over time," he said. "My advice is it would be worth taking the risk."
Defra's Mr Dancy said the government was keen to start discussions with industry associations on the possibility of setting up Sief-like information exchange hubs in the UK. These would help joint registrants share costs, and also better negotiate with EU Siefs to purchase the data held in consortiums.
The UK would either look at bringing the existing Siefs over, or start new ones specific to the UK requirements, Mr Dancy told Chemical Watch.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72640/data-timetable-under-review-in-a-no-deal-brexit
-
Cefic Says SVHC Equivalency Must Be Judged ‘Case-by-Case’
Dec 6, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
Cefic says EU regulators should stick to a case-by-case approach when considering whether REACH substances cause equivalent concern for the environment.
The recommendation was made in a "reflection paper" supplied to the Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) meeting in November.The paper addresses identification of substances of very high concern (SVHC) under REACH, a key step in the process of establishing risk management measures.
Substances can be identified as SVCHs because they have certain CLP hazard classifications, such as category 1A or 1B carcinogenicity, mutagenicity or reproductive toxicity (CMR). Alternatively, they can be identified because they give rise to an "equivalent level of concern" (Eloc).
Cefic says that identification of SVCHs for the environment when based on ELOC, in order to protect ground and drinking water, is "premature".
The trade association calls for a policy paper on factors regulators should consider when using this mechanism and criteria for equivalency.
"A paper should be developed and discussed together with stakeholders well before any application in Annex XV dossier proposal," it says.PMT substances
Germany's Federal Environment Agency (UBA) has proposed use of the Eloc mechanism for identification of persistent, mobile and toxic (PMT) substances as SVHCs. The topic was discussed in April at a two-day workshop run by UBA and the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI). The aim of the UBA proposal is to protect humans and the environment from some substances that have the potential to circulate very widely in water systems and contaminate, in particular, drinking water.
Echa confirmed at the workshop that it is already possible to use the Eloc mechanism for PMT substances, provided there is sufficient evidence. Industry, however, voiced opposition to the proposal, warning of a rush to regrettable regulation.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72643/cefic-says-svhc-equivalency-must-be-judged-case-by-case
-
Reporter's Notebook: U.S. Oil Industry Still Depends on OPEC
Dec 6, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
From 2011 through July 2014, U.S. oil prices frequently hovered above $100 a barrel, and the industry boomed as if Spindletop gushed all over again. Wildcatters partied like it was 1901 as the shale boom shifted from natural gas to crude oil from Texas to North Dakota.
During that time frame, U.S. crude production rose 60 percent from 5.5 million barrels a day to 8.8 million barrels — the highest amount since 1986, when oil prices collapsed into the epic oil bust of generation ago.
The U.S. record was set in late 1970, when production exceeded 10 million barrels a day for two brief months.Unlimited Digital Access for 99¢Read more articles like this by subscribing to the Houston Chronicle SUBSCRIBE
Today, U.S. volumes have made a joke of the 1970 record, with production estimated by the federal government at 11.7 million barrels a day and growing. Natural gas production also is at an all-time high, making the U.S. the world’s top producer of the two major fossil fuels.
Related: Oil sector hangs in the balance as OPEC meets
Nickname it what you will, but the combination of horizontal drilling and fracking technologies let the oil sector’s cup runneth over with Texas tea, dinosaur wine, black gold and a bit of the bubbly crude.
So what happened when oil prices tanked — largely because of a global glut from the U.S. shale boom — after the summer of 2014? Many tens of thousands of workers were laid off, but production kept growing into 2015 to 9.65 million barrels — about 10 percent of global consumption — because of the drilling and production activities that were already underway.
Eventually, as prices stayed low and companies filed for bankruptcy, production fell to a low of 8.5 million barrels a day in September 2016 — slightly below the rollicking summer of 2014. At that point, a slow, painful recovery was taking shape.
The U.S. oil benchmark recovered from a 2016 low of $26 a barrel up to $76 in early October of this year. New technologies and efficiencies have made most companies profitable with oil prices just below $60 per barrel.
West Texas’ Permian Basin is leading it all by churning out nearly 3.7 million barrels a day — almost one-third of the nation’s crude production. For context, at the beginning of 2011, the Permian’s output was less than 1 million barrels a day.
The Energy Department projects the U.S. will average 12.1 million barrels of crude a day in 2019. U.S. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke recently predicted it will skyrocket to 14 million barrels a day by the end of 2020. Close to 4 million of the daily barrels would be exported — nearly double the current export volumes.
On HoustonChronicle.com: As Trump lobbies against OPEC output cuts, energy sector, economy could take a hit
As is the nature of the cyclical industry and the relentlessness of U.S. energy companies, the booming production has led to burgeoning supplies and growing inventories. As a result, oil prices have plunged since early October.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Like-it-or-not-U-S-oil-industry-still-depends-13444871.php
-
Fight Brewing Over Well Plugging Liabilities in Appalachia
Dec 6, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Diversified Gas & Oil plc is doubling down on its well plugging obligations across the Appalachian Basin, defending its commitment to the process in West Virginia, where it’s being challenged by a skeptical landowner rights organization that’s concerned about how far the company is willing to go to fulfill its responsibilities...
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required. Full story can be found here:
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/116692-fight-brewing-over-well-plugging-liabilities-in-appalachia
-
Tellurian Secures MOU with Vitol to Supply LNG from Driftwood Export Project
Dec 6, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Tellurian Inc. has secured a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Vitol Inc. to supply 1.5 million metric tons/year (mmty) of liquefied natural gas (LNG) for at least 15 years from the planned Driftwood LNG export facility on the Louisiana coast...
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required. Full story can be found here:
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/116694-tellurian-secures-mou-with-vitol-to-supply-lng-from-driftwood-export-project
-
Manchin’s Likely Senior Role on Key Energy Panel Rankles Progressives
Dec 6, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green and Timothy Cama
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) is likely going to be the top-ranking Democrat on a powerful energy committee in the next Congress — and that is not sitting well with various voices on the left.
The West Virginia centrist narrowly won his midterm election by championing the coal industry and emphasizing his relationship with President Trump. He is favored to be the ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which oversees the Department of Energy and Interior Department.
But progressive politicians including Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez(D-N.Y.) and potential 2020 hopeful Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) want Senate Democratic leaders, namely Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.), to override the rules to circumvent Manchin.
“At this moment it is simply intolerable and unacceptable for the U.S. Senate to have a senator who is unalterably opposed to the cap-and-trade system and other measures that we worked so hard to advance as climate policy against climate denial,” Inslee told The Hill.
Inslee, who backed his state’s ballot initiative that would have instituted the nation’s first carbon tax, called on the Senate to find a way to intervene, regardless of Senate protocol. He launched a petition drive Wednesday asking Democratic leaders to stop Manchin.
“The fundamental thing I’m saying is the fate of the planet right now has got to trump any seniority system of the U.S. Senate,” he said.
Ocasio-Cortez, who hails from Schumer’s home state, has introduced her own “Green New Deal” plan to transition the country to run solely on renewable energy sources for electricity.
Asked about Manchin’s possible position on the panel, Ocasio-Cortez on Friday responded, “I have concerns because I don’t think we should be financed by the industries that we are supposed to be legislating and regulating.”
While the Energy Committee doesn’t have a direct say on issues like climate change, it plays important roles in areas like federal land and energy policy. The ranking member is expected to try to stop objectionable nominees, attempts to waive environmental laws for logging or oil drilling and perform other tasks.
“The ranking member is a backstop to extreme measures,” said a former committee aide. “Some of the concern would be, if no one is pushing back, then it’s like there’s no minority power.”
Manchin frequently sides with the GOP on the energy panel. He has backed the Trump administration, for example, in its ongoing attempts to aid the coal and nuclear power industries, despite nearly unified Democratic opposition.ADVERTISEMENT
In a committee vote last month, he supported Bernard McNamee, Trump’s nominee to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, who worked at the Energy Department in support of the coal efforts. But he flipped on Wednesday and voted against limiting debate on McNamee in the full Senate.
With Senate committee leadership established by seniority, Manchin could only feasibly be denied the position in two ways: another senior senator vies for the job or Schumer disregards the rules and appoints someone else.
But the four Democrats who would be eligible to fill the position aren’t interested. The list includes Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a possible 2020 presidential candidate who supports climate change legislation, and who said he wants to remain ranking member of the Budget Committee.
“I’m with Budget,” he told The Hill. The Budget Committee oversees the Congressional Budget Office, sets high-level numbers for government spending and works to ensure that the Senate doesn’t violate budgetary rules.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) confirmed Wednesday that she is committed to heading the minority on the Senate Agriculture Committee and offered support for Manchin heading Energy.
“I think that Joe understands the difference between representing your state as a member and the responsibility to the caucus as a ranking member, and so I think he has a larger responsibility in that role,” Stabenow said Wednesday.
“I think at this point if he is next up in seniority than I think that’s the way the process works.”
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the current ranking member, is seen as likely to take the top spot on the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. That position is open because Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) lost his reelection bid last month. Cantwell is the next most senior senator available for the spot. She has avoided saying publicly whether she’ll take it, and didn’t answer a question about it Wednesday.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) also has more seniority than Manchin. But the Finance Committee, where he is currently the top Democrat, is one of the most prestigious in the Senate, and he’s given no indication that he would give up the position.
Manchin is committed to taking over the job. He told reporters Wednesday that since Senate Democrats have historically handed out ranking memberships based on seniority, he deserves the post.
“I think you all have been around here long enough to understand the system, don’t you? Seniority is what it is. So we’ll see what happens,” Manchin said.
With other possibilities appearing exhausted, critics of Manchin said the best way to stop him is for Schumer to sidestep Manchin’s appointment for a nonsenior candidate. Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) would be the next in line.
“The first thing is, Joe Manchin is categorically unacceptable as ranking member and the second thing is that Chuck Schumer can fix this,” said Lukas Ross, senior policy analyst at Friends of the Earth.
“This is truly a question of moral courage and leadership — it is within his power to waive the seniority rules.”
But doing so would be extremely rare, and could be politically risky — especially considering rumblings that Manchin in the past has considered flipping parties. Senate Democrats take seniority seriously, and could see exceptions as a threat.
Schumer’s staff would not comment on the record.
“I can’t think of instances where it happened. I can think of instances where people agitated for it to happen,” said a former Democratic leadership aide.
“Everybody just feels like it won’t be done,” said another former staffer.
Furthermore, Manchin serves on Schumer’s leadership team and the two senators enjoy a close working relationship.
“There’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that Schumer would push him off for somebody more junior,” said Jim Manley, a Democratic strategist who worked for former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
Manley added that Schumer and Manchin have a strong alliance, due largely to Schumer’s long-standing refusal to criticize Manchin’s more conservative positions.
“I can assure you they have a great relationship,” he said.
That relationship could work to Schumer’s advantage.
“If Manchin does ascend to the ranking membership, he has to be attentive to what the Democratic leader’s priorities and concerns are, and I would hope that that is actually the case,” the former aide said.
“Not that there won’t be tensions and issues that give the Republicans an opportunity to put the Democrats on the committee in a difficult position, but hopefully with communication and some leadership, they’ll figure out how to navigate those situations.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/419970-manchins-likely-senior-role-on-key-energy-panel-rankles-progressives
-
FERC's Narrow GHG Reviews For Gas Pipeline Approvals Face Court Tests
Dec 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) narrow reviews of greenhouse gas and climate issues in its approvals of natural gas pipelines and other energy projects are facing their first tests in a pair of lawsuits in a key appellate court, after that court earlier required broad GHG considerations for a separate pipeline.
The first suit is Appalachian Voices, et al. v. FERC in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It challenges the adequacy of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) GHG review supporting FERC's approval of the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP), among other issues.
The litigation is relatively far along, with oral arguments set for Jan. 28. Most recently, a host of industry groups weighed in to support FERC's narrow GHG considerations.
The second suit, Ostego 2000, et al. v. FERC, et al., also in the D.C. Circuit, challenges the NEPA review of the New Market gas transmission upgrade project in New York. That litigation has just begun briefing with arguments not yet set. This week, states and environmental groups filed amicus briefs opposing the commission's attempt to administratively curtail the need for broader reviews, arguing FERC is in violation of the precedent-setting 2017 ruling the D.C. Circuit issued in Sierra Club, et al. v. FERC, et al.
There, the court rejected FERC's approval of the Sabal Trail pipeline network in the Southeast, ordering FERC to conduct a new NEPA review assessing the downstream GHGs that would be released when the piped gas is burned to make electricity.
But in the MVP case, industry groups filed Nov. 27 amicus briefs backing FERC -- including one from the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute, and a second brief from the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA).
“An unfavorable ruling in this case, where FERC has properly applied NEPA regulations to conclude that downstream [GHGs] are not indirect effects, would create negative precedent that could have broader effects on amici’s members,” the first filing says.
The associations argue that FERC “properly determined that additional downstream [GHG] emissions were not reasonably foreseeable and thus not indirect effects of its certificate of the [MVP project.] Contrary to Petitioners’ contention, there is no bright-line rule that these emissions are indirect effects of FERC’s authorization of the construction and operation of a pipeline project.”
Instead, they argue the scope is determined on a case-by-case basis and here FERC “reasonably determined that available information would not allow it to develop a meaningful forecast of downstream” GHGs.
Environmental petitioners argued in their Sept. 4 opening brief that FERC failed to adequately assess the downstream GHGs created by “burning 2.0 billion cubic feet of gas per day. FERC's [environmental impact statement (EIS)] estimated downstream emissions but devoted only one paragraph to the Project's massive emissions, and failed to engage in the required discussion of significance and cumulative impact. FERC incorrectly concluded that downstream effects were outside the scope of its NEPA analysis.”
SCC Claims
They also argued that FERC “arbitrarily refused” to use the Obama-era carbon damages tool known as the social cost of carbon (SCC) to evaluate the downstream emissions, “despite acknowledging it is an appropriate tool for informing federal agencies' decision-making.”
FERC in its Nov. 20 reply says it reasonably decided not to use the SCC, and that in the underlying order, it “extensively discussed why it believes the [SCC] is not appropriate for use in project-level NEPA reviews. With respect to the tool itself, the Commission found that 'no consensus exists on the appropriate [discount] rate to use.'”
INGAA's brief defends FERC's SCC rejection, arguing the tool cannot “evaluate a project's indirect environmental impacts.” It also cites the D.C. Circuit's July 2016 decision in EarthReports, et al. v. FERC, et al., rejecting environmentalists' challenge to a liquified natural gas export terminal, which upheld FERC's decision not to use the SCC in its analysis.
“The Court should adhere to the same position here,” INGAA says. “The [SCC] was not created to use with NEPA and was not intended to be used to determine how a project could affect the surrounding environment. Instead, it was 'specifically designed for the rulemaking process,'” the group says, citing the federal working group that created it.
Meanwhile, in the Ostego case, petitioners' Nov. 26 opening brief argues FERC's failure to evaluate indirect and cumulative upstream and downstream GHG emissions in the NEPA review was arbitrary and capricious; that the court should require FERC to prepare a supplemental analysis; and that FERC abused its discretion in issuing a new policy statement applicable to all future projects on the scope of GHG analysis without notice or comment.
The petitioners won support from New York, which filed a Dec. 3 amicus brief with Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. The Sierra Club also filed a Dec. 3 amicus brief.
The filings come after New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood (D) charged that FERC deliberately sought to avoid judicial review of its precedent-setting decision not to analyze upstream and downstream GHGs, which was part of a May 18 rejection of requests to reconsider its certificate for Dominion Transmission for the project.
Because FERC raised the GHG issues for the first time in the denial, Underwood said it would be difficult to file suit over the decision, but the petitioners filed suit July 16 regardless.
'Reasonably Foreseeable'
FERC's rehearing denial concluded that the commission was not required to consider the downstream GHGs caused by the project under NEPA because they were not “reasonably foreseeable.” It sought to distinguish the Dominion project from the Sabal Trail pipeline network, arguing the Southeast project has specific gas plant consumers while Dominion has no consumers identified, and that it would not necessarily boost natural gas production.
In a Dec. 4 statement accompanying the filings, the environmentalists note they are challenging FERC's 3-2 decision that it would stop analyzing “the full range of climate impacts of gas pipeline projects,” which “circumvents the D.C. Circuit's holding in Sierra club's successful Sabal Trail case.”
While FERC's May decision was limited to the New Market project, the environmentalists' statement notes that the commission majority has already applied its rationale to other pipeline projects.
The lawsuit seeks to halt that practice. “It is a shame that climate action advocates and states have to go to court to force a Federal agency to follow a court order, but here we are,” the group says.
The states' brief argues that FERC improperly announced a “new and incorrect interpretation of NEPA in an adjudicatory proceeding” and sought to “circumvent a pending policy proceeding directly addressing how FERC should evaluate” upstream and downstream GHGs under NEPA, referencing a separate, ongoing FERC review of its pipeline approval process.
That effectively “shut off public comment and participation on a matter of great importance,” because in the rehearing denial order FERC said “as a legal matter, it will no longer evaluate or consider the vast majority of upstream and downstream greenhouse gases caused by the natural gas infrastructure projects it reviews.”
The states add that FERC has since said its Dominion rehearing order creates a precedent supporting orders for other projects, which they also contend is unlawful.
Sierra Club's brief adds: “FERC's refusal to consider the full set of climate impacts caused by its projects flies in the face of its responsibilities under NEPA and this Court's decision in Sabal Trail.”
FERC's position is “a dangerous abdication of responsibility of a federal agency in charge of fossil fuel projects that will produce millions of tons” of GHGs.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/fercs-narrow-ghg-reviews-gas-pipeline-approvals-face-court-tests
-
Target to Pay $7.4M After Probe Found It Illegally Dumped Hazardous Waste in California
Dec 6, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Emily Birnbaum
Target has agreed to pay $7.4 million as part of a settlement with California after a state investigation found that it illegally dumped hazardous waste in California.
Minnesota-based Target will pay $3.2 million in fines and $3 million for compliance inspections and audits of trash facilities along with money for environmental projects.
Target did not acknowledge any wrongdoing in the lawsuit settlement filed Wednesday in the Alameda County Superior Court, according to The Associated Press.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) said Wednesday that the state's probe concluded that Target improperly disposed of hazardous materials between 2012 and 2016, dumping electronics, batteries, aerosol cans and compact fluorescent light bulbs into landfills in California.
The corporation also reportedly violated state laws by disposing of medical waste including syringes, over-the-counter and prescribed pharmaceuticals, as well as confidential medical information about its customers, in the landfills.
"Target’s ongoing and improper disposal of hazardous waste and contaminants harmed the public and the environment,” Becerra said. “We are confident that with these strong injunctive terms and penalties, Target will implement meaningful changes to prevent this from ever happening again."
Representatives for district's attorney offices in the state found that between 2012 and 2014, Target unlawfully disposed of 2,038 items of hazardous waste, 175 items of confidential medical information of customers, and 94 items of medical waste, according to the attorney general's office statement.
This is the second time Target has been penalized for dumping dangerous waste in California. As part of a 2011 settlement, Target agreed to pay $22.5 for violating state statutes about the proper handling and disposal of hazardous waste.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/420077-target-ordered-to-pay-74m-for-illegally-dumping-hazardous-waste-in
-
Amazon Workers Hospitalized Over Bear Repellent Fumes
Dec 6, 2018 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
An automated machine punctured a can of bear repellent at an Amazon warehouse in New Jersey yesterday, releasing fumes that sickened workers and sent two dozen to hospitals, officials said.
An Amazon representative said that as of 8 p.m., all of the affected employees had been or were expected to be released from the hospital within the next 24 hours.
At least one of the workers was said to have been in critical condition yesterday afternoon, but communications representative Rachel Lightly said that worker is among those expected to be released.
She said no packages were affected by the incident.
"The safety of our employees is always our top priority and a full investigation is already underway," Lightly said in a statement.
The injured workers were taken to five hospitals, officials said.
About 30 other workers were treated at the warehouse in Robbinsville, authorities said. Most people were reporting difficulty breathing or burning in their throats or eyes.
Robbinsville spokesman John Nalbone told NJ.com that an automated machine damaged a 9-ounce can of bear repellent containing a concentrated amount of capsaicin, an active component of chili peppers.
He said the fumes were contained in one part of the building's third floor, which was cleared for a few hours, though the warehouse as a whole was not evacuated. Amazon confirmed that the accident dispersed strong fumes in that area of the facility.
Hundreds of workers are normally inside the building during workdays.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/12/06/stories/1060108921
-
PATH’s PTC System Secures FRA Certification
Dec 6, 2018 | Railway Technology
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in the US has certified that the Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) railroad’s system-wide signal upgrade has fulfilled all regulatory requirements for Positive Train Control (PTC).
The FRA certification signifies that PATH has achieved formal PTC completion ahead of the federal deadline of 31 December.
A subsidiary of Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), PATH is said to be the first railroad system in the region to fulfil the PTC requirements before the deadline.
PTC is a component of Communication Based Train Control (CBTC) signal system designed to improve train safety and passenger security.
It offers automatic emergency braking capabilities on each line to prevent train-to-train collisions and derailments.“What this will mean in the long term is a safer passenger experience for PATH riders that meet the most rigorous federal safety standards.”
PATH was awarded the FRA certification following extensive testing and review by the agency, ensuring all technical and operational elements of the PTC mandate are met.
Port Authority Chairman Kevin O’Toole said: “The Port Authority and PATH have worked diligently to ensure that we continue to provide exceptional safety and security for all of our customers.
“What this will mean in the long term is a safer passenger experience for PATH riders that meet the most rigorous federal safety standards.”
The PTC-mandated signal system is now implemented and operational across all PATH lines.
Installation works of the CBTC system are currently underway. Once completed, it will help to determine the train’s exact location, speed and safe braking distance.
The CBTC system will also enable PATH to increase operational frequency of the trains and manage rush-hour congestion.
https://www.railway-technology.com/news/paths-ptc-system-secures-fra-certification/
-
EPA: New Rule Based on 'Data,' Not 'Wishful Thinking'
Dec 6, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Niina Heikkinen
EPA is slated to release a proposed rule today that would relax control requirements for greenhouse gas emissions for new and modified power plants.
The New Source Performance Standards are expected to no longer consider partial carbon capture and storage technology as the best approach to cutting carbon emissions. Instead, the agency is calling for new and heavily modified power plants to focus on efficiency improvements.
The proposal is related to the proposed Affordable Clean Energy rule, which covers carbon emissions from existing power plants.
In a draft press release obtained by E&E News, EPA describes CCS as an "unproven" technology and would no longer consider it the "best system of emissions reductions" for new coal plants. Instead, the agency will replace it with "the most efficient demonstrated steam cycle in combination with best operating practices." EPA is hosting an event to formally announce the new rule this afternoon.
Under the revised standard, the agency would set different emissions standards for large and small units.
Large coal-fired units would be able to emit 1,900 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour. For small units, the emissions rate would be 2,000 pounds/MWh.
The Obama-era rule had capped emissions at 1,400 pounds CO2/MWh.
"Today's actions reflect our approach of defining new, clean coal standards by data and the latest technological information, not wishful thinking," EPA's air chief, Bill Wehrum, said in the draft release.
The pending announcement of the rule change drew sharply diverging reactions.
Speaking on the floor this morning, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) framed the rollback as another step toward ending the "war on coal," noting that he led a resolution during the Obama administration that would have nixed it.
"When we blocked the legislation he originally pitched, President Obama chose to go it alone and try to implement aggressive regulations, often bending the rule of law in the process," McConnell said.
"When we used the tools available to us to bring relief to American families, we were met each time with vetoes," he said. "But everything changed when the American people elected President Trump."
McConnell added that rolling back the rule would give coal "a level playing field," though U.S. coal consumption still appears poised to continue its steep downward trend (Climatewire, Dec. 5).
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) said this morning the expected rollback is "ironic," coming on the heels of several high-profile climate reports and during U.N. climate talks in Poland.
"It has more to do with messaging than actually getting results," Carper said.
Environmental groups slammed the proposal as moving in the opposite direction of controlling emissions from what the recent U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and the most recent National Climate Assessment deemed necessary.
"We have to figure out how to virtually eliminate the emissions from coal plants and other fossil fuel plants as quickly as we can," said David Doniger, senior strategic director of the climate and clean energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
In order to do that, the country should either be phasing coal plants out or adopting CCS to avoid emitting as much carbon as possible. He noted that natural gas producers and other industries would also need to do more to capture their own emissions.
"We should be trying to expand the use of carbon capture and storage, not abandon it," Doniger said.
Jay Duffy, a legal associate at Clean Air Task Force, pointed out EPA's new target for emissions reductions was even higher than the Obama administration's estimate of total carbon emissions from a coal-fired power plant with emissions controls.
"This is a get-out-of-jail-free card," Duffy said.
The National Association of Manufacturers, by contrast, called the changes a "more realistic approach" to rulemaking.
In a statement, Ross Eisenberg, vice president for energy and resources policy, called the Obama rule a "de facto ban" on new coal-fired power plants.
Reporters Nick Sobczyk, Christa Marshall and Robin Bravender contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/12/06/stories/1060108959
-
California Officials Give Final Approval to Requiring Solar Panels on New Homes
Dec 6, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Avery Anapol
California has officially cleared the way for a new rule requiring solar panels to be built on all new houses.
The state’s Building Standards Commission on Wednesday voted unanimously for the final approval necessary for the new housing rule, according to the Mercury News.
The rule, the first of its kind in the nation, was first approved in May by the California Energy Commission. The mandate will apply to homes built in 2020 or later.
Kent Sasaki, one of the commissioners who voted to approve the change, praised the new code as “historic,” according to the Mercury Times.
“These provisions really are historic and will be a beacon of light for the rest of the country,” Sasaki said. “[It’s] the beginning of substantial improvement in how we produce energy and reduce the consumption of fossil fuels.”
The changes are estimated to add about $10,000 to the building a single-family home, costs that are expected to be offset through reduced monthly energy costs over the lifespan of the solar panels.
Commissioners estimated that homeowners will save about $19,000 in energy costs over 30 years by having solar panels, according to NPR.
The new requirement is the latest example of California leading the nation in environmentally-friendly policy. California law aims to get half of the state’s electricity from non-carbon-producing sources by 2030.
The move comes nearly a year after President Trump imposed 30 percent tariffs on imported solar panel technology, which was seen as a blow to the nation’s $28 billion solar industry.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/420022-california-officials-give-final-approval-to-requiring-solar-panels
-
Ewire: Global CO2 Rises After Years of Staying Relatively Flat
Dec 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
A series of reports are projecting that global carbon dioxide levels will increase by nearly 3 percent this year after several years of remaining mostly flat, highlighting Trump administration efforts to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and the gap between countries' climate goals just as negotiators are meeting to adopt rules implementing the Paris deal.
The Washington Post rounds up one report from the Global Carbon Project, finding that 2018 is likely to see a 2.7 percent increase in global CO2, which comes after last year's 1.6 percent rise.
Between 2014 and 2016, emissions were essentially flat, leading some to believe that the world had begun turning a corner in the effort to address climate change. The United States' emissions increase this year is right around the global average, 2.5 percent, while Europe is poised to trim its emissions by 0.7 percent.
However, major developing countries have larger percentage increases. India's emissions are set to rise by 6.3 percent, with China poised for a 4.7 percent gain -- a figure that is most worrisome because China is now by far the world's largest CO2 emitter.
That country appears to be the “biggest emissions story in 2018,” the Post reports, with its significant increase of almost 500 million tons of CO2 linked to a wider economic slowdown.
“Under pressure of the current economic downturn, some local governments might have loosened supervision on air pollution and carbon emissions,” said Yang Fuqiang, of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Writing in Nature, former United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres and other climate experts argue that the estimates should set off alarm bells because “when it comes to rises in global average temperature, every fraction of a degree matters.”
They cite the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report warning of the dire risks that could occur if temperatures increase 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, compared with the more aggressive Paris goal of limiting an increase to 1.5 degrees.
But Figueres and her co-authors also cite reasons for optimism, arguing that key technologies such as solar, battery storage and electric vehicles are “on track” for wider deployment, that “coal is being priced out,” and that “heavy industry is also evolving.”
They note President Donald Trump's pledge to withdraw from Paris, as well as emerging doubts in Brazil and Australia.
“Whereas some parties to the Paris agreement are backsliding, many others are signaling their intention to be more ambitious. The agreement’s five-year cycle enables a gradual ratcheting up of effort, and bolder targets will be easier to achieve thanks to the market forces noted previously,” they say.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-global-co2-rises-after-years-staying-relatively-flat
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested