Preview Newsletter

AM ACC Clips Report - January 30, 2019

Industry and Association News

(ACC Blog) Can a New Global Alliance Catalyze Investments and Models to End Plastic Waste? We Think It Can
Jan 29, 2019 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steve Russell

As global awareness about plastic waste in our ocean grows, people are starting to act: companies are pledging to use more recycled content; some governments are setting goals to address highly littered products; and people are looking for ways to reduce their plastic footprint.
(ACC Mentioend) GOP Tax Cuts Having Little Effect on Business Investment: Survey
Jan 30, 2019 | The Fiscal Times
By Michael Rainey

The Republican tax cuts don’t seem to be inspiring companies to boost their investments or hire more workers, according to the latest business conditions survey from the National Association of Business Economics, released Monday.
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Groups Push For Lower Tariffs In Future US-UK Deal
Jan 30, 2019 | Law 360
By Suzanne Monyak

Lower tariffs and a free flow of data took center stage at a public hearing Tuesday hosted by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, as industry leaders from major U.S
(ACC Mentioned) PolyOne Corp (POL) Q4 2018 Earnings Conference Call Transcript
Jan 30, 2019 | The Motley Fool

... We started the year with the announcement of becoming an American Chemistry Council, Responsible Care Company and that is a direct reflection of our safety first culture. And in 2018, we achieved the safest year in PolyOne's history with 19% fewer injuries than in 2017
Mnuchin Signals Chance To End China Tariff War
Jan 30, 2019 | Bloomberg (In E&E Energywire)
By Saleha Mohsin,

U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said that if China presents enough trade concessions to President Trump, there is a chance that the administration may seek to lift all tariffs.

TSCA News

(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.

Chemical Management News

(ACC mentioned) Recycling Mystery: Memory Foam
Jan 30, 2019 | Earth911.com
By Trey Granger

Few things can refresh your body like a good night’s sleep, and few products have aligned themselves more with sound sleep than memory foam. But what happens when you upgrade your bed and need to get rid of a memory foam mattress or pillow?
(ACC Mentioned) Massachusetts to Limit Fluorinated Chemicals in Drinking Water (1)
Jan 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel

Massachusetts will regulate five common fluorinated contaminants in drinking water in response to a petition by environmental groups seeking enforceable limits.
(ACC Mentioend) Formaldehyde Makers Prepare in Case EPA Reviews the Chemical (2)
Jan 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

Formaldehyde producers are being invited by the American Chemistry Council to discuss on Feb. 20 the possibility that the EPA may select that chemical to review this year.
(ACC Mentioned) Unique: Trump EPA Will Not Restrict 2 Poisonous Chemical Compounds In Consuming Water
Jan 30, 2019 | Infosurhoy
By Denis Bedoya

The decision could complicate acting agency chief Andrew Wheeler’s hopes for Senate confirmation.
Global Trends Are Major Cause For Concern, Says UN Chemicals Report
Jan 30, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer

Global trends are a "major cause for concern" in achieving sound chemicals management and actions to address the adverse affects of substances that are not properly managed are "urgently needed", according to a major UN report.
EPA Faces New Backlog Of Chemical Applications After Shutdown Ends
Jan 30, 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.
Members Of US Congress Launch PFAS Action Taskforce
Jan 30, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins

A bipartisan group of legislators in the US House of Representatives has launched a taskforce focused on the management of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
EPA Eyes Alternates To PFAS Drinking Water Standard (Updated)
Jan 30, 2019 | Inside EPA

Concern is mounting over EPA's decision declining to craft enforceable standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to address contamination from perfluorinated compounds, though as Inside EPA readers know, the agency is considering other steps, including Superfund regulation and emergency cleanup orders under SDWA.
Questions Resurface About Industry Influence On PFAS Study
Jan 30, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder and Geof Koss

House Energy and Commerce Democratic leaders yesterday reupped their request to EPA acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler for information related to possible industry involvement in the suppression of a study focused on PFAS.
EPA’s Chemical Decision Worries Republicans
Jan 30, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Snider and Anthony Adragna

Key congressional Republicans voiced concerns Tuesday about the prospect that EPA will not set drinking water limits for two toxic chemicals — an issue that raises new hurdles for acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler’s bid to permanently lead the agency.
Ill. Lawmakers Alarmed Over 'Unusual' EPA Assessment
Jan 30, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder

Democratic members of the Illinois congressional delegation yesterday called out EPA for what they dubbed an "unusual" risk assessment of one chemical that included a request for public comment on a different one.
Hidden Sterigenics Chemical Cancer Assessment Worries Democrats (1)
Jan 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid

The EPA’s latest assessment of a carcinogenic medical sterilizer causing concerns outside Chicago is tucked in an unrelated agency rule, which could keep people affected by the chemical from commenting on it, Illinois lawmakers warned.
House Democrat Adds Chemical Contamination to Flint Water Work
Jan 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker

Three years ago, the simmering water crisis in Flint, Mich., boiled over onto the national stage, putting Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.) front and center. He spoke frequently on the public health disaster involving lead in the city’s water supply.
NGO Preparing Analysis Of Science-Policy Interface For Saicm
Jan 30, 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".
Safer Chemicals Group Targets Restaurant Chains
Jan 30, 2019 | Inside EPA

Safer chemicals advocates are focusing their push for reducing sales of products containing toxic chemicals on fast food chains, blaming chemicals in food packaging for learning disabilities and other health effects, while reiterating calls for EPA to finalize an Obama-era ban on certain paint strippers, noting slow progress in retail stores’ voluntary efforts.
How And When Will FDA Rule On Ortho-Phthalates In Food? It’s Anyone’s Guess.
Jan 29, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to decide three overlapping petitions requesting the agency take action on uses of ortho-phthalates in contact with food.
China Floats Plan for Chemical Management, Like Europe’s
Jan 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Michael Standaert

A proposed chemical regulation could impose additional requirements for companies that manufacture, process, use, import, or export new and existing chemical substances into China.

Energy News

Demand, Regulatory Headwinds Seen Slowing U.S. NGL Export Growth
Jan 30, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Leticia Gonzales

After growing by an estimated 600,000 b/d in 2018, natural gas liquids are expected to see a slower pace of growth in the next couple of years amid...
New EPA Policy Would Offer Alternative To Penalties For Some Oil, Gas Polluters
Jan 30, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) office of enforcement will soon unveil a new finalized audit policy that will offer significant new penalty reductions for the oil and gas industry, according to two internal memos obtained by The Hill.
Exxon OK's Project To Nearly Double Size Of Texas Refinery: Sources
Jan 30, 2019 | Reuters (In E&E Energywire)
By Erwin Seba

Exxon Mobil Corp. has signed off on a plan that would make its Beaumont, Texas, refinery the largest in the United States, according to two sources.

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Herrera Beutler Moves To Reinstate Rail Safety Rules
Jan 30, 2019 | The Columbian
By Katy Sword

Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Battle Ground, has reintroduced a bill to reinstate oil train safety regulations. The rules, implemented by the Obama administration in 2015, were rolled back last year.

Environment News

New Mexico Pledges to Slash Emissions Even as Permian Oil Booms
Jan 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kevin Crowley

The governor of New Mexico signed an executive order Jan. 29 requiring the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at least 45 percent by 2030, potentially hampering fossil fuel production in the Permian Basin, the world’s biggest shale oil field.
New Mexico Governor Moves to Limit Methane Emissions, Combat Climate Change
Jan 30, 2019 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Laila Kearney and Jennifer Hiller
ExxonMobil And Shell Lead As Counterparts Lag On EPA's First Methane Rollback Proposal
Jan 29, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund.
By Ben Ratner and Rosalie Winn

Methane emissions from the American oil and gas industry waste valuable resources, accelerate climate change and severely cloud the credibility of natural gas in the low carbon transition. Unfortunately, Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has proposed to weaken standards limiting pollution from new and modified oil and gas facilities.
Michigan Trash Incinerator Threatened With Air Pollution Lawsuit (2)
Jan 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid

Two environmental groups threatened the operators of Michigan’s largest trash incinerator, Detroit Renewable Power, with a lawsuit for releasing copious amounts of air pollution in downtown Detroit.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Blog) Can a New Global Alliance Catalyze Investments and Models to End Plastic Waste? We Think It Can

Jan 29, 2019 | American Chemistry Matters

By Steve Russell

As global awareness about plastic waste in our ocean grows, people are starting to act: companies are pledging to use more recycled content; some governments are setting goals to address highly littered products; and people are looking for ways to reduce their plastic footprint. Each of these steps has an important role to play, particularly in areas where waste collection systems already exist. But what about where they don’t? Research tells us that up to 80% of ocean plastic starts out on land, with much of it coming from rapidly developing countries that have yet to build systems to manage local waste. Given the number and pace of people entering the consumer class, failing to collect and manage waste in those places will mean more plastic than fish in the ocean by 2050.
That’s why a recent announcement by a coalition of nearly thirty leading global companies is so remarkable. In announcing the Alliance to End Plastic Waste[i], a new global nonprofit to invest in waste management, those companies are filling a critical gap by bringing investment, innovation and solutions to places where they are needed most. Companies that have joined the Alliance agree that plastic waste in the environment is unacceptable and that change is the only way forward. There is no single, simple solution. Success will require investing in new ways of managing resources to achieve greater circularity, dramatically improving recovery and recycling; developing new packaging formats and product delivery mechanisms; and building entirely new business models.
The Alliance is notable for a couple of reasons. The first is the scale of its ambition. Alliance members have committed over $1 billion to this work, with a goal of $1.5 billion over the next five years to help solve this problem. And these investments are designed to be catalytic—meaning they will prove a case for investments in systems and technologies that can be scaled with the addition of development finance, impact investors and, ultimately, private equity.
The Alliance is also notable because it involves the breadth of experience, expertise and global perspectives of companies that make, sell, use and recycle plastic—the so-called plastic “value chain.” This is important because the problem is complex and solutions are locally-dependent, so no single company or sector acting alone could have the needed perspective or impact.
The Alliance will focus its investments in four key areas: expanding infrastructure to collect, manage and recycle used plastics, particularly in high-leakage regions; accelerating innovations in packaging design and technology that increase efficiency and create value from post-use plastics; promoting education and engagement among governments, businesses and communities; and cleaning up concentrated areas of plastic waste already in the environment—especially in rivers that carry land-based waste to the ocean.
These investments complement numerous existing commitments undertaken by individual Alliance members to use and reuse resources with greater circularity, and commitments by plastics makers in the United States, Canada and Europe to recycle or recover 100% plastic packaging by 2040.
Structurally, the Alliance is an independent, cross-sector nonprofit consisting of global companies that manufacture consumer goods, chemicals, plastics and packaging, and waste management firms. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development is a founding partner in the initiative. This broad collective brings together unprecedented access to world-class expertise and resources (technical, engineering, logistics etc.) to help solve this problem, along with insights from regions where the waste challenge is the greatest.
Out of the gate, the Alliance has set its sights on an initial group of projects including: establishing partnerships with cities in high-leakage areas; providing funds to the Incubator Network by Circulate Capital, which was launched at the G7 in September 2018; developing a global information project to support waste management systems with data, metrics, standards and methodologies; creating a capacity building collaboration in partnerships with organizations like the United Nations; and supporting the nonprofit Renew Oceans to aid in capturing waste from ten high-leakage rivers in Asia before it reaches the ocean.
The Alliance is just getting started, and it’s off to a strong start, thanks to broad and growing participation from leading companies across the plastics value chain. Expanding the Alliance’s membership is critical to sustaining momentum. The Alliance encourages all companies, big or small, from all regions and sectors to support this effort.
[i] Members of the Alliance to End Plastic Waste consist of leading companies that make, sell, process, collect and recycle plastics. Trade associations, including the American Chemistry Council, are not members of the Alliance.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2019/01/can-a-new-global-alliance-catalyze-investments-and-models-to-end-plastic-waste-we-think-it-can/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioend) GOP Tax Cuts Having Little Effect on Business Investment: Survey

Jan 30, 2019 | The Fiscal Times

By Michael Rainey

The Republican tax cuts don’t seem to be inspiring companies to boost their investments or hire more workers, according to the latest business conditions survey from the National Association of Business Economics, released Monday.
“A large majority of respondents—84%—indicate that one year after its passage, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has not caused their firms to change hiring or investment plans,” said Kevin Swift, president of NABE and chief economist at the American Chemistry Council. The results are similar to those in the October survey, which found that 81 percent of respondents reported no effects from the tax cuts.
The goods-producing sector may be the exception to the rule, NABA found, with most firms noting increased investment, and some reporting funds being redirected to the U.S. The survey was conducted with 106 NABE members in a variety of industries between December 17, 2018, and January 9, 2019.
Wait 'Til Next Year?
Despite the lack of evidence that the GOP tax bill is producing the increased growth and investment promised by Republicans, the corporate tax cuts still have plenty of defenders. James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute, for example, says that it’s just too early to judge the tax cuts on the basis of business investment and hiring — and while increased investment has seemed minimal over the first year, other factors such as increased federal borrowing and rising trade tariffs, may have offset the pro-growth effects of the tax cuts. Over the longer-term, though, the economic theory behind the cuts still holds, he argues.
On the other hand, critics of the corporate tax cuts say the explanation for weak investment is pretty simple. Responding to the NABE report, Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute writes, “in an era with record-high capital market payouts and where interest rates are so low central bankers debate making them negative, the cost of capital isn't a major constraint on investment.” When investment capital is already cheap and readily available, the argument goes, it makes sense that a reduction in tax rates would do little to inspire more investment. So far, the data appears to be on the side of the critics.
https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2019/01/29/GOP-Tax-Cuts-Having-Little-Effect-Business-Investment-Survey

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Groups Push For Lower Tariffs In Future US-UK Deal

Jan 30, 2019 | Law 360

By Suzanne Monyak

Law360 (January 29, 2019, 7:48 PM EST) -- Lower tariffs and a free flow of data took center stage at a public hearing Tuesday hosted by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, as industry leaders from major U.S....
... Ed Brzytwa of the American Chemistry Council went so far as to call on the Trump administration to lift the 25 and 10 percent tariffs imposed last year on ...
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.

Story can be found here: https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/1123237/industry-groups-push-for-lower-tariffs-in-future-us-uk-deal

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) PolyOne Corp (POL) Q4 2018 Earnings Conference Call Transcript

Jan 30, 2019 | The Motley Fool

PolyOne Corp (NYSE:POL)
Q4 2018 Earnings Conference Call
Jan. 29, 2019, 8:00 a.m. ETContents:Prepared RemarksQuestions and AnswersCall ParticipantsPrepared Remarks:
Operator
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the PolyOne Corporation Fourth Quarter 2018 Conference Call. My name is Crystal and I'll be your operator for today. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will have a question-and-answer session at the end of the conference. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded for replay purposes.
At this time, I would like to turn the call over to Joe Di Salvo, Vice president, Investor Relations. Please proceed.
Joe Di Salvo -- Vice President, Investor Relations
Thank you, Crystal. Good morning, and welcome to everyone joining us on the call today.
Before beginning, we would like to remind you that statements made during this conference call may be considered forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements will give current expectations or forecasts of future events and are not guarantees of future performance. They are based on management's expectations and involve a number of business risks and uncertainties, any of which could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed and or implied by the forward-looking statement. Some of these risks and uncertainties can be found in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as in today's press release.
During the discussion today, the Company will use both GAAP and non-GAAP financial measures. Please refer to the earnings release posted on the PolyOne website, where the Company describes the non-GAAP measures and provides a reconciliation for the most comparable GAAP financial measures.
Operating results referenced during today's call will be comparing the fourth quarter of 2018 to the fourth quarter of 2017 or the full fiscal year of 2018 to the full fiscal year of 2017, unless otherwise stated.
Joining me today on the call is our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Bob Patterson; and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Brad Richardson.
Now, I will turn the call over to Bob.
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Well, thanks, Joe. Good morning to everyone joining us on the call today. I am pleased to report full year record adjusted earnings per share of $2.43 for 2018 and that's a 10% increase over last year, and it marks our ninth consecutive year of adjusted EPS growth. Investments in our commercial team since 2014 have made performance like this possible. Excluding acquisitions this year, we increased our sales, marketing, R&D resources again by an additional 6%, which helped to fuel our organic revenue growth.
In addition to leveraging these new hires, we also continued to pursue complementary technologies and businesses through acquisition closing two deals in 2018, IQAP and PlastiComp, and we are excited to kick off 2019 by welcoming yet another specialty company to our family. Fiber-Line is a global leader in custom engineered fibers and composite materials that serves the fiber optic cable, oil and gas, industrial and consumer industries. Its customer first specialty culture and innovative product portfolio make it a perfect fit with PolyOne. I'll talk about this and Fiber-Line a bit more later.
And as many of you know at our Investor Day, last May, I discussed our historic past and inspired future with a goal to creating a world class sustainable organization. I emphasized the four cornerstones of our sustainability endeavors, people, products, planet and performance, the four Ps. And as we reflect back on last year, it's clear we've made some great contributions in each of these areas.
We started the year with the announcement of becoming an American Chemistry Council, Responsible Care Company and that is a direct reflection of our safety first culture. And in 2018, we achieved the safest year in PolyOne's history with 19% fewer injuries than in 2017. In fact nearly 80% of our facilities were completely injury free. Our focus on people also requires that we build a high performing diverse and inclusive company lead by women, as one associate Resource Group that sponsored numerous leadership development training sessions in 2018. Further, we expanded our leadership, development, and training, and these are rotational programs, where new associates -- associates collaborate and contribute in various roles within the Company.
The breadth of global experience they receive forms highly effective and diverse skill sets, bolstering our talent pipeline from the bottom up. And we also continue to invest in our in-house leadership with over 250 of our associates graduating from NexGen and PolyMasters helping us to truly build tomorrow's leaders today. And as a result of these and many other efforts, and for the first time in our history, we were honored to be recognized, as a Great Place to Work in the US by the Great Place to Work Institute. It is a significant milestone in our ongoing journey to become a top workplace. Great places to work not only take care of their associates, but also advance all four cornerstones of sustainability.
Two weeks ago, we announced that we joined the Alliance to End Plastic Waste as a founding member and appointed Walter Ripple to Vice President of Sustainability. Walter joined PolyOne in 2008 with the GLS acquisition and he has won our General Manager of the Year award twice. He's a trusted technical and customer focused leader, who will advance our sustainability initiatives, while coordinating our efforts with the Alliance to take better care of our planet.
And performance is the fourth cornerstone in our sustainability commitment, and we view it as both an enabler and a result of the other three. As I said 2018 marked the ninth consecutive year of adjusted EPS growth at PolyOne with record EPS of $2.43 that's an impressive accomplishment that we worked tirelessly to achieve and build upon each year, and we overcame some significant industry dynamics last year, including raw material inflation, rapidly increasing logistics costs, and more recently, a slowdown in demand in certain end markets and geographies in the second half of the year, with the fourth quarter being the most challenging of all.
Recall from our third quarter statements that we set in September, we saw weakening foreign currencies, demand slowdown in Asia and softening in certain North America end markets, namely building and construction and appliance. We've projected that if we continue to see these same trends, adjusted EPS would be flat in the fourth quarter and that's where we ended at $0.41 a share.
If we go back to our comments in October, we expect that the fourth quarter to be difficult for our Performance Products and Solutions segment, in particular due to the weakness in demand for appliance and building and construction, and that really played out as we thought. But we also experienced a decline in demand in Europe and Asia growth slowed as well, particularly in the consumer market space. And these two factors specifically impacted our Specialty Engineered Materials segment, which reported a year-over-year decline in operating income.
To put the European impact into perspective, in Q1 and Q2 of this year, sales were up 23% and 13% respectively. Third quarter growth slowed to 5% and in the fourth quarter, European sales actually contracted by 5%. Now, some of this was certainly currency related, as the dollar strengthened over the course of the year, but even so, we did see European weakness toward the second half and this weighed on Color and Engineered Materials.
Now again, as we go back to our comments in the fourth -- in October, we did have some things play out to the upside, where we had better than expected performance. Distribution finished the year very strong, as we got traction on freight surcharges and related pricing, and operating income increased 13% for the fourth quarter. Composites had a very strong quarter and did very well. Ancillary markets such as healthcare and packaging, which held up well despite the previously mentioned geographic weakness. And I'll add some more comments in a moment about what we think all this means, as we head into 2019, but for now, I turn the call over to Brad for some more specific comments on the fourth quarter and full year.
Bradley C. Richardson -- Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Well, thank you, Bob and good morning, everyone. As I can reflect on 2018, it really was a story of two different halves -- the tale of two halves. So strong growth in the beginning that tailed off at the end of the year, as Bob just described. But with this reflection, let me first start with our GAAP results.
GAAP earnings of $0.15 per share were reported. Special items in the quarter resulted in a net after tax charge of $21 million, and were primarily related to mark-to-market pension adjustment and environmental-related costs. Adjusted EPS from continuing operations for the quarter was $0.41 flat with the fourth quarter of 2017. Color, Additives and Inks finished the year with another quarter of growth expanding sales 8% and improving operating income 5% in the fourth quarter, despite weakness in Europe.
Ultimately, Color had an awesome year reaching a $1 billion in sales for the first time in our history. This represents a 17% increase in revenue and operating income also expanded by 14% to $160 million, resulting in over $200 million of EBITDA. We continue to see strong demand for our barrier technologies for beverage packaging in Europe and Asia. Color sales in this end market grew double-digit. The Europe Color business did experienced some slowing in the fourth quarter, particularly in the transportation and wire and cable end markets, which were down year-over-year.
Engineered Materials also experienced weakness in Europe during the fourth quarter, primarily in the transportation end market, as well as some impact from the economic and political instability in Turkey. In Asia, SEM saw softening demand in the consumer end market, as Chinese consumers appear to be more cautious in discretionary spending, in light of a slowing economy and other influencers affecting consumer sentiments.
End markets in SEM North America were more stable comparatively, including wire and cable, which steadied in the fourth quarter, as we are winning new business. This is a key milestone for this end market following tier two years of weakening conditions for these applications. Our composite business with SEM is performing extremely well. Our investments in commercial resources and technological developments are paying off and drove the platforms first ever year of positive operating income expanding over $3 million for the year. And as we continue to win new business with our composites solutions, we expect this business to be even more impactful to PolyOne's performance in the future.
And I'm happy to report that our integration of PlastiComp, which we acquired in June of 2018 is off to a fantastic start. Our investor growth strategy is under way, and we've more than doubled their sales funnel. Additionally, the material expertise, we gained from the acquisition is helping us close previously identified opportunities, where we couldn't fully meet the material requirements, but now we do. So for example, we are winning new business with a customer in the outdoor high performance industry to replace metal with a long fiber technology that offers design flexibility, enhance strength and impact resistant. PolyOne's track record of commercial excellence with this customer open the door and PlastiComp's technical know-how was key to locking down this win. In short, our enthusiasm for composites continues to grow. It's performing well now, and the value and upside is only going to increase.
As Bob said, Performance Products and Solutions had a very difficult quarter. Overall sales were flat, but margins were compressed due to unfavorable mix and higher raw material cost. PolyOne distribution finished the year strong increasing fourth quarter revenue 6%, and operating income 13%, as freight surcharges and other actions gained traction.
All of our segments combined to generate tremendous cash flow and we finished the year with over $400 million of adjusted EBITDA. We will remain centered on deploying cash in organic growth initiatives and accretive bolt-on acquisitions, the investments that have and will generate growth in the future. We will also continue returning cash to shareholders as evidenced by our announced quarterly dividend increase of more than 11% this year and share repurchases of 3.4 million shares, including 2.1 million shares in the fourth quarter.
While we are cautious about the near-term outlook for select end markets, we certainly are optimistic about our future and Bob will make some statements about our outlook. So Bob?
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Yeah. Thanks, Brad. Again, as we look back on last year, it was a year of many accomplishments that are helping us to create a world class sustainable organization. It was our safest year on record; we were recognized as an ACC Responsible Care Company; and certified as a Great Place to Work in the US; and we delivered our ninth year in a row of adjusted EPS growth. We hope this isn't overshadowed by current events, which unfortunately suggests weaker demand conditions to continue in the near term.
Our order rate for January suggests that organic sales for the first quarter will be up only slightly over the prior year. And if we include the Fiber-Line acquisition, sales will be up about 3%. We think this translates to roughly flat EPS in the first quarter unlike a lot of companies' seeing some weakness in the first half of the year. We think that the weaker foreign exchange itself is about a $0.03 headwind in the first quarter, and we do see some lower sales out of Europe. But we also see again continuing strength in composites, in healthcare, as well as other applications and packaging, which gives us a lot of encouragement for the upcoming year. And for all the attention, the economy is getting right now, I do think we should highlight the main markets and applications that are actually doing quite well.
Healthcare was up 8% last year. 25% of our distribution is in healthcare accounts. We have specifically invested in this end market over the course of many years. And I think as we mentioned with the results that we had in the fourth quarter, we're seeing some traction there with OI and distribution being up 13%.
Another highlight for us was in India, where our team celebrated their 10th anniversary this year. We started with just a small color master-batch operation in the region and are now expanded to produce, sell and innovate, color and engineered materials as well as TPEs. And since our 2013 investment to build a new plant there, we've nearly tripled our revenues with operating margins at 20%. It really is a remarkable story. And as you heard Brad talk earlier about our packaging business that was up 16% in 2018 largely in part to our color offerings and design expertise.
And lastly, our composites business is growing. It offers light weighting options, replacing traditional materials with equal strength or better composites, and these trends aren't going away. They're gaining momentum and so are we. This includes engineered and coated fibers, which is an expertise of our latest acquisition Fiber-Line. It will be immediately accretive to EPS and it is expected to add approximately $100 million revenue to our EM segment in 2019.
Fiber-Line is an innovative and specialty company that is doing incredible work in customized engineered fibers and composites. They primarily serve the fiber optic cable industry and they are a leading supplier being called upon to support the build out for the 5G network infrastructure. Fiber-Line products also serve oil and gas, industrial and consumer end markets. The leadership team is exceptional and the upside potential to help accelerate -- accelerate the great things, their employees are doing for customers is huge.
This acquisition is yet another example of our investing in composites, as a sustainable and hydro technology for our future. Help us drive this growth, we hired a composites expert in Chris Pederson to lead the SEM segment. Chris was most recently with Hexcel, where he joined the following 15 years with Cytec. He began his career with Boeing & Aerospace, where he spent 10 years after receiving a bachelor's in masters degree in chemical engineering emphasizing in composites. Innovation is at the heart of what we do and we are not too proud to go out and acquire technology or new leaders to help us achieve the success, and when we do we get the best.
At PolyOne, if you're (ph) building a world class sustainable organization as both a challenge and an opportunity. For years, we have been investing in and building a portfolio of sustainable solutions, such as barrier technologies that preserve shelf life and help to provide food and beverage and thinner gauge designs that use less plastic. Our light weighting solutions that replace traditional heavier materials right through Fiber Colorant technology that minimizes the amount of wastewater generated during the customer's production processes.
And we measure the health of our innovation capabilities and portfolio through our Vitality Index, which again in 2018 was over 35%. It's a testament to our innovation capability and a sign of confidence to our customers. Add Fiber-Line, the prior year investments we have made to upgrade our portfolio, and we've never been in a better position to navigate the short term dynamics I just described. In doing so, we can and will continue to deliver for our customers and shareholders for the long term.
That concludes our prepared remarks. We will be happy to open the discussion for any questions you have on the call.Questions and Answers:
Operator
Thank you. The call lines are now open. (Operator Instructions) Please limit your questions to one question and one follow-up question. And our first question will come from Mike Sison from KeyBanc. Your line is open.
Michael Sison -- KeyBanc -- Analyst
Hey, guys. Nice quarter.
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Good morning.
Michael Sison -- KeyBanc -- Analyst
Bob in terms of your outlook for 2019, the -- acquisition momentum is increasing here. How much earnings growth can you get from acquisitions this year? And then, how much growth can you get on an organic basis?
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Yeah. I with the -- the start of the year obviously being as uncertain as it is, it's really challenging to predict that for the full year. We are excited about Fiber-Line, which we think can add $0.02 to $0.04 to the bottom line, and of course we bought back 2 million shares in the fourth quarter of last year, which helps us as well. The real unknown here, I think is just some of the weakness, we see in these end markets and geographies like Europe.
Michael Sison -- KeyBanc -- Analyst
Okay. And then just a quick follow-up on the Performance Products and Solutions. Margins have improved well over the last couple of years and when you think about the decline you saw in the fourth quarter, how much of that do you think is structural versus just you can overcome that as -- as 2019 and beyond unfolds?
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Yeah. I mean, look as we start the year, we would do so, first of all looking back on the fourth quarter and say hey, really makes mix hurt us quite a bit with appliance being down as much, as it was, as well as building and construction being weak, sales were roughly flat, as we offset that with some lower margin contract manufacturing business. But going into 2019, I think there's an opportunity for margin expansion here, Mike. And I think we can do that with a little bit of recovery in one or two of those end markets, as well as hopefully a better traction on pricing.
Michael Sison -- KeyBanc -- Analyst
Great. Thank you.
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Yeah. Thanks.
Operator
Thank you. And our next question comes from Frank Mitsch from Fermium. Your line is open.
Frank Mitsch -- Fermium -- Analyst
Hey, good morning, folks.
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Hi, Frank.
Frank Mitsch -- Fermium -- Analyst
Hey Bob, if I could get a little more granular with respect to the 3% organic sales growth in the fourth quarter. Can you talk about how the pace progressed through the quarter and you're forecasting 0% organic growth in Q1. I mean are you expecting, I'm just trying to get a picture or the shape in my mind, as to how that -- how that is progressing in terms of how we did in fourth quarter and what your expectations are here in -- here in January?
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
With respect to that progression question, are you asking that about the fourth quarter?
Frank Mitsch -- Fermium -- Analyst
Yes, sir.
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
All right, and then go into the first. Sure. Look, as we know coming out of September, September was very weak and sales were down. October was a little bit better than September, but up probably only 1% or 2% if you will versus where we were in 2017. So the months effectively played out kind of like we thought, which was roughly flat with what we saw in October. The only thing that I'd say kind of weighed on fourth quarter results more than we expected was the decline in Europe, which we all -- we believe really was primarily associated with the auto industry, which made December weaker than October and November.
So as we stand here today and we look at the order rate for January, organically sales are up about 1%. If we add acquisitions, they are up about 3% and that's inclusive of that currency headwind that we said which is about 3 pennies in the first quarter. Little early to say what March looks like, as you know in our quarters, March has a tendency to be a strong month, but right now we've got visibility probably into January and February.
Frank Mitsch -- Fermium -- Analyst
Got you. Got you. And as I -- you look at the year-over-year 2018 as a full year versus 2017 obviously margins off a bit. You've obviously been making some progress in terms of price for the -- for the higher raws earlier in the year. Where do we stand on that interplay between your ability to raise prices versus -- versus raws and expectations for margins?
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
And so I -- I -- obviously see we saw some really good progress on the distribution side and I think that gives us momentum going into 2019. We've had really a very good year all year long with respect to Color. There is some weakness in PP&S that we project to continue here in -- in the near term. Look as I kind of shape things up, it's -- look as you know, it's challenging to try to forecast what we see beyond our current order rate. I think with strength in composites, with strength in healthcare like we're seeing, and if packaging holds up, there's an opportunity to meet or beat last year's EPS in the first quarter. We've just got some big challenges to overcome on our currency in Europe.
Frank Mitsch -- Fermium -- Analyst
Go it. Very helpful. Thanks. Thanks, Bob.
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Thank you.
Operator
Thank you. And our next question comes from Colin Rusch from Oppenheimer. Your line is open.
Colin Rusch -- Oppenheimer -- Analyst
Thanks so much. As --if you think about the -- the European auto opportunity in the composites business, how big an opportunity is there for replacement? And -- and how soon might we start to see those products roll through?
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Well, look for -- the most part the investments that we have made in composites have been North American based. These are the businesses that we have acquired and where we've innovated, and so this is part of our strategic plan. We have a huge opportunity to expand that outside the US, which includes European auto. Presently we're not doing very much at all with respect to composites in European auto or Asia for that matter. So I kind of view that market as wide open, Colin.
Colin Rusch -- Oppenheimer -- Analyst
Okay. And then from a timing perspective that kind of a 12 month, 24 month, 36 month opportunity or is it beyond that?
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
No I mean, I think that's a pretty long sale cycle if you think about getting into next generation of plants and platforms for the automotive industry, where we've had outstanding traction and composites to-date has been and outdoor applications, as well as in industrial are now growing, some of these fibers for wire and cable applications. So fortunately, there is a huge growth opportunity that exists outside of automotive and that's where we've been capitalizing on for the last year or two.
Colin Rusch -- Oppenheimer -- Analyst
Okay. That's super helpful. And then just with --the -- the new sustainability role. Can you talk a little bit about what -- how much of that time is going to be focused on operations? And how much of the time is going to be really focused on business development opportunities and sustainability front leveraging the technology platform that you guys have?
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Yeah. So most of Walter's time is going to be focused on you know, the portfolio of sustainable solutions that we have and leveraging that to help drive growth and support our customers, who are all looking for ways to take material out of packaging for example, is probably the best area, where Walter can be of help, as well as on the initiatives to participate in programs like Alliance to End Plastic Waste. So we've got a team of folks that are dedicated, as you know to improving operations here, great Lean Six Sigma program, awesome safety culture and all those things, which are being run by them. So I really view Walter's focus being on again sort of the portfolio of the products we sell and these alliances we're creating in the industries.
Colin Rusch -- Oppenheimer -- Analyst
Great. Thanks so much guys.
Operator
Thank you. Our next question comes from Mike Harrison from Seaport Global Securities. Your line is open.
Mike Harrison -- Seaport Global Securities. -- Analyst
Hi, good morning.
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Hi, Mike. Good morning, Mike.
Mike Harrison -- Seaport Global Securities. -- Analyst
Bob, I was wondering if you could talk in a little more detail about the PP&S business, the sales were flat. What was the volume and pricing break out? And can you maybe talk about how -- how the destocking is progressing in building and construction and maybe other areas that were offsetting the weakness that you're seeing there?
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Yeah. From an end market standpoint, appliance was down significantly. It was down about 16% in the fourth quarter for us. Building and construction was down about 2% or 3%. Building and construction is a bear end market that we serve there, so that has kind of a larger effect. Now, some of that business was offset, as I mentioned by lower margin contract manufacturing that kind of put almost volume into a push if you will, but margins were impacted by that being again deleterious to the fourth quarter. So that's kind of how that played out, Mike with respect to that plus we had some raw material inflation in the fourth quarter.
Mike Harrison -- Seaport Global Securities. -- Analyst
All right. And then on the composites business. Can you give us an update on where we are in terms of profitability and maybe what your expectations are for OI contribution in 2019?
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Yeah. So overall we think we generated $3 million of additional operating income this year from composites, which puts us into positive territory. I think we really crossed over that in -- toward the end of the second quarter of this year, we've been there ever since and with the growth rates that we have and projects in place, they see that continuing into 2019. I know it does sound like small numbers and they have, but you know with all the investments that we make, I think there's a huge leverage equation here and a really good opportunity for us in '19.
Mike Harrison -- Seaport Global Securities. -- Analyst
All right. Thanks very much.
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Yeah.
Operator
Thank you. And our next question comes from Bob Koort from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.
Dylan Campbell -- Goldman Sachs -- Analyst
Good morning this is Dylan Campbell on for Bob.
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Hi, Dylan.
Dylan Campbell -- Goldman Sachs -- Analyst
I just want to -- just want to want to go a little bit deeper on kind of margin and raw material discussion. We've seen a couple of the -- your key raw materials, it's polyethylene and polypropylene or Ti2 (ph) pricing set to come in. Can you talk a little bit about your ability to hold on to price when raw materials are declining?
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
I mean, historically if you look back over time was done very well in that environment. As you know, we've had some frustrating times, as well with respect to -- in some cases pricing not keeping pace with inflation. But I think that if raw materials do pull back and we see some easing there, there's a real opportunity for margin expansion. And so I think that's an opportunity for '19.
Dylan Campbell -- Goldman Sachs -- Analyst
Thanks. That's helpful. And you mentioned earlier that freight charges and distribution is starting to gain traction. Can you give a little bit of color in terms of heading into 1Q '19, how much benefit it is left over to gain from freight charges or passing through the freight charges.
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
I think if you look at sort of how the fourth quarter played out against itself last year that probably gives you a good indication, the kind of momentum we have going into 2019. Again, in terms of benefit on pricing, I think that will hold in the first part of the year. Those -- those price increases really went into effect in the middle of August of this last year, so we've got every expectation that's a good guy for us in the first quarter, you know, except for the fact that we continue to see logistic costs be a challenge for us. So to the extent they go up, we may have to increase those surcharges.
Dylan Campbell -- Goldman Sachs -- Analyst
Okay. Thank you.
Operator
Thank you. Our next question comes from David Katter with Baird. Your line is open.
David Katter -- Baird -- Analyst
Hi, guys, thanks for taking the question. One more here on -- on raws. You talked a little bit about the trend heading into next year, which ones are you focused on specifically that may come in more than others or which are you particularly constructive on?
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
I mean, for us, if I look back on the last couple of years, there's no doubt that nylon pricing has probably been one of the biggest challenges we've had particularly inside of our Engineered Materials platform. So we'll be watching that closely maybe with some of the -- with autos slowing down a touch, there's a little less demand for that and that brings some ease to that one. I'd say that's at the top of the list. But obviously, if you look across the board, look we're a formulator and we formulate around base resins. We don't make those, but they're a big part of the input cost on the carrier side. So polyethylene, polypropylene et cetera are still big factors too.
David Katter -- Baird -- Analyst
Great. That's all I had. Thanks, guys.
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Thank you.
Operator
Thank you. Our next question comes from Laurence Alexander from Jefferies. Your line is open.
Laurence Alexander -- Jefferies -- Analyst
Good morning.
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Good morning.
Bradley C. Richardson -- Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Good morning.
Laurence Alexander -- Jefferies -- Analyst
First one is on the Engineered Materials business. How do you think about lapping -- the timing of lapping margins on a year-over-year basis before the impacts of acquisitions and what the impact for the acquisition on the margins -- on the segment margins for the -- for 2019.
And then secondly, you mentioned the pace of new hires and training in 2018. What are your targets for 2019 and I don't know if you -- you have it yet for 2020, but how are you thinking about expanding the technical sales force?
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Yeah. So I mean with respect to margins for Engineered Materials, I would say that with what we see right now they'll be down in the first half of the year, a lot of that actually being driven by this weakness that we're seeing in Europe right now. On our underlying business, I do think we're making -- underlying business and markets outside that, I do think we're making traction with pricing and seeing opportunity there, but it's probably in the middle the year before you'll see that on a stated basis increasing.
Next with respect to those investments look we have -- I think we have invested a lot over the last four years in sales, marketing and technology and as we've said every chance we had the opportunity too last year. We also want to do a better job of becoming more efficient with the resources that we have and given the challenges with the economy that are here near term that's going to be a primary focus for us. I expect that we'll continue to invest in those resources over the course of '19, but probably with a heavier focus on -- on technology and sales, than the other areas.
Laurence Alexander -- Jefferies -- Analyst
Okay. Thanks.
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Yep.
Operator
Thank you. Our next question comes from Rosemarie Morbelli from G. Research. Your line is open.
Rosemarie Morbelli -- G. Research -- Analyst
Thank you. Good morning, everyone.
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Good morning.
Rosemarie Morbelli -- G. Research -- Analyst
Brad, I was wondering if you could give us a feel regarding building and construction. Is this slowdown mostly weather related or do you actually see a longer type of secular issue?
Bradley C. Richardson -- Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
I mean, obviously there's a lot going on right now with respect to interest rates and concern about people having access to cash in the same way that they wanted (ph) to buy homes, so that's probably playing a factor there. I wouldn't cite the weather. I don't think that we saw that in particular, others have mentioned it, and there may have been some destocking that took place in the fourth quarter, just with respect to -- on an inventory levels. So that really remains to be seen. Usually, the first half of the year is the strongest and right now, it's starting out weak. So we'll see how that plays out over the next few months.
Rosemarie Morbelli -- G. Research -- Analyst
Okay. And when you are talking about destocking, in your mind was that in the fourth quarter, was it larger than -- than usual or more or less in line? And is it continuing in -- in January? I mean some companies and especially in Europe have taken long vacations, so I am not too sure they are back in January quite yet.
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
I mean, look when we saw the results in September, I would say that was probably the steepest decline of what we saw in the year, and then things never really picked back up in the fourth quarter. So I don't know that I would say that Q4 was like that the pace of it increases the quarter went along. But I just think flat out, all of our customers are really aware of how much working capital they have and why and almost being (ph) very cautious, as they start this year. So I don't see January as a further reduction, but perhaps in absence of an increase for a better explanation.
Rosemarie Morbelli -- G. Research -- Analyst
Thanks. And if I may ask one other question regarding maybe you could share a little more details on the Alliance working on Ending Plastic Waste, I am assuming that translates also into selling less plastic in addition to recycling. Could you give us a feel for the impact -- the potential impact on PolyOne?
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Yeah. Look I think it's all of the above and look we're really excited to be a founding member of this Alliance. There are obviously some really big name companies that are in there as part of that, that have helped to create the organization, and we're proud to be a member organization with them. I cannot give the -- you know, the Alliance mission, as having a couple of different missions, one of course is just to simply help expedite an outreach program to clean the waters around us and the land in which we live. I mean we, I think can lend a helping hand to help do that cleanup and so there's going to be infrastructure projects that are invested in to do that.
But then the next level of course is, being more innovative with respect to how we get perishable beverages food et cetera to people in this world with less material and candidly that's been a sustainable solution of ours for years, right, which is I look at what our ColorMatrix offerings has with respect to oxygen and carbon scavenging, additives use lighter weight materials that plays right into what we do, and it's a big reason why we've never been obsessed about the volume game. We're obsessed about revenue, margins, and I think there's an opportunity here with respect to the portfolio of sustainability solutions to do just that even if it is less pound.
Operator
Thank you. And our next question comes from Dmitry Silverstein from Buckingham Research. Your line is open.
Dmitry Silverstein -- Buckingham Research -- Analyst
Good morning. Thank you for taking my call.
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Good morning, Dimitry.
Dmitry Silverstein -- Buckingham Research -- Analyst
Good morning. Just trying to understand a little bit sort of your comments on inventory and customer potential destocking. You know, you talked about the possibility of raw materials declining in the back end of the year. If we -- if you have not seen destocking in the fourth quarter or not seeing it in the first quarter, do you expect your customers at some point to start lighting up their inventories in preparation for lower prices maybe toward the back end of 2019 or 2020. Or is this sort of -- it's the risk that you take every quarter and then toward every year and you're not really that concerned about it for 2019.
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Yeah, I don't know that's going to play out any different than it has in the past and customers -- look it depends on what they're buying from us, If it's you know a distribution customer and the pricing really is a pass through from what our suppliers said, you can sometimes see those types of moves, where people are trying to buy ahead or delay. I don't see that impacting Color, Engineering Materials really at all. I think what's going into those markets is being bought as it's needed when it's needed. And I don't think that there was such a move or a change in inventories related to those that -- that it makes '19 appreciably different than what we've seen in past years, Dimitry. And candidly, what we see with distribution right now is -- is pretty good momentum. So I think that's a positive sign.
Dmitry Silverstein -- Buckingham Research -- Analyst
Yeah. Absolutely. So would you say that -- that to the extent that any sort of big destocking or slowdown has happened that -- that's more in a preparation for a slower growth environment expectation rather than lower pricing expectation?
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
I think that's fair. Yeah.
Dmitry Silverstein -- Buckingham Research -- Analyst
Okay. Okay. And then just trying to understand your comments around the composites profitability, so it was -- composites did about $3 million more EBIT this year than last year or in 2018 and for 2017, which put them a slightly positive EBIT for the year and you expect that pace to continue. So if I read this sort of -- it sounds to me like you're kind of expecting mid to high single digit millions of EBIT from this business in 2019. Is that the -- is that the right way to think about that?
Bradley C. Richardson -- Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
If I were using terms like low, medium and high, I would probably use lower to medium or lower to mid, if you will on their profitability level having just sort of gotten past that break even point. But look we've got $100 million sort of up or $100 million of composites business today, and I think the leverage is really big on that. So even if we get to medium that's still a good increase in '19 over '18.
Dmitry Silverstein -- Buckingham Research -- Analyst
Sure. Sure. Okay. And then finally --
Bradley C. Richardson -- Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
And on within that, the -- the last thing, I was just going to say, but I'm not (ph) really excited about composites and I think there's a really good revenue growth opportunity in '19 despite what's going on with the economy.
Dmitry Silverstein -- Buckingham Research -- Analyst
Got it. So -- so that could actually help you with the overall growth. So that's great. And then final question both the Engineered Materials and Colors and Additives saw, what I would call a widening of the year-over-year negative delta on margins. Is that just a case of demand in Europe falling off basically and some of these end markets you mentioned that might earlier require (ph) some of raw material doing something different.
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Almost entirely about what happened in Europe. It really was. And like I said, I mean Europe was down 5% for us in the fourth quarter and that's where our -- our most profitable region. So that really is a story on margins for those two businesses in that quarter.
Dmitry Silverstein -- Buckingham Research -- Analyst
Got it. Okay, Bob. That's it. Thank you.
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Yeah. Thanks.
Operator
Thank you. Our next question comes from Jason Rodgers from Great Lakes Review. Your line is open.
Jason Rodgers -- Great Lakes Review -- Analyst
Yes. I wonder if you could discuss any change in the competitive environment you might be seeing given the current end market weakness?
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
I'm not sure that I've seen anything out of the ordinary or unusual. If I look back on '18, I mean it was a year of such sort of significant inflation and freight costs increasing that felt like everybody was experiencing the same types of things. If I went back to 2017, I probably had some more frustrations around the competitive dynamics and not seeing competitors trying to go out aggressively, as we were. But I really felt like '18 was a better year for that. And right now, I think it's probably the same. I think with a year behind us candidly and seeing all this inflation, people realize that that's here to stay. And what we're really trying to get our arms around is this demand side of the equation.
Jason Rodgers -- Great Lakes Review -- Analyst
And are you planning on maintaining the same level of investment in sales and marketing research -- resources this year that you did in 2018?
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Well, one of these we got was Fiber-Line brought in a new set of folks and so we'll think about incorporating them into our commercial resources first and as a result of having them on board, we may not have to hire at the same organic pace that we have. And also as I mentioned maybe a few moments ago, we're really driving hard toward increasing efficiencies for the resources that we have added, where it's not so much about just adding people for the sake of adding people, but candidly driving more sales dollars per associate. So it's a balance there. I think that headcount will go up this year, but it may not be at that 6% pace.
Jason Rodgers -- Great Lakes Review -- Analyst
And I know you don't give full forecasts for the year, but just given the comments around the first quarter, is double digit EPS growth off the table for 2019?
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
I think that there is a lot to be seen with respect to what happens from a demand perspective, as the year plays out and it's really too early to answer that question. That's one of the reasons why we don't try to. Look as I was answering questions about the first quarter or even giving some preliminary comments on that, there are certainly things that you know our weaknesses from a demand standpoint and foreign currency is a headwind, but we got some really great traction in healthcare and composites. We bought back 2 million shares in the fourth quarter and you know, there's an opportunity to meet or beat last year's EPS number, as early as the first quarter. And I think if we can get there that's a good sign for us to get to double digits this year.
Jason Rodgers -- Great Lakes Review -- Analyst
All right. That sounds good. Just a numbers question. CapEx and tax rate estimate for '19 that you might have? Thank you.
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Sure. Thanks.
Bradley C. Richardson -- Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Yeah. Jason, I mean I think the tax rate was just 24% in 2018. I think that's a good placeholder for 2019. As we look at CapEx, certainly if you look at historically last few years, we've been spending about $75 million a year. We certainly have good long term growth and we're looking at some additional capacity in order to be able to support that growth in particular, in Asia. So I would think next year -- excuse me 2019 would be maybe more in the neighborhood of $85 million.
Jason Rodgers -- Great Lakes Review -- Analyst
All right. Thanks again.
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
All right. We got time for one more question.
Operator
Thank you, sir. Our final question will come from Jim Sheehan from SunTrust. Your line is open.
James Sheehan -- SunTrust -- Analyst
Thank you. So you -- you clearly bought some more shares in the fourth quarter than usual probably given the share price weakness. Can you talk about how you view the share buyback opportunity going forward. Would you tend to be more aggressive with -- with valuation, where it is right now or would you try to space that out more evenly throughout the year?
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Yeah, I think it's -- it's -- we never give any specific guidance on how we're going to be buying back shares. You are correct with what you said about the number of shares we bought back in the fourth quarter and why, I mean that's spot on with respect to where the share price was. Obviously with the acquisition that we just completed with Fiber-Line consuming a $120 million in cash really start to take that into consideration as well. So we'll see how the year plays out with respect to M&A opportunities and quantifies that more to say about that when we get in the first quarter.
James Sheehan -- SunTrust -- Analyst
Great. And you highlighted weakness in your transportation end market. Could you just parse out how much of that was automotive versus RV and outdoor type of transportation?
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Yeah, for most part that was automotive. So we really were commenting on that when we said -- if we said broadly transportation, we really meant auto.
James Sheehan -- SunTrust -- Analyst
Thank you.
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Yep. Okay. Thanks everyone for joining us on the call today. We appreciate your time and attention. Look forward to updating you following our next call, after the first quarter earnings release. Take care and bye for now.
Operator
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for participating in today's conference. This does conclude the program. You may all disconnect. Everyone have a wonderful day.
Duration: 58 minutesCall participants:
Joe Di Salvo -- Vice President, Investor Relations
Robert M. Patterson -- Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Bradley C. Richardson -- Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Michael Sison -- KeyBanc -- Analyst
Frank Mitsch -- Fermium -- Analyst
Colin Rusch -- Oppenheimer -- Analyst
Mike Harrison -- Seaport Global Securities. -- Analyst
Dylan Campbell -- Goldman Sachs -- Analyst
David Katter -- Baird -- Analyst
Laurence Alexander -- Jefferies -- Analyst
Rosemarie Morbelli -- G. Research -- Analyst
Dmitry Silverstein -- Buckingham Research -- Analyst
Jason Rodgers -- Great Lakes Review -- Analyst
James Sheehan -- SunTrust -- Analyst
https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-transcripts/2019/01/29/polyone-corp-pol-q4-2018-earnings-conference-call.aspx

Return to headline | Return to top
Mnuchin Signals Chance To End China Tariff War

Jan 30, 2019 | Bloomberg (In E&E Energywire)

By Saleha Mohsin,

U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said that if China presents enough trade concessions to President Trump, there is a chance that the administration may seek to lift all tariffs.
"Everything is on the table," Mnuchin said early yesterday during an interview on Fox Business News' "Mornings With Maria" program. The Treasury chief is set to meet with top Chinese officials in Washington today and tomorrow alongside U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer about a month before the U.S. is set to escalate the trade war with China with fresh tariffs.
Trump and China's Xi Jinping gave their officials until March 1 to work out a deal on "structural changes" to China's economic model. If they fail, Trump has promised to raise the tariff rate on $200 billion in Chinese imports to 25 percent from 10 percent. The collapse of talks would dash hopes of a lasting truce that would remove one of the darkest clouds hanging over the world economy.
China is facing added urgency to end the trade spat amid the weakest domestic growth since 2009.
Divisions remain within Trump's trade team, with hawks including Lighthizer and National Trade Council Director Peter Navarro seeking tougher demands on China, and Mnuchin and White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow prioritizing preserving U.S. growth.
In a sign of the importance the White House is placing on the talks, Trump is expected to meet China's top trade negotiator at the end of the week. In addition to U.S. demands for structural changes to China's economy, the latest round of talks will cover Beijing's pledge to buy more American goods.
While Mnuchin acknowledged that growth has slowed in Europe and in China, he does not expect that to impact U.S. growth. "We see no indication whatsoever of a recession on the horizon," he said, adding that the trade dispute with China is not hurting the U.S. and that "there is still a very good case for 3 percent growth this year."
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Monday painted a different picture of the U.S. economy. Budget deficits are seen widening and economic gains will be "muted," slowing to 2.3 percent for this year and 1.7 percent in 2020, CBO said, adding that the burst of economic growth in 2018 fueled by Republican tax cuts will fade in the coming years, while tariffs imposed by the Trump administration may dent the economy and hit business confidence.
Kudlow on Monday disputed CBO's forecasts. — Saleha Mohsin, Bloomberg
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/01/30/stories/1060118905

Return to headline | Return to top

TSCA News

(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

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC mentioned) Recycling Mystery: Memory Foam

Jan 30, 2019 | Earth911.com

By Trey Granger

Few things can refresh your body like a good night’s sleep, and few products have aligned themselves more with sound sleep than memory foam. But what happens when you upgrade your bed and need to get rid of a memory foam mattress or pillow?
Unfortunately, the recycling market for memory foam is pretty limited. You see, the most valuable (and therefore recyclable) component of sleeping materials are the metal springs, and many memory foam mattresses do not contain metal.
So what is in a memory foam mattress? Memory foam is a type of polyurethane, a polymer of plastic also used to make products like hoses. The American Chemistry Council estimates that the U.S. produces 300 million pounds of polyurethane foam per year for mattresses alone. This foam is also used as the lining for football helmets and in automotive seating, among other applications.Foam Recycling Challenges
When it comes to plastic recycling, there’s an important saying to remember: “Once it goes foam, it can’t go home.” The recycling process involves breaking products down to raw material to maximize their reuse, but you can’t un-foam plastic. So, you can’t turn a polyurethane foam product into a polyurethane hose. (The same is true of expanded polystyrene, what you may know as Styrofoam.)
So, memory foam can’t be broken down to the original plastic polymer. However, it can be shredded and reused to make another foam product, such as new memory foam or car seat padding. The challenge is the amount of work involved in reclaiming memory foam. The process typically involves tearing open the mattress (or another item) and removing foam by hand. This increases the time and cost but maximizes the amount of material reclaimed. Unfortunately, because virgin polyurethane can be produced rather cheaply, there is little market for reclaimed memory foam.
For mattress recycling, legislation is often the best answer. The Mattress Recycling Council has worked in three states (California, Connecticut, and Rhode Island) that passed mattress recycling legislation to create collection programs. But that leaves 47 states fending for themselves, and many mattress recyclers will only collect in bulk from businesses. If you’re buying a new mattress, ask the store if they will pick the old mattress for recycling when they deliver the new one.Recycling Alternatives
Your best bet for getting rid of memory foam products is to donate them for reuse. Contact your local second-hand store to see if they accept these items. Or, post on Craigslist or Nextdoor to see if someone will pick them up. These products typically last over 10 years, so if your item is new enough, you might even be able to sell it.
It goes without saying, but don’t donate a mattress or pillow contaminated with bed bugs or blood stains. No one can reuse these materials, so you’re just passing the problem to someone else.
There are also plenty of do-it-yourself projects for your old memory foam products. This is an excellent option if you have a small amount of memory foam, like a pillow or a mattress cover.
If you can’t donate or reuse these products, contact a junk hauler like 1-800-Got-Junk or College Hunks Hauling Junk to arrange pickup. These companies will attempt to recycle as much material as possible, and you’ll likely have other products in the house that they can haul at the same time.
https://earth911.com/home-garden/recycling-mystery-memory-foam/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Massachusetts to Limit Fluorinated Chemicals in Drinking Water (1)

Jan 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Adrianne Appel

Environmental groups petitioned for enforceable ‘PFAS’ limits
Treatment costs, especially to small water systems, is of concern
Massachusetts will regulate five common fluorinated contaminants in drinking water in response to a petition by environmental groups seeking enforceable limits.
The state’s Department of Environmental Protection, citing human health concerns, will establish limits for per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) compounds, a group of substances found in food packaging, common household products like stain-resistant fabrics and nonstick cookware, and firefighting foam.
Martin Suuberg, commissioner of the Massachusetts DEP, said in a Jan. 28 letter that analytical methods and treatment technologies are available to test for and manage the contamination.
The maximum contaminant levels will be set for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS).
The chemicals have been found in drinking water and groundwater sources, especially near military bases where training exercises are held using firefighting foams, and have been linked to cancer, thyroid problems, and immune system disorders.
Federal Guidelines
Massachusetts doesn’t have an enforceable drinking water standard for the chemicals and relies on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 2016 guidelines recommending a top limit of 70 parts per trillion combined for PFOA and PFOS.
In June, Massachusetts expanded on the EPA advisory and recommended public water supplies to limit the five chemicals soon to be regulated to less than 70 parts per trillion, whether alone or in combination.
The department will begin work on the limits by the spring, Edmund Coletta, a spokesman, told Bloomberg Environment Jan. 29. No deadline has been set for when they will be made final, he said.

The Conservation Law Foundation and the Toxics Action Center petitioned the department in October for the standards and sought a limit of 1 part per trillion for any of 3,000 types of PFAS chemicals.
They asked the state to require public drinking water systems to install sophisticated testing and filtering equipment to remove the contaminants.
“This enforceable standard is a step forward, but regulating five of the thousands of chemicals in the toxic PFAS chemical family falls short of truly protecting Massachusetts residents,” Shaina Kasper, Vermont director of the Toxics Action Center, said in a Jan. 28 statement.
Industry Concerns With Plan
The state’s plan “reflects the fact that the petitioners’ request lacked scientific basis or study to support it,” the American Chemistry Council, a group representing more than 170 companies that produce chemicals, including 3M Co., BASF SE, and Chemours Co., told Bloomberg Environment Jan. 29.

The council said it supports a collaborative approach for setting drinking water standards that “gives significant consideration to stakeholder input, science, actual public health, feasibility and cost-effectiveness.”
The Massachusetts DEP said the treatment technique recommended in the petition may be overreach.
“From a human health perspective, little is known about the vast majority of the 3,000+ compounds of the PFAS class of chemicals,” the DEP said, adding the cost of treatment technique, especially to small water systems servicing fewer than 10,000 people, may be prohibitive.
One Cape Cod town, Barnstable, hit with large amounts of PFAS contaminants due to a nearby Air Force base, installed the equipment at a cost of $6.5 million with ongoing operation costs of $200,000 per year, DEP said, adding it would seek further comment on treatment technique.
The environmental groups had wanted Massachusetts to immediately implement an emergency, enforceable standard of 20 parts per trillion for any PFAS, as is used in nearby Vermont. The DEP said it would consider the Vermont standard and those of other states.
(Updates with comment from the DEP spokesman in the eighth paragraph and a comment from the chemistry council starting in the 12th paragraph.)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/massachusetts-to-limit-fluorinated-chemicals-in-drinking-water-1

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioend) Formaldehyde Makers Prepare in Case EPA Reviews the Chemical (2)

Jan 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

American Chemistry Council announces hold Feb. 20 meeting to share information
Formaldehyde may be selected as one of 40 chemicals EPA reviews this year
Formaldehyde producers are being invited by the American Chemistry Council to discuss on Feb. 20 the possibility that the EPA may select that chemical to review this year.
“Formaldehyde is a prime candidate for selection by EPA and the evaluation could have significant cost and regulatory implications to manufacturers, importers and users of formaldehyde,” the chemistry council said in a Jan. 29 announcement. The council is the largest single voice representing U.S. chemical manufacturers.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s is required under the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments to review at least 40 chemicals this year and decide which 20 are high priorities for risk evaluation.
That means this year’s review could lead to closer scrutiny of the chemical, which the Department of Health and Human Services has classified as a known human carcinogen.
Formaldehyde is used to make materials used in many different industries including transportation, health care, and building and construction.
In 2015, BASF Corp., DuPont, and Koch Industries Inc., are among the companies that made between 1 billion and 5 billion pounds of formaldehyde in the U.S. or imported it, according to the most recent data available from the EPA.
Get Information to EPA Early
The Feb. 20 meeting is strictly informational.
Any decision to form a consortium that could provide information to the agency would be discussed at a subsequent meeting, said Sarah Jane Scruggs, a spokeswoman for the chemistry council, Jan. 29.
It’s important to get EPA information early in its decision making process, the chemistry council said in a Jan. 7 letter obtained by Bloomberg Environment and sent to companies that make, use, mix, and distribute formaldehyde.
If the EPA selects formaldehyde for risk evaluation, that assessment will take about 3 years.
Yet, “to be fully considered the scientific information needed for the risk evaluation will need to be submitted within the first year of the process,” the council said.
EPA’s Criteria
The EPA had been expected in January to start releasing the names of 40 chemicals it will sort through in 2019 to decide which 20 are high priorities for risk evaluation and which 20 are low priorities.
The 35-day shutdown delayed that information, but formaldehyde meets some of the criteria the agency has said it would use to select the 40 chemicals. For example, there’s a lot of scientific information available for any assessment.
Chemical manufacturers have spent millions studying formaldehyde, according to the chemistry council’s letter.
The EPA also has been trying to update since 1997 its information about formaldehyde’s health effects and the doses at which those effects could occur. But opposition from industry and weaknesses a National Academies panel pointed out regarding a draft updated assessment have prevented the agency from completing that work.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has repeatedly asked the agency to issue its “long-overdue formaldehyde report.” He reiterated that request most recently in December.
The senator had not heard back from the agency as of Jan. 29, an aide said.
The EPA decided Aug. 10, 2018, that its ongoing update of formaldehyde was no longer a priority, an agency spokeswoman said Jan. 29.
The chemical also is already regulated under the Clean Air Act and composite wood emissions are regulated under TSCA, the spokeswoman said.
(Last two paragraphs updated with EPA's response.)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/formaldehyde-makers-prepare-in-case-epa-reviews-the-chemical-2

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Unique: Trump EPA Will Not Restrict 2 Poisonous Chemical Compounds In Consuming Water

Jan 30, 2019 | Infosurhoy

By Denis Bedoya

The decision could complicate acting agency chief Andrew Wheeler’s hopes for Senate confirmation.
The Trump administration will not set a drinking water limit for two toxic chemicals that are contaminating millions of Americans’ tap water, two sources familiar with the forthcoming decision told POLITICO.
The expected move is yet another sign of the administration’s reluctance to aggressively deal with the chemicals, which have been used for decades in products such as Teflon-coated cookware and military firefighting foam and are present in the bloodstreams of an estimated 98 percent of Americans. And it comes less than a year after the White House and the Environmental Protection Agency faced criticism for delaying publication of a health study on the chemicals, which a White House aide had warned could trigger a “public relations nightmare.”
EPA’s decision means the chemicals will remain unregulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, according to sources familiar with a still-unreleased draft plan that acting administrator Andrew Wheeler signed off on in late December. That means utilities will face no federal requirements for testing for and removing the chemicals from drinking water supplies, although several states have pursued or are pursuing their own limits.
The decision could complicate Wheeler’s confirmation to lead the agency on a full-time basis. Both Republicans and Democrats have pressed EPA to do more to keep the chemicals out of drinking water and raised alarms about past political interference from the administration.
The chemicals, known as PFOA and PFOS, have been linked to kidney and testicular cancer, hypertension and other ailments. Major chemical companies like 3M as well as the Defense Department would face billions of dollars in liability from aggressive efforts to regulate and clean up the chemical, which has contaminated groundwater near hundreds of military bases and chemical plants.
While EPA has decided against a drinking water limit, the draft chemical plan includes a decision to list those two chemicals as hazardous under the Superfund law, according to the two sources, a move would help force polluters to pay for cleanup.
The agency said it would not discuss the plan’s contents until it is made public.
“The action plan is currently undergoing interagency review,” EPA spokesperson John Konkus said by email.
It is unclear when the plan will be released, but it could come soon now that the partial government shutdown is over. During his confirmation hearing earlier this month, Wheeler told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that the plan had initially been scheduled for release in late January — but he refused to promise that it would set a drinking water standard for the chemical.
“I cannot make that commitment,” Wheeler told Democratic Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), whose state has a major PFOA contamination problem, also pressed Wheeler on how he would handle the issue.
“We are going to be recommending and moving forward on a number of different areas under a number of different statutes,” Wheeler told her. He specifically cited the EPA’s Superfund toxic cleanup program as well as a recently revised regulatory framework for chemical safety.
The committee is scheduled to vote on Wheeler’s nomination Feb. 5; Republicans have a one-seat majority on the panel. In the full Senate, Wheeler also likely would have to allay concerns from Republicans in other states that have experienced major problems with the class of chemicals, including North Carolina.
Federal scientists last summer concluded that PFOA and PFOS pose dangers at extremely low concentrations in a health assessment that POLITICO reported Trump administration officials initially sought to block.
EPA-mandated testing has found the chemicals at unsafe levels in at least 16 million Americans’ tap water, but activists say the problem is even more widespread.
When an advocacy group reanalyzed federal monitoring data to include lower levels of contamination, it estimated that as many as 110 million Americans may be drinking water with levels of the chemical that could cause harm. The problem is particularly acute near military bases, more than 400 of which the Pentagon suspects to be contaminated with the chemicals.
In order to regulate a chemical under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA must show not only that the contaminant is dangerous, but also that setting a limit offers “a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction” and that doing so is financially justified.
Congress established these requirements in amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1996. They have proven to be major hurdles to new regulations: EPA has not regulated a new contaminant under the drinking water law since then.
EPA issued a voluntary health advisory for PFOA and PFOS in 2016, recommending a lifetime limit in drinking water of 70 parts per trillion for both chemicals. A handful of states have established their own drinking water limits, some of which are significantly stricter than the EPA guidance. But other states have lacked the scientific expertise to act on their own, and have struggled to explain to their residents why their limits differ from those in neighboring states. Public health advocates say these are reasons a federal drinking water standard is necessary.
But some state and local officials, as well as rural water utilities, have argued against a federal drinking water standard. They say the problem is localized and that utilities across the country should not have to pay to test their water if they are unlikely to find the chemicals.
The Trump administration has generally pushed to have states take the lead in environmental regulations, and has taken some steps that suggested it may prefer that approach to setting a federal drinking water limit. For instance, officials at EPA opted to release only toxicity information for two other chemicals in the same class, called GenX and PFBS, and left it to the states to use that information to decide what a safe limit is.
A number of the political appointees at EPA come from industry backgrounds, including the No. 2 political official in the chemical safety office, who previously worked for the chemical industry’s main lobbying group. The No. 2 official in the agency’s Office of Research and Development came to the agency last fall from Koch Industries.
Industry groups, including the American Chemistry Council, have backed the Trump administration’s work on the class of chemicals, expecting that it will be as industry-friendly as they can hope for.
The Trump administration’s approach to PFOA and PFOS has also been shaped by the Defense Department, which faces potentially massive liability for the hundreds of contaminated sites it owns around the country.
Internal emails show that Pentagon officials last year raised alarm with the White House over a draft study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found the chemicals cause harm at far lower levels than EPA had said were safe. And POLITICO reported earlier this month that the Defense Department sought to hire a scientist with a reputation for downplaying chemicals’ risks to work on PFOA and PFOS, even though his prior work on the chemicals was so controversial that even Republicans had opposed his nomination for an EPA post.
http://infosurhoy.com/cocoon/saii/xhtml/en_GB/news/unique-trump-epa-will-not-restrict-2-poisonous-chemical-compounds-in-consuming-water/

Return to headline | Return to top
Global Trends Are Major Cause For Concern, Says UN Chemicals Report

Jan 30, 2019 | Chemical Watch

By Leigh Stringer

Global trends are a "major cause for concern" in achieving sound chemicals management and actions to address the adverse affects of substances that are not properly managed are "urgently needed", according to a major UN report.
Ahead of releasing the second Global Chemicals Outlook (GCO-II) report in March, UN Environment has published a summary of its findings for policy makers. It includes ten actions aimed at progressing the sound management of chemicals globally (see box).
The summary report highlights megatrends, such as global economic and population growth, as areas that are affecting market demand for chemicals, creating both risks and opportunities.
And, it says, the expected doubling of the global chemicals market between 2017 and 2030 will "increase exposures, concentrations and adverse health and environmental impacts", if the sound management of chemicals and waste is not achieved worldwide.
"Many manufactured chemicals have helped improve human health, food security, productivity and quality of life throughout the world," the summary says.
However, many with hazardous properties "continue to cause significant adverse impacts on human health and the environment because they are not properly managed".
Some of the challenges it highlights are hazardous chemicals used in products, complex supply chains, polluting manufacturing operations and a lack of capacity in developing countries to effectively implement basic chemicals and waste management systems.
"Business as usual is therefore not an option," it says.
Solutions exist, the report adds, but "more ambitious, urgent and worldwide action is needed by all stakeholders."Global framework
The summary says findings of the GCO-II "indicate that the sound management of chemicals and waste will not be achieved by 2020, despite global agreement reached at several high-level UN conferences, and significant action already taken".
The 2020 goal was set out in 2006 under the UN’s global voluntary chemicals programme, the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm).
And with Saicm’s mandate coming to an end next year, programme stakeholders are finalising discussions – known as the intersessional process – on whether it should continue beyond its 2020 mandate, or be replaced with an alternative framework.
An "aspirational and comprehensive" global framework is required, the summary says, and must "create incentives to foster commitment and engagement by all relevant actors in the value chain".
Several ideas for a post-2020 framework have been put forward. Last year, ministers and vice ministers from eight countries formed an alliance, which supports the adoption of something similar to the Paris Agreement on climate change for chemicals.
The GCO-II was mandated by the second UN Environment Assembly (Unea-2) in 2015, with a particular emphasis on areas where data was found to be lacking, or inadequate, and to assess progress towards Saicm's 2020 goal. The second edition is on the agenda of Unea-4, which is taking place in March in Nairobi.
Achim Halpaap, principal officer and senior adviser of UN Environment’s chemicals and health branch, told Chemical Watch the summary seeks to inform delegates participating in the upcoming Unea-4 session and in other relevant processes, such as the beyond 2020 discussion.
It aims to help them "consider progress made in implementing the [Saicm] 2020 goal, as well as the identified options on the implementation of further action to achieve the sound management of chemicals and waste worldwide," he said.
The first report, published in 2013, examined trends in worldwide chemicals production, use, disposal, and provided policy options.Ten actions identified to achieve the sound management of chemicals globallyDevelop effective management systems: Address prevailing capacity gaps across countries, strengthen national and regional legislation using a lifecycle approach, and further strengthen institutions and programmes

Mobilise resources: Scale up adequate resources and innovative financing for effective legislation, implementation and enforcement, particularly in developing countries and economies in transition

Assess and communicate hazards: Fill global data and knowledge gaps, and enhance international collaboration to advance chemical hazard assessments, classifications and communication

Assess and manage risks: Refine and share chemical risk assessment and risk management approaches globally to promote safe and sustainable use of chemicals throughout their lifecycle

Use lifecycle approaches: Advance widespread implementation of sustainable supply chain management, full material disclosure, transparency and sustainable product design

Strengthen corporate governance: Enable and strengthen chemicals and waste management aspects of corporate sustainability policies, sustainable business models, and reporting

Educate and innovate: Integrate green and sustainable chemistry in education, research and innovation policies and programmes

Foster transparency: Empower workers, consumers and citizens to protect themselves and the environment

Bring knowledge to decision makers: Strengthen the science-policy interface and use of science in monitoring progress, priority setting and policy making throughout the lifecycle of chemicals and waste

Enhance global commitment: Establish an ambitious and comprehensive global framework for chemicals and waste beyond 2020, scale up collaborative action and track progress
https://chemicalwatch.com/73813/global-trends-are-major-cause-for-concern-says-un-chemicals-report

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Faces New Backlog Of Chemical Applications After Shutdown Ends

Jan 30, 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

Return to headline | Return to top
Members Of US Congress Launch PFAS Action Taskforce

Jan 30, 2019 | Chemical Watch

By Lisa Martine Jenkins

A bipartisan group of legislators in the US House of Representatives has launched a taskforce focused on the management of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
Representatives Dan Kildee (D-Michigan) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pennsylvania) are leading the group, citing the impact of PFAS contamination on their own communities.
"Hundreds of communities are already affected by this growing public health threat and Congress must do more to address PFAS contamination," said Representative Kildee in a statement, which outlines the taskforce’s plans to "advocate for policies and funding to better protect the communities we represent [that are] impacted."
The group will focus on managing the substances by drafting legislation and pushing for more funding through the federal appropriations process. It also plans to hold events to educate other members of Congress and meet with relevant committees and congressional leadership.
Federal legislators are paying more attention to PFAS chemicals – particularly older, long-chain chemistries – due to mounting concerns about environmental contamination and their potential impact on human health.
Last year, the EPA said it would release a federal management plan for the substance in the autumn, but it has not yet done so. Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler said at a recent hearing that it would be published shortly, but is not likely to include drinking water limits.
The EPA, however, has issued a statement saying that it "has not finalised or publicly issued its PFAS management plan, and any information that speculates what is included in the plan is premature." The draft plan, it added, is undergoing interagency review.
Nevertheless, Representative Fitzpatrick has pushed for urgent change, saying in a statement that "action must be immediately taken on a federal level."
"The establishment of the PFAS taskforce will put the issue of clean drinking water front and centre in Washington, DC, which is a critical step in the right direction to protecting the American people from exposure to these harmful chemicals," he said.
The NGO Environmental Working Group (EWG) applauded the effort, emphasising the importance of an approach that "transcends partisan politics".
https://chemicalwatch.com/73792/members-of-us-congress-launch-pfas-action-taskforce

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Eyes Alternates To PFAS Drinking Water Standard (Updated)

Jan 30, 2019 | Inside EPA

Concern is mounting over EPA's decision declining to craft enforceable standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to address contamination from perfluorinated compounds, though as Inside EPA readers know, the agency is considering other steps, including Superfund regulation and emergency cleanup orders under SDWA.
Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI), who co-chairs a newly formed bipartisan House task force on PFAS, reacted strongly to a report that EPA would not be developing enforceable drinking water standards for the two most common per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and called for Congress to set such standards instead.
The Trump administration's failure to urgently respond to PFAS contamination “threatens public health,” he said in a Jan. 29 press release, contending the agency has “been all talk and no action."
“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, referencing government studies indicating how dangerous the substances are.
And Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) announced that she will bring Andrea Amico, a New Hampshire resident who created a group to address PFAS contamination from Pease Air Force base, as her guest at President Trump's State of the Union address Feb. 5th to raise awareness for PFAS water contamination.
“It’s imperative that the EPA show leadership and help protect New Hampshire families and Americans throughout the nation from these harmful materials,” she said.
Their statements came in response to a Politico report that EPA has decided not to set health-based standards under SDWA for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS).
“EPA's decision means the chemicals will remain unregulated under the [SDWA], according to sources familiar with a still-unreleased draft plan that acting administrator Andrew Wheeler signed off on in late December. That means utilities will face no federal requirements for testing for and removing the chemicals from drinking water supplies, although several states have pursued or are pursuing their own limits,” Politico says.
It adds that the decision may complicate Wheeler's pending confirmation as “[both] Republicans and Democrats have pressed EPA to do more to keep the chemicals out of drinking water and raised alarms about past political interference from the administration.”
The report is not a surprise as EPA officials have made no secret of their reluctance to craft SDWA standards -- known as maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) -- despite widespread calls to address the broad class of thousands of widely used non-stick chemicals that are linked to a host of adverse effects.
For example, Peter Grevatt, the recently retired director of EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, warned frequently that crafting an MCL would take years to complete and may not be warranted given monitoring data from utilities showed a relatively limited scope of contamination.
Grevatt and others have also indicated that the agency is unlikely to meet the legal threshold requiring a showing of "a substantial likelihood" that PFAS occur at levels of public health concern, relying on data environmentalists nonetheless say is flawed.
But as Inside EPA reported, agency officials have indicated they may act urgently to treat the chemicals as a hot-spot issue, rather than addressing it with a national standard. For instance, Lee Forsgren, the politically appointed deputy in EPA's water office, told drinking water advisers last month that PFAS is “a hyper-local national issue.”
There are "vast areas unaffected" but it is "cropping up in sufficient places" EPA "can't brush it off," he said, adding, "We've got to address it."
As a result, EPA officials appear to be weighing at least two options. For example, Wheeler pledged as part of a series of commitments to win confirmation for EPA waste chief Peter Wright to list PFOA and PFOS as “hazardous substances” subject to Superfund liability -- a move that would trigger cleanup obligations for the Defense Department and other liable parties that released these chemicals into the environment.
And EPA water chief David Ross told the Ohio Environmental Council last month that while the agency is considering whether two widespread PFAS meet statutory criteria for regulation, the agency “may also exercise its emergency powers under the SDWA, Section 1431, in the event of an imminent and substantial endangerment."
EPA has also been weighing groundwater cleanup levels for PFOA and PFOS, though Politico reported recently that the plan -- which recommends a 70-parts-per-trillion limit, the same level at which EPA in 2016 established drinking water advisories for the two substances -- is stalled in White House review.
In a statement issued after this item was published, EPA did not deny Politico’s report but said it is premature to speculate about what is included in its PFAS management plan. The agency added that it is “committed to following the Safe Drinking Water Act process for evaluating new drinking water standards, which is just one of the many components of the draft plan that is currently undergoing interagency review.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-eyes-alternates-pfas-drinking-water-standard-updated

Return to headline | Return to top
Questions Resurface About Industry Influence On PFAS Study

Jan 30, 2019 | E&E Daily

By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder and Geof Koss

House Energy and Commerce Democratic leaders yesterday reupped their request to EPA acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler for information related to possible industry involvement in the suppression of a study focused on PFAS.
"We are deeply concerned that these actions appear to indicate that politics, and potentially industry interests, and being placed before public health, particularly in light of reports that EPA has decided to not set a drinking water limit for several toxic chemicals," they said in a lettersent yesterday.
Politico reported this week that EPA will not set a legal limit for two PFAS — PFOA and PFOS — in drinking water, sparking outrage from environmental groups and Democratic lawmakers (Greenwire, Jan. 29).
PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of chemicals that have been linked to cancer, liver problems and birth defects.
EPA Office of Water Assistant Administrator David Ross said the PFAS management plan had not been finalized, and "any information that speculates what is included in the plan is premature."
The lawmakers previously sent then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt a letter requesting information on the role of EPA political appointees in blocking a study by the Department of Health and Human Services' Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (E&E Daily, May 21, 2018).
A White House official was concerned about the study, calling it a "potential public relations nightmare," according to emails obtained by the Union for Concerned Scientists. The official said the study would show that low levels of PFOS and PFOA are harmful.
"To date, EPA has failed to provide documents requested and has otherwise failed to substantively respond to our request," yesterday's letter says.
The letter was signed by E&C Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairwoman Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), and Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee Chairman Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.).Senate concerns
Senators from both parties expressed concern yesterday about reports EPA does not plan to set standards for the chemicals.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said she planned to speak with Wheeler by phone about the issue, given widespread contamination of her state's water supply.
Capito did not directly address whether the issue would be a factor in her support of Wheeler's nomination to be EPA administrator.
"I raised it at his confirmation and we're affected, and so I'm concerned about what he thinks the reasoning is of how ... we're going to get a safer water standard if that's not the direction they go," she told reporters. "I think I need a full explanation."
West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin said he was "absolutely" concerned by the news, which he was unaware of. "There has to be" standards, he told reporters.
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) said he would withhold judgment until the Defense Department completes a study on PFAS health impacts that was mandated in the National Defense Authorization Act.
"I think it's important that we get as much information as we can," he told reporters.
Asked whether there was a federal role in addressing the widespread contaminants, Gardner said, "We will learn that.
"I think there probably is once we get this information from the Defense study," he said.
Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) also sidestepped a question on whether PFAS could trip up Wheeler's nomination, as they did to Trump's first pick to lead EPA's toxics office, Michael Dourson.
His nomination was withdrawn in 2017 after Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said they would oppose Dourson, citing longtime water contamination at Camp Lejeune in their state.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/01/30/stories/1060118957

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA’s Chemical Decision Worries Republicans

Jan 30, 2019 | PoliticoPro

By Annie Snider and Anthony Adragna

Key congressional Republicans voiced concerns Tuesday about the prospect that EPA will not set drinking water limits for two toxic chemicals — an issue that raises new hurdles for acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler’s bid to permanently lead the agency.
POLITICO reported Monday that Wheeler has signed off on a still-unpublished decision not to regulate the chemicals under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The chemicals, known as PFOA and PFOS, are linked to dangerous health effects, including kidney and testicular cancer, and have been found in millions of Americans’ drinking water after being used for decades in products such as Teflon and military firefighting foam.
“I’m concerned about it,” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), whose state has had two major contamination cases tied to the chemicals. “I’m concerned about what he thinks the reasoning is for how we’re going to get to a safer water standard if that’s not the direction they go. I think I need a fuller explanation from him.”
Capito, who is facing reelection in 2020, will be a crucial Republican vote when the closely divided Senate Environment and Public Works Committee votes on Wheeler’s nomination. She said she had a telephone call scheduled with Wheeler later Tuesday to discuss the water issue.
The committee has 11 Republicans and 10 Democrats, meaning one Republican defection could prevent the nomination from advancing.
In the House, some lawmakers are already calling for Congress to step in and force EPA to set a drinking water limit if the Trump administration does not act.
"If the EPA refuses to do its job, Congress must intercede," said Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), who co-chairs the bipartisan congressional task force on the chemicals.
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), whose district uncovered a significant contamination from the chemicals this summer, told POLITICO that “doing nothing is not acceptable.” He added, “We’ll have ample opportunity to grill EPA.”
The drinking water decision is included in a chemical management plan that EPA sent to the White House for review in December, as POLITICO reported based on sources familiar with the matter. Wheeler told lawmakers the plan was poised for release this month before the partial government shutdown delayed it.
EPA water chief David Ross issued a statement Tuesday stressing that the plan has not received final sign off from the White House and that “any information that speculates what is included in the plan is premature.” However, he did not dispute the substance of POLITICO’s report.
“The agency is committed to following the Safe Drinking Water Act process for evaluating new drinking water standards, which is just one of the many components of the draft plan that is currently undergoing interagency review,” Ross said.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the top Democrat on the environment committee, said he thought Wheeler could still be pressured to change the agency’s decision on a drinking water standard.
“I don’t think the last part of the play has been written on that,” Carper told reporters. “He’s going to hear that from a lot of people — Democrats and Republicans. There’s a lot of concern.”
Carper said the issue was important to Republicans, many of whom are dealing with significant drinking water contamination issues in their states.
“They care about it as much as we do,” Carper said. “It’s an important issue [to Wheeler’s confirmation]. I think there’s a growing realization that that’s the case.”
Controversy around the same class of chemicals already helped derail one Trump EPA nominee. In 2017, North Carolina’s two Republican senators came out in opposition to Michael Dourson’s nomination to head EPA’s chemical safety office, forcing his withdrawal.
Dourson, a toxicologist with a reputation for minimizing chemicals’ risks, had led a panel that in 2002 recommended a safety threshold to the state of West Virginia that was 150 times higher than chemical company DuPont's own internal limit for its employees. It was also thousands of times higher than the standard EPA later endorsed in 2016.
One senator who could face increased political pressure over the chemicals is Colorado Republican Cory Gardner, who is up for reelection in 2020 and whose state has its own contamination problems. He told POLITICO he expected there would be a federal role in regulating the chemicals, but he wanted to see the results of a health study included in the fiscal 2018 National Defense Authorization Act.
“I think it’s very important that we get as much information as we can and then act appropriately,” he said.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), the only Democrat still in the Senate who backed Wheeler’s nomination as deputy administrator last year, told POLITICO the revelations concerned him and vowed to demand answers.
Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), the Democratic co-chair of Fitzpatrick’s chemical task force, called the decision not to regulate the two substances "almost incomprehensible."
"I think it just increases the need for Congress to act," Kildee told POLITICO.
Meanwhile, three senior members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee — Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chair Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) and Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee Chairman Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) — used the news to renew a requestfor documents, originally made in May 2018, concerning efforts by EPA political appointees to block a safety hazard study focused on that class of chemicals.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2019/01/epas-chemical-decision-worries-republicans-1129824

Return to headline | Return to top
Ill. Lawmakers Alarmed Over 'Unusual' EPA Assessment

Jan 30, 2019 | E&E Daily

By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder

Democratic members of the Illinois congressional delegation yesterday called out EPA for what they dubbed an "unusual" risk assessment of one chemical that included a request for public comment on a different one.
The residual risk and technology assessment of hydrochloric acid, which was published in December, invited the public to comment on the risk value of cancer-causing ethylene oxide.
"We are alarmed by this troubling information request that appears to be a transparent invitation for the public — including chemical industries — to weaken EPA's forthcoming rules intended to protect Illinoisans and Americans from elevated levels of cancer risk resulting from exposure to ethylene oxide," the lawmakers said in a letter to acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler.
Ethylene oxide is a flammable, colorless gas that is used in the production of solvents and antifreeze. EPA classifies it as a human carcinogen.
The lawmakers suggested EPA's actions would please the chemical industry.
"On behalf of our constituents and communities across the country, we strongly urge you to publicly commit to at least preserving, if not strengthening, EPA's current risk value of [ethylene oxide]," the lawmakers wrote.
EPA did not respond to a request for comment on the letter, signed by Sens. Tammy Duckworth and Dick Durbin, as well as Reps. Dan Lipinski, Sean Casten, Brad Schneider and Bill Foster.
Earlier this month, Duckworth, Durbin and Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) asked the EPA inspector general to launch an investigation into EPA after getting information alleging that EPA senior political appointees told career civil servants to avoid conducting inspections on facilities that emit ethylene oxide in EPA's Region 5.
Duckworth questioned Wheeler on the subject during his Senate Environment and Public Works Committee nomination hearing earlier this month (Greenwire, Jan. 17).
EPA has denied Duckworth's accusations, saying, "In no way has there been any political interference from any EPA staff."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/01/30/stories/1060118963

Return to headline | Return to top
Hidden Sterigenics Chemical Cancer Assessment Worries Democrats (1)

Jan 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Amena H. Saiyid

EPA seeks comment on use of elevated carcinogenic risk posed by ethylene oxide
Illinois Democrats ask why EPA seeking comment in a separate proposal
The EPA’s latest assessment of a carcinogenic medical sterilizer causing concerns outside Chicago is tucked in an unrelated agency rule, which could keep people affected by the chemical from commenting on it, Illinois lawmakers warned.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s latest ethylene oxide assessment, which found that the substance is at least 50 to 60 times more carcinogenic than previously thought, was included in its proposal to keep toxic air pollution standards for facilities producing hydrochloric acid.
The Democrats accused acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler in a Jan. 29 letter of hiding the latest cancer assessment in the air pollution standards for a “tangentially related chemical.”
Hydrochloric acid production facilities also emit ethylene oxide.
“We are alarmed by this troubling information request that appears to be a transparent invitation for the public—including chemical industries—to weaken EPA’s forthcoming rules intended to protect Illinoisans and Americans from elevated levels of cancer risk resulting from exposure to ethylene oxide,” the lawmakers said in a Jan. 30 statement.
The EPA didn’t respond to a Bloomberg Environment email seeking comment.
Congressional Interest Piqued
The Illinois Democrats involved in writing the letter are Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth as well as Reps. Dan Lipinski, Sean Casten, Brad Schneider, and Bill Foster.
Recently, Duckworth, Durbin, and Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, have been wary of the EPA’s efforts to set stricter standards for medical sterilization facilities that use ethylene oxide, particularly the Sterigenics U.S. LLC facility in Willowbrook, Ill., outside of Chicago.
Sterigenics has said its emissions of ethylene oxide are well within federal standards.
“Today we learned that the EPA has betrayed us. They were actively working behind closed doors to WEAKEN our protections and invited the industry to assist them in doing so,” Neringa Zymancius, spokeswoman for the community advocacy group Stop Sterigenics, a group calling for the Willowbrook facility to close due to health concerns, said in a statement.
Ten days ago, the senators asked Wheeler to explain why EPA Region 5, which includes Chicago, had stopped inspecting medical sterilization facilities for Clean Air Act violations.
Members of Illinois’s congressional delegation and the state itself have also been after the EPA to tighten air pollution standards for medical sterilization facilities like Sterigenics.
In August 2018, the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry reported an “elevated cancer risk” among residents and off-site workers in the Willowbrook community around the Sterigenics facility.
—With assistance from Stephen Joyce
(Updates with comment from the community advocacy group Stop Sterigenics.)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/hidden-sterigenics-chemical-cancer-assessment-worries-democrats-1

Return to headline | Return to top
House Democrat Adds Chemical Contamination to Flint Water Work

Jan 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Tiffany Stecker

Dan Kildee leads effort to protect Americans from perfluorinated chemicals in drinking water
Congressman helped bring millions of dollars to Flint, Mich., to replace lead pipes
Three years ago, the simmering water crisis in Flint, Mich., boiled over onto the national stage, putting Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.) front and center. He spoke frequently on the public health disaster involving lead in the city’s water supply.
Today, Kildee, 60, is raising the alarm on another chemical in drinking water.
He is one of the leaders of a bipartisan task force of lawmakers seeking to bring attention to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS. The chemicals have been found in groundwater supplies around the country, especially around military installations.
“We’re kind of at the front end of what we think is going to be a really big story for a really long time,” Kildee told Bloomberg Environment.
While lead is a long-standing challenge for water utilities, PFAS are a relatively new and little-understood class of chemicals.
The molecular building blocks for firefighting foam and nonstick coatings in clothing, fast-food wrappers, carpets, and other products, the chemicals can cause liver damage, immune system problems, and changes in cholesterol, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
After news reports said EPA had decided not to pursue drinking water regulations for a pair of PFAS chemicals, Kildee said Jan. 29 that the Trump administration was endangering public health. He called for a national drinking water standard for the chemicals.
“While the Trump administration has claimed it wants to address PFAS, they have been all talk and no action,” Kildee said in a statement. “Even the Trump administration’s own studies have identified how dangerous PFAS chemicals are, yet they refuse to act.”
Task Force Creation
The task force, which Kildee is leading with Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), was created to help push legislation on scientific research, regulations, and spending to curb PFAS contamination.
The advisory level for two types of PFAS chemicals set by the EPA is 70 parts per trillion, but that level isn’t legally enforceable.
Members of the task force include Rep. Antonio Delgado (D-N.Y.), whose district covers Hoosick Falls, N.Y., where groundwater was contaminated by PFAS, and 10 lawmakers from Michigan, where high levels of PFAS were found near Parchment, Mich.
‘Outstanding’ Advocate
Kildee’s quiet, understated persona has taken him far in his six years in Congress. He came to advocate for economic revitalization and serves on committees that handle money issues: Budget, and Ways and Means.
In endorsing him for re-election in 2018, environmental group Clean Water Action described him and fellow Michigan Democrat Debbie Dingell as “outstanding advocates for our environment and the Great Lakes.”
He joined the Flint Board of Education in 1977 when he was just 18. After a failed bid to be mayor of the city, he was elected Genesee County treasurer and later co-founded a nonprofit to revitalize poor communities.
He was elected to represent Michigan’s 5th District in 2012 after his uncle, Dale Kildee, retired from the seat after 36 years.
Flint Water Work
When the city switched its water source from Lake Huron to the Flint River in 2014, it failed to treat the water with the required anti-corrosive chemicals. The water ate away at lead service lines to residents’ homes, raising the levels of the toxic metal in tap water up to 26 times the legal limit.
Lead exposure can lead to significant developmental delays and organ damage. Public health officials agree that no level of lead is safe, although the EPA sets the legal threshold at 15 parts per billion.
Kildee worked with lawmakers to pass a $170 million package in a water infrastructure bill to help replace Flint’s lead pipes and create health programs. He hopes that all lead service lines will be complete by the end of the year.
Kildee is also pushing to restart the delivery of bottled water until the lead pipes are completely gone. Former Gov. Rick Snyder (R) halted the deliveries last April, citing improved water quality.
“We felt like, no matter what the science is telling us about the quality of the water, people in Flint won’t trust the water until the pipes are replaced,” Kildee said.
This Member Spotlight appeared in today’s First Move, which is delivered at 7:45 a.m. weekdays.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/house-democrat-adds-chemical-contamination-to-flint-water-work

Return to headline | Return to top
NGO Preparing Analysis Of Science-Policy Interface For Saicm

Jan 30, 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; andsix 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; andan 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

Return to headline | Return to top
Safer Chemicals Group Targets Restaurant Chains

Jan 30, 2019 | Inside EPA

Safer chemicals advocates are focusing their push for reducing sales of products containing toxic chemicals on fast food chains, blaming chemicals in food packaging for learning disabilities and other health effects, while reiterating calls for EPA to finalize an Obama-era ban on certain paint strippers, noting slow progress in retail stores’ voluntary efforts.
“Restaurant chains are serving up a recipe for poor health by failing to slash the use of toxic chemicals in food packaging and other food contact materials,” Safer Chemicals Healthy Families said in their recent report, “Who’s Minding the Store? A Report Card on Retailer Actions to Eliminate Toxic Chemicals."
Advocates say one in six children suffer from learning disabilities and that more than one quarter of those disabilities are linked to chemical exposures.
In a statement accompanying the report, the group cites 10 fast food chains, including McDonald’s, Panera, and Starbucks, as failing to keep up with other types of retailers in limiting toxic exposures.
“Chain restaurants were analyzed for the first time this year and significantly lagged behind other retailers in reducing chemical hazards,” the advocates say.
“These companies have been slow to announce chemicals policies and to publicly address toxic chemicals, such as phthalates and [per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)], in packaging and other food contact materials."
Safer Chemicals Healthy Families’ focus on fast food packaging comes after the group won commitments last year from major hardware retailers to stop sales of paint strippers containing either methylene chloride, or the alternative chemical, n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP).
But the group Jan. 25 announced a recent survey that found many outlets have failed to entirely remove the products from store shelves, and argues the delay highlights the need for EPA to finalize the Obama administration’s proposed Toxic Substances Control Act section 6 ban on use of methylene chloride
Advocates say that 62 percent of retailers surveyed are still selling at least some paint stripping products containing either methylene chloride or NMP, despite the retailers’ pledges to phase out sales of the products by the end of 2018.
“This discovery underscores the fact that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MUST fulfill its obligations under the law to fully ban the use of these chemicals in paint strippers in order to protect the health and safety of all Americans,” a representative of Safer Chemicals Healthy Families says in the statement.
But the Trump administration has given mixed signals on whether EPA will ban the use of methylene chloride as proposed.
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler during a Jan. 16 hearing on his nomination before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee said that he hopes to publish a long-awaited final rule addressing methylene chloride soon after the government reopens.
But the final draft of that rule sent for White House Office of Management & Budget review Dec. 21 was accompanied by a proposed training program to limit commercial exposures to methylene chloride in paint strippers, suggesting that the agency may retreat from the Obama-era plan to prohibit the use outright.
Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, along with the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, and mothers whose sons were killed while working with paint strippers containing methylene chloride sued EPA Jan. 14 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont seeking to compel EPA to finalize the ban as the Obama EPA proposed.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/safer-chemicals-group-targets-restaurant-chains

Return to headline | Return to top
How And When Will FDA Rule On Ortho-Phthalates In Food? It’s Anyone’s Guess.

Jan 29, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Tom Neltner

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has yet to decide three overlapping petitions requesting the agency take action on uses of ortho-phthalates in contact with food. Two of the petitions—a food additive petition and a citizen petition—were submitted by EDF, Earthjustice and nine other public health allies. In those petitions, we requested the revocation of all uses of this class of chemicals in food because the agency can no longer conclude that such use is safe. The law required FDA to make a decision by no later than September 2018; that deadline has long since come and gone, and the agency hasn’t acted.
The third petition was submitted by the Flexible Vinyl Alliance, an industry group. It requested that the agency revoke the food additive uses of 26 ortho-phthalates because, according to FDA’s notice, they had been abandoned. The agency agreed to review the petition in July 2018 and invited public comment on it in November 2018. Public comments were due on January 14, 2019.
In a press release about its petition, the industry group announced that only four ortho-phthalates “remain relevant in food contact applications”: di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), diisononyl phthalate (DINP), dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP) and diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP). It also stated that it confidentially provided the agency with exposure and safety data on these four substances. The agency has made neither the industry’s petition nor the safety data on the four ortho-phthalates publicly available. We submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking industry’s “confidential” report and more information on the petition. We await a response.
What do the petitions from EDF and other public health advocates request?
In our petitions, we showed that ortho-phthalates are a class of chemically- and pharmacologically-related substances associated with reproductive, developmental, and endocrine health effects. We demonstrated that, when the cumulative effect of these chemicals in the diet are considered as required by law, the FDA cannot conclude their use as food contact substances (FCS) is safe. Given these health risks, we asked FDA to remove all food uses it had previously approved including those for paper, plastic, adhesives, coatings, and metal lubricants.
We also asked that FDA explicitly prohibit use of eight ortho-phthalates that an expert panel convened by the Consumer Product Safety Commission concluded were not safe to use in toys that children put in their mouths, reasoning that if the chemicals are not safe in such toys, they have no place in children’s food.
What does the industry claim in its petition?
The Flexible Vinyl Alliance’s food additive petition claims that some or all of the uses of 26 ortho-phthalates were permanently abandoned. If accepted by FDA, the petition would necessarily affect the cumulative risk assessment necessary to decide our pending food additive petition and our citizen petition. While it is a positive step that industry is abandoning uses of some of these endocrine disrupting chemicals, it was not a surprise.
Industry has taken a similar approach to our previous food additive petitions, seeking to moot parts of our petition and narrow the scope of the discussion. For instance, FDA accepted an abandonment petition on the use of styrene as a flavor while reviewing our carcinogenic flavors petition, enabling the industry to avoid a declaration by the agency that styrene was a carcinogen. For our perchlorate petition, FDA accepted another industry abandonment petition to narrow the focus of the exposure assessment.
Nine, not four, ortho-phthalates remain allowed for use in food contact materials
As we reviewed the FDA summary of the industry petition, we struggled to clearly understand what uses were covered. By comparing the list of ortho-phthalates in our petition to those the industry claimed were abandoned, we found that nine – not four – remain allowed for use. The nine are in the table below.
We were also disappointed to see that industry is actively using in food contact materials three ortho-phthalates banned from use in children’s toys by CPSC. It is a good example of regulatory dysfunction since CPSC’s expert panel determined that most of children’s exposure was from food.Phthalate Name and CASRNFDA approved uses not covered by industry petitionIndustry claimCPSC actionDicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP)
(84-61-7)Adhesives, paper, paperboard, plastics, polymersIndustry acknowledged use as FCS is active.CPSC banned from children’s toys.Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)
(117-81-7)Adhesives, coatings, resins, paper, paperboard, sealing gaskets, metal lubricants, defoaming agents, plastics, and polymersIndustry acknowledged use as FCS is active.CPSC banned from children’s toys.Diisononyl phthalate (DINP)
(28553-12-0)Plastics and polymersIndustry acknowledged use as FCS is active.CPSC banned from children’s toys.Diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP)
(26761-40-0)Adhesives, coatings; sealing gaskets, rubber, metal lubricantsIndustry acknowledged use as FCS is active.--Diallyl phthalate (DAP)
(131-17-9)Reactant in paper and paperboardIndustry did not address this use.--Diethyl phthalate (DEP)
(84-66-2)Plastics and polymersIndustry did not address this use.--Diisooctyl phthalate (DIOP)
(27554-26-3)Plastics and polymersIndustry did not address this use.--Ethyl phthalyl ethyl glycolate (EPEG)
(84-72-0)Plastics and polymersIndustry did not address this use.--Butyl phthalyl butyl glycolate (BPBG)
(85-70-1)Plastics and polymersIndustry did not address this use.--
The industry’s petition most likely did not address the use of DEP, DIOP, EPEG, and BPBG, and DEHP in plastics and polymers because the uses were sanctioned prior to 1958 and, therefore, technically they are not food additives due to a quirk in the law. The DAP use was most likely not addressed because the approval is for a chemical reacted to make another chemical and not added directly to food contact articles. However, as all of these uses remain approved, the agency must assume that they are ongoing. We made this point clear in our comments.
Furthermore, as we demonstrate in our petitions, exposure to any one of three of the ortho-phthalates that industry has not claimed to have abandoned (DEHP, DINP, or DIDP) is estimated to exceed the acceptable daily intake for ortho-phthalates. Logically, cumulative exposure to all nine ortho-phthalates exceeds this limit even if industry abandons some uses. The industry petition in no way lets FDA off the hook.
Ortho-phthalates in food handling equipment not clearly explained in industry petition
Many of the FDA-approved uses of ortho-phthalates involve food handling equipment such as conveyors, tubing, pumps, meters, tanks, chutes, and other equipment installed in facilities. Each of these uses may release ortho-phthalates into the food.
For a chemical use to qualify as abandoned, industry must not only cease to manufacture or sell the equipment containing it, but also no longer use any such existing equipment in contact with food. However, based on FDA’s Federal Register notice, the Flexible Vinyl Alliance appears not to have clearly demonstrated that the installed equipment containing ortho-phthalate-laden plastic was abandoned. This is important given the long life-expectancy of some types of food handling equipment.
In our comments, we raised this concern and advised FDA that if it accepts the abandonment claim, then any company using installed equipment containing ortho-phthalates that come in contact with food would be violating the law. We therefore requested that when publishing the final rule, FDA explicitly state that continued use of installed equipment with abandoned ortho-phthalates that come into contact with food is unlawful and the food processed with such equipment would be adulterated.
Alternately, FDA could narrow the abandonment claim to only future equipment. However, the agency must then continue to count the estimated migration of ortho-phthalates into food from each and every contact with the installed equipment as part of its evaluation of the safety of the remaining ortho-phthalates. This would mean that FDA cannot consider these uses to be abandoned.
FDA’s failure to share relevant documents with the public
FDA did not publish a copy of the Flexible Vinyl Alliance’s petition when it requested comment, most likely because the industry did not grant permission. This decision made it difficult to clearly understand how thorough or rigorous industry efforts were to confirm that uses were actually abandoned as it claimed.
In addition, FDA has not yet responded to our FOIA request for the industry’s “confidential” exposure and safety data that it submitted regarding the use of the four ortho-phthalates it considers relevant. Without that information, we are unable to evaluate the relevance to our petitions and make well-informed comments. In the comments we did submit, we state that both FDA and the industry must be more transparent with their documents and their analyses.
FDA delayed publishing the public notice despite statutory mandate to act
Once FDA agrees to consider a food additive petition like the one filed by the Flexible Vinyl Alliance or by EDF and its allies, the law directs the agency to publish a Federal Register notice within 30 days[1] and make a final decision within 180 days.[2] For the industry petition, the clock started on July 3, 2018, and a final decision was due on December 31, 2018. However, despite the law, FDA did not publish the notice until November 14, 2018 and the deadline for comments was January 14, 2018 – two weeks after the statutory deadline for action by FDA.
The delay in publishing the notice raises questions about the seriousness with which FDA takes these statutory deadlines. In our comments, we encouraged FDA to make timely decisions consistent with the statute.
Summary
In our petitions, we showed that ortho-phthalates as a class are not safe for use in food. Given the risks they pose, FDA has a duty to act. The first step is to make timely decisions – yet the agency is more than four months past due the September 2018 deadline.
To the extent that the Flexible Vinyl Alliance petition advances the agency’s decision on our petitions, we appreciate the effort. However, from what we can tell from the Federal Register notice, the industry appears to have underestimated the potential exposure from the remaining uses and left unresolved whether the abandonment includes ongoing uses in installed food handling equipment, and if not, how the agency intends to handle such uses.
Regardless of the effect of the industry petition on our efforts, it is certainly time for FDA to rule on whether to revoke its approval for all food contact uses of ortho-phthalates. The clock is ticking.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/01/29/fda-ortho-phthalates-food-anyones-guess/

Return to headline | Return to top
China Floats Plan for Chemical Management, Like Europe’s

Jan 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Michael Standaert

Proposal has ‘REACH-like’ elements, but would differ from EU regulation
Feb. 20 deadline for company input
A proposed chemical regulation could impose additional requirements for companies that manufacture, process, use, import, or export new and existing chemical substances into China.
The draft Chemical Environmental Risk Assessment and Control Regulation, if adopted, would have wide-ranging effects on environmental risk policies related to the management of chemical substances.
Under the proposed regulation, producers, manufacturers, and importers would have to report the identity, quantity, and uses of chemical substances annually.
In addition, they would have to report emissions data, local environmental impacts, and toxicology information for chemical substances on the list of priority chemicals.
“China is doing what it must do to manage new and existing chemicals to protect the environment and human health, just like the EU and Korea and many more,” said Lynn Liang, a regulatory analyst at chemicals consultancy ChemLinked in Hangzhou.
Feb. 20 Company Input Deadline
But when the regulation might be finalized and adopted is unclear.
Li Heng, a senior associate of JSM Beijing Representative Office, said she “did not expect” a rapid process for finalizing the regulation.
The proposal will undergo several rounds of drafting before being presented for final approval by the State Council, the country’s top decision-making body.
“No one can say it for sure [when the draft will be finalized],” said Liang, adding that companies involved with chemicals should be looking over the draft regulations and providing feedback by the Feb. 20 deadline.
Old Policy
China’s current chemicals policy, MEP Order No. 7, focuses only on environmental risk management for new substances. The draft regulation, released Jan. 11, addresses how environmental risk would be assessed for both new and existing substances. New chemical substances are those that are not included in the Inventory of Chemical Substances of China.
Including both existing and new substances under one overarching program has drawn comparisons to the European Union’s REACH regulation (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the restriction, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals.)
“I would still say that the draft regulation has certain REACH-like elements, but it should not be considered as China REACH, considering the various differences even for the environmental risk assessment and control front,” Li told Bloomberg Environment.
Environmental risk is defined as the degree and probability that a chemical substance will cause harmful effects on the ecological environment and human health. Unlike REACH, China has a separate regulation known as Decree 591 that covers other, non-environmental aspects of chemical regulation, including workplace safety and health; REACH encompasses all areas of regulating chemical substances.
Reporting Requirements
Under the proposed regulation, both new and existing substances in China would have annual reporting requirements once the regulation is in place. In the EU, REACH does not require regular annual reports.
To register new substances, manufacturers, users, and importers would have to include “a general description on the procedure and data requirements of the registration filing process, but this might be changed during the legislative procedure,” Li said, with detailed requirements coming at a later date.
China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment would establish the ultimate technical guidance, procedures, and database for environmental impact assessments of chemical substances.
The draft regulation would not apply to substances used for laboratory scale research or as reference standards, except for when new chemical substances are manufactured or imported in quantities of more than 100 kilograms (220 pounds) annually.
But it would apply to all other chemical substances, no matter their weight; the EU’s REACH excludes registration for chemicals that are manufactured in quantities of less than 1 metric ton a year.
No Copying
“According to my communications with the relevant authorities, it is never their intention to ‘copy and paste’ the legal requirements of the other countries, but they would normally study such foreign requirements very carefully and assess if any of them could be also applied in China or not,” Li said.
China will basically have two regulatory systems on new and existing chemicals. Consequently, regulatory requirements for manufacturers, users, and importers will likely increase, but at this stage it is “difficult to determine” what they will be since the final procedure and data requirements for annual reporting aren’t known yet, Li said.
The environment ministry will publish work plans at a later date for risk assessment of priority control chemical substances that are persistent, bioaccumulative, or pose a high risk to human health or the environment.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/china-floats-plan-for-chemical-management-like-europes

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

Demand, Regulatory Headwinds Seen Slowing U.S. NGL Export Growth

Jan 30, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Leticia Gonzales

After growing by an estimated 600,000 b/d in 2018, natural gas liquids are expected to see a slower pace of growth in the next couple of years amid...
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/117223-demand-regulatory-headwinds-seen-slowing-us-ngl-export-growth

Return to headline | Return to top
New EPA Policy Would Offer Alternative To Penalties For Some Oil, Gas Polluters

Jan 30, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Miranda Green

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) office of enforcement will soon unveil a new finalized audit policy that will offer significant new penalty reductions for the oil and gas industry, according to two internal memos obtained by The Hill.
The New Owner Clean Air Act Audit Program, tailored specifically for oil and natural gas producers, will focus on offering more flexibility to new company owners who choose to self-audit their emissions and report any failures to meet EPA’s regulations, according to the December draft memos for the new policy.
The policy originally was slated to be rolled out in late December but was delayed due to the partial government shutdown, according to an EPA source with knowledge.
"Policy finalization has been delayed; we can provide more details when we have a final policy to announce,” an EPA spokesperson said of the rule.
The flexibilities include giving new owners of oil and gas companies nine months since the company is acquired to come forward to the EPA and announce any emissions issues they believe may exist. That’s an increase from the six months the agency first proposed in its original draft template of the rule.
Companies would also be given 180 days from the date of discovery to correct the emissions issue. The previous draft gave companies 60 days.
The policy proposal was first reported by The Hill and unveiled last April.
The changes come after EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) received feedback from oil and gas industry players who thought the previous timeline was too burdensome.
“People in industry were concerned that the corrections were too onerous for them and asked, ‘Why would we sign up for this? You are asking for us to do more than the law requires,' ” said the EPA source, referring to the Clean Air Act. “And the answer is, you get more generous protection, you get more time, because we recognize some of these facilities need it.”
The new policy will also allow for 100-percent penalty mitigation for any company that opts into the audit. That could mean millions of dollars in savings for noncompliant companies that, if caught not meeting EPA standards outside an audit, could face steep fines.
The idea of the program is to increase polluter compliance on the front end. The expectation is that companies will choose to self-audit and fix their problems rather than wait for EPA to conduct its own investigation, which could lead to a costly and lengthy legal battle.
In one draft memo addressing “implementation considerations,” EPA’s enforcement office promised that oil and gas companies who choose to enter in the program will be offered “penalty reductions beyond those provided” in EPA’s general audit policy for all categories of polluters.
Another draft memorandum issued from head of OECA Susan Bodine, with the subject “Oil and Natural Gas Exploration and Production Facilities New Owner Audit Program Finalization,” explains that the new policy is meant to “reduce transaction costs and improve efficiencies for the EPA and participating New Owners.”
“The EPA expects that this voluntary program will be environmentally protective and efficient while providing certainty in the upstream oil and natural gas exploration and production sector based on the EPA’s analyses of the sector’s operations,” Bodine wrote.
“New Owners have a unique opportunity to focus on, and invest in, making a clean start at newly acquired upstream oil and natural gas exploration and production facilities by proactively addressing Clean Air Act compliance issues. Most importantly, this Program provides an opportunity to achieve timely and cost-effective public health and environmental protections, and Clean Air Act compliance.”
Since 1995, the EPA has offered incentives to industries who choose to self-audit their potential pollution. Under the policy, called “Incentives for SelfPolicing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correction and Prevention of Violations,” companies that find they are breaking the law and report it to EPA promptly, and then fix the problem, will get certain fee exemptions. Another policy from 2008 offers exemptions to owners who buy any type of company or plant and find during an audit that the previous owners were not in compliance with environmental regulations.
One area the new program will specifically focus on is jumpstarting more compliance in tank vapor control systems at upstream oil and natural gas exploration production systems, of which the agency has seen an uptick in noncompliance.
The program goes hand in hand with the Trump administration’s push to entice emitters to comply with environmental regulations outside of the legal system. Since Trump took over, the number of polluters fined by the EPA and the settlement amount entered into has plummeted. EPA’s inspector general and the Government Accountability Office are both investigating the drop.
It’s anticipated that EPA’s 2018 numbers will be even lower.
A letter Bodine wrote to staff in early February highlighted the EPA's new approach to polluters.
“Some outside entities that are unfamiliar with the true nature of our work here in OECA and have tried to measure the worth of what you do simply through the dollar amount of federal penalties and the number of federal case initiations,” Bodine wrote in the office-wide email, reviewed by The Hill.
“However it is also important for EPA to help and, if necessary, persuade states to take actions to address violations and informal actions can bring about a return to compliance more quickly.”
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/427498-new-epa-policy-would-offer-alternative-to-penalties-for-some-oil

Return to headline | Return to top
Exxon OK's Project To Nearly Double Size Of Texas Refinery: Sources

Jan 30, 2019 | Reuters (In E&E Energywire)

By Erwin Seba

Exxon Mobil Corp. has signed off on a plan that would make its Beaumont, Texas, refinery the largest in the United States, according to two sources.
The project would add a crude distillation unit, making the refinery capable of processing an additional 250,000 to 350,000 barrels of light crude per day.
The expansion would give the plant a total capacity of 615,644 barrels per day, surpassing the 603,000 bpd capacity of the Motiva Enterprises LLC refinery in Port Arthur, Texas, which is currently the largest in the United States.
"It has been approved," a source said about the Beaumont refinery's expansion. Exxon employees have been asked not to share news of the approval.
The company hasn't said how much the expansion is expected to cost.
Sarah Nordin, an Exxon spokeswoman, confirmed in October that a final decision on the project hadn't been reached, but work to prepare the site had started.
On Monday, Nordin said she didn't have any status updates on the project (Erwin Seba, Reuters, Jan. 28). — CC
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/01/30/stories/1060118903

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Herrera Beutler Moves To Reinstate Rail Safety Rules

Jan 30, 2019 | The Columbian

By Katy Sword

Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Battle Ground, has reintroduced a bill to reinstate oil train safety regulations. The rules, implemented by the Obama administration in 2015, were rolled back last year.
The regulations required trains carrying oil or other flammable materials to update air-controlled braking systems with electronic brakes. But the U.S. Department of Transportation previously determined the cost to outfit trains with new braking systems outweighed the safety benefit.
Herrera Beutler first introduced the bill, known as the Oil and Flammable Material Rail Transportation Safety Act, to bring back the safety requirements in October.
“With trains carrying hazardous materials through Southwest Washington, it is paramount we increase safety for the nearby communities,” Herrera Beutler said in a press release. “I’m committed to reversing the decision by the U.S. Department of Transportation to ease this critical safety regulation, and reinstating the braking upgrade requirement for trains carrying flammable liquids.”
The Washington State Department of Ecology classifies Southwest Washington as a major oil train corridor, with hundreds of millions of gallons of crude oil moving through the region each year.
“As a community that has oil trains regularly running through our commercial areas, neighborhoods and downtown, Vancouver is very supportive and appreciative of Congresswoman Herrera Beutler’s efforts to reinstate the requirement that oil trains transition to the much more effective electronic pneumatic brakes,” Vancouver Mayor Anne McEnerny-Ogle said in a press release.
https://www.columbian.com/news/2019/jan/29/herrera-beutler-moves-to-reinstate-rail-safety-rules/

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

New Mexico Pledges to Slash Emissions Even as Permian Oil Booms

Jan 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Kevin Crowley

Governor’s executive order aims to reduce greenhouse gases
Pledge to cut 45 percent by 2030 may be challenged by surging shale
The governor of New Mexico signed an executive order Jan. 29 requiring the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at least 45 percent by 2030, potentially hampering fossil fuel production in the Permian Basin, the world’s biggest shale oil field.
The order brings New Mexico into the U.S. Climate Alliance, a group of states pledging to uphold the Paris climate agreement, which President Donald Trump withdrew from in 2017, a spokeswoman for Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) said by phone.
Enormous amounts of natural gas are produced alongside oil in the Permian, which straddles Texas and New Mexico. Given the basin’s staggering production growth, there often aren’t enough pipelines to take away this gas, so it’s routinely burned through flaring, which produces carbon dioxide. The more oil is produced, the more flaring tends to take place.
Grisham’s pledge to reduce emissions therefore potentially puts the state in conflict with oil and gas producers. Her move was welcomed by the Environmental Defense Fund, a nonprofit which supports the Paris climate goals.
“By prioritizing actions to cut oil and gas emissions, the Governor is also seizing an opportunity to protect air quality and limit energy waste that could otherwise increase funding for education,” Fred Krupp, president of the EDF, said in a statement.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/new-mexico-pledges-to-slash-emissions-even-as-permian-oil-booms

Return to headline | Return to top
New Mexico Governor Moves to Limit Methane Emissions, Combat Climate Change

Jan 30, 2019 | Reuters (In The New York Times)

By Laila Kearney and Jennifer Hiller

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham on Tuesday ordered state officials to develop regulations to reduce methane emissions from its oil and gas industry and separately rollback statewide greenhouse gas output over the next decade.
The New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department and Environment Department were directed to enact methane emission reduction "rules as soon as practicable," the executive order said.
Lujan Grisham, a recently-elected Democrat, campaigned on the promise of tightening environmental guidelines for the southwestern state's fossil fuels sector.
As home to part of the booming Permian Basin oil hub, New Mexico has doubled its oil output in recent years to become one of the top crude-producing states.
In her executive order, the governor also formed a task force to develop a plan to curb the state's greenhouse gas emissions by 45 percent from 2005 levels by the year 2030. The group is set to release its initial recommendations by Sept. 15.
Additionally, Lujan Grisham announced New Mexico has joined a group of governors, known as the U.S. Climate Alliance, electing to uphold the Paris climate agreement despite President Donald Trump's decision to remove the United States from the pact.
Also on Tuesday, a New Mexico lawmaker filed legislation, backed by Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard, to increase the royalty rate on 9 million acres of state land.
The bill would increase the state's typical 12.5 to 20 percent royalty to match Texas' 25 percent royalty, though it would target only the top performing wells. The higher royalty rate would kick in for oil wells when production reaches 20,000 barrels per month.
The bill would also require companies to pay royalties when natural gas is flared or vented - something that is common when new oil wells come online but gas pipelines are not in place.
Garcia Richard’s office noted in a news release that the state loses around $1 million per month on unpaid royalties due to venting and flaring.
The bill would only impact new oil and gas leases that the state negotiates.
(Reporting by Laila Kearney in New York and Jennifer Hiller in Houston; editing by Diane Craft)
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/01/30/world/americas/30reuters-new-mexico-regulation-energy.html

Return to headline | Return to top
ExxonMobil And Shell Lead As Counterparts Lag On EPA's First Methane Rollback Proposal

Jan 29, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund.

By Ben Ratner and Rosalie Winn

Methane emissions from the American oil and gas industry waste valuable resources, accelerate climate change and severely cloud the credibility of natural gas in the low carbon transition. Unfortunately, Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has proposed to weaken standards limiting pollution from new and modified oil and gas facilities.
Companies across the value chain with a stake in the future of gas have an incentive to urge continued—and enhanced—nationwide methane regulation that helps industry as a whole improve. As EPA reportedly considers issuing an even more extreme, second proposal to eliminate methane regulation, some industry responses include promising signs of leadership that underscore just how out of step this administration’s attacks have been. Other responses (and non-responses) from industry have been more discouraging in supporting regulatory rollbacks that will increase harmful emissions and further call into question the role of natural gas as investors, customers and others demand cleaner energy.
ExxonMobil calls for continued EPA methane regulation
Importantly, ExxonMobil filed comments with EPA noting the company’s support for “federal regulatory standards to mitigate methane emissions for both new and existing source oil and gas facilities,” and urging EPA to “continue” to regulate methane. Exxon also expressed support for comments submitted by the American Petroleum Institute (API) that call for a loosening of the current leak detection and repair requirements for new sources.
Although EDF strongly disagrees with the API comments, Exxon deserves recognition for becoming the first company to call for continued EPA methane regulation. This aspect of Exxon’s comments supports its prior public commitment to advocate for methane regulation (BP, Chevron, Equinor and Shell are among those who have made the identical commitment) and position Exxon as an important voice against rollbacks in 2019 and beyond.
hell supports continuation of twice-yearly leak inspections
With EPA proposing to weaken leak detection and repair frequency, Shell explained that from its experience, “a continuation of semiannual survey frequency is reasonable for the reduction of fugitive emissions from…affected sources.” By supporting continued twice yearly inspections, Shell showed leadership in becoming the only operator to oppose proposed EPA changes that would immediately increase emissions.
However, Shell stopped short of ExxonMobil by remaining quiet on the underlying need for continued federal regulation of methane, while noting its comments are intended to “complement” those submitted by API and other trade groups, which generally oppose federal methane regulation.
Other companies miss the mark
While some companies stepped up, others supported even more substantial rollbacks or stayed silent, letting lobbying from their trade associations’ lowest common denominator speak for them.
BP comments focused on innovative alternatives for compliance with leak detection standards, while largely ignoring the administration’s proposal to dramatically weaken the core standards themselves, and stopping short of Exxon’s call for continued federal methane regulation. EDF is committed to supporting efforts that incentivize innovative technologies and methodologies to achieve greater emissions reductions at even less cost. Unfortunately, EPA’s proposal to weaken the current core standards for leak detection—an essential element of a rigorous alternative compliance pathway—undermines incentives for innovation.
Other companies actively supported EPA’s proposed rollback and even more environmentally damaging actions. For instance, in its comments, Chevron urged EPA to adopt weaker standards, calling for EPA to implement “no more than an annual frequency for leak detection surveys.” Chevron asserted that increasing emissions with fewer inspections is an “appropriate tradeoff.”
And other companies with positive methane commitments, like Equinor, remained silent in the comment period, effectively allowing API to speak for them.
As the administration reportedly considers eliminating EPA regulation of methane for the oil and gas sector, companies like ExxonMobil and Shell have an opportunity to build on their initial leadership and support a responsible regulatory environment for climate and the future of American natural gas. Their upstream peers and companies across the value chain should join the call before it is too late.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2019/01/29/exxonmobil-and-shell-lead-an-industry-divide-on-trump-climate-rollback/

Return to headline | Return to top
Michigan Trash Incinerator Threatened With Air Pollution Lawsuit (2)

Jan 30, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Amena H. Saiyid

Michigan’s largest trash incinerator burns nearly one million tons of trash a year
High levels of carbon monoxide indicate incomplete combustion of trash, groups allege
Two environmental groups threatened the operators of Michigan’s largest trash incinerator, Detroit Renewable Power, with a lawsuit for releasing copious amounts of air pollution in downtown Detroit.
Environment Michigan and the Ecology Center Jan. 29 warned the Detroit Renewable Power LLC and Michigan Waste Energy Inc. that they will sue in 60 days unless the companies place pollution controls on the incinerator’s smokestacks.
The environmental groups allege that the incinerator, which burns nearly a million tons a year of solid waste to generate steam for heating and electricity, has amassed some 600 violations of federal limits on carbon monoxide—an odorless, colorless toxic gas—and ozone-forming nitrogen oxides over the past five years.
“Those pollutants impact those who live and work within two miles of the incinerator, which includes the Midtown and East side neighborhoods, Downtown, Wayne State University, the Detroit Institute of the Arts, and other Detroit cultural institutions,” the groups said in a Jan. 29 statement.
Detroit Renewable Energy LLC the parent company of Detroit Renewable Power, still hadn’t received the notice, “so we can’t comment at this time,” company spokeswoman Stacie Clayton told Bloomberg Environment.
If the companies fail to heed the warning, the environmental groups plan to ask the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to order the incinerator to meet its Clean Air Act permit obligations and to impose fines for past violations.
This isn’t the first time that Detroit Renewable Power has faced legal trouble under the Clean Air Act. In June 2017, it reached an agreement with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to resolve eight violations of unpermitted air pollution incidents. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
The nonprofits National Environmental Law Center and Great Lakes Environmental Law Center would represent the groups in the lawsuit.
“When the trash isn’t burned completely, the incinerator emits highly dangerous chemicals such as benzene, toluene, acrolein, and formaldehyde,” Nicholas Leonard, executive director for the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, said in a statement.
(Updated with comment from Detroit Renewable Energy LLC.)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/michigan-trash-incinerator-threatened-with-air-pollution-lawsuit-2

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested