Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - December 7, 2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Cease Fired Called in U.S.-China Trade War
Dec 7, 2018 | National Hog Farmer
By P. Scott Shearer
President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping last weekend agreed to a cease-fire in the U.S.-China trade war while negotiations begin to resolve various issues. Details on what was actually agreed to by the two leaders have been slow to be released. -
(ACC Mentioned) The Huawei Arrest Heard ’Round the World
Dec 7, 2018 | Politico - Morning Trade
By Megan Cassella
The high-profile arrest of a Huawei executive in Canada has sparked fresh doubts that the U.S. and China will be able to make any progress on trade talks. -
EDF Seeks EPA Correspondence with Law Firms on Rollbacks
Dec 7, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is a new lawsuit is asking a federal court to compel the release of an array of EPA records tied to the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda, including correspondence between EPA and external law firms in a position to advise the agency on how to implement its plans. -
SGS in Hong Kong Certifies Composite Wood Products for U.S. Market
Dec 7, 2018 | Woodworking Network
By Karl D. Forth
SGS has announced that it has become the first third-party certifier (TPC) to be accredited by the Hong Kong Accreditation Service (HKAS). -
Washington State Eyes Action on Toxics for Orca Recovery
Dec 7, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A taskforce organised by Washington Governor Jay Inslee to protect the orca population has recommended the state take action to "prevent the use and release" of certain chemicals of emerging concern. These include flame retardants, phthalates and PFASs. -
PFAS - Time for Action
Dec 7, 2018 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Pamela Miller
In September, the expert committee of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) made strong recommendations to prevent further harm to the environment and health from per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFASs). -
EU Fire Safety Plans Prompt Industry Discussion on Flame Retardants
Dec 7, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
European trade groups, the International Antimony Association (i2a) and the International Bromine Council, are planning to "better communicate the important role" flame retardants play in the EU's plans for fire safety in buildings. -
Applying Science to Mixtures
Dec 7, 2018 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Andrew Turley
"The tools are there, the science is ready," says Andreas Kortenkamp, professor of human toxicology at Brunel University in London, talking about chemical mixture risk assessment (MRA). -
U.S. Becomes Net Exporter of Oil, Fuels for First Time in Decades
Dec 6, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Bradley Olson
The U.S. became a net exporter of oil and refined fuels last week for the first time in decades, a symbolic milestone that would have seemed unthinkable just 10 years ago. -
E&C Panel Unveils Cyber Strategy for Guarding Infrastructure
Dec 7, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Blake Sobczak
House Republicans on an influential Energy and Commerce subcommittee have unveiled a six-point plan for fixing cybersecurity vulnerabilities in U.S. critical infrastructure in the new Congress. -
Schumer to Trump: Future Infrastructure Bill Must Combat Climate Change
Dec 7, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned President Trump Friday that any future infrastructure bill he wants to see in the new year “must” transition the U.S. towards renewable energy use. -
Ewire: Schumer Sets Climate Action as Price for Infrastructure Bill
Dec 7, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Senate's top Democrat is setting the price that President Donald Trump must pay in order to secure Democratic votes for a major infrastructure bill -- a suite of measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gases and adapting to climate change-related damages. -
Association of American Railroads Urges USDOT to Implement Automation in Rail Industry
Dec 7, 2018 | Dry Bulk
By Claire Cuddihy
On 3 December 2018, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) filed comments with the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) urging the agency to extend the same pro-innovation regulatory approach to private freight railways that is afforded to highway vehicles. -
What Wheeler Said After the Video Was Cut
Dec 7, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Niina Heikkinen
EPA drew sharp criticism on social media yesterday after shutting down the video feed of a news conference ahead of a question-and-answer session with the agency's acting chief. -
EPA Shrugs at Downwind States with 'Good Neighbor' Smog Rule
Dec 7, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Just hours after announcing a potential boon to builders of new coal-fired power plants, acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler yesterday delivered a more tangible win for operators of existing facilities in much of the United States. -
The World Still Isn't Meeting Its Climate Goals
Dec 7, 2018 | The New York Times
By Brad Plumer and Nadja Popovich
Three years after nearly 200 countries signed a landmark climate agreement in Paris, they are still far off-track from preventing severe global warming in the decades ahead.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Cease Fired Called in U.S.-China Trade War
Dec 7, 2018 | National Hog Farmer
By P. Scott Shearer
President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping last weekend agreed to a cease-fire in the U.S.-China trade war while negotiations begin to resolve various issues. Details on what was actually agreed to by the two leaders have been slow to be released.
President Trump will leave the tariffs at 10% on $200 billion of Chinese products at this time. The tariffs were scheduled to increase to 25% on Jan. 1. China agreed to purchase a “substantial amount” of agriculture, energy, industrial and other products from the United States. It is still to be determined what products, amounts and when the purchases will begin.
The two countries agreed to begin 90 days of negotiations on structural changes regarding forced technology transfer, intellectual property protection, non-tariff barriers, cyber intrusions and cyber theft, services and agriculture. If an agreement has not been reached by the end of the 90 days, Trump will increase tariffs from 10% to 25%.
Coalition urges end to U.S.-China trade dispute
A coalition of over 150 organizations, Americans for Free Trade, representing U.S. farmers, manufacturers, retailers and consumers sent a letter to President Trump prior to the G-20 summit urging him to work with Chinese President Xi Jinping to resolve the trade dispute. They also asked for an end to the current tariffs and no additional tariffs be imposed this year.Those signing the letter include the Agriculture Transportation Coalition, American Chemistry Council, CropLife America, Grocery Manufacturers Association, National Foreign Trade Council, National Retail Federation, The Hardwood Federation, and U.S. Hide, Skin and Leather Association.
Trump threatens to pull-out of NAFTA
President Trump says he will soon give notice to Congress that he intends to formally notify Canada and Mexico of his intention to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement. This is to increase the pressure on Congress to pass the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement.If Congress fails to pass the USMCA and the United States has pulled out of NAFTA, then tariffs will revert to pre-NAFTA levels. This is a major concern because there would be a significant increase in tariffs for U.S. agricultural products. Studies have said U.S. agricultural exports to Canada and Mexico would drop nearly $10 billion annually if the United States left NAFTA.
USDA to provide flexibility for school meals
USDA announced it will be finalizing a rule later this month that will give local schools greater flexibility in implementing school meal standards for milk, whole grains and sodium.The “Child Nutrition Programs: Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium Requirements” final rule covers the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program and other federal child nutrition programs. The rule:Provides the option to offer flavored, low-fat milk to children participating in school meal programs, and to participants ages six and older in the Special Milk Program for Children and the Child and Adult Care Food Program;Requires half of the weekly grains in the school lunch and breakfast menu be whole grain-rich; andProvides more time to reduce sodium levels in school meals.
Government shutdown avoided for now
Congressional leaders and the White House have agreed to a two-week continuing resolution which will keep the federal government operating until Dec. 21.Farm bill expected to be released next week for Congressional consideration
There are indications the Farm Bill Conference Committee will release the negotiated farm bill next week to give time for Congress to immediately begin consideration of the bill.https://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/business/cease-fired-called-us-china-trade-war
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Huawei Arrest Heard ’Round the World
Dec 7, 2018 | Politico - Morning Trade
By Megan Cassella
QUICK FIX: The high-profile arrest of a Huawei executive in Canada has sparked fresh doubts that the U.S. and China will be able to make any progress on trade talks. The likely next speaker of the House is making it clear that Democrats won’t pass NAFTA 2.0 without changes. Plus, industry groups are already urging the Trump administration not to include a sunset clause in its trade talks with Japan. Start here:
THE HUAWEI ARREST HEARD ’ROUND THE WORLD: Stock markets plummeted on Thursday after news broke overnight that Canada arrested a top executive at Chinese telecom giant Huawei and was planning to extradite her to the U.S. The move cast fresh doubt over whether President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping might be able to move forward with nascent trade negotiations and make permanent the temporary — and fragile — trade truce they agreed to over the weekend.
Sabrina Meng, the vice chairman and chief financial officer of Huawei, was arrested Saturday in Vancouver for allegedly running afoul of U.S. trade sanctions against Iran. A bail hearing is set for later today, but all other details of the arrest are being tightly held.
Another landmine: The move is all but certain to throw a wrench in the U.S.-China relationship and could make it more difficult for the two sides to make concessions or agree on compromises that would settle their myriad trade tensions.
"I'm very concerned that that's just going to ratchet this trade war and make negotiations much more difficult," former U.S. Ambassador to China Gary Locke said Thursday. "This is a really ... hot button, almost a grenade, with respect to the 90-day negotiations." Doug has more here.
Who knew what when? Neither Trump nor the administration officials who dined with Xi over the weekend knew about the extradition request until afterward, an administration official told POLITICO. National Security Adviser John Bolton told NPR on Thursday he had been made aware of the imminent arrest during a routine Justice Department briefing just before Saturday evening’s Buenos Aires summit.
“I knew in advance,” Bolton said, adding: “These kinds of things happen with some frequency. We certainly don’t inform the president on every one of them.”
Implications for trade: “Huawei is one company we've been concerned about. There are others as well,” Bolton said Thursday. “I think this is going to be a major subject of the negotiations that President Trump and President Xi Jinping agreed to in Buenos Aires."
IT'S FRIDAY, DEC. 7! Welcome to Morning Trade, where your host wants to send a special shoutout to the avid readers of Georgetown University’s second master’s degree cohort in International Business and Policy, who are graduating this weekend. Congratulations to all of you, and wishing you all good luck in trade-oriented careers where you’ll remember to drop your good friends at Morning Trade a news tip every so often. You know where to find me: mcassella@politico.com or @mmcassella.
** A message from Bumble Bee Seafoods: Bumble Bee’s canning factory in California, the largest in the contiguous U.S., is connected to a distribution chain of sales teams, warehouses and logistics partners across America and supplies countless retailers, customers, and the military. Section 301 tariffs will affect thousands of American jobs. Visit www.americansfortaxfreetuna.com to learn more. **
PELOSI PUTS FRESH FOCUS ON USMCA’S LABOR, ENVIRONMENT BITS: The likely next speaker of the House is making clear that even in the face of Trump’s threat to withdraw from NAFTA, the new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement is unlikely to pass Congress without some changes.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi met for just over a half-hour in her office Thursday with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to chat about the deal, which she said must be tweaked for her party to back it.
“While there are positive things in this proposed trade agreement, it is just a list without real enforcement of the labor and environmental protections,” she said in a statement after the meeting. Sabrina has more.
ITC CHAIRMAN: USMCA ‘QUITE COMPLICATED’ TO ANALYZE: Don’t expect the U.S. International Trade Commission to quickly finish its analysis of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, even though the tariff provisions have already been in place for the past 25 years under NAFTA, ITC Chairman David Johanson told Morning Trade.
“It’s actually quite complicated, especially the rules of origin,” he said in a brief conversation after an ITC hearing Thursday on the impact of eliminating tariffs on Japanese goods in a possible trade deal. “We’re doing it as fast as we can. But it’s not an easy one.”
The ITC has 105 days from the signing of the agreement last Saturday to finish its report to Congress on the economic impact of the deal. That puts the deadline in mid-March.
GETTING TO KNOW YOU ON CAPITOL HILL: We’re likely just a few months away from launching a whip count to track who will vote which way on the USMCA — and just in time, POLITICO Pro DataPoint just published a series of biographies on the 116th House and Senate freshman class. The collection of graphics includes vital information about the members-elect — careers prior to being elected to serve on the Hill, campaign platform promises, key support and endorsements.
U.S. TRADE DEFICIT WITH CHINA HITS ALL-TIME HIGH: Trump has made a political career by focusing in no small part on the need to reduce the country’s bilateral trade deficits, but nearly two years into his administration, it looks like they might be moving in the opposite direction. The U.S. trade deficit in October rose to $55.5 billion, the Commerce Department reported Thursday, a level the agency said is one of the highest in a decade.
At the same time, the U.S. trade deficits hit their highest levels ever with both China and the European Union, at $43.1 billion and $17.6 billion, respectively, Commerce said in its monthly release.
The October deficit in goods alone — not including services, which traditionally runs at a surplus in the U.S. — was $77 billion, also the highest ever recorded. More here.
NO JAPANESE ‘SUNSET’, PLEASE: A potential trade deal with Japan — otherwise known as the Land of the Rising Sun — should not contain a sunset provision like the one the Trump administration included in the recently completed USMCA, Ed Brzytwa, director of international trade at the American Chemistry Council, said Thursday at the U.S. International Trade Commission hearing.
“We support making improvements to a U.S.-Japan FTA as international trade evolves, but would strongly urge against provisions regarding early termination or sunsetting,” Brzytwa said.
The ACC was one of only four groups that testified at the hearing on the economic impact of removing remaining tariffs on Japan. The others were the United Auto Workers, the National Milk Producers Federation and the American Apparel and Footwear Association. Only the UAW expressed concern about removing U.S. tariffs. USTR will hold a hearing next week to gather more input for the proposed deal and is expected hear from many more groups.
The chemical industry favors the removal of all remaining chemical tariffs in both countries, Brzytwa said. That would boost exports and “could potentially offset the losses incurred as a result of the harmful trade actions in 2018,” he added, referring to duties that Trump has imposed on China and other trading partners, as well as those countries’ retaliation.
“If tariffs and retaliation are going to continue closing U.S. businesses off from certain markets like China, then we would ask that the administration help recover that lost market access by opening doors to other, new markets,” he said.TRADE REMEDY CORNER
ITC DRILLS DOWN ON PIPE FROM CHINA, INDIA: The ITC on Thursday made a final determination that imports of large diameter welded carbon and alloy steel pipe from China and India were harming the domestic industry by being sold at a less than fair value or unfairly subsidized. Commissioners voted to effectively impose anti-dumping duties on line pipe from China and India. The Commission unanimously determined that Chinese line pipe imports were not unfairly subsidized but Indian imports were. They also unanimously voted in favor of anti-dumping and countervailing duties on structural pipe from China.
Anti-dumping duties will range between 50.55 percent on Indian imports and 132.63 percent on Chinese products. Countervailing duties will range from 198.49 percent on Chinese imports and 541.15 percent on Indian imports. In 2017, imports of large diameter welded pipe from China and India were valued at an estimated $29.2 million and $294.7 million, respectively.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-trade/2018/12/07/the-huawei-arrest-heard-round-the-world-446259
-
EDF Seeks EPA Correspondence with Law Firms on Rollbacks
Dec 7, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is a new lawsuit is asking a federal court to compel the release of an array of EPA records tied to the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda, including correspondence between EPA and external law firms in a position to advise the agency on how to implement its plans.
“These records bear directly in the Trump EPA's decisionmaking and enforcement priorities, including whether the agency is upholding its obligation to protect American communities from dangerous pollution,” the group says in a Dec. 6 press release touting the litigation under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, EDF v. EPA, marks the seventh FOIA lawsuit the group has filed against the Trump administration.
And it comes almost a year and a half after the group requested correspondence between EPA and outside law firms in the wake of reports that the agency was considering hiring outside lawyers to “assist the agency with drafting regulations that would weaken or rescind existing protections for public health and the environment,” according to the complaint.
The court filing seeks disclosure of relevant correspondence with such firms, as well as resolution of three other FOIA requests related to specific EPA rules.
Included in the suit are requests for the court to force disclosure of information on oil and gas industry compliance with methane rules the Trump administration has moved to weaken; records detailing the agency's review of the Clean Power Plan prior to EPA's proposal to scrap it, and information on the number of high emitting “glider trucks” that the glider sector plans to build pursuant to stalled efforts by the Trump administration to scrap production limits on the sector.
“EPA has failed to comply with the statutory mandates and deadlines imposed by FOIA with respect to all four requests,” the suit says in part.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/edf-seeks-epa-correspondence-law-firms-rollbacks
-
SGS in Hong Kong Certifies Composite Wood Products for U.S. Market
Dec 7, 2018 | Woodworking Network
By Karl D. Forth
SGS has announced that it has become the first third-party certifier (TPC) to be accredited by the Hong Kong Accreditation Service (HKAS). This an award secures its long-term capability for the testing and certification of composite wood products for the U.S. market.
The Hong Kong Accreditation Service is an Accreditation Body recognized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to provide services under the Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products Rule.
Achieving additional TPC accreditation requirements secures SGS’s position in the certification of composite wood products for the U.S. market beyond March 22, 2019 and further positions SGS as a global leader in certifying these products and related services.
In the United States, formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products are governed by the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, which is administered by the EPA.
Signed into law in July 2010, this legislation was and became the amendment and Title VI of the ‘Toxic Substances Control Act’ (TSCA). It contains requirements for composite wood panel manufacturers, fabricators of finished goods, and importers, distributors and retailers of composite wood panels and finished goods.
Amended by the EPA, the Final Rule includes provisions for formaldehyde emission standards in hardwood plywood composite core or veneer core, particleboard, medium-density fiberboard , thin-MDFs, laminated products within the meaning of HWPW, third party certification programs for panel manufacturers, incentives for products manufactured using ultra-low emitting formaldehyde resins and no added-formaldehyde-based resins, product labeling, record keeping, import certification, ABs, TPCs, and other requirements for composite wood products.
The act recognizes CARB-TPCs through reciprocity with the CARB program. According to the act, composite wood products certified by CARB-approved TPCs (that are also recognized by the EPA) are considered certified until March 22, 2019, a transitional period for CARB-approved TPCs to certify composite wood products under TSCA Title VI without an accreditation issued by an EPA TSCA Title VI AB. After March 22, 2019, CARB-TPCs must be fully accredited to remain recognized as an EPA TSCA Title VI TPC to continue certifying composite wood products as TSCA Title VI compliant.
Each finished good, box or bundle containing finished goods are to be labeled in the form of a stamp, tag or sticker. Finished goods, including component parts that are sold separately to end users, are exempt from labeling requirements if the surface area of the largest face of these composite wood products is not more than 144 square inches.
The information on the label must include: Name of fabricator or substitute with downstream fabricator, importer, distributor or retailer; Date the finished goods were manufactured (month/year); and Statement that the goods are TSCA Title VI compliant.
https://www.woodworkingnetwork.com/news/woodworking-industry-news/sgs-hong-kong-certifies-composite-wood-products-us-market
-
Washington State Eyes Action on Toxics for Orca Recovery
Dec 7, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A taskforce organised by Washington Governor Jay Inslee to protect the orca population has recommended the state take action to "prevent the use and release" of certain chemicals of emerging concern. These include flame retardants, phthalates and PFASs.
The recommendation came in a November report of the Southern Resident Orca Task Force, a group formed at the direction of a governor’s executive order from March 2018 to identify and support the implementation of a long-term plan for recovering the region's waning killer whale population.
The taskforce focused on toxic contaminants as one of three "key threats" to the endangered species, and set a goal to reduce exposures to orcas and their prey.
The taskforce's final report has recommended that the state "identify, prioritise and take action on chemicals" that threaten these animals. Specifically, it calls for the Department of Ecology to develop a list of priority chemicals and to pursue policies "to prevent the use and release of chemicals of emerging concern into Puget Sound".
The recommendation encourages the department to submit legislation requests in 2019 for new policies and action that can reduce the load of chemicals of concern, such as phase outs, disclosure requirements and assessment of safer alternatives, and to seek increased funding of existing programmes.
Contaminants of emerging concern named in the report include: flame retardants per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), phthalates, bisphenols, nonylphenols (NPs), and chemicals used in tyres. Furniture, electronics, clothing and personal care products are identified as consumer products pathways for these substances' entry into the environment.
Further recommendations on toxics include:accelerating the implementation of a ban on polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in state-purchased products;speeding up the clean up of legacy contaminants like PCBs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and PFASs; andincreasing monitoring of toxins in marine waters.
Governor Inslee said he would review the recommendations and roll out budget and policy priorities by mid-December.
In the coming year, the taskforce plans to "work to refine additional recommendations to ensure the state is on a clear path to working with partners and across boundaries to ensure a self-sustaining and resilient population" of orcas.
Another report will be issued in October 2019 on the progress made and outstanding needs.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72654/washington-state-eyes-action-on-toxics-for-orca-recovery
-
Dec 7, 2018 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Pamela Miller
In September, the expert committee of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) made strong recommendations to prevent further harm to the environment and health from per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFASs). The 31-member POPs Review Committee (POPRC) had its 14th annual meeting in Rome in September. Among the 180 participants were representatives of Ipen, a network of more than 500 NGOs working in 115 countries to reduce and eliminate the harm to human health and the environment from toxic chemicals.
The POPRC focused on three PFAS chemicals and made recommendations for each:a global ban on perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), with some time-limited exemptions;that perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS) warrants global action and should move to the final stage of evaluation;to close loopholes that were permitted in the 2009 Stockholm Convention listing for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS).
The committee also deliberated extensively about action on fluorinated firefighting foams, a dispersive use that has caused extensive contamination of drinking water sources and harm to public health.
Prior to the meeting, Ipen produced a comprehensive report with independent experts, entitled ‘Fluorine-free firefighting (F3) foams - viable alternatives to fluorinated aqueous film-forming (AFFF) foams’. This concluded that the continued use of PFAS foams "is not only unnecessary but would continue to add to the legacy and ongoing contamination".
The report presented an agreed position on the viability of F3 foams from experts representing sectors across the fire engineering industry. The ‘F3 panel’, which authored it, presented both at the meeting and at a side event hosted by the German government to discuss F3 foams. They presented convincing evidence that these are viable alternatives to AFFFs, are comparable by all measures, but do not pollute the environment, put human or animal health at risks or require expensive clean-ups, which can cost up to €5.5m/site.
Therefore, the panel stated, there is no good reason to grant an exemption for the use of fluorinated foams. Furthermore, using other PFASs, including short-chain PFASs, in AFFFs would be regrettable substitutions that perpetuate harm.
Ipen further noted that precaution is embedded in the Stockholm Convention and protective action is a moral imperative for implementing treaty objectives.
At the conclusion of POPRC-14, the committee made clear recommendations on firefighting foams containing PFOA and PFOS, including:no additional production; use for five years only for liquid fuel vapour suppression and liquid fuel (class B) fires already in installed systems; no use for training or testing purposes; and no import or export, except for environmentally sound disposal.
In addition, their fluorinated alternatives were not recommended "due to their persistency and mobility as well as potential negative environmental, health, and socio-economic impacts".
Because of the public health crisis caused by PFAS contamination from AFFF use, there is a growing sense of urgency among policymakers of the need to transition rapidly from PFAS foams. In October, the US Congress passed a provision through the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorisation Act that removes the outmoded requirement for fluorinated foam use at commercial airports. Earlier this year, Washington State passed a law that prohibits the sale of PFAS-containing firefighting foams.
The committee’s recommendations agree with the growing consensus among scientists that PFAS must be addressed as a class. Recent scientific consensus statements maintain that the use of PFASs, including short-chain alternatives, is not sustainable. The Madrid Scientific Consensus Statement on PFASs assertsthat it is essential "to take measures at the international level to reduce the use of PFASs in products and prevent their replacement with fluorinated alternatives in order to avoid long-term harm to human health and the environment."
Despite industry claims that short-chain PFASs are safe, scientists highlight concerns that they are problematic because they are similar in structure and function, have been poorly tested, and, although possibly less bioaccumulative, can form highly persistent transformation products that result in increasing and unsafe human and environmental exposure. In addition, the Madrid Statement notes that "in some cases, their technical performance is lower and so there is a concern that larger quantities and/or more substances will need to be used to provide the same performance, potentially cancelling out the benefit of lower bioaccumulation potential."
The scientific literature provides extensive evidence linking PFOA and/or PFOS to serious diseases and adverse human health outcomes, including kidney and testicular cancer, decreased birth weight, thyroid disease, reduced sperm quality, high cholesterol, pregnancy-induced hypertension, asthma, ulcerative colitis and decreased response to vaccination. Evidence has been cited that "ongoing exposures to even relatively low drinking water concentrations substantially increase human body burdens, which remain elevated for many years after exposure ends", and that infants are especially vulnerable and receive higher exposures than adults. In addition, exposure to low levels of PFOA or PFOS in early life produces effectswith lifelong health consequences.
Worldwide, groundwater and surface waters downgradient from many military fire training areas and civilian airports have been contaminated with PFASs from the use of AFFFs In May 2018, an analysis of previously unreleased data estimated that the drinking water of 110 million people in the US alone may be contaminated with PFAS chemicals at levels that exceed concentrations known to be associated with harmful health effects.
News also broke in May that the White House and the EPA deliberately suppressed a government study by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) that found that the agency’s recommended health advisory limit of 70ppt for PFAS chemicals to be up to six times too high.
A White House official stated that releasing this assessment would be "a public relations nightmare." The report indicates that levels of these chemicals that the EPA previously thought to be safe may cause harm.
A burgeoning number of lawsuits are being filed against industry about PFAS chemicals. There have been major class action lawsuits, culminating in October with one filed against all the major manufacturers on behalf of an Ohio firefighter and everyone in the US, targeting the entire class. Litigation will be costly to the fluoro-industry, but will it be costly enough to force change? As stated by Dr Joe DiGangi, senior science and technical advisor: "This year the UN expert committee sent a clear signal to the fluorine chemicals industry that it’s time for a phase-out. We need to learn from decades of denial and poisoning and stop this cycle of harm."
World governments will meet for the Ninth Conference (COP) of the Parties of the Stockholm Convention and meetings of the Basel and Rotterdam Conventions on 29 April-10 May 2019 in Geneva, under the theme ‘Clean planet, healthy people: sound management of chemicals and waste’. The Ipen community of NGOs urges the nations of the world to uphold the recommendations of the UN expert committee and take action to eliminate dangerous PFAS chemicals.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72680/pfas-time-for-action
-
EU Fire Safety Plans Prompt Industry Discussion on Flame Retardants
Dec 7, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
European trade groups, the International Antimony Association (i2a) and the International Bromine Council, are planning to "better communicate the important role" flame retardants play in the EU's plans for fire safety in buildings.
The 2017 fire at London's Grenfell Tower, which killed more than 70 people, and a 2015 incident at a nightclub in Bucharest that killed more than 60 people, have prompted EU authorities to review fire safety.
To improve communication among member states and relevant stakeholders, the European Commission created the Fire Information Exchange Platform (Fiep), which met last week. The Commission explained that it is examining the feasibility of a European fire safety code.
This work could have implications on the use of flame retardants in building products, materials and furniture. And, as a result, i2a focused its second annual antimony event on the current perception of flame retardants, communication gaps around the benefits of substances and how they can contribute to the EU's plans.
The flame retardants industry is the biggest user of antimony compounds. The compounds do not have flame retardant properties, instead they act as synergists. Adding small amounts of antimony compounds to chlorine or bromine substances increases the flame retardancy of a material, the association's secretary general Caroline Braibant told Chemical Watch.
Antimony can be added to PVC, for example, where it works with chlorine to reduce the level of oxygen in the material and therefore lowers the chances of ignition, she said.
The two day event – which brings together producers and users of antimony compounds – covered the need to:engage people in ongoing exposure control initiatives;clarify within industry consumer exposure from products; andcommunicate more broadly about the positive aspects of flame retardants.
"On one hand the EU is looking into better fire safety standards, largely a result of the UK's Grenfell incident. But on the other side they want less hazardous chemicals used in products," Ms Braibant said.
These two objectives, she said, are difficult to reconcile because antimony, bromine and chlorine substances have intrinsic hazardous properties. However, they are some of the best-performing flame retardant solutions and their intrinsic properties do not necessarily imply a risk for the users or consumers.
"Risk only happens where exposure to these chemicals happen above the level at which they start to express their toxicity," she says.Some brominated and chlorinated flame retardants are listed on the UN's Stockholm Convention of persistent organic pollutants. Echa has also restricted the use of brominated flame retardant decaBDE in certain products and materials.
"We agree that the hazards are there at different levels, but there is no exposure, or at least no major exposure, that would justify a stop in using flame retardants because of their chemical risk," said Ms Braibant. For antimony, participants at the event declared that this posed little problem because they are "embedded in the plastic".
The recycling of materials containing antimony, bromine and chlorine flame retardants was also raised. "Sorting processes that ensure the antimony containing plastics are not mixed with other sources of plastics already exist," said Ms Braibant.
However, there is still more to be done to make the recycling of antimony from flame retardant plastics and textiles economically viable.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72630/eu-fire-safety-plans-prompt-industry-discussion-on-flame-retardants
-
Dec 7, 2018 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Andrew Turley
"The tools are there, the science is ready," says Andreas Kortenkamp, professor of human toxicology at Brunel University in London, talking about chemical mixture risk assessment (MRA). "And it has been ready for a long time, I would say. The theory of mixture toxicology, of predicting combined effects – that’s all there."
In 2009, Professor Kortenkamp and two collaborators – Thomas Backhaus at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden and consultant Michael Faust – published their State-of-the-art report on mixture toxicity for the European Commission. In this, they said there was a need "as well as sufficient know-how, to assess the risks that may result from the combined exposure of humans and the environment to multiple chemicals"."The tools are there, the science is ready. And it has been ready for a long time, I would say. The theory of mixture toxicology, of predicting combined effects – that’s all there."
Professor Andreas Kortenkamp, Brunel UniversityHowever, they added, "consistent and clear mandates are needed for taking mixture toxicity into account in the numerous pieces of legislation that contribute to the protection of human health and the environment from chemical risks. This seems to be an essential prerequisite for better dealing with the challenging issue of potential ‘cocktail effects’."
Fast forward almost a decade and the message is remarkably unchanged. In July, Professor Kortenkamp and Dr Faust published a perspective article in Science, saying that "an increasing body of scientific evidence" shows that "neglect of mixture effects can cause chemical risks to be underestimated". Furthermore, international bodies, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), have acknowledged the need for considering mixtures in chemical risk assessment and regulation.
"Yet, with few exceptions, regulatory systems around the world still focus overwhelmingly on single-chemical assessments." The two therefore argued that, "without explicit legal mandates for considering mixture effects, nothing will move forward" and recommended, as a first step, creating obligations for MRA in all relevant regulations and requiring authorities to consider chemicals from multiple regulatory domains."We have to come back to single compounds. I do not understand how we can talk about mixtures in a regulatory context. For me it would be an endless discussion."
Professor Carl Bornehag, Karlstad University and Icahn School of MedicineLegal mandates needed
Their article mirrors a position paper sent to the European Commission in May from representatives of five EU projects focused on the risks of chemicals: EDC-MixRisk, EuroMix, EU-ToxRisk, HBM4EU and SOLUTIONS. The authors provided 12 recommendations including the implementation of legal mandates for performing MRAs. "The present status indicates that significant progress on the MRA issue is not achievable without the driving force of corresponding legal provisions," they said.
Industry, meanwhile, has yet to be convinced about the need for change. In October, Cefic published a position paper on the combination effects of chemical mixtures, in which it said that current regulatory schemes are adequate for controlling the risks.
Combination effects tend to occur only at "relatively high concentrations", where effects from individual compounds are already observed, the organisation said. When these effects do occur, they tend to be additive, and the risk tends to be driven by a very small number of compounds, or even just one, which are typically present near the threshold concentrations for regulation. Therefore, Cefic said, if regulations are effectively controlling the risk from these highly toxicologically significant compounds, they are also doing so for the mixture.
Professor Kortenkamp agrees that synergistic combination effects – those greater than the sum of the effects of the individual components – are relatively rare. He disagrees, however, with the idea that additive effects are already accounted for on the grounds that controlling those highly toxicologically significant compounds is enough. The mixtures issue is more than an issue of compliance with current regulations and standards, in his view.
"Of course you can always find scenarios where that’s correct. The problem is with the generalisation. Here, I would argue that we still don’t have enough experience with real MRAs, by which I mean those including hundreds or even thousands of chemicals, modelled on real exposure scenarios. Then, is it still only one or two chemicals that [push the risk] over the cliff? I doubt it."
Sufficiently similar mixtures
"I think we have more and more evidence - not only from our data but also from other sources - that we do have mixture effects," says Carl-Gustaf Bornehag, professor of public health sciences at Karlstad University in Sweden and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. "At the moment, we have a risk assessment system that doesn’t care about them."
Professor Bornehag is part of the team for EDC-MixRisk, an EU project focused on the toxicology of mixtures of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). The team has developed a ‘whole mixture’ approach to risk assessment and applied it to data from the Swedish Environmental Longitudinal Mother and Child, Asthma and Allergy (SELMA) study. The aim of this was to investigate exposure to chemicals during pregnancy and infancy, with sampling from 2,313 pregnant women, plus the children they gave birth to, including environmental monitoring and questionnaires. The results suggest that single chemical assessments could be underestimating the risks for mixtures one- to tenfold.
The biostatistical ‘similar mixture approach’ (Smach) is based on the concept of ‘sufficient similarity’ between mixtures. It starts with identifying in prenatal urine and blood the ‘bad actors’, the chemicals associated with the adverse effect of interest. The Bornehag team used the SELMA data, with weighted quantile sum regression, to identify 54 EDCs associated with adverse effects in the children, one of which was a reduction in anogenital distance in baby boys. They then determined a reference mixture of those bad actors, using the geometric means of the levels found in the women.
The next question was: what proportion of the women were exposed to real mixtures which, in terms of the mixing proportion, were sufficiently similar to this reference mixture? The answer was 80%. "That of course is a very important question, because if we have only 1% of the women having this, it doesn’t make sense to go on. If we have 80%, then we can say, ‘OK, there are a lot of women who have a mixture that is sufficiently similar’," says Professor Bornehag.
From this point, the risk assessment parallels would normally be done via a single chemical approach. The team conducted standard mouse toxicity tests to determine a dose-response curve for the reference mixture and a benchmark doses (BMD), based on a 5% reduction in the anogenital distance.
They then went back to the SELMA women who had been exposed to mixtures sufficiently similar to the reference mixtures. The team found that 15% of them – 13% of the total – were exposed to concentrations of the bad actors above the limits determined in the previous step and were therefore at risk. In contrast, only 1% were at risk when they employed a single chemical approach to assessment. The research is expected to be published in Risk Analysis shortly.
From risk assessment to regulation
The ‘whole mixtures’ approach has a lot of positive features, Professor Bornehag says. It combines data from epidemiology and experimental toxicity testing, for example, and generates the dose-response curve from doses that correspond to realistic exposures. However, it should not be viewed as the solution to the problem of MRAs, but as just one of many.
There are two main reasons for this. First, there are many interesting alternative methods, with their own strengths and weaknesses. Professor Bornehag was part of a team behind the development of another approach, based on the concept of ‘desirability functions’, borrowed from the field of industrial design.
Like Smach, the acceptable concentration range (ACR) approach combines data from epidemiology and experimental toxicity testing, via complex statistical twists and turns. It also has fundamental differences. For example, it starts by considering the mixture components as individual toxicants and only considers the mixture as whole, once guideline values for the components are established.
The second reason is that it is not clear how to apply the ‘whole mixtures’ approach in the regulatory context. "My opinion is that, in one way or another, we have to come back to single compounds," Professor Bornehag says. "I do not understand how we can talk about mixtures in a regulatory context. For me it would be an endless discussion."
Nevertheless, like Professor Kortenkamp, he is in favour of establishing legal mandates for MRAs. We do not yet have all the answers to the question of how to link these with regulation and standard setting, the former says. In the case of single compounds, the regulation and standard-setting relate to the risk assessment in quite a straightforward manner.
"They are almost the same thing," but the relationship is much more complex in the case of mixtures, Professor Bornehag says. "There are various models under discussion. That’s a real scientific debate at the moment: how do you account for exposures when setting a standard for a single chemical? That’s not cracked yet."
Additionally, both professors say there is an acute need for more data, particularly for exposure. "To come up with reliable assessments of mixtures, of combined exposures, you need toxicity values for specific endpoints common to all the chemicals you want to assess," Professor Kortenkamp says.
Unfortunately, this data is rarely available, even when dealing with the groups of chemicals that have historically undergone the most scrutiny, such as pesticides. This is "because the entire system of regulation and risk assessment is geared towards looking at the critical toxicity associated with the lowest exposures of any chemical."
Changing is difficult
However, Professor Kortenkamp believes this is not a good reason to delay change to the regulatory environment. The situation suggests a Catch 22-type dilemma: we cannot switch to a mixture-centric system of risk assessment because we do not have the data we would need for such a system, but we cannot get that data without switching to it.
Additionally, the change could be made gradually, with an initial focus on integration of closely linked areas of regulation to improve consideration of mixtures. For example, there is – "amazingly" – no legal mandate to consider pesticides as part of a mixture when assessing the risks from other potential food contaminants, such as migrants from food contact materials.
Changing other, more inherently complex and diverse, areas of regulation, such as industrial chemicals, would be vastly more challenging, but this would not need to be achieved overnight. Instead, policy makers could implement the mixture assessment factor (MAF) concept as an intermediate measure, Professor Kortenkamp says.
The Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) proposed a version of the approach that could be applied to environmental risk assessment under REACH in 2017 . "When you add up the risk quotients for all the components in the mixture, they are not equally distributed. There are some that make a very large contribution to the aggregated sum and others only a very small one," he says.
Under the Dutch proposal, risk assessors would apply a MAF to the concentration limits for those large contribution components to account for their significance in mixtures toxicity. The MAF would vary according to the degree of significance.
How this situation evolves from here may depend in part on the outcome of the European elections in May next year. Legal mandates for MRAs are unlikely if MEPs lack the appetite for change. Additionally, further development of the science and tools in coming years will depend on support from the EU’s next research framework, Horizon Europe, which will succeed Horizon 2020 from the start of 2021.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72676/applying-science-to-mixtures
-
U.S. Becomes Net Exporter of Oil, Fuels for First Time in Decades
Dec 6, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Bradley Olson
The U.S. became a net exporter of oil and refined fuels last week for the first time in decades, a symbolic milestone that would have seemed unthinkable just 10 years ago.
The shift to net exporter from importer, detailed in weekly data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, may be short lived. Still, it demonstrates that America is moving closer to achieving “energy independence” as the shale revolution makes the country one of the world’s top oil producers and reshapes global markets.
Reducing American dependency on oil imports has been an intense focus of executives and presidents from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush, none of whom anticipated a renaissance in U.S. drilling.
Since the Arab oil embargo 45 years ago, which sent crude prices up and created painful supply shortages, the problem of scarcity had defined U.S. thinking and strategy around oil, the world’s economic lifeblood. But the fracking boom, which has spurred massive increases in drilling from Texas to Appalachia, has sharply lessened reliance on foreign energy sources.
America is now the world’s top producer of oil and natural gas. This week in Vienna, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is once again weighing whether to curtail production, a decision driven in part by surging American oil output, which has topped 11 million barrels a day.
The U.S. exported 3.2 million barrels of oil during the week that ended on Nov. 30, along with about 5.8 million barrels of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other products. Those exports exceeded combined imports of 8.8 million barrels a day in the week, making the country a net exporter, according to the EIA. This is the first time the U.S. has been a net exporter since at least 1973, federal data show.
While many analysts don’t expect the distinction to last long this year, it may occur for a sustained period next year or in 2020, according to some forecasts. Oil and natural gas production continues to grow at a breakneck pace, and dozens of companies are spending billions of dollars to build out infrastructure for exports of everything from crude and natural gas to plastics components, mostly along the Texas Gulf Coast.
Although “energy independence” has been an important symbolic threshold for generations of American politicians and executives, market observers still point out that the oil and gas market is global and interdependent.
“It’s been a remarkable change from 10 years ago, when we were worried about peak supply,” said Brian Youngberg, an energy analyst at Edward Jones. “The world would be in a difficult situation if we had not seen the shale revolution. With the growth we’ve had, we’re now able to export all over the world.”
The U.S. became a net exporter of natural gas last year. Ten years ago, either development seemed all but impossible, as U.S. production declined rapidly. Crude and petroleum product imports rose to a record of more than 13 million barrels a day in 2005, and many U.S. executives and politicians were seeking to prepare for massive imports of natural gas.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-becomes-net-exporter-of-oil-fuels-for-first-time-in-decades-1544128404?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1
-
E&C Panel Unveils Cyber Strategy for Guarding Infrastructure
Dec 7, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Blake Sobczak
House Republicans on an influential Energy and Commerce subcommittee have unveiled a six-point plan for fixing cybersecurity vulnerabilities in U.S. critical infrastructure in the new Congress.
The report, posted this morning by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, claims that cybersecurity challenges across government and industry "are largely the same" but still represent "one of the most complicated, difficult issues facing society."
The document lays out six priorities for addressing the "myriad cybersecurity threats facing organizations and society," from locking down vulnerabilities in old, legacy technologies to supporting open-source software so more companies can peek under the hood of IT products for any security problems. The subcommittee also called for sprucing up the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures program, a Department of Homeland Security tool that ranks cybersecurity flaws based on their severity, and strengthening partnerships between the government and the private sector, which owns and operates the majority of U.S. critical infrastructure.
The recommendations reflect the subcommittee's "initial efforts to understand, explore, and ultimately address the cybersecurity challenges facing modern society," the report concluded, adding that "more work remains to be done."
Majority staff based their findings on dozens of hearings held by outgoing subcommittee Chairman Gregg Harper (R-Miss.), as well as other briefings and letters, according to the report.
It's not clear whether the strategies and recommendations outlined could form the seeds of cybersecurity legislation in the new Congress, but many of the points are likely to be embraced by Democrats.
"There's room for relatively bipartisan, uncontroversial work here," said Sam Feinburg, executive director of the Helena Group, which is pursuing a "Shield Project" for guarding the U.S. grid from hackers and other threats. "You've seen the cybersecurity side of things explode in terms of attention and activity" among lawmakers, he added.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/12/07/stories/1060109085
-
Schumer to Trump: Future Infrastructure Bill Must Combat Climate Change
Dec 7, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned President Trump Friday that any future infrastructure bill he wants to see in the new year “must” transition the U.S. towards renewable energy use.
In the letter, Schumer (D-N.Y.) referred to the administration’s own national climate report released in late November as reasons why swift action to stop climate change must be implemented.
“It is crucial that we immediately enact legislation to combat climate change and create millions of jobs. Therefore, any clean infrastructure package considered in 2019 must include policies and funding to transition to a clean energy economy and mitigate risks that the United States is already facing due to climate change,” the top Sen. Democrat wrote.
Schumer’s request comes as the Senate likely faces a focus of an infrastructure bill early next year. Trump has been calling for a comprehensive infrastructure package since the start of his presidency, but so far has not accomplished much. In the past he's called for $1.5 trillion in new spending on infrastructure.
Infrastructure is one area where Senate Democrats are hoping they can weave in important measures to thwart climate change, such as improvements to the electric grid system, shifting incentives towards renewable energy use and creation of more car charging stations.
Schumer pushed many of the measures as a way to boost the economy, writing that they can create “millions” of jobs.
Measures he suggested could make their way into a future infrastructure package include tax incentives for energy efficiency in homes and businesses and for using electric cars; a heavy investment in smart grid technology; increased federal investment in carbon capture and energy reduction technologies; funding to increase building resiliency against storms; and an investment in maintenance backlogs on public land.
“The Challenge is immense, but so is the opportunity to revitalize and modernize out infrastructure, create new jobs and economic opportunities, and position the United States as a leader in clean energy innovation,” Schumer wrote, adding that the U.S. must transition towards 100 percent renewable energy use.
“A single infrastructure bill will not solve our climate problem in its entirety, but it is an important first step.”
In tandem with the letter to Trump Schumer also published an Op-ed in the Washington Post Thursday vowing there will be “no deal” for infrastructure without the climate element.
Schumer’s plea comes as the Minority leader faces criticism over the likely appointment of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.va.) as the top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee. Progressives and environmentalists are calling on Schumer to overlook Manchin’s seniority and fill the position with a Senator who does not support the fossil fuel industry-- an action that is looking increasingly unlikely.
House Democrats, who in January will retake control, are also pushing a goal of 100 percent clean energy use. An effort lead by Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called the Green New Deal would establish a House select committee to focus primarily on initiatives to get the country closer to full green energy use.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/420246-top-sen-dem-to-trump-future-infrastructure-bill-must-combat-climate
-
Ewire: Schumer Sets Climate Action as Price for Infrastructure Bill
Dec 7, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Senate's top Democrat is setting the price that President Donald Trump must pay in order to secure Democratic votes for a major infrastructure bill -- a suite of measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gases and adapting to climate change-related damages.
In an op-ed in the Washington Post, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) outlines several clean power, adaptation and land conservation provisions, adding that “it is an important and necessary first step to include at least some, if not many, of these ideas [in any infrastructure bill]. Without them, Trump should not count on Democratic support in the Senate.”
Both Trump and Democrats have identified infrastructure as an area of possible cooperation in the next Congress, though Schumer's op-ed signals that any deal could face an uphill battle, given Trump and other Republicans' aggressive opposition to carbon controls.
Starting in January, Democrats will re-take control of the House, and while they will remain in the minority in the Senate, they would also have to provide some support for legislation to clear the upper chamber's 60-vote threshold.
That dynamic gives Democrats “an extraordinary opportunity to force action on climate change,” Schumer argues.
Among his suggested provisions are investments in renewable power and battery storage and efforts to make the grid and water systems more resilient to extreme weather and other climate-related risks.
Schumer also suggests permanent tax credits for clean energy production, storage, electric vehicles and energy efficient homes; conservation and public lands investments to mitigate the effects of climate change; and provisions to curb methane from oil and gas operations.
Notably not on the list is a carbon tax -- a policy others have floated as a possible revenue raiser to pay for major infrastructure investments. Instead, Schumer cites Democrats' prior proposals to roll back GOP tax cuts as a way to pay for the bill.
Also not mentioned in Schumer's op-ed is the long-standing GOP push to streamline environmental permitting requirements. While Republicans have long cited permitting as a chief cause of project delays, environmentalists and some Democrats argue that streamlining efforts are simply ways to weaken protections. Any such dispute could further imperil attempts to enact a bipartisan infrastructure measure.
Schumer's statements come one day after the National Academy of Sciences unveiled a report that recommended a series of steps policymakers should take to bolster transportation infrastructure, including steps to address rising risks of climate change.
For example, it calls for “Developing and implementing strategies for incorporating future climate conditions into infrastructure and operations planning, starting with the development of design and construction standards that assume greater frequency and severity of extreme weather events.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-schumer-sets-climate-action-price-infrastructure-bill
-
Association of American Railroads Urges USDOT to Implement Automation in Rail Industry
Dec 7, 2018 | Dry Bulk
By Claire Cuddihy
On 3 December 2018, the Association of American Railroads (AAR) filed comments with the US Department of Transportation (USDOT) urging the agency to extend the same pro-innovation regulatory approach to private freight railways that is afforded to highway vehicles. The filing, which also offers regulatory reform principles and calls for autonomous vehicle technology to account for highway-rail grade crossings, is in response to USDOT’s request for comment on its recent publication, ‘Preparing for the Future of Transportation: Automated Vehicles 3.0’ (AV 3.0).
“Not only will the public benefit from technology-driven safety gains in the rail industry, but it also will benefit if railroads remain a viable, competitive alternative to other transportation modes, thus ensuring the continued diversity and strength of the transportation network in the United States,” reads the filing, stressing the need for a mode-neutral approach. While the rail industry continues to improve safety and invest heavily in its network to serve customers, rapid innovation – facilitated through sensible and performance-based regulation at the federal level – is needed to achieve further advances.
“Increased automation will be key to continued efficiency gains, increased capacity to transport customers’ freight, further reduction of congestion on the highways, and increased fuel efficiency and emissions benefits,” AAR argues.
“Autonomous technology has the potential to improve network velocity and fluidity, increasing rail capacity, and promoting the health and growth of the US economy.”
AAR argues that by following a set of clear principles, safety aiding technologies will take greater hold moving forward. These principles include:Barriers to deployment must be overcome outside of waivers.Railroads and railroad equipment manufacturers should be permitted to create voluntary standards.Regulations should be performance-based, rather than prescriptive.Regulations must be federal to avoid a patchwork of state and local rules.The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) must engage in the process.
“Safety is at the heart of all that the industry does, and by ensuring that federal policy enables innovation in the rail sector, we will continue to make a safe network safer,” said AAR President and CEO Edward R. Hamberger.
“As our filing states, ‘safety is good business, and good business is good for safety.’ We applaud the USDOT for seeking thorough input from the full array of transportation stakeholders and welcome their effort to develop a paradigm most conducive to innovation and growth.”
AAR’s comments lastly address the interaction of autonomous-vehicle technology and automobiles at highway-rail grade crossings, noting that auto systems must be made in a way that will recognise and react to warning devices and approaching trains independently of train control systems. Positive train control (PTC), while important in stopping certain rail accidents caused by human error, simply cannot be used to combat incidents at grade crossings involving automobiles or pedestrians.
https://www.drybulkmagazine.com/rail-barge/07122018/association-of-american-railroads-urges-usdot-to-implement-automation-in-rail-industry/
-
What Wheeler Said After the Video Was Cut
Dec 7, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Niina Heikkinen
EPA drew sharp criticism on social media yesterday after shutting down the video feed of a news conference ahead of a question-and-answer session with the agency's acting chief.
Observers were quick to note on Twitter the agency cut short its livestream of acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler's announcement that the agency would be revising greenhouse gas emission standards for new and modified power plants (E&E News PM, Dec. 6). As Wheeler prepared to take questions from reporters, EPA spokesman John Konkus was seen signaling to the camera to cut off filming.
Here is a transcript of the Q&A section of yesterday's event that was not broadcast. Some portions of the remarks from a recording were not audible from an E&E News reporter's position at the back of an auditorium at EPA headquarters.
Reporter: Today's proposal — I think we understand there will be more carbon emitted from these coal power plants — how does this proposal not fly in the face of the recent government report put out by the Trump administration that urgently called for curbing carbon emissions from coal-fired plants?
Wheeler: First of all, our analysis shows that the proposal would not result in significant CO2 emission changes or costs, and that is in the proposal and you are welcome to take a look at it, comment on it to see if our data is correct. But we don't see an increase in CO2 costs. And the important thing to remember is this is not, we're following the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act requires us to take a look at what is adequately demonstrated as far as clean coal technologies is concerned. CCS is still important. We still support CCS, we support investment there, but it is not adequately demonstrated for purposes of the Clean Air Act. So what we are doing is setting a standard on what is adequately demonstrated, which is what is required under the Clean Air Act.
Reporter: But to be clear, the Obama rule you are rolling back called for the emissions rate to be 1,400 pounds, you are calling for it to be 1,900 pounds, so by definition, that would be allowing more carbon emissions. So my question is, is this the sort of situation where you are ignoring the government report, which makes clear we need to curb carbon emissions? This proposal seems to be doing the exact opposite.
Wheeler: We are not ignoring the government report. We're still looking at the report; I was just briefed on it this morning by some of our career scientists. A lot of what the media is focused on last week was the worst-case scenario. We will be taking a look at the report and the information provided in it. At the same time, we have statutory obligations passed by Congress in the Clean Air Act that we have to follow, and we are following the law. And as I said, [inaudible] we are going to do what the Clean Air Act tells us to do. The Clean Air Act also said that it has to be adequately demonstrated, and that is what we are doing today.
Reporter: Following up then, can you say how enabling new coal plants protects human health and the environment?
Wheeler: Coal is one of the cheapest forms of electricity. And having cheap electricity, affordable electricity protects human health, absolutely. There have been studies that have shown that if you have cheaper forms of electricity, you are able to afford in the winter heat, in the summer cool [inaudible], I think that's an important aspect of protecting human health. Again, what we are doing here today is following what the Clean Air Act tells us to do. We're following the law, and that is to set a standard of what is adequately demonstrated.
Reporter: A lot of utilities say they are not very interested in coal. Do you have sense of the level of interest? What gives you confidence that you are actually going to see the development of new coal plants?
Wheeler: Whether or not new coal plants are built in this country is a decision that the utility industry will make. We are not trying to pick winners and losers. We are not trying to tip the scale one way or the other. What I will tell you is when the United States develops cleaner technologies, those technologies are exported to other countries, so if we develop cleaner coal technologies, we will reduce pollution. I would love to see coal both in China and India meet our standard that we are proposing today, because they don't meet it today. So by allowing U.S. ingenuity to continue to develop, new technologies, by providing new technologies that can be exported to other countries so other countries can have cleaner coal-fired power plants.
The technologies designed here can be exported to other places, and that can bring down CO2 emissions worldwide.
Reporter: The proposal specifically asks for comment on the endangerment finding and whether it actually applies to coal-fired power plants under this category. It says it might not necessarily apply to new sources.
Wheeler: I'll have Mandy answer that.
Mandy Gunasekara, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation: The proposal doesn't take comment on the endangerment finding, it takes comment on the threshold issue of contribution. And under Section 1 of the Clean Air Act [inaudible], that comes to a contribution factor that is requisite in terms of triggering [inaudible]. So under Title 1 of the Clean Air Act, there is [a] significance requirement, and we are asking about that particular issue.
Reporter: It seems odd that you are saying few to no coal plants will be built, even though you are making this change, so therefore maybe the endangerment finding shouldn't apply to new coal plants at all.
Wheeler: I don't think that's what we're saying. Again, what we are saying is that the standard was adequately demonstrated, in the hope that industry could develop cleaner coal technologies. And whether those technologies would be deployed here or elsewhere, that doesn't matter. Hopefully they will be deployed in countries [inaudible].
Reporter: Can you identify some of these technologies that you are talking about? And my understanding is there are coal plants that have been built within the last decade that hit a lot lower than the 1,900 that you are setting.
Wheeler: You have to look across the board at what happened before. We are taking comment on what is the right technology to set the standard for and what is the right limit. But again, going back to the original Obama proposal, this regulation was set for CCS, which we don't believe is adequately demonstrated.
Reporter: A report from EPA said black Americans suffer disproportionate exposure to fine particulate matter, [which] causes health problems and early mortality, and [a] disproportionate number of black Americans actually live near coal and fossil fuel plants. The electricity is cheaper, but the exposure to pollutants is higher.
Wheeler: Well, we have a separate standard and regulatory programs to address fine particulate matter under the [National Ambient Air Quality Standards] program. We're continuing to look at that [inaudible]. That is a separate regulatory program. [Inaudible] ... there are different regulatory programs, we are still looking at fine particulate matter, we have a standards set. We're trying to get as many [inaudible] as we can [inaudible]. We're trying to look at how we can provide more tools to help poor communities, but that's a separate regulatory program.
Reporter: I just wanted to ask you more on the "adequately demonstrated" question here. Since the Obama-era standard was put in place, we've seen the Petra Nova plant in Texas, and we've of course had Congress pass the 45Q tax credit [for carbon capture and sequestration], that could make it significantly cheaper to deploy. Given those things, how do you stand by that this is not adequately demonstrated?
Wheeler: Well, just because the tax credits are passed doesn't mean the technology is then deployed yet. People are still working on it. But the encouraging thing [inaudible] Congress has the 45Q program that they authorized to continue investment and development of that technology. But as of today, I don't think anyone will say that CCS is adequately demonstrated in order to be put in place by regulation here in the United States.
Reporter: I wanted to follow up on the level of interest from industry. Do [you] have at least an approximate projection of interest, like the number of potential coal plants, the amount of potential investment and how it will add to the economy in terms of jobs?
Wheeler: No, that's not the role of EPA. Again, going back to what the law requires of us, we have to set a standard based on what was adequately demonstrated. We're allowing the free market and industry to come up with technologies, and move forward [inaudible].
Reporter: [Inaudible] What is the timeline you would like to see for the construction of some of these newer plants?
Wheeler: Well again, we are not trying to pick winners and losers. We're not trying to tell the industry to build any particular type of fuel-based power plant. But it's important that we have a level playing field. I don't know what the time frame is for the utility industry to build power plants, and I don't know whether or not they will build new coal-fired power plants in the United States. It's not the role of the EPA to pick energy winners and losers. We have to follow the Clean Air Act. We need to have an environment where if the technology shows clean coal-fired power plants should be built in the U.S., then they should be built in the U.S. [inaudible]
Reporter: I'm wondering if you could explain a little more your reasoning behind the technology export point. How does lifting emissions on U.S. coal plants lead to the development of cleaner energy technologies to be exported? Ostensibly, you could still be doing that now. I don't think a lot of people expect a lot of coal plants built with those technologies anyway.
Wheeler: Well, the original Obama proposal would only have allowed CCS. So that's where all the research dollars, that's where the industry is focusing on how to make CCS financially, technically feasible to be developed here. We are supposed to set the standards that are adequately demonstrated, and that is what we are doing. And I believe, and a lot of the industry told us, that if we re-up the regulatory structure so people can invest in different technologies that might take us further. [inaudible] China is still building coal-fired power plants. There are new coal-fired power plants being built in India, Indonesia. Those countries aren't building their coal-fired power plants to the same level of protection that we have here in the United States. So by continuing to incentivize people to invest in different technologies through the regulatory process, hopefully that will create an export market for our technologies so that Third World countries can use cleaner technologies.
Reporter: So to be clear [cross-talk]
Wheeler: And it's the new plants being built aren't necessarily being built to the same standards as the United States, but we want to encourage that technology.
Reporter: So I just want to be clear, the motivation of using such technology in the United States is what EPA expects to drive innovation that could be exported.
Wheeler: Yes, if I understood your question correctly, yes.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/12/07/stories/1060109097
-
EPA Shrugs at Downwind States with 'Good Neighbor' Smog Rule
Dec 7, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Just hours after announcing a potential boon to builders of new coal-fired power plants, acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler yesterday delivered a more tangible win for operators of existing facilities in much of the United States.
In a final rule released late in the afternoon, Wheeler said the agency wouldn't order 20 states to take any new steps to curb emissions from coal plants that may contribute to downwind smog beyond their borders.
Instead, those states will only have to abide by the 2016 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) update, which Wheeler said in a news release has already cut releases of nitrogen oxides — a key contributor to the formation of ozone, a component of smog — by more than 20 percent.
EPA had unveiled that status-quo "good neighbor" strategy in late June, accompanied by a forecast that all of the eastern United States will be in compliance with the 2008 ozone standard by 2023. The proposal nonetheless met with vocal opposition from regulators in some Northeastern states that are struggling to meet the 75-parts-per-billion threshold and blame upwind emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) for at least part of the problem.
"EPA should not rely upon this as a full remedy," Maryland Environment Secretary Ben Grumbles said at the August public hearing.
In a statement this morning, Grumbles reiterated his disagreement, saying that about 70 percent of Maryland's ozone problem originates in upwind states. The final EPA rule lacks "common-sense" emissions reduction strategies, such as running existing power plant pollution controls every day during the summertime ozone season, Grumbles added.
In a joint news release issued late yesterday, a coalition of advocacy groups assailed Wheeler's decision as a setback for the environment and public health.
EPA "should honor" its duty to protect people from unhealthy air "instead of jumping through hoops to protect polluters from compliance," Earthjustice staff attorney Neil Gormley said in the release.
Earlier in the day, some of the same groups had also slammed the administration's plan for replacing Obama-era emissions standards for new coal-fired power plants. Among other provisions, that proposed rule would raise the limit on carbon emissions from large facilities.
While Wheeler said the proposal would encourage investment in "cleaner coal technology," EPA acknowledged in an accompanying economic analysis that new fossil fuel plants would still likely run on cheaper natural gas (Climatewire, Dec. 7).
Ozone, a lung irritant that is a prime ingredient in smog, is formed by the reaction of NOx and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. It's linked to asthma attacks in children and worsened breathing problems for people with cystic fibrosis, emphysema and other chronic respiratory diseases. Under the Clean Air Act's good neighbor provisions, states are supposed to curb pollution that undercuts downwind compliance efforts outside their borders.
In opting to primarily rely on the CSAPR update to satisfy that goal, EPA questioned the feasibility of adopting other requirements to control NOx releases and noted its forecast that all of the eastern United States will meet the 75 ppb standard by 2023. States covered by the CSAPR update include New York and New Jersey but range as far west as Iowa, Texas and Kansas.
The Utility Air Regulatory Group, an industry trade organization, backed the plan.
But critics have questioned whether the 2023 forecast is based on overly optimistic air modeling. States already in nonattainment for the 2008 standard also fear that their compliance status could be downgraded in the meantime.
"Delaware is disappointed that EPA continues to dismiss the state's need for relief from emission impacts from upwind sources," Shawn Garvin, head of the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, said in a separate statement today.
The department, he said, "will review EPA's response to our comments in their final action and take appropriate steps to protect the health of our citizens and our economy."
Both Maryland and Delaware are already suing EPA over the federal agency's rejection of their petitions for a crackdown on selected power plants in upwind states.
In a motion earlier this week, New York sought to intervene on their side in the litigation. Late last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral arguments on another suit brought by eight states, including those three, that challenge EPA's denial of a separate request to significantly expand a regional ozone control program (Greenwire, Nov. 28).
Wheeler signed the final good neighbor rule yesterday in accordance with a court-ordered deadline. Under the Clean Air Act, the agency was supposed to have issued the rule in August 2017.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/12/07/stories/1060109093
-
The World Still Isn't Meeting Its Climate Goals
Dec 7, 2018 | The New York Times
By Brad Plumer and Nadja Popovich
Three years after nearly 200 countries signed a landmark climate agreement in Paris, they are still far off-track from preventing severe global warming in the decades ahead. This month, diplomats from around the world are gathering in Katowice, Poland, to discuss stepping up their efforts.
It’s an enormous challenge. Under the Paris deal, every nation volunteered a plan to curtail its greenhouse gas emissions between then and 2030. But many large emitters aren’t even on track to meet their self-imposed targets, according to new data from Climate Action Tracker.
What’s more, even if every country did manage to fulfil its individual pledge, the world would still be on pace to heat up well in excess of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over preindustrial levels, the threshold that world leaders vowed to stay “well below” in Paris because they deemed it unacceptably risky.
Right now, current pledges put the world on pace for around 3 degrees Celsius of warming. To reach the broader Paris goals, countries would have to dramatically accelerate the transition toward clean energy over the next 12 years. But, with global emissions on pace to rise sharply this year, time is running short.
“It is plain we are way off course,” said António Guterres, the secretary general of the United Nations, in a speech in Katowice this week. “We are still not doing enough, nor moving fast enough, to prevent irreversible and catastrophic climate disruption.”
Under the Paris Agreement, former President Barack Obama pledged to slash United States emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. That was already a tough task: While pollution from the country’s power plants is falling rapidly as utilities retire coal plants in favor of cleaner natural gas and renewables, sectors like transportation and heavy industry have proven harder to clean up.
But President Trump has disavowed the Paris agreement altogether and is now moving to dismantle Obama-era climate regulations like efficiency standards for cars and light trucks. And while some states, including New York and California, are pursuing their own policies on renewable energy and electric vehicles, they may not prove sufficient to close the gap.
For now, analysts say the United States will fall well short of its Paris pledge. That, in turn, could make it harder for future administrations to pursue the even deeper emissions cuts by midcentury that are needed to help keep the world well below 2 degrees of global warming.
Although the European Union is currently on pace to fall slightly short of its promise to cut emissions 40 percent by 2030, compared with 1990 levels, that may soon change.
In June, European officials agreed on more ambitious new measures for renewable power and energy efficiency which, if implemented, would help the union meet its overall emissions targets, according to Climate Action Tracker. And officials are now debating whether to revise their 2030 pledge and pursue even deeper emissions cuts.
Still, there are plenty of obstacles: While countries like Britain and the Netherlands have vowed to phase out the use of coal power, Poland is currently building new coal plants. And the Continent as a whole has been slower to curb pollution from cars and trucks.
Experts say China submitted a Paris pledge that was relatively easy to meet: overall emissions would peak around 2030 and the country would get 20 percent of its energy from non-fossil sources.
The country appears to be on track to hit that target. Analysts now expect China’s once-insatiable demand for coal to level off by the mid-2020s, and the government is investing heavily in cleaner sources like solar, wind and nuclear. China also now sells more electric cars and buses than the rest of the world combined.
But the analysts at Climate Action Tracker rated China’s existing pledge as “highly insufficient” and suggested that the country would have to step up its efforts considerably to help keep the world well below 2 degrees of warming. The country’s coal emissions, for instance, would most likely need to decline significantly by 2030 rather than simply flatten out.
India, which has long held that wealthier countries should take the lead on cutting emissions, has a less restrictive Paris pledge than Europe or the United States.
The country vowed to install more clean energy and improve its carbon intensity, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of gross domestic product, while still allowing total emissions to rise through 2030. India’s emissions per person emissions would most likely still be lower than America’s or China’s.
Based on recent trends, it now looks plausible that India could surpass those goals as the falling cost of solar power and shifting market conditions have allowed the country to scale back plans for new coal plants. But the country’s emissions trajectory remains uncertain and the Indian government has asked for financial assistance from other countries to help ratchet up its climate efforts.Brazil and Indonesia: forests threatened
Brazil and Indonesia are the world’s seventh- and eighth-largest emitters of greenhouse gases, in large part because farmers in those countries continue to burn and clear away carbon-rich rain forests and peatlands for agriculture.
The two countries had vowed to better protect their forests as part of their Paris pledges, but both are now struggling to do so. In Brazil, deforestation rates have increased since 2012 after years of decline. And President-elect Jair Bolsanaro, who takes office in January, has vowed to roll back safeguards in the Amazon rain forest in order to promote ranching and logging.
Indonesia has struggled to constrain the palm oil and paper plantations that are encroaching on its forests and peatlands. And the government has announced plans to double coal-fired power by 2025, which would further increase emissions.What happens next
Negotiators are meeting in Katowice now to discuss guidelinesfor making national pledges and policies more detailed and transparent, so that outsiders can gauge individual countries’ progress (or lack thereof) more precisely.
Many of the Paris pledges remain fairly opaque, and nations are often vague on what specific policies they will take to meet them. There is still no official mechanism for quantifying progress. As a result, groups like Climate Action Tracker have had to make rough estimates as to whether countries are on pace to meet their pledges and how much further each country would need to go for the world to stay well below 2 degrees of global warming.
Increasing the transparency of pledges could make it easier for countries to pressure each other do more, but, ultimately, it will be up to national and local governments to decide to take stronger action. World leaders have informally agreed to consider strengthening their existing pledges before another round of talks in 2020, but it is still unclear how much they intend to do.
The Katowice talks “will be in many ways the opening bell on that sprint toward 2020,” said Nathan Hultman, director of the Center for Global Sustainability at the University of Maryland and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/07/climate/world-emissions-paris-goals-not-on-track.html
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested