ACC PM 21/02/19

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Global Caustic Soda Market is Expected to Expand Over a CAGR of 5.06% from 2018 to 2025 | BlueWeave Consulting

   Feb 21, 2019 | Honest Version

   By Sinha Laltu
   
   
2. Get Ready for Pushback in the War on Plastic

   Feb 21, 2019 | Treehugger

   By Lloyd Alter
   
   
   Petrochemicals are becoming increasingly important to the oil industry as cars go electric.

TSCA News

3. The Trump EPA is Throwing Workers Facing Risks from New TSCA Chemicals Under the Bus

   Feb 21, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund

   By Richard Denison
   
   
   We have blogged before (see here and here) about the steps initiated in mid-2018 by the Trump EPA to weaken new chemical reviews under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – rendering them even less health-protective than under TSCA prior to the 2016 reforms enacted in the Lautenberg Act.
4. US EPA Faces Second Lawsuit Over Methylene Chloride Delays

   Feb 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch

   A second group of NGOs has filed a lawsuit against the US EPA over its failure to finalise a rule banning methylene chloride paint strippers.
5. US EPA Round-Up

   Feb 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch

   The US EPA has issued a TSCA 5(a)(3)(c) finding for a polymer intended to be used as an industrial coating.

Chemical Management News

6. (ACC Mentioned) EPA Accused of Dragging Its Feet with Federal PFAS Management Plan

   Feb 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch

   By Lisa Martine Jenkins
   
   
   Stakeholders have said they are frustrated with a lack of concrete action steps in the US EPA's management plan for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs).
7. Cross-Sector Alliance Sets Out Chemical Reporting Objectives

   Feb 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch

   By Leigh Stringer
   
   
   Cross-sector industry group Proactive Alliance has published a "mission statement" setting out its plan to establish a global standard that will help companies report on substances in articles along the supply chain.
8. Johnson & Johnson Faces Federal Subpoenas Over Baby Powder

   Feb 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch

   By Kelly Franklin
   
   
   Consumer products multinational Johnson & Johnson has disclosed that it is being investigated by the US federal government over concerns that its talcum powder products cause cancer.
9. EDC Project Will Develop Methods for Female Reprotox Effects

   Feb 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch

   The EU has launched a five-year, €6 million research project to develop test methods for identifying endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) that cause adverse effects on female reproduction.
10. Echa Publishes Inventory of Additives in Plastics

    Feb 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch

    By Luke Buxton
    
    
    Echa has published information on 419 substances used as additives in plastics in the EU.
11. UK Companies Consider REACH Authorisation Transfer Ahead of Brexit

    Feb 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch

    By Clelia Oziel
    
    
    Six UK-based companies that have applied for a REACH authorisation for a specific use of an SVHC are contemplating transferring their applications to EU entities ahead of Brexit, Echa said.
12. Echa Round-Up

    Feb 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch

    Echa has appointed Peter van der Zandt to the position of director for risk management.
13. EU Study Demonstrates Grouping and Read-Across for Nanomaterials

    Feb 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch

    By Andrew Turley
    
    
    European Commission scientists have demonstrated the use of Echa’s recommendations on grouping and read-across for nanomaterials through a study of multi-walled carbon nanotubes.

Energy News

14. National Clean-Energy Mandate Gets Another Look in Congress

    Feb 21, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Dean Scott
    
    
    A federal mandate for states to obtain a set portion of electricity from renewable energy is a forgotten aspect of climate change policies, but some Democrats say it belongs back on the table.
15. The $32 Trillion Pushing Fossil Fuel CEOs to Act on Climate

    Feb 21, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Lynn Thomasson and Thomas Biesheuvel
    
    
    Behind Glencore Plc’s decision to limit coal investment is a little-known but powerful group of investors.
16. Is Drilling and Fracking Waste on Your Sidewalk or in Your Pool?

    Feb 21, 2019 | Truthout

    By Melissa Troutman
    
    
    They’ve spread it on roads.
17. D.C. Circuit Dismisses NEPA Pipeline Claim

    Feb 21, 2019 | Inside EPA

    A federal appellate court has rejected environmentalists’ claims that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) failed to follow the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it approved a high-profile gas pipeline, including whether it appropriately considered the project’s downstream greenhouse gases as an indirect effect.

Chemical Security News

18. Johnson Controls Gets Partial Win in Indiana Contamination Suit

    Feb 21, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Brian Flood
    
    
    Johnson Controls hasn’t violated the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, because the company took the proper steps to limit hazardous waste contamination while shutting down parts of its Goshen, Ind., manufacturing facility, a federal court ruled Feb. 19.

Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

19. Nine Key Questions About the Green New Deal

    Feb 21, 2019 | The New York Times

    By Lisa Friedman
    
    
    If you’ve heard a lot recently about the Green New Deal but still aren’t quite sure what it is, you are not alone.
20. A Green New Deal is Technologically Possible. Its Political Prospects Are Another Question.

    Feb 21, 2019 | The New York Times

    By Lisa Friedman and Trip Gabriel
    
    
    President Trump derided the Green New Deal as a “high school term paper that got a low mark.”
21. U.S. Judge Dismisses Boys' Lawsuit Against Trump Climate Rollbacks

    Feb 21, 2019 | Reuters (In The New York Times)

    By Jonathan Stempel
    
    
    A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by two Pennsylvania boys and an environmental group seeking to stop U.S. President Donald Trump from rolling back regulations addressing climate change, saying the court does not have power to tell the White House what to do.
22. Gov. Keeps 2 Enviro Panels Intact

    Feb 21, 2019 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)

    By David Eggert
    
    
    Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer yesterday changed direction — for now — and issued an environmental order that keeps intact two business-backed panels that are charged with oversight of state rulemaking and permitting.
23. Oregon Considering Statewide Ban of Single-Use Plastic Bags

    Feb 21, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Justin Wise
    
    
    Oregon is reportedly considering enforcing a ban on single-use plastic checkout bags.

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Global Caustic Soda Market is Expected to Expand Over a CAGR of 5.06% from 2018 to 2025 | BlueWeave Consulting

   Feb 21, 2019 | Honest Version

   By Sinha Laltu

   Alumina has been increasingly in demand in automobiles, for autos and commercial vehicles, since the benefits it offers are wide, such as the safest, fastest, environment-friendly, as well as cost-effective ways to increase performance, along with boosting the fuel economy and reducing the emissions without compromising the safety and durability has in turn increased the manufacturing of caustic soda since it is one of the essential raw material for the manufacturing of alumina. There has been an increase in the use of aluminium in transportation sector which is supported by the increase in the sales of vehicles and higher intensity of aluminium in the manufacturing of trains and new vehicles is consistently developing the demand for caustic soda. Moreover, caustic soda is used as a bleaching agent and rise inorganic and organic chemical demand which is an integral part of the chemical industry is expected to fuel the caustic soda market. According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), U.S. chemical production has an overall growth of 1.6 percent in 2016, followed by 3.6 percent growth in 2017 and 4.8 percent in 2018. Due to the growing demand of chemical industry, the Caustic Soda market is also increasing as per the demand.

   Sample copy of Study Report for Overview of Global Market is Available@ https://bit.ly/2ST5Re8

   According to a new market report published by BlueWeave Consulting, the global caustic soda market was valued at USD 38.44Billion in 2017 and is expected to expand over a CAGR of 5.06% from 2018 to 2025, reaching USD 57.39 Billion by the end of the forecast period. According to the report, Asia Pacific was the largest contributor in terms of revenue to the caustic soda market in 2017.

   Sodium Hydroxide or Caustic Soda as it is commonly known as is a strong alkali which is corrosive and versatile in nature. It is usually used to manufacture Alumina, Pulp & Paper, Soaps and Detergents, Textile industry, Chemical production, etc. One of the largest consumers of caustic soda is the pulp & paper industry since it is used in the process of bleaching papers and pulping. More than half of the caustic soda that is traded is being used in the production of Alumina. The usage of caustic soda is vast with 40% of it used in end-use industries.

   Scope of the Report

   The global caustic soda market is segmented on the basis of form and application. On the basis of form, the market is segmented into solid and liquid. The solid form of caustic soda was the largest segment in the global caustic soda market in 2017, and is estimated to witness the highest growth during 2018-2025. On the application basis, the market is segmented into Pulp & Paper, Alumina, Organic, Soaps/Detergents, Inorganics, Water Treatment, Textile, Pharma and Others. The Textiles and Pulp & Paper accounted for the largest segment in the global caustic soda market in 2017.

   Application of Caustic Soda in Pharmaceuticals is growing over CAGR of 5.75%

   It is expected to reach around USD 2,572 million by the end of 2025 owing to its usage in making medicinal products. Sodium Hydroxide used in Pharmaceuticals. During restrictive inspections, producers of biopharmaceuticals and biological products usually give attention to cleaning and cleaning validation of chromatography resins and multiuse purification systems.

   Asia Pacific is the largest caustic soda manufacturing region; dominate the caustic soda industry in the world.

   View Complete Table of Content Having Unique Analysis on Several Factors: https://bit.ly/2TRmKTJ

   On the basis of region, the market is segmented into five parts namely North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, LATAM and MEA. Asia Pacific was the largest region in the global caustic soda market in 2017 with 60.81% market share and it is estimated to grow over a CAGR of 5.13% during 2018-2025. North American  Caustic Soda Market  is projected to reach at  around USD 10,035 million by the end of 2025 due to the growing production capacities along with rising consumption from various end-use industries for Caustic Soda product is anticipated to fuel the market growth

   Caustic Soda Market: Competitive Dynamics

   Companies, such as BASF SE, SABIC, Tosoh Corporation, Inovyn ChlorVinyls Limited., and DowDupont are the key players in manufacturing caustic soda which is essential for so many varied markets especially for the pulp & paper industry. In terms of product offerings, Tosoh Corporation and SABIC are the major players in the market, providing caustic soda for various purposes.

   Don’t Miss The Business Opportunity Of Caustic Soda Market. Consult Our Analyst And Gain Crucial Insights And Facilitate Your Business Growth.

   The In-Depth Analysis Of The Report Provides The Growth Potential, Upcoming Trends And Statistics Of Global Caustic Soda Market Size & Forecast. The Report Promises To Provide State-Of-The-Art Technology Of Caustic Soda Production And Industry Insights Which Help Decision Makers To Take Sound Strategic Decisions. Furthermore, The Report Also Analyzes The Market Drivers And Challenges And Competitive Analysis Of The Market.

   https://honestversion.com/global-caustic-soda-market-is-expected-to-expand-over-a-cagr-of-5-06-from-2018-to-2025-blueweave-consulting/
   

   
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. Get Ready for Pushback in the War on Plastic

   Feb 21, 2019 | Treehugger

   By Lloyd Alter

   Petrochemicals are becoming increasingly important to the oil industry as cars go electric.

   The fossil fuel industry's lobbying has been effective in Washington, slowing efficiency improvements for cars, rolling back light bulb regulations, and so much more. But the rise of the electric car is expected to put a big dent into demand. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), this will put more emphasis on petrochemicals, which now use 15 percent of fossil fuels as their feedstocks, but is expected to rise to 50 percent by 2040. According to Tim Young in the Financial Times,

   ") left top no-repeat rgb(249, 247, 245); text-shadow: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.8) 2px 2px 0px; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;">

   It is the only major source of oil demand where growth is expected to accelerate. These forecasts assume a steady, strong demand for plastic will translate into increasing consumption of feedstock. They provide a rare ray of optimism for the oil industry against increasingly dire long-term predictions that growth of other demand sources will slow.Ellen Macarthur Foundation/CC BY 2.0

   So what happens if the war on plastics catches on? Big trouble. Just reduced demand for plastic bags and increasing recycling from 5 to 25 percent could change all these projections and investments in new capacity.

   ") left top no-repeat rgb(249, 247, 245); text-shadow: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.8) 2px 2px 0px; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;">

   Using the IEA World Energy Outlook as a benchmark, these two modifications would diminish oil demand from petrochemicals in 2040 by more than 20 per cent. It could bring projected peak oil demand forward by a decade and diminish the need for oil-based petrochemical production capacity by 20 per cent. The dent in oil demand by 2040 would exceed the one that the IEA predicts would accompany the introduction of electric cars.

   Tim Young thinks this will make a big dent in the industry, and that "if companies push ahead with investment based on standard forecasts to expand petrochemical operations, stranded assets may lie ahead." I wonder if he underestimates the ingenuity and power of the oil industry.

   Throwaway Living/Screen capture

   We have seen this movie before, where the fossil fuel industry essentially created demand by their petrochemicals by promoting a linear economy of disposable plastics – similar to how they now are promoting waste-to-energy because it keeps them in the feedstock business; how Keurig has taken over the coffee world; how big money is now being invested in the food delivery business, almost all of which comes in single-use plastic.

   On the flip side, we have seen states like Michigan pass laws to stop plastic bag bans and, as Katherine noted,the oil industry is putting intense pressure on local governments all over the USA. She says we have to fight back:

   ") left top no-repeat rgb(249, 247, 245); text-shadow: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.8) 2px 2px 0px; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;">

   While municipal bag bans, the zero-waste movement, and anti-straw campaigns are miniscule when faced with the construction of multi-billion-dollar petrochemical facilities, remember that these alternative movements are far more noticeable than they were only five years ago – or even a decade ago, when they didn’t exist yet. The anti-plastic movement will grow, slowly but steadily, until these companies cannot help but pay attention.

   © Jack Taylor/Getty Images

   But we are up against the biggest, most powerful industry in the world, which will keep developing ever more convenient and attractive ways for us to use more and more plastic. Anyone for Uber Eats tonight?

   https://www.treehugger.com/plastic/get-ready-pushback-war-plastic.html
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

TSCA News

3. The Trump EPA is Throwing Workers Facing Risks from New TSCA Chemicals Under the Bus

   Feb 21, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund

   By Richard Denison

   We have blogged before (see here and here) about the steps initiated in mid-2018 by the Trump EPA to weaken new chemical reviews under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – rendering them even less health-protective than under TSCA prior to the 2016 reforms enacted in the Lautenberg Act.

   As these debilitating policy changes – still never publicly described or released, and apparently still not written down even for use within EPA– have taken hold, we have seen dozens of flawed new chemical decisions emerge.  We blogged extensively about the first such decision made under the new regimen in late July 2018.  Since then, about 60 more final determinations reflecting the new policies have been posted on EPA’s website.  These decisions pertain mostly to premanufacture notifications (PMNs), along with a few for significant new use notices (SNUNs).  At least 80% of these chemicals were cleared to enter commerce without being subject to any conditions whatsoever.  EPA accomplished this by issuing a final determination that each cleared chemical, or significant new use of a chemical, is “not likely to present an unreasonable risk.”  For these determinations, EPA is required under TSCA to post a statement of its finding, which it does in another table on its website.

   We have been closely examining these “not likely” determination documents.  Some deeply disturbing patterns are emerging.  This post will describe one of them.

   A new addition to the long and growing list of illegal actions EPA has taken to render the new chemicals program weaker than under the old TSCA.

   Most striking is that for a significant majority of these chemicals, EPA either identified significant risks to workers or indicated it had insufficient information to determine the level of risk to workers.  Under the 2016 reforms to TSCA, either finding – that there are or may be risks or that there is insufficient information to determine the level of risk – requires EPA to issue an order specifying conditions sufficient to eliminate the risk.  Yet EPA did no such thing; instead, it cleared the chemicals for unfettered market access.  

   Hazards posed to workers

   It is not as if these chemicals are inherently benign; indeed, EPA identified significant hazards for many of them.  In the summary of EPA’s “not likely” determination document for PMN P-18-0221, the agency states that it identified the “potential for the following human health hazards: skin and lung sensitization, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, and developmental, reproductive, liver, and kidney toxicity.”  Yet the very next sentence states:  “EPA concludes that the new chemical substance is not likely to present an unreasonable risk under the conditions of use.”

   Here’s another example, the “not likely” determination document for PMN P-18-0324.  EPA identified “potential for the following human health hazards: lung toxicity (waterproofing), irritation, neurotoxicity and developmental toxicity.”  Yet, again, “EPA concludes that the new chemical substance is not likely to present an unreasonable risk under the conditions of use.”

   Risks posed to workers

   In both of these cases, as in many others, EPA also identified risks to workers from these same hazards, with predicted exposures well in excess of “safe” levels.

   So how does EPA make these risks to workers magically disappear – without imposing a single condition on such chemicals?  By simply “expecting” them out of existence.  All of these “not likely” determination documents include a sentence like this (emphases added):

   EPA expects that workers will use appropriate personal protective equipment (i.e., impervious gloves), consistent with the Safety Data Sheet prepared by the PMN submitter, in a manner adequate to protect them.

   There are so many things wrong with this.  Here are some:

   Reliance on nonbinding documents:  EPA provides absolutely no evidence to support its “expectation.”  It simply assumes that all workers coming into contact with the chemical will always “use appropriate personal protective equipment” (PPE) because the company submitting the PMN for the chemical has prepared a safety data sheet (SDS) recommending its use.  But SDSs impose no binding requirements either on employers or their employees to do so.  The mere presence of language in an SDS is completely insufficient to conclude that PPE is actually utilized or is sufficiently effective and protective.  While SDSs are required to be provided as a hazard communication tool, the only legal requirement under OSHA is that the employer provide the SDS to employees and train them on how to access and understand them.  For example, the 2012 OSHA Hazard Communications Standard explains (emphases added):

   While the current HCS [Hazard Communication Standard] and this final standard require the provision of information on recommended control measures, including respiratory protection, personal protective equipment, and engineering controls, there is no requirement for employers to implement the recommended controls.  An employer should use all available information when designing an appropriate protective program, but a recommendation on a safety data sheet by itself would not trigger the need to implement new controls.

   Any legal requirement under OSHA that SDS recommendations be followed would come through a separate requirement such as where there is an OSHA exposure limit for the substance.  For new chemicals, for which OSHA obviously has no such standards, there is no OSHA obligation beyond OSHA’s rarely used general duty clause for employers to provide any protection for workers.

   Even companies’ own SDSs acknowledge this reality, including when it comes to an SDS that accompanies a chemical as it moves downstream to other processors and users.  For example, the SDS for PMN P-18-0070 states that the manufacturer:

   assume[s] no responsibility regarding the suitability of this information for the user’s intended purposes or for the consequences of this use. Individuals should make a determination as to the suitability of the information for the particular purpose(s).

   Despite these limitations of SDSs, EPA simply assumes, with no actual evidence, that there will be 100% use and efficacy of the PPE specified in a SDS by all workers throughout a chemical’s supply chain.

   It’s also worth noting EPA has erected major barriers to the public gaining access to the SDSs companies submit with their PMNs.  We have blogged extensively about EPA’s failure to provide ready access to PMN public files, which include SDSs.  Moreover, even once we gain such access, SDSs are often heavily or wholly redacted based on illegal claims – apparently unreviewed by EPA and hence allowed to stand – that they constitute confidential marketing and sales information protected from disclosure.

   Reliance on ineffective nonbinding documents:  There is significant evidence that SDSs are frequently not understood or followed.  For example, one recent systematic search and review of the literatureidentified serious problems with the use of SDSs even as hazard communication tools: they are often inaccurate, incomplete, and too technical for workers to understand.  The 2012 OSHA Hazard Communications Standard corroborates these findings.  For example, the Standard reports that “several studies show that employees do not understand approximately one-third of the safety and health information listed on SDSs prepared in accordance with the current standard” and that “[s]tudies also report that roughly 40% of persons reviewing SDSs found them difficult to understand.”  Also, see OSHA’s Inspection Procedures for the Hazard Communication Standard for more on the limitations of SDSs.

   Reliance on ineffective methods specified in ineffective nonbinding documents:  Reliance on PPE has major practical limitations and, at best, exhibits mixed effectiveness in the real world.  For example, OSHA concluded that respirators are the “least satisfactory approach to exposure control.”  The agency provides the following explanation:

   [T]o be effective, respirators must be individually selected, fitted and periodically refitted, conscientiously and properly worn, regularly maintained, and replaced as necessary.  The absence of any one of these conditions can reduce or eliminate the protection the respirator provides.

   Respirator effectiveness ultimately relies on the practices of individual workers who must wear them. … Furthermore, respirators can impose substantial physiological burdens on workers, including the burden imposed by the weight of the respirator; increased breathing resistance during operation; limitations on auditory, visual, and olfactory sensations; and isolation from the workplace environment.

   OSHA therefore continues to consider the use of respirators to be the least satisfactory approach to exposure control … .

   Yet EPA relies solely on PPE identified in the SDSs as the basis for asserting that unreasonable risks to workers will be eliminated.

   Failure to rely on the best available science and policy:  EPA’s reflexive impulse to resort to reliance on PPE fails to reflect the best available science and policy. The best available science and policy have long been memorialized through OSHA’s Industrial Hygiene Hierarchy of Controls (HOC), which prioritizes measures to eliminate or reduce the presence of a hazard in occupational settings (e.g., substitution/use of less toxic chemicals and institution of engineering controls) over measures like PPE that shift burdens onto the workers themselves.  The HOC, not PPE, exemplifies the best available science and policy for creating safe, healthful workplace environments.

   In 2016, EPA proposed updates to its SNUR regulations “to align these regulations with revisions to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Hazard Communications Standard (HCS).”  EDF filed comments supporting the changes, as did OSHA itself, most notably lauding EPA’s proposal to incorporate the HOC into its regulation.

   Unfortunately, EPA has not finalized the proposed modifications to its SNUR regulations.  While EPA had been incorporating language reflecting the HOC into consent orders it was issuing for new chemicals, it now appears EPA is abandoning reliance on the HOC altogether, both by failing to issue orders and basing its “not likely” determinations on assumed use of PPE.

   Another industry wish granted

   If all this has a familiar ring to it, it should.  Under this Administration, the chemical industry has pressured EPA to weaken or abandon altogether workplace restrictions on new chemicals under TSCA.  It seems they’re once again getting their way.

   The 2016 amendments to TSCA enhanced EPA’s obligations to protect workers, obligations that date back to the original law passed in 1976.  TSCA now explicitly defines workers to be a “potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation.”  And it specifically requires EPA to identify, assess and mitigate unreasonable risks to workers.

   EPA appears at least in limited ways to be identifying risks to workers posed by new chemicals.  But when it comes to actually protecting them from such risks – which would require imposing binding requirements on companies – that’s when workers get thrown under the bus.  If EPA’s toxics office were serious about environmental justice as a priority under TSCA, as it has recently asserted it is with respect to workers exposed to pesticides, it would not so casually cast aside risks to workers from new chemicals.

   Add this to the long and growing list of illegal actions EPA has taken to render the new chemicals program weaker than under the old TSCA

   http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/02/21/the-trump-epa-is-throwing-workers-facing-risks-from-new-tsca-chemicals-under-the-bus/
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. US EPA Faces Second Lawsuit Over Methylene Chloride Delays

   Feb 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch

   A second group of NGOs has filed a lawsuit against the US EPA over its failure to finalise a rule banning methylene chloride paint strippers.

   Brought by Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council on behalf of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, the suit claims that the EPA has violated its statutory obligation to regulate the identified risk posed by the substance. The solvent’s use in paint removal applications has caused dozens of deaths in recent years, including several workers exposed while on the job.

   In line with a similar lawsuit filed last month, the complainants are asking the court to compel the EPA to finalise its proposed TSCA section 6 rule to ban commercial and consumer uses of methylene chloride for paint stripping.

   The EPA’s final rule remains under interagency review at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB). But concerns are high among consumer advocacy groups that it appears unlikely the agency will act to regulate both consumer and commercial applications.

   Meanwhile, a number of retailers have voluntarily pledged to stop selling the products.

   https://chemicalwatch.com/74505/us-epa-faces-second-lawsuit-over-methylene-chloride-delays
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. US EPA Round-Up

   Feb 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch

   TSCA ‘not likely’ determination

   The US EPA has issued a TSCA 5(a)(3)(c) finding for a polymer intended to be used as an industrial coating. This "not likely to cause unreasonable risk" finding will allow the substance to come to market without restriction.

   The decision relates to pre-manufacture notice (PMN) P-18-0020: butanedioic acid, polymer with 2-ethyl-2-(hydroxymethyl)-1,3-propanediol, 2,5-furandione and 1,3-propanediol, 3a,4,5,6,7,7a-hexahydro-4,7-methano-1H-inden-5(or 6)-yl ester.House hearing on EPA enforcement

   The oversight and investigations subcommittee of the US House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee will be holding a hearing on 26 February entitled: "EPA’s Enforcement Program: Taking the Environmental Cop Off the Beat".

   House Democrats say they are conducting oversight "to ensure that EPA stops rolling back critical health protection and starts enforcing the laws already on the books."

   Its announcement follows the release of a 2018 enforcement and compliance report which showed a decrease in EPA investigations.

   https://chemicalwatch.com/74506/us-epa-round-up
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

6. (ACC Mentioned) EPA Accused of Dragging Its Feet with Federal PFAS Management Plan

   Feb 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch

   By Lisa Martine Jenkins

   Stakeholders have said they are frustrated with a lack of concrete action steps in the US EPA's management plan for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs).

   Last week saw the release of a long-awaited plan for addressing the substances, amid mounting public concern about their contamination in drinking water sources. The plan, which follows a 2009 approach for managing long-chain perfluorinated substances, largely focuses on expanding research and monitoring efforts while addressing contamination by legacy chemicals PFOA and PFOS.

   But several NGOs and members of Congress have accused the EPA of "dragging its feet" on the issue, because it is focusing on conducting still more research into hazards that were initially raised more than a decade ago.

   The NGO Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families said that the action plan does not act quickly enough. And considering the scope of the problem, the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) agreed the plan is "woefully inadequate and lacks the necessary urgency."

   The organisation has called for addressing PFASs as a class to save time and money. "We don’t have time to waste eliminating one toxic chemical only to have a rebranded version, with similar health problems, pop back up and take its place," it said.

   Meanwhile, Senator Tom Carper (D-Delaware) questioned why it took the EPA so long to "just kick the can even further down the road".

   "While EPA acts with the utmost urgency to repeal regulations, the agency ambles with complacency when it comes to taking real steps to protect the water we drink," he wrote in a statement.

   And across the aisle, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyoming) said the agency needs to "speak clearly about the risk" posed by the class of chemicals.

   "The agency must be willing to take decisive action where it is warranted," he continued.

   However, one of Senator Carper’s main concerns – the plan’s lack of commitment on setting a PFOA or PFOS maximum contaminant level (MCL) for drinking water – apparently will be addressed. EPA Assistant Administrator David Ross wrote a letter to Senator Carper this week expressing a "clear and firm" commitment to setting a drinking water standard. A timeline was not given for the standard’s release.

   From industry’s perspective, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said it "firmly believe[s] that EPA is best positioned to provide the public with a comprehensive strategy informed by a full understanding of the safety and benefits of different PFAS chemistries."Action beyond the EPA

   A number of organisations – such as the Environmental Working Group and Safer States – said they were optimistic that states are making PFASs a priority.

   An analysis by Safer States shows that at least eight states are considering bans or restrictions on the use of PFASs in food packaging, while at least nine are considering restricting the use of PFASs in firefighting foam.

   In 2018, the state of Washington became the first to pass certain measures to restrict the substance class.

   Meanwhile, Representatives Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey) and Paul Tonko (D-New York) have indicated that there might be room for further congressional action on the "growing water contamination and health crisis".

   "If EPA intends to drag its feet, Congress will have to step in and lead the fight to protect Americans from these dangerous chemicals," they wrote in a joint statement.

   https://chemicalwatch.com/74507/epa-accused-of-dragging-its-feet-with-federal-pfas-management-plan
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. Cross-Sector Alliance Sets Out Chemical Reporting Objectives

   Feb 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch

   By Leigh Stringer

   Cross-sector industry group Proactive Alliance has published a "mission statement" setting out its plan to establish a global standard that will help companies report on substances in articles along the supply chain.

   The group is made up of representatives from the sectors; automotive, chemicals, childcare products, electrical and electronic, furniture, home textiles, mechanical, medical devices, metalworking and metal articles, textiles and sporting goods. It formed to address the growing number of requirements from regulators and companies to communicate substances in articles (SiA).

   At its third technical meeting in December, the group decided to write and publish a document that clarifies its objectives, and what it will do to achieve them.

   According to the mission statement, published earlier this month, the group will:agree on a set of criteria (a) for the exchange and collection of data and (b) to develop lists of declarable or restricted substances;draft a policy document with recommendations regarding the development of a global cross-sector standard for the communication on substances in articles (SiA); andaim to build on existing standards to ensure a harmonised approach and avoid duplications of diverging standards.

   The standard, it says, needs to reflect the short-term need to comply with legal requirements, such as those under REACH or California’s Prop 65 for example, as well as company requirements, such as those set by retailers.Long-term ambition

   The policy document will propose a roadmap for mid- and long-term development of a standard. The long-term ambition is for the standard to allow communication of a full material declaration (FMD). However, FMD will not be mandatory but a "desired capability" of sectors and public disclosure will not be in scope of the policy recommendations.

   The standard should therefore be "compatible" with FMD. This, it says, would yield additional benefits such as "being prepared for future regulations and other cost saving effects".

   The standard will not define what data is to be disclosed to third parties. This will be defined by the individual companies or sectors.

   "Justified confidential business information (CBI) has to be taken into account," the mission statement said.RSLs

   In developing restricted substances lists, the standard will take into account three types of legislation. These cover:generally problematic substances, such as those regulated at the global level. For example, persistent organic pollutants (POPs) banned under the UN’s Stockholm Convention;"horizontal legislation" such as the EU’s REACH Regulation or the Waste Framework Directive Article 9.1 (WFD), which is relevant to all sectors; and"vertical legislation" that covers specific sectors, such as the EU’s RoHS Directive for electronics or End of Life Vehicles Directive (ELV).

   Following the release of the policy recommendations, the group will invite standard development organisations to take on the task of establishing and managing the standard.

   Martin Führ, a professor at Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences, who is coordinating the initiative with his research group Sofia, will be speaking on the Proactive Alliance’s work at Chemical Watch’s Global Business Summit in Brussels on 26-28 March.

   https://chemicalwatch.com/74539/cross-sector-alliance-sets-out-plan-on-sia-reporting-objectives
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

8. Johnson & Johnson Faces Federal Subpoenas Over Baby Powder

   Feb 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch

   By Kelly Franklin

   Consumer products multinational Johnson & Johnson has disclosed that it is being investigated by the US federal government over concerns that its talcum powder products cause cancer.

   According to an annual report filed this week, the company said it has received subpoenas to produce documents from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The company also noted an inquiry from Senator Patty Murray (D-Washington) on the safety record of its talc-containing products.

   The government’s scrutiny comes amid a year's-long legal battle over the safety of the company’s baby powder. Personal injury lawsuits are ongoing across the US, with more than 10,000 plaintiffs claiming that use of the company’s product has led to their development of ovarian cancer or mesothelioma.

   In a statement, J&J said the government inquiries relate to news reports from December 2018 that "included inaccurate statements and also withheld crucial information that had already been made public in the litigation and in prior media reports".

   It intends to "cooperate fully with these inquiries and will continue to defend the company in the talc-related litigation", it added.Legal battle continues

   In its annual report, J&J said "the number of pending product liability lawsuits continues to increase and the company continues to receive information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated number of cases".

   The company has seen several verdicts against it – including one last July for $4.7bn. But it said it believes it has "strong grounds on appeal to overturn" these decisions.

   Meanwhile, the report sheds fresh light on talc-related lawsuits outside the personal injury arena. These include:a securities class action lawsuit, filed last February, alleging that the company violated federal securities laws – and that purchasers of its shares suffered losses – by its failure to disclose alleged asbestos contamination in its talcum powders;an October 2018 shareholder derivative lawsuit, alleging a breach of fiduciary duties related to the alleged asbestos contamination; andtwo Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Erisa) class action lawsuits, filed last month, alleging the company breached its fiduciary duties by offering J&J stock as an investment option "when it was imprudent to do so" because of its failure to disclose alleged asbestos contamination.

   Plaintiffs are seeking damages in each of these cases.

   Last week, Imerys Talc America – a supplier for J&J, and co-defendant in the litigation – filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. It stated it did so because "it is simply not in the best interests of our stakeholders to litigate these claims in perpetuity and incur millions of dollars in projected legal costs to defend these cases."

   https://chemicalwatch.com/74548/johnson-johnson-faces-federal-subpoenas-over-baby-powder
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. EDC Project Will Develop Methods for Female Reprotox Effects

   Feb 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch

   The EU has launched a five-year, €6 million research project to develop test methods for identifying endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) that cause adverse effects on female reproduction. The Freia – "female reproductive toxicity of endocrine disrupting chemicals" – project will run until 2023 with the aim of improving OECD test guidelines (TGs).

   It will aim to identify the mechanisms by which EDCs can affect female reproduction during specific life stages using human tissue models that span the entire life cycle. The tissue models will be used to identify human relevant biomarkers of EDC exposure. Additionally, the project will measure chemical exposures in two groups of women undergoing IVF treatment and link these to fertility outcomes. It will also conduct rodent studies to identify susceptible windows of exposure and novel endpoints for female reproductive toxicity that may be incorporated into OECD TGs.

   By using primary human tissues, as well as exposure data from fetal and follicular fluid, the outcomes of Freia will be "directly applicable to the human situation", the project organisers say on the European Commission’s Cordis website.

   Majorie van Duursen, professor of environmental health and toxicology at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, is the project coordinator.

   The project involves 10 institutions in seven EU members states, plus Tufts University in the US.

   NGO the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), which is working with the project, said the focus on TGs made the project "particularly unique".

   https://chemicalwatch.com/74521/edc-project-will-develop-methods-for-female-reprotox-effects
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. Echa Publishes Inventory of Additives in Plastics

    Feb 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch

    By Luke Buxton

    Echa has published information on 419 substances used as additives in plastics in the EU.

    The agency worked alongside EU member state representatives, academics, Cefic and 21 industry sectors, including additive manufacturers and downstream users, for the mapping exercise.

    The plastics value chain was represented by PlasticsEurope and European Plastics Converters (EuPC). For two years, the collaborators screened around 1,000 substances to identify those used as plastic additives in the trade bloc and to validate data on their intrinsic properties.

    The initiative, which kicked off in 2016, contributes to meeting the World Summit on Sustainable Development’s 2020 goals and to the EU’s plastics strategy.

    Data provided by industry on substances manufactured or imported at above 100 tonnes per year helped Echa and a team of researchers develop a model to calculate the release potential of each substance into the environment.

    The inventory does not provide actual real-life or experimental data, Cefic said – only the relative release potential.

    Additives are used in plastics to "impart the essential properties needed to make them fit for their specific purpose and ensure safe use by the consumer throughout the article’s service life", Cefic said.

    The inventory covers substances used as:plasticisers that ensure the flexibility and durability of cables, flooring and roof membranes;flame retardants that impart fire-safety properties to electronics and other household items;antioxidants that ensure durability and stability of drinking water pipes and other long-life articles; andpigments, heat stabilisers, UV/light stabilisers, nucleating agents and antistatics.

    It includes information on the polymer types that the additives are most commonly found in and the expected concentration ranges.Going forward

    Together with information on hazard potential, the use and release information will be used by Echa and member states to help prioritise groups of substances for in-depth assessment under REACH.

    The project "aims to assist industry in identifying what use and exposure information is relevant to determine safe use for substances in articles and hence trigger a need for updating their registration dossiers", Echa said.

    This information should be included in registrations and also communicated down the supply chains, the agency added. "Comparing the release potential of additives with the same technical function can also help in the substitution of hazardous substances with safer alternatives."

    Cefic said the inventory is an "important step towards better risk assessment of these substances under REACH and CLP".

    Companies will be able to use the inventory to further refine the data about uses and exposure potential in their REACH registration dossiers, it added.

    "Cefic and PlasticsEurope members will communicate the inventory to their supply chain to make sure the downstream industries have the right information about the uses of each substance and its properties."

    In related news, a report released recently by a group of international NGOs said that plastic and its impact on human health is poorly understood and presents a "global health crisis".

    Health-impact assessments have focused solely on the plastic components of products while ignoring the thousands of additives within the plastics and their behaviour at every stage of the plastic lifecycle, it said.

    https://chemicalwatch.com/74545/echa-publishes-inventory-of-additives-in-plastics
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. UK Companies Consider REACH Authorisation Transfer Ahead of Brexit

    Feb 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch

    By Clelia Oziel

    Six UK-based companies that have applied for a REACH authorisation for a specific use of an SVHC are contemplating transferring their applications to EU entities ahead of Brexit, Echa said.

    All REACH authorisations or registrations filed by manufacturers, importers or only representatives (OR) based in the UK will no longer be valid in the EU or European Economic Area if Britain leaves the single market on 29 March.

    The six have informed Echa that they have "clear plans" for Britain’s departure and will decide "in the weeks to come" whether to move applications to a company operating in the EU27 so as to continue supplying the respective substances, the agency told Chemical Watch.

    They are the only upstream companies that have applied for, or have been granted, an authorisation. Echa identified them following a request from the European Commission, and in January asked about their plans. The EU executive wants to ensure that there would be no market disruption if Brexit goes ahead, Echa said.

    The companies and the substances concerned are:Indestructible Paint – pentazinc chromate octahydroxide;Brenntag UK – potassium dichromate and sodium dichromate;Wesco Aircraft EMEA – sodium chromate and strontium chromate;PPG Central Industries UK – strontium chromate and potassium hydroxyoctaoxodizincatedichromate;Cytec Engineered Materials – strontium chromate; andElementis Chromium – chromium trioxide.

    In addition, Echa said, there are some UK-based downstream companies with authorisation applications. However these applications or authorisation decisions will not have an impact in the EU27 "as the authorisation concerns the use of the substance only" and not the articles the companies produce.

    A case in point is aircraft engine manufacturer Rolls Royce. The company has an authorisation in the UK, Echa said, but the engines it sells in Europe are not affected.Registration exodus?

    A growing number of UK companies are also looking to move REACH registrations to the EU27, according to trade associations and Echa.

    The agency's helpdesk is receiving "an increasing number" of enquiries by companies seeking advice on undertaking such transfers.

    So far it has not yet detected "any substantial increases" in the number of registrations transferred. It added that it will know more when it opens its 'Brexit window' in the REACH-IT system from 12 to 29 March. This will enable companies to make changes and transfer their REACH registrations. The window was announced as part of comprehensive instructions on Brexit issued to companies earlier this month.

    Under REACH, the mechanism for companies in the UK to transfer manufacture or import and the resulting registrations is through a ‘legal entity change’.

    With the clock ticking down to Brexit and no agreement yet on the withdrawal terms, contingency planning by companies "has very firmly moved to contingency action", the Chemical Industries Association (CIA) said. "The longer we wait for any deal, the more this will happen."

    And the Chemical Business Association (CBA) said companies were already moving their registrations. It named Zanos – supplier of essential oils and aroma chemicals – among those that have done so.

    Some SMEs are setting up new EU subsidiaries or disposing of their businesses to EU27 ownership, the CBA added.

    https://chemicalwatch.com/74501/uk-companies-consider-reach-authorisation-transfer-ahead-of-brexit
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. Echa Round-Up

    Feb 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch

    Agency gets new risk management director

    Echa has appointed Peter van der Zandt to the position of director for risk management. Mr van der Zandt, who is a head of unit in the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, will join the agency on 16 May. He is currently seconded as a head of unit to the EU's Research Executive Agency.Misa update

    The list of substances that come under the two-year voluntary agreement between Echa and the European non-ferrous metals association Eurometaux has been updated.

    The Metals and Inorganics Sectoral Approach (Misa) was signed in October 2018. The agreement aims to identify shortcomings in REACH and CLP information for metal compounds and inorganic substances by the end of 2020.Strategic plan summary

    The agency has released a summary of its strategic plan for 2019-2023. In this, Echa says it "will ensure safer chemicals use in Europe by improving the basis of the data, disseminating and checking it and taking regulatory actions when needed." And to achieve its goals, it spells out three priorities:identify substances of concern and manage risks;safe and sustainable use of chemicals by industry; andmanage chemicals sustainably by applying EU legislation.Leaflet translation

    Echa’s leaflet on classifying and labelling chemicals in the EU is now available in 23 languages.

    https://chemicalwatch.com/74510/echa-round-up
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. EU Study Demonstrates Grouping and Read-Across for Nanomaterials

    Feb 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch

    By Andrew Turley

    European Commission scientists have demonstrated the use of Echa’s recommendations on grouping and read-across for nanomaterials through a study of multi-walled carbon nanotubes.

    The group from the Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) followed guidance document Recommendations for Nanomaterials Applicable to the Guidance on QSARs and Grouping.

    In particular, they applied grouping and read-across methods to 19 types of nanotubes to fill data gaps on genotoxicity. They also applied chemoinformatics to complement these methods.

    The study was led by the JRC’s Karin Aschberger and published in Computational Toxicology.

    The aim of the study was not hazard assessment, but nevertheless the data chosen for illustrative purposes suggested that the nanotubes used in the study were not genotoxic, the scientists said in their paper.

    In particular, the study found no major differences between the nanotubes that could be attributed to differences in physicochemical properties such as length, diameter or rigidity. However, these properties might have an impact on other hazard endpoints, such as carcinogenicity, the scientists added.

    Echa’s Read-Across Assessment Framework (RAAF) was used to characterise the uncertainties in the results.

    In their paper, the scientists recommended some changes to the workflow in the guidance to enhance usability and simplify reporting.Environmental release

    A paper published in Nanotoxicology on 7 February outlined how data on environmental release and exposure for nano-forms might be incorporated into grouping and read-across techniques.

    Henning Wigger and Bernard Nowack from the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa) said that the incorporation of this data is required for "complete" risk assessments.

    "Our results suggest that grouping and read-across concepts should include both a nano-form release potential for estimating the environmental exposure and separately consider the nano-forms in environmental risk assessments."

    They demonstrated their approach with data on titanium dioxide nanoparticles, carbon nanotubes and aluminium oxide nanoparticles. They found variation in environmental concentration for nano-forms of the same nanomaterial, such as single- and multi-walled carbon nanotubes.

    The work was funded by the EU's CALIBRATE project.

    https://chemicalwatch.com/74544/eu-study-demonstrates-grouping-and-read-across-for-nanomaterials
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

14. National Clean-Energy Mandate Gets Another Look in Congress

    Feb 21, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Dean Scott

    A federal mandate for states to obtain a set portion of electricity from renewable energy is a forgotten aspect of climate change policies, but some Democrats say it belongs back on the table.

    These Democrats are uneasy with the lofty goals set out in the Green New Deal resolution backed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) that calls for a 10-year “mobilization” to meet 100 percent of U.S. power demands with “clean, renewable, and zero-emission sources.” They say a more modest target is achievable.

    Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), who along with a half-dozen other Democrats has backed legislation directing utilities to get about 30 percent of electricity from renewable sources by 2030, “is working on an updated standard to be introduced this Congress,” Udall spokesman Ned Adriance said in an email.
    
    In the House, Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), a senior Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, also told Bloomberg Environment that he plans to roll out legislation in the coming months requiring utilities to meet a federal goal for drawing from solar, wind, geothermal, and other renewable energy sources.

    Under Welch’s 2017 American Renewable Energy and Efficiency Act (H.R. 2746), utilities would have to gradually increase their use of renewable energy to roughly one-third of their total power output over the next two decades. Welch is considering strengthening his bill’s mandate.

    “Probably my bias is toward making it more ambitious,” he said. “Our goal in drafting this is to do something that would have a measurable impact on emissions.”Republicans Disfavor Top-Down Policy

    Congressional efforts to force states to get a base level of electricity from wind, solar, and other clean energy appeared to gain momentum during the George W. Bush administration.

    The House tucked such a mandate, known as a renewable electricity standard or renewable portfolio standard, into the House-passed cap-and-trade bill in 2009 directing states to get 20 percent of electricity from clean energy by 2020. The bill died in the Senate.

    States have stepped into the void.

    Twenty-nine states, Washington, D.C. and three territories have such standards today, according to a February report from the National Conference of State Legislatures. Most require between 10 percent and 45 percent renewable energy, but seven states and Washington, D.C., have renewable requirements of 50 percent or greater.
    
    A decade later, states have driven much of the progress. Roughly half of all growth in U.S. renewable electricity generation and capacity since 2000 is associated with such state requirements, according to a 2018 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report.‘Don’t Want to Force States’

    Congressional Republicans say such top-down requirements should be avoided and stay in states’ hands.

    “You know, that’s tough for Republicans because we’re federalists, and we don’t want to force states” to adhere to a single federal standard, said Rep. John Shimkus (Ill.), the top Republican on Energy and Commerce’s Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee, told Bloomberg Environment.

    Senate Republicans such as Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) agreed that states can best decide their own goals or targets for renewable sources, adding that some are better able to take advantage of some sources than others.

    “There’s an argument for each state working out what is right for them, because every state is different on weather and even topography and fuel mix,” Portman said. “If you’re in Nevada or Arizona, solar makes all the sense in the world. If you are in a windy state, like Indiana or even parts of Ohio, wind might make more sense.”

    Given Republicans’ 53-seat Senate majority, the Democratic bills face an uphill battle in that chamber.

    Alex Flint, a former Republican staff director for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said he’s skeptical one federal standard could work with a power sector that has become an increasingly complex web of generators and distributors.

    “We have so many market structures out there, it’s very hard to imagine one overlay over the entire generation and distribution system,” said Flint, who heads the Alliance for Market Solutions, which is pushing Republicans to embrace a carbon tax.All Tools on the Table?

    But some climate advocates, such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), now in a crowded race to become the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee, say action is needed given increasingly dire warnings of climate change.

    This includes a 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that warned the world has only a dozen years to act to avert increasingly severe climate impacts.

    “I think you are going to have to look at all the tools that are available to transform our energy system and substantially reduce carbon emissions,” Sanders said.

    Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), who chairs the House Energy’s Environment and Climate Change subcommittee, said “all options should be on the table,” including a renewable mandate, although he’s not ready to back specific policies yet. 
    
    More than 80 House Democrats support the Ocasio-Cortez resolution, including several chairmen. But neither Tonko nor Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) is among them.

    Energy and Commerce will take a methodical approach “to get a real strong statement made about carbon pollution reduction,” Tonko said.

     https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/national-clean-energy-mandate-gets-another-look-in-congress

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. The $32 Trillion Pushing Fossil Fuel CEOs to Act on Climate

    Feb 21, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Lynn Thomasson and Thomas Biesheuvel

    Behind Glencore Plc’s decision to limit coal investment is a little-known but powerful group of investors.

    Glencore made its decision after facing pressure from a shareholder network known as Climate Action 100+, which has the backing of more than 300 investors managing $32 trillion. The group was founded a little over a year ago, but has already extracted reforms from oil heavyweights, like BP Plc and Royal Dutch Shell Plc.

    “If Glencore says that it doesn’t see coal having a growing future than other people will stand up and take notice,” said Edward Mason, the head of responsible investment at the Church Commissioners for England. “This is not a easy position for Glencore.”

    He was part of the discussions with the company, calling the talks “an intensive engagement process.“

    While skeptics may regard Glencore’s changes as minimal (the company still stands to reap billions from its huge coal business), the announcement still shows the influence that investors hold at being able to push even the most reticent companies to respond to their demands.

    Business forces are now aligning on climate change in ways that will reshape energy and mining for years to come, even with U.S. President Donald Trump steadfast in his commitment to expanding the coal industry. Other mining companies have exited the coal business or pledge not to invest, and oil producers have vowed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

    Climate Action 100+ says its goal is to drive change at the companies contributing the most greenhouse gas emissions. Its roster includes the biggest names in the industry, including California Public Employees’ Retirement System, Allianz SE, and HSBC Global Asset Management.

    The group pushes companies to take action to reduce greenhouses gases and disclose more information about how the business will be affected by a hotter climate.Changes

    Changes targeted by Climate Action 100+ include:

    Royal Dutch Shell Plc will set carbon-output targets for the following three or five years as it works to halve its “net carbon footprint” by 2050. The goals will be tied to executive pay.

    BP Plc is supporting a shareholder resolution to prove its business plans align with Paris climate targets. It intends to provide clarity around emissions at its annual meeting in May.

    Steelmakers are also coming under scrutiny. Climate Action 100+ recently published a report with their expectations for large steel companies, saying it wants the industry to lower emissions in line with the Paris climate accord.

    While investors are cheering the move, it’s still a open question whether the companies are doing enough on climate change. Coal remains Glencore’s chief money maker among its industrial assets. In recent years, as other companies retreated from coal, Glencore ramped up the business by picking up mines in Australia.

    Glencore’s executives “probably weren’t going to expand in coal anyway, but now they’ve got a message out there that sounds like supply reduction, which will appeal to ESG funds that may have dismissed them in the past,” said Richard Knights, an analyst at Liberum Capital Markets in London, referring to funds that buy based on environmental, social and governance criteria.

    Still, the fact that companies are yielding to investor demands shows that times are changing. In the past, big oil and mining companies were able to fight off pressure from environmental activists who demanded sweeping business changes.

    “Investors who continue to finance new coal projects need to be asking themselves an important question; which is going to end up being burnt first – their coal, or their money?” said Nick Stansbury, head of commodities research at Legal & General Investment Management Ltd., which is part of Climate Action 100+.

    —With assistance from Kelly Gilblom and Mathew Carr.

     https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/the-32-trillion-pushing-fossil-fuel-ceos-to-act-on-climate

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. Is Drilling and Fracking Waste on Your Sidewalk or in Your Pool?

    Feb 21, 2019 | Truthout

    By Melissa Troutman

    They’ve spread it on roads. They’ve irrigated almond farms and fruit groves with it. The oil and gas industry’s liquid waste has been used for a variety of commercial and industrial purposes over the years. But never has the “beneficial use” of this waste stream been so grossly applied, or so close to home, as it is today.

    Meet Eureka Resources and Nature’s Own Source. Both of these companies have attracted attention by processing liquid waste from oil and gas operations and creating commercial products for use in poolsand on roads, sidewalks, patios, stairs or anywhere else a consumer may put it.Eureka Resources

    Eureka Resources treats toxic wastewater from drilling and fracking for natural gas in Pennsylvania, and the agency that approves this is the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). In June 2014, Eureka Engineer Jerel Bogdan wrote to PADEP to confirm what, exactly, the company had to do in order to sell the salt byproduct from the company’s waste treatment process to consumers.

    But instead of listing what Eureka had to do, the letter confirmed what Eureka didn’t have to do — like test its salt for fracking chemicals, even though in 2017, Yale Public Health found that 55 unique chemical compounds used for fracking are “known, probable, or possible human carcinogens.”

    Here are the four standards Eureka must adhere to, according to Bogden’s letter to PADEP (emphasis added):

    Don't miss a beat

    Get the latest news and thought-provoking analysis from Truthout.

    Your EmailA full chemical equivalency analysis of Eureka salt products vs. the salt material currently in use by a given industrial user is not required.Eureka is required to maintain analytical data/records on file that confirm the salt product meets only those qualitative requirements listed on the MSDS [Material Data Safety Sheet] for the salt material that a potential buyer is currently procuring from other suppliers.Eureka is not required to use an accredited third-party analytical laboratory for the qualitative comparison noted above; in-house analytical resources may be used for the comparison if Eureka can demonstrate that those resources are able to generate data sufficient for all parameters included in the comparison.Eureka is not required to submit the qualitative comparison data to the PADEP for review but rather is required to maintain data/analytical results on file, to be provided upon request by the PADEP.

    So, who is buying Eureka’s frack salt?

    Cargill purchased 4,700 tons of salt from Eureka between May 2015 and December 2016. One of Cargill’s meat processing plants, Cargill Meat Solutions in Wyalusing, Pennsylvania, is less than 10 miles away from Eureka’s wastewater treatment facility, and “processes about 1,500 head of cattle per day,” according to Cargill’s website.

    In an email, PADEP wrote that Cargill “advised the Department” that Eureka’s “[c]rystallized sodium chloride” is used by Cargill “to prepare and treat animal hides, resulting from Cargill’s meat packing operations. Cargill prepares the animal hides using one of Eureka’s salt products for commercial sale.”De-wasting essentially means rebranding waste as a new product, often without significant treatment to remove health and environmental hazards.

    Eureka’s frack salt is also approved for sale as a pool salt. The investigative news team at Public Herald exposed that Eureka’s byproduct is packaged and sold as Clorox Pool Salt. Workers at Eureka’s Standing Stone facility package the salt in Clorox bags and pallet them for shipment via an “unnamed third-party distributor to be sold at regional stores like Wal-Mart, Home Depot and Lowes.”

    Eureka tests its frack salt quarterly, but there is no testing of the product for radioactivity and other toxins on a more routine basis. This concerns Daniel Bain, a research professor at University of Pittsburgh’s Department of Geology and Environmental Science who studies radioactivity. Bain told Public Herald that “all it takes is a little glitch in the process, and you can have a dirty salt at some point.”

    Finally, according to PADEP engineer Lisa Houser, the Department has also approved a “Mixed Brine Solution” by Eureka “for use at oil and gas well sites.” According to Waste Management Program Director Ali Tarquino Morris, PADEP additionally approved Eureka’s “Evaporated Salt” for use as road salt.How Frack Salt Gets Approved in Pennsylvania

    You may be wondering how a company like Eureka could get away with repackaging byproducts from fracking and selling them without informing the public about what they really are. But the process is perfectly legal in Pennsylvania through a regulatory mechanism called “de-wasting.” De-wasting essentially means rebranding waste as a new product, often without significant treatment to remove health and environmental hazards.There are no limits or even testing required for the more than 1,000 different chemicals used for fracking to ensure they don’t end up in repackaged byproducts.

    A company can de-waste its fracking wastewater under a permit called the WMGR123. According to PADEP, oil and gas liquid waste that has been processed under the WMGR123 permit “is not considered a waste” as long as it meets “the concentration limits in Appendix A” of the permit. “Appendix A” imposes limits on some of the nasty stuff in fracking waste, such as uranium, arsenic, benzene and lead. But there are no limits or even testing required for the more than 1,000 different chemicals used for fracking to ensure they don’t end up in repackaged byproducts.Nature’s Own Source

    Another product of concern is manufactured in, and approved by, Pennsylvania’s neighbor to the west — Ohio — also a shale gas and oil production state.

    In 2003, Duck Creek Energy began manufacturing a de-icing product from its oil and gas wastewater called AquaSalina. According to a press release, AquaSalina was approved by Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) for de-icing and as dust suppression on roads the following year. The product is also used by the Pacific Northwest Snowfighters Association (PNSA), which evaluates the safety of products used for winter road maintenance. However, according to the PNSA’s protocols, radioactive materials present in oil and gas waste — such as Radium-226, which has half-life of 1,600 years — is not part of the testing regime. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that AquaSalina is used in several states across the U.S.

    Thirteen years after ODNR approved AquaSalina, a study by the agency in 2017 revealed that AquaSalina contained high levels of the carcinogenic Radium-226 and Radium-228 — more than 300 times higher than federal limits for drinking water.The EPA chose to exempt oil and gas as “special wastes” from RCRA Subtitle C, the rules that govern hazardous wastes.

    Despite its findings, ODNR still allows the spreading of AquaSalina on roads. According to Cleveland.com, the Ohio Department of Transportation “applied 621,336 gallons of AquaSalina, or about 7 percent of the 8.8 million gallons of deicers” from September 1, 2018, to February 4, 2019.

    When you visit the company’s website, AquaSalina is described as “natural saltwater solution produced from ancient seas.” Doesn’t that sound nice? Almost makes you wish you were sitting on an ancient beach. But the company fails to disclose that the “saltwater” is produced by oil and gas operations.

    John Stolz at Duquesne University has tested AquaSalina from bottles he bought online from Lowes. “AquaSalina is not just ancient sea water, nor is it just salt brine,” Stolz said. “It’s a complex chemical mixture that includes toxic and radioactive elements.” Stolz said his findings “will be released in the near future.”

    Because it’s accessible to the average consumer, AquaSalina can be used anywhere a person wants to prevent ice, including sidewalks and stairs. That means it can be tracked into homes on the bottoms of boots, ingested by pets who walk through it and lick their paws, and it can expose young children who crawl on contaminated floors.“Special Waste”

    That states like Pennsylvania and Ohio can approve such products without thorough and complete analysis, tracking and control is no accident. In the U.S., the oil and gas industry generally does not have to comply with federal hazardous waste law under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).Even with a state or local prohibition on oil and gas waste, products like AquaSalina’s de-icer and Eureka’s road and pool salts could still make their way into communities without anyone knowing their true origin.

    The four technical criteria used to determine if a waste mixture is hazardous are ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity and toxicity; waste will be considered hazardous if it exhibits anyof the four characteristics … unless it’s oil and gas waste.

    In 1988, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chose to exempt oil and gas as “special wastes” from RCRA Subtitle C, the rules that govern hazardous wastes — despite finding, at the very same time, that oil and gas wastes contain toxic substances that endanger both human health and the environment. For example, the EPA found that benzene, phenanthrene, lead, arsenic, barium, antimony, fluoride and uranium in oil and gas wastes were of major concern and present at “levels that exceed 100 times EPA’s health-based standards.”

    This leaves regulation in the hands of states, which have their own ways of exempting oil and gas waste from being handled as the potentially hazardous waste it is.

    States like Pennsylvania, Colorado and New York essentially mirror the federal exemption. In New York, however, two bills introduced in January aim to remove the exemption for oil and gas waste. S.3392 introduced by Sen. Rachel May and A.2655 by Assemblyman Steve Englebright would require hazardous wastes produced from oil and natural gas activities to be treated as hazardous wastes. Currently, there is no fracking in New York, but the state imports oil and gas waste from fracking states like Pennsylvania.

    In Ohio, Sen. Matt Dolan sponsored a bill last year that would treat products like AquaSalina as a commodity rather than toxic waste and prevent ODNR from imposing any additional requirements. Dolan may reintroduce the bill again this year.

    Meanwhile, Connecticut doesn’t have fracking operations, yet 56 cities and towns there have still passed local laws banning oil and gas waste disposal. However, even with a state or local prohibition on oil and gas waste, products like AquaSalina’s de-icer and Eureka’s road and pool salts could still make their way into communities without anyone knowing their true origin.

    https://truthout.org/articles/is-drilling-and-fracking-waste-on-your-sidewalk-or-in-your-pool/
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

17. D.C. Circuit Dismisses NEPA Pipeline Claim

    Feb 21, 2019 | Inside EPA

    A federal appellate court has rejected environmentalists’ claims that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) failed to follow the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it approved a high-profile gas pipeline, including whether it appropriately considered the project’s downstream greenhouse gases as an indirect effect.

    In a Feb. 19 unpublished judgment in Appalachian Voices, et al. v. FERC, et al, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld FERC’s approval of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, sidestepping environmentalists’ climate and other claims.

    “Petitioners claim that FERC erred in concluding that such emissions are not reasonably foreseeable indirect effects of the Project. We need not consider that argument, however, because even if petitioners are correct, FERC provided an estimate of the upper bound of emissions resulting from end-use combustion, and it gave several reasons why it believed petitioners’ preferred metric, the Social Cost of Carbon tool, is not an appropriate measure of project-level climate change impacts and their significance under NEPA or the Natural Gas Act. That is all that is required for NEPA purposes,” the decision says.

    The ruling is not a surprise as the Jan. 28 oral arguments in the case did not go well for the environmentalists after Judge David Tatel suggested that they “forfeited” their NEPA arguments and failed to give the court a basis for setting aside the approval. He repeatedly questioned attorney Benjamin Luckett about why the groups failed to rebut FERC’s detailed defense of its decision not to monetize the project’s GHG impacts using the social cost of carbon.

    Environmentalists “did not respond” to those arguments. “So my question is, why isn’t that argument forfeited by you?” Tatel asked.

    In a Feb. 19 analysis, ClearView Energy Partners said the outcome was not a surprise, but for the speed of the action. The consulting firm noted that the order represents the third time in the last two months that the court has rejected an appeal of a pipeline certificate without a detailed published opinion. Under court rules, this indicates the decisions are fact-specific and hold no precedential value.

    However, ClearView says FERC faces worse odds of success in the next two cases concerning NEPA reviews of energy projects. One suit over the Dominion New Market pipeline expansion is significant because FERC in a split rehearing denial held that upstream and downstream GHGs are not reasonable or foreseeable in most cases, and do not need to be considered under NEPA.

    An appeal of FERC’s certificate for Broad Run pipeline project in Tennessee, on similar grounds, could be argued on the same day, with arguments set as soon as May or as late as September.

    FERC reviewed both the New Market and Broad Run projects before the Obama White House Council on Environmental Quality finalized an expansive NEPA GHG guide, and neither review included upstream or downstream GHGs. Even so, ClearView says it is “unconvinced FERC’s new policy on the reasonableness and foreseeableness of GHG emissions will be endorsed by the court.”

    President Donald Trump revoked the NEPA GHG guide and his CEQ is drafting a narrower NEPA GHG guide that is undergoing interagency review.

    https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/dc-circuit-dismisses-nepa-pipeline-claim
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

18. Johnson Controls Gets Partial Win in Indiana Contamination Suit

    Feb 21, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Brian Flood

    Johnson Controls hasn’t violated the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, because the company took the proper steps to limit hazardous waste contamination while shutting down parts of its Goshen, Ind., manufacturing facility, a federal court ruled Feb. 19.

    However, five plaintiffs who live or own land near the facility can move forward with their claim that contamination from the facility has spread into their neighborhood and presents a serious threat to human health and the environment, the court said.

    The facility, which made parts for thermostats and building control systems, used trichloroethylene (TCE) to degrease its metal parts. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management signed off on the company’s closure plan for the hazardous waste management units at the facility.

    While following this plan, Johnson Controls discovered that TCE and other volatile organic compounds had contaminated on-site soil and groundwater, and that a plume of the contamination extended into a neighborhood next to the facility.

    Johnson Controls entered into a “voluntary remediation program” with IDEM. Among other steps, the company excavated 31 tons of contaminated soil from the site, and injected substances into the groundwater to break down the TCE.

    “Substantial contamination still exists both on and off the site, though,” the court said.

    Nevertheless, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ claims that Johnson Controls was violating RCRA. “There is no dispute that Johnson Controls has performed each of the activities required by” the closure plan approved by the IDEM, the court said. “Though contamination still exists, which Johnson Controls is addressing through the Voluntary Remediation Program, the continued presence of that past contamination does not itself mean that Johnson Controls is currently in violation of its obligations.”

    But the plaintiffs can move forward with their claim that contamination from the plant poses an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the environment, the court said.

    The plaintiffs are represented by Yoder Ainlay Ulmer & Buckingham LLP and Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP. Johnson Controls is represented by Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP and Barnes & Thornburg LLP.

    The case is Schmucker v. Johnson Controls Inc., N.D. Ind., No. 14-01593, 2/19/19.

     https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/johnson-controls-gets-partial-win-in-indiana-contamination-suit

    Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

19. Nine Key Questions About the Green New Deal

    Feb 21, 2019 | The New York Times

    By Lisa Friedman

    If you’ve heard a lot recently about the Green New Deal but still aren’t quite sure what it is, you are not alone. After all, it has been trumpeted by its supporters as the way to avoid planetary destruction, and vilified by opponents as a socialist plot to take away your ice cream. So it’s bound to be somewhat confusing. We’re here to help.What is the Green New Deal?

    The Green New Deal is a congressional resolution that lays out a grand plan for tackling climate change.

    Introduced by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Senator Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats, the proposal calls on the federal government to wean the United States from fossil fuels and curb planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions across the economy. It also aims to guarantee new high-paying jobs in clean energy industries.

    The resolution is nonbinding, so even if Congress approves it, nothing in the proposal would become law.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Variations of the proposal have been around for years. Think tanks, the Green Party and even the New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman all have had plans for tackling climate change that they labeled a Green New Deal. But after the 2018 midterm elections, a youth activist group called the Sunrise Movement popularized the name by laying out a strategy and holding a sit-in outside the office of Nancy Pelosi, the soon-to-be-speaker of the House of Representatives, to demand action on climate change. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez joined the protesters, lending her support to their proposal and setting the groundwork for what ultimately became the joint resolution.Will there be a vote on it?

    Yes.

    Republicans have cast the Green New Deal as a socialist takeover and say it is evidence that Democrats are far from the mainstream on energy issues. Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, plans to bring the plan to the floor as early as next week. Democrats say that the vote would be a stunt because Republican Senate leaders do not want to have a sincere debate about climate change.What problem is the Green New Deal addressing?Editors’ PicksA New Breed of Hunters Focuses on the Cooking‘A Pumping Conspiracy’: Why Workers Smuggled Breast Pumps Into PrisonHe Committed Murder. Then He Graduated From an Elite Law School. Would You Hire Him as Your Attorney?Oil refineries near Norco, La. The Green New Deal calls on the federal government to wean the United States from fossil fuels.CreditBryan Tarnowski for The New York Times

    ImageOil refineries near Norco, La. The Green New Deal calls on the federal government to wean the United States from fossil fuels.CreditBryan Tarnowski for The New York Times

    The goal of the Green New Deal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid the worst consequences of climate change while also trying to fix societal problems like economic inequality and racial injustice.

    The resolution uses as its guide two major reports issued last year by the United Nations and by federal scientists who warned that if global temperatures continue to rise, the world is headed for more intense heat waves, wildfires and droughts. The research shows that the United States economy could lose billions of dollars by the end of the century because of climate change. Currently, carbon emissions are rising, by 3.4 percent last year in the United States and by 2.7 percent globally, according to early estimates.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Supporters of the Green New Deal also believe that change can’t just be a technological feat, and say it must also tackle poverty, income inequality and racial discrimination.READ MORE REPORTING ON THE GREEN NEW DEALA Green New Deal is Technologically Possible. Its Political Prospects Are Another Question.Feb. 21, 2019Liberal Democrats Formally Call for a ‘Green New Deal,’ Giving Substance to a Rallying CryFeb. 7, 2019What are its main provisions?

    You can read it for yourself here, but here are the essential elements: It says the entire world needs to get to net-zero emissions by 2050 — meaning as much carbon would have to be absorbed as released into the atmosphere — and the United States must take a “leading role” in achieving that.

    The Green New Deal calls on the federal government to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create high-paying jobs, ensure that clean air, clean water and healthy food are basic human rights, and end all forms of oppression.

    To achieve those goals, the plan calls for the launch of a “10-year mobilization” to reduce carbon emissions in the United States. It envisions sourcing 100 percent of the country’s electricity from renewable and zero-emissions power, digitizing the nation’s power grid, upgrading every building in the country to be more energy-efficient, and overhauling the nation’s transportation system by investing in electric vehicles and high-speed rail.

    To address social justice, the resolution says it is the duty of the government to provide job training and new economic development, particularly to communities that currently rely on jobs in fossil fuel industries.What doesn’t it say?What on Earth Is Going On?

    Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get our latest stories and insights about climate change — along with answers to your questions and tips on how to help.SIGN UPSenator Tom Cotton of Arkansas has said the deal would force Americans to have to “ride around on high-speed light rail, supposedly powered by unicorn tears.”CreditTom Brenner/The New York Times

    ImageSenator Tom Cotton of Arkansas has said the deal would force Americans to have to “ride around on high-speed light rail, supposedly powered by unicorn tears.”CreditTom Brenner/The New York Times

    President Trump has claimed the Green New Deal will take away your “airplane rights.” Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, told Hugh Hewitt, the conservative radio host, that the proposal would confiscate cars and require Americans to “ride around on high-speed light rail, supposedly powered by unicorn tears.” And Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming and chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, warned that ice cream, cheeseburgers and milkshakes would be a thing of the past because under the Green New Deal, “livestock will be banned.”

    The resolution doesn’t do any of those things.

    To be sure, there is some confusion about what the Green New Deal does and doesn’t say. That’s partially the fault of its sponsors, who botched the resolution’s initial rollout.

    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s office initially sent to reporters, but later disavowed, a fact sheet that included some controversial ideas, like guaranteeing economic security including to those “unwilling to work.”

    ADVERTISEMENT

    The resolution does call on the federal government to make investments in policies and projects that would eventually change the way we design buildings, travel and eat. For example: cows. To reduce methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that cows and other livestock emit, the resolution proposes “working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible.”

    The resolution itself also steers clear of endorsing or rejecting specific technologies or sources of energy, something that Mr. Markey said was done purposefully to encourage broader support for the plan.What’s with the name?

    The Green New Deal takes its name and inspiration from the major government makeover, known as the New Deal, launched by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to help the United States recover from the Great Depression.

    That series of public-works programs and financial reforms included the Civilian Conservation Corps (which put people to work in manual labor jobs like planting trees and constructing park trails) and the creation of the Public Works Administration to work on the construction of bridges, dams, schools and more.

    Like the original New Deal, the Green New Deal is not a single project or piece of legislation.What are the costs?

    That’s not clear yet.

    President Trump claimed it would cost $100 trillion. Supporters of the Green New Deal say climate change could be equally costly to the American economy. For now it’s impossible to pin down dollar figures on the plan.

    Some examples of why:

    One conservative think tank has pegged the cost to the federal government of providing Medicare-to-all at $32 trillion over 10 years, but supporters claimed it would actually save taxpayers $2 trillion over 10 years.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Converting the country to 100 percent clean power? In Vermont alone, which has a goal of achieving 90 percent renewable energy by midcentury, the cost is estimated at $33 billion. Yet the state is seeing job growth in clean energy sectors and expects the transition will spur cost savings for consumers.

    Modernizing the electrical grid across the United States could cost as much as $476 billion, yet reap $2 trillion in benefits, according to a 2011 study issued by the Electric Power Research Institute.

    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has acknowledged that the Green New Deal is going to be expensive, but contends the plan will pay for itself through economic growth.Do critics offer alternative proposals?

    Some Republicans have called for a technology-oriented solution to climate change, but so far no critic has come out with an alternative that matches the scale or scope of the Green New Deal.How will the Green New Deal shape the debate?

    There is going to be a lot more political jockeying around the Green New Deal in coming weeks and months. Republicans have already launched video ads trying to tie Democrats to the proposal, which they have described as “radical.”

    And Mr. McConnell’s vote is directly aimed at making life uncomfortable for Democratic presidential contenders like Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Kamala Harris. Those senators have all co-sponsored the Green New Deal resolution but in some cases have avoided specifics. Ms. Klobuchar, for example, told CNN she saw the Green New Deal as an “aspiration” and “something that we need to move toward.”

    At the same time, all of the attention on the Green New Deal has put new pressure on Republican critics to come up with their own plan for cutting greenhouse gases.

    It is likely that the Green New Deal will remain a lightning rod throughout the 2020 presidential campaign.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/climate/green-new-deal-questions-answers.html
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

20. A Green New Deal is Technologically Possible. Its Political Prospects Are Another Question.

    Feb 21, 2019 | The New York Times

    By Lisa Friedman and Trip Gabriel

    President Trump derided the Green New Deal as a “high school term paper that got a low mark.” Congressional Republicans mocked it as “zany.” Even Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House speaker, called the proposal a “green dream,” and some of the party’s 2020 candidates are starting to describe it as merely aspirational.

    Yet, despite that disdain, the goals of the far-reaching plan to tackle climate change and economic inequality are within the realm of technological possibility, several energy experts and economists said in recent interviews.

    Getting there will cost trillions of dollars, most agreed, and require expansive new taxes and federal programs. It certainly could not be accomplished within the 10-year time frame that supporters say is necessary, according to these experts.

    The Green New Deal, in other words, is an exciting idea for many liberals and an enticing political target for conservatives. But, most of all, it is an extraordinarily complicated series of trade-offs that could be realized, experts say, with extensive sacrifices that people are only starting to understand.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    [Here are answers to nine key questions on the Green New Deal.]

    Proposals for a Green New Deal — which would aim to slow climate change and catapult myriad industries into cutting-edge, low-carbon technologies — have been debated for more than a decade. But the subject was given new urgency last year by a high-profile United Nations report that said the Earth was on track to experience food shortages, fatal heat waves and mass die-offs of coral reefs by 2040, sooner than earlier projections. The report called for staggering changes to the global energy economy.

    If the planet follows its current trajectory, the result by century’s end would be “catastrophe,” said John P. Holdren, the former science adviser to President Barack Obama. “The world would be almost unrecognizable compared to today’s world.”

    “The evidence the climate is changing is becoming so overwhelming people are seeing it in their regions and in their lives,” he added. “We are really to the point where we’re seeing bodies in the street from severe flooding and severe wildfires.”

    [Make sense of the people, issues and ideas shaping American politics with our newsletter.]

    The challenges in the Green New Deal for the economy, for Democratic presidential candidates running on it and for voters start with the fact that 80 percent of America’s energy now comes from relatively cheap and plentiful fossil fuels.Editors’ PicksA New Breed of Hunters Focuses on the Cooking52 Places to Go in 2019Julia Cameron Wants You to Do Your Morning Pages

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Replacing them with sources that do not emit greenhouse gasses will cost trillions of dollars; potentially increase energy costs for millions of families; and entail federal intervention in swaths of the economy, like transportation, where there is already a mixed record of government success. Republican critics gleefully noted last week that California’s Democratic governor scaled back a state-owned bullet train linking San Francisco and Los Angeles because of costs.Republican critics gleefully noted last week that California’s Democratic governor scaled back a state-owned bullet train linking San Francisco and Los Angeles because of costs.CreditJim Wilson/The New York Times

    ImageRepublican critics gleefully noted last week that California’s Democratic governor scaled back a state-owned bullet train linking San Francisco and Los Angeles because of costs.CreditJim Wilson/The New York Times

    Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, has already said he will bring the plan to the floor, a move to force Democrats — particularly the six presidential candidates in the Senate who have endorsed the blueprint — to cast a vote that Republicans can use to brand them as socialists and extremists. Most 2020 hopefuls standing up for a Green New Deal have done little more than endorse it as a slogan and have rarely been pressed on its specifics.

    But while the scope of the Green New Deal is enormous, experts believe that the economic trade-offs — saving trillions on potential catastrophe by spending trillions to prevent it — are worth serious consideration given the scale of the threat, and that a deep policy discussion would help voters and other Americans grapple with the environmental threats.Technological challenges. And political ones.

    The Green New Deal, which is a congressional resolution without the force of legislation, calls for a “10-year national mobilization” to make the United States carbon-neutral across the economy. That means, as much carbon would have to be absorbed as is released into the atmosphere. Mr. Holdren, who is now a professor of environmental policy at Harvard University, said the Green New Deal’s timeline of achieving that goal around 2030 is not feasible.

    “As a technologist studying this problem for 50 years, I don’t think we can do it,” he said.

    “There’s hope we could do it by 2045 or 2050 if we get going now,” he added.

    Mr. Holdren said worldwide energy infrastructure — an investment of $25 to $30 trillion — turns over every three to four decades, and an aggressive transition to non-carbon energy begun today could achieve zero emissions by midcentury. That is the deadline urged by scientists from 40 countries in last year’s report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    The more ambitious Green New Deal was introduced by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Senator Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts. Its sweeping targets also include supplying 100 percent of the country’s electricity from renewable and zero-emissions sources within a decade; digitizing the nation’s power grid; upgrading every building to be more energy efficient; and overhauling factories and transportation, including cars, trucks and trains “as much as is technologically feasible” to remove greenhouse emissions.Sign Up for On Politics With Lisa Lerer

    A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.SIGN UPRepresentative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey introduced the resolution during a news conference this month.CreditPete Marovich for The New York Times

    ImageRepresentative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey introduced the resolution during a news conference this month.CreditPete Marovich for The New York Times

    The plan does not include a cost estimate, though it presumably would require massive new government spending and disrupt existing jobs and industries.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    In addition to its climate goals, the plan includes far-ranging and politically problematic social promises, including guaranteed high-wage jobs, housing, paid vacation and health care.

    Ethan Zindler, head of North American research at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, a clean-energy research group, said the power goal alone would be an enormous lift.

    He noted that 37 percent of electricity in the United States comes from zero-carbon sources, including 20 percent of which is nuclear. If no new policies are enacted and all existing nuclear plants are kept online, the United States can rise to about 44 percent clean energy by 2030.

    “We are quite optimistic that renewables will become the lowest-cost option” in the near future, Mr. Zindler said. But a 100 percent transformation to clean energy in a decade would necessitate not just shutting down coal, but also decommissioning natural gas plants.

    “That would be extremely, extremely difficult to do verging on impossible without causing some real harm to the economy,” he said.

    Mark Z. Jacobson, a Stanford professor of civil and environmental engineering, was more optimistic. His research influenced a California law last year requiring the state to use 100 percent carbon-free energy by 2045. Mr. Jacobson said that 80 percent of the Green New Deal’s target of net-zero greenhouse emissions across the economy could be achieved by 2030, and 100 percent between 2040 and 2050.

    “You don’t need any miracle technologies,” he said.

    He laid out a multistep plan: converting all energy to electricity and heat, and generating both solely with wind, solar and water resources; heating and cooling buildings with electric heat pumps; and powering factories with furnaces that use electricity. The only economic sector that can’t be electrified with existing technology, he said, are long-distance airplanes and ships.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    The Green New Deal “is technically and economically feasible,” he said. “Socially and politically, it’s a different question.”‘Time is not our friend’

    Architects of the Green New Deal envision creating millions of high-wage jobs through its massive clean-infrastructure build-out. Labor unions have been cool to the plan, though, fearing that jobs in the renewable-energy sector won’t be as high-paying or plentiful as those in oil and gas.

    But Kelly Sims Gallagher, director of Tufts University’s Center for International Environment and Resource Policy, said she believes the resolution’s jobs goals are reachable.

    There are now about 786,000 Americans working in the renewable energy industry, according to the most recent figures from International Renewable Energy Agency, compared to 3.8 million in China and 1.2 million in Europe.There are 3.8 million people working in the renewable energy sector in China compared to about 786,000 in the United States.CreditChina Stringer Network/Reuters

    ImageThere are 3.8 million people working in the renewable energy sector in China compared to about 786,000 in the United States.CreditChina Stringer Network/Reuters

    Ms. Gallagher said the nation seems to have ceded some of these jobs to Europe and to China. “There’s no reason why we couldn’t get those back and build a stronger clean-energy industry in the United States,’’ she said. Overhauling the transportation and buildings sectors within a decade are by far the biggest challenges the Green New Deal presents, she added. Both require major financial investments, regulations and — in the case of spurring electric-vehicle development and public transit — probably new taxes.

    Ultimately, many experts said, it would not be possible to achieve Green New Deal goals without building into the economy a cost for emitting greenhouse gases — such as a carbon tax, which has long been a Republican, business-oriented approach.

    Adele Morris, policy director of the climate and energy economics project at the Brookings Institution, said a greenhouse gas tax imposed on fewer than 3,000 taxpaying entities — corporations and municipal plants — would target 85 percent of United States emissions. And Daniel C. Esty a Yale environmental law professor and former commissioner of Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, said a $5-per-ton price on carbon that increases $5 each year over 20 years would put the United States in “full transformation mode” within a decade.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Republicans have mocked the Green New Deal as a “socialist wish list” untethered to economic realities. But the plan is popular with the Democratic base. A poll last week commissioned by environmental groups in early primary states — California, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Iowa and Nevada — found 74 percent of likely Democratic primary voters reacted favorably when the Green New Deal was described to them.

    Although six Democratic presidential candidates are co-sponsors of the Green New Deal — Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — it is unclear how familiar or supportive they are of its specifics. Most have offered general praise for its goals. Ms. Klobuchar, in an interview at a CNN town hall Monday, called the Green New Deal “so important right now for our country.” But when pressed on whether the specific goals are achievable, she said, “I think that they are aspirations,” and some compromises will be needed.

    Mr. Sanders, who on Tuesday announced his candidacy for 2020, intends to release a plan for reaching the Green New Deal goals, said his spokesman, Josh Miller-Lewis.

    In a recent interview Mr. Sanders said, “I’m prepared to be as bold as we can.”

    He said: “We are already spending many billions of dollars a year dealing with the impact of climate change,” a figure certain to rise.

    Mr. Booker, challenged by a Fox News reporter on Monday about the high costs to upgrade lighting alone, said, “This is the lie that’s going on right now,” while Ms. Warren, urging ambitious goals last week, said, “Republicans are stuck somewhere back in the 1950s.”

    [Check out the Democratic field with our candidate tracker.]

    The few congressional Republicans who want to address climate change have been wary of the Green New Deal. Representative Francis Rooney of Florida, the Republican co-chairman of the Climate Solutions Caucus, said he would likely vote against the resolution because of its lack of details and dismissal of “free enterprise and capitalism.”

    “I don’t want to distract us from focusing on practical things we can actually accomplish like a carbon tax, like developing the infrastructure necessary to fight sea level rise,” he said.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    If the Green New Deal advances beyond a resolution to bill-writing, its policies have no chance of passing in the currently divided Congress, with a president who has mocked global warming as a hoax.

    Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, a pro-fossil-fuel group, pointed out that such policies could not even pass in Democratic strongholds like Washington State, where voters in November decisively rejected a ballot proposal for a carbon tax.

    Mr. Pyle argued that Green New Deal boosters are not being realistic about the environmental consequences of constructing high-speed rail, manufacturing zero-emission vehicles or retrofitting buildings.

    “How much steel is this going to involve? How much concrete? Think about the sheer amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere for retrofitting alone,” he said. “It’s almost as if they are suspending reality to get to their end goal.”

    But environmental activists said the details and hurdles are less important than the broad ambition of the plan, which proposes a national mobilization with the scale and urgency of the original New Deal.

    “The science is clear: Time is not our friend here,” said Carol Browner, a White House climate adviser to Mr. Obama and chief of the Environmental Protection Administration under President Bill Clinton. “So I have to say I’m as excited about this as I have been about anything in the environmental space in a long time.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/us/politics/green-new-deal.html
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

21. U.S. Judge Dismisses Boys' Lawsuit Against Trump Climate Rollbacks

    Feb 21, 2019 | Reuters (In The New York Times)

    By Jonathan Stempel

    A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by two Pennsylvania boys and an environmental group seeking to stop U.S. President Donald Trump from rolling back regulations addressing climate change, saying the court does not have power to tell the White House what to do.

    Disagreeing with a judge overseeing a similar case in Oregon, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond in Philadelphia ruled on Tuesday that the Constitution does not guarantee what the boys and the Clean Air Council called a due process right to a "life-sustaining climate system."

    Diamond also said the boys, who were 7 and 11 when the lawsuit was filed in November 2017, could not trace their respective severe allergies and asthma to White House policies.

    He said this meant the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue Trump, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt and other defendants who had moved to dismiss the case.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    "Plaintiffs' disagreement with defendants is a policy debate best left to the political process," wrote Diamond, an appointee of President George W. Bush. "Because I have neither the authority nor the inclination to assume control of the Executive Branch, I will grant defendants' motion."

    Joseph Minott, executive director of the Clean Air Council, said the plaintiffs will review their options as the White House's "deliberate indifference" to climate change increases "the frequency and intensity of its life-threatening effects."

    The U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    Trump has long cast doubt on the science of climate change.

    He has announced his intention to withdraw the United States from a two-year-old global agreement to combat climate change, and a proposal to overhaul former President Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan with new rules that would ease pollution controls.

    In November, Trump rejected findings in a congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment, which said climate change could reduce U.S. gross domestic product more than 10 percent by the end of this century. (https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/NCA4_2018_FullReport.pdf)Editors’ PicksA New Breed of Hunters Focuses on the Cooking‘A Pumping Conspiracy’: Why Workers Smuggled Breast Pumps Into PrisonHe Committed Murder. Then He Graduated From an Elite Law School. Would You Hire Him as Your Attorney?

    ADVERTISEMENT

    The Eugene, Oregon case was brought by 21 children and young adults also challenging government policies affecting climate change.

    Diamond accused U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken, the appointee of President Bill Clinton overseeing that case, of contravening or ignoring "longstanding authority" by finding a due process right to "a climate system capable of sustaining human life."

    The case is Clean Air Council et al v U.S. et al, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 17-04977.

    https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/02/21/us/21reuters-usa-climatechange-lawsuit.html
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

22. Gov. Keeps 2 Enviro Panels Intact

    Feb 21, 2019 | AP (In E&E Greenwire)

    By David Eggert

    Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer yesterday changed direction — for now — and issued an environmental order that keeps intact two business-backed panels that are charged with oversight of state rulemaking and permitting.

    The move came less than a week after the Republican-led Legislature took the rare step of rejecting her original order to reshape and rename the Department of Environmental Quality, largely because it would have abolished the two commissions that were created under 2018 laws enacted by the GOP. Whitmer, who contends the committees will add bureaucracy to the regulatory process, noted that she is awaiting Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel's determination on whether the panels are legal.

    Nessel's opinion would bind state agencies unless it was reversed by a court.

    "Every Michigander deserves safe, clean drinking water, and I'm not going to let partisan politics slow down the important work that needs to get done right now to protect public health," Whitmer said in a statement.

    One panel oversees environmental rulemaking — though the governor ultimately has the final say — while another can approve, modify or reverse permit decisions that have been challenged by companies or other parties.

    GOP lawmakers and business lobbyists say the commissions have not yet had a chance to operate and will give people a chance to challenge overzealous regulators. Democrats and environmentalists say the "polluter panels" are stacked with too many industry officials and will hamper Whitmer's efforts to address the discovery of chemical compounds known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, in at least 40 locations across the state.

    Whitmer's new order is largely the same as her initial one. It renames the agency as the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) and creates new public advocacy offices for clean water and "environmental justice" to investigate complaints about water quality and help ensure fair consideration of low-income and minority community interests.

    The order also eliminates the Environmental Science Advisory Board and forms a new office on climate policy to seek ways to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and promote renewable energy while helping Michigan adjust to a warmer world. The order will take effect April 22 unless it is rejected by legislators. 

    https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/02/21/stories/1060121735
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

23. Oregon Considering Statewide Ban of Single-Use Plastic Bags

    Feb 21, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Justin Wise

    Oregon is reportedly considering enforcing a ban on single-use plastic checkout bags.

    The state's House Committee on Energy and Environment took up a bill on the subject on Tuesday, according to Oregon Public Broadcasting. The bill, which proponents are calling the Sustainable Shopping Initiative, would ban retail establishments from providing customers anything to carry their goods but a recycled paper bag. 

    Under the bill's provision, stores would be mandated to charge at least 10 cents per recyclable paper bag, according to The Salem Statesman Journal. Retailers would also be given the option to sell reusable checkout bags made of cloth or durable plastic. 

    “As Oregonians, we live in one of the most beautiful places on earth. We have the responsibility to protect the natural resources our environment and our economy depend on,” state Rep. Carla Piluso (D), one of the bill’s sponsors, said ahead of a public hearing on the proposal, The Statesman Journal reported. 

    The plastic-bag ban would not apply to meat and vegetable bags. Restaurants and other food-service operations would not be required to abide by the law. 

    But The Statesman Journal noted that Piluso has proposed an amendment that would require restaurants to follow the same provisions as other retail establishments. 

    Oregon has attempted multiple times to enforce statewide single-use plastic bag ban. A total of 16 cities have already instituted local laws banning single-use plastic bags. 

    No action was taken on the bill or the proposed amendment on Tuesday, according to The Statesman Journal. 

    https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/430918-oregon-considering-statewide-ban-of-single-use-plastic-bags
    

    Return to headline | Return to top