Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 20/12/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Addressing the Global Plastic Waste Crisis
Dec 20, 2018 | Waste 360
By Mallory Szczepanski
Over the years, plastic waste has become a hot topic of discussion. -
(ACC Mentioned) Pressure to Reduce Consumption of Single-Use Plastic Packaging Will Continue Into 2019
Dec 20, 2018 | Plastics Today
By Clare Goldsberry
It’s not hard to pinpoint the trends and issues that will impact the plastics industry in 2019—in many cases, they will be the same challenges that the industry has faced for the past two decades. -
EU Bodies Reach Provisional Agreement on Single-Use Plastics Ban
Dec 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The EU Council and EU Parliament have reached a provisional agreement on a new Directive setting restrictions on certain single-use plastic products. -
NGOs Demand Release of REACH Studies Submitted as Confidential Under TSCA
Dec 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A coalition of NGOs has filed a public records request demanding the release of REACH studies submitted to the US EPA under TSCA that are being withheld as confidential. -
Court Grants EPA Motion to Revisit Provision of TSCA Risk Evaluation Rule
Dec 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A California court has given the US EPA the go-ahead to vacate and reevaluate a provision of its TSCA risk evaluation rule that allows for criminal penalties against those who submit inaccurate or incomplete information to the agency. -
US EPA Round-Up
Dec 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
After evaluation under the TSCA new chemicals programme, the US EPA has determined that two substances are not likely to pose an unreasonable risk to human or environmental health. -
(ACC Mentioned) Timeline: The History of Ethylene Oxide, from WWII Food Rations to Suburban Air Pollution
Dec 20, 2018 | Chicago Tribune
By Michael Hawthorne
The chemical at the center of a Willowbrook environmental controversy -- ethylene oxide -- was discovered nearly 160 years ago and used over the decades as a sterilizer. -
Trump Administration’s Lead Action Plan is a Missed Opportunity to Protect Kids from Lead
Dec 20, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
Yesterday, the President’s Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children released its long-delayed Federal Action Plan to Reduce Childhood Lead Exposures and Associated Health Impacts (Lead Action Plan). -
US EPA Seeks Lead Reductions in Cosmetics, Consumer Products
Dec 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
The US EPA is looking to reduce exposure to lead from cosmetics and consumer products as a part of its recently published management plan to address the heavy metal. -
PFAS Panel: Drinking Water Standards for Chemical May Be Too Lenient
Dec 20, 2018 | Detroit News
By Beth LeBlanc
An independent science panel has recommended Michigan lower its drinking water health advisory level for per- and polyfluoroalkyl, but changes are unlikely to be adopted before year's end. -
US Senator Urges FDA to Investigate J&J Asbestos Allegations
Dec 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
A member of the US Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, called on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to investigate allegations that consumer products conglomerate Johnson & Johnson has known for decades that its talc products contained asbestos. -
Company Sues 3M Over PFAS Linked to Contaminated Water
Dec 20, 2018 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
A western Michigan-based footwear company has sued a chemical manufacturer linked to contaminated water detected at military bases and industrial sites. -
NGO, Researchers Call for US Action on Substances of Concern in Carpets
Dec 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
A group of research institutes and NGOs have called on US carpet manufacturers to increase efforts to remove chemicals of concern, such as PFASs and phthalates, from their products. -
US and Canada Release Risk Assessment Plans for Coming Years
Dec 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
Both the US and Canada have released details on their risk assessment plans for the coming years, under the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and the Chemicals Management Plan (CMP), respectively. -
EPA, IDEM Approve Disposal of Contaminated Material in East Chicago Facility
Dec 20, 2018 | Chicago Tribune
By Craig Lyons
A plan to dispose of PCB-contaminated material from the Indiana Harbor and Shipping Canal in an East Chicago waste facility has won federal and state approval. -
Medication or Hazardous Waste?
Dec 20, 2018 | The National Law Review
By David M. Bates
While much of the environmental bar was focused on the Waters of the U.S. rulemaking, on December 11, U.S. EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler signed the new hazardous waste pharmaceutical rule. -
Consumer Bodies Pressure Commission for Stronger Action on ‘Slime’
Dec 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Caterina Tani
EU consumer groups said it is "urgently necessary" that the European Commission takes on a "coordinating role" to ensure illegal products on the single market will "reliably" be removed by member states before more consumers buy them. -
Efsa Panel Lowers Tolerable Intakes for PFOS and PFOA
Dec 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
In the first of two assessments of perfluoroalkylated substances (PFASs), the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) has proposed lowering tolerable intakes of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in foods, after examining human epidemiological evidence. -
Echa's Committees Unable to Conclude on Tattoo Derogations
Dec 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
A lack of test data means that Echa's risk assessment and socio-economic analysis committees (Rac and Seac) cannot conclude on derogations for two commonly used green and blue pigments, as part of a proposed restriction for hazardous substances in tattoo inks and permanent make-up (PMU). -
Echa Round-Up
Dec 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa has submitted a proposal to restrict:five cobalt salts: cobalt sulphate, cobalt dichloride, cobalt dinitrate, cobalt carbonate and cobalt di(acetate). -
Exxon Urges EPA to Maintain Methane Rules
Dec 20, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Exxon Mobil is pressing the Environmental Protection Agency to maintain key elements of the Obama administration policy restricting methane emissions from oil and gas drilling. -
New York Producers Fighting Efforts to Further Curb VOCs, Methane
Dec 20, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
New York regulators are seeking input on an early draft of rules to further curb volatile organic compounds (VOC) and methane emissions, a proposal that one state oil and natural gas industry group has warned could be “devastating” for producers if it’s finalized. -
Trump's Energy Policy Shows Global Vision
Dec 20, 2018 | RealClearEnergy
By Tom Basile
Perhaps no other policy has felt such a distinct change in direction during the Trump Administration than America’s energy policy. -
Protests Greet McNamee at First Meeting
Dec 20, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Jeremy Dillon
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission today welcomed its newest member, Bernard McNamee, amid protests calling for his recusal over concerns he may not remain impartial with agenda items related to grid resilience. -
FERC Scraps Votes on 2 Gas Projects
Dec 20, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
FERC leadership will no longer vote on a natural gas pipeline or a liquefied natural gas export terminal this morning as originally scheduled, according to the agenda distributed ahead of the agency’s monthly meeting. -
FERC OKs 60-Mile Pipeline to Meet Ohio LDC Demand; Glick Dissents
Dec 20, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
RH energytrans LLC’s Risberg Line Project, which would move 55,000 Dth/d of natural gas from northwest Pennsylvania to northeast Ohio to meet increasing demand, has been approved by FERC. -
EU Limits Workplace Diesel Fumes in Bid to Cut Cancer Deaths
Dec 20, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Bus garages, vehicle repair shops, mines, and other workplaces in the European Union could have to take action to reduce buildups of diesel fumes under a law on occupational exposure to carcinogens finalized on Dec. 20. -
Denver’s Regional Transportation District Submits Plan to Fix PTC, Signal, Crossing Problems
Dec 20, 2018 | Railway Track and Structures
By Paul Conley
The Regional Transportation District has released a 35-page plan outlining the steps it will take to resolve issues with crossing gates on the line that serves the Denver International Airport. -
Marathon Hearing Set for Climate Rule
Dec 20, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Niina Heikkinen
EPA has announced it will be holding a lone public hearing on its proposed rule on greenhouse gas emissions from new and modified power plants early next month. -
DC Passes Bill to Use 100 Percent Renewable Energy by 2032
Dec 20, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
The Washington, D.C., City Council has passed a bill promising the District’s electric grid will run entirely on renewable energy by 2032. -
Environmentalists Sue EPA Over Alaska's PM2.5 NAAQS Violations
Dec 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are suing EPA after the agency missed several deadlines to ensure that Fairbanks, AK, crafted Clean Air Act-mandated state implementation plans (SIPs) detailing how the area would reduce fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions in order to attain the PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). -
Democratic Leaders Ask Kathy Castor to Chair Climate Panel
Dec 20, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Mark K. Matthews, Nick Sobczyk and George Cahlink
Democratic House leaders have tapped Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) to lead a new committee on climate change in the next Congress, the lawmaker confirmed this morning. -
EPA Seeks Advisers
Dec 20, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
EPA is looking for candidates to serve on its Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, which furnishes outside feedback on a range of issues related to implementation of the landmark environmental law. -
Save the World with Green Infrastructure
Dec 20, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By A. Donald McEachin
Climate change poses an existential threat to our society.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Addressing the Global Plastic Waste Crisis
Dec 20, 2018 | Waste 360
By Mallory Szczepanski
Over the years, plastic waste has become a hot topic of discussion. More recently, that conversation has heated up as companies make commitments to use less plastic or recycled plastic in their products, groups try to remove the ample amount of plastic in the waterways and China enforces its National Sword policy.
These topics, along with many others, were discussed during a roundtable dinner hosted by The Atlantic in Washington, D.C., on December 12. Attendees of the dinner included Brad Ack, senior vice president, Oceans World Wildlife Foundation; Emily Akhtarzandi, managing director, AtlanticLIVE; Steve Alexander, president, Association of Plastic Recyclers; Nicole Camilleri, packaging technical applications group specialist, Nestlé USA; John Caturano, national recycling manager, Nestlé Waters North America; Kelly Cramer, lead How2Recycle program, Sustainable Packaging Coalition; Kate Daly, executive director of the Center for the Circular Economy, Closed Loop Partners; Jim Foster, president and CEO, Anacostia Watershed Society; Miriam Goldstein Director, Ocean Policy, Center for American Progress; Keefe Harrison, CEO, The Recycling Partnership; Barbara Hendrie, regional director, North America United Nations Environment; Daniel Jhung President, beverage division, Nestlé USA; April Martin, co-chair, DC EcoWomen; Julia Roberson, vice president, Communications Ocean Conservancy; Michelle Romero, national director, Green for All; Steve Russell, vice president, Plastics Division American Chemistry Council; Mallory Szczepanski, editorial director, Waste360; Matt Thompson, executive editor, The Atlantic; and Steve Toloken, news editor, Plastics News.
Here is a brief overview of some of the main topics discussed during the event.Tackling Marine Pollution
Marine pollution was the first topic brought up at the roundtable dinner. Roberson kicked off the discussion by sharing that the conversation around ocean plastic “has just exploded” and that she can’t even open her Facebook feed without seeing a mention about the latest marine pollution crisis.
“I think conversations about the issue are starting to pop up everywhere because more and more people are becoming aware of the issue and they care,” said Roberson. “The issue is critical, and whether you’re skipping straws or participating in a beach cleanup, you’re making a difference and helping lead others down that path. Your personal choice won’t solve the entire problem but having that motivation to actually take action does make a difference.”
One of the biggest marine pollution cleanup efforts, led by The Ocean Cleanup, launched in September. The cleanup is of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a swirling mass of plastic waste between California and Hawaii that has grown to at least 87,000 tons, according to researchers.
The Ocean Cleanup began using a trash-collecting device to begin its cleanup efforts but just recently announced that the device has to undergo a revamp because it was having trouble holding on to the trash it was supposed to collect.
Additionally, the topic of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and its reality was discussed this week in a 60 Minutes report. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's Kevin O'Brien shared with 60 Minutes that when he sailed through the Garbage Patch, he noticed an uptick in the amount of plastic he was seeing all around him, but it wasn't quite an island of trash. Rather, plastics floating in the ocean are exposed to several environmental factors that cause them to break down into smaller fragments, making them more difficult to remove.
While marine plastic waste is a trending topic of discussion, there’s another issue rising to the surface at a fast pace: greenhouse gases.
“Part of everything we produce and consume has carbon dioxide, which is entering the oceans and having a major impact,” explained Ack. “There is a warming of the ocean that has a lag time and will continue over a century, a melting of ice sheets in places like the Arctic and Iceland, changing currents and sea levels and so on. The carbon and greenhouse gas are exactly parallel to plastics in terms of what’s causing the issue and who is responsible.”
While it’s up for debate whether manufacturers, companies or citizens are actually to blame for these issues, various groups from around the globe are coming together in an effort to combat the growing problem. And one of the strongest voices is the younger demographic.
Children and teens are raising awareness about ocean pollution and taking action—from launching their own campaigns, to joining cleanup efforts, to participating in events like the Ocean Heroes Bootcamp.
This year, the bootcamp challenged youths to come up with effective and efficient solutions for the reduction of plastic straws, which pollute the world’s waters and harm marine life.
“These youths and their ideas are going to save us,” said Hendrie. “They are our future.”
Designing for Recycling
Designing for recycling has been a hot topic of discussion this year, and it was certainly mentioned numerous times during the roundtable dinner. Industries including waste and recycling, architecture and design, manufacturing, food and beverage and so on are starting to think about recycling at the beginning of the design process, and as that is happening, more and more creative ideas are being brought to the table. But some of those ideas, while creative, may present even more recycling challenges.
“When we talk about designing for recycling, we need to focus on creating purely recyclable packages that MRFs [materials recovery facilities] and other recycling facilities are actually able to recycle,” said Harrison. “Packaging is very complex, and there can be different barriers in different types of products like bottles and food pouches. We need to overcome those barriers, and to do that, we need to be more transparent about what can and cannot actually be recycled.”
Major brands around the globe, like Nestlé, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Kellogg, have made commitments to use recycled materials in their packaging. And while those commitments seem great on the surface, Russell said you have to be cautious about those commitments because when companies say they want their packaging to be recyclable, what do they actually mean?
“Some companies make commitments and demand purchase to make their products recyclable,” stated Russell. “That is extremely important to note. We can educate everyone on recycling all we want, but there have to be systems that can process and recycle these materials, and there have to be end markets for those items.”
Currently, there is a shortage of end markets due to commodity prices and the continuous moves from China, which banned a number of imports earlier this year and put into place a 0.5 percent contamination standard. It’s important that the industry starts to create a demand for recycled materials, and once those end markets are established, more companies have a reason to incorporate more recycled materials into their packaging and products.
“One of the biggest challenges about getting brands and companies to utilize recycled materials in their packaging and products is how particular they are,” explained Cramer. “Some claim the material isn’t the right color for them, and that is one of the reasons why we are working on a design for recycled content guide. We are trying to break through the recycling myths about using recycled plastics for a brand audience, and I think marketers hold the power there because they can help reconceptualize what consumers want and need by using their purchasing powers to educate consumers.”
This trending topic goes hand-in-hand with the push to reduce the use of single-use plastics, which is a global effort.Reducing the Use of Single-use Plastics
It’s really no surprise that Collins Dictionary has chosen “single-use” as its 2018 word of the year. The term is used often, and many bans have recently been put in place for single-use items like plastic straws, stirrers, bags and cutlery. In addition, companies around the globe have announced commitments to phase out the use of many single-use products.
“Everyone uses the term ‘single-use,’ and it’s really a conversation diverter,” said Russell. “If we are going to aim high and be aspirational about fixing broken systems, we have to talk about designing systems that manage all of our waste. Sure, we can create bans for things like plastic bags and straws, but those items only make up part of the waste stream. The issue is bigger than that, and we need to have a systemic approach about how things that can be used one time can be reused.”
Manufacturers and companies around the globe are starting to generate ideas to reduce the production of single-use products. And while consumers appreciate the convenience and ease of single-use items, they may need a helping hand in making decisions about their product choices.
“I appreciate single-use and think it’s important for certain things, but we’re not going to solve the problem by trying to change the behavior of more than 5 billion people,” stated Ack. “What we really need to do is what I refer to as ‘choice editing,’ which is essentially the act of taking away the choice of single-use plastic and not trying to force consumers to make a choice on their own. Give them sustainable choices and take the ones that aren’t sustainable off the table.”
More and more consumers are becoming aware of the problems surrounding single-use plastic, and they are starting to pay more attention to which companies are promoting sustainability and making moves to reduce waste.
“Instead of channeling our efforts toward creating the next best photo app, we need to channel those efforts toward solving some of our world’s biggest problems, such as plastic waste,” added Ack. “We are moving to a world that demands a decarbonized economy, and it’s our role to lead those efforts.”
Countries across the globe are listening to some of those demands and going as far as banning certain single-use materials. France, for example, has banned plastic bags, and in 2020, will extend its ban to include plastic plates, cups and utensils. And on December 19, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union reached an agreement on a ban of single-use plastic products, inching closer to the ban becoming a reality.
“I think we are in a weak moment for real intergovernmental agreement at a global level, but we are seeing a bubbling up from developing countries as political leaders are paying more attention to these issues and starting to realize their political future is at stake,” stated Hendrie. “There are 60 countries globally that have enacted some sort of ban or regime to regulate single-use plastics, and while I don’t think there is a moment right now for an intergovernmental ban, the debates amongst political leaders are starting to become more and more focused on regulations and solutions.”
While efforts are being made overseas, some municipalities within the U.S. have also passed their own legislations and regulations. Examples include Boston, Seattle, a number of cities in California, among others.
“When I heard about the single-use plastic ban in California, the first thing that came to my mind was ‘what am I going to use to roll out tortillas and keep everything from sticking together while I am smashing and rolling?’” said Romero. “It’s just something my culture does, and I think the plastic problem is really a problem of privilege in a lot of ways. There’s some income disparity to this problem as well, and there are a lot of people who do save and reuse items like butter containers.”
At a time where awareness about plastic waste is on the rise, and everyone is working toward a common goal of reducing waste and using less plastic, a call for behavior change is also in order. Many people and companies often send plastic recyclables to landfill due to contamination or confusion at the bin, and industry leaders and product manufacturers are trying to overcome those challenges via education.Advocating for Behavior Change Via Education and Regulation
There is no uniform method for recycling, and each municipality handles recycling differently. Because of this, people often get confused about what can and cannot be recycled. And with more municipalities making changes about what materials they can and cannot accept due to low commodity prices and lack of end markets, confusion levels are increasing.
To change consumer behavior, there needs to be more consumer options, according to many roundtable attendees. Step one should be to ensure consumers can actually recycle certain materials in their municipality, and step two should be to determine if they will actually make the effort to recycle the materials if given that option.
Consumers often want to do the “right thing,” or the “green thing,” but they don’t want to have to change their behavior in a way that restricts them from making use of products they use regularly. For example, if a product used to be packaged in a can and now it’s packaged in a pouch, it’s important for the consumer to know if that pouch can be recycled.
“There’s a lot of stress on consumers, and as a mom, I am already trying to figure out the chemicals in the sunscreen and so many other things,” stated Romero. “Government agencies and municipalities need to work with companies and manufacturers to make sure that products can be recycled and that there’s an easy way for consumers to know if those products are in fact recyclable in their area.”
Education is key to improving recycling and reducing contamination, and some are targeting younger generations to start best practices early.
For example, some schools are handing out refillable water bottles and ditching plastic water bottles. And some are incorporating recycling education into curriculums.
“There’s an investment that needs to be made at the very beginning and that’s with young people,” said Martin. “We have a lot of young people thinking about recycling and redesigning products, and we need to invest in them because they will be sitting at this table years from now planning our future.”
In addition to consumer education, there are also regulatory solutions that are starting to become more prominent as recycling levels remain stagnant around the world.
“You can educate and push to change behavior amongst consumers, but at the end of the day, you still have products you have to deal with at the end of their lifecycle,” stated Russell. “We have a lot of recycling facilities that were designed in the 1970s, and we need to upgrade those facilities to meet the needs of today and the future. Facilities are struggling with contamination and lack of end markets, and if you are just sorting and processing materials that have no demand, you really aren’t helping the problem, and you can actually lose money in the process. We can educate people about recycling, but it’s important that the materials can actually be recycled when they enter recycling facilities.”
In addition to ensuring facilities can handle materials, it’s important that the industry develops more domestic infrastructure, especially as the next wave of China’s National Sword regulations take effect in 2019.Pushing for More Domestic (and International) Infrastructure
In February, the Trump administration released a 53-page infrastructure plan, outlining its proposal for rebuilding America’s infrastructure. The proposed plan, which is one of the largest to be released by the White House, has some similarities to Australia’s infrastructure plan, which has been proven successful.
The plan includes details on providing better access to education and workforce development, repairing and expanding transportation infrastructure, streamlining the permitting process by creating a new, expedited structure for environmental reviews and so on, but it’s missing a major component: recycling.
“If we want to continue to use plastic in the world, we need to get a grip and invest billions into recycling infrastructure,” stated Cramer. “We need to collect that material before it goes into the environment and have the capability to turn it into something new. Some business models out there are good for the short term, but we need to start thinking about the long term.”
“I understand that the lack of value attributed to materials is one of the main reasons why materials are going to waste and not being managed properly, but we really need to take action now before things worsen,” added Cramer.
According to Harrison, access to good, consistent, high-quality feedstock to make into new products is at the top of the list for manufacturers’ needs. And including funding for improved recycling in the infrastructure plan is a way to ensure long-term reliable supply created in the U.S. and to help communities provide universal recycling access to their households through the procurement of recycling carts, trucks and other equipment also made in the U.S.
“I am interested in when there’s going to be a shift from reactive recycling to proactive recycling,” said Harrison. “There are a lot of entrepreneurial geniuses in the world who look around and find piles of material to turn into a competition for virgin feedstock. That is a reactive solution, and we can’t just wait for those solutions to happen. We must drive those solutions and keep those ideas in motion.”
Adding to Harrison’s thoughts, Hendrie said, “There is a lot of downstream recycling infrastructure in this country, and even if we solve some of the infrastructure problems, production is still on the rise. We need to somehow bend that curve upstream instead of just putting band-aids on the problems.”
While a main focus has been on figuring out ways to develop more domestic infrastructure, there’s also a need to improve international infrastructure.
For a long time, China accepted recyclable materials from a number of countries, including the U.S., and much of that was contaminated. And now, with the country no longer accepting a number of imported materials, the pressure is put on other countries to better manage their uptick in imports.
In areas like Thailand, Vietnam and Malaysia, for example, the amount of imports has been overwhelming. And in response, the countries have put in place their own bans on imports of foreign scrap plastic.
“The reason why production is going up and facilities aren’t being built is because the population is going up, and everyone is trying to figure out how to feed, clothe and educate people in addition to keeping them healthy,” stated Russell. “People deserve to have access to food and clean drinking water, and at some point, we need to have an honest conversation about how we will accommodate that infrastructure.”
As we round the corner to 2019, there is a clear need for infrastructure development and improvement across the globe. And according to nearly every attendee of the roundtable, it’s going to take a group effort to make these changes
https://www.waste360.com/plastics/addressing-global-plastic-waste-crisis
-
Dec 20, 2018 | Plastics Today
By Clare Goldsberry
It’s not hard to pinpoint the trends and issues that will impact the plastics industry in 2019—in many cases, they will be the same challenges that the industry has faced for the past two decades. While plastics usage in durable goods isn’t so much a focus of those wanting to rid the world of plastic waste, packaging and water bottles will be under increased pressure thanks to a harsher light being thrown on plastics in the marine environment.
There’s also more noise about how recycling isn’t working, evidenced by low recycling rates and a lack of infrastructure, particularly in developing countries in the Asia-Pacific region, where most of the plastic waste is entering the Pacific Ocean.
According to figures from various sources, 40% of all plastic ends up as packaging for thousands of consumer goods, which is typically used once and discarded. The many benefits of plastic makes it ideal for safety, freshness, a longer shelf-life, lightweighting for transportation and fuel savings, and even creating better health for populations around the world.Sponsored Content Brought to you by PLASTEC WESTSEE THE LATEST PLASTICS INNOVATIONS AT PLASTEC WEST
PLASTEC West brings you the latest solutions and technology in injection molding, materials & additives, rapid prototyping, coatings, automation, and more. Our exhibitors offer a variety of services that can fulfill your production needs.
Last spring, the Washington-based American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Plastics Division announced three goals it says “crystallize U.S. plastics producers’ commitment to recycle or recover all plastic packaging used in the United States by 2040.” These goals for capturing, recycling and recovering plastics before they enter the environment are:100% of plastic packaging to be re-used, recycled or recovered by 2040;100% of plastic packaging used should be recyclable or recoverable by 2030; and100% of the U.S. manufacturing sites operated by ACC’s Plastics Division members will participate in Operation Clean Sweep-Blue (designed to minimize pellet, flake and powder loss) by 2020, with all of those manufacturing sites in North America involved by 2022.
While all of that sounds promising for creating the circular economy that everyone wants as a solution to plastic waste, how do we get these discarded, single-use items—particularly water bottles—into a value stream that captures the benefits and value of plastic waste and creates greater usefulness?
Bottled water is big business
While bottled water is in for consumers, plastic water bottles are out, according to numerous news reports that say consumers are becoming more concerned about the plethora of water bottles floating around in the ocean. Bottled water companies, which are enjoying a boom as consumers turn away from sugary drinks and avoid drinking tap water, are trying to come up with a better bottle. But that doesn’t look promising, according to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, “Bottled Water Confronts Its Plastic,” by Saabira Chaudhuri (Dec. 13, 2018).
U.S. bottled water consumption rose by 284% between 1994 and 2017. Most of that growth was driven by single-serve bottles, which make up 67% of U.S. sales, but recycling rates of those bottles are down, said the WSJ article. Some people are turning to reusable bottles—either metal or glass—but they have their downsides, as well.
A recent study published by Fact.MR, "Reusable Water Bottles Market," projected that this market will see a 3.1% year-on-year increase over 2017, exceeding US $8.3 billion by the end of this year. “The study remains bullish on the continual rise in demand for reusable water bottles, as growing environmental concerns are driving consumers as well as end-use industrial sectors to switch to eco-friendly alternatives for single-use water bottles,” said Fact.MR.
With recycling rates for PET water bottles at around one-third of all bottles made, that leaves a lot of PET out there needing to be recycled into something—carpets and other textiles, but rarely back into food-grade PET for more water bottles. In fact, a joint report from the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) and the American Chemistry Council shows that plastic bottle recycling declined slightly in 2017, slipping 3.6% to 2.8 billion pounds. The overall recycling rate for plastic bottles for the year was 29.3%, down from 29.7% in 2016.
Factors contributing to industry challenges included changing export markets and a 3.6% drop in material collected for recycling. Ongoing increases in single-stream collection also led to increased contamination of recyclables in the near term, said the report. In addition, growth in the use of plastic bottles was offset by continuing progress in lightweighting and increased use of concentrates with smaller, lighter bottles.
In 2017, PET bottles collected for recycling decreased by 27 million pounds. The collection of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottles, which includes bottles for milk, household cleaners and detergents, fell by 70.3 million pounds (6.3%) to just over one billion pounds for the year. The recycling rate for HDPE bottles slipped from 33.4% to 31.1%.
“Plastic bottle recycling is proving to be resilient in the face of short-term challenges,” said Steve Alexander, president of APR. “The recycling industry is responding in kind, with some investing in increased U.S. infrastructure, a clear sign of a positive long-term outlook. These investments underscore the need for continued consumer participation and convenient access to recycling programs.”Sponsored Content Brought to you by PLASTEC WESTSEE THE LATEST PLASTICS INNOVATIONS AT PLASTEC WEST
PLASTEC West brings you the latest solutions and technology in injection molding, materials & additives, rapid prototyping, coatings, automation, and more. Our exhibitors offer a variety of services that can fulfill your production needs.
The low rates of recycling could put a damper on the use of recycled materials that are needed to help bottle makers reduce the amount of virgin resin and contribute to consumers’ desire for “green” bottles made with recycled material.
Europe does a bit better than the United States when it comes to collecting and recycling PET. A 2017 survey of the European PET recycling industry, released on Dec. 19, 2018, shows that 58.2% of PET bottles were collected out of 3,308,300 tons of PET bottles placed on the European market in 2018. “PET collection and recycling rates are exceptional in the plastics packaging industry, which shows the important role of the material in the circular economy,” summarized Christian Crépet, Executive Director of Petcore Europe.
Recycling fail
The WSJ article noted that while many bottlers of water are using a percentage of recycled PET in their bottles, consumers want 100% recycled bottles. That isn’t possible for several reasons, including the fact that plastic loses its structural integrity and clarity after being recycled numerous times. That is why virgin resin is combined with a percentage of recycled material to add eco-friendliness while maintaining structural properties.
Growing concern over waste plastic and a heightened ongoing war against plastic is resulting in many consumers shifting away from single-use water bottles toward reusable ones, primarily metal and plastic, since glass is too fragile. Additionally, as Fact.MR pointed out, “Metal and glass are costlier than plastic, which is why a majority of manufacturers in the reusable water bottles market are choosing plastic as a primary raw material,” said the report. “This also enables reusable water bottle manufacturers to reduce the production cost and maintain competitive prices.”
Talk of collecting more PET water bottles to increase recycling rates by implementing deposit schemes arises from time to time. Paying consumers to return their plastic water bottles to the store might work as an incentive to consumers. It worked with glass soda bottles back in the 1950s and 1960s. It works today with glass milk bottles from local dairies; however, you pay a $2 deposit when you buy the milk, which is refunded when you return the bottle. Two dollars is a large enough amount to serve as an incentive. Five cents was a nice amount in the 1950s, and finding a glass soda bottle or two in the ditches along roadways meant trading a bottle for a Snickers bar . . . or another bottle of soda! What is the deposit value of a PET water bottle? Would it be enough to encourage people to take their water bottles back to the store?
Stories about recycling in the news media all seem to point to one thing: Recycling isn’t working as planned, so we have to get rid of plastics. Plastic pollution is targeted as the biggest environmental problem we face. We’re constantly being told of its “devastating” effects, as in a half-hour 60 Minutespiece on Dec. 16. The segment showed video after video of “rivers” of plastic waste in the Philippines and on the beaches of Midway Island, which is hundreds of miles from any heavily inhabited country. The solution offered in this segment? Get rid of single-use plastics.
Reducing the amount of virgin resin in manufacturing bottles is seen as one answer to the perceived lack of recycling’s success. Don’t make as much single-use plastic stuff like water bottles that end up as waste in the environment, they say. According to PatSnap’s latest report, “Sustainable Packaging Innovation and R&D Trends: the scramble to scrap single-use plastic,” regulation is forcing companies to reduce their usage of virgin plastics. PatSnap is a firm specializing in patent search, innovation intelligence and intellectual property analytics. “Regulation from China saw the ban on importing waste plastics begin in December 2017,” the report noted. “In January 2018, the European Union (EU) announced it aims to make all plastic packaging in the EU recyclable by 2030.”
While it might be possible to make all plastic packaging recyclable in the EU and, indeed, worldwide, that does not mean that all plastic packaging will be recycled. That’s because you still have the human element involved. Even if all plastic packaging is recyclable, humans must take the responsibility to get the recyclable plastic packaging into the proper waste stream to ensure that it is recycled. And that’s the real problem!Sponsored Content Brought to you by PLASTEC WESTSEE THE LATEST PLASTICS INNOVATIONS AT PLASTEC WEST
PLASTEC West brings you the latest solutions and technology in injection molding, materials & additives, rapid prototyping, coatings, automation, and more. Our exhibitors offer a variety of services that can fulfill your production needs.
PatSnap’s report said that its analysis of current intellectual property filings of modern innovators in sustainable packaging and PET recovery found that these areas “are crying out for innovation. Companies filing in this space could go on to control the growing market for recyclable and re-usable plastics used in packaging.”
Providing examples, PatSnap noted that “Mondelez International announced that it will make all of its packaging recyclable by 2025, as the company aims to reduce waste levels and create a circular economy for packaging.” PepsiCo signed a multi-year supply agreement with Loop Industries to incorporate Loop’s plastic into its product packaging by early 2020. Nestlé announced its “ambition” to make all packaging recyclable or reusable by 2025.
“While PET recovery has seen an uptick in patent filings in 2016, it is clear there is no real trend in search queries, which may indicate an industry that is innovating at pace,” said PatSnap. “This is perhaps not so surprising when considering that this is an issue which companies are facing due to regulatory change.”
The most number of patents filed for the recovery or working-up of waste plastic materials were filed in 2017 and 2018. “For the area of recovery or working-up of waste materials there have been only a small number of filings over the past 10 years, and many of these areas have seen no patenting activity. The top companies patenting innovations in this area include Toray Industries, Eastman, Teijin, DuPont and Arkema. “Loop Industries Inc., appears to be the most prolific new entrant in this PET recovery and up-working area,” said PatSnap. Loop Industries holds a patent that uses a chemical recycling process to break down waste PET and polyester into their monomer building blocks, resulting in resin that is the “same quality as virgin feedstock, and one that meets FDA requirements for use in food-grade packaging.”
While these are admirable goals, making all plastic recyclable in order to reduce the need for more virgin resin will not guarantee that all single-use items will be recycled. Will those goals to make all packaging recyclable result in higher recycling rates, from the current one-third to maybe 50%? And will the other 50% continue to end up in landfills, or worse, in the marine environment? I can almost guarantee that “recyclable” plastic packaging will continue to be found floating in the world’s marine environment.
The European PET Recycling Survey 2017 noted that other problems also interfere with the recyclability of PET, including the quality of the material. The survey outlines an increase in PET trays and opaque materials in clear and transparent PET bales. Even though the products are recyclable they have a negative effect on the quality of the reprocessed flakes. The share of PET trays in clear bales is different from country to country, ranging from 1% to 18%. The same goes for trays and opaque bottles in mixed color bales, where the share ranges from 1% to 25%. “It has to be mentioned that this opaque and difficult-to-recycle PET material should be collected in separate streams,” noted the executive summary of the Petcore Europe survey.
With an actual processed PET amount of 1,741,700 tons and an installed maximum capacity of 2,038,100 tons in 2017, there was an unused capacity of 296,400 tons caused by several reasons, one of them being the quality of the collected PET. Additionally, insufficient quantity of collection was observed—a lack of 115,000 tons in 2017. In its Dec. 12 newsletter, Petcore acknowledged that the success of “ambitious sustainability targets” will require not only the industry but the “support of national authorities, European legislators and consumers alike. More collection and better sorting are needed to increase recycling and incorporate recyclate into new products.” (Detailed survey results will be presented during the annual Petcore Europe Conference 2019 in Brussels on Feb. 6 and 7.)
It’s one thing to say that “more collection and better sorting” will provide a solution to ridding the environment of plastic waste and putting more recyclate into the resin stream (rPET in particular), but getting the PET bottles and other single-use packaging waste into the recycling stream remains the most difficult part of achieving these goals. Collection, sorting and cleaning the waste to make it fit for recycling is labor and energy intensive. At the end of the day, how much have we actually accomplished in terms of reducing the carbon footprint, the ultimate goal of this whole effort?
Sustainability as a market driver
A study by IHS Markit Chemical and Energy sector in that research company’s 2018 Issue 3 newsletter noted that sustainability is a “critical plastics market driver.” According to Nick Vafiadis, Vice President, Plastics, IHS Markit, “A clear shift is developing the approach toward sustainability, as the movement transitions from reactive to proactive mode.” Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) was cited in the study as one of the proactive approaches to increase the circularity of plastics. EPR “levies fees on packaging . . . that are paid by manufacturers,” explained Vafiadis. “These fees are used to develop recycling infrastructure and encourage the recycling of content. EPR policies are currently either in effect or targeted for near-term implementation in Europe, North America, China and India. Presently there are no packaging EPR programs in effect in the U.S., although we expect to see programs adopted by 2025.”Sponsored Content Brought to you by PLASTEC WESTSEE THE LATEST PLASTICS INNOVATIONS AT PLASTEC WEST
PLASTEC West brings you the latest solutions and technology in injection molding, materials & additives, rapid prototyping, coatings, automation, and more. Our exhibitors offer a variety of services that can fulfill your production needs.
The ACC noted that it intends “to further enhance plastic pellet stewardship by 2022,” which is also good. Resin producers and processors are doing a much better job of controlling resin pellets and keeping them out of the environment.
Levying fees on producers, as I see it, is only the beginning. We still need people to accept responsibility for getting their plastic bottles and other single-use packaging into the recycling stream. However, that must be easy and convenient, which might mean moving toward alternatives to sorting and cleaning the collected plastic waste which is not very energy efficient or “green.”
Recycling alternatives
According to IHS Markit, “only about 4% of the plastic packaging used globally is ultimately delivered to recycling plants, while a third is left in various ecosystems, and 40% ends up in landfill.”
The challenge, as noted above, involves humans and their handling of the single-use plastic bottles and other containers once the product has been consumed. There is also issue of the quality/cleanliness of the recyclate. Even U.S. cities that have good recycling infrastructure, including curbside pick-up, sorting and baling, send a large percentage of the materials that are recyclable to the landfill.
If recycling systems are not a viable option for many cities or even developing countries, what about waste-to-energy (WTE) or plastic-to-fuel? The value of plastic does not lie just in its ability to be recycled into other plastic products, but also in its inherent energy content. Many developing countries could use greater energy production and I can foresee the mountains of discarded plastic being an excellent source of energy. It also simplifies the process by allowing co-mingling of all types of plastics (the greatest value) along with other waste materials. That is something that consumers also want—simplification in the identification and sorting process—which WTE addresses.
Plastics that are considered “trash” (#3 to #7 bales) can also be taken to companies that provide plastic-to-fuel processing, according to Mike Dungan, Director of Sales and Marketing for RES Polyflow LLC. Its patented plastics-to-fuel process complements current recycling efforts by converting low-value, co-mingled plastic waste, such as film and flexible packaging, into marketable petroleum blend stocks like fuels and wax. Dungan noted that RES Polyflow is getting a “high degree of cooperation and interest” in its process, “since plastic-to-fuel creates a new market for the residual plastics generated by a typical material recycling facility (non 1s and 2s),” he told PlasticsToday. “They generally consider a #3 to #7 bale to be trash,” he commented. “We see it as a bar of gold, chock full of hydrocarbons that can be repurposed efficiently. We don’t combust or incinerate, and we accept a broad range of somewhat contaminated material, and we produce feedstocks for other processes.” (Read "Brightmark Energy announces major investment in nation’s first commercial-scale plastics-to-fuel plant" for more on this.)
Sustainability in 2019
Aggressive policies to regulate the use of single-use plastic packaging and bottles—even outright bans—are likely to be in the industry's future. IHS Markit’s Vafiadis notes that these moves will create “significant investment risk and market uncertainty. This is especially significant for plastics producers, processors and consumer packaging companies that must invest now for the future.”
Resolving the issue of plastic waste in the environment isn’t easy and there’s no silver bullet. Blaming the material and banning it from use only results in alternatives that do not provide high levels of food safety, shelf life and convenience, not to mention that plastics are more economical and eco-friendly to produce and maintain their high value after their useful life through recycling, waste-to-energy and plastics-to-fuel technologies. You can’t say that about many of the alternatives such as paper, coated paperboard or even bio-plastics that claim compostability or degradability.
Plastics will never disappear—these materials were intended to be durable and lightweight and they provide cost-effective benefits to consumers. A number of years ago I heard a presentation at an SPE meeting. The processor who was talking encouraged attendees to “define the customer’s needs and required performance for their packaging. Compare options. Some customers say they want “fluff” (good PR or even green-washing), so they can say they’re ‘green.’ Others want to see true sustainability,” said the speaker. “Focus on direct, quantifiable benefits, i.e. cost, properties and performance. Evaluate end-of-life considerations. There are too many assumptions about what happens at the end of life to make any broad claims. Not all solutions are viable.”
https://www.plasticstoday.com/packaging/pressure-reduce-consumption-single-use-plastic-packaging-will-continue-2019/8501551360001
-
EU Bodies Reach Provisional Agreement on Single-Use Plastics Ban
Dec 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The EU Council and EU Parliament have reached a provisional agreement on a new Directive setting restrictions on certain single-use plastic products.
The proposal under discussion is part of the EU's plastics strategy.
"Where possible, the measures laid down in this Directive and their implementation should give priority to waste prevention or to the transition to re-usable products rather than to other single-use alternatives," the Council said in a press release.
Several products will be banned in the EU, including:plastic cutlery, plates and straws;food containers made of expanded polystyrene;beverage containers and cups made of expanded polystyrene; andproducts made from oxo-degradable plastic.
The European Commission presented its draft Directive in May and environment ministers discussed the proposal at meetings in June and October.
The Council reached its position on 31 October and began trilogue negotiations with Parliament in November, which ended in the provisional agreement.
If this is confirmed by EU member state ambassadors, the Directive will be submitted for approval to Parliament and then return to Council for final adoption.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72954/eu-bodies-reach-provisional-agreement-on-single-use-plastics-ban
-
NGOs Demand Release of REACH Studies Submitted as Confidential Under TSCA
Dec 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A coalition of NGOs has filed a public records request demanding the release of REACH studies submitted to the US EPA under TSCA that are being withheld as confidential.
And the NGO action could represent an early test to the EPA's interpretation of what types of information can be protected as CBI under the law.
At issue is the first of ten draft risk evaluations issued under the reformed TSCA, which focuses on pigment violet 29. Released to some controversy last month, the draft proposes to conclude that the substance does not pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.
But the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is among groups protesting that the agency is protecting as confidential some of the studies it used to underpin its assessment, including 20 PV29 studies submitted to Echa when the substance was registered under REACH. According to the EDF, health and safety data is ineligible for such protection.
On 4 December, environmental law nonprofit Earthjustice submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain records related to the draft evaluation. These include not only the 20 REACH studies associated with referenced robust summaries, but also air monitoring data used in exposure considerations, four additional studies and correspondence between the EPA and the industry.
NGOs the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Safer Chemicals Healthy Families (SCHF) joined the EDF and Earthjustice in the request.Confidentiality dispute
The review and determination of the FOIA request could have implications for the treatment of CBI under TSCA.
In the PV29 evaluation, the agency notes that it reviewed study reports that "contain information protected under statute" as CBI by TSCA. "A claim of business confidentiality by the data owners means that the EPA will not reproduce these full study reports in this risk evaluation," it states repeatedly.
But Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at EDF, told Chemical Watch that section 14 of TSCA does not apply to health and safety studies.
More specifically, section 14(a) says the EPA "shall not disclose information" meeting certain requirements for CBI, while section 14(b)(2) says that the first provision "does not prohibit the disclosure of" the studies.
According to Dr Denison: "Section 14(b)(2) essentially states that section 14(a)'s CBI protections do not apply to health and safety studies; section 14(b)(2) uses language designed to negate section 14(a)'s application to [them]."
He cited several instances in recent years where the EPA has indicated "precisely this in its policies and regulations". Indeed, the EPA website on CBI under TSCA says: "Health and safety studies, information from [them], and certain other information may not be protected."
But Herb Estreicher, a partner with Keller and Heckman, disagrees that they are ineligible for CBI protection.
Speaking to Chemical Watch, Dr Estreicher noted that section 14(b)(2) "allows EPA to disclose, but does not compel EPA to disclose, health and safety studies".
As a practical matter, he added, the EPA will not be given access to REACH full studies by registrants without agreeing not to disclose the reports, given the commercial value they hold.
"The NGOs do not have a fair complaint because a full and robust summary of these studies is published on the Echa website," added Dr Estreicher. The groups' efforts, rather, are "making it difficult for EPA to do valid assessments".
In an interview with Chemical Watch, David Wawer, the executive director of the Color Pigment Manufacturers Association (CPMA), agreed that the NGOs are acting as "obstructionists" to the successful implementation of TSCA with the consistent pressure they've been applying on the EPA.
"Our industry has tried to work collaboratively with the agency on this process, to make it successful" said Mr Wawer. "It's in everyone's best interests to try to implement the law successfully," he added.
The online FOIA portal has estimated a 7 January date for completing the review and response to the request. An agency's failure to respond or refusal to fulfill such a request is subject to legal review.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72953/ngos-demand-release-of-reach-studies-submitted-as-confidential-under-tsca
-
Court Grants EPA Motion to Revisit Provision of TSCA Risk Evaluation Rule
Dec 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A California court has given the US EPA the go-ahead to vacate and reevaluate a provision of its TSCA risk evaluation rule that allows for criminal penalties against those who submit inaccurate or incomplete information to the agency.
However, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit only agreed in part with the agency’s request to revisit certain aspects of the rule. And in an 18 December order, it referred the EPA’s motion to address two other provisions.
The news marks the latest development in ongoing litigation over the TSCA risk evaluation and prioritisation rules. Brought by a broad coalition of NGOs in 2017, the litigation claims the rules were swung unfairly in industry’s favour from original proposals issued under the Obama administration.
In August, the agency requested that the court allow it to take a second look at three provisions of its risk evaluation rule, in view of concerns raised in an NGO opening brief.
The court has granted the EPA’s request for voluntary remand in the case of the so-called penalty provision. But with regard to two other provisions – the ‘relevancy provision’ and the ‘consistency provision’ – it referred those to the merits panel.
The NGO petitioners had objected to the EPA’s request to voluntarily reevaluate these two provisions, which both deal with manufacturer-requested risk evaluations. In a September response, the groups argued that because the EPA sought remand for these without vacatur – that is, they will remain in effect while undergoing review – it would block the NGOs from seeking judicial review on them.
Moreover, they objected that EPA had only formed an intent to revisit the contested portions, without any mandate to do so.
The petitioners did not, however, object to the EPA’s request to remand the penalty provision, because the agency sought vacatur for that element.Broader litigation progresses
The core issue at stake in the litigation, however, remains whether the EPA has appropriately interpreted its mandate to evaluate a substance’s ‘conditions of use’. And in that respect, the case continues to press on.
Last month, the petitioning organisations filed a response brief to the EPA’s August principal brief. In it, they continued to argue that the EPA "defied [its] statutory directives by promulgating framework rules designed to narrow its chemical evaluations, minimising the chance EPA will identify unreasonable risks that would compel regulation."
More specifically, they argued in their response brief that the agency:must consider legacy uses in its evaluations;has failed to show how excluding certain conditions of use from its reviews is consistent with TSCA;has not demonstrated that use-by-use findings of ‘no unreasonable risk’ can be squared with the health-protective purpose of TSCA; andhas not justified aspects of its framework rules that will deny its access to ‘reasonably available’ information.
Oral arguments in the case, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, et al versus EPA, are expected in 2019.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72958/court-grants-epa-motion-to-revisit-provision-of-tsca-risk-evaluation-rule
-
Dec 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
EPA issues TSCA ‘not likely’ findings for two substancesAfter evaluation under the TSCA new chemicals programme, the US EPA has determined that two substances are not likely to pose an unreasonable risk to human or environmental health. Their TSCA 5(a)(C)(3) determinations will allow them to come to market without restriction.
P-18-0319
The first substance, a plant oil fatty acids/alkyl esters, is not considered persistent and has low potential for bioaccumulation. It has low environmental hazard, but has the potential for development toxicity in humans.
The determination was made 4 December.
P-18-0152
The second substance, a hydrolyzed functionalised di-amino silanol polymer, could be very persistent, but because it has a low potential for bioaccumulation, repeated exposures are not expected to be cumulative. Based on a previous TSCA assessment of aliphatic amines, the substance is found to have high environmental hazard and the potential to cause irritation, corrosion and sensitization in humans.
The determination was made 29 November.Receipt of information under TSCA
The agency has received information submitted pursuant to a rule, order, or consent agreement issued under TSCA for acetaldehyde, reaction products with formaldehyde, by-products from (CASRN 68442-60-4).
The substance is a chemical intermediate used in processing as a reactant in the construction industrial sector.
The EPA received information on the substance — which included its physical-chemical properties and impact on environmental and human health — in accordance with the chemical testing requirements for a set of high production volume (HPV) chemicals.Senators press agency on methylene chloride ban
Two US senators – Tom Carper (D–Delaware) and Charles Schumer (D–New York) – have written to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler demanding the agency immediately finalise its long-delayed ban on methylene chloride paint strippers.
The letter notes that in May, then-Administrator Scott Pruitt committed to finalising the TSCA section 6 rule addressing the substance's use, but that there has been no action in the intervening seven months.
"We are extremely troubled by the manner in which the new TSCA law ... has been implemented by the Trump Administration thus far," they wrote. "Any further delay in finalising this ban could jeopardise human health and the environment and undermine the efficacy of the bipartisan law passed by the Congress," they said.Science transparency bill is no longer on ‘back-burner’
In an interview with The Hill, acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler said that the agency plans to finalise its proposed science transparency regulation in 2019, despite the administration recently listing it as a long-term regulatory action.
The proposal would overhaul the EPA’s process for evaluating science, requiring the studies underlying the agency’s regulations to be publicly available and independently replicable and verifiable.
The controversial program has been described as in direct contravention with TSCA mandates, and numerous NGOs have urged its withdrawal.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72926/us-epa-round-up
-
Dec 20, 2018 | Chicago Tribune
By Michael Hawthorne
The chemical at the center of a Willowbrook environmental controversy -- ethylene oxide -- was discovered nearly 160 years ago and used over the decades as a sterilizer. Signs of health risks go back 70 years. Here is a brief timeline.1859
Ethylene oxide is discovered.A 3D model of C2H4O -- ethylene oxide. (National Center for Biotechnology Information)1928
Scientists report that ethylene oxide, also known as EtO, is a powerful insecticide. During the 1930s and '40s it is used to fumigate hospital rooms.1940
Two executives at Griffith Laboratories, a supplier to Chicago's meatpacking industry, patent a method that pumps ethylene oxide into a vacuum chamber to sterilize spices and other food preservatives. The U.S. Army later uses EtO to fumigate troop rations during World War II.American soldiers eat K rations in 1944. (Getty images)1948
Study finds EtO is a mutagen, meaning it alters genetic material in cells and potentially makes them cancerous.1950s
EtO becomes a common sterilizer of medical instruments.1981
A Shell Oil Co. executive returns from a conference on industrial carcinogens and writes a memo saying "the biggest problem that we have right now is ethylene oxide."1986
In the wake of a Union Carbide chemical disaster that killed thousands of people in Bhopal, India, the Democratic-controlled Congress approves the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. The law requires the EPA to compile an annual Toxics Release Inventory, marking the first time pollution from individual factories and refineries is provided to the public.Some of thousands of dead animals after a poisonous gas leak from the Union Carbide pesticide factory in Bhopal, India, on Dec. 4, 1984. (Associated Press photo)1987
California declares ethylene oxide is a human carcinogen.March 1989
Radiation is used to sterilize half of the medical products in the U.S., according to an EPA report. Other sterilizers safer than EtO also are developed, including peracetic acid and hydrogen peroxide.June 1989
One of the first reports from the Toxics Release Inventory shows that Griffith Micro Science, a company spun off from Griffith Laboratories, released nearly 170,000 pounds of ethylene oxide from its Willowbrook sterilization facility in 1987.Cover of EPA's first Toxics Release Inventory.1994
The EPA adopts regulations on EtO emissions from commercial sterilization facilities.1999
Griffith Micro Science and a competitor, Sterigenics International, are acquired by Belgium-based Ion Beams Applications (IBA).2001
In the wake of explosions at several sterilization plants, the EPA allows companies to disconnect exhaust vents from pollution-control equipment. Inspectors later determine the explosions were caused by operator errors.Damage following a 1994 explosion at Accra Pac Group, Inc., in Elkhart, Ind. The explosion occurred in part of the plant where containers were being filled with ethylene oxide. (Environmental Protection Agency photo)2003-2004
After studying more than 18,000 workers at 17 sterilization plants, researchers from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health report that EtO causes breast cancer and lymphomas.2004
The former Griffith Micro Science and Sterigenics plants are acquired by a British private equity firm and rebranded as Sterigenics International.April 2006
President George W. Bush's administration declines to update EtO regulations. The Bush EPA says it won't act until a new scientific review of the chemical is completed.August 2006
The EPA releases a draft of its scientific review of EtO dangers. Based on the NIOSH study of sterilization workers and numerous animal studies, the agency concludes EtO is a human carcinogen. The report is criticized by the American Chemistry Council and Sterigenics, which contend it could force sterilization facilities to stop using EtO.2007
A panel of independent scientists agrees that EtO is a human carcinogen but advises the EPA to make several improvements to its risk assessment, a process that takes another nine years to complete.August 2009
California adds Eto to its list of toxic substances that can cause developmental problems in children. The state also adds infertility issues among men to its 1987 conclusions about reproductive problems in women.2011
GTCR, a Chicago private equity firm co-founded by Bruce Rauner, buys Sterigenics. A year later, Rauner quits the firm to begin his successful campaign to become Illinois' next Republican governor but retains a financial interest in Sterigenics.Bruce Rauner shown in 2012. (Chicago Tribune)2016
After responding to critiques from a second panel of independent scientific reviewers, the EPA publishes its updated assessment of cancer risks posed by ethylene oxide. The conclusions are largely the same as the agency's 2006 draft.August 2018
Relying on the agency's updated safety limit for EtO, the EPA releases its latest National Air Toxics Assessment, a periodic report of health risks posed by several dozen air pollutants. The document is based on industry-supplied emissions data from 2014 and shows 109 of the nation's 73,057 census tracts face cancer risks exceeding EPA guidelines, including areas near Sterigenics in Willowbrook.The Sterigenics plant in Willowbrook in 2018. (Zbigniew Bzdak/Chicago Tribune).October 2018
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Robert Berlin, the state's attorney of DuPage County, sue Sterigenics in state court.November 2018
The Tribune reports that EtO from Medline Industries in Waukegan poses cancer risks to neighbors similar to those in Willowbrook. Another facility, Vantage Specialty Chemicals in Gurnee, could pose even greater risks.Medline Industries in Waukegan in 2018. (Erin Hooley/Chicago Tribune)December 2018
Air testing finds alarming levels of EtO in the air near Sterigenics, four months after the company installed new pollution controls.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-sterigenics-eto-timeline-htmlstory.html
-
Trump Administration’s Lead Action Plan is a Missed Opportunity to Protect Kids from Lead
Dec 20, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
Yesterday, the President’s Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children released its long-delayed Federal Action Plan to Reduce Childhood Lead Exposures and Associated Health Impacts (Lead Action Plan). A year ago the Task Force described this document as a federal lead strategy that would identify clear goals and objectives to “serve as a ‘roadmap’ for federal agencies on actions to take to reduce childhood lead exposure.” It requested feedback on the approach and received over 700 public comments.
The Trump Administration’s Lead Action Plan falls far short of what was promised. To understand what the Plan is and what it is not, we compared it to two earlier documents from the Task Force: 1) A federal lead strategy released in February 2000 by the Clinton Administration focused on reducing exposure to lead-based paint; and 2) An inventory of key federal programs released in November 2016 by the Obama Administration summarizing the activities of the 17 federal agencies and departments with responsibilities to protect children from lead.
A repackaging of the 2016 Key Federal Programs Report
The Lead Action Plan is essentially a repackaged and updated version of the 2016 report. The new Plan describes programs that were largely underway during the Obama Administration. The new activities noted in the document are generally related to directives from courts or from Congress, especially for lead in paint and in drinking water. Little has changed other than the window-dressing: instead of grouping the work by each federal agency, the plan bundles it under four ambiguous goals: 1) Reduce children’s exposure to lead sources; 2) Identify lead-exposed children and improve their health outcomes; 3) Communicate more effectively with stakeholders; and 4) Support and conduct critical research to inform efforts to reduce lead exposures and related health risks.
A retreat from the 2000 Federal Lead Strategy
The 2000 Federal Lead Strategy set two goals to achieve by 2010: 1) eliminate lead paint hazards in housing where children under six live; and 2) eliminate elevated blood lead levels in children. The Strategy identified steps and funding needed to achieve those goals and how its progress would be measured. While the Strategy was never fully funded and, therefore, not fully achieved, it was useful to justify funding increases and helped shape the progress made in the past 18 years in reducing children’s exposure to lead.
In contrast, the Trump Administration’s Lead Action Plan retreats from these goals. Instead of eliminating lead paint hazards where young children live within ten years, the Plan says the objective is to “Reduce Children’s Exposure in Homes and Child-Occupied Facilities with Lead-Based Paint Hazards,” and provides no deadline or measures of success or failure. While the 2000 Strategy sought to eliminate elevated blood lead levels in children within ten years, the new Lead Action Plan sets no numerical goals for reductions in children’s blood lead levels.
Ignoring a rigorous analysis of costs of lead and benefits from specific policy solutions
One of the more frustrating aspect of the Lead Action Plan is that the Trump Administration appears to have ignored an August 2017 reportfrom the Pew Charitable Trust and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Pew/RWJF Report) that would have provided them with a solid foundation for an effective strategy.[1] The Pew/RWJF Report estimated the overall costs of lead to society and calculated that for the babies born in 2018, if blood lead levels were kept to zero, the benefits would amount to $84 billion, excluding the cost of intervening. It provided a rigorous assessment of the costs and benefits of various approaches to reduce the harm caused by lead, made five key findings showing a significant economic benefit for several approaches, and recommended ten policy solutions.
The rigorous analysis and policy recommendations from the Pew/RWJF report could have helped shape and solidify many parts of the Plan. For example, the Lead Action Plan says it will “increase the number (or percentage) of certified renovation firms capable of providing lead-safe renovation, repair and painting [RRP] services through targeted outreach campaigns to contractors.” However, the Plan does not appear to consider whether there is much demand for certified firms. Without the threat of enforcement to ensure compliance with Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Lead-Safe RRP Rule, firms have little interest in becoming certified. For these reasons, the Pew/RWJF report recommended that the federal government ensure compliance with the Lead-Safe RRP rule and estimated that the effort would “provide future benefits of $4.5 billion, or about $3.10 per dollar spent.”
A lost opportunity to protect children
Early in 2018, former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, a co-chair of the Task Force, convened the Task Force to discuss steps to update the federal lead strategy. He also declared a “war on lead” and promised to “eliminate lead in drinking water in 10 years.” This goal is not in the Lead Action Plan. And the anticipated strategy has been downgraded to an action plan that does little to advance lead poisoning prevention beyond work already underway.
The Trump Administration likely recognized that the Lead Action Plan fell short of its promise. The release of the plan just before the holidays and a possible government shutdown indicates that they are far from proud of their work. Our country continues to have a toxic legacy of lead: over 6 million homes get water from lead service lines; 24 million homes have lead hazards in paint, dust, or soil; and nearly half a million children have elevated levels of lead in their blood. Making meaningful progress in tackling sources of exposure will require an aggressive, comprehensive, and practical strategy – which is not what the Trump Administration put out yesterday. For decades, we’ve made real progress reducing lead in our society, but the new Lead Action Plan is a missed opportunity to advance those efforts.
[1] The Action Plan does not reference the Pew/RWJF Report.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/12/20/lead-action-plan-missed-opportunity/
-
US EPA Seeks Lead Reductions in Cosmetics, Consumer Products
Dec 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
The US EPA is looking to reduce exposure to lead from cosmetics and consumer products as a part of its recently published management plan to address the heavy metal.
The 'Federal Action Plan to reduce childhood lead exposures and associated health impacts' is particularly concerned with children in populations that are disproportionately affected.
Much of the EPA's approach seeks to reduce environmental exposures to lead from paint, drinking water, soil and emissions. However, it also prioritises limiting exposure through cosmetics and consumer products where it may be present as an impurity.
On the latter objective, the agency recommends that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA):continue to monitor domestic and imported cosmetics for lead impurities;participate in international lead reduction efforts;monitor and post results of lead levels in cosmetic products, including tattoo inks, through FDA’s survey activities; andissue final guidance for a maximum lead level in cosmetic products.
The plan calls on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to maintain and build upon its current activities by:enforcing regulations on lead content and lead paint limits for consumer products;enforcing labelling requirements to prevent consumer product-related lead exposure; andworking internationally to improve foreign suppliers’ compliance with US lead-based paint and total lead content requirements.
The EPA says the document "does not imply approval for any specific action", but that it will inform future federal budget and regulatory development processes in accordance with the goals indicated.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72932/us-epa-seeks-lead-reductions-in-cosmetics-consumer-products
-
PFAS Panel: Drinking Water Standards for Chemical May Be Too Lenient
Dec 20, 2018 | Detroit News
By Beth LeBlanc
An independent science panel has recommended Michigan lower its drinking water health advisory level for per- and polyfluoroalkyl, but changes are unlikely to be adopted before year's end.
The 90-page report from the state’s PFAS Science Advisory Committee released Tuesday includes extensive research on the emerging contaminant long used in firefighting foam, tanneries, metal platers, Scotchgard and Teflon. The report makes 17 recommendations for future action on the issue, some of which already are being done by the state.
The report cites several pieces of evidence indicating levels of PFAS lower than 70 parts per trillion — the current state and U.S. EPA health advisory level for drinking water — can hurt human health. PFAS has some links to negative health effects such as thyroid disease, increased cholesterol levels, and kidney and testicular cancers
But the report stops short of recommending a new level. Instead, the panel recommended the state adopt a level similar to agencies that have based theirs on toxicological outcomes, develop a level based on epidemiological findings or a new level based on a combination of both toxicological and epidemiological data.
The panel of scientists who researched and prepared the report over the past six months admitted that research on PFAS is sparse, but enough to acknowledge 70 ppt may be too high of a drinking water standard, said Dr. David Savitz, a Brown University professor of epidemiology and chairman of the state’s science panel.
“It’s not an ideal situation, where every state, every agency even within the federal government is trying to reach their own judgement,” Savitz said. “I think it’s a very confusing message to the public.”
Gov. Rick Snyder believes a review of the panel’s recommendations combined with a review of PFAS nationwide “needs to be done as soon as possible next year so that the appropriate policies and standards can be enacted in Michigan,” his spokesman Ari Adler said.
In a phone call with reporters, Carol Isaacs, director for the Michigan PFAS Action Response Team, said the study had been shared with the incoming administration of Democrat Gretchen Whitmer as well as some suggestions for follow-up.
A new standard could be developed in “a matter of weeks,” Isaacs said. “But that would be after you assemble the group of people who should, in all fairness, be part of a process where we are setting standards to protect public health.”
Democratic Rep. Winnie Brinks of Grand Rapids criticized the timing of the report and delays that have pushed reform into 2019. Brinks introduced a bill last year that would lower the drinking water health advisory level from 70 ppt to 5 ppt, but the bill has yet to see any movement in the House.
“We’re still at this position where they aren’t making a definitive recommendation that would actually protect the health of our constituents,” Brinks said.
In the meantime, bills approved by the Legislature would make it harder to adopt an environmental rule stricter than federal standards and another that sets toxicology standards for contaminated land are headed to the governor’s desk, Brinks said.
“It’s my hope that the governor will veto these bills,” Brinks said.
Among the recommendations from the group were suggestions to continue looking at the effects of PFAS in both animal and human data, continue testing water systems and look at all options for remediation, ensure proper disposal of the chemical, and explore the effects of lesser known PFAS chemicals such as PFSA, PFCA and the replacement chemical GenX.
This year, the state tested more hundreds of community water supplies, school water supplies, day care centers, some testing of private wells, and surveys of more than a thousand fire stations and airports.
The testing is some of the most extensive in the nation, Isaacs said, and the science panel’s report is sure to “be read across the nation because this remains a national issue.”
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/12/20/pfas-panel-drinking-water-standards-chemical-may-too-lenient/2374303002/
-
US Senator Urges FDA to Investigate J&J Asbestos Allegations
Dec 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
A member of the US Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, called on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to investigate allegations that consumer products conglomerate Johnson & Johnson has known for decades that its talc products contained asbestos.
Senator Edward Markey's (D–Massachusetts) intervention comes after news agency Reuters reported the company knew its talc powder was "sometimes tainted with carcinogenic asbestos and that J&J kept that information from regulators and the public". Asbestos and talc are both naturally occurring minerals that can be found in close proximity to each other in the earth.
The company is currently facing more than 10,000 liability lawsuits in the US regarding the risks posed by its talc products.
After reviewing internal documents, Reuters reported the earliest mentions of tainted J&J talc come from 1957 and 1958 reports.
The news agency gained access to the confidential documents after J&J was required to make them available during court cases brought against the company by thousands of women who claim its talcum powder products caused them to develop ovarian cancer. In a recent case, the company was ordered to pay nearly $4.7bn in damages to 22 women. J&J recently appealled against the decision but news broke yesterday that the verdict has been upheld.
'That the company may have concealed a potentially serious health and safety risk associated with the use of its baby powder is deeply troubling,' Senator Edward Markey
In a letter sent to the FDA last week, Senator Markey called on the agency to investigate Reuters' claims and use the "full force of its regulatory and investigatory authority".
He wants to know whether J&J misled regulators and whether its baby powder products have posed, and continue to pose, a threat to public health and safety.
"That the company may have concealed a potentially serious health and safety risk associated with the use of its baby powder is deeply troubling," he said in his letter to FDA Administrator Dr Scott Gottlieb.
The senator noted that the US Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act does not require cosmetic products and ingredients, other than colour additives, to have FDA approval before entering the market. However, he stressed that the FDA's authority includes monitoring potential safety problems with cosmetic products on the market and taking action when needed to protect public health.
Congress has considered several pieces of legislation in recent years that would modernise the US's cosmetics regulations and expand FDA's authorities over product ingredients, but none has seen significant progress toward passage.
The FDA told Chemical Watch that it will investigate reports related to the presence of asbestos in talcum powder and "take appropriate actions to protect consumers".
In 2014, the FDA conducted a review of literature on the use of talcum powder and ovarian cancer as part of the agency's response to a citizen petition. The review, it says, did not find a causal relationship between talc exposure from cosmetic products and ovarian cancer.
The review included an FDA survey of talc-containing body powders from a variety of manufacturers, including J&J.
"While J&J has voluntarily shared information with the FDA in the past, the FDA's position has been based on its analysis of the publicly available scientific literature and its periodic testing of consumer products," the agency said.'Product is safe'
J&J has denied Reuters' claims, saying in a statement the article is "one-sided, false, and inflammatory".
In a video message posted on its website, company chair and CEO Alex Gorsky said "if we believed our products were unsafe, they would be off the shelves and out of the market immediately. But thousands of tests by global authorities, universities and independent experts repeatedly confirm our talc is safe."
J&J says it will continue to defend the safety of its product.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72902/us-senator-urges-fda-to-investigate-jj-asbestos-allegations
-
Company Sues 3M Over PFAS Linked to Contaminated Water
Dec 20, 2018 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)
A western Michigan-based footwear company has sued a chemical manufacturer linked to contaminated water detected at military bases and industrial sites.
Wolverine World Wide Inc. filed the federal lawsuit yesterday against 3M Co., alleging the Minnesota-based company concealed information about the potential environmental risks of chemicals in Scotchgard and other products. The companies are co-defendants in cases involving perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS.
Rockford-based Wolverine, which disposed of PFAS-laden waste for years at a landfill, says it must defend a 3M "product" now considered "a waste."
3M says it acted responsibly, adding it "will vigorously defend its environmental stewardship."
In February, it agreed to pay Minnesota $850 million to settle a case alleging the manufacturer damaged natural resources and contaminated groundwater by disposing of chemicals.
Research shows PFAS poses health risks.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/12/20/stories/1060110229
-
NGO, Researchers Call for US Action on Substances of Concern in Carpets
Dec 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
A group of research institutes and NGOs have called on US carpet manufacturers to increase efforts to remove chemicals of concern, such as PFASs and phthalates, from their products.
They also recommend the US government adopt regulations to prohibit the use of certain substances in carpets.
The call for action comes as part of a study carried out by the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the US Ecology Center and the University of Notre Dame. They performed tests that found that samples of carpets sold by six major manufacturers in the US contained "at least one toxic chemical".
Of the 12 samples, PFASs were detected in six carpets, while the phthalates – DEHP, DNOP and DIBP – were found in five.
The study report – Testing carpets for toxics – notes that there are no laws in place in the US prohibiting the use of these chemicals in carpets. Because of this lack of regulation, the authors make recommendations to both policy makers and manufacturers. These include:policy makers should regulate hazardous chemicals for use in carpets at a federal level. At a minimum, substances restricted in toys should also be restricted in carpet, due to the time small children spend on them;policy makers should put in place a Right to Know Bill. Federal and state laws should mandate disclosure of all ingredients and additives in carpets;manufacturers should phase out toxic and non-recyclable carpets; andthey should make all information on materials and chemicals in their products publicly available.
The study was conducted to provide a snapshot of the chemicals of concern present in carpets sold in the US and obtain an idea of how this could impact recycling.
"One of the main obstacles to achieving closed-loop carpet recycling is that these products were not designed with reuse and recycling in mind. Among the design flaws is the fact that carpets often contain so many toxic chemicals that the recyclate becomes too contaminated to be used in new products," the study says.
Similar testing of carpet products sold by major EU manufacturers found that three out of 15 carpet samples were free of the chemicals of concern tested, including two produced with recycled content. This, the study says, indicates that "carpets can be made in a better way".US manufacturers tested:Engineered Floors (including subsidiary J+J Flooring Group);Interface;Milliken;Mohawk;Shaw; andTarkett (including subsidiary Tandus Centiva).https://chemicalwatch.com/72950/ngo-researchers-call-for-us-action-on-substances-of-concern-in-carpets
-
US and Canada Release Risk Assessment Plans for Coming Years
Dec 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
Both the US and Canada have released details on their risk assessment plans for the coming years, under the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and the Chemicals Management Plan (CMP), respectively.IRIS programme outlook
IRIS – an EPA body that identifies and characterises the health hazards of chemicals found in the environment – has provided an update on its activities, "as part of its commitment to transparency".
The progress update indicates which chemical substances are at the peer review, draft development, and scoping and problem formulation stages.
The chemical substances currently at the peer review stage are:ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE); andand tert-butyl alcohol;
Those at the draft development stage have future steps that include systematic review protocol, public comment draft, and external peer review. These substances are: arsenic, inorganic;chromium VI;polycolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), noncancer; andseveral per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) – PFNA, PFBA, PFHxA, PFHxS, PFDA – which the EPA says are being reviewed in support of its broader approach to address the class of substances.
Finally, three substances are at the scoping and problem formulation stage. Each of these has four future public steps: the IRIS assessment plan, the systematic review protocol, the public comment draft and the external peer review.mercury salts;methylmercury; andand vanadium and compounds.
The EPA has set projected dates for several of these assessments, but it says these are subject to change and will be updated.Canada’s 2018-20 rolling plans
Similarly, Canada has released 2018-20 rolling plans covering information gathering, risk assessments and risk management. The country’s CMP aims to assess and manage the potential risks posed by approximately 1550 substances as a part of its third phase, which is set to be completed in 2020.
The information gathering plan lays out an overview of information gathering initiatives, which may be through mandatory surveys (section 71 notices) or through voluntary surveys. This phase is intended to inform priority setting, risk assessment and risk management, and typically falls six months before the risk assessment start date, according to the government.
Canada’s risk assessment plan includes a list of substances being evaluated in the third phase of the CMP. Finally, the country’s plan for risk management includes anticipated publications and opportunities for stakeholder consultations and engagement.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72959/us-and-canada-release-risk-assessment-plans-for-coming-years
-
EPA, IDEM Approve Disposal of Contaminated Material in East Chicago Facility
Dec 20, 2018 | Chicago Tribune
By Craig Lyons
A plan to dispose of PCB-contaminated material from the Indiana Harbor and Shipping Canal in an East Chicago waste facility has won federal and state approval.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Indiana Department of Environmental Management on Thursday announced they’ve approved an Army Corps of Engineers plan to dredge the canal for contaminated material and dispose of it in an open-air facility in East Chicago.
“After a thorough evaluation and with careful consideration of public comments, EPA and IDEM have determined that the confined disposal facility is a safe, proven and cost-effective way to handle this type of waste,” the EPA and IDEM said, in a press release.
During a more than year-long review, the two agencies said the Army Corps will only need to dredge and dispose of roughly 20,000 cubic yards of material, which includes several identified “hotspots” of high PCB contamination.
The Army Corps first planned on dredging 60,000 cubic yards of material.
“That’s a pretty considerable reduction,” said Chris Korleski, director of the Great Lakes National Program Office.
Korleski said new data reviewed by the agencies estimated that roughly 4,000 cubic yards of canal sediment have high concentrations of PCBs.
Korleski said the CDF remains the “only feasible option” for disposing of the material.
In 2017, the federal and state environmental agencies stayed their review of the plan and began a feasibility study to look at alternatives, including using the confined disposal facility, after receiving public comments on the proposal.
During the review, the agencies found that the amount of material that would need to be dredged from the canal was lower than first proposed by the Army Corps.
Jean Greensley, a geologist with the EPA Region 5 Land and Chemicals Division, said any existing monitoring of the CDF will remain in place. She said the Army Corps will have air monitors, a gradient inside the facility so contaminants don’t escape; external protections and groundwater systems.
Greensley said the Army Corps will have to maintain the CDF in perpetuity, and that includes air monitoring and any other protections.
“The CDF was designed and constructed for exactly this kind of storage,” Korleski said.
Korleski said a fundamental aspect of the project is that it removed the PCBs from the environment where it could affect human health.
“We think that’s the most fundamental thing,” Korleski said.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/news/ct-ptb-east-chicago-cdf-approval-st-1221-story.html
-
Medication or Hazardous Waste?
Dec 20, 2018 | The National Law Review
By David M. Bates
While much of the environmental bar was focused on the Waters of the U.S. rulemaking, on December 11, U.S. EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler signed the new hazardous waste pharmaceutical rule. The final rule retains a proposed requirement, opposed by industry, that prescription pharmaceuticals sent from health care facilities to reverse distributors first be considered “disposed of,” regulated as solid waste and evaluated for hazardous classification at the health care facility. This rule will impose significant new obligations on health care providers, including pharmacies and long-term care providers, as well as forward and reverse distributors of pharmaceuticals.
Decades of Policy. In the 1980s and 1990s, U.S. EPA took the position in policy memoranda that pharmaceuticals in the reverse distribution chain were “not considered wastes until a determination has been made to discard them.” That approach worked well for health care providers, who frequently relied on reverse distributors to determine whether their unused prescription and over-the-counter medications could be credited/reused/reclaimed or should be discarded. Under the George W. Bush Administration, U.S. EPA proposed to classify returned pharmaceuticals as “universal waste” entitled to relaxed management standards, but never finalized that rulemaking after concerns were raised regarding the potential diversion of narcotics and other medications regulated by the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”). The Obama Administration proposed the current rule in September, 2015, offering an entirely new set of management standards for unused pharmaceuticals. In the subsequent three years, a number of industry participants met with U.S. EPA as well as the Office of Management and Budget regarding the scope of the rule.
The New Approach. In the December 11 publication of the final rule, U.S. EPA expressed its concern that many industry participants have come to disregard the intent behind the agency’s prior guidance, and erroneously believed that it was a blanket statement that no pharmaceuticals going through reverse distribution were considered solid waste. As a result, the final rule treats prescription pharmaceuticals—but not non-prescription pharmaceuticals—as having been “discarded” by a pharmacy, hospital, or other health care provider when it decides to ship the potentially creditable material to a reverse distributor. Upon being “discarded,” those pharmaceuticals become solid waste, triggering management obligations under the Resource Conservation and Restoration Act (RCRA) for pharmaceuticals that are characteristically toxic, or that meet the definition of certain “listed” wastes, such as P and U listed acutely hazardous substances. In order to accommodate the unique market arrangements for pharmaceuticals, EPA’s final rule establishes an industry-specific set of requirements for prescription pharmaceuticals under RCRA. With regard to non-prescription pharmaceuticals, EPA took a different approach and will continue to allow health care providers to ship potentially reusable and reclaimable over-the-counter drugs and dietary supplements as recyclable materials outside the RCRA waste regime to reverse distributors, where the actual decision to reuse/reclaim or discard the material will be made.
The pharmaceutical waste management standards found in the new 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart P establish requirements for health care facilities (a term broadly defined to include hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, and long-term care facilities) as well as logistics providers known as “reverse distributors.” The final rule requires health care facilities that dispose of prescription pharmaceuticals to register with U.S. EPA, and to separate listed or characteristically hazardous (toxic, flammable, reactive, or corrosive) pharmaceuticals from unlisted, non-hazardous pharmaceuticals. Health care facilities will need to adopt training programs for staff to comply with the rule, and will need to dispose of hazardous pharmaceuticals within one year of their being determined to be a waste. The rule also creates an exemption from certain existing requirements for containers of medications that would be considered acutely hazardous when made a waste, such as Coumadin, so that facilities no longer have to tally the weight of Coumadin packaging and consider it acutely hazardous waste.
Notable changes from the proposal applicable to reverse distributors include (i) authorization to accumulate hazardous waste pharmaceuticals for up to 180 days, rather than 90 days as proposed, (ii) an exemption for managing materials subject to recall or a litigation hold and (iii) authorization to complete the initial sorting process within 30 days, rather than 21 days as proposed.
The final rule includes four other significant elements. It bans the practice of flushing hazardous waste medications down the toilet (“sewering”). The rule exempts Food and Drug Administration-approved nicotine replacement therapies, such as patches and gum, from hazardous waste disposal requirements. The rule also exempts from regulation medications collected during drug take-back programs and events, placing them within the Congressionally-created household hazardous waste exemption. Finally, the rule eliminates the dual regulation of hazardous waste pharmaceuticals under RCRA if they are also regulated by the DEA as controlled substances.
Why This Matters to the Health Care Industry. The final rule fundamentally changes U.S. EPA's long-held position on the point at which a pharmaceutical product is considered a solid waste under RCRA. That change will create significant regulatory uncertainty, and potential liability, for entities in the pharmaceutical distribution chain that suddenly find themselves evaluating compliance with the new rule. While Acting Administrator Wheeler signed the rule on December 11, the rule will not become effective until 6 months after it is published in the Federal Register. The rule may also be subject to petitions for reconsideration, or to challenge in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/medication-or-hazardous-waste
-
Consumer Bodies Pressure Commission for Stronger Action on ‘Slime’
Dec 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Caterina Tani
EU consumer groups said it is "urgently necessary" that the European Commission takes on a "coordinating role" to ensure illegal products on the single market will "reliably" be removed by member states before more consumers buy them.
In a 14 December letter to DG Grow, Anec and Beuc said such a role is "essential" because "only 18 alerts" about dangerous slime toys have been uploaded to the Safety Gate – the EU rapid alert system (Rapex) – since the beginning of 2018. And yet several member states are increasingly detecting illegal chemicals in the products.
A coordinating position is vital, they said, because "responses given by economic operators and national authorities vary a lot across countries".
The appeal follows recent tests carried out by consumer associations from eight European countries, which found illegal levels of boron in over four pots of slime out of ten.
Manufacturers use boron to give slime a gelatinous texture. The substance is classified as an SVHC owing to its reprotoxic qualities and has potential hormone-disrupting effects.
Additionally the consumer groups said the Commission should ensure that signatories of the EU product safety pledge – four major online platforms – stop selling harmful slime toys, as established by the agreement signed in June.Key findings
Consumer associations in different member states have investigated hazardous chemicals slime toys recently. These are:AK Oberösterreich (Austria),Forbrugerrådet Taenk (Denmark),UFC-Que Choisir (France);Stiftung Warentest (Germany);Altroconsumo (Italy);OCU (Spain);Consumentenbond (the Netherlands); andWhich? (UK).
The most extreme cases showed levels of boron 14 times above the EU safety limit in samples on sale in France and Spain. In France out of 13 products tested in September three were found to be non-compliant, while Spain detected illegal levels of boron in two products out of ten tested in June.
In the most recent test conducted in November in Austria, four out of six products were found to be non-compliant. In the same month, Germany found that all five products it tested broke rules.
In the same month the Netherlands tested ten products and recorded that three of them contained illegal levels of boron. In October, Denmark found four non-compliant products out of 15. In June Italian inspectors found six out of 17 tested products to be non-compliant.
Meanwhile in the UK this month, consumer association Which? tested 13 toy slimes and putties from high street and online retailers including Amazon, eBay and Hamleys. It discovered 40% failed to meet the EU safety standard for toys.
In a previous test Which? found that eight out of 11 slime toys it examined exceeded the EU safety limit.
And the Norwegian Environmental Directorate recently removed some slime toys from the market after six out of 14 products exceeded the permitted limit.
Recent analysis from NGO the European Environmental Bureau showed that there have been more warnings for toys concerning chemical safety than any other product type this year.
In their letter, Anec and Beuc asked the Commission to forward their findings to the EU executive’s expert group on the safety of toys (ADCO-Toys) for "information and subsequent enforcement actions".
https://chemicalwatch.com/72955/consumer-bodies-pressure-commission-for-stronger-action-on-slime
-
Efsa Panel Lowers Tolerable Intakes for PFOS and PFOA
Dec 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
In the first of two assessments of perfluoroalkylated substances (PFASs), the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) has proposed lowering tolerable intakes of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in foods, after examining human epidemiological evidence.
In 2008, the authority's panel on contaminants in the food chain (Contam) established a tolerable daily intakes (TDIs) of:150 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day for PFOS; and1,500ng/kg body weight/day for PFOA.
It is now proposing a tolerable weekly intake of 6ng/kg body weight for PFOS and 13ng/kg body weight for PFOA.
However, Contam found large differences in PFOA and PFOS levels in foods due to analytical methods having "insufficient sensitivity". As a result, the exposure assessment is "highly uncertain".
The panel is therefore calling for new data, using more sensitive analytical methods with high levels of quality control to reduce uncertainty.
More studies on the effects of cooking and food processing would also improve exposure assessments, it adds.Studies
Writing in Efsa's journal, Contam points out that most epidemiological studies examine associations between adverse health effects and single perfluoroalkylated substances (PFASs). For risk assessment it would be useful also to report results adjusted for several PFASs, it says.
In its second ongoing assessment, Contam is still looking at other PFAS chemicals for possible risks to human health.
Since PFASs are often present as mixtures in the food chain, Efsa's work to develop frameworks to assess combined exposure to multiple chemicals will feed into this work. The frameworks are scheduled to be completed in spring 2019.
The PFOA and PFOS conclusions are provisional until the second part of the PFAS assessment is complete.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72934/efsa-panel-lowers-tolerable-intakes-for-pfos-and-pfoa
-
Echa's Committees Unable to Conclude on Tattoo Derogations
Dec 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
A lack of test data means that Echa's risk assessment and socio-economic analysis committees (Rac and Seac) cannot conclude on derogations for two commonly used green and blue pigments, as part of a proposed restriction for hazardous substances in tattoo inks and permanent make-up (PMU).
Rac recently published a draft version of its final Opinion, supporting a proposal to restrict the use of a range of chemicals with severe human health hazardous properties in tattoos and PMU. These range from carcinogens, mutagens and reprotoxicants to sensitisers and irritants. Seac's draft Opinion is currently under public consultation.
Rac accepts that pigments green 7 and blue 15:3 have low acute and repeated-dose toxicity, but, according to the draft, found that data on genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity are "too deficient to allow a reliable conclusion".
Green 7 is a chlorinated version of blue 15:3, which has no apparent substitute. Under the cosmetics products Regulation, the latter is permitted in cosmetics, but not in hair colours. The REACH restriction report says other blue pigments have been found lacking in brilliance and to change colour when mixed with white pigments. Pigment green 7 is sometimes replaced with a brominated version called green 36, which is not covered by the proposed restriction.
Although Seac understands the need for a derogation for the blue and green phthalocyanine pigments, it "regards the information provided limited to justify it". In its draft Opinion, the committee said that "no clear recommendation on exemption is currently possible". It will use the public consultation to gather further information on the need for a derogation and the consequences of no derogation for "industry and society as a whole".
"These are widely used pigments and they are usually particulate, used in all sorts of applications, so the manufacturers of the pigments have dossiers that match industrial uses, not ones that match intradermal injection," said Rac chair Tim Bowmer. "When you are looking for toxicology information on a lot of the colourants, it's not at a level that we would expect for substances used deliberately in this way."
During the public consultation on the REACH Annex XV restriction report, NGOs the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) raised concerns on derogations for substances with "no alternative".
They described industry claims that no alternatives are available as predictable. "Better information on alternatives may be available from the tattooing community and does not seem to be included so far," they wrote.No derogations for 19 pigments
Rac and Seac also decided against suggested derogations for 19 non-phthalocyanine pigments, pointing out that the "risk of cancer indicated by epidemiological studies cannot be ruled out for the majority of these colourants". According to Seac, the public consultation revealed that only some of the pigments are used and alternatives are available for all of them.
Echa submitted the restriction proposal along with Denmark, Italy and Norway. It covers around 4,000 substances, many of which come under the cosmetics products Regulation or are subject to harmonised classification under CLP.
And most are covered by a Council of Europe recommendation on tattoo inks, on which seven member states have based national legislation. Rac and Seac both agree that a restriction under REACH is the best way to deal with the chemicals.
Rac points out that pigments used in the inks are not specifically produced for tattooing. The substances are "often of low purity" and may contain "a large number of hazardous substances".Unusual exposure
The proposed restriction is complicated by the unusual exposure route for tattoos: intradermal injection. Rac agrees with statements in it that health risks are at least as high, or higher, when substances contained in tattoo inks are introduced into the skin compared with surface application. However, it adds that this may not be the case for products applied topically on a daily basis throughout a lifetime.
Rac considered the intradermal route in its assessment "whenever possible", for example for skin irritants or corrosives, or eye damaging or irritant chemicals. In the case where data from oral exposure was used for risk assessment, Rac considered a correction factor.
It points to the "important uncertainty" relating to unknown decomposition products of tattoo colourants in the skin, either due to metabolism or sun exposure or tattoo removal using lasers. "Presently, available data are insufficient to adequately address these issues," it suggests.
Another uncertainty is "unknown health risks of pigments injected as nanoparticles".
Rac does not think that the uncertainties present obstacles to implementing the proposed restriction. It considers it an "important initiative" for the scientific community to fill knowledge gaps.
Rac and Seac both agree that a one year transitional period is a "reasonable timeframe" that will give industry enough time to comply.
During public consultation on the restriction, tattoo manufacturers stated that testing and reformulation would take longer. "However, a longer transitional period will result in longer exposure to tattoo inks containing hazardous substances," says Rac's draft Opinion.
The public consultation on Seac's draft Opinion runs until 11 February 2019. After this, Seac will incorporate the comments and adopt its final Opinion.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72917/echas-committees-unable-to-conclude-on-tattoo-derogations
-
Dec 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Proposed restriction of cobalt salts, N,N-dimethylformamideEcha has submitted a proposal to restrict:five cobalt salts: cobalt sulphate, cobalt dichloride, cobalt dinitrate, cobalt carbonate and cobalt di(acetate). It applies to their manufacture, placing on the market and use as substances on their own or in mixtures in a concentration equal to or above 0.01% by weight in industrial and professional applications.
Italy has submitted a proposal to restrict:N,N-dimethylformamide with the scope of risk reduction for the general worker population.
The consultations are open from 19 December to 19 June 2019. The agency's scientific committees are encouraging early comments by 1 March 2019 to assist in first discussions on the proposals in that month.Three CLH intentions
Belgium has proposed three new intentions to harmonise the classification and labelling for:1-nitropropane with proposed harmonised classification of flammable liquid 3, H226, acute toxicity 4, H302, acute toxicity 4, H312, acute toxicity 4, H332, germ cell mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity and specific target organ toxicity – repeated exposure;nitromethane with proposed harmonised classification of flammable liquid 3, acute toxicity 4, germ cell mutagenicity, reproductive toxicity and specific target organ toxicity – repeated exposure; andnitroethane with proposed harmonised classification of flammable liquid 3, H226, acute toxicity 4, H302, acute toxicity 4, H332, germ cell mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity and specific target organ toxicity – repeated exposure.Substance evaluation documents available
The substance evaluation conclusion documents are now available on the agency's website for:potassium permanganate, added to the the Community Rolling Action Plan (Corap) list in 2017 and evaluated by France;diallyl phthalate, added to the Corap list in 2013 and evaluated by Spain; andsilver, added to the Corap list in 2014 and evaluated by the Netherlands.France and Sweden restriction intention update
France and Sweden have revised the submission date of their intention to restrict the placing on the market of textile and leather articles containing skin sensitising, irritative and/or corrosive substances to 12 April 2019. Guidance document on substance identification
Echa has issued a guidance document on how to name and identify a substance under REACH and CLP.
It is part of a series of such documents aimed at helping all stakeholders fulfil their obligations under the Regulations. They offer detailed guidance on a range of essential processes, as well as some specific scientific and/or technical methods that industry or authorities need to make use of under REACH and CLP, the agency says.
https://chemicalwatch.com/72942/echa-round-up
-
Exxon Urges EPA to Maintain Methane Rules
Dec 20, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Exxon Mobil is pressing the Environmental Protection Agency to maintain key elements of the Obama administration policy restricting methane emissions from oil and gas drilling.
In a letter to the agency Monday, the Texas-based oil giant said while it was interested in finding cost effective ways to regulate the greenhouse gas the administration should maintain programs including the leak monitoring program and enhanced standards for pneumatic devices and storage tanks.
"We believe the correct mix of policies and reasonable regulations help reduce emissions, further supporting the benefits of natural gas in the energy mix," Gantt Walton, an Exxon vice president wrote. "Overall we are pursuing initiatives that will result in a 15 percent decrease in company methane emissions by 2020."
The stance by Exxon, which along with seven other oil companies last year launched a program to share best practices to cut methane emissions, comes as the Trump administration has said it will roll back methane regulations to aid U.S. energy production.
Environmentalists cheered the oil giant's letter on Thursday.
"Reducing methane emissions from oil and gas operations is a critical, cost effective action in the fight to maintain a livable planet," Danielle Fugere, president of the activist group As You Sow, said. "Exxon's statement in support of sound regulations underscores the unreasonableness of the proposed rollbacks."
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Exxon-urges-EPA-to-maintain-methane-rules-13480757.php
-
New York Producers Fighting Efforts to Further Curb VOCs, Methane
Dec 20, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
New York regulators are seeking input on an early draft of rules to further curb volatile organic compounds (VOC) and methane emissions, a proposal that one state oil and natural gas industry group has warned could be “devastating” for producers if it’s finalized.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has been at work on the rulemaking for more than a year now. The process was started in response to Obama-era guidelines for the industry issued in 2016 for limiting VOC emissions from existing sources, part of which the Trump administration is considering rolling back. In an outline of the proposal released by DEC last month, however, some of the draft requirements would go beyond the federal guidelines to address methane emissions.
A similar process is underway in nearby Pennsylvania, while Ohio is also considering more air regulations for the industry based in part on the Obama-era guidelines. But unconventional oil and gas development has helped lift the industry’s fortunes in those states. New York has banned high-volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF), a move that has left smaller producers struggling with few prospects.
“One of our positions will definitely be that most producing wells in New York state are well below the stripper well/marginally economic threshold and therefore should be exempt from these regulations,” said Executive Director Brad Gill of the Independent Oil & Gas Association of New York (IOGANY). He told NGI’s Shale Daily that his organization intends to point out the potential economic impacts of such regulations and make the case that the industry “is being unfairly targeted.”
Gill also noted that producers wouldn’t be the only ones affected by the proposal. DEC is drafting the rules for oil and gas production; storage tanks; and gathering, boosting and compressor stations, along with other midstream operations.
The DEC is considering more robust leak detection and repair standards for VOCs and methane on a quarterly basis. Compressors and other equipment might also have to be retrofitted to meet higher emission control rates, among other things.
DEC spokesperson Erica Ringewald said the proposal would help implement aspects of the state’s methane reduction plan and help meet Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration’s goal of reducing emissions by 2030 by 40% from 1990 levels.
Cuomo, recently elected to a third term, has plans to sharply increase renewable energy generation and reduce emissions in the decades ahead. On Monday, he strengthened those commitments by pledging carbon neutral electricity generation by 2040.
DEC is accepting stakeholder input until Dec. 31, including on whether the proposed requirements for oil and gas production should apply to economically marginal and low volume wells. The agency is seeking feedback on factors that would be used to define those kinds of wells.
To be sure, oil and gas production in New York continues to decline. Oil volumes dropped 3.3% year/year in 2017 to 214,828 bbl, according to the DEC. Natural gas production, driven primarily by shallower formations such as the Medina and Trenton-Black River, also decreased 16% over the same period. Total reported gas production in New York for 2017 was only 11.4 Bcf.
The IOGANY has been working closely with the DEC’s Division of Air Resources in the rulemaking process. “We appreciate them allowing us input at this early stage and want to represent our members as well as we can on this,” Gill said.
IOGANY has hired a consulting firm to help submit feedback to DEC. It asked members last month for donations to help meet those costs, which Gill said have since been met. “Of course, we can always use more as it promises to be a long, drawn-out regulatory battle,” he added.
Environmental groups, including those that battled with IOGANY and others during the process to ban HVHF, are expected to file comments on the DEC proposal, Gill said in an email to members last month. While Cuomo has continued to strengthen the state’s environmental protections, many groups want his administration to do even more.
Ringewald said the DEC doesn’t yet have a specific timeline for implementing the regulations. After the agency receives early stakeholder input it would issue a formal rulemaking proposal and allow public comment before the rules are finalized.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/116857-new-york-producers-fighting-efforts-to-further-curb-vocs-methane
-
Trump's Energy Policy Shows Global Vision
Dec 20, 2018 | RealClearEnergy
By Tom Basile
Perhaps no other policy has felt such a distinct change in direction during the Trump Administration than America’s energy policy. It’s a truly global vision that can have lasting impacts on this country and the world. Trump has taken energy from Obama’s Carter-style hand wringing to repositioning America as the world’s dominant energy producer and supplier. America’s position as the lynchpin in the global energy system is central to administration’s approach to both economic prosperity and national security.
While his opponents often deride the President’s “America First” mantra, his steadfast position that he will never surrender our sovereignty to unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracies has helped fuel this shift on energy policy. His decision to pull out of the 2015 Paris climate accords enables us to use our energy industry to the benefit of our friends and allies around the world.
We are shipping liquefied natural gas to Poland and coal to Ukraine, while rolling back Russian control of their energy supplies. Trump understands that the best way to counter Russian aggression is to limit their energy dominance of Europe.
No other country has the combination of fossil fuel reserves – coal, gas and oil – and the innovation and entrepreneurial drive to bring them to market than the U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry has spoken of America leading a global alliance of countries wanting to make fossil fuels cleaner. The latest round of the UN’s never-ending climate talks in Poland has been an occasion for the administration to showcase Trump’s views on the importance of cheap, affordable energy to our allies and their economies.
The Trump Administration held a side-event at the conference on cleaner fossil fuels. It was a bold move that sent a direct message to China.
The aim of this year’s UN climate talks is to agree to a process for implementation of the Paris agreement. As the President predicted, China is already demanding that developing countries are treated differently from developed nations. The President was prescient here. If America stayed in the pact, our businesses and workers would be saddled with billions of dollars of extra costs while China, India and others get a free ride.
Unlike the Obama Administration, Trump won’t carry Beijing’s water to the detriment of the U.S. economy and position in the world. That’s a big win for American energy.
The President also recognizes that unlike previous Chinese leaders, President Xi is openly projecting Chinese power around the world and is using energy as an avenue to increasing influence. China is spending $1.3 trillion on its Belt and Road initiative to finance and build energy and transportation infrastructure across Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe. These projects embed Chinese personnel in strategic locations around the world and the debt used to finance them turns host countries into pawns on the superpower’s chess board.
Trump knows America’s response isn’t with bombs and missiles. It’s with our coal, gas, oil and our resolve in becoming the world’s top energy producer. It’s with the know-how and the human capital we possess to bring them to market.
Every developing country needs low cost, reliable energy and no country knows how to make fossil fuels better and cleaner than the United States.
President Trump also understands the lengths multi-lateral institutions like the World Bank will go to drive an energy and environmental policy that is based on a failing European model. The World Bank was founded with American money. America is the World Bank’s largest shareholder and recently, the U.S. Treasury agreed to pump in an extra $3.8 billion in return for it making long-needed reforms. It’s time it helps advance American interests starting with the Trump’s vision for our energy future.
The World Bank refuses to finance coal plant infrastructure and upstream oil and gas development. Only last month, the World Bank pulled its financing from its sole remaining coal project in Kosovo. Twenty years ago, America rescued Kosovo from Serbian aggression but it remains a fragile state, with 45% unemployment. It is totally reliant on an old, high emissions coal plants for virtually all its energy. An American-backed consortium using American equipment has been working on replacing them for over 10 years.
Next door in Serbia, China is financing the expansion of a large coal plant just as the World Bank undermines U.S. interests all while taking American taxpayer dollars. Great American companies like General Electric and Black & Veatch are losing out on major contracts.
It might shock some to know that leaders of many other countries support President Trump’s energy realism. Australia has refused to follow the UN’s directive to abandon its significant coal reserves. Developing nations need new, cleaner, state-of-the-art coal energy to lift their people out of poverty into a brighter future. Nobody has put it better than President of Trump when he speaks of exporting American energy all over the world, creating countless jobs for our people, and providing true energy security to our friends, partners, and allies.
He should be supported in advancing this vision, regardless of party. It will benefit not just America, but people around the world seeking more freedom and prosperity.
Tom Basile is a columnist, commentator and former host of “Sunday in America” on SiriusXM radio. He served as director of communications and public liaison for the Environmental Protection Agency during the Administration of George W. Bush.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2018/12/20/trumps_energy_policy_shows_global_vision_110373.html
-
Protests Greet McNamee at First Meeting
Dec 20, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Jeremy Dillon
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission today welcomed its newest member, Bernard McNamee, amid protests calling for his recusal over concerns he may not remain impartial with agenda items related to grid resilience.
McNamee's first commission meeting today brought the panel to its full complement of five members, although former Chairman Kevin McIntyre was not in attendance for the last meeting of the year as he struggles with health-related problems.
There were three protests against McNamee — two within the commission meeting room and one heard from outside the room — over the roughly 35-minute-long meeting. A fourth focused on pipeline approvals.
Bernard McNamee. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
McNamee did not participate in any votes. He said he was still working on putting together a staff and was not in a proper position to participate. That will likely change with January's meeting, McNamee added.
"The work FERC does is vitally important in making sure our energy markets work, that rates are just and reasonable, and that infrastructure is built responsibly," McNamee said. "But all these issues are complicated, multifaceted, and in order to keep an open mind, in order to make the right decisions, the key thing I want to do is listen."
Earlier this month, McNamee completed a controversial confirmation process that resulted in a 50-49 Senate floor vote along party lines — a rarity for the commission celebrated for its impartiality and fuel-neutral stances.
Democrats took issue with McNamee's previous work with the Department of Energy's general counsel in advancing the administration's failed policy proposal to financially aid struggling coal and nuclear plants.
They also fumed about previous comments he made against renewable energy and environmental group activism. In a video that surfaced last month, McNamee expressed skepticism about the science of human-driven climate change.
Those criticisms have followed McNamee to the commission, where a series of FERC watchers and environmental groups have filed briefs arguing he must recuse himself from matters related to the DOE grid resilience docket because of his previous work on the matter.
For his part, McNamee said throughout the confirmation process he would consult FERC ethics officials to determine which or any issues he would need to recuse himself from. Those sentiments were echoed by Chairman Neil Chatterjee in response to reporters.
"All I know is on his very first day at the commission, he went and received ethics training and sat down with our legal counsel at the commission to discuss these matters — as we all did here at the commission," Chatterjee said. "I would refer those questions to Commissioner McNamee and the outstanding ethical legal office here at the commission."
While not addressing McNamee specifically, Commissioner Richard Glick used his opening statement to urge the commission to do more to address climate change as part of its deliberations.
Glick's remarks came in response to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's dire report from last month, but they also show the gap between the Republican and Democrat members of the panel on climate focus in decisionmaking.
"Congress has entrusted FERC, in some cases, to act as the guardian of the public's interest," Glick said. "In my opinion, there is no greater threat to the public interest than these existential risks posed by climate change.
"We must take those responsibilities seriously," he added.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/12/20/stories/1060110263
-
FERC Scraps Votes on 2 Gas Projects
Dec 20, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
FERC leadership will no longer vote on a natural gas pipeline or a liquefied natural gas export terminal this morning as originally scheduled, according to the agenda distributed ahead of the agency’s monthly meeting.
Votes on Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass LNG terminal in Louisiana and Dominion's Sweden Valley pipeline project in Pennsylvania and Ohio have been postponed to another date, which the agency has not specified.
FERC’s analysis of natural gas projects has been subject to critiques by agency Democrats who want to see additional studies of greenhouse gas emissions associated with each pipeline and terminal. Republican Commissioner Kevin McIntyre has not voted in weeks, effectively leaving the agency leadership with a 2-2 partisan split.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
FERC OKs 60-Mile Pipeline to Meet Ohio LDC Demand; Glick Dissents
Dec 20, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
RH energytrans LLC’s Risberg Line Project, which would move 55,000 Dth/d of natural gas from northwest Pennsylvania to northeast Ohio to meet increasing demand, has been approved by FERC.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission found that the company has sufficiently demonstrated adequate market demand for the project [CP18-6-000]. Commissioners pointed to the binding precedent agreement that Dominion Energy Ohio signed as foundation shipper for 40,000 Dth/d to serve customers in northeast Ohio.
“Despite commenters’ general opposition to development of fossil fuel pipeline infrastructure, renewable energy sources or energy efficiency measures would not accomplish the project purpose of providing natural gas transportation service to Dominion customers in Ashtabula County, OH,” FERC’s order stated in response to project opposition.
Commissioner Richard Glick dissented in a separate statement as he has on several other recent certificate applications. He again cited FERC’s refusal to consider how pipelines might contribute to climate change. Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur concurred in a separate statement that offered a downstream greenhouse gas emissions estimate for the pipeline as she has recently for others. Despite the estimate, FERC has not determined a downstream emissions threshold to apply to infrastructure projects.
LaFleur and Glick, the Commission’s two Democrats, have urged a more robust approach to assessing climate change impacts.
The Risberg Line would take gas from an interconnect with Tennessee Gas Pipeline in Crawford County, PA, to help meet peak day supply deficits in Ashtabula County. Potential industrial customers there also expressed interest in capacity on the system at the time the company filed for a certificate in October 2017.
RH energytrans wants to convert 31.6 miles of existing 8-inch and 12-inch diameter gas gathering lines in Crawford County and Erie County, PA, for transmission service. From Erie County, the company would build about 28 miles of 12-inch diameter pipe in a right-of-way to traverse the state line and terminate at a new delivery point that interconnects with Dominion’s distribution system in North Kingsville, OH.
The project would also include installing 728 hp of compression, launcher/receiver facilities, mainline valves, a meter station and other equipment.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/116856-ferc-oks-60-mile-pipeline-to-meet-ohio-ldc-demand-glick-dissents
-
EU Limits Workplace Diesel Fumes in Bid to Cut Cancer Deaths
Dec 20, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Bus garages, vehicle repair shops, mines, and other workplaces in the European Union could have to take action to reduce buildups of diesel fumes under a law on occupational exposure to carcinogens finalized on Dec. 20.
The law amends the EU Directive 2004/37/EC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens or agents causing genetic mutations. The new law sets an EU exposure limit for diesel exhaust emissions of 0.05 milligrams per cubic meter of air in the workplace.
Companies would have to take preventative measures, such as improving ventilation, in areas where the limit is exceeded.
The limit could affect up to 19 million workers across the EU, according to figures published by the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm. Excess exposure to diesel fumes can lead to lung or bladder cancer, the commission said.
The law also establishes workplace exposure limits on mineral oils recovered from internal combustion engines and on six substances used in industries including chemicals and plastics production: 4,4’-methylenedianiline, epichlorohydrin, ethylene dibromide, ethylene dichloride, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon mixtures, and trichloroethylene.Minimum Standards
The EU exposure limits are minimum standards, with countries free to impose stricter standards. The law gives EU countries two years to adopt national provisions to put the exposure limits in place. Thereafter, the diesel fume limit would take effect after another two years.
For diesel fumes, Austria and Germany currently have workplace exposure limits, while a limit is under consideration in the Netherlands, Tony Musu, a senior researcher with the European Trade Union Institute, told Bloomberg Environment Dec. 20.
EU limits were “good news for all the workers who are exposed” and would lead to a reduction in premature cancer deaths, Musu said.
The law would have minimal effect on the bus operations of British transport company Stagecoach Group Plc because it already ensures its undercover parking sheds are well ventilated, while “in our workshops we use exhaust extraction equipment at all times,” Stagecoach spokeswoman Sian Freestone-Walker told Bloomberg Environment Dec. 20.
EU environment ministers meeting in Brussels Dec. 20 formally adopted the law without discussion. The European Parliament approved it Dec. 11.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/eu-limits-workplace-diesel-fumes-in-bid-to-cut-cancer-deaths
-
Denver’s Regional Transportation District Submits Plan to Fix PTC, Signal, Crossing Problems
Dec 20, 2018 | Railway Track and Structures
By Paul Conley
The Regional Transportation District has released a 35-page plan outlining the steps it will take to resolve issues with crossing gates on the line that serves the Denver International Airport.
The plan is in response to a threat by the Federal Railroad Administration to pull a waiver that allows the A Line to operate with new wireless gate technology. The FRA has complained that gates come down too early and remain down too long with the new system. That waiver already requires that flaggers man every crossing. The costs associated with the flaggers are one of the issues that led to a series of lawsuits between the RTD and the contractor that built the gate system and operates the line, Denver Transit Partners. DTP is comprised of a partnership among Fluor Enterprises, Inc. (a unit of Fluor Corp.); Denver Rail (Eagle) Holdings, Inc., a unit of John Laing plc; and Aberdeen Infrastructure Investments (No 4) USA LLC, a unit of Aberdeen Global Infrastructure Partners LP. Other team members include: Balfour Beatty Rail Inc., ACI, Ames Construction and HDR.
An integrated Positive Train Control (PTC) and Wireless Crossing Activation System (WCAS) employed on the RTDC system was manufactured by Wabtec.. Xorail, a Wabtec company, integrated the Wabtec PTC and WCAS systems with signaling and grade crossing activation systems from Alstom and Siemens “to provide an integrated and safe grade crossing activation and warning system that uniquely enforces and protects the FRA mandated minimum warning time of twenty (20) seconds,” according to the correction plan released by RTD.
RTD is the first electrified railroad to use the new Wabtec PTC/WCAS system. Wabtec had not responded to a request by Railway Track & Structures for comment by press time.
Among the corrective actions that RTD envisions are the installation of Radio Frequency repeaters of GPS signal to improve reception and a review of the WCAS activation and prediction algorithm (which RTD believes may have “too aggressive an acceleration curve with too large a safety factor.” RTD will also consider the use of other techniques and technologies, including TWC loop detection and motion-detection systems.
The A Line has 11 at-grade crossings, 10 of which it shares with the Union Pacific. In June of this year, the FRA gave RTD permission to remove flaggers from six of those crossings.
https://www.rtands.com/cs/denvers-regional-transportation-district-submits-plan-to-fix-ptc-signal-crossing-problems/
-
Marathon Hearing Set for Climate Rule
Dec 20, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Niina Heikkinen
EPA has announced it will be holding a lone public hearing on its proposed rule on greenhouse gas emissions from new and modified power plants early next month.
Members of the public will be able to voice their opinions in person to officials Jan. 8 at the agency's headquarters in Washington, D.C.
The hearing is scheduled to run all day — from 8 a.m. until 7 p.m. — according to an announcement in the Federal Register.
The proposed New Source Performance Standards for greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants would replace a 2015 rule put forward by the Obama administration that is currently in effect.
The new proposal axes the previous rule's assessment that carbon capture and storage technology represents the best system of emissions reductions.
Instead, the agency is focused on emissions reductions through increased power plant efficiency. The proposed rule would also raise the emissions rate that would be permitted for power plants (Climatewire, Dec. 7).
In addition to seeking comment on the rule change itself, EPA is looking for feedback to possible changes on requirements to draft additional endangerment findings for greenhouse gases.
Specifically, the agency is asking whether it should draft a new endangerment finding for each new pollutant for an already listed source category (Climatewire, Dec. 14).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/12/20/stories/1060110251
-
DC Passes Bill to Use 100 Percent Renewable Energy by 2032
Dec 20, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
The Washington, D.C., City Council has passed a bill promising the District’s electric grid will run entirely on renewable energy by 2032.
WTOP-FM reports the council on Tuesday unanimously passed the Clean Energy D.C. Omnibus Act of 2018. It includes requirements for new and existing buildings, electric car tax incentives and possible carbon fees on gas sales.
Chairman Phil Mendelson says the bill still needs to secure funding. The District’s chief financial officer says the bill will cost $91 million to implement over the next four years.
Councilman Vincent Gray says the bill will increase fees funding the Sustainable Energy Trust Fund, which provides energy assistance to low-income residents and supports sustainability programs. The bill also says the District will work with Maryland and Virginia to reduce regional carbon emissions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dc-passes-bill-to-use-100-percent-renewable-energy-by-2032/2018/12/20/23b4473e-0459-11e9-958c-0a601226ff6b_story.html?utm_term=.28f76adec099
-
Environmentalists Sue EPA Over Alaska's PM2.5 NAAQS Violations
Dec 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are suing EPA after the agency missed several deadlines to ensure that Fairbanks, AK, crafted Clean Air Act-mandated state implementation plans (SIPs) detailing how the area would reduce fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions in order to attain the PM2.5 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
In their lawsuit filed Dec. 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle, Citizens for Clean Air and Sierra Club say EPA failed to keep the state on track to reduce levels of PM2.5 in Fairbanks North Star Borough, which the groups say are the highest in the nation.
“Federal Defendants have known about Fairbanks’s harmful PM2.5 pollution for more than a decade, but they have repeatedly failed to take action mandated by the Clean Air Act to address the problem,” the groups say.
“Most recently, they failed to make a completeness determination regarding the state of Alaska’s failure to submit a timely proposed [SIP] addressing requirements triggered by EPA’s designation of Fairbanks as a 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter 'serious' nonattainment area. Due in part to Defendants’ ongoing delay, the people of Fairbanks, including children and the elderly, continue to be endangered by the harms of PM2.5 exposure.”
Areas generally seek to avoid designations of “nonattainment” with NAAQS, as it can result in the need to impose additional pollution controls on industry, or preclude industrial expansion. Much of Fairbanks' problem, however, stems from the area's heavy use of wood-fired heating, which releases PM2.5.
Alaska failed to submit its “serious area” nonattainment SIP to EPA by an air law deadline of Dec. 31, 2017, and still has not done so, the environmental groups allege. EPA was required to make a “completeness determination” regarding the state of Alaska’s SIP submission, or in the absence of a SIP, “a finding of failure to submit,” within six months of the submission deadline and no later than June 30, 2018, the groups say.
The EPA finding would trigger a two-year clock for Alaska to submit a sufficient plan, or for EPA to impose a federal implementation plan instead.
EPA failed to issue the required completeness finding by June 30, they say. The groups ask the court to compel EPA to make the necessary finding of “failure to submit."
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-sue-epa-over-alaskas-pm25-naaqs-violations
-
Democratic Leaders Ask Kathy Castor to Chair Climate Panel
Dec 20, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Mark K. Matthews, Nick Sobczyk and George Cahlink
Democratic House leaders have tapped Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) to lead a new committee on climate change in the next Congress, the lawmaker confirmed this morning.
"Speaker-designate [Nancy] Pelosi has asked me to consider leading the committee," Castor told E&E News. "It's a great responsibility."
Castor said the news wasn't "official quite yet" — as the parameters of the committee still were under discussion — but she said one of the goals should be to "raise the profile of what America should be doing to address the climate crisis."
In taking the job, the six-term lawmaker would be walking into a delicate situation.
For weeks, establishment figures and environmental activists have feuded over the scope of the committee, which Pelosi endorsed during a protest at her office just a week after Democrats took control of the House in the midterm election.
The protesters, led by the Sunrise Movement, want the committee to focus on crafting a "Green New Deal" — their vision of a massive climate-friendly jobs program.
An ally of the group, Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), also has called for membership of the committee to be limited to lawmakers who don't accept campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry.
Asked about the committee's mission, Castor said the Green New Deal would be a component of its responsibility but not its only objective.
"I think they have some terrific ideas," she said of the Green New Deal advocates. "But that's not going to be our sole focus."
Castor also indicated that interested members would not be disqualified from serving on the committee if they take money from the fossil fuel industry. "I don't think you can do that under the First Amendment, really," she said.
The Florida lawmaker did note, however, that there should be transparency about where members get their campaign contributions. "Whether it's this committee or any other committee," she said. "Are you on Energy and Commerce and taking a lot of money from Big Pharma? People should know about that."
Most recently, Democrats have debated whether the panel should have subpoena power. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said yesterday he believed it should not — a contrast to the last climate change committee, led by then-Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), which was granted subpoena authority when Democrats last controlled the House (Climatewire, Dec. 20).
"I don't know that they think they need subpoena power," Hoyer said. "They are going to have [climate] experts who are, I think, dying to come before them."
That led to a backlash from activists, including those with the Sunrise Movement. "Whip Hoyer is standing in the way of a plan that huge majorities of Americans support," said spokeswoman Varshini Prakash.'Terrific' choice
Turf battles are driving a lot of the internal Democratic feud. Veterans such as Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), who is in line to lead the Energy and Commerce Committee, have fought against the committee's revival. Pallone said earlier that he didn't "think it's necessary" (E&E Daily, Nov. 14).
Castor said she hoped to "develop a joint plan of action" with the other committees to tackle climate change. "I've already talked with incoming Chairman Pallone about coordinating our efforts," she said. "We have a moral obligation to our kids and our grandkids to address this and do it aggressively."
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), a backer of the Green New Deal, said this morning Castor would be a "terrific" choice for the job.
"I think she brings a lot of thoughtfulness to the position, and she's experienced, so I can't disagree with that," Huffman said.
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) added that he's had a "good partnership" working with Castor on drinking water and brownfields issues on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
That relationship will likely have to continue. Tonko is currently in line to chair the E&C Environment Subcommittee, where he's likely to take up climate issues in the next Congress.
Tonko was originally among the critics of the select committee proposal, but he told E&E News this morning the debate in the caucus has been "pretty well-settled."
"Any outreach we can do — any encouragement to bring people into the discussion and the dialogue so that we can advance sound, thoughtful, science-based, evidence-based outcomes — we will do," Tonko said.
Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.), also on Energy and Commerce, said Castro is well-versed in environmental and climate issues. "She's from Florida," he said. "She has some personal experience with severe weather."
Peters said he himself was not seeking to be on the select panel. He laughed when asked whether a turf fight between Energy and Commerce and the select committee had been resolved, saying, "I am sure it hasn't. I think it will play out over time."
Many Democratic lawmakers say the panel could be a landing place for many of the freshmen members who have said they'd like to be on Energy and Commerce.
Typically, it takes a few terms for a lawmaker to land a seat on E&C, but in the interim the select panel could offer them a chance to weigh in on issues like the New Green Deal.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/12/20/stories/1060110295
-
Dec 20, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
EPA is looking for candidates to serve on its Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, which furnishes outside feedback on a range of issues related to implementation of the landmark environmental law.
The agency is seeking nominees from academia, industry, environmental groups, state and local governments, and other organizations, according to a notice set for publication in tomorrow's Federal Register. Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler will make the appointments, with vacancies expected to be filled by next May.
The committee currently has about 40 members who serve two-year terms. The notice does not say how many seats are anticipated to open up. EPA will evaluate nominees on a variety of factors, including familiarity with air quality policy issues, experience as an elected or appointed official, and a background that would contribute to "a diversity of perspectives" on the committee, the notice says. It does not set a deadline for nominations.
The panel typically meets publicly twice a year, with the opportunity to hear directly from top staff in EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. Among other activities, the committee will provide advice and recommendations on the potential health, environmental and economic effects of Clean Air Act programs on the public; it will also review the policy and technical contents of proposed EPA regulations "to help effectively incorporate appropriate outside advice and information," the notice indicates.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/12/20/stories/1060110257
-
Save the World with Green Infrastructure
Dec 20, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By A. Donald McEachin
Climate change poses an existential threat to our society. A string of recent reports — including the Trump administration’s own National Climate Assessment — have made it clear that we are running out of time. To prevent catastrophic damage, we need to limit global warming to 1.5° Celsius; according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that means reducing net carbon dioxide emissions to zero by 2050.President Trump is blind to the danger we face: he calls climate change a “hoax,” and his administration has rolled back climate protections at every turn. Perhaps the president will someday see reason — but we cannot afford to wait for that day. If we do not act quickly, our children and grandchildren will inherit a vastly poorer, less healthy, and less livable world.ADVERTISEMENT
Fortunately, there is still a path to progress. While he refuses to act on climate change, President Trump seems willing to invest in our physical infrastructure — a longtime Democratic priority. I believe the two parties can strike a deal — but it has to be totally green. If we pass an infrastructure bill, every word of that bill needs to speed our transition to a clean, sustainable economy — an economy powered by renewable energy and built on green jobs. Investing in truly green infrastructure could help save the world as we know it; given the dangers we face, anything less — including otherwise-welcome investments — would be an unacceptable failure.
A successful green infrastructure bill will need to pass several tests.
First, the bill should take immediate, concrete steps to greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In 2018, global emissions rose by well over 2 percent. To meet a zero emissions goal by 2050, they need to fall by more than 3 percent per year. Reversing the current trend means bringing new wind and solar plants online, encouraging distributed generation, aggressively promoting energy efficiency, and investing in the kind of technologies (like improved energy storage) that make renewable energy more practical and more affordable over time.
Second, the bill needs to create green, well-paying jobs — not overseas, but here at home. Renewable energy can be an economic dynamo: already, the solar industry employs twice as many people as the coal industry. While many green jobs are un-outsourceable (we cannot build or maintain wind turbines remotely), other work — from manufacturing solar panels to developing better batteries — could happen almost anywhere. As we invest taxpayer dollars in creating those jobs, we need to use “buy American” provisions and other policy tools to maximize the work that happens here at home.
Third, all Americans need to share in the benefits of new investment. We need to ensure that new green jobs are created in the struggling communities that need them most. Monies we spend to mitigate the worst effects of climate change, and to promote resiliency in the face of hurricanes and wildfires and other disasters, need to be fairly apportioned. For too long, rural and low-income communities, and communities of color, have gotten short shrift; too often, they have had no voice in decisions that directly affect their health and well-being. These communities have disproportionately borne the harms from pollution, and they are poised to suffer disproportionately from climate change. We cannot let that happen: the decades-long pattern of environmental injustice needs to end, and a green infrastructure bill offers a means of making that much-needed change.
These ideas are not new, and they should not be controversial. For many months, Democrats have pushed to ensure that any infrastructure deal moves our economy in a more sustainable direction. At the start of 2017, Senate Democrats unveiled a comprehensive blueprint that called for a $100 billion investment in twenty-first century energy infrastructure — money that would have gone to modernizing our electrical grid, reforming renewable energy incentives, and promoting greater energy efficiency. Another $25 billion would have gone to increase communities’ resilience in the face of natural disaster. On the House side, my friend and colleague, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), introduced another package — the Leading Infrastructure For Tomorrow’s (LIFT) America Act—that shared many of those same goals.
Both plans were well-intended and thoughtfully-crafted; they form an excellent baseline for any future bill. But today we know that the dangers of climate change are likely greater, and certainly more pressing, than we realized even two years back. And with Democrats soon to assume control of the House of Representatives, we have both a stronger mandate and a greater ability to shape legislation. We should use every bit of that new influence to ensure that Congress acts in proportion to the challenges we face: we need a transformative bill that begins to fundamentally remake our economy along more sustainable lines. To settle for less would be a profound disservice not just to our current constituents, but to every generation still to come.
McEachin represents the 4th District of Virginia and is ranking member of the Natural Resources Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/422213-save-the-world-with-green-infrastructure
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested