Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - January 10, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) North American Commodity Resin Prices Take a December Dive
Jan 10, 2019 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Prices for most North American commodity resins spent the end of 2018 racing to the bottom. In December, average selling prices for polypropylene fell 8 cents per pound, according to market sources contacted by Plastics News. -
(ACC Mentioned) Insight: Synchronised Global Slowdown Led by China Hits Chemicals Outlook
Jan 9, 2019 | ICIS
By Joseph Chang
It’s not news that China’s economy is slowing. Weakness in the manufacturing sector in particular has been apparent for years, and now exacerbated by the US-China trade war. However, the magnitude of the decline comes as a surprise... -
Andrew Wheeler Officially Nominated to Head EPA
Jan 10, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
US President Donald Trump has nominated Andrew Wheeler as head of the EPA. Mr Wheeler has been acting administrator at the agency since July. -
Senator Steps down from Enviro Leadership Amid Investigation
Jan 10, 2019 | AP (in E&E - Greenwire)
By Rachel La Corte
A lawmaker who is the subject of an investigation into allegations of improper conduct has stepped down from his leadership positions on two Washington state Senate committees. Senate Democratic leadership announced... -
Shutdown Effects Trickle down to States, Grantees
Jan 10, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Southern California air regulators yesterday held a regularly scheduled meeting. EPA didn't make it. A senior agency official was on the agenda to give a phone rundown on the past year's activities but never called in, according to a... -
Forecast for U.S. Federal and International Chemical Regulatory Policy 2019: United States Chemical Forecast - Nanotechnology, Biotechnology and BRAG
Jan 10, 2019 | National Law Review
Under EPA’s January 12, 2017, TSCA Section 8(a) reporting rule for certain chemical substances already in commerce as nanoscale materials, persons who manufactured or processed a reportable chemical substance during the three... -
Forecast for U.S. Federal and International Chemical Regulatory Policy 2019: Chemical Management EU and Brexit
Jan 10, 2019 | National Law Review
Chemical substance management in the EU in 2019 will be a mix of new and ongoing activities. The EU faces unprecedented challenges in the form of the UK’s decision to leave the EU (Brexit), possibly without an agreement... -
EPA Submits Proposed Rule Allowing Controlled Commercial Usage of Methylene Chloride to the US Office of Management and Business for Further Approval
Jan 10, 2019 | Consulting Industry News
By Rahul Pandita
A proposed rule concerning methylene chloride, a lethal chemical which immediately kills after first contact, allowing the commercial usage of the chemical to be used in paint strippers, has been submitted to Trump White House by... -
Study Raises Concern About Flame Retardant
Jan 10, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Courtney Columbus
A flame retardant billed as an environmentally friendly choice can break down into potentially harmful substances under the right conditions, new research suggests. Researchers at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany... -
US States Create Health-Protective Drinking Water Guidelines
Jan 10, 2019 | New Food
A new analysis shows variation in the way state and federal regulators manage PFAS contaminants in drinking water, with some states adopting guideline levels that are more health protective than the non-enforceable levels set by the... -
Southampton to Spend $4 Million on Water Infrastructure Upgrades
Jan 10, 2019 | WSHU Public Radio
By Jay Shah
Southampton Town will set aside $4 million for water infrastructure improvements in areas where carcinogenic PFOS chemicals have been found in private wells. PFOS and PFOA are contaminants that the EPA... -
EU Chemical Enforcement to Focus on Small Firms, Importers
Jan 10, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Smaller companies that import chemicals into the European Union face scrutiny from a joint enforcement project involving authorities from 31 countries. Enforcement officials will coordinate checks on companies to ensure they... -
South Korean Study: BPS, BPF Disrupt Zebrafish Thyroid Function
Jan 10, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
BPA "analogues" BPS and BPF can disrupt thyroid function in aquatic organisms, and may even be more potent in this regard than BPA, according to a study by scientists in South Korea. -
Lead Tops Echa Notifications for SVHCs in Articles
Jan 10, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Lead dominated notifications submitted to Echa by importers and producers of articles containing newly identified substances of very high concern, the agency said. -
(ACC Mentioned) Now Is the Time to Build the Appalachian Storage Hub
Jan 10, 2019 | The Fairmont News
By Rep. David B. McKinley
When Hurricane Harvey hit the Houston area in August 2017, the devastation was unimaginable. The storm not only impacted an untold number of homes and businesses, it also exposed a weakness in America’s petrochemical industry. -
Evacuations, Water Tests Continue Weeks After Burst Gas Pipe near Berino Led to Oil Spill
Jan 10, 2019 | Las Cruces Sun-News
By Diana M Alba-Soular
A December pipeline break that led to hundreds of thousands of gallons of gasoline being spilled in a rural area southwest of Berino continues to cause a stir in Doña Ana County. Local elected officials are posing questions... -
California Set a Goal of 100% Clean Energy — and Other States May Be Ready to Follow Suit
Jan 10, 2019 | Los Angeles Times
By Sammy Roth
It’s been less than four months since California committed to getting all of its electricity from climate-friendly sources by 2045. But the idea is already catching on in other states. At least nine governors taking their oaths of office this... -
Pipeline Leaders 'Take Objection' to Vulnerability Claims
Jan 10, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy Dillon
The natural gas pipeline industry today stood by its record on cybersecurity issues following a year in which federal agencies have questioned its ability to maintain resilience in the face of increasing and escalating threats. -
How the Fossil Fuel Industry Got the Media to Think Climate Change Was Debatable
Jan 10, 2019 | The Washington Post
By Amy Westervelt
Late last year, the Trump administration released the latest national climate assessment on Black Friday in what many assumed was an attempt to bury the document. If that was the plan, it backfired, and the assessment wound up...
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) North American Commodity Resin Prices Take a December Dive
Jan 10, 2019 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Prices for most North American commodity resins spent the end of 2018 racing to the bottom.
In December, average selling prices for polypropylene fell 8 cents per pound, according to market sources contacted by Plastics News. Regional prices for all grades of polyethylene slipped 3 cents per pound, while solid polystyrene prices slid 7 cents and PET bottle resin prices declined by 4 cents.
These declines mostly were tied into lower seasonal demand and higher supplies of both resins and feedstocks, sources said.
The PP drop follows a 10-cent tumble in November for a major two month drop of 18 cents per pound. These slides were tied to changes in price for polymer-grade propylene feedstock. Those prices have dropped as propylene supplies have increased.
The December drop leaves North American PP prices down a net of 6 cents per pound for full-year 2018. The regional PP market in 2018 also was impacted by increased supplies of PP imported from other countries. Tight North American PP supplies — resulting from several production issues — and low prices for imported resin led buyers to foreign suppliers.
North American PP sales through November were down a little more than 1 percent, as a drop of 32 percent in exports sales brought down flat domestic sales. Market watchers, however, said that actual PP consumption in the region more likely was up 3-4 percent for the year because of increased amounts of imported PP.
The 3-cent December drop for all grades of PE followed a similar 3-cent decline in November. The December decline, combined with earlier increases and decreases, leaves most grades of North American PE down a net of 2 cents per pound in 2018.
Market watchers cited lower oil prices and lower global demand for PE, especially from the packaging market, as reasons for the November and December drops. Oil prices affect global resin markets, even though most North American PE is based on natural gas.
U.S./Canadian high and linear low density PE sales have reported major growth through November, resulting from larger amounts of new capacity being sold into the export markets as well as domestic sales that have grown at strong rates. HDPE sales in the region were up almost 13 percent, according to the American Chemistry Council, with domestic growth of more than 6 percent amplified by export sales growth of almost 43 percent.
In LLDPE, 11-month sales soared more than 24 percent, with domestic sales up almost 5 percent and export sales exploding almost 96 percent. Regional sales of LDPE have grown at lower rates, up more than 5 percent through November. Flat domestic LDPE sales have been boosted by a gain of 21.5 percent in exports.
The 7 cent solid PS drop occurred after prices had been flat in November, even as prices for benzene feedstock had declined slightly. The December PS decline left regional prices down a net of 6 cents per pound for full-year 2018.
North American solid PS sales struggled in 2018, dropping almost 5 percent through November. Exports have provided a bright spot, growing more than 13 percent and somewhat reducing the impact of a 5.5 percent drop in domestic sales.
For PET bottle resin, the 4 cent December drop followed declines of 6 cents in November and 1 cent in October. Even with these recent drops, PET bottle resin prices in the region were up a net of 4 cents per pound for the year.
Market watchers cited lower demand and improving supplies of purified terephthalic acid and other raw materials as reasons for the December decline. Demand for bottle resin declines in the fall and winter months — the result of declining sales of bottled water and carbonated soft drinks.
https://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20190110/NEWS/190119987/north-american-commodity-resin-prices-take-a-december-dive
-
(ACC Mentioned) Insight: Synchronised Global Slowdown Led by China Hits Chemicals Outlook
Jan 9, 2019 | ICIS
By Joseph Chang
It’s not news that China’s economy is slowing. Weakness in the manufacturing sector in particular has been apparent for years, and now exacerbated by the US-China trade war. However, the magnitude of the decline comes as a surprise and piles on top of the growing heap of macro concerns.
A synchronised global economic slowdown is on the horizon for 2019, a reversal of the upswing seen in 2017 and 2018.
Technology giant Apple’s revenue shortfall warning on 3 January put the spotlight on China and triggered harrowing equity market declines around the world.
While markets rebounded sharply on 4 January on comments from US Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell, and some of the issues Apple cited were indeed company specific, there’s no question China macro weakness will have wide ranging implications across multiple industries, including the chemical sector.
“We see clear evidence that the sector is heading into a downturn. Key areas of demand such as autos, electronics and housing are all weakening. Similarly, companies have begun issuing profit warnings – always a warning sign in terms of a demand slowdown,” said Paul Hodges, chairman of consultancy International eChem.
CHINA PMI SHOWS CONTRACTION
On 2 January, The Caixin China General Manufacturing PMI (purchasing managers’ index) for December came in at 49.7 versus 50.2 in November, dipping into contraction territory for the first time since May 2017. And the new orders sub index fell below 50 for the first time since June 2016.
Any PMI reading above 50 indicates expansion in manufacturing activity while under 50 denotes contraction.
“In general, China’s manufacturing sector faced weakening domestic demand and subdued external demand in December… it is looking increasingly likely that the Chinese economy may come under greater downward pressure,” said Zhengsheng Zhong, director of macroeconomic analysis at CEBM Group.
Zhong cited the US-China trade tensions as having a continuing negative impact on manufacturing.
There is hope the US and China are making progress on trade talks, with the US delegation in Beijing wrapping up discussions on 9 January while the 90-day US-imposed 1 March deadline is fast approaching. US tariffs on a third round of $200bn in Chinese imports would rise from 10%, to 25%, if no deal is reached.
“China has been the key to the post-2008 recovery, both directly within China via its massive stimulus programme and indirectly via the demand this created outside China for all types of chemicals and plastics,” said Hodges from International eChem.
“But this demand was not based on incomes, which remain below poverty levels in the West on an average basis. So today’s unwinding of China’s stimulus and lending bubble is having a ripple effect across the entire global economy,” he added.
China’s manufacturing PMI figures have lagged those of the US and Eurozone for years. But the move below 50 is an important warning signal.
“China will likely experience another soft year. Production through November 2018 is off 2.2% from the same period in 2017,” said Kevin Swift, chief economist of the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
“Although the Caixin PMI turned contractionary, it was below 50 for much of 2012-2016. China’s a hard one to digest… There are a lot of structural issues and economic headwinds but when observers turn negative, the nation seems to surprise to the upside,” he added.
It is worth noting that the Chinese government is taking a series of steps to stimulate the economy, from lowering banking reserve requirements, reducing taxes and approving major infrastructure projects.
WALL STREET EARNINGS PROJECTIONS
You can fully expect China to be at the top of the agenda on chemical companies’ upcoming fourth quarter earnings conference calls – most certainly in the analyst Q&As.
Expect Wall Street analysts to ratchet down 2019 profit estimates on China weakness.
When Germany-based BASF, the world’s largest chemical company, sees weakness in China’s automotive market, as indicated in its 7 December earnings warning, this is going to cut a swath across the global chemical sector.
Current earnings estimates, which show profit gains for many companies in 2019 versus a strong 2018, are likely too high. Investors are sceptical on analyst projections, as many major US-based chemical companies are trading at severely depressed price/earnings (P/E) multiples.
Company Price E2018 EPS E2019 EPS % Change vs 2018 P/E Chemours $31.88 $5.64 $5.74 2% 5.6 Trinseo $48.54 $8.31 $8.51 2% 5.7 Huntsman $20.72 $3.40 $3.28 -4% 6.3 LyondellBasell $86.94 $11.83 $11.21 -5% 7.8 Eastman Chemical $74.84 $8.43 $9.16 9% 8.2 Celanese $92.32 $11.04 $11.21 2% 8.2 Westlake Chemical $69.93 $8.55 $8.18 -4% 8.5 Olin $21.46 $1.87 $2.22 19% 9.7 DowDuPont $54.76 $4.12 $4.73 15% 11.6 Albemarle $76.58 $5.42 $6.18 14% 12.4 FMC $77.76 $5.99 $6.07 1% 12.8 PPG $100.24 $5.84 $6.47 11% 15.5
However, Laurence Alexander, analyst at Jefferies & Co, calls the US chemical sector “cheap, even given [the] current macros”, estimating that stocks are trading 17% below warranted levels.
“In terms of absolute P/E, the current sector average of 13.4x compares with 10x-12x at cyclical troughs. P/Es typically trough 8 months before EPS (but only 3 months in 2008 and 2011…), and consensus EPS is typically cut by around 21% in that interval,” he noted.
SHARP SLOWDOWN IN US MANUFACTURING
Meanwhile, the US and Euzozone PMIs are also moving in the wrong direction.
Eurozone manufacturing activity slowed markedly all through 2018 while the US held up remarkably strong. That is, until the December PMI reading, which showed a sharp decline to 54.1 from 59.3 in November.
While US manufacturing activity is still firmly in expansion mode, the magnitude of the decline is troubling. The US is finally succumbing to the series of interest rate hikes as well as weakness abroad.
“This time last year, the talk was about synchronised growth. As the year progressed, it was apparent that was not occurring and there was an unraveling or desynchronisation. Right now, the US is the bright spot but that’s like saying we are the cleanest shirt in a pile of dirty laundry,” said the ACC’s Swift.
However, the economist points out the “disconnect between the financial markets and the real economy”.
“The four main indicators used by NBER (The National Bureau of Economic Research) and most business economists are still positive. Employment has picked up, wages are rising and inflation remains muted - a good position for us to be in,” said Swift.
The economist sees slower growth in the second half of 2019, even “a pronounced slowdown”, but no recession. He pegs the odds of a recession in 2019 at 25-35%.
The ACC is maintaining its forecast of US GDP growth of 2.6% in 2019, and US chemical volume growth of 3.6%, up from an estimated 3.1% in 2018, noted Martha Moore,
“The economic expansion is mature, but still has legs, at least in the US, so we’re still expecting good gains in chemicals this year, especially with new production coming online,” said Moore.
“We haven’t revised our outlook for US chemicals output in 2019, though a sharp slowdown in China could impact some exports to Asian supply chains. However, US chemical exports to China only represent around 9% of total chemical exports,” she added.
For key end markets, US light vehicle sales came in higher than expected for 2018 at 17.0m units. They are expected to ease in 2019 but stay at elevated levels. Housing should improve slightly but at a slow pace, Swift noted.
It’s key to keep track of business and consumer confidence, as an erosion of sentiment can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, he said.
“Certainly, trade policy is eroding confidence in business and offsetting the goodwill from the tax cuts a year ago. And the Q4 slump is equities is feeding into hampered confidence,” said Swift.
“Expansions don’t die of old age - they get pushed over the edge usually by policy missteps or some shock. We need to watch for the shock or black swan. Policy missteps include a more extensive and protracted trade war. But it seems the Fed is being flexible,” he added.
FED WHIPSAWS MARKETS
Arguably the greatest macro concern has been US Fed interest rate hikes and the impact on global markets. On 19 December, Fed chairman Powell signalled there would likely be two more quarter-point rate hikes in 2019, putting equity markets into a tailspin.
But on 4 January, after widespread financial carnage, Powell took on a more conciliatory tone, saying the Fed would be “patient” and that it is “listening very carefully” to the markets. That sparked a huge snapback in US and global financial markets.
Yet it’s unclear if rate hikes for 2019 are off the table entirely. If financial markets stabilise and employment and wage data continue to come in strong, at least one hike could be in the cards.
And the Fed continues to wind down its $4,000bn balance sheet to the tune of up to $50bn every month. While Powell noted in his 4 January walk-back that the Fed would be flexible in using all tools, including the balance sheet, to promote stability, it would likely take another sharp downturn in financial markets to shift the balance sheet to neutral.
The Fed shrinking its balance sheet as it’s doing today is known as quantitative tightening (QT) – the reversal of quantitative easing (QE). The impact of QT should be polar opposite of the easy money QE that inflated asset prices for almost a decade after the financial crisis of 2008-2009.
DEBT PROBLEM
Companies with high debt levels are feeling the pain disproportionately. Leveraged companies took the brunt of the beating in the severe market downturn in December and early January.
The ratcheting up of corporate debt levels since the financial crisis poses a risk to future profitability.
“The post-2008 stimulus programmes were originally supposed to be a “short, sharp shock” to unblock the plumbing in the financial system. But they then morphed into an ongoing policy tool, and debt levels have since risen most alarmingly,” said Hodges from International eChem.
“Debt simply brings forward demand from the future, and paying back this debt is likely to create major headwinds for demand for the next few years,” he added.
https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2019/01/09/10304403/insight-synchronised-global-slowdown-led-by-china-hits-chemicals-outlook
-
Andrew Wheeler Officially Nominated to Head EPA
Jan 10, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
US President Donald Trump has nominated Andrew Wheeler as head of the EPA. Mr Wheeler has been acting administrator at the agency since July.
The previous chief, Scott Pruitt, resigned after a series of scandals last year. Mr Wheeler was deputy administrator at that time, and has filled the leadership role in an acting capacity ever since. President Trump pledged to officially nominate him to the position in November.
The Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) will consider the nomination at a 16 January hearing. While the EPA currently has only a skeleton staff due to the partial government shutdown, Congress is fully staffed.
But his nomination is not likely to be free from contention.
The Senate only narrowly confirmed Mr Wheeler – a former coal lobbyist – for the deputy administrator role in April 2018, by a vote of 53-45. And scepticism about his background and commitment to protecting the environment persist.
NGO the Environmental Working Group said that, since taking over as EPA’s head, Mr Wheeler has been "largely ignoring" the reformed TSCA law. He instead has "shown a fervent commitment to boosting the fortunes of his former employers in the coal and chemical industries by knocking down the agency’s efforts to protect people," said EWG president Ken Cook.
Mr Wheeler’s "horrendous record shows that he simply lacks the commitment to protect public health and the environment required by a nominee to run the EPA," he added.
Ranking EPW member Senator Tom Carper (D– Delaware) in recent months has urged Mr Wheeler to remedy some of Mr Pruitt’s actions. He received a letter last month committing to changes and increased transparency in the TSCA new chemicals programme and other areas of the reformed law’s implementation.
Nevertheless, commenting on the nomination, Mr Carper said he had been "very disappointed in Acting Administrator Wheeler’s performance with regard to making progress on those issues and to charting a new course for the agency’s future."
Frank Pallone Jr (D–New Jersey), chairman of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce, added: "If he intends to adequately fulfill the mission of the EPA – to protect human health and the environment – a drastic change in course is needed."
But Senator John Barrasso (R–Wyoming), chairman of the EPW, countered that Mr Wheeler has done "an outstanding job leading the EPA and is well qualified to lead the agency on a permanent basis".
"I will work with committee members to get him confirmed," said Mr Barrasso.
https://chemicalwatch.com/73220/andrew-wheeler-officially-nominated-to-head-epa
-
Senator Steps down from Enviro Leadership Amid Investigation
Jan 10, 2019 | AP (in E&E - Greenwire)
By Rachel La Corte
A lawmaker who is the subject of an investigation into allegations of improper conduct has stepped down from his leadership positions on two Washington state Senate committees.
Senate Democratic leadership announced yesterday that they were reconfiguring committees based on state Sen. Kevin Ranker's decision to step down from his chairmanship of the newly proposed Environment and Tourism Committee. He is also stepping down as a vice chairman for environment and natural resources on the Ways and Means Committee.
"This move will allow the Senate to fully focus on the important environmental policies we will be considering this session while we wait for the conclusion of the investigation into the allegations of workplace misconduct against Sen. Ranker," Majority Leader Andy Billig said in a written statement.
Ranker, a Democrat from Orcas Island, has been under investigation since last fall.
Ann Larson, who served as Ranker's legislative assistant for a year, has said that the investigation is related to sexual harassment and hostile workplace issues she faced while working for him during the 2010 legislative session. She said that she had a brief consensual relationship with Ranker before he was elected to the Legislature, but that when she rebuffed him after he recruited her to the Senate, he became increasingly hostile to her.
Larson, who is now director of government relations at the state's Department of Enterprise Services, says she was also subjected to hostile encounters involving Ranker once she left to work as a legislative liaison for the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
The Associated Press does not usually identify victims of sexual assault, but Larson agreed to have her name used.
Ranker did not respond to text or email messages seeking comment yesterday but has said previously that he believed he would be exonerated.
Senate leaders say the Environment and Tourism Committee will now be folded into two committees already in existence, with the environmental component being absorbed by the renamed Energy, Environment and Technology Committee.
Ranker will remain a member of both the Energy, Environment and Technology and Ways and Means committees.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/01/10/stories/1060111555
-
Shutdown Effects Trickle down to States, Grantees
Jan 10, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Southern California air regulators yesterday held a regularly scheduled meeting. EPA didn't make it.
A senior agency official was on the agenda to give a phone rundown on the past year's activities but never called in, according to a spokesman for the South Coast Air Quality Management District. If no explanation was given, none was needed; more than 90 percent of EPA's workforce is currently furloughed without pay.
With no end in sight to a partial government shutdown that began late last month, the trickle-down effects are starting to pile up. If these are more headaches than hardships so far, worries about the long-term outlook are also mounting.
"I'm concerned, and the longer it goes on, the more concerned we will get," Lisa Feldt, vice president of environmental protection and restoration at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said in an interview.
Participating governments in the cleanup program for the nation's largest estuary are facing an April deadline to turn in drafts of a third and final round of "watershed implementation plans." But with that "critical juncture" looming, Feldt said, the Chesapeake Bay Program office — a federal facility in Annapolis, Md., whose staff includes dozens of employees from EPA, the U.S. Geological Survey and other agencies — is closed. Among those furloughed is Dana Aunkst, who was supposed to settle in as the program's new director last week (Greenwire, Dec. 12, 2018).
Elsewhere, the shutdown has taken EPA pollution inspectors off the job, slowed enforcement actions and halted water sampling analysis, according to interviews and email exchanges with more than a dozen people familiar with the agency's work.
"The bottom line is, public health is put at risk through government inaction," Eric Schaeffer, a former EPA civil enforcement chief who now runs the Environmental Integrity Project, said in a statement. While programs like the AirNow pollution monitoring network are continuing to operate, the overall situation is "not great," Miles Keogh, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said earlier this week. "We want to get it over with as soon as possible."
While the shutdown — officially described as a "lapse in appropriations" — began for some agencies on Dec. 22, EPA stayed open with the help of carryover money through Dec. 28. Now, however, more than 13,000 employees are furloughed, according to the latest version of the agency's shutdown plan.
As is true elsewhere in the federal government, the approximately 860 staffers who remain on the job have duties needed to "ensure the safety of human life and the protection of property," according to the plan. Those include criminal investigations, emergency assistance and Superfund site work "where a failure to maintain operations would pose an imminent threat to human life." On the civil enforcement side, employees are allowed work if they are needed to meet court-ordered deadlines, as was the case with a settlement with Fiat Chrysler announced today (see related story).
The line can be a fine one. At EPA's 29 regional and program laboratories, employees are allowed to keep working to make sure that scientific instrumentation isn't damaged or test organisms destroyed.
Other work has halted. The EPA lab in Athens, Ga., for example, is no longer running analyses on drinking water and surface water samples collected in North Carolina's Lower Cape Fear region, Bridget Munger, a spokeswoman for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, said in an email. For now, the state is instead storing the refrigerated samples. And while the department has enough money on hand to keep running federally funded programs for the next few months, it could lose almost 75 full-time employees if the shutdown stretches beyond March, according to another spokesperson.
Officials with state agencies in Florida, Illinois, California and North Dakota also said there were no immediate money worries. Should the shutdown continue for another month, however, the California Air Resources Board will have trouble disbursing federal "targeted airshed" grants to local air districts, spokesman Dave Clegern said in an email. The board relies on EPA help in processing those funding agreements; without that assistance, the money won't go through, Clegern said.
Joint investigations are also on hold for now, he added. In the longer term, the processing of air quality cleanup plans could also be slowed. Although that might not pose legal implications unless EPA is sued, Clegern said, "there are significant issues when it comes to public perception of delay."
More than half of EPA's roughly $8 billion budget is earmarked for grants to state and local agencies as well as scientific research and nonprofit groups. Because some of those groups work with other agencies besides EPA, however, the shutdown may now pose multiple barriers.
Consider the Illinois-based Friends of the Chicago River. Last year, the advocacy organization won a $59,400 EPA grant to advance education and water quality improvement efforts, according to an announcement still posted on the agency's website. Executive Director Margaret Frisbie isn't worried about the shutdown's impact on that funding, but she is uneasy about a separate grant proposal to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, run by NOAA, an agency that has also been hit by the shutdown.
The proposal, due Feb. 4, will seek funding to remove a spillway in a Chicago River system tributary that interferes with fish spawning, Frisbie said. "This is like a 30-page grant [proposal] with a huge amount of documentation," she said. With the Great Lakes initiative closed and its staff furloughed, "we're going forward," Frisbie said, "but operating blindly and not consulting with them because they're not available."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/01/10/stories/1060111599
-
Jan 10, 2019 | National Law Review
NANOTECHNOLOGY
1. Reporting Rule for Existing Chemical Nanoscale Materials
Under EPA’s January 12, 2017, TSCA Section 8(a) reporting rule for certain chemical substances already in commerce as nanoscale materials, persons who manufactured or processed a reportable chemical substance during the three years prior to the final effective date of the final rule had until August 14, 2018, to submit information to EPA. There is also a standing one-time reporting requirement for persons who intend to manufacture or process a discrete form of a reportable chemical substance on or after the effective date of the rule. These persons must report to EPA at least 135 days before manufacturing or processing of that discrete form. EPA has stated that it will use the data to decide if further action under TSCA, including additional information collection, is needed. More information regarding the final rule is available in our January 12, 2017, memorandum, “EPA Promulgates Final TSCA Reporting and Recordkeeping Rule for Nanoscale Materials.” Our August 14, 2017, blog item “EPA Publishes Final Guidance as Final TSCA Section 8(a) Rule Takes Effect” provides information on EPA’s final guidance.2. Draft Current Intelligence Bulletin (CIB) for Silver Nanomaterials
In September 2018, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) issued a revised draft Current Intelligence Bulletin: Health Effects of Occupational Exposure to Silver Nanomaterials. NIOSH first released a draft CIB on silver nanomaterials in January 2016. Unlike the 2016 draft, the 2018 draft includes a recommended exposure limit (REL) for silver nanoparticles (<100 nanometers (nm) primary particle size) of 0.9 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) as an airborne respirable eight-hour time-weighted average (TWA) concentration. The REL would apply to processes that produce or use silver nanomaterials. In 2019, NIOSH will be reviewing peer reviewer and stakeholder comments on the revised draft CIB and making any necessary changes as it prepares the final CIB. In addition, NIOSH will be completing peer and stakeholder review of a draft CIB concerning approaches to developing occupational exposure limits or bands for engineered nanomaterials. BIOTECHNOLOGY
Even without urging from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, EPA, the FDA, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have all taken steps to modernize the biotechnology regulatory system, embracing the spirit of the 2017 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report, “Preparing for Future Products of Biotechnology.” This progress is expected to continue in 2019.
In October 2017, the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs’ (OPP) Biopesticide and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) reorganized to create the new Emerging Technologies Branch (ETB). ETB’s scope of responsibility includes the registration of pesticides that are the product of biotechnology. The growing ETB portfolio includes pesticides that are plant-incorporated protectants (PIP), genetically-engineered (GE) microbes, and GE mosquitoes. In 2019, ETB will continue to expand as it navigates the data requirements, risk assessment approaches, and regulatory issues applicable to the novel technologies that it encounters in submitted experimental use permit and product registration applications. BPPD recently projected that its future biotechnology registration activities may include products of synthetic biology, genome-edited PIPs, RNA interference products, and possibly eventually gene drives.
In 2019, FDA will continue to implement its Plant and Animal Biotechnology Innovation Action Plan. The Action Plan advances policy priorities that FDA will pursue to clarify its science-and-risk-based approach for product developers; avoid unnecessary barriers to future innovation in plant and animal biotechnology; and advance safety and FDA’s public health mission. As a first step, FDA will adopt a comprehensive policy framework for the development and regulatory oversight of animal biotechnology products, including for intentionally genetically altered animals and the food and drug products derived from them. According to FDA, this flexible framework will advance its commitment to safety while promoting innovation. As part of this effort, FDA intends to publish two guidance documents in 2019 that will provide more clarity on how FDA is applying its regulatory oversight to evaluate new animal biotechnology products based on the risk profile of various products.
In October 2018, FDA and USDA jointly hosted a meeting, “The Use of Cell Culture Technology to Develop Products Derived from Livestock and Poultry.” Both FDA and USDA had claimed oversight of cell-cultured meat (also referred to as lab-grown meat, clean meat, in vitro meat, imitation meat, synthetic meat, and fake meat), which is grown in laboratories from animal cell-cultures. In a November 16, 2018, statement, the agencies announced that they concluded that “both the USDA and the FDA should jointly oversee the production of cell-cultured food products derived from livestock and poultry.” The agencies announced an agreement on a joint regulatory framework wherein FDA oversees cell collection, cell banks, and cell growth and differentiation. A transition from FDA to USDA oversight will occur during the cell harvest stage. USDA will then oversee the production and labeling of food products derived from the cells of livestock and poultry. FDA and USDA “are actively refining the technical details of the framework, including robust collaboration and information sharing between the agencies to allow each to carry out our respective roles.”
USDA is working on several fronts to address biotechnology issues in 2019. On December 21, 2018, USDA promulgated a final rule establishing the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (Standard). The new Standard requires food manufacturers, importers, and other entities that label foods for retail sale to disclose information about bioengineered (BE) food and BE food ingredient content. The Standard is intended to provide a mandatory uniform national standard for disclosure of information to consumers about the BE status of foods. Following publication of the Standard, USDA will provide outreach and education to inform regulated entities and the public about the new disclosure terms. The Standard includes the following initial compliance dates: (1) except for small food manufacturers, entities responsible for BE food disclosure must comply with the requirements of this part by January 1, 2020; and (2) small food manufacturers must comply with the requirements of this part by January 1, 2021.
USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) signaled on June 29, 2018, its intent to prepare a “programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) in connection with potential changes to the regulations regarding the importation, interstate movement, and environmental release of certain genetically engineered organisms.” When published, the EIS will have a significant impact on how APHIS chooses to amend its regulation of GE organisms. APHIS requested comment on issues to be considered in preparing the EIS, as well as how to define the scope of the alternatives and environmental impacts. According to an item in APHIS’s Fall 2018 Regulatory Agenda, APHIS intends to publish in April 2019 a proposed rule to update the regulations in response to advances in genetic engineering and APHIS’s understanding of the plant health risk posed by GE organisms, thereby reducing the burden for regulated entities whose organisms pose no plant health risks. More information is available in our July 24, 2018, memorandum, “APHIS/USDA Prepare to Revise Regulations Pertinent to Genetically Engineered Organisms.”Biobased and Renewable Products Advocacy Group (BRAG®)
The trajectory for development of new biobased and renewable chemical products is promising in 2019 given the growing sustainability objectives for many companies and their stockholders. As these new sustainable chemistries are developed and become available for commercialization, the Biobased and Renewable Products Advocacy Group (BRAG®) is ready to be part of the solution to facilitate their availability on the market. A key objective of BRAG in 2019 is to address the regulatory challenges related to naming conventions as outlined in its April 2018 white paper, “Proposal for a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Representation and Equivalency Determinations for Renewable and Sustainable Bio-based Chemicals.” BRAG intends to coordinate with EPA staff and leaders within the biobased chemical industry to outline a process that allows for Class 2 chemical equivalency determinations for chemistries derived from different sources.
Biobased industry stakeholders are encouraged to express support for the initiative and the allocation of resources to address the recommendations outlined in the white paper. The next generation of biotechnology products may be on the line if a modernized and more efficient regulatory system is not developed.
Although it remains unclear whether and how far the Trump Administration will carry on with these demands, global and national policy reforms are increasingly focusing on renewable chemistry as a critical part of addressing climate change. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO), for example, has announced a request for information (RFI) on algae, biomass, and waste feedstocks that can be used in the production of biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower. Additionally, DOE funding opportunities in 2019 will concentrate on incentivizing biotechnology and energy efficiency through renewable and sustainable sources. This shift in focus is also expected throughout the globe as the United Kingdom (UK), Canada, and Finland, among other nations, emphasize the need for collaboration and transformations necessary to encourage growth of the bioeconomy.
It is expected that agencies involved in regulation of future biotechnology products, such as EPA, FDA, DOE, and USDA, will increase scientific capabilities, tools, expertise, and horizon scanning in key areas of expected growth of biotechnology, including natural, regulatory, and social sciences. We can also foresee such agencies further increasing their use of pilot projects to advance the understanding and use of ecological risk assessments and benefit analyses for future biotechnology products. The biobased industry should plan to remain engaged in all aspects of TSCA implementation to ensure regulatory parity with traditionally-sourced chemicals and to avoid additional obstacles to commercialization.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/forecast-us-federal-and-international-chemical-regulatory-policy-2019-united-0
-
Jan 10, 2019 | National Law Review
II. KEY GLOBAL CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT PREDICTIONSA. EUROPEAN UNION (EU)
1. Chemical Substance Management in the EU
1.1 Introduction
Chemical substance management in the EU in 2019 will be a mix of new and ongoing activities. The EU faces unprecedented challenges in the form of the UK’s decision to leave the EU (Brexit), possibly without an agreement between the UK and EU. The UK’s transition to its own chemical substance management system is expected to be a major development in 2019. Ongoing compliance and enforcement challenges are expected to continue under REACH and the Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR). Updates to the EU’s Classification, Labeling and Packaging (CLP) regulation, evaluation of EU food contact materials (FCM) legislation, and implementation of the criteria for identification of endocrine disruptors recently adopted by the European Commission (EC) will impact the management of chemical substances in 2019 and beyond.B. BREXIT
On June 23, 2016, more than 30 million people voted in a referendum to decide whether the UK should remain in, or depart from, the EU. The “Leave Campaign” won the referendum by 52 percent to 48 percent, and since then “Brexit” has become an important matter globally with a wide range of stakeholders. Since the referendum in 2016, there have been numerous Brexit-related political and legal developments, including issuance of a Draft Withdrawal Agreement (DWA) and Political Declaration Outline. These documents, issued on November 14, 2018, can be regarded as the only substantive result of UK-EU negotiations to date -- and quite possibly represent the only basis for a Brexit outcome other than a “hard,” “no deal,” or “disorganized” exit. Critically, for the DWA to hold legal relevance, it requires approval from UK and EU Parliaments.
UK Prime Minister Theresa May delayed a House of Commons vote on the DWA scheduled for December 11, 2018, amidst concerns regarding being unable to obtain required support from Members of Parliament (MP). Mrs. May survived a Conservative party “no-confidence vote” in her leadership, and is in discussions with EU representatives to amend the DWA to achieve support from UK MPs. Among the key issues for discussion is the Irish “backstop.” Mrs. May has indicated, to the Labor Party’s frustration, that the UK’s House of Commons will vote on the DWA during the week of January 14, 2019. The Labor party contends this is an unnecessary delay, and other UK political parties are urging Jeremy Corbyn to push for a no-confidence vote against Mrs. May’s government as a whole, in contrast to the no-confidence vote mentioned above, which focused on Mrs. May. The upcoming “meaningful vote” will play a critical role in determining the UK’s next Brexit steps. Meanwhile, the European Court of Justice has ruled that the UK can cancel Brexit without permission of the EU-27.
For many interested parties, the DWA represents a favorable practical Brexit process due to its transition period until December 31, 2020, and related EU-UK cooperation. If the DWA receives approval in the UK, it will be considered by the European Parliament (EP). It is far from certain that UK MPs will support Mrs. May’s proposed DWA. If the DWA does not obtain required support in the House of Commons, the default position would be for a “no-deal Brexit” to occur on March 29, 2019, which would raise a range of political and legal issues including an extension of the two-year timeframe under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, changes in UK leadership, and further EU-UK negotiations. Much to “Brexiteers’” disbelief, an additional UK referendum on Brexit has also been suggested.
The Commons vote scheduled to occur in January 2019 is a critical Brexit moment. European approval and a full transition period are considered highly likely if the House of Commons votes in favor of the DWA, but the chances of this occurring are uncertain and a no-deal Brexit in March 2019 is entirely possible. If the House of Commons does not support the DWA, the UK and entities globally face further Brexit-related uncertainty, as well as ongoing and significant political tensions in the UK. The good news is that we are quickly approaching March 2019, and it is expected that industry will understand better the Brexit process by this time, including its mechanics and timing.
Brexit has numerous potential consequences for chemical regulatory compliance and product stewardship in the EU and UK. Personnel addressing compliance or marketing products are well advised to review regularly information made available by ECHA and the UK’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE). It is anticipated that early to mid-2019will provide much meaningful information for the chemicals industry.
As expected, the UK has already signaled that it will oversee a robust regulatory framework for the management of chemicals post-Brexit. Chemical companies with interests in the UK market should follow developments in 2019 regarding the UK’s potential future chemical regulatory frameworks. Based on their corporate interests, companies may also wish to engage in advocacy or stakeholder discussions regarding potential future UK legislation (e.g., UK REACH Regulation).
The DWA does not include measures that mitigate the regulatory impact of the UK becoming a “non-Community” or “third” country in the context of EU regulations, including REACH. Therefore, it appears, that the following Brexit-driven practical changes will occur, among many others, either on March 29, 2019, or at the end of the applicable transition period:UK chemical manufacturers become non-Community manufacturers, and are required to appoint EU-27 based Only Representatives (OR) if they wish to address REACH compliance for their EU-27 based customers;Exclusively UK-based ORs are considered outside the scope of REACH, and can no longer provide OR services from the UK; andUK-based Downstream Users under REACH are no longer required to inform UK- or EU-27-based suppliers of their uses.
In addition to REACH, Brexit has a range of potential consequences under many regulations including the BPR, the CLP Regulation, and the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Regulation.
UK chemical manufacturers selling to the EU-27 market, EU-27 chemical manufacturers selling to the UK market, and chemical manufacturers established outside the UK and the EU-27 and engaged in either market must understand the impacts of the DWA for their businesses, and prepare to adapt accordingly and for a no-deal exit in March 2019. Preparing for both scenarios appears essential to support ongoing market access and business prosperity. A no-deal scenario, in particular, could raise significant challenges and have negative consequences for unprepared supply chains.
Chemical companies can benefit from monitoring diligently Brexit-related developments in 2019, and performing the following tasks to prepare their businesses for Brexit:Determine if legal entities addressing compliance are established in the UK or EU-27, and transfer operations to an EU-27 entity if required;Evaluate and re-negotiate contracts affected by Brexit; andRequest confirmations from supply chain actors to document that Brexit-related measures are in place.
Brexit has attracted unparalleled levels of attention globally due to its significance and potential for worldwide impact on supply chains and financial markets. Good planning and sound regulatory and legal support are essential to managing the potential implications of Brexit and chemical companies addressing EU and UK compliance that have a busy year ahead. The chemicals industry can benefit significantly from proactive and strategic planning to protect businesses from the potentially damaging consequences of Brexit on important issues such as market access and legality of sales.
With offices in the U.S., the UK, Europe, and China, The Acta Group (Acta®) offers expertise with regulatory programs and chemical product approvals in North America, Europe, South and Central America, Asia, the Middle East, and the Pacific Rim. Acta is the consulting affiliate of B&C, established to complement B&C’s legal services by providing a full-range of global support for our clients’ products from concept to approval, so they get to market quickly and efficiently, and stay there when challenged by a new issue or set of rules.
1. Biocides
The EU’s BPR, which repealed and replaced the Biocidal Products Directive (BPD) on September 1, 2013, covers the “placing on the market” and use of biocidal products for the protection of humans, animals, materials, or articles against harmful organisms (e.g., pests). BPR is intended to improve the functioning of the biocidal products market in the EU, while ensuring a high level of protection for humans and the environment. BPR promotes the reduction of animal testing by providing mandatory data sharing obligations and encouraging the use of alternative testing methods.
In the recent past, there have been several important developments in the European biocides space. These include approvals for biocidal products, determinations of ECHA’s Biocidal Products Committee (BPC), activities of the Enforcement Forum’s BPR Subgroup (BPRS), implementation under BPR of the scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties, and of course, numerous Brexit-related matters. It is expected these recent matters will influence decision-making and drive many activities under BPR in 2019.
From a legal standpoint, perhaps the most interesting of these developments is the implementation of the criteria for endocrine-disrupting properties under BPR. As such criteria have not yet been applied in other important chemical regulatory sectors, many regard BPR as the proving ground for such criteria. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2100 provides the legal text for the endocrine disruptor criteria, and Member State Competent Authorities have issued agreed upon notes on how to apply the criteria.
Among the legal issues raised by the criteria, guidance, and notes is whether the criteria can be applied to biocidal product components other than the active substance. BPR indicates that the criteria on endocrine-disrupting properties are relevant in the context of exclusion of biocidal active substances. Supporting documents for the legal criteria paint a different picture, suggesting that non-active co-formulants within a biocidal product may lead to a conclusion that a biocidal product has endocrine-disrupting properties. It can be reasonably expected that, in due course, there will be challenges and clarification in this regard.
Further concerns raised by the endocrine disruptor criteria and supporting documents include application of the criteria to active substances that are still under review. To such substances, the complete criteria apply with immediate effect. Industry has already seen ECHA’s BPC to support approval of an active substance, but sent the dossier back to the evaluating Member State to assess whether the substance meets the criteria. New data may need to be developed and submitted for purposes of the criteria, and companies need to prepare for these circumstances. The criteria represent an important measure in terms of biocidal product safety, but raise a number of questions at this late stage in the BPR timeline. Application of the criteria at this stage evidently threatens the goal of completing examinations by 2024.
It is clear that the biocides sector has an interesting and challenging year ahead. As companies seek to bring biocidal products to market, it is expected the endocrine disruptor criteria will attract substantial attention and cause significant delays. As the criteria are progressively applied to cases, it can be expected there will be questions on, and additional supporting documentation regarding, the criteria. The BPR data sharing and compensation rules, which are similar to yet distinct from the REACH rules, are expected to continue to attract attention in 2019. Data sharing is typically contentious under chemical regulatory regimes, and BPR is no exception. The longstanding and much discussed requirements of fairness, transparency, and non-discrimination are expected to keep regulatory personnel busy this year as companies engage in mandatory data sharing. Many data sharing agreements will likely be exchanged, and it is expected that binding arbitrations and referrals of data sharing disputes to ECHA will also continue in 2019.
There are many deadlines in 2019 under BPR. These include deadlines for notification to ECHA to include substances in the Review Program, and deadlines for Union Authorization applications. Substances with deadlines in 2019 for Union Authorization applications include margosa extract, propan-1-ol, and imiprothrin. The BPC has a busy Work Program in 2019, and many companies globally with relevant product portfolios will likely follow closely regulatory consideration of their active substances.
Although enforcement of BPR is in the sole competence of Member States, BPRS plays an important role in coordinating strategies and joint inspections. The main priority of BPRS is to coordinate enforcement projects on BPR issues in Member States. In 2019, BPRS will launch a coordinated enforcement project dedicated solely to BPR requirements regarding treated articles (BEF-1). BEF-1 aims at covering the full supply chain making treated articles available on the market. BEF-1 will be executed in 2019, and a report will be published in 2020. BEF-1 will include broad participation from Member States, and is an important project because, to date, there is limited experience on specific enforcement of duties related to treated articles. Companies engaged in European commerce for treated articles are well advised to review and improve their compliance strategies to avoid unpleasant surprises this year under BEF-1.
Companies placing biocidal products on UK and EU-27 markets should follow closely Brexit-related developments and update compliance strategies as needed. As of the date of this writing, a DWA has been agreed between the UK and EU. To hold legal relevance, the document requires approval from the UK and EP. It is not certain that the DWA will receive required approvals, and this means a “no-deal” or “disorderly” Brexit is possible. Companies with interests in EU-27 and UK markets face the challenge of preparing appropriately for multiple potential Brexit outcomes and implementing plans timely. As reported extensively, among other changes, upon Brexit:UK-based biocidal product authorization holders will be considered outside the scope of EU BPR;EU-27 Member States will no longer be able to issue a national BPR authorization based on recognition of a UK authorization; andThe UK will no longer act as an evaluating Competent Authority under BPR.
Based on the wide array of ongoing issues in the biocides arena, it is clear that companies’ technical, scientific, regulatory, and legal personnel have vital roles to play this year. Coordinated and well-informed regulatory approaches, and assistance from external specialists as required, can assist entities in the biocides sector to achieve their compliance and business goals in 2019.
2. Classification and Labeling Initiatives
In January of 2009, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) of Substances and Mixtures came into force. CLP aims to harmonize several elements of hazard communication, and to ensure consistent communication of those hazards to the workers and consumers within the EU Member States. CLP repealed Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC and amended Regulation (EC) 1907/2006. CLP is originally based on a combination of Revision 3 and Revision 4 of GHS. The eighth adaptation to technical progress (ATP) notes that CLP was reviewed against Revision 5 of the UN model and updated accordingly. In 2019, it is likely that the twelfth ATP will be published and adopted. It will align CLP to Revision 6 and Revision 7 of the GHS.
CLP contains, in Annex VI, substance-specific required classification and labeling. These substance level classifications can include specific concentration limits triggering the required classification when used in mixtures. CLP also includes supplemental hazards (i.e., EU Specific Hazard (EUH) statements) and specific notes for consideration for classification of substances. CLP updates and amendments occur about once or twice annually. The thirteenth ATP was adopted on October 4, 2018, published in the EU Official Journal, entered into force on November 9, 2018, and shall apply beginning May 1, 2020. It amends CLP by adding the ECHA Risk Assessment Committee’s (RAC) 2017 opinions on harmonized classification of several substances to Annex VI. The ATP includes 18 updates to existing entries and 16 new entries. In 2019, manufacturers and importers will need to review these changes to determine if any of the new or revised entries are present, and if the changes result in amended classifications. If a change in the classification is noted, safety data sheets (SDS) and labels will require updates as specified in the regulation.
3. Food Contact Materials
FCMs in the EU must comply with the Framework Regulation EC No. 1935/2004 and Good Manufacturing Practice EC No. 2023/2006. The general requirements are that the FCM must not release constituents into food at levels that are harmful to human health or change the organoleptic properties of food. There is no requirement for FCMs to be reviewed, monitored, or approved at the EC level at this time. The Framework Regulation includes, in Annex I, specific measures on materials. Currently, there is legislation that relates to specific materials (i.e., plastics, recycled plastics, regenerated cellulose, ceramics, and active and intelligent materials). There is no material-specific legislation at the EU level for inks, coatings, paper and paperboard, rubber, and adhesives. There are substance-specific measures for vinyl chloride monomer, specific bisphenol-A based epoxy resins, nitrosamines, and n-nitrosables.
On September 24, 2018, DG SANTÉ of the EC organized an introductory workshop to commence the official start of the evaluation of EU FCM legislation. The EC, with the support of an external contractor, will collect data, analyze the findings, and issue a report by September 2019.
The consultation involves targeted interviews with stakeholders, focus group discussions, and an open public consultation. On the basis of the findings and analysis of the consultation, the EC will determine how it will revise the regulatory framework for the European FCM sector.
Those interested in commenting on the Framework’s effectiveness and perhaps shaping the legislative process should look for opportunities during the open public consultation periods expected from December of 2018 until February of 2019. B&C will soon be releasing a podcast on EU FCM Legislation as part of its “All Things Chemical™” series available on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, and Google Play Music. Stay tuned!
4. SVHC/Restrictions/Authorizations
Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) are those that fulfil one or more of the criteria defined in Article 57 of the REACH Regulation. Substances meeting the definition of a SVHC are those:Meeting the criteria for classification as carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reprotoxic (CMR), category 1 or 2;Considered PBT or very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB); orFor which there is an equivalent level of concern, for example endocrine disruptors and sensitizers.
The candidate list for authorization, or SVHC list, was first published in October 2008, but is updated regularly. The most recent update occurred in June 2018 when ten new substances were added, taking the total number of substances on the SVHC list to 191. In 2018, a total of 17 substances were added to the SVHC list. A list of the substances included on the SVHC list can be found at https://echa.europa.eu/candidate-list-table.
ECHA regularly assesses the SVHC list to decide which substances should be added to REACH Annex XIV, or the Authorization list, as a priority. This is primarily based upon information within the registration dossier, for example on uses and volumes. There are currently 43 substances listed on the Authorization list, no new substances were added in 2018. A list of the substances included on the Authorization list can be found at https://echa.europa.eu/authorisation-list. Four of the substances listed on the Authorization list, Dichromium tris(chromate (EC Number 246-356-2), Strontium chromate (EC Number 232-142-6), Potassium hydroxyoctaoxodizincatedichromate (EC Number 234-329-8), and Pentazinc chromate octahydroxide (EC Number 256-418-0), have their sunset date on January 22, 2019.
The ECHA SVHC Roadmap to 2020 gives an EU-wide commitment for having all relevant known SVHC included in the Authorization list by 2020 and outlines how ECHA intends to achieve this objective. The following groups of substances are to be covered by the implementation plan:CMRs (Categories 1A/1B);Sensitizers;PBTs or vPvBs;Endocrine disruptors; andPetroleum/coal stream substances that are CMRs or PBTs.
Each year, ECHA publishes a report on the progress of implementing the SVHC Roadmap. These reports summarize the achievements and activities carried out the previous year and set out the activities planned for the following year. The 2018 report is not yet available.
ECHA released on Decembers 14, 2018, its Strategic Plan for 2019-2023, in which it lays out its strategic outlook for managing chemicals in the years ahead.
Although there is no direct link between the Community Rolling Action Plan (CoRAP) and the authorization and restriction process, inclusion in the CoRAP means that a substance’s potential risk is going to be evaluated by a Member State. Hence, a follow up may be that the Member State wishes to begin the authorization process. The draft CoRAP for 2019 - 2021 currently contains 100 substances, four of which were added late in 2018. These will be evaluated by Member States in 2019, 2020, and 2021. It is planned that 31 of these will be evaluated in 2019, but the final plan will not be released until March 2019.
5. Post-2018 REACH
May 31, 2018, closed the last registration window for phase-in substances subject to registration in accordance with REACH. On June 1, 2018, ECHA issued a press release entitled “21,551 chemicals on EU market now registered.” In its press release, ECHA states “[t]he 10-year registration period for existing chemicals is now complete following the last REACH registration deadline on 31 May 2018. 13 620 European companies have submitted information to ECHA in nearly 90 000 registrations for chemicals manufactured in or imported to the EU and [European Economic Area (EEA)] at above one tonne a year.”
ECHA indicates that more is known today about chemicals used in Europe than ever before. This knowledge, generated by industry, is stored and published by ECHA in the world’s largest public regulatory database on chemicals and forms the basis for protecting citizens and the environment from the risks posed by chemicals. ECHA provides that over the first ten years of REACH, the EU has established a fair and transparent internal market for chemicals with strict safety rules, thereby promoting innovation towards safer substances and strengthening EU competitiveness.
ECHA’s REACH Registration Results indicate that registrations for 21,551 substances were submitted to ECHA, and 20,608 of these registrations were completed. The total number of completed registrations, including co-registrations of the same substance and Notification of New Substance (NONS) notifications, is 82,874. The highest number of REACH registrations was submitted by Germany and the UK. The registrations are distributed among REACH tonnage bands as follows:1-10 tonnes per year = 14,865 completed registrations;10-100 tonnes per year = 11,080 completed registrations;100-1,000 tonnes per year = 12,489 completed registrations; and1,000 tonnes per year and more = 20,113 completed registrations.
The registration process is expected to slow down in 2019, but existing dossiers will require revisions and updates continually. In September, ECHA alerted member registrants that “[a]s of 1 January 2019, ECHA will start checking the compliance of all relevant dossiers for a given substance and will address its decisions to all registrants with non-compliant dossiers.” This is a change from the previous approach that included primarily notifying the lead registrant. To this point, ECHA remindedcompanies in November that there is an expectation that completed registrations are to be kept up to date. ECHA noted that “[y]our registration has to reflect the most up-to-date knowledge on how a substance can be used safely at production sites and through the supply chain all the way down to the end user.”
6. Endocrine Disruptors
The EC adopted on November 7, 2018, a Communication on the criteria for identification of endocrine disruptors as applied to biocides and pesticides. The Communication was developed in response to concerns expressed by the EP and Council in 2017 about keeping the EC strategy on endocrine disruptors “the most modern and fit-for-purpose in the world,” and provides follow up on the 7th Environment Action Programme. The Communication follows the publication and subsequent application of endocrine disruptor criteria for biocidal products from June 7, 2018, and for plant protection products from November 10, 2018.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and ECHA were asked by the EC to develop guidance for applicants and Competent Authority assessors to apply in the context of the BPR (EU) No 528/2012 and the Plant Protection Products Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 for identifying endocrine disruptors in accordance with the criteria in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2017/21003 (for biocidal products) and Commission Regulation (EU) No 2018/6054 (for plant protection products).
The document describes the process for compiling and evaluating all information relevant to an endocrine disruptor assessment and determination of whether the endocrine disruptor criteria, according to the WHO/International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS) definition of an endocrine disruptor (WHO/IPCS, 2002) are fulfilled, including the use of mode of action analysis and a weight of evidence approach.
The EC is being pressed by non-governmental organizations (NGO) to step up efforts in 2019 to provide guidance for application in other regulatory contexts, including chemicals regulated under REACH, cosmetics, and FCMs. We can expect additional advocacy in this area in 2019.
7. Turkey REACH
As reported in Acta’s 2018 Forecast and earlier memoranda, Turkey has implemented a REACH-like chemical regulatory program, KKDIK. KKDIK was published by Turkey’s Ministry of Environment and Urbanization (MoEU) on June 23, 2017, and the regulation entered into force on December 23, 2017. Among other goals, KKDIK seeks to align rules for chemicals in Turkey with EU laws. KKDIK replaces the following Turkish chemical laws:Regulation on the Inventory and Control of Chemicals (CICR);Regulation on the Preparation and Distribution of SDS for Hazardous Materials and Products; andRegulation on Restrictions for the Manufacture, Marketing, and Use of Certain Dangerous Substances and Preparations.
Similar to the EU’s REACH regulation, KKDIK is an ambitious law that covers a wide range of matters pertaining to chemical safety. The principles, rules, and requirements of KKDIK are very similar to EU REACH, and only few substantive differences exist between EU REACH and KKDIK. Similar to EU REACH, KKDIK is a hazard-based chemical regulatory program that requires registration for chemicals manufactured or imported in quantities of one metric ton per annum or more. KKDIK contains the same annual tonnage bands as EU REACH (i.e., 1-10 metric tons, 10-100 metric tons, 100-1,000 metric tons, 1,000+ metric tons). Similar to EU REACH, KKDIK contains pre-registration and registration deadlines for chemicals. In contrast to EU REACH, the registration deadline under KKDIK does not vary depending on the applicable tonnage band or differentiate “new” substances from “existing” substances. The pre-registration deadline under KKDIK is December 31, 2020, and the registration deadline is December 31, 2023,for all chemical substances or mixtures manufactured in or imported into Turkey in quantities of one metric ton or more annually.
KKDIK rules relating to OR, Restrictions, Authorizations, polymers, and “articles” are also very similar to those under EU REACH. Somewhat unsurprisingly, KKDIK submissions are required to be made in Turkish. While in most respects KKDIK resembles a Turkish translation of EU REACH, certain material differences exist between these two laws.
KKDIK Annex 18 provisions are unique to the Turkish legislation, and allow Turkish regulators to manage and oversee personnel who may engage in certain regulatory activities. Annex 18 contains qualification requirements for technical experts, as certain registration, notification, and SDS activities under KKDIK can only be performed by Chemical Assessment Experts certified by an institution that has been accredited by the Turkish Accreditation Institution. In addition to qualification requirements for the Experts, Annex 18 includes criteria for trainers and requirements for the institutions providing training.
Based on ongoing developments and the current state of play under KKDIK, 2019 promises to be a busy year under this important law, with the swiftly approaching pre-registration deadline driving increased demand for expert KKDIK services. Many companies with business interests in Turkey will likely seek, in 2019, to address pre-registration either via an OR or through their corporate entities established in Turkey. Global chemical companies addressing in-house regulatory compliance for industrial chemicals in Turkey will likely consider having appropriate personnel trained as Chemical Assessment Experts.
Although pre-registration activities focus on substance identity and a company’s role in supply chains, entities globally are well aware of the potential challenges related to legitimate data citation for full registration under KKDIK. EU REACH data use is permissible under KKDIK, and many companies placing similar products on EU and Turkish markets will likely seek to secure legitimate use rights to EU REACH data for KKDIK reliance. For many entities, this may represent a significant challenge due to the nature of EU REACH contracts and joint data ownership.
Numerous EU REACH registration agreements specify that rights obtained by co-registrants are limited to EU REACH citation, and that additional data use requires a separate agreement with the data owner. Under these circumstances, entities interested in using EU REACH data for KKDIK would need to negotiate new data usage rights with data owners, and provide compensation as appropriate. If relevant study data are jointly owned, this presents a further hurdle for KKDIK usage because each of the owners would need to agree on terms for KKDIK data citation.
Based on experience gained under chemical regulatory programs similar to KKDIK, Acta believes that many global entities will likely be keen to sublicense data for KKDIK purposes, but some limited instances may exist where companies decline to provide data access for Turkish compliance. Due to these issues and potential challenges in obtaining rights for legitimate KKDIK data citation, numerous chemical companies will likely commence review, in 2019, of pertinent executed data sharing agreements.
Acta expects that additional information will be made available in 2019 regarding specific KKDIK processes, the operation of the regulation, and future plans. To date, limited KKDIK guidance documents are available in English. English translations of Turkish KKDIK guidance documents are important for industry globally to comply with the law, and stakeholders are well-advised to request from regulators official translations or develop such reliable translations themselves.
Acta also expects that 2019 may provide important information regarding the principles and operation of KKDIK Substance Information Exchange Forums (SIEF). Acta believes that SIEF operation in Turkey will be structured similarly to EU REACH SIEF operations. As implementation of KKDIK progresses, Acta expects that additional practical information on dossier development and submission will be made available. The Turkish Chemicals Registration System (KKS) is currently available for submission of KKDIK pre-registrations. It is anticipated that KKS, which can be regarded as a hybrid of International Uniform Chemical Information Database (IUCLID) and REACH-IT, will be updated progressively for harmonization with current versions of these EU REACH platforms. Based on experience gained under EU REACH, it would appear critical for a bulk submission utility to be incorporated into KKS sooner rather than later.
Acta foresees an interesting year ahead for chemical regulatory compliance in Turkey, anticipates that KKDIK will attract substantial attention globally from a range of interested parties, and that noteworthy efforts will be made to comply in 2019. As activities increase under KKDIK, Acta believes that many aspects of the regulation, including its interpretation and enforcement, will be clarified to a much greater degree. Such information, which could be made available via official MoEU communications or industry discussions, would be useful as chemical companies refine their compliance approaches. Companies engaged in, or wishing to engage in, commerce for chemical products in Turkey should follow closely KKDIK developments and jurisprudence to achieve their business and regulatory compliance goals.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/forecast-us-federal-and-international-chemical-regulatory-policy-2019-chemical
-
Jan 10, 2019 | Consulting Industry News
By Rahul Pandita
A proposed rule concerning methylene chloride, a lethal chemical which immediately kills after first contact, allowing the commercial usage of the chemical to be used in paint strippers, has been submitted to Trump White House by USEPA. This has caused considerable disappointment in public interests and advocacy groups which had forced United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to ban the chemical from commercial as well as consumer use two years ago.
The chemical is used in paint strippers and is key component in many chemical products. Methylene chloride has killed more than 50 people in last couple of decades. According to SCHF, at least four deaths owing to exposure to the chemical have occurred since EPA’s proposed ban two years ago. The public interest groups had called for a joint action with both regulatory action and voluntary abandonment of the use of chemicals by retailers. Many leading retailers including Sherwin-Williams, Amazon, Walmart and Lowes have pledged their intention to remove products containing the chemical from their shelves.
Public interest groups like Environmental Defense Fund, Healthy Families, Natural Resources Defense Council and safer chemical and EWG had called for total ban on both commercial and consumer uses of paint strippers that use the deadly chemical as an ingredient. The USEPA’s rule to ban the chemical came as blow to the chemical industry.
The USEPA has recently sent its revised proposal to White House Office of Management and Business rewriting the rule to allow continued and controlled usage of the chemical in industrial processes on a commercial scale with provisions for training and certifications for the workers. This rule claims the concerned groups still poses a great risk to the workers. The exact details are not yet revealed but it seems that it would ban consumer usage and allow commercial scale usage.
EWG’s representative attorney Melany Benesh said that the proposed rule is an effort by the chemical industry to push back on efforts to ensure safety of workers handling the chemical. And alleged that the Trump White House has kowtowed to pressure from the influential lobby of chemical industry. She further said that the proposal has compromised the lives of millions of workers which requires them to handle the deadly chemical, and this may expose them to serious injury or death.
The rule has monumental significance in worker’s health and safety regulation as it is first such proposed rule in last 30 years under section 6 of Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. USEPA’s submission to Trump White house will kick start an interagency review mechanism and will make the proposed rule one step closer to have full legal status.
https://www.consultingindustry24.com/epa-submits-proposed-rule-allowing-controlled-commercial-usage-of-methylene-chloride-to-the-us-office-of-management-and-business-for-further-approval/
-
Study Raises Concern About Flame Retardant
Jan 10, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Courtney Columbus
A flame retardant billed as an environmentally friendly choice can break down into potentially harmful substances under the right conditions, new research suggests.
Researchers at the University of Duisburg-Essen in Germany studied what happens to Polymeric FR, a replacement for a flame retardant found to be toxic, when it's exposed to ultraviolet light or high temperatures.
The researchers found a variety of breakdown products after exposing Polymeric FR, which also goes by names including PolyFR and GreenCrest, to the equivalent of six hours to nine days of UV light.
They also found breakdown products after exposing it to temperatures of 140 F for up to 36 weeks, according to the study, published yesterday in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.
Polymeric FR, which contains bromine, is used in foam insulation. Products containing it could face the types of conditions studied if they end up in a landfill or are used in parts of buildings, such as attics, that reach high temperatures.
The findings highlight the importance of considering a chemical's entire life cycle and the chemicals it could break down into — something that isn't often done, says lead author Christoph Koch.
"Even a loss of 1 percent of PolyFR's mass can lead to significant amounts of degradation products over several years," Koch, a doctoral candidate in the aquatic ecology department at the University of Duisburg-Essen, said in a statement.
"Given that over 26,000 tons of PolyFR are produced each year, our research suggests that the environmental impact of this flame retardant is larger than anyone suspected," he said.
If PolyFR or similar chemicals begin to be used in products that people are directly exposed to, such as textiles, the study's findings become even more important, Koch said.
The study references a 2014 EPA report that states PolyFR's "long-term behavior in the environment is not currently known."
"To the best of our knowledge, all governmental risk evaluations until now focused on the polymer itself without considering possible degradation products," the study states.
In 2011, Dow Chemical Co. praised PolyFR in a press release announcing the chemical's invention. "The development of the new Polymeric FR is the result of Dow's continuing search for more sustainable products and in this case for a flame retardant that can replace hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD)," the release said.
Dow did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the new study's findings. ICL Industrial Products, which makes PolyFR, has also not yet responded.
Still, "PolyFR seems to be at least a better alternative," although it's too soon to say it's safer, Koch told E&E News.
Chemicals such as PolyFR, "while an improvement, are not the solution," said Arlene Blum, executive director of the Green Science Policy Institute.
There should be a focus on studying breakdown products, she added.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/01/10/stories/1060111571
-
US States Create Health-Protective Drinking Water Guidelines
Jan 10, 2019 | New Food
A new analysis shows variation in the way state and federal regulators manage PFAS contaminants in drinking water, with some states adopting guideline levels that are more health protective than the non-enforceable levels set by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). According to the study’s authors, the findings highlight the need for enforceable federal standards based on full consideration of the science to ensure consistent protection for the millions of people, including vulnerable groups like pregnant women and children, whose water supplies have been contaminated.
The study, by researchers at Silent Spring Institute, Whitman College, and Northeastern University, appears online in the Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology (JESEE), and is part of a special issue dedicated to PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances).
PFAS in drinking water are often traced to military fire training areas and airports, as well as industrial sites and wastewater treatment plants. More than 25 communities in the US have contaminated water from manufacturing and industrial sites, and the Department of Defense has identified approximately 400 current or former military sites with contamination stemming mostly from the use of firefighting foams containing PFAS.
Despite widespread contamination and evidence linking PFAS with numerous health effects including cancers, thyroid disease, and developmental problems, there are currently no federal standards for PFAS in drinking water. “In the absence of federal standards, states are developing their own guidelines, using different approaches to determine what a safe level in drinking water should be,” said Silent Spring’s Dr Laurel Schaider, an environmental chemist and one of the study’s authors.
To understand differences in how state and federal regulators approach the problem, Dr Schaider and her colleagues gathered information released in June 2018 by the Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council. The researchers also sourced documents from state websites and contacted state environmental and health agencies.
The researchers identified seven states that have their own guideline levels for PFOA and PFOS, the two most well-studied types of PFAS. Of these, three states (Vermont, Minnesota, and New Jersey) have adopted levels that are lower than the health advisory levels set by EPA. And since the writing of this paper, three additional states (New Hampshire, New York, and California) have also proposed guideline levels that are lower than EPA’s.
“The regulatory landscape is changing quickly as communities across the U.S. discover that their water is contaminated,” said Dr Schaider.
Some states have even taken steps to regulate other kinds of PFAS-including chemicals that companies use as substitutes for PFOA and PFOS and that also raise health concerns.
Differences in how regulators review the science is one factor underlying the variation, the team noted. States with stricter drinking water levels for PFAS considered additional health effects, such as effects on mammary gland development and the immune system, that were not used as the basis for EPA’s calculations. For instance, studies in animals have shown that exposure to PFOA in the womb alters mammary gland development, which may increase breast cancer risk. Other studies have found that exposure to PFOA and PFOS weakens the effectiveness of vaccines in children, and so could cause longer term health problems.
“This tells us that a number of states consider EPA’s health advisory levels for PFAS to be insufficiently protective,” said Dr Schaider. “As we learn more about these chemicals, the levels at which scientists think a person can be exposed without being harmed keep getting lower, and that’s an important thing for regulators to be aware of.”
In addition, the study identified several other factors that impact how state and federal regulators set drinking water guidelines. For instance, states with more resources have the capacity to conduct their own risk assessments, while other states may be hampered by a lack of funding and expertise. Political and social factors, as well as pressure from industry, also influence the process.
https://www.newfoodmagazine.com/news/77631/us-water/
-
Southampton to Spend $4 Million on Water Infrastructure Upgrades
Jan 10, 2019 | WSHU Public Radio
By Jay Shah
Southampton Town will set aside $4 million for water infrastructure improvements in areas where carcinogenic PFOS chemicals have been found in private wells.
PFOS and PFOA are contaminants that the EPA has linked to cancer and other health issues. The chemicals were detected in 45 private wells in East Quogue.
The water infrastructure upgrades would extend public water access to the affected residents. The town is applying for state grants to cover a portion of the cost, but the majority of the funding will come from local taxes.
Southampton is investigating a closed landfill, where the chemicals were detected at 150 times the federal limit, and nearby Gabreski Airport that used firefighting foam made of PFOA.
http://www.wshu.org/post/southampton-spend-4-million-water-infrastructure-upgrades#stream/0
-
EU Chemical Enforcement to Focus on Small Firms, Importers
Jan 10, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Smaller companies that import chemicals into the European Union face scrutiny from a joint enforcement project involving authorities from 31 countries.
Enforcement officials will coordinate checks on companies to ensure they comply with the EU’s REACH law (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals), said the European Chemicals Agency, which oversees REACH.
Inspections will take place throughout 2019. They will focus in particular on companies’ compliance with registration obligations for lower-volume chemicals, and on compliance with a requirement in REACH that substance registration dossiers should be updated on an ongoing basis.
Under REACH, all companies that trade in the EU in chemicals above annual volumes of one metric ton must submit registration dossiers containing substance hazard and safe-use information to the European Chemicals Agency. The final REACH registration deadline, for companies with substances in the 1-to-100-ton band, was May 31, 2018.
These registrations would be the main focus of the enforcement project because companies trading in chemicals at higher volumes should already have registered by deadlines in 2010 and 2013, the European Chemicals Agency said in a Jan. 10 statement to Bloomberg Environment.
Emphasis On ImportersIn practice, the focus on the 1-to-100-ton band would mean that non-EU importers of chemicals would be the focus of the enforcement project, because 70 percent of the registrations for substances in that band relate to imported substances, the European Chemical Industry Council told Bloomberg Environment in a Jan. 10 statement.
The chemicals agency said checks would involve authorities responsible for chemical safety and customs authorities. Under REACH, authorities in EU countries are responsible for enforcement and penalties for noncompliance vary from country to country.
Inspections would take place across the current 28 EU members plus non-EU countries Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway, which also implement REACH, the agency said.
Staying Up to DateInspectors would also check whether registration dossiers are up to date and correctly reflect, for example, traded volumes and uses substances were registered for, the agency said.
REACH requires companies to progressively update their registrations as circumstances change or as substance information becomes available, but there has been criticism that companies aren’t fulfilling this obligation.
The obligation to update registrations has been “open to various interpretations in the past,” but the European Commission is expected in April to adopt a law amending REACH to clarify the requirements in relation to updates, the European Chemical Industry Council said.
Chemicals companies were in favor of the enforcement project because there should be a “level playing field between EU-based and foreign manufacturers” in terms of REACH compliance, the council added.
In addition to the coordinated enforcement project, authorities in EU countries put in place national enforcement plans each year. These mean no joint enforcement projects “will substitute national-level enforcement,” the chemicals agency said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/eu-chemical-enforcement-to-focus-on-small-firms-importers
-
South Korean Study: BPS, BPF Disrupt Zebrafish Thyroid Function
Jan 10, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
BPA "analogues" BPS and BPF can disrupt thyroid function in aquatic organisms, and may even be more potent in this regard than BPA, according to a study by scientists in South Korea.
The finding will increase concerns about the growing trend of manufacturers substituting BPA in their products for these compounds, which are structurally similar at the molecular level, but are much less well understood in terms of toxicity.
Sangwoo Lee, a postdoctoral researcher at the Korea Institute of Toxicology, led the team, which was affiliated with Seoul National University, the CRI Global Institute of Toxicology and Eulji University.
They tested the substances on zebrafish embryos and larva to investigate effects on thyroid function, an indicator of endocrine disruption.
BPS and BPF both caused significant increases in thyroid hormones levels. Furthermore, BPF caused increases in levels of hormone T4 at exposure levels that were lower than those for BPA.
The overall picture, however, was complex. BPZ caused decreases in levels of T4 and another hormone, T3. Meanwhile, despite causing similar thyroid effects, the impact on gene transcription was subtly different for BPS compared with BPA and BPF, suggesting different modes of action.
"Our findings suggest that BPF and BPS might not be safer alternatives to BPA in terms of thyroid hormone disruption," the scientists conclude in their paper, published in Chemosphere.
"Thyroid hormones play a essential role in various physiological processes, such as development, growth, reproduction and energy metabolism," Dr Lee told Chemical Watch. "They regulate the basal metabolic rate, protein synthesis and neural maturation. Thyroid hormones act on nearly every cell in our body."
An Echa market survey published last year found that EU paper manufacturers were increasingly substituting BPA with BPS in thermal paper.
Echa and EU member states identified BPA as an SVHC for endocrine disruption in the environment in 2017, a decision that was strongly opposed by trade association Plastics Europe.
BPS is currently under evaluation by the Belgian competent authority, which requested further exposure data from the registrants in 2016.
https://chemicalwatch.com/73251/south-korean-study-bps-bpf-disrupt-zebrafish-thyroid-function
-
Lead Tops Echa Notifications for SVHCs in Articles
Jan 10, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Lead dominated notifications submitted to Echa by importers and producers of articles containing newly identified substances of very high concern, the agency said.
Of 85 notifications received by the 27 December deadline for new SVHCs, 82 were for lead. They concerned four out of the ten SVHCs added to the REACH candidate list for authorisation in June, the agency told Chemical Watch. The list now contains 191 substances.
Importers and producers of articles containing SVHCs have six months from the date of inclusion to the candidate list to notify Echa if the substance is both present in quantities over 1tpa and also above a concentration of 0.1% (w/w).
Apart from lead, Echa received one notification for each of the following substances: dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP); octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4); andterphenyl hydrogenated.
The agency did not give details of companies that have not notified by the deadline because, it said, member states are responsible for enforcement of the notification obligation.
However, it "encouraged" producers and importers to notify immediately to avoid national sanctions, even if the deadline has passed. Although Echa accepts notifications after the legal deadline, it said, "this does not prevent national enforcement authorities imposing sanctions".Lead
Lead and its compounds are included on the REACH candidate list due to their carcinogenic properties. Used in welding and soldering products, metal surface treatment products and polymers, lead can also cause damage to the nervous system.
The use of the substance is also restricted under the RoHS Directive, which the European Commission is currently evaluating.
Yet illegal use of lead is widespread. In December, the Swedish Chemicals Agency, Kemi, found illegal levels of lead in toys, jewellery, and electronics purchased via online stores. Prior to that, it had found high levels of lead in Christmas-themed lights and electrical decorations.
In the UK, the Health and Safety Executive found a number of retailers supplying solders containing lead to the general public. A harmonised classification that came into effect in March prohibits retailers from selling metallic lead or mixtures containing lead (at greater than or equal to 0.3%) to consumers.
And in August, authorities in Finland warned shops and online retailers about solders and soldering racks containing more than 10% lead.DCHP and D4
DCHP is a phthalate included on the candidate list due to its endocrine disrupting and reptroxic properties. It was one of five phthalates named in a recent project involving plastic packaging as substances of the "highest priority" to be considered for substitution.
Uses include plastisol, PVC, rubber and plastic articles, and as a phlegmatiser and dispersing agent for formulations of organic peroxides.
D4 has been identified as an SVHC based on persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) and very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) properties. Uses are washing and cleaning products, polishes, waxes, cosmetics and personal care.
It is already restricted in wash-off personal care products to reduce emissions to the aquatic environment. Uses of terphenyl hydrogenated include plastic additives and solvents, in coatings/inks, adhesives and sealants, and heat transfer fluids.
https://chemicalwatch.com/73267/lead-tops-echa-notifications-for-svhcs-in-articles
-
(ACC Mentioned) Now Is the Time to Build the Appalachian Storage Hub
Jan 10, 2019 | The Fairmont News
By Rep. David B. McKinley
When Hurricane Harvey hit the Houston area in August 2017, the devastation was unimaginable. The storm not only impacted an untold number of homes and businesses, it also exposed a weakness in America’s petrochemical industry.
When the storm hit, 17 ethylene crackers, representing 60 percent of the production capacity in America, went offline. These facilities provide the feedstock for the plastics and chemical industries, and shortages and spikes in prices impacted manufacturers coast to coast. Gradually, the crackers returned to production after several weeks, but not before this major disruption to America’s economy.
Why does this matter? Ethylene is a vital ingredient that goes into hundreds of products from food packaging to carpet to tires. Simply put, it is essential to our economy and way of life.
A recent report issued by the Department of Energy states that 95 percent of America’s production of ethylene is produced on the Gulf Coast in Texas and Louisiana — a region exposed to major storms like Hurricane Harvey. Should we be worried about the vulnerability of our country’s petrochemical industry? Wouldn’t it make sense to build some redundancy so an industry vital to America’s economic and national security is not clustered in one location? The Department of Energy and other experts have already answered with a resounding “yes.”
The question is where this secondary “Hub” should be located. The Appalachian region would be a natural location. The development of the Marcellus and Utica Shales over the past decade has made West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio the largest shale gas-producing area in the country. The increase in production has led to an abundance of natural gas liquids, which are currently shipped to the Gulf Coast or up to Canada, where they are processed.
Why can’t we utilize this valuable commodity closer to home and attract downstream industries that require access to ethylene? The supply is here. The capacity to store it is here. A large market for the products that use ethylene is nearby. The only hurdle is building out the infrastructure to store and process natural gas liquids.
Developing such a “Hub” in Appalachia would bring significant investment and jobs to the region. A 2017 report by the American Chemistry Council estimates it would create more than 100,000 direct and indirect jobs and $36 billion in investment by 2025. From construction jobs building plants and infrastructure to manufacturers further down the supply chain that would locate nearby, an Appalachian Hub has the potential to transform the economy in our region.
For nearly four years, I have worked to promote this project, introducing legislation to authorize a DOE study, ensuring project developers can utilize federal loan guarantees, and discussing the project with President Trump and Energy Secretary Rick Perry. While, ultimately, it will take private investment to complete this infrastructure, having federal support will help smooth the path forward.
Momentum is starting to build. Shell is building a cracker facility in Monaca, Pennsylvania, which is on target to begin operating in 2020. A consortium of Thai and South Korean companies are planning to develop a facility across the river from Moundsville. Additional projects are in various stages of consideration.
As more facilities consider locating in Pennsylvania, Ohio or West Virginia, there will be need for more pipeline and storage infrastructure. There is ample underground storage in the region using salt domes and hard rock caverns. The storage could hold more than 10 million barrels, ensuring a supply of ethane these plants will need to run.
Developing a hub for petrochemicals in the Appalachian region will reduce America’s dependence on a single hurricane-prone area for ingredients that are required for products we use every day, create a supply for manufacturers located in the Northeast and the Midwest and transform our region’s economy, creating opportunity for an area that deserves economic diversification.
Any undertaking of this size requires the cooperation of many stakeholders. In the past few years, we have worked with federal and state agencies, the private sector, labor unions and others to bring this vision to fruition. As the momentum behind the Appalachian Hub continues to grow, we stand ready to help advance this project. It is good for West Virginia, good for Appalachia, and good for America.
https://www.wvnews.com/fairmontnews/opinion/now-is-the-time-to-build-the-appalachian-storage-hub/article_0ffb8d68-3703-5e6b-86f4-64f9052fb1be.html
-
Evacuations, Water Tests Continue Weeks After Burst Gas Pipe near Berino Led to Oil Spill
Jan 10, 2019 | Las Cruces Sun-News
By Diana M Alba-Soular
A December pipeline break that led to hundreds of thousands of gallons of gasoline being spilled in a rural area southwest of Berino continues to cause a stir in Doña Ana County.
Local elected officials are posing questions to the pipeline's owner, Kinder Morgan, and three families who live close to the burst pipeline evacuated Tuesday for the second time in a matter of weeks as site remediation work continues. This time, the evacuation was voluntary.
Company officials report the cleanup process is continuing at the site off Three Saints Road, located about 1.5 miles southwest of Berino and two miles northwest of Anthony, New Mexico.
Groundwater contamination is likely, state officials say.
Tuesday, state environment department personnel and the county fire chief presented an overview to the Doña Ana County Board of County Commissioners regarding the Dec. 13 gasoline spill and what's happened since. Tuesday was the commission's first meeting of the year and the first session since the pipeline burst.
Looking back
County Fire Chief Nick Hempel said a resident just before midnight Dec. 13 called authorities to report hearing an explosion and smelling gas. The Chamberino fire department responded. Firefighters smelled gas but couldn't find the source, likely because of the darkness and because of a lot of brush covering the irrigation drain where the 12-inch pipeline broke.
"The ditch was fairly choked with brush, tumbleweeds, etcetera, so determining there was a leak out there was a little problematic; it was a little dark out there that time of night," he said.
About 2 or 3 a.m., Kinder Morgan detected the leak in its pipeline. State police, who have authority in hazardous materials spills, evacuated five families from a mile around the spill site.
Roughly 7,000 barrels of gasoline — about 294,000 gallons — spilled into the ditch, known as the Anthony Drain, according to state officials. Some 5,700 barrels — 239,400 gallons — were recovered soon after from the ditch. That means gasoline soaked into the ground.
The ditch is considered to be about 10 feet below ground level, and the water table is 11 or 12 feet below ground level, said Justin D. Ball, acting program manager for the remediation oversight section of the state environment department's groundwater quality bureau. Preliminary water testing so far hasn't shown contamination. But Ball said that's likely to change.
"We expect confirmation that groundwater has been impacted," he told county commissioners.
Any confirmation of groundwater contamination means another set of state regulations will become applicable, Ball said.
The company has collected water samples from five home wells and four Elephant Butte Irrigation District wells. But more testing is expected to be done.
"The excavation phase of Kinder Morgan's response will determine the scope of additional testing that will be conducted," said Katherine Hill, spokesperson for the company, in an email. "Groundwater monitoring equipment will be installed as part of this process to collect data for analysis by a third party lab to measure any impacts to groundwater. The company will retest residents' water upon request."
The pipeline carries gasoline — without additives — from El Paso to Tucson.
A persistent odor
Kinder Morgan has applied a type of foam sealant — Rusmar AC-900 Series — to a segment of ditch where the spill occurred. According to the company, that's a "vapor suppressant" to keep fumes from the ground from entering the air. That layer of sealant was visible during a Sun-News visit to the site Monday.
Indeed the smell of gasoline was still a concern to some residents Monday, even with the foam in place. A few homes are immediately adjacent to the ditch, and when standing close to the spill site, gasoline odor is prominent. Farther away from the ditch, the odor seems faint but winds can carry it in any direction.
Laura Gallegos, who lives in a home just yards from the ditch where the spill occurred, said she's concerned about contamination. She's pregnant and has three children, ages 4 to 10, and the first evacuation was an inconvenience. She noted, for instance, it was hard to do laundry away from home. But she said her family hasn't noticed any negative health effects because of the spill. Mostly, said Gallegos, who speaks Spanish, she just wants the site cleaned up.
Another neighbor, Rosa Fierro, said her family spent about nine days away from home during the first evacuation. The odor of gasoline was reduced by the time they returned. Still, she said her husband has experienced headaches. They're wondering if that's tied to the gasoline spill. She also wants to know when the site will be cleaned up.A voluntary evacuation
Tuesday, three nearby households were voluntarily evacuated for the second time in a matter of weeks, as the company moves in equipment to continue dirt work as part of the remediation.
Hill said Kinder Morgan is working "closely with residents to address any of their concerns."
Continued Hill: "Each of the families were given the option to evacuate prior to the process of removing impacted soil close to their homes, which is expected to begin on Monday. Upon their request, the families in the three homes next to the area were evacuated yesterday and the one across the street has chosen to stay until Sunday. Each family was given their choice of local hotels, including extended-stay hotels, and are being paid a per diem to cover expenses."
Another resident in the vicinity, Jesus De La Cruz, said he wasn't overly concerned about the spill, but he does want to see a number of large storage containers at the site taken away.
County Commissioner Ramon Gonzalez has been visiting the site periodically and talking with residents. He said he's upset at some of the responses by Kinder Morgan to the spill — for instance, he believes residents were returned to their homes after the first evacuation much too soon — and has posed a list of about 20 questions to the company. Gonzalez said he was glad to hear residents were being allowed to evacuate again.
"They don't need to be here," he said.Corrosion a possible factorBuy Photo
The U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration regulates the transportation of hazardous materials, including via pipelines.
Following an inspection of the burst pipeline, the agency issued a "notice of proposed safety order" on Dec. 28. While a more in-depth report is in the works, preliminary findings showed that a protective coating had separated from the pipe, which may have allowed corrosion.
The pipeline, which crosses the Anthony Drain, was exposed to air and water. A split measuring 22 to 24 inches occurred lengthwise in the pipe, according to the agency's proposed order.
"The split appeared to be concurrent with an area of general corrosion and the failure edges exhibited areas of pipe-wall thinning," the report states.
The proposed safety order requires Kinder Morgan to carry out an in-depth review of what led to the failure and to undertake other steps, such as examining the entire pipeline for other places in which the protective coating may have come loose.
State environment department officials deferred questions about the cause of the gas spill to federal officials.Company to address county
Kinder Morgan didn't attend the county commission meeting Tuesday. But county management said the company is slated to present to commissioners during their regular meeting in two weeks.
Some commissioners said they want to know about the risk of future pipeline breaks throughout the county.
On Tuesday, Hempel provided a map to commissioners showing a network of pipelines throughout the county.
Hill said Kinder Morgan carries out several precautionary steps, such as 24-7 monitoring of pipeline pressures via personnel in control centers and "regular visual and internal inspection of its pipelines."
"Visual inspections of its right-of-ways are completed by aerial and ground patrols of the pipeline route," she said. "Above ground markers are also displayed along the right-of-way to alert the public and contractors of the existence of the pipeline. Internal inspections are performed periodically by passing sophisticated computerized equipment called 'smart pigs' through the pipelines to detect anomalies or defects that could compromise the integrity of the line."
The last internal inspection of the pipeline that broke recently occurred in 2015, according to Kinder Morgan. A U.S. Department of Transportation PHMSA audit in February 2018 "found the pipeline was in compliance," Hill said.
https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/local/2019/01/10/burst-gasoline-pipeline-evacuation-kinder-morgan-dona-ana-county/2516155002/
-
California Set a Goal of 100% Clean Energy — and Other States May Be Ready to Follow Suit
Jan 10, 2019 | Los Angeles Times
By Sammy Roth
It’s been less than four months since California committed to getting all of its electricity from climate-friendly sources by 2045. But the idea is already catching on in other states.
At least nine governors taking their oaths of office this month, from Nevada to Michigan to New York, campaigned on 100% clean energy, or have endorsed the target since it was enshrined in California law. The District of Columbia also set a 100% clean energy goal last month. So did Xcel Energy, a Minneapolis-based utility that serves 3.6 million electricity customers across eight Western and Midwestern states.
The policy’s growing popularity is driven in part by market trends and technological advances that make it easier to envision a future in which fossil fuels are no longer burned for electricity. But experts say California’s recent passage of Senate Bill 100 is also playing a role.
“Sometimes other states don’t want to admit that they’re looking to California for leadership. But they really are,” said Carla Frisch from the Rocky Mountain Institute, a Colorado-based think tank that has worked with cities and states on energy policy.
As the world’s fifth-largest economy, California wields enormous power to influence environmental policy nationally and even globally. The state’s actions have reshaped how industries do business, changed people’s habits and set the agenda for other states and countries. Automakers, for instance, have been forced to build increasingly fuel-efficient cars for decades because of California’s authority to set tailpipe-emission rules stricter than those of the federal government.
The Golden State’s aggressive policies can also prompt a backlash. In the four-plus years since California lawmakers voted to ban single-use plastic bags at most stores, nine states have passed laws blocking local governments from enacting such bans.
California’s role as a global leader was front of mind of then-state Sen. Kevin de León as he crafted the 100% climate-friendly energy legislation. The Los Angeles Democrat had previously written a bill raising the state’s clean energy target to 50% by 2030. But within a few years, it had become clear the state could meet that goal far sooner than expected, without the massive economic disruption opponents had predicted.
“California has long shown the rest of the nation how to protect the environment while growing the economy,” De León said. “If California can do it, everyone else can.”
What’s unique about 100% clean energy, supporters say, is that it’s caught on with lawmakers and the public in a way other climate change policies haven’t.
Many economists say a market-based tool that puts a price on planet-warming carbon emissions is the cheapest way to fight climate change. But even in places with broad support for climate action, it’s been difficult to build support for those types of policies. Voters in Washington state, for instance, overwhelmingly rejected a carbon tax in 2016 and again in 2018.How a tax on carbon has divided Northwest climate activists »
Adam Browning, executive director of the Oakland-based advocacy group Vote Solar, cited a common refrain among climate advocates — that the only two problems with a carbon tax are “carbon” and “tax.” Nobody likes taxes, and most people don’t have strong feelings about carbon.
A 100% clean energy policy, on the other hand, is simple and focused on positive change, Browning said. Supporters can highlight the potential benefits of cleaner air, job creation and cutting-edge technologies.
“It’s exciting to be a part of, it speaks to values, it speaks to solutions, and it speaks to things people like. And it has overwhelming bipartisan support,” Browning said.
The concept didn’t originate in California. Hawaii became the first state to pass a 100% clean energy mandate in 2015, and U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, introduced federal legislation to that effect in 2017. More than 100 cities have endorsed the concept, according to the Sierra Club, as have 150 major corporations that are part of the RE100 coalition.
But in the months since California passed its 100% clean energy mandate, the idea has gained significant political momentum.
Voters in Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin elected new governors in November who signed a pledge from the League of Conservation Voters to support 100% clean energy by 2050. In several states, the new governors mark a dramatic shift from their predecessors.
In Maine, for instance, Democrat Janet Mills has replaced Republican Paul LePage, who issued a moratorium on new wind turbines and vetoed a bill to study how climate change would affect the state.
In Oregon, voters reelected Gov. Kate Brown, who also signed the League of Conservation Voters’ 100% clean energy pledge. In New Mexico, newly elected Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham campaigned on a promise of 80% renewable energy by 2040 and has toutedCalifornia’s 100% clean energy law as a success story. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also announced his support last month for 100% climate-friendly energy.
David Bookbinder, chief counsel for the Niskanen Center, a libertarian think tank in Washington, D.C., described the groundswell of support for 100% clean energy policies as a “political trend” first and foremost.
“These are all governors who are Democrats, and they’re all trying to be progressive. And saying ‘100% renewables’ is money in the bank as far as their base is concerned,” Bookbinder said.
The Niskanen Center encourages politicians to support a carbon tax as an economically efficient way to reduce emissions. Still, Bookbinder described the expanding support for 100% clean energy as a positive development in the fight against climate change. It shows that the public is beginning to take the problem seriously, he said, and that lawmakers see “political mileage” in committing to ambitious climate action.
That’s certainly the case in Colorado, where Jared Polis, who was sworn in as governor on Tuesday, made 100% renewable energy a key campaign promise. That pledge may have been a factor in Xcel Energy’s decision to become the first major U.S. utility to commit to 100% carbon-free electricity, with a target date of 2050. Xcel’s biggest electricity customer base is in Colorado.
Washington, D.C., has set the most aggressive target date, 2032, for getting off of fossil fuels. The nation’s capital also set a strict goal of all-renewable energy, meaning only naturally replenishing resources such as sunlight, wind and geothermal heat. California and Xcel set zero-carbon targets that could also include nuclear power or fossil-fueled power plants that capture carbon dioxide before it is emitted into the atmosphere.
For many of the newly elected governors, it’s unclear exactly what flavor of “100% clean energy” they’ll ultimately seek.
But whatever standards they endorse, the effects of simply setting the goal could be felt immediately, even with a target date 20 to 30 years in the future. Wade Schauer, a research director at the energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie, said investors might hesitate to invest in gas-fired power plants in states looking to eliminate fossil fuels in the next few decades.
“Why would you want to go into New York and build a power plant that by 2035 would barely be running, and by 2040 wouldn’t be running at all?” Schauer asked. The adoption of 100% clean energy targets, he said, “could completely change the game” for natural gas.California is aiming for 100% clean energy. But Los Angeles might invest billions in gas plants »
At the same time, goal-setting is the easy part. When it comes to eliminating fossil fuels from electricity, the devil will be in the details — and other states will be looking to California to see if it’s really possible.
The biggest issue California needs to work out: how to move beyond natural gas, the state’s largest source of electricity.
Some ideas are already being put into practice, such as batteries that store solar power for nighttime use, geothermal plants that generate clean energy around the clock and time-varying electricity rates that encourage people to use energy at different times of day. But it’s not yet clear how those policies and technologies will fit together, or how quickly California can radically reduce its use of gas.
Another proposal favored by former Gov. Jerry Brown is to merge California’s power grid with those of other Western states.
So far, the plan has been derailed by the thorny politics of red states and blue states working together. But in the long run, most energy experts say an expanded power grid that makes for easier sharing of electricity across state lines is one of the least expensive ways to meet 100% clean energy targets.
One other problem facing California: Cars and trucks, not electricity, are the state’s biggest source of planet-warming emissions. California already gets nearly one-third of its electricity from renewable sources. When nuclear and large hydropower plants are counted, the amount of electricity from zero-carbon sources rises to half. But the state has made far less progress transitioning away from oil-powered vehicles as the main source of transportation.
“It’s easy to switch from coal to gas and from gas to renewables. Relatively easy,” Bookbinder said. “Getting rid of the internal combustion engine is a whole nother thing.”
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-100-percent-clean-energy-20190110-story.html
-
Pipeline Leaders 'Take Objection' to Vulnerability Claims
Jan 10, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy Dillon
The natural gas pipeline industry today stood by its record on cybersecurity issues following a year in which federal agencies have questioned its ability to maintain resilience in the face of increasing and escalating threats.
The reassurances came as a host of House Energy and Commerce Committee lawmakers reintroduced legislation meant to bolster the federal side in protecting pipelines from cyber intrusions meant to disrupt operations.
In a roundtable with reporters today, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America leadership pushed back against notions its defenses are not doing enough to ensure reliability, as outlined in last year's leaked Department of Energy memo justifying market interventions to aid coal and nuclear plants because of pipeline cyber uncertainty.
"We take objection to that, and we made it clear during the process that we feel natural gas and natural gas pipeline infrastructure is reliable and is resilient against both physical and cyber threats," said INGAA President and CEO Donald Santa Jr.
"We think we have a record that we are going to stand on," he said, "but by the same token, we recognize this is a very, very dynamic area."
The cybersecurity of natural gas pipelines has increasingly moved to the forefront of policymakers' minds as recent attempts by foreign actors have exposed potential vulnerabilities in the system.
And with the country growing more dependent on natural gas for its electricity, in addition to its heating, a pipeline disruption could have devastating societal and economic impacts.
Those issues have grown especially stark considering a Government Accountability Office report last month, which determined the Transportation Security Administration, parts of which in the Department of Homeland Security have pipeline security missions, is not doing enough to oversee its portfolio (Energywire, Dec. 20, 2018).
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) heralded that GAO report as a highlight to the nation's oversight vulnerabilities on cybersecurity for pipelines, prompting calls for changes at DHS.
"The issue of cybersecurity generally is extremely important, and one that I mentioned has captured the attention of not just the folks in our IT department but all the way up to the CEOs of our organizations," said Bill Yardley, the new INGAA chairman and president of gas transmission with Enbridge Inc.
"It's not just a passive engagement, it's active, and as far as individual reports go, they are generally snapshots in time," he said.
House lawmakers, though, have looked to better align the federal government's approach to cybersecurity more broadly in the energy sector, as well as with the pipeline industry.
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) reintroduced H.R. 370 to require DOE to better coordinate across federal agencies and the private sector to ensure "the security, resiliency and survivability of natural gas pipelines," according to a committee summary.
Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio) reintroduced H.R. 360 for the establishment of a voluntary program within DOE to test the cybersecurity of products and technologies intended for use in the bulk-power system.
Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) reintroduced H.R. 359 to encourage public-private partnerships for cybersecurity in the electric utility sector.
Those bills moved out of Energy and Commerce's Energy Subcommittee last year but never moved out of the full committee or saw a floor vote.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/01/10/stories/1060111589
-
How the Fossil Fuel Industry Got the Media to Think Climate Change Was Debatable
Jan 10, 2019 | The Washington Post
By Amy Westervelt
Late last year, the Trump administration released the latest national climate assessment on Black Friday in what many assumed was an attempt to bury the document. If that was the plan, it backfired, and the assessment wound up earning more coverage than it probably would have otherwise. But much of that coverage perpetuated a decades-old practice, one that has been weaponized by the fossil fuel industry: false equivalence.
Although various business interests began pushing back against environmental action in general in the early 1970s as part of the conservative “war of ideas” launched in response to the social movements of the 1960s, when global warming first broke into the public sphere, it was a bipartisan issue and remained so for years. On the campaign trail in 1988, George H.W. Bush identified as an environmentalist and called for action on global warming, framing it as a technological challenge that American innovation could address. But fossil fuel interests were shifting as the industry and its allies began to push back against empirical evidence of climate change, taking many conservatives along with them.
Documents uncovered by journalists and activists over the past decade lay out a clear strategy: First, target media outlets to get them to report more on the “uncertainties” in climate science, and position industry-backed contrarian scientists as expert sources for media. Second, target conservatives with the message that climate change is a liberal hoax, and paint anyone who takes the issue seriously as “out of touch with reality.” In the 1990s, oil companies, fossil fuel industry trade groups and their respective PR firms began positioning contrarian scientists such as Willie Soon, William Happer and David Legates as experts whose opinions on climate change should be considered equal and opposite to that of climate scientists. The Heartland Institute, which hosts an annual International Conference on Climate Change known as the leading climate skeptics conference, for example, routinely calls out media outlets (including The Washington Post) for showing “bias” in covering climate change when they either decline to quote a skeptic or question a skeptic’s credibility.
Data on how effective this strategy has been is hard to come by, but anecdotal evidence of its success abounds. In the early 1990s, polls showed that about 80 percent of Americans were aware of climate change and accepted that something must be done about it, an opinion that crossed party lines. By 2008, Gallup found a marked partisan divide on climate change. By 2010, the American public’s belief in climate change hit an all-time low of 48 percent, despite the fact that those 20 years saw increased research, improved climate models and several climate change predictions coming true.
By demanding “balance,” the industry transformed climate change into a partisan issue. We know that was a deliberate strategy because various internal documents from ExxonMobil, Shell, the American Petroleum Institute and a handful of now-defunct fossil fuel industry groups reveal not only the industry’s strategy to target media with this message and these experts, but also its own preemptive debunking of the very theories it went on to support.
It need not have been such a successful strategy: If news purveyors really wanted to be evenhanded on coverage of climate change, they could certainly weave in the insights of more conservative scientists — those whose predictions err on the sunnier side of apocalypse. Instead, many took the industry’s bait, routinely inserting denialist claims into stories about climate science in the interest of providing balance: In an analysis of 636 articles covering climate change that appeared in “prestige U.S. outlets” from 1988 to 2002, researchers from the University of California at Santa Cruz and American University found that 52.65 percent presented climate science and contrarian theories as equal. The practice continued into the mid-2000s. As recently as 2007, PBS New Hour invited well-known (and widely debunked) former weatherman Anthony Watts on to counterbalance Richard Muller, a former Koch-funded skeptic who had shifted his view.
By about 2008, most mainstream print outlets had moved past the notion that “balance” means including climate contrarians in coverage of climate science. These outlets do still trip up occasionally, though. In 2017, ProPublica published a remarkably uncritical Q&A with Happer, for example, describing him as “brilliant and controversial,” and characterizing his view that global warming is good for the planet as merely “unusual.” That same year, the New York Times was roundly criticized for hiring climate contrarian Bret Stephens as a regular editorial columnist (and his first column didn’t help).
While print outlets aren’t perfect, TV news has lagged further behind on climate, often presenting climate contrarians as an equal and opposite balance to climate scientists. In coverage of the national climate assessment, for example, multiple cable news shows featured both climate scientists and climate deniers, as though the two are simply opposite sides of a debate. “Meet the Press,” “Anderson Cooper 360” and “State of the Union” all brought on climate deniers to provide balance to their shows. Republican politicians made the cable news rounds, too, spouting familiar tall tales about climate change being normal and cyclical or sun spots and volcanoes being the real culprits. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) repeated the “the climate always changes” story on CNN, while Rick Santorum, informal White House adviser Stephen Moore and British politician Nigel Farage pushed the “climate scientists getting rich” narrative.
Though some outlets have moved to extricate deniers from the conversation, too many television news programs continue to bring on “contrarian” experts, giving a platform to tired lies. I say “lies” because fossil fuel industry scientists debunked these theories themselves decades ago, so they are knowingly perpetuating falsehoods. In a “global warming primer” prepared in the 1990s by the Global Climate Coalition, a since-disbanded consortium of fossil fuel producers, utilities, manufacturers, and other U.S. business interests (including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce), a Mobil scientist debunked all of the prevailing contrarian theories of the day on climate change. That part of the primer was left unprinted, of course, and oil companies went on to fund scientists promoting those very theories — the same ones that industry spokesmen and conservative politicians spout today.
In addition to propping up experts and leaning on media to use them as sources, oil companies have spent millions on advertising and advertorials over the years. Which seems innocuous — most companies advertise — but oil companies don’t sell a consumer product so much as a commodity. Most people aren’t loyal to a particular brand of gas; they buy whatever is most convenient or cheapest. So, when oil companies take out ads, it’s with the intention of shifting the opinions of the voting public, policymakers, and the media.
In an exhaustive survey of ExxonMobil’s advertorials from 1977 to 2014, science historian Naomi Oreskes and researcher Geoffrey Supran found that these pieces often took the form of “op-ads” that look and read a lot like op-eds but are paid for by an advertiser. Some simply presented positive stories about the company (heavily focused on their investments in algal biofuels, for example), but others argued for more relaxed policies on offshore drilling or a “common sense” approach to climate change regulation. The researchers found that “83 percent of peer-reviewed papers and 80 percent of internal documents acknowledge that climate change is real and human-caused, yet only 12% of advertorials do so, with 81 percent instead expressing doubt.”
A 1981 internal Mobil memo discovered by the Climate Investigations Center is an evaluation of the first decade of Mobil’s advertorial program, and it makes the company’s goals clear: “Not only is the company presenting its opinion to key opinion leaders, but it has been engaging in continuing debate with the New York Times itself. In fact, the paper has even changed to positions similar to Mobil’s on at least seven key energy issues.”
Granted, Mobil communications staff are giving themselves a lot of credit here, but whether they accomplished their goal is almost beside the point. This document shows the intention of these campaigns, and that’s something that should be taken seriously by any media outlet agreeing to run them, especially because many still do today. Campaigns that bring in big money at a time when the business of news is struggling are surely hard to turn down, but media outlets need to seriously consider the impact these campaigns have on their ability to inform the public, and work to mitigate that impact, above and beyond the usual “church and state” division between advertising and editorial. They could stop running these campaigns alongside climate reporting, do a better job of labeling campaigns, or refuse to run them altogether.
It’s well past time the media stopped allowing itself to be a tool in the fossil fuel industry’s information war. Oreskes likens the push for “balance” on climate change to journalists arguing over the final score of a baseball game. “If the Yankees beat the Red Sox 6-2, journalists would report that. They would not feel compelled to find someone to say actually the Red Sox won, or the score was 6-4,” she says.
www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/10/how-fossil-fuel-industry-got-media-think-climate-change-was-debatable/?utm_term=.7f7c64299271
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested