Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - January 28, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Sales Up, Profit Down for Polyone in 2018
Jan 29, 2019 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
PolyOne Corp. in 2018 saw its sales grow even as profit from continuing operations declined. Avon Lake, Ohio-based PolyOne — a leading compounder, concentrates maker and resin distributor — posted sales of $3.53 billion in 2018... -
Oversight Environment Panel Picks Up Freshmen Progressives
Jan 29, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
Most Democrats on the House Oversight subcommittee that will investigate the EPA, Energy Department, and Interior Department will be members serving in Congress for the first time. Four of the seven members, including Chairman... -
What Happens If the Government Shuts down Again?
Jan 29, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs and Kevin Bogardus
As federal workers return to work this week, a question lingers in hallways, around water coolers and throughout union offices: What do we do if this happens again? "I consider another shutdown a distinct possibility," said Mark Sims... -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Looks to Form TSCA Formaldehyde Consortium
Jan 29, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The American Chemistry Council is to hold an informational meeting on the possibility of forming a TSCA risk evaluation consortium on formaldehyde. According to a statement from the trade group, formaldehyde is a "prime ... -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA's Draft PV29 Analysis Raises Legal Test Over TSCA Data Standards
Jan 29, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmentalists and former EPA staff are raising multiple concerns that the agency's recently released draft assessment of pigment violet 29 (PV29), the first such assessment released since Congress reformed the Toxic... -
(ACC Mentioned) Temporary End to US Shutdown Leaves Uncertainty at EPA
Jan 29, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
The US EPA has reopened and will be funded at 2018 levels until 15 February. The development comes after President Trump signed a continuing resolution on 25 January that has ended the partial government shutdown for the time being. -
EPA Faces New Backlog Of Chemical Applications After Shutdown Ends
Jan 29, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's chemical office staff are returning to work following the weeks-long government shutdown facing a new backlog of applications for new chemical approvals and limited time to meet statutory deadlines for assessing risks of... -
(ACC mentioned) Enviros Press EPA for Deeper Scrutiny of 2 Toxics
Jan 29, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
EPA must take a more careful look at two toxic chemicals that can be persistent in the environment, advocacy groups said. Hexafluoropropylene oxide, or GenX, and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid, or PFBS, are man-made chemicals that... -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump’s EPA Will Not Set Legal Limit on Dangerous Chemicals in Drinking Water, Report Says
Jan 29, 2019 | Think Progress
By Mark Hand
Resisting calls from public health advocates for stricter regulations on toxic chemicals, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to refuse to set limits on the amount of two dangerous chemicals allowed in the nation’s... -
Uncertainty over New Limit for PFAs Chemicals Sparks Outrage
Jan 29, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder and Corbin Hiar
EPA will not set a legal limit for two PFAS chemicals in drinking water, angering environmentalists and lawmakers. An EPA spokeswoman did not deny a report from Politico, citing unnamed sources, about the expected action but said a... -
Air Force Refuses to Follow Michigan PFAs Law
Jan 29, 2019 | MLive
By Garret Ellison
The U.S. Air Force is telling the state of Michigan to take a regulation designed to severely limit toxic PFAS chemicals in the environment and shove it. In a Dec. 7 letter, the Air Force claims that federal sovereign immunity allows it to... -
NGO Preparing Analysis of Science-Policy Interface for Saicm
Jan 29, 2019 | Chemical Watch
NGO the International Panel on Chemical Pollution (IPCP) is preparing a "mapping and gap analysis" document for "strengthening the science-policy interface in international chemicals governance". Once finalised, the document will... -
Big Costs, No Benefits Forecast for UK’s Replacement for EU Chemical Regulation
Jan 29, 2019 | Chemistry World
By Angeli Mehta
The government has told all UK businesses that use or manufacture chemicals, to take action to register them in the UK to minimise disruption in the event of a ‘no-deal’ Brexit – a scenario where the country leaves the EU without a... -
Canadian Draft Assessment Finds Three Ketone Solvents Harmful to Health
Jan 29, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
Ketone solvents MEK, MIBK and 2,4-PD are harmful to human health, according to a draft assessment by the Canadian government. In addition to many industrial applications, the chemicals are used in consumer products, such as paints... -
Sweden Embarks on Major Nationwide Chemicals Enforcement Project
Jan 29, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Sweden has launched a nationwide enforcement project to check if product suppliers are complying with the REACH Article 33 requirement to provide recipients with information on hazardous chemicals in articles. More than 100... -
Anything Other Than a US-China Trade Deal 'Wouldn't Make Sense,' Energy Executives Say
Jan 28, 2019 | CNBC
By Sam Meredith
An escalating trade war between the world's two largest economies would be nonsensical, according to executives from the liquefied natural gas (LNG) market. Oil giants and energy companies are increasingly interested in LNG — a... -
EIA Projects Us to Export More Energy Than It Imports by 2020
Jan 29, 2019 | World Pipelines,
By Nicholas Woodroof
The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) has projected that, for the first time since the 1950s, the US will export more energy than it imports by 2020 as increases in crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas plant liquids... -
3 Ways to Lay the Track for Real-Time Data in Rail
Jan 29, 2019 | Supply Chain Dive
By Emma Cosgrove
"Hey Cargill, where’s my corn sweetener car?” joked Jeannie Frana, the process, data and technology lead at Cargill in that familiar "Hey Alexa" cadence. Frana was explaining the future of railroading technology at the Midwest... -
Senate Democrats Press for Fed to Assess Climate Threats
Jan 29, 2019 | Politico Pro - Energy Whiteboard
By Zack Colman
Twenty Democratic senators — including several presidential hopefuls and likely candidates — are pressing the Federal Reserve and financial regulators to home in on the risks climate change poses to the financial system and to... -
Ewire: Harris Backs 'Green' Deal, Joining Other 2020 Hopefuls
Jan 29, 2019 | Inside EPA
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), whose rollout of her 2020 presidential campaign is generating significant buzz from the media and politicos, is joining several other Democratic primary contenders to embrace the “Green New Deal” that...
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Sales Up, Profit Down for Polyone in 2018
Jan 29, 2019 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
PolyOne Corp. in 2018 saw its sales grow even as profit from continuing operations declined.
Avon Lake, Ohio-based PolyOne — a leading compounder, concentrates maker and resin distributor — posted sales of $3.53 billion in 2018, up more than 9 percent vs. the previous year. But profit from continuing operations declined almost 7 percent to a little more than $161 million.
In a Jan. 29 news release, Chairman, President and CEO Robert Patterson pointed out that 2018 was the ninth consecutive year that PolyOne delivered adjusted earnings-per-share growth to its shareholders.
"This is a testament to the execution of our four-pillar strategy, our world-class service and the dedication of our global associates," he added. He singled out the firm's Color, Additives & Inks unit, which posted double-digit growth in both sales and operating profit during 2018.
"Overall, I am incredibly pleased with our performance this year, when considering that we incurred significantly higher raw material and logistics costs," Patterson added. "We also overcame a more recent slowdown in demand in certain end markets and geographies which negatively impacted the second half of the year."
Color, Additives & Inks rang up sales growth of 17 percent for 2018. Sales in Distribution were up almost 10 percent for the year, with Specialty Engineered Materials sales up more than 3 percent and Performance Products & Solutions sales — including PVC compounds — up more than 2 percent.
Based on sales before eliminations, Distribution was the largest of PolyOne's four units in 2018, generating more than 34 percent of total sales. Color, Additives & Inks brought in just over 28 percent, PP&S generated almost 20 percent and SEM was at 17.5 percent of sales.
Color, Additives & Inks was the only PolyOne unit to show operating profit growth in 2018. That unit's operating profit grew 14.5 percent, while SEM and PP&S each declined by more than 4 percent and Distribution declined 1.5 percent in that category.
During 2018, PolyOne made two acquisitions, buying composites maker PlastiComp Inc. of Winona, Minn., and European specialty colorants and additives maker IQAP Masterbatch Group SL. The firm also kicked off 2019 with another acquisition, buying fibers and composites maker Fiber-Line of Hatfield, Pa., for $120 million.
Also during 2018, PolyOne reduced manufacturing employee injuries by 19 percent. Overall, 2018 was the safest year in the company's history, officials said.
PolyOne in 2018 was certified as a Responsible Care organization for outstanding environmental, health and safety performance by the American Chemistry Council. And for the first time, PolyOne was certified as a Great Place to Work in the U.S. by the Great Place to Work Institute.
Looking ahead, Patterson said in the release that many companies "are citing softening conditions in certain end markets and geographies."
"We certainly saw this at the end of 2018 and expect these conditions to continue into the beginning of this year," he added. "Fortunately, with the investments we have made, the breadth of our portfolio of technologies, and the organization we have in place, we are better positioned to navigate these near-term dynamics than ever before."
On Wall Street, PolyOne's per-share stock price had a rough 2018, starting the year near $43.50 but declining to $32.20 by the end of the year for a decline of just over 30 percent.
Fourth-quarter and full-year results had sent PolyOne's per-share stock price up almost 5 percent to $33.70 in early trading Jan. 29.
https://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20190129/NEWS/190129875/sales-up-profit-down-for-polyone-in-2018
-
Oversight Environment Panel Picks Up Freshmen Progressives
Jan 29, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
Most Democrats on the House Oversight subcommittee that will investigate the EPA, Energy Department, and Interior Department will be members serving in Congress for the first time.
Four of the seven members, including Chairman Harley Rouda (Calif.), are freshmen.
The members have already made a splash for their progressive ambitions. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), the youngest member of Congress, is a top proponent of a Green New Deal, a plan to transition the country’s energy away from fossil fuels in the coming decade.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) called for President Donald Trump’s impeachment in her first week in the House. And Rep. Katie Hill (Calif.) won her election against Republican Rep. Steve Knight campaigning as “America’s most millennial candidate.”
Rouda, a former realtor who switched from the Republican Party to become an independent in 1997, won his election against Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R), who denied the mainstream science behind climate change.
Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.), who was elected to North Dakota’s at-large district after former Rep. Kevin Cramer (R) ran for the Senate and won, is the lone freshman among five Republicans on the subcommittee.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/oversight-environment-panel-picks-up-freshmen-progressives
-
What Happens If the Government Shuts down Again?
Jan 29, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs and Kevin Bogardus
As federal workers return to work this week, a question lingers in hallways, around water coolers and throughout union offices: What do we do if this happens again?
"I consider another shutdown a distinct possibility," said Mark Sims, president of the EPA Unit Engineers and Scientists of California Local 20 of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, which represents Region 9 employees.
President Trump's surprise agreement with congressional Democrats on Friday reopened the government after a historic 35-day partial shutdown.
But funding lasts for only three weeks — through Feb. 15 — and another standoff over Trump's $5.7 billion border wall request could easily result in another shutdown.
Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney indicated as much on CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday.
"Keep in mind he's willing to do whatever it takes to secure the border," Mulvaney said. "He does take this very seriously" (E&E Daily, Jan. 28).
That uncertainty has left federal workers, who felt like they were taken hostage by the recent shutdown, wondering what they can do should another occur.
"My hope is that Congress and the president aren't stupid enough to do it again, but then again, if wishes were horses, everyone would have a pony," said one EPA employee.
The recent shutdown saw 420,000 federal employees working without pay while 380,000 were furloughed, including the bulk of EPA's 13,000-strong workforce.
"There is a divide between those that worked and those of us who were furloughed. Like all this secret stuff happened that we don't know about," said an EPA employee. "It will take time before people get back in the groove. I question if everyone's passion for the work will return."
Many are making financial preparations now in case their paychecks are delayed again.
"People are going to be a little tighter with their money," said Mike Mikulka, president of American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 704, which includes EPA employees in Chicago and the Midwest. "Come 15 days from now, we may be back in the same position we were last week."
EPA plans to dole out back pay this week, which could help ease employees' money problems created by the shutdown.
Bethany Dreyfus, president of AFGE Local 1236, which represents EPA Region 9 employees, said, "It sounds like EPA figured out how to pay us as quickly as possible."
"We may get paid as soon as Wednesday, which is great and takes some of the strain off of the looming end of the month," she said. But she noted that EPA employees may be returning to work this week only to prepare for another funding lapse.
"As we are spending a lot of time revving back up, if we have to prepare for another potential shutdown in just three weeks, that could overwhelm our time," Dreyfus said.
Other union officials suggested they are prepared to exert more political pressure on the White House and Congress — skills they honed during the last shutdown.
It is illegal for federal employees to strike, though some labor leaders called for one during the last shutdown (Greenwire, Jan. 21).
And there has been little talk yet of an organized "sickout," where workers simply don't show up to work.
But union leaders said their political operations were thrown into high gear during the last shutdown, and they aren't easing up in the next three weeks.
"This was a political issue, and it required a political solution," said Suzanne Summerlin, associate general counsel of the National Federation of Federal Employees, which counts U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of Reclamation employees among its members.
"We are continuing to apply the political pressure that we have been applying."
Summerlin highlighted the rally last Wednesday in the Hart Senate Office Building, in which several dozen protesters were arrested while staging a sit-in outside Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) office (E&E News PM, Jan. 23).
"We were as aggressive as we could be," Summerlin said. "and I think we will maintain that level of vigilance and get right back to it if, in fact, the president makes the truly terrible decision to take federal workers hostage again."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/01/29/stories/1060118885
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Looks to Form TSCA Formaldehyde Consortium
Jan 29, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The American Chemistry Council is to hold an informational meeting on the possibility of forming a TSCA risk evaluation consortium on formaldehyde.
According to a statement from the trade group, formaldehyde is a "prime candidate" for the US EPA to include in its batch of 20 high-priority chemicals that will be the subject of risk evaluation. And such an assessment, it added, "could have significant cost and regulatory implications to manufacturers, importers and users."
The ACC’s 20 February meeting will discuss:the TSCA risk evaluation process and costs;the state of the science on formaldehyde and identifying information needs; formation of a TSCA risk evaluation consortium "to directly address EPA activities"; and the potential resources needed "to ensure a science-based TSCA review".
Formaldehyde – used in a broad range of consumer, building and automotive applications – has been the subject of controversy in recent years in the context of the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) programme. The ACC has pressed the EPA to revisit the science underlying the evaluation – which linked the substance to leukaemia – while at the same time Democrats have heavily criticised the delayed release of a final assessment.
Meanwhile, litigation is ongoing over the agency’s alleged failure to respond to an NGO’s public records request related to the IRIS assessment.
The EPA must finalise its list of 20 high- and low-priority chemicals by mid-December. At least half of the substances selected for risk evaluations are required to come from the TSCA workplan, where formaldehyde is listed. Last autumn, the agency confirmed in a prioritisation ‘working approach’ document that it would be focusing on this list of substances in its selection process.
The EPA’s slate of high-and low-priority candidates were expected to be announced this month, but that action has been delayed due to the partial government shutdown.
https://chemicalwatch.com/73791/acc-looks-to-form-tsca-formaldehyde-consortium?q=%E2%80%9CAmerican+Chemistry+Council%E2%80%9D
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA's Draft PV29 Analysis Raises Legal Test Over TSCA Data Standards
Jan 29, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmentalists and former EPA staff are raising multiple concerns that the agency's recently released draft assessment of pigment violet 29 (PV29), the first such assessment released since Congress reformed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), violates that statute, signaling they plan to sue if the agency does not change it.
The draft PV29 assessment falls "woefully short" of meeting the expectations and requirements lawmakers included in the new law, environmentalists charge in comments submitted earlier this month. The groups urge EPA to withdraw the draft assessment, acknowledge that more information is needed to adequately assess PV29's toxicity and use its expanded test order authorities to generate more information about the chemical.
Chemical and pigment industry groups, however, largely commend EPA's approach in their comments, while suggesting some improvements for the final assessment. "Compared to what we've been doing with Canada for the past 15 years, I thought the work product produced by EPA is a damn good work product and it does reflect what the regulation requires," David Wawer, executive director of the Color Pigments Manufacturers Association, Inc. (CPMA), tells Inside EPA.
While the final document is due to be published by Dec. 22, its completion faces uncertainty due to the just-ended government shutdown as well as the fact that acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler committed to lawmakers that the agency will seek a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study of the systematic review approach the agency used to prioritize various study results.
EPA's PV29 draft assessment, released last November, is the first such analysis of an existing chemical under TSCA since Congress reformed it in 2016. The chemical is included in the group of 10 that the Obama EPA selected shortly before leaving office that would be the first assessed under the new requirements of TSCA for those chemicals that were on the market when the original TSCA took effect in 1976.
The draft analysis found that the substance does not pose an "unreasonable risk" that must be regulated.
Industry lawyers said the risk finding raises questions about the prioritization approach EPA used to select the first 10 chemicals for assessment under TSCA and how the agency is identifying priority substances.
But environmentalists have long questioned whether the agency has sufficient data to make a risk finding and suggested that they may challenge the agency over its failure to seek additional data to comply with the law's standards.
Numerous environmental groups focus their comments largely on EPA's decision not to gather additional data on PV29, the systematic review approach EPA proposed to conduct the assessment and its decision not to release in full the studies relied on in the assessment because of their trade secret status.
"The new requirements for risk evaluations were added to [TSCA] in order to establish a rigorous process for assessing the hazard and exposure profile of chemicals of concern and making a science-based determination whether they present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment. Congress required these determinations to be based on the 'best available science' and all 'reasonably available' information. It also required a transparent public process with extensive public input and peer review," state Jan. 14 comments from several groups, including Safer Chemicals Healthy Families (SCHF), Earthjustice and Natural Resources Defense Council.
The groups add that "EPA's evaluations function not only to identify chemical risks that warrant regulation under TSCA but also to provide the public with credible judgments on the safety of chemicals to which it is exposed. The PV29 evaluation falls woefully short of meeting these expectations and the requirements established by Congress."
Potential Lawsuits
The comments hint at potential legal challenges, such as an exploration of EPA's implementing rules' interpretation of TSCA section 14(b), which excludes health and safety information from CBI disclosure protections; the agency's failure to "fulfill its obligation under TSCA to obtain 'reasonably available information'" on PV29 and what the groups consider numerous flaws in the methodology and approach to the assessment which could be used to support an argument that the assessment does not meet the "best available science" requirement of TSCA section 26.
For example, the environmentalists argue that EPA's toxics office in crafting the draft assessment failed to follow numerous pre-existing agency risk assessment guidelines. They list a slew of toxicology studies they argue would be necessary, at minimum, for the PV29 assessment to reach the conclusions that the chemical "lacked adverse health effects" and be "consistent with Agency policy and practice."
And the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), in its Jan. 14 comments, argues that EPA's assessment is "wholly inadequate" because it relies on a "suspect and undocumented workplace exposure estimate privately provided to EPA by the chemical's manufacturer. Second, EPA calculates a potential dose rate based on a NIOSH inhalation exposure rate that is over 40 years old. Third, EPA assumes that a lower fraction of PV29 is dermally absorbed than the source it cites as support recommends based on the chemical's properties. Fourth, EPA fails to include all necessary uncertainty factors -- such as for extrapolating from acute to chronic toxicity values and for database deficiencies -- in calculating its benchmark margins of exposure for worker inhalation and dermal exposures."
The environmental groups challenge EPA's interpretation of section 14(b) CBI protections, arguing that "EPA's long-standing position is that it lacks any legal basis for withholding health and safety studies from the public."
Similarly, comments from the Environmental Protection Network (EPN) of former EPA staff also raise concerns which could form legal arguments, for instance suggesting that EPA's decision not to release the underlying CBI-deemed studies means EPA "has thus failed to provide adequate notice and comment opportunities," or the assessment's failure to consider children, which the group argues is a sensitive group that should be assessed as required in TSCA section 6.
EPN argues that some of PV29's uses could present exposures to children, and as such should be assessed, whereas EPA determined that only workers would be exposed to PV29, and only assessed workers' risks. EPN also challenges the systematic review framework EPA's toxics office developed and used in crafting the draft assessment, arguing that as a result, EPA did not use the statutorily mandated best available science, which the agency has defined as a systematic review, the group's Jan. 14 comments state.
The group goes on to urge EPA's toxics office to follow NAS guidelines from its 2017 report on the Application of Systematic Review Methods, arguing that "EPA incorrectly describes its draft 2018 guidance entitled 'Application of Systematic Review in TSCA Risk Evaluations' as systematic review, but it … is inconsistent with best practices in systematic review and should not be used for any purpose."
Further, the group argues that EPA has failed to follow the approach laid out in its own systematic review guidance document. "EPA incorrectly considers it discretionary when EPA chooses to follow the best scientific practices as required by law or even all of the steps in its own draft guidance . . . EPA laid out a review process in that draft guidance (which our previous comments argue is flawed) but EPA has failed to follow in a vigorous manner said process when evaluating PV29."
ACC's Support
But the American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents the chemical industry, in its comments generally backs EPA's approach even as it acknowledges that the draft assessment "does not represent the full range of assessment techniques at EPA's disposal because . . . only highly conservative, lower-tier approaches were necessary and applied," in its Jan. 14 comments.
"In this case, given the low volume of material used in finished products (<100,000 [pounds per year]) the application of lower-tier approaches to the PV29 risk evaluation is appropriate," the trade group says.
ACC's support is tempered, however, by its recommendations that EPA provide more clarity in several aspects of the assessment, including suggesting that "EPA should consider providing more detail on the tiered approaches employed in its risk evaluations." With regard to EPA's systematic review guidance, ACC says "the discussion of [the guide's study] quality evaluation is very brief and the scoring sheets utilized provide little information explaining why specific scores were assigned . . . EPA should consider providing more detail on the rationale behind the scores for each criterion."
ACC also underscores prior industry questions about EPA's method for prioritizing chemicals for review given the finding that it does not pose an unreasonable risk. ACC urges EPA to "clarify why PV29 was poorly characterized for the Work Plan, and how the lessons from that characterization might inform EPA's prioritization process for the TSCA Active Inventory."
CPMA's Jan. 14 comments say that ACC's "suggestions do not, of course, undermine EPA's strongly substantiated conclusions" in the PV29 draft assessment. In direct opposition to critics' comments, CPMA argues that "EPA collected more than enough data to support its risk evaluation."
"EPA appropriately concluded that it did not need to possess a guideline study of [PV29] regarding every conceivable human health endpoint. For example, EPA stated that, '[w]hile no suitable analogs were identified for [PV29] concerning genotoxicity, structural activity relationships (SAR) considerations and the expected poor absorption and uptake of [PV29], support the EPA's conclusion that [PV29] is unlikely to be a carcinogen.' This is exactly what Congress intended EPA to do in such cases, as it prohibited EPA from requiring minimum data sets for chemicals and specifically instructed EPA to 'employ a tiered screening and testing process.'"
CPMA also argues in its comments that EPA's decision to withhold the CBI studies is correct. "TSCA Section 14 does not require EPA to publish confidential health and safety studies," the comments note.
Further, CPMA argues that if EPA were to publish such studies, the agency "would force companies which have expended considerable resources developing products to unfairly subsidize competitors in world markets. The implementation of such a restrictive interpretation would have a chilling effect on companies working voluntarily with the EPA in its review of existing chemicals. In particular, it would discourage companies from voluntarily expending resources on expensive toxicology studies to understand the potential health effects of their products. We do not believe that this reflects the intent of the TSCA statute."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epas-draft-pv29-analysis-raises-legal-test-over-tsca-data-standards
-
(ACC Mentioned) Temporary End to US Shutdown Leaves Uncertainty at EPA
Jan 29, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
The US EPA has reopened and will be funded at 2018 levels until 15 February. The development comes after President Trump signed a continuing resolution on 25 January that has ended the partial government shutdown for the time being.
It is unclear whether the EPA will remain open once this expires, however, because the initial cause of the shutdown – the funding of a wall at the Mexican border – remains unresolved.
The EPA’s toxics office (OCSPP) has been reduced to the bare minimum since it closed a week after the shutdown began. This has effectively halted TSCA programme activities for the last 28 days.
With the reopening of the government, lawyers with knowledge of the amended law predict that it will focus on statutory deadlines, such as those for the release of the nine remaining draft risk evaluations. These are due in December, but with mandatory processes, such as peer review and public comments, that must be completed before then.
Additionally, new chemicals’ pre-manufacturing notice (PMNs) reviews must happen within 90 days of submission, though industry is assuming that the weeks when the EPA was shuttered will not count toward those deadlines.
It is not clear what the end of the shutdown will mean for other aspects of the TSCA programme that are not running on such a tight clock. For instance, EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler made certain transparency commitments to Congress in December. But legal experts have told Chemical Watch it is unlikely the agency will prioritise such activities given other statutory deadlines.
In a statement to Chemical Watch, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents the US chemical industry, emphasised the EPA’s "heavy workload, especially for TSCA implementation", in the wake of the shutdown.
"It is important for the agency to be fully funded and resourced to help ensure TSCA is effectively and efficiently implemented as Congress envisioned," it said.
The EPA has not responded to a request for comment on its post-shutdown priorities.
https://chemicalwatch.com/73735/temporary-end-to-us-shutdown-leaves-uncertainty-at-epa
-
EPA Faces New Backlog Of Chemical Applications After Shutdown Ends
Jan 29, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's chemical office staff are returning to work following the weeks-long government shutdown facing a new backlog of applications for new chemical approvals and limited time to meet statutory deadlines for assessing risks of existing chemicals, sources say.
While EPA was shuttered, just 22 of the 981 staff working in the agency's toxics office have been deemed essential and working since December, acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee during his Jan. 16 confirmation hearing.
With few staff available to process applications and take other steps, some industry attorneys advised their clients to refrain from submitting new chemical applications for agency consideration.
Though EPA's automated system for accepting pre-manufacture notice (PMN) applications remained open during the shutdown, the prospect remains that the agency may face another rush of PMN applications under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), which oversees EPA's TSCA programs, had already been struggling to address delays in the PMN program resulting from its efforts to interpret and implement the changes in the reformed statute.
A draft framework the agency crafted in 2017 to speed PMN reviews drew widespread criticisms from environmentalists and others, forcing Wheeler to pledge late last year that the agency would reconsider the most recent draft review plan.
But the shutdown will bring a new backlog of PMNs now that the agency has reopened. “They had the backlog before, they were working through it, now they've got more [PMNs], who knows how many,” Richard Engler, director of chemistry for the law firm Bergeson & Campbell, tells Inside EPA.
In addition, Engler adds that EPA already had additional buildup in cases from a rush of applications before October, when the agency's higher fees for PMN applications took effect. “So the backlog is worse, submitters are more frantic. If you count the holidays, it's been six to eight weeks in which no progress has been made on some of these.”
Attorneys with the law firm Arnold & Porter say the law provides few guidelines for how EPA should proceed with new chemical applications in the case of a shutdown but they suggest that how the agency dealt with the issue in the past may provide some guidance.
“Neither TSCA nor its implementing regulations provide instruction about the impact of a government shutdown on TSCA Section 5 deadlines,” they wrote in a recent newsletter.
But just as EPA did following shutdowns in 1995-96 and 2013, they expect the agency will rely on authority in section 5(c) to unilaterally extend the review period for PMNs by up to 90 days.
Uncertainty On New Chemicals
But the attorneys warn there may be questions about even this practice, because “TSCA regulations qualify this authority, stating that EPA may extend the notice period 'at any time during the notice review period,' therefore raising questions about whether EPA may extend the review period if it has already expired during the government shutdown (though it does not appear that EPA has faced pushback on this basis in the past).”
The attorneys predict “EPA is likely to again extend the review period for PMNs and exemptions. If this occurs: (1) PMNs and exemptions submitted during the shutdown would likely be deemed to have been received by EPA on the day that the Agency reopens; and (2) the review periods for PMNs and exemptions received by EPA prior to the beginning of the government shutdown would likely be extended by the length of the shutdown (35 days).”
Others in industry are also concerned about longer-term uncertainty for new chemicals given continuing EPA efforts to revise its framework for reviewing PMNs.
In a recent letter to Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), ranking Democrat on the Senate environment committee,
Wheeler promised to work with the committee and others as EPA revises the framework for how officials will review new chemicals and make the new chemicals program more transparent.
Wheeler commits to publishing EPA's “next version of this framework” and to hosting a public meeting to discuss it, stating that at the meeting EPA will “solicit additional public comment and describe our working approaches within 60 days of its publication. EPA's framework will specify (i) the statutory and scientific justification for the approaches described, (ii) the policies and procedures that EPA is using/plans to use in its PMN reviews, and (iii) its responses to public comments received.”
Jared Rothstein and Robert Helminiak at the trade association Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA), tell Inside EPA that “it's unclear at the moment how … much of an effect” the non-TSCA section 5(e) significant new use rules (SNURs), a key feature of the framework EPA released will have. “EPA has only tested the approach on about a half-dozen substances. We should learn more once a beta framework is available.”
They explain that it remains possible that “EPA will face litigation” from environmentalists, who sued over the framework two years ago. Further, they question whether EPA's approach of avoiding SNURs will shorten the PMN review time line in situations beyond applications where EPA has low concerns or adequate data. Otherwise, they suggest that “EPA is still gonna run into the issue of insisting on more data if [it is not] not readily apparent [how to make a] decision on the [existing] knowledge.”
Existing Chemicals
Engler, with Bergeson and Campbell, also notes that the agency has been set back in its efforts to assess risks of existing chemicals under TSCA section 6.
The revised statute includes a number of major first deadlines at the three-year mark from the statute's enactment, in 2019. Many of these revolve around the existing chemicals -- those that were on the market when the original TSCA took effect in 1976, and were largely grandfathered from it. Perhaps most crucial is the December deadline to complete the first 10 assessments of existing chemicals.
The agency is “further in the hole on their [TSCA] section 6 deadlines. They're going to have serious problems squeezing in” everything they need to accomplish before the new TSCA's statutory deadlines,” he says.
Another former agency official also sees little prospect for the agency to meet its stated goal of having its first 10 TSCA risk evaluations done by the end of 2019. The source note that only one draft evaluation is on paper, and its peer review panel, scheduled to meet this week, was postponed because of the shutdown. “You can't just tell people, 'well, be here next week,' the source says, noting it may be a month or two before getting such a meeting back on the calendar."
Engler, a former OPPT chemist, says the shutdown is going to be especially “tough” on the Risk Assessment Division within OPPT, which supports both the new chemicals program and its program on existing chemicals, which also faces numerous pending TSCA deadlines.
But Engler says that “the real challenge is going to be management, [at] the political level, [the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention] immediate office.”
Engler says that the arrival of Alexandra Dunn, the recently confirmed assistant administrator of the toxics office, will help take pressure off the three deputies who have been leading the office without a Senate-confirmed chief in the Trump administration. “Now she's there to be a decision maker” and to take up the responsibilities that had been left to the trio of deputies that have filled the role since the Obama EPA left office. Engler suggests this will allow the deputies “more time to spend on the details, providing support to Alexandra Dunn. That'll help some.”
Still, Engler says, OPPT's Director “Jeff Morris is going to be in a tough spot. . . . there's just a limit to what he can delegate. . . . There's only one office director.”
Morris' role as head of OPPT has become crucial to the PMN process, where for some time he has been reviewing many PMN application decisions before they are finalized. The unusual high level of review since the new statute took effect has led to slowing in the system. “My understanding is he's still making decisions under section 5. Individual program managers are providing briefing materials for his signature,” Engler says of the situation shortly before the shutdown began.
“That was the choke point before, that's going to be a worse choke point now. It's a challenging workload.”
Like Engler, the two SOCMA officials express hope that Dunn's arrival will improve the situation, noting that the position has been unfilled since the Obama administration ended. “We're hopeful that will help move things in the right direction,” but they worry as well that OPPT is understaffed -- and whether the shutdown will hurt EPA's ability to retain and recruit new staff.
“Who knows what the impact of the government shutdown is?” Rothstein says. “And who knows -- we're under the threat of another government shutdown. . . . That's probably something EPA should be thinking about.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-faces-new-backlog-chemical-applications-after-shutdown-ends
-
(ACC mentioned) Enviros Press EPA for Deeper Scrutiny of 2 Toxics
Jan 29, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
EPA must take a more careful look at two toxic chemicals that can be persistent in the environment, advocacy groups said.
Hexafluoropropylene oxide, or GenX, and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid, or PFBS, are man-made chemicals that fall under the large category of per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances known as PFAS, which are used in nonstick cookware, grease-proof food packaging and stain-resistant textiles.
EPA's draft risk assessments for GenX and PFBS in November found the liver is particularly sensitive to GenX, and the thyroid and kidney are sensitive to PFBS.
While the draft assessment noted humans have the potential to be exposed to complex mixtures of PFAS through drinking water, it only focuses on potential health effects associated with each chemical and does not consider the effects a combination of chemicals could have.
"This would involve a more complex assessment that would need to consider and evaluate mechanisms of action and endpoints of concern for each of the chemicals in the mixture," EPA said when soliciting comments on the draft proposal.
Environmental groups last week said little is known about the effects of each chemical and called on EPA to more carefully look at them individually and in tandem with other PFAS.
"The people most at risk of exposure to PFBS and GenX chemicals will generally also have greater than typical exposures to legacy PFAS chemicals," said the Sierra Club, Endocrine Disruption Exchange, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Working Group and Center for Environmental Health in comments earlier this month.
Because PFAS are not included in most environmental statutes, information on the releases of these substances into the environment is not generally disclosed, the groups said. That means the toxicity data is incomplete for both chemicals, said the groups.
The American Chemistry Council requested a 30-day extension on the comment deadline, which closed last week.
The assessments "incorporate recently implemented principles for systematic review of the available data for these substances and require additional scrutiny to ensure that these principles have been applied consistently and comprehensively," ACC's Senior Director Steve Risotto wrote in comments to EPA.
Risotto noted the draft GenX assessment is EPA's first substantive attempt to use 2018 criteria for the review of risk evaluations under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Once final, toxicity assessments can be used by EPA, states, tribes and local communities to determine regulations.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/01/29/stories/1060118883
-
Jan 29, 2019 | Think Progress
By Mark Hand
Resisting calls from public health advocates for stricter regulations on toxic chemicals, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to refuse to set limits on the amount of two dangerous chemicals allowed in the nation’s drinking water.
Millions of Americans drink water that exceeds the government’s non-enforceable health advisory limit for the two chemicals — perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) — according to studies. The chemicals, which have been linked to cancer, thyroid disease, and weakened childhood immunity, are the best-known members of the family of highly fluorinated compounds known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.
These chemicals are typically used in Teflon, Scotch-Guard, and other consumer products, as well as foam used in fire-fighting. But on Monday, Politico reported that Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler approved a management plan of non-stick chemicals in December that stated the EPA would not set limits on amounts of PFOA and PFOS in drinking water.
“The chemicals will remain unregulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act” under the still-unreleased draft plan that Wheeler signed off on in late December, according to sources speaking with Politico.
The EPA currently has no legal limits for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water, only a non-enforceable health advisory level of 70 parts per trillion for either chemical or the two combined. But there is evidence that a safe level of exposure is much lower.
A legal limit for the PFAS chemicals has been sought by both Democrats and Republicans as the Trump administration continues to develop a federal management plan for the per- and poly-flouorinated chemicals.
Commenting on the news, the EPA said in an email to ThinkProgress that its PFAS action plan will outline the agency’s approach to identifying and understanding PFAS exposures and addressing the challenge from the toxic chemicals.
The action plan is currently undergoing interagency review. The EPA will be prepared to discuss the contents of the plan as soon as interagency review is complete, and the plan is public, an agency spokesperson said via email.
Last week, both Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives agreed to form a PFAS Task Force to address drinking water contamination caused by these toxic fluorinated chemicals.
One of the co-chairs of the House PFAS Task Force, Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI), said if the Trump administration follows through with the decision not to take action on PFAS contamination, it will pose a significant threat to public health.
“While the Trump Administration has claimed it wants to address PFAS, they have been all talk and no action,” Kildee said Tuesday in a statement. “Even the Trump administration’s own studies have identified how dangerous PFAS chemicals are, yet they refuse to act.”
Communities across the nation likely have PFAS in drinking water at levels as much as hundreds of times higher than the Centers for Disease Control and independent scientists consider safe, a level far lower than what EPA has stated is acceptable.
Michigan has the most known sites — 15 — contaminated by PFAS chemicals, followed by New York with 10. Tests have also found tap water supplies in North Carolina contaminated with a PFAS chemical called GenX. The industrial chemical has been found in the drinking water of more than 200,000 people in southeastern North Carolina alone.
“Millions of Americans are at risk of daily exposure to these highly toxic chemicals strongly suspected of causing cancer — just by drinking water from their taps. It is absolutely unconscionable for the Trump Administration to refuse to even start the process of setting a limit on these poisonous chemicals,” Erik Olson, senior director for health and food at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), said in a statement.
Beyond exposure through drinking water, these chemicals are found in several types of consumer products, such as carpets, clothing, fabrics for furniture, paper packing for food, firefighting foam, and other materials, such as cookware, that are resistant to water, grease, or stains. The chemicals used to treat these products can leach into the water supply during the manufacturing process, where they can remain for years.
At his January 16 confirmation hearing, Wheeler told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that the agency would announce plans soon to address the widespread contamination of the nation’s tap water with the compounds PFOA and PFOS. But he did not commit to setting limits on the chemicals in drinking water.
During the hearing, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, asked the nominee if he would commit that the federal government would set standards for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water within two years. The Delaware senator emphasized that he is not asking the EPA administrator to commit to enacting limits within two weeks or two months, which could be unrealistic for the federal agency.
But Wheeler was still unprepared to say the EPA would set limits under the Safe Drinking Water Act within that timeframe. “I can’t make that commitment because it’s in interagency review at this point,” Wheeler responded.
“During Mr. Wheeler’s nomination hearing earlier this month, Senator Carper was deeply troubled when Mr. Wheeler could not make a commitment that EPA will set a drinking water standard for these dangerous chemicals,” a spokesperson for Carper said in an email to ThinkProgress.
Part of the challenge in taking action to address the harmful chemicals, however, is that the Trump administration has a close relationship with the chemical industry.
For instance, Nancy Beck, the Trump administration appointee who oversees the EPA’s toxic chemical unit, previously worked as an executive at the American Chemistry Council, one of the industry’s main lobbying groups.
But as was made clear with the failed nomination of Michael Dourson to head the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety, there is bipartisan concern on this issue and bipartisan support for protections against these chemicals. Dourson, who worked for the EPA as a staff scientist earlier in his career, drew criticism for his long-time work as a consultant for chemical companies.
Several Republicans hesitated to support Dourson, including the two Republican senators from North Carolina, who raised concerns about contaminated water at the Camp Lejeune military base.
Nonetheless, the EPA has delayed setting legal limits for PFOA and PFOS for almost 20 years. This is despite the EPA’s own tests detecting PFAS pollution in the public water supplies of 16 million Americans in 33 states.
But the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit environmental group, said it believes the EPA has severely underestimated of the scope of the problem.
EWG and researchers at Northeastern University have tracked 172 PFAS contamination sites in 40 states. Using unreleased data from the EPA tests, EWG estimates that water supplies for as many as 110 million Americans may be contaminated.
“The most efficient and equitable way to remove these chemicals from the nation’s drinking water supply is to use the agency’s authority to set legal limits,” Dr. David Andrews, a senior scientists for EWG, said Monday in a statement. “It’s a national problem, and it needs a national solution. Anything short of that is window dressing.”
In the absence of federal action on these chemicals, eight states have taken steps to address chemical contamination of drinking water because they see the EPA as dragging its feet. Colorado, Minnesota, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas, Vermont, and Washington have taken action over the past three years to regulate this class of toxic chemicals.
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-epa-limit-dangerous-pfos-pfoa-chemicals-water-c40dc8308ef0/
-
Uncertainty over New Limit for PFAs Chemicals Sparks Outrage
Jan 29, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder and Corbin Hiar
EPA will not set a legal limit for two PFAS chemicals in drinking water, angering environmentalists and lawmakers.
An EPA spokeswoman did not deny a report from Politico, citing unnamed sources, about the expected action but said a PFAS-related plan is "currently undergoing interagency review."
"EPA will be prepared to discuss the contents of the plan as soon as interagency review is complete, and the plan is public," the spokeswoman said in a statement.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are a family of thousands of chemicals that have been used in products ranging from nonstick cookware to firefighting foam. Health effects of exposure may include increased risk of cancer and problems with growth, learning and behavior in infants and children.
The two chemicals that apparently won't be regulated — PFOA and PFOS — have been linked to kidney and testicular cancer.
Without limits under the Safe Drinking Water Act, utilities would not be required to test for the chemicals and make sure they aren't present in what people drink.
Environmental groups expressed outrage.
"If these sources are right, the EPA is essentially telling the more than 110 million Americans whose water is likely contaminated with PFAS: 'Drink up, folks,'" said Environmental Working Group senior scientist David Andrews.
More than 1,500 drinking water systems across the country could be contaminated with the chemicals, according to EWG research.
"It is absolutely unconscionable for the Trump administration to refuse to even start the process of setting a limit on these poisonous chemicals," said Erik Olson, the Natural Resources Defense Council's senior director for health and food.
Action on the Hill
The decision, if EPA stays the course, may lead to action on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have been pressing the agency to address PFAS.
Last week, while launching a bipartisan PFAS Task Force, several lawmakers talked about bills to introduce. If EPA, as reported, is declining to strictly regulate PFAS, those measures could soon emerge.
"I am currently pushing legislation, as well as with others, that would add to the Safe Drinking Water Act an enforceable standard for PFOS," said Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), referring to a type of PFAS that industry phased out of production in 2015.
"It's kind of hard to believe, but the standard that is there now is voluntary and any cleanup that happens is voluntary," he said.
Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), the task force's co-chairman, added that "virtually all of the legislation that many of us had introduced in the last session either is being introduced or already has been introduced."
Kildee is currently co-sponsoring H.R. 535, from Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), which calls for EPA to designate PFAS as hazardous substances under the Superfund law. The agency would reportedly do that for some — but not all — types of PFAS.
Last Congress, Kildee introduced or backed three piece of PFAS legislation:H.R. 6835, which sought to make it easier for federal agencies to work with states on addressing PFAS contamination.H.R. 7284, which would have required a nationwide survey of perfluorinated compounds.H.R. 6993, which aimed to provide additional services to veterans exposed to PFAS on military bases.
When it comes to oversight of EPA, Dingell announced at the task force launch that the Energy and Commerce Committee she serves on was planning a hearing devoted to PFAS (E&E Daily, Jan. 24).
Wheeler confirmation
EPA's actions on PFAS could complicate the confirmation of acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, nominated to lead the agency on a permanent basis, and Peter Wright, Trump's pick to lead the solid waste office.
Work that Michael Dourson, a failed nominee to lead EPA's chemicals efforts, did on PFAS led North Carolina's two Republican senators to break ranks in 2017 and effectively derail his confirmation (Greenwire, March 20, 2018).
After Dourson's defeat, EPA attempted to get out in front of the PFAS issue. It held a summit with state regulators and made a series of regulatory commitments. Now, deadlines for those promises are fast approaching or have already passed (Greenwire, May 22, 2018).
'Crazy news'
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, was visibly surprised when a reporter informed him this morning EPA may not regulate PFAS.
"Are you kidding me?" he asked. "That is really crazy news."
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the move would be "obviously very disappointing." He said, "Those chemicals pose real threats to our safety and health."
Carper said lawmakers would be pressing Wheeler for answers on the subject. "Maybe through this confirmation process, we'll actually get EPA to do what I think is the right thing to do," Carper said.
Kildee said the Trump administration's own studies have found PFAS chemicals to be dangerous. "By refusing to set a drinking water standard for these dangerous chemicals, the EPA will limit the public's knowledge about PFAS in their drinking water and restrict clean-up of PFAS contamination," he said in a statement.
EPW Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) this morning said that he was unaware of the report and that he plans to look into it.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/01/29/stories/1060118883
-
Air Force Refuses to Follow Michigan PFAs Law
Jan 29, 2019 | MLive
By Garret Ellison
The U.S. Air Force is telling the state of Michigan to take a regulation designed to severely limit toxic PFAS chemicals in the environment and shove it.
In a Dec. 7 letter, the Air Force claims that federal sovereign immunity allows it to disregard the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s attempt to force its compliance with a regulation that caps the amount of PFAS chemicals entering surface water.
The letter follows a violation notice issued Oct. 19 by the DEQ, which says the Air Force is failing meet a 12 parts per trillion (ppt) limit on the amount of PFAS allowed in Michigan groundwater at the point where it co-mingles with a lake or river.
The violation was issued as part of a years-long investigation into PFAS contamination in Oscoda around the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base, where past use of chemical-based AFFF firefighting foam has polluted drinking water, lakes, rivers and local wildlife, and is causing regular instances of toxic lake foam to pileup on local beaches.
The DEQ “lacks the jurisdictional authority” to force compliance because the federal government “has not waived sovereign immunity with regard to the state regulation on which the (violation notice) is premised,” a senior Air Force official wrote.
The Air Force “is hereby informing you that it will not be taking any new remedial actions at this time,” wrote Stephen Termaath, chief of the Air Force civil engineering center program that coordinates cleanup at contaminated former bases.
The letter represents further discord between Michigan and the Air Force related to cleanup at Wurtsmith, where the DEQ discovered PFAS in 2010. It was the first of many sites at which the contaminants have been found in the state.
In December 2017, the state invoked a dispute resolution process with the Air Force under a joint federal and state defense site cleanup program. Michigan officials contend, among other things, that federal efforts are not adequate to tackle the widespread pollution.
The DEQ wants a fourfold increase in the amount of contaminated groundwater the Air Force is pumping from underneath the base into a granular activated carbon filtration (GAC) system installed last summer — a year behind schedule. The state also wants to increase the overall size of the area where groundwater is being captured.
According to the DEQ, plumes on base are seriously harming an Au Sable River wetland area known as Clark’s Marsh, where the individual compound PFOS has tested at 42,000-ppt in the groundwater and 1,400-ppt in the surface waters of the marsh.
In October, Michigan issued the nation’s first “Do Not Eat” deer advisory based on PFAS contamination for an area around the marsh. A fish consumption advisory has been in place for several years.
Senators to Pentagon: Comply with Michigan PFAS rules
Toxic foam is 13,000x state's water quality standard
Arnie Leriche, a former Environmental Protection Agency engineer who co-chairs the Wurtsmith Restoration Advisory Board in Oscoda, said the Air Force is extremely reluctant to comply with the strict 12-ppt surface water standard in Michigan out of concern the move might be seen a precedent setting for the Department of Defense.
As of 2017, the Pentagon had identified about 400 active and former bases or installations with known or suspected PFAS contamination.
The state estimates that, in Michigan alone, the initial PFAS cleanup bill around all the contaminated military sites could reach as high as $335 million. Wurtsmith is a large piece of that figure. Last year, the state estimated the base needs 20 GAC filtration units to clean up the plumes at a total cost of $178 million, which includes more than a decade of operational costs.
“Even if it just applies in Michigan, it’s going to be a budget buster,” Leriche said.
Leriche, who testified about the problem before the U.S. Senate in September, said the Air Force could move faster if it wanted to, and there are examples, such as Pease Air Force Base in New Hampshire, when it has. Leriche said that federal Superfund law, known by the acronym CERCLA, lets the Air Force to take a drawn-out “phased” approach to addressing the pollution that amounts to “taking the slow boat to China.”
Because the EPA hasn’t designated PFAS chemicals as “hazardous,” Leriche said the Air Force can essentially ignore state law until it gets to the “remedial investigation” phase. He said the Air Force is moving slowly at Wurtsmith out of budgetary concern, but “also because they don’t want to get to the phase in CERCLA where they have to acknowledge, officially, state rules, standards and criteria.”
That could take another decade, he said.
“They’ve already spent the last four years wasting time,” Leriche said.
Messages seeking comment from the Air Force last week were not returned.
In a statement, the DEQ says it’s “working aggressively” to hold the Air Force accountable for the pollution, and that it’s approach is “science-based and data-driven.”
The DEQ would not make Wurtsmith site manager Robert Delaney, a scientist who first raised alarms about PFAS in state government, available for an interview.
The DEQ is aiming for a “full remedy” in Oscoda, said agency spokesperson Scott Dean.
“The slow response by the Air Force to the Wurtsmith contamination is having an increasingly negative impact on the people, wildlife and environment in Oscoda," Dean said. "Although Michigan seeks to work cooperatively with the Air Force, slow response to PFAS contamination is not acceptable.”
The DEQ appears to be working in closer concert on the Wurtsmith problem with the Attorney General’s office under Dana Nessel than with her predecessor Bill Schuette, on whom the agency waited nearly a yearbetween April 2017 and February 2018 for written input about the Air Force’s liability to remediate contaminated groundwater.
In a statement, Nessel’s office spokesperson Kelly Rossman-McKinney said the attorney general and “and her team continue to work with DEQ to hold the U.S. Air Force accountable for PFAS contamination at its former Wurtsmith base in Oscoda.”
“We take polluting our land, our water and our people very seriously and we are prepared to use every regulatory and legal means necessary to force the Air Force to address this contamination,” Rossman-McKinney said.The U.S. Air Force is telling the state of Michigan to take a regulation designed to severely limit toxic PFAS chemicals in the environment and shove it.
In a Dec. 7 letter, the Air Force claims that federal sovereign immunity allows it to disregard the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s attempt to force its compliance with a regulation that caps the amount of PFAS chemicals entering surface water.
The letter follows a violation notice issued Oct. 19 by the DEQ, which says the Air Force is failing meet a 12 parts per trillion (ppt) limit on the amount of PFAS allowed in Michigan groundwater at the point where it co-mingles with a lake or river.
The violation was issued as part of a years-long investigation into PFAS contamination in Oscoda around the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base, where past use of chemical-based AFFF firefighting foam has polluted drinking water, lakes, rivers and local wildlife, and is causing regular instances of toxic lake foam to pileup on local beaches.
The DEQ “lacks the jurisdictional authority” to force compliance because the federal government “has not waived sovereign immunity with regard to the state regulation on which the (violation notice) is premised,” a senior Air Force official wrote.
The Air Force “is hereby informing you that it will not be taking any new remedial actions at this time,” wrote Stephen Termaath, chief of the Air Force civil engineering center program that coordinates cleanup at contaminated former bases.
The letter represents further discord between Michigan and the Air Force related to cleanup at Wurtsmith, where the DEQ discovered PFAS in 2010. It was the first of many sites at which the contaminants have been found in the state.
In December 2017, the state invoked a dispute resolution process with the Air Force under a joint federal and state defense site cleanup program. Michigan officials contend, among other things, that federal efforts are not adequate to tackle the widespread pollution.
The DEQ wants a fourfold increase in the amount of contaminated groundwater the Air Force is pumping from underneath the base into a granular activated carbon filtration (GAC) system installed last summer — a year behind schedule. The state also wants to increase the overall size of the area where groundwater is being captured.
According to the DEQ, plumes on base are seriously harming an Au Sable River wetland area known as Clark’s Marsh, where the individual compound PFOS has tested at 42,000-ppt in the groundwater and 1,400-ppt in the surface waters of the marsh.
In October, Michigan issued the nation’s first “Do Not Eat” deer advisory based on PFAS contamination for an area around the marsh. A fish consumption advisory has been in place for several years.
Arnie Leriche, a former Environmental Protection Agency engineer who co-chairs the Wurtsmith Restoration Advisory Board in Oscoda, said the Air Force is extremely reluctant to comply with the strict 12-ppt surface water standard in Michigan out of concern the move might be seen a precedent setting for the Department of Defense.
As of 2017, the Pentagon had identified about 400 active and former bases or installations with known or suspected PFAS contamination.
The state estimates that, in Michigan alone, the initial PFAS cleanup bill around all the contaminated military sites could reach as high as $335 million. Wurtsmith is a large piece of that figure. Last year, the state estimated the base needs 20 GAC filtration units to clean up the plumes at a total cost of $178 million, which includes more than a decade of operational costs.
“Even if it just applies in Michigan, it’s going to be a budget buster,” Leriche said.
Leriche, who testified about the problem before the U.S. Senate in September, said the Air Force could move faster if it wanted to, and there are examples, such as Pease Air Force Base in New Hampshire, when it has. Leriche said that federal Superfund law, known by the acronym CERCLA, lets the Air Force to take a drawn-out “phased” approach to addressing the pollution that amounts to “taking the slow boat to China.”
Because the EPA hasn’t designated PFAS chemicals as “hazardous,” Leriche said the Air Force can essentially ignore state law until it gets to the “remedial investigation” phase. He said the Air Force is moving slowly at Wurtsmith out of budgetary concern, but “also because they don’t want to get to the phase in CERCLA where they have to acknowledge, officially, state rules, standards and criteria.”
That could take another decade, he said.
“They’ve already spent the last four years wasting time,” Leriche said.
Messages seeking comment from the Air Force last week were not returned.
In a statement, the DEQ says it’s “working aggressively” to hold the Air Force accountable for the pollution, and that it’s approach is “science-based and data-driven.”
The DEQ would not make Wurtsmith site manager Robert Delaney, a scientist who first raised alarms about PFAS in state government, available for an interview.
The DEQ is aiming for a “full remedy” in Oscoda, said agency spokesperson Scott Dean.
“The slow response by the Air Force to the Wurtsmith contamination is having an increasingly negative impact on the people, wildlife and environment in Oscoda," Dean said. "Although Michigan seeks to work cooperatively with the Air Force, slow response to PFAS contamination is not acceptable.”
The DEQ appears to be working in closer concert on the Wurtsmith problem with the Attorney General’s office under Dana Nessel than with her predecessor Bill Schuette, on whom the agency waited nearly a yearbetween April 2017 and February 2018 for written input about the Air Force’s liability to remediate contaminated groundwater.
In a statement, Nessel’s office spokesperson Kelly Rossman-McKinney said the attorney general and “and her team continue to work with DEQ to hold the U.S. Air Force accountable for PFAS contamination at its former Wurtsmith base in Oscoda.”
“We take polluting our land, our water and our people very seriously and we are prepared to use every regulatory and legal means necessary to force the Air Force to address this contamination,” Rossman-McKinney said.
https://www.mlive.com/news/2019/01/air-force-refuses-to-follow-michigan-pfas-law.html
-
NGO Preparing Analysis of Science-Policy Interface for Saicm
Jan 29, 2019 | Chemical Watch
NGO the International Panel on Chemical Pollution (IPCP) is preparing a "mapping and gap analysis" document for "strengthening the science-policy interface in international chemicals governance".
Once finalised, the document will be submitted to the third meeting of the open-ended working group (OEWG) of the International Conference on Chemicals Management on 2-4 April.
The OEWG is responsible for the implementation, development and enhancement of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm), a policy framework to promote chemical safety around the world.
A draft version of the mapping and gap analysis was discussed at a workshop that the IPCP ran in November last year in Geneva. Experts attended from:ten intergovernmental organisations; 14 national or regional governments; and six international NGOs representing academia, the chemicals industry and civil society.
The purpose of the workshop was to "support the ongoing dialogue on strengthening the current science-policy interface in international chemicals governance by reviewing the status quo, identifying gaps, and discussing needs and possible actions".
Prior to this, the IPCP put forward three options: the establishment of an "IPCC/IPBES [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services]-like" panel; the establishment of a network of networks; and an expansion of the activities of the organisations of the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC)
These were discussed at the workshop, alongside two further options:a hybrid of 1 and 2, comprising a network of networks "institutionalised with an intergovernmental nature"; ora hybrid of 2 and 3.
According to the report, attendees felt that option 1 offered a global overview, a comprehensive perspective, early warning capabilities and high credibility. However, they expressed concerns about the financial costs.
Attendees felt that option 2 offered flexibility and agility, but the effort required for logistics would need to be minimised for it to be feasible.
The IPCP is revising the mapping and gap analysis in the light of comments provided before, during and after the workshop.
https://chemicalwatch.com/73797/ngo-preparing-analysis-of-science-policy-interface-for-saicm
-
Big Costs, No Benefits Forecast for UK’s Replacement for EU Chemical Regulation
Jan 29, 2019 | Chemistry World
By Angeli Mehta
The government has told all UK businesses that use or manufacture chemicals, to take action to register them in the UK to minimise disruption in the event of a ‘no-deal’ Brexit – a scenario where the country leaves the EU without a transition agreement in place. Chemicals are currently controlled under the EU’s registration, evaluation, authorisation of chemicals regulations (Reach), which controls which chemicals can be used, manufactured or imported in the bloc. But with just two months to go until the UK’s departure date, the chemical industry says the government has done nothing to allay its fears over continuing access to chemicals, given the tight timescales and costs of registering in the UK.
Last November, a highly critical House of Lords report concluded preparations were not up to the task of maintaining adequate chemical regulation. The chair of the Lords energy and environment sub-committee has now said the government’s response to the report was ‘vague and insufficient’ and has asked for reassurances by the end of the week on the measures being put in place. Peter Newport, chief executive of the Chemical Business Association, describes government planning as ‘unworkable and not commercially viable … while government is telling us we’ll just have to cope’.
In a no-deal scenario, companies have 60 or 180 days to register in the UK – depending on whether they are a UK or EU business – and two years to provide the new UK regulator, the Health & Safety Executive (HSE), with all the data that supported their original EU Reach registration.
But companies don’t necessarily own the rights to the data that supported their Reach application, as industry made joint submissions, sharing data and costs. According to industry associations, UK companies hold around 12,000 Reach registrations and have invested over £550 million in the EU system. ‘It’s a balancing game [of] how much to prepare in advance and incur costs,’ says Nishma Patel, chemicals policy director at the Chemical Industries Association.
Companies will have to undertake supply chain mapping. ‘Some companies have knowledge of Reach but there will be others who’ve never had to consider Reach regulation because their supply chain has always covered it,’ says Patel. ‘Where they were just a user, they will now be an importer.’Who owns the data?
Moreover, finding out who owns the data is not straightforward, as there may be multiple owners. ‘In a UK Reach there is no obligation for EU data holders to share data – it’s at their discretion, and also at their discretion how they value this data,’ according to Neil Hollis, reach coordinator at chemicals giant BASF.
‘There will be a big cost to this – and there’s no alternative for the chemical industry but to bear these costs,’ adds Gill Pagliuca, chair of the Chemical Hazards Communication Society. ‘It will spend many millions to achieve the status quo – with no benefits to safety or the environment, and it will make products more expensive in the UK.’
As a result, industry associations predict a reduction in the number of chemicals available in the UK if, for example, costly safety testing has to be repeated, or where companies are selling such small quantities of chemicals that the cost of registration outweighs sales.
BASF’s own mapping exercise identified some 1100 substances where UK registration will be required to maintain supply chains. Of these, there are 400 where BASF – as a downstream user – doesn’t hold Reach registrations. Based on its experience of Reach, BASF estimates dossier compilation and submission could amount to some £65 million. For industry as a whole, there is little time to absorb the extra costs, compared with the 10-year rollout of Reach.
Defra says a new IT system, being developed to handle registrations, will replicate the EU’s system, and be available from day one after Brexit. Industry, however, has not yet seen the system.
A Defra spokesperson said: ‘We are working to ensure any potential new burdens on UK companies are minimised’ and ‘are already well advanced in our preparations to ensure the HSE and Environment Agency have the resources and mechanisms they need to effectively regulate chemicals’.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/big-costs-no-benefits-to-uks-replacement-for-eu-chemical-regulation/3010049.article
-
Canadian Draft Assessment Finds Three Ketone Solvents Harmful to Health
Jan 29, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
Ketone solvents MEK, MIBK and 2,4-PD are harmful to human health, according to a draft assessment by the Canadian government.
In addition to many industrial applications, the chemicals are used in consumer products, such as paints, coatings, adhesives, food flavouring agents, cosmetics and biocides.
The draft screening assessment, published on 19 January, concludes that they meet at least one of the criteria of section 64 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (Cepa).
If the final assessment, expected in January 2020, confirms the conclusion, the government would be obliged under Cepa to take risk management measures against the chemicals.
MEK
Animal studies suggest that MEK (methyl ethyl ketone or 2-butanone) may cause developmental effects. The assessment focused on these for determination of risk values, using exposure scenarios for a range of consumer products. It found that the risk could be too high for consumer use of lacquer remover, adhesive remover, paint thinner, liquid paint or spray paint containing the chemical.
MIBK
MIBK (methyl isobutyl ketone MIBK or 4-methyl-2-pentanone) has a category 2 carcinogenicity – "possibly carcinogenic to humans" – classification under the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (Iarc’s) system. Additionally, animal studies suggest that the compound may cause various non-cancer effects, namely liver, kidney and developmental effects. The assessment focused on the non-cancer effects for determination of risk values and found that the risk could be too high for consumer use of wood lacquer, liquid paint or spray paint containing the chemical.2,4-PD
Animal studies suggest that 2,4-PD (2,4-pentanedione) may cause systemic and developmental effects, on which the assessment focused for determination of risk values. The assessment found that the risk could be too high for consumer use of floor coating products containing the chemical.
Next steps
MEK, MIBK and 2,4-PD were evaluated as part of a group of ten ketones. The draft screening assessment concludes that none of the other seven are harmful at current levels of exposure. Additionally, none of the ten chemicals are harmful to the environment, it says.
Also on 19 Jan, the government published its risk management scope for MEK, MIBK and 2,4-PD and launched a 60-day public consultation on the documents, which ends on 20 March.
https://chemicalwatch.com/73790/canadian-draft-assessment-finds-three-ketone-solvents-harmful-to-health
-
Sweden Embarks on Major Nationwide Chemicals Enforcement Project
Jan 29, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Sweden has launched a nationwide enforcement project to check if product suppliers are complying with the REACH Article 33 requirement to provide recipients with information on hazardous chemicals in articles.
More than 100 inspectors from over 60 municipalities have been trained for the work which will be carried out during 2019, the Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate (Kemi) said. The results will be published in the early part of 2020.
Article 33 stipulates that suppliers will provide recipients of articles containing substances of very high concern (SVHCs) with information to allow their safe use. This includes every article incorporated as a component of a complex product. They are also obliged to give the same information, free of charge, to consumers within 45 days of receiving a request.
Last year, an online survey of 174 EU article manufacturers by pan-European project AskREACH showed that only 47% felt "well-informed or quite well-informed" about the presence of SVHCs in their articles. Many did not have the information to respond to consumer enquiries.
For the Swedish project, inspectors and Kemi will commission analyses of the chemical content of products and check the labels. These tests may also reveal non-compliance with REACH Annex XVII restrictions, the RoHS Directive on restrictions on electrical and electronic equipment and the POPs Regulation on persistent organic pollutants, Kemi inspector Frida Ramström told Chemical Watch.
Local authorities will conduct controls in local stores, while the inspectorate will focus on manufacturers, importers and retailers. The latter will also inspect chain stores that have shops in several municipalities and follow up on non-compliant articles found by local inspectors.
"Anyone selling goods should be able to provide information to their customers about substances the products contain," said Ms Ramström.
Other inspections
Biocides is the second area of focus; inspectors will check compliance with EU rules concerning biocide-treated articles in the biocidal products Regulation (BPR), as part of an EU-wide enforcement project.
Such articles may include sportswear with substances added to prevent odours or refrigerators with antibacterial coating, Kemi said. Companies that sell biocide products must verify that the labelling is correct and that the added substance is allowed.
Among other enforcement activities this year, Sweden will take part in Echa’s seventh REACH enforcement project (Ref-7) to check compliance with REACH registration obligations and dossier updates which kicked off in January.
Other inspection work includes:control of lead in soldering. A follow-up on information provided to companies in 2018 regarding a new restriction of lead in consumer products as a consequence of a new classification; a joint Nordic project on e-commerce. This will cover several areas of chemical legislation and products to be controlled include toy slime; and control of chemicals in leather articles. Chemicals to be tested include hexavalent chromium.
In December, Kemi reported illegal levels of lead, phthalates and cadmium found in toys, jewellery, and electronics purchased via online stores.
And earlier in 2018, it reported 16 companies to environmental prosecutors, after investigators found prohibited levels of hazardous chemicals in products, including lead in imported electronics. The most common violation was high levels of lead found in the soldering of electrical and electronic components.
https://chemicalwatch.com/73795/sweden-embarks-on-major-nationwide-chemicals-enforcement-project
-
Anything Other Than a US-China Trade Deal 'Wouldn't Make Sense,' Energy Executives Say
Jan 28, 2019 | CNBC
By Sam Meredith
An escalating trade war between the world's two largest economies would be nonsensical, according to executives from the liquefied natural gas (LNG) market.
Oil giants and energy companies are increasingly interested in LNG — a form of natural gas chilled to liquid form — as governments around the world mandate using cleaner fuel than coal.
A long-running trade conflict between the U.S. and China has battered business and consumer sentiment in recent months — with the LNG export industry particularly vulnerable.
When asked whether the ongoing trade dispute was a danger to the LNG market, Lorenzo Simonelli, chief executive of Baker Hughes, a GE company, said: "I don't think so — It's early to say that and I think we're in a long game here."
"It's going to play itself out. There are discussions this week and there will be more discussions. A project doesn't convert in just one month, so there is a long lead time for the actual projects to come into play," Simonelli told CNBC's Steve Sedgwick on Monday.
The total number of U.S. LNG vessels that went to China in 2018 reportedly fell by around 20 percent when compared to the year previous, amid an intensifying trade war between Washington and Beijing.
In total, 24 vessels went to China in 2018 — mostly during the first six months of the year — down from 30 in 2017, Reuters reported earlier this month.
Trade dispute only 'temporary'
The next round of trade talks is scheduled to take place later this week, when Vice-Premier Liu He travels to meet U.S. officials in Washington.
The U.S. has already put tariffs on $250 billion in Chinese goods — and has threatened duties on double that value of products.
Beijing has responded with tariffs on $110 billion in U.S. goods targeting politically important industries such as agriculture. "We like to believe this issue is temporary," Yao Li, CEO of SIA Energy, told CNBC on Sunday.
Li said China's demand for LNG was unparalleled. It is the fastest growing consumer of the fuel and became the world's second-biggest buyer of LNG in 2017.
At the same time, she pointed out that the U.S. was the fastest-growing exporter of LNG worldwide.
Presently, Washington is on track to become the world's third-biggest LNG exporter by capacity in 2019.
"So, if these two nations cannot directly trade with each other it wouldn't make sense, it wouldn't be logical."
"Going forward, we think after this trade war issue calms down, the two countries will secure more and more deals together," Li said.
The global LNG market is currently going through of a flurry of fundamental changes, as demand continues to grow and market liquidity increases.
It comes at a time when the race is on for LNG producers to build more export terminals amid soaring demand for the commodity.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/28/energy-executives-say-us-and-china-must-find-trade-breakthrough-.html
-
EIA Projects Us to Export More Energy Than It Imports by 2020
Jan 29, 2019 | World Pipelines,
By Nicholas Woodroof
The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) has projected that, for the first time since the 1950s, the US will export more energy than it imports by 2020 as increases in crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas plant liquids production outpace growth in US energy consumption.
Different assumptions about crude oil prices and resource extraction affect how long EIA projects that the US will export more energy than it imports.
The US has been a net exporter of coal and coke for decades, began exporting more natural gas than it imports in 2017, and is projected to export more petroleum and other liquids than it imports within the decade.
The US has imported more energy than it exports on an annual basis since 1953, when trade volumes were much smaller. Since then, when imports of energy totalled 2.3 quadrillion Btu, gross energy imports generally grew, reaching a peak of 35 quadrillion Btu in 2005. Gross energy exports were as low as 4 quadrillion Btu as recently as 2002 but have since risen to more than 20 quadrillion Btu in 2018, largely because of changes in liquid fuels and natural gas trade.
EIA’s projected changes in net energy trade are driven mostly by evolving trade flows of liquid fuels and natural gas. In the Reference case of EIA’s newly released Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), the US exports more petroleum and other liquids than it imports after 2020 as US crude oil production increases and domestic consumption of petroleum products decreases. Near the end of the projection period, the US returns to importing more petroleum and other liquids than it exports on an energy basis as a result of increasing domestic gasoline consumption and falling domestic crude oil production in those years.
US natural gas trade in the AEO Reference case, which includes shipments by pipeline from and to Canada and to Mexico as well as exports of LNG, is increasingly dominated by LNG exports to more distant destinations. Increasing natural gas exports to Mexico are a result of more pipeline infrastructure to and within Mexico, allowing for increased natural gas-fired power generation. As natural gas demand grows in Asia and US natural gas prices remain competitive, LNG export capacity increases further before levelling off after 2030 when additional suppliers enter the global LNG market and US LNG is no longer as competitive. EIA projects the difference between natural gas exports and imports to increase throughout the AEO projection period, reaching a high of 23 billion ft3day in 2050.
The US continues to export more coal than it imports (including coal coke) through 2050 in the Reference case, but coal exports do not increase because of competition from other global suppliers closer to major world markets. Trade of electricity with neighbouring Canada and Mexico is a relatively small part of US net energy trade flows.
In the AEO Reference case, which reflects current laws and regulations, the US begins exporting more energy than it imports on an annual basis in 2020 and maintains that status through 2050. In some side cases, the US again imports more energy than it exports by the mid- to late-2030s.
In the AEO’s Low Oil Price case, lower crude oil prices lead to lower crude oil and natural gas production, and the United States returns to importing more energy than it exports by 2035. Similarly, in the Low Oil and Gas Resource and Technology case, crude oil and natural gas production is lower than in the Reference case, and the US becomes a net energy importer again in 2039.
https://www.worldpipelines.com/special-reports/29012019/eia-projects-us-to-export-more-energy-than-it-imports-by-2020/
-
3 Ways to Lay the Track for Real-Time Data in Rail
Jan 29, 2019 | Supply Chain Dive
By Emma Cosgrove
"Hey Cargill, where’s my corn sweetener car?” joked Jeannie Frana, the process, data and technology lead at Cargill in that familiar "Hey Alexa" cadence. Frana was explaining the future of railroading technology at the Midwest Association of Rail Shippers (MARS) winter meeting in Lombard, Illinois, where a new focus on customer service was a predominant theme.
The path to real-time visibility in any industry is rarely easy, but in 2019, when an Amazon package can be tracked with every step of the carrier, you’d think rail customers would be able to find out where their freight is without making a phone call.
The truth is, most can’t, and many don’t find out about problems on the rails until their freight is late and they call to ask why.
So how can the rail industry begin to deploy technologies that leverage real-time data?
Start with APIs
Application Programming Interfaces (API) are a very simple form of automation where one server makes a data request for another on a continual basis, allowing for real-time data. Though railroads are certainly digitized today, most of the data flows only based on request from a user, meaning data isn’t continually updated and generally isn’t a real-time representation of what’s happening by the time it reaches the customer.
"APIs have gotten a lot of traction in the truck space but not so much in the rail space. This is an area that we are actively working on," said Shankar Sengupta, the VP of engineering and transport logistics at GE Transportation.
The next step after adopting APIs (assuming that all railroads in a railcar’s path had done so) would be making the data available to customers. Sengupta suggested using blockchain to do this, but he emphasized it’s not the only way.
"Once you start putting that data in a central repository, for now let’s assume it's a blockchain in the cloud, everybody can see it and everybody can take action on it,” he said.
Add IoT and sensors
Other than answering the age old question "where’s my stuff?" real-time visibility can also help with railroads’ number one priority, which is, in their own words — safety. For this, Internet of Things (IoT) technology is top of mind in the industry.
The Positive Train Control (PTC) mandate made sure railroads were very familiar with installing lots of sensors and even learning from traffic data, but there is more to sensors and cameras.
Canadian National is using LiDAR technology to create 3D images of tracks and find hairline cracks and defects to speed repairs to ensure safe operations. The railroad also uses cameras and data analytics to inspect railcars before they head into service.
CN had to find the right cameras and sensors to measure what is needed to monitor track maintenance. Some aspects of rail car maintenance are already available. New railcars come equipped with up to 500 sensors delivering plenty of data that currently isn’t widely used effectively, according to Timothy Thompson, senior manager of rail solutions for Uptake Technologies.
Uptake, a Chicago startup and Supply Chain Dive’s innovator of the yearfor 2018, is using data that railcars are already collecting to predict maintenance and downtime, reducing "road failures" and increasing reliability.
Don't let legacy systems hold you back
The technology to enable real-time visibility of freight location, track safety and locomotive health is available in the marketplace and in use in other industries. So what are the barriers to wide adoption in rail? A major problem that's shared all over the supply chain: legacy systems.
"The technology may be there, but culturally we’re not there," said Sengupta, who offered the example of ERPs, which he sees as standing in the way of blockchain adoption and could equally apply to other forms of cloud computing.
"The promise of blockchain is nothing is on your premises. You trust the cloud. You’re putting everything in the cloud, but you made millions and millions of dollars of investment in ERPs. Are you ready to throw that out?" Sengupta asked.
The solution, he suggested, is a slow conversion.
"For a long time, even if there is a blockchain cloud up in the sky, we will have to have a hybrid strategy," he said. Then once real-time visibility is achieved, railroads will have to decide to share the results with their customers. On this front, Thompson is optimistic.
"The trends in rail have been moving toward end customers having access and utilizing asset data more than in the past,” he said, adding that data ownership is coming up more often in contract negotiations.
https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/real-time-data-in-rail/546789/
-
Senate Democrats Press for Fed to Assess Climate Threats
Jan 29, 2019 | Politico Pro - Energy Whiteboard
By Zack Colman
Twenty Democratic senators — including several presidential hopefuls and likely candidates — are pressing the Federal Reserve and financial regulators to home in on the risks climate change poses to the financial system and to ensure it can absorb shocks from extreme weather events and long-term effects.
Led by Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii), the letters signed by Democrats including Sens. Elizabeth Warren(Mass.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Kamala Harris (Calif.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) ask whether regulators were weighing climate risks, what tools they use and whether they've collaborated with other countries.
"Your agencies are responsible for protecting the stability of our financial system and supervising U.S. financial systems. However, we have seen no evidence that your agencies have seriously considered the financial risks of climate change or incorporated those risks into your supervision of financial institutions," the senators said in letters dated Jan. 25 sent to Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, Comptroller of the Currency Joseph Otting and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Jelena McWilliams.
The senators urged action in light of "record-breaking damage from weather and climate events" last year and dire reports from scientific sources like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The senators said central banks and bank supervisors in 18 other countries are already assessing climate risk. They added climate change could restrict growth and that carbon-intensive economic sectors face risk because "[p]olicy, legal, and market changes are inevitable" as the world warms and nations look to rein in emissions.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard/2019/01/senate-democrats-press-for-fed-to-assess-climate-threats-2580014
-
Ewire: Harris Backs 'Green' Deal, Joining Other 2020 Hopefuls
Jan 29, 2019 | Inside EPA
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), whose rollout of her 2020 presidential campaign is generating significant buzz from the media and politicos, is joining several other Democratic primary contenders to embrace the “Green New Deal” that progressives are proposing to tackle climate change.
Harris told a Jan. 28 town hall on CNN that she supports a Green New Deal because “climate change is an existential threat and we have got to deal with the reality of it.” A spokesperson had previously said the senator backs the “goals” of the proposal, though both statements leave significant wiggle room on the types of policies that Harris would ultimately embrace.
Additionally, it is not entirely clear how central Harris would make climate policy in her campaign or her administration if she were to defeat President Donald Trump in the 2020 election.
She has signaled that a $2.8 trillion tax plan would be the “centerpiece” of her campaign, alongside efforts to craft a “Medicare for all” health plan and criminal justice reform. One official with the upstart environmental group Sunrise Movement previously said that it is difficult to take Harris seriously when there is nothing in her platform “about ensuring human civilization isn't wiped out in half a century.”
Other announced candidates and potential contenders are taking a more forceful approach on climate. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), for instance, recently detailed several major elements that should be in any climate legislation, including a push to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, coupled with climate adaptation measures and investments in areas dependent on fossil fuels.
One news report suggested that Gillibrand's platform “might set an example for other candidates who have yet to express anything other than mild support for the plan's goals.”
Additionally, there could be two candidacies where climate change is a central focus -- the announced bid from Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) and the potential campaign from former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-harris-backs-green-deal-joining-other-2020-hopefuls
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested