Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - March 7, 2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Brexit Uncertainties Dominate U.S.-UK ITC Hearing
Mar 7, 2019 | Inside US Trade
By Maria Curi
U.S. industry witnesses at a U.S. International Trade Commission hearing on a potential U.S.-UK trade deal on Wednesday grappled with how the United Kingdom's tariff schedule and regulatory regime, among other outstanding... Please note ACC is mentioned incorrectly as “American Chemical Council”. -
(ACC Mentioned) Washington State Debates Divergent Approaches to Managing Plastic Packaging Waste
Mar 6, 2019 | Plastics Today
By Clare Goldsberry
China’s decision to restrict imports of plastic packaging waste for recycling—the National Sword policy—has created a conundrum for U.S. recyclers. While it has strengthened demand for recycling services, there doesn’t appear to be... -
US EPA Round-Up
Mar 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
US EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has announced several staff changes following his confirmation in the Senate last week. These include naming Michael Molina deputy chief of staff, and tapping Corry Schiermeyer to serve as the.. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA ‘Confident’ about Meeting TSCA Deadlines, despite Heavy Load
Mar 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins and Kelly Franklin
Even while the US EPA has "its eyes on the calendar" with regard to meeting statutory deadlines under TSCA, the agency’s chemical safety office is looking to shift its communications strategies and ensure increased transparency... -
GAO Reviews EPA’s IRIS Assessment Efforts and Implementation of TSCA Reforms
Mar 7, 2019 | JD Supra
On March 4, 2019, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report titled Chemical Assessments: Status of EPA’s Efforts to Produce Assessments and Implement the Toxic Substances Control Act. The report... -
(ACC Mentioned) Looming Industry Disruptions Prompt Chemicals Companies To Refocus On Consumers
Mar 7, 2019 | Forbes
By Jean-Marc Ollagnier
A perfect storm that includes growing consumer attention on plastics waste, changing manufacturing and new digital technologies threatens to disrupt chemical companies’ long profitability run. The rapid growth cycles driven by... -
(ACC Mentioned) Impacted Communities Are Fed up with EPA’s Failure to Regulate Toxic Chemicals
Mar 7, 2019 | Think Progress
By E.A. Crunden
When Hope Grosse was growing up in Warminster, Pennsylvania, she rarely thought about her home’s proximity to the Naval Air Warfare Center nearby, and how that might impact the safety of the water she drank and bathed in daily. -
EPA Chemicals Office Delays Draft Risk Reviews to End of Summer
Mar 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA won’t release nine draft chemical risk evaluations that were originally slated for 2018 until the end of the summer, Cathy Fehrenbacher, acting director of risk assessment in the EPA’s chemicals office said. The agency issued... -
D.C. Circuit Poised To Hear Rival Refrigerant Makers’ Fight Over HFC Rule
Mar 7, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
A federal appeals court is poised to hear oral argument March 8 in a lawsuit where rival manufacturers of climate-warming hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants are battling over the merits of EPA’s policy on replacing the substances... -
United States: EPA Releases PFAS Action Plan; State Efforts In The Northeast Well Underway
Mar 7, 2019 | Mondaq
By Elizabeth C. Barton, Harold Blinderman, Taylor C. Amato, and Paul D. Williams
On February 14, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its long-awaited Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan with a focus on the potential impacts of PFAS compounds in the environment. The... -
New Orleans Prepped for Deluge of Mardi Gras Beads
Mar 7, 2019 | Bloomberg Businessweek (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Eric Roston
As more than 1 million tourists descended on New Orleans for Mardi Gras this week, the city took steps to address toxic plastic pollution from the holiday's notorious beads. About 45 million pounds of plastic comes to New Orleans... -
US Firm Claire’s Removes Products after FDA Asbestos Investigation
Mar 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
US accessories and cosmetics retailer Claire’s has removed three products from its store shelves, following an investigation into asbestos contamination by the Food and Drug Administration. The agency launched its... -
EU Ministers Push Commission to Speed Up EDC Strategy
Mar 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Caterina Tani
The EU should speed up initiatives to handle endocrine disruptors and provide a concrete timetable for action, EU ministers have said. Their views came during a policy debate at an EU Environment Council meeting on 5 March... -
Glyphosate Ruling in EU Court Confirms Public’s ‘Right to Know’
Mar 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was wrong to cite commercial confidentiality when refusing access to studies on the possible toxic and carcinogenic effects of a common herbicide, the EU Court of Justice ruled in twin... -
Commission Assesses Plastics Strategy Voluntary Pledges
Mar 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has published a staff working document assessing voluntary pledges under the European strategy for plastics in a circular economy. These pledges are key in ensuring that by 2025, 10 million tonnes of... -
Industry Wants to Join in on Development of Echa SVHC Database
Mar 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
A group of EU trade associations is asking the European Commission if they can contribute to the development of Echa’s substances in articles database. The database came out of the revised waste framework Directive (WFD) that... -
Trump Said to Again Seek Deep Cuts in Renewable Energy Funding
Mar 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Trump administration is again seeking severe cuts to the U.S. Energy Department division charged with renewable energy and energy efficiency research, according to a department official familiar with the plan. The official, who... -
Trump Delays on Appliance Efficiency Hurt Companies, Consumers
Mar 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Work on energy efficiency standards for appliances has virtually ground to a halt during the Trump administration, leaving manufacturers and consumers in the lurch. The Energy Department is responsible for putting out regulations... -
Colo. Plan to Focus Oil, Gas Rules Advances
Mar 7, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Dan Elliott
A plan to refocus Colorado's oil and gas regulations on health and safety passed its first milestone in the Legislature yesterday after 187 people testified during a 12-hour hearing. The Senate Transportation and Energy Committee voted... -
Alaska Regulators Order BP to Plug, Abandon 14 Wells
Mar 7, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
State oil and gas regulators have ordered BP PLC to plug and abandon 14 wells in northern Alaska that were identified as at risk of failure. The state Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has also ordered BP to gather additional... -
US Gulf Coast NGPL Expansion to Serve Corpus Christi LNG Terminal
Mar 7, 2019 | S&P Global Platts
By Sean Sullivan
A Kinder Morgan-operated natural gas pipeline system that provides the backbone of the feedgas for Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass LNG export terminal is seeking regulatory approval for an almost 330,000-Dt/d compression-based... -
Democrats Slam Energy Efficiency Delays
Mar 7, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy Dillon
Energy and Commerce Democrats hammered the Trump administration this morning for delays and failures in promulgating more than a dozen energy efficiency standards, some of which were basically finalized in the last days... -
“Wasted Energy:” DOE's Illegal Inaction on Energy Efficiency
Mar 7, 2019 | Natural Resource Defense Council
By Kit Kennedy
In the search for powerful climate change action that can win support from both parties in Congress, it's hard to beat energy efficiency standards. Long-established federal efficiency baselines for appliances and equipment have saved... -
Fewer Petrochemical Deals Expected in 2019
Mar 7, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
Uncertainty in the global economy could dampen merger and acquisition activity in the chemical industry 2019, but deal volume will remain relatively robust particularly in the United States, according to a new report. Last year, the... -
Proposed Oil Regulation Would Increase Transparency on Spills, Violations
Mar 7, 2019 | New Mexico In Depth
By Elizabeth Miller
In mid-February, 300 barrels of crude oil and 1,000 barrels of the salty, chemical-laden water that comes out of the ground along with fossil fuel spilled from a pipeline in northwestern New Mexico and ran for 1.6 miles down a wash. -
Are Chemical Storage Facilities Safe from Sea Level Rise?
Mar 7, 2019 | Bacon's Rebellion
By James A. Bacon
If the threat of leaking coal ash pits kept you up at night, wait until you read, “Toxic Floodwaters: The Threat of Climate-Driven Chemical Disaster in Virginia’s James River Watershed,” a report just published by the Center for... -
Olympia Weighs Regulations on Oil Trains
Mar 7, 2019 | Inlander
By Samantha Wohlfeil
In what could be considered an end-run around federal rules governing rail safety, Washington could require that crude oil stored in or unloaded from rail cars in the state be at a vapor pressure less than 9 pounds per square inch. -
The Energy 202: Congress Has Held at Least 15 Climate Hearings since Democrats Won the House
Mar 7, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
There’s been one on climate change and infrastructure. Another on climate change and publicly owned lands. And there have been two on climate change and oceans. Now that they have control of the House, Democrats have used... -
Ewire: White House Pressures US Automakers to Back GHG Rule Freeze
Mar 7, 2019 | Inside EPA
The Trump administration is trying to shore up support for its plan to freeze vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards -- with the White House reportedly focusing its lobbying on the industry its rollback is ostensibly aimed at... -
Schumer: 'Some Progress' from GOP on Climate, but Government Action Needed
Mar 7, 2019 | Politico Pro - Energy Whiteboard
By Anthony Adragna
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer today said he saw "some progress" from his Republican colleagues in acknowledging climate change but warned the GOP emphasis on technological innovation alone would be insufficient... -
State Launches $30m Green Building Contest
Mar 7, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
A state-sponsored competition is offering financial incentives for "carbon neutral" building projects. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority will administer the $30 million "Buildings of Excellence"...
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Brexit Uncertainties Dominate U.S.-UK ITC Hearing
Mar 7, 2019 | Inside US Trade
By Maria Curi
U.S. industry witnesses at a U.S. International Trade Commission hearing on a potential U.S.-UK trade deal on Wednesday grappled with how the United Kingdom's tariff schedule and regulatory regime, among other outstanding issues, will be shaped by Brexit.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative last week released its negotiating objectives for a trade agreement with the UK, which largely mirror USTR's goals for a deal with the European Union. Trade Promotion Authority law dictates that formal negotiations can begin 30 days after USTR releases negotiating objectives, meaning the two sides have to wait until March 30.
The UK, however, cannot negotiate its own trade deals while it's part of the EU. Unless the British government and the other 27 EU member states agree to extend the Brexit deadline, the UK is expected to leave the bloc on March 29. Britain's Parliament could also vote to leave the EU under British Prime Minister Theresa May’s negotiated deal or leave with no deal. If the UK leaves under May's deal, it can negotiate, but not enter into, new trade deals until a transition period ends in December 2021.
“Our testimony assumes that the UK will be able to negotiate its own trade agreements upon leaving the European Union,” American Chemical Council International Trade Director Ed Brzytwa said during Wednesday’s hearing. Brzytwa was one of just two witnesses at the hearing, though more industry representatives participated through comments submitted to the ITC ahead of the hearing.
ITC Chairman David Johanson asked if some U.S. chemical markets would “experience greater growth in imports from the UK than others,” adding, “Would specialty chemicals likely be more affected than commodity chemicals, or vice versa?”
Brzytwa answered that he saw opportunities “for growth all around,” but said it would be “hard to predict what the Brexit is going to look like. This is a moving target. We really don’t even know what the UK’s tariff schedule is actually going to look like, and we’re making an assumption here that the UK tariff schedule will look something like the EU’s tariff schedule.”
The ACC is assuming the UK's average tariff rate for chemicals will be similar to the EU's, at 3 percent, Brzytwa said. Based on that assumption, a trade agreement that eliminates U.S. tariffs on chemical imports from the UK could save U.S. chemical manufacturers $88 million annually, the American Chemistry Council has calculated.
“The 88 million really relates to that 3 percent assumption,” Brzytwa said. “If the tariff schedule from the UK looks different, it would probably be a different number."
Referencing standards and regulatory cooperation, Commissioner Irving Williamson asked about any concerns in the context of a trade deal with the UK. Brzytwa said the ACC was assuming the UK would continue to be part of the EU's Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulatory regime, adding that “We have good word from the UK industry that this is going to be the case.”
Following up on Williamson's inquiry, Commissioner Jason Kearns asked whether it would be better for the ACC if the UK stayed within REACH rather than coming up with its own system.
“This is a matter of timing,” Brzytwa responded. “If Brexit happens quite soon, it’s going to be really difficult for the UK to create out of nothing a new chemical management regime or go back to what they had in the past, prior to REACH. It takes time to develop a chemical management regime. This is just a matter of predictability and certainty.”
There is still an opportunity for the ACC “to promote principles that are important to us” with the UK in REACH, Brzytwa added.
American Apparel & Footwear Association Executive Vice President Stephen Lamar was the second witness at Wednesday's hearing. In his testimony, Lamar said a yarn-forward rule of origin, which dictates that the input products for apparel must originate in the region covered by the trade agreement to qualify for duty-free access as a finished product, was “ill-equipped to support trade expansion with the U.K.”
Asked by Williamson whether the EU employs the yarn-forward rule of origin and whether the UK will subscribe to it, Lamar said “the UK hasn’t really started doing this yet; they, I think, rely on the EU approach,” which is different than yarn-forward.
“It has been hard to kind of pin them down and figure out exactly where they want to go in that approach and it’s one of the things that we’re continuing to have conversations on as they’re building up their trade negotiation capacity and what their industry is going to be asking,” Lamar said. “England tends to ask for more liberal and more flexible approaches. We imagine that will probably carry forward into their trade agreement approach."
Kearns asked whether the amount or type of imports of apparel or footwear in the UK are expected to change as a result of Brexit, to which Lamar responded “I think for Brexit a lot of it depends on what the Brexit is."
“There is a lot of uncertainty about what’s happening so it’s kind of hard to say. I think one of the things about what the administration is trying to do is if Brexit is hard or quick then there’s an opportunity for a very fast U.S.-UK trade agreement to come in,” Lamar said.
An ITC report on the economic impact of a trade deal with the UK, which will be informed by Wednesday's hearing, is due on May 8 to USTR. Various groups, including the ACC and the AAFA, testified in January before an inter-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee hearing on U.S.-UK negotiating objectives.
https://insidetrade.com/daily-news/brexit-uncertainties-dominate-us-uk-itc-hearing
-
(ACC Mentioned) Washington State Debates Divergent Approaches to Managing Plastic Packaging Waste
Mar 6, 2019 | Plastics Today
By Clare Goldsberry
China’s decision to restrict imports of plastic packaging waste for recycling—the National Sword policy—has created a conundrum for U.S. recyclers. While it has strengthened demand for recycling services, there doesn’t appear to be capacity to handle the increased demand. Moreover, there does not appear to be market demand for recycled plastics to make new products.
Washington State’s legislature is considering two dramatically different approaches to this problem.
HB 1204 may be the most comprehensive proposal to date that addresses plastic packaging pollution and recycling, said the Northwest Product Stewardship Council (NPSC), a coalition of government organizations in Washington and Oregon. The bill requires producers of plastic packaging to participate in a “stewardship organization” that would finance and oversee all aspects of end-of-life management including:Sponsored Content Brought to you by Design & Manufacturing New EnglandGet up close and personal with disruptive design
Design & Manufacturing focuses on the latest software and products that matter to you. Take a deep dive into exciting innovations and make important connections. Come for the conference learning, stay for the supplier expo.
Collection, sorting, recycling or disposal, where recycling is not feasible;clean-up of marine and other plastic packaging litter;clean-up of plastic packaging contamination at local compost facilities;improvements to recycling infrastructure, such as processing equipment at recycling facilities.
Producers would be charged a fee to participate in the stewardship organization based on the design and type of plastic used. Packaging that is more recyclable, uses post-consumer resins and is non-toxic would be assessed a lower fee. This creates financial incentives to design packaging that is more recyclable and reduces plastic packaging litter.
To increase demand for recycled plastic resin, the bill contains requirements for producers to use post-consumer recycled plastic in film bags, shipping envelopes and air bags; rigid packaging containers (i.e., bottles and tubs); and recycling collection bins. Producers that exceed the minimum requirements can “sell recycled content credits to companies that don’t or can’t meet the minimum requirements,” said the NPSC.
A second bill being considered is HB 1795, which would eliminate the state’s longstanding 50% recycling goal and ban materials from being recycled in residential programs. Starting Jan. 1, 2020, local governments and curbside collection providers are banned from collecting any plastics other than PET and HDPE bottles for four years. Glass, aseptic cartons, some paper packaging and metals (aside from cans) are also banned.
HB 1795 takes away local government control over the materials that can be collected for recycling. All existing recycling programs, services and contracts would need to remove the banned materials from recycling programs, noted the NPSC in its information. If any of the existing recycling materials cost more to collect, sort and process than sending them to a landfill, a waiver could be obtained from the state to dispose of the materials instead. Recyclable materials that are collected separately from other materials in separate containers cannot have more than 5% contamination. If the materials exceed that threshold, they are considered solid waste and can be sent for disposal.
The NPSC said that the differences between the two legislative proposals “could not be more pronounced.” The approach in HB 1204 strengthens markets by requiring the use of recycled materials and identifying a sustainable funding source, coupled with the support and requirements for infrastructure and service expansion. It also reduces the market risks for recycling service providers.
The approach taken by HB 1795 restricts recycling markets by narrowing the allowable materials to those with demonstrably strong market value in the currently limited markets. This would stifle recycling innovation, infrastructure and service expansion, and make it impossible for local governments and the recycling industry to be responsive to any new packaging materials that enter the marketplace. Resources that could have been recycled instead will be land-filled or incinerated.
A hearing of the House Environment & Energy Committee on HB 1204 held on Feb. 7 drew much commentary from various organizations, including plastics recycling groups.
Rep. Strom Peterson of the 21st Legislative District of Washington State began the hearing on the bill by commenting on how important it is that “we start having this conversion. The onus for recycling and taking care of the recycling problem is on the end user—sorting it and getting it in the right container. This bill would move it upstream to the manufacturer of these plastics and [those] who ship stuff to our homes in plastic packaging.”
Peterson acknowledged that “not all plastics are bad” and that plastic has had “a positive effect on us as consumers,” but something has to be done with plastics that most often end up in the environment.
Heather Trim, Executive Director of Zero Waste Washington, pointed out that plastics production is a growing problem. She cited a program in British Columbia, where end-of-life issues are being paid for by manufacturers. “BC is sorting by plastic type, and manufacturers are responsible for recycling,” Trim said.
Vicki Christophersen, lobbyist with the Washington Refuse and Recycling Association (WRRA), noted in her comments that British Columbia’s program isn’t all that it’s made out to be. “There’s no transparency and BC diverts only 40% of its plastic waste to recycling; Washington diverts 47% of its plastic waste.”
She went on to say that BC’s system has the same problems that Washington State has—no markets for certain recycled plastics, “and this bill won’t help solve that problem,” she stated. “This bill distracts from the real issues.”
Brad Lovaas, WRRA Executive Director, said that HB 1204 “does nothing to create demand” for recycled plastics. “We don’t need help collecting and processing,” Lovaas stated. “We need markets. Over the long term we need to create market demand for products that use recycled plastics. End users create demand, not government. We are collecting plastics that don’t have viable markets.”
One of the big problems with recycling certain plastics is contamination. Tim Shestek, Senior Director, State Affairs, for the American Chemistry Council, spoke in the hearing about the need not just to identify problems but to “take steps to reduce contamination and increase markets for recycled plastics.”
One idea that legislators have kicked around is regulating the percentage of recycled plastic that products must have, and 25% was a number offered as a solution. However, Shestek noted that the ACC has “concerns about regulatory issues” that the bill creates. “Our companies are looking for ways to take more difficult recyclable materials back to their original structures,” he said.
Government mandating the percentage of recycled plastic material used in a product might not be an option for products such as food containers and medical devices, which are required by the FDA to be 100% virgin resin to prevent possible contamination. However, there are many other plastic products in which high percentages of recycled plastic materials could be used.
https://www.plasticstoday.com/recycling/washington-state-debates-divergent-approaches-managing-plastic-packaging-waste/79218140760396
-
Mar 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
Administrator Wheeler announces staff updates
US EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has announced several staff changes following his confirmation in the Senate last week.
These include naming Michael Molina deputy chief of staff, and tapping Corry Schiermeyer to serve as the new associate administrator for Office of Public Affairs.
House hearing on PFAS
The House of Representatives' Oversight Committee held a hearing examining the risk posed by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) on 6 March.
Dave Ross, assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Water, and Maureen Sullivan, a deputy assistant secretary at the Department of Defense, were among witnesses testifying.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74872/us-epa-round-up
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA ‘Confident’ about Meeting TSCA Deadlines, despite Heavy Load
Mar 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins and Kelly Franklin
Even while the US EPA has "its eyes on the calendar" with regard to meeting statutory deadlines under TSCA, the agency’s chemical safety office is looking to shift its communications strategies and ensure increased transparency into its decisions.
Speaking at today’s GlobalChem conference in Washington, DC, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Assistant Administrator Alexandra Dunn elaborated on the agency’s priorities in what promises to be a busy year for meeting the statutory deadlines presented by the Lautenberg amendments to TSCA.
In her remarks at the American Chemistry Council (ACC) event, Ms Dunn highlighted the importance of maintaining credibility, through remaining open and transparent and using the best science.
"We are going to operate under a ‘no surprises’ approach," she told the event. But one point she emphasised is that much of the ‘best available science’ will come from industry.
‘You all do extremely good science and research," she said to attendees. "So it should come as no surprise to people that we use information from the companies that make these chemistries to do our assessments. It’s not wrong – it’s exactly what we’re supposed to be doing."
Ms Dunn added that it will be important for the EPA to communicate that "‘best available science’ means we have an ability to evaluate the full range of information that’s available to us, and it comes from many sources."
A shift in messaging
The communication around how the EPA selects and uses data comes as a part of a broader focus on openness and transparency. Ms Dunn – a rare Trump administration nominee who was unanimously confirmed – told Chemical Watch that she hopes to implement changes for the agency, if not in process then at least in perception.
What may change, she said, is how the office talks about the work of meeting its deadlines and carrying out its other priorities.
"We’re trying to work harder on … connecting all of our different activities so people see that what we are implementing is a holistic risk management strategy," she said in an interview following her public remarks. The agency's activities "don’t seem to make much sense when they go out in a vacuum," she added.
Ms Dunn was confirmed for her role at the OCSPP in January, in the waning hours of the 115th Congress. She has worked for the agency’s New England region in recent years, and before that both served as counsel for industry, and worked at the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS).
She noted that her confirmation during a partial government shutdown meant even further delays in TSCA implementation, but she remains undaunted.
"We do feel confident" about meeting the deadlines, she said. "It’s a volume, but we’re pushing hard."
https://chemicalwatch.com/74896/epa-confident-about-meeting-tsca-deadlines-despite-heavy-load
-
GAO Reviews EPA’s IRIS Assessment Efforts and Implementation of TSCA Reforms
Mar 7, 2019 | JD Supra
On March 4, 2019, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a report titled Chemical Assessments: Status of EPA’s Efforts to Produce Assessments and Implement the Toxic Substances Control Act. The report describes the extent to which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program has addressed identified challenges and made progress toward producing chemical assessments; and assesses whether EPA has demonstrated progress implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). GAO reviewed documents from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and EPA and interviewed EPA officials and representatives from two environmental and two industry stakeholder organizations. GAO found that while EPA made improvements in the IRIS Program, between June and December 2018, EPA leadership directed the Program to stop the assessment process during discussions about program priorities. GAO states that while EPA has responded to initial statutory deadlines in TSCA, as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Act), challenges remain.
Why GAO Did This Study
EPA is responsible for reviewing chemicals in commerce and those entering the marketplace. As reported in our February 21, 2019, memorandum, “EPA Releases Updated TSCA Inventory,” there are currently more than 40,000 active chemical substances in commerce, with more submitted to EPA for review annually. The IRIS database contains EPA’s scientific position on the potential human health effects that may result from exposure to various chemicals in the environment. GAO notes that EPA’s IRIS Program, which produces toxicity assessments, has been criticized in the past for timeliness and transparency issues. In response, the IRIS Program committed to making program improvements starting in 2011, which NAS recently commended, as reported in our April 12, 2018, blog item, “National Academies Find IRIS Program Has Made ‘Substantial Progress.’”
Amended TSCA provides EPA with additional authority to review both existing and new chemicals and to regulate those that EPA determines pose unreasonable risks to human health or the environment. Information on TSCA developments such as the first draft TSCA chemical risk evaluation, significant new use rules that break new ground, and EPA’s working approach for identifying potential candidate chemicals for prioritization is available on our website.What GAO Found
IRIS Program Chemical Assessments
GAO found that, while the IRIS Program has made progress in addressing identified process challenges, EPA deliberations have delayed progress on producing assessments. GAO states that the IRIS Program has addressed many process challenges, such as by making changes to address the length of time it takes to develop chemical assessments and to increase transparency, but EPA has not made progress toward producing chemical assessments. During its study, GAO discovered that the release of documents related to IRIS assessments was delayed for nearly six months because EPA leadership instructed the IRIS Program not to release any assessment documentation pending the outcome of EPA leadership deliberations concerning IRIS Program priorities.
GAO reports that, in June 2018, EPA leadership in the Office of Research and Development (ORD) reportedly told IRIS officials not to release any IRIS-associated documentation without a formal request from EPA program office leadership. In August 2018, EPA program office leadership was asked to reconfirm which ongoing IRIS assessments their offices needed. In late October 2018, leadership in ORD reportedly asked these offices to limit their requests further, to the top three or four assessments. GAO states that at the same time, four months after IRIS assessments were stopped from being released, 28 of approximately 30 IRIS staff were directed to use 25 to 50 percent of their time to support TSCA implementation.
When EPA deliberations about the IRIS Program’s priorities were completed, a memorandum was issued on December 4, 2018, listing 11 chemical assessments that the IRIS Program would develop. Although this was a reduction of the Program’s workflow from 22 assessments, GAO states that the memorandum “gave no reason for the reduction.” GAO notes that it received this memorandum at the end of its review and did not have the opportunity to review the prioritization process that led to its drafting.
Two weeks later, on December 19, 2018, ORD released its IRIS Program Outlook, which provided an updated list of 13 assessments. GAO states that two assessments were not included in the December 4, 2018, memorandum because they were out for public comment and external peer review. Furthermore, four assessments that were in the later stages of development and had not been issued were not included in the December 2018 Outlook. GAO notes that the absence of these four assessments from the December 2018 Outlook “could create confusion for stakeholders interested in them.” EPA reportedly provided no information on the status of these four assessments, or whether it planned to discontinue working on them or restart them at another time. As GAO has previously reported, “an overarching factor that affects EPA’s ability to complete IRIS assessments in a timely manner is that once a delay in the assessment process occurs, work that has been completed can become outdated, necessitating rework throughout some or all of the assessment process.” Thus, according to GAO, it remains to be seen when these assessments can be expected to move to the next step in the IRIS process or be completed.EPA’s Implementation of New TSCA
GAO found that EPA has demonstrated progress in implementing TSCA by responding to TSCA’s statutory deadlines through the end of fiscal year 2018, including promulgating rules, developing guidance, and releasing reports. According to GAO, EPA faces challenges with its ability to implement TSCA, such as managing the risk posed by ongoing litigation, ensuring appropriate resources, developing guidance documents to ensure consistency, and ensuring that the new chemicals review process is efficient and predictable. GAO notes that three of the four Framework Rules that EPA issued to implement TSCA have been challenged in court: the risk prioritization rule; the risk evaluation rule; and the inventory notification rule. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) officials stated to GAO that “they are trying to not anticipate the results of the litigation and, instead, address the outcome of each case as it is decided.” OPPT officials “are staying aware of developments in ongoing litigation and are constantly considering potential outcomes but believe it would not be reasonable to prepare explicit resource plans for unknown future scenarios.” If EPA loses any of these lawsuits, however, it may need to devote additional resources to implement the relevant provisions of TSCA. For example, according to GAO, if the suit involving the risk evaluation rule is successful, EPA may be forced to redo parts of its risk evaluations close to the December 2019 deadline to issue final evaluations.
The Lautenberg Act greatly increased OPPT’s workload by enacting deadlines for completing existing chemical evaluations and requiring EPA to make a determination on the safety of a new chemical before it can be manufactured. Partially because of the increased workload, some OPPT officials stated to GAO that they have concerns about staff capacity within OPPT. Officials in both the Chemical Control Division (responsible for risk management) and the Risk Assessment Division (responsible for risk assessment) stated that they do not have sufficient resources to do their work. GAO states that this included staff from all five technical teams interviewed in the Risk Assessment Division, which is particularly affected by the heavy workload, according to OPPT officials and representatives from an industry stakeholder organization. To address the staffing challenge, EPA has reassigned staff from other parts of EPA to OPPT. For example, staff in OPPT’s Safer Choice Program were redeployed to the Chemical Control and Risk Assessment Divisions. According to representatives from industry stakeholder organizations, it can be difficult to work with recently reassigned staff who may not, in all cases, be familiar with the chemicals on which they are working. GAO states that according to representatives from an industry stakeholder organization, in some cases, OPPT staff is ill-prepared to make decisions about a premanufacture notice (PMN). OPPT senior officials noted that there is always a learning curve for reassigned employees, “but they do not put new people in positions to make decisions on [PMNs]. They said that these decisions are never made by one person in a vacuum.”
OPPT officials and staff informed GAO that they are generally optimistic about an upcoming reorganization of OPPT that will separate assessment and management of new and existing chemicals programs and better align the structure of OPPT with the focus of new TSCA’s provisions. For example, the Chemical Control and Risk Assessment Divisions currently each handle both new and existing chemicals, and the planned reorganization will divide the divisions into new and existing chemicals. According to GAO, staff have concerns about whether the new divisions will be adequately staffed, the timing of the reorganization, and their future placements, however.
GAO reports that EPA also faces challenges in developing guidance to ensure consistency in implementing new TSCA. OPPT officials stated that, given the tight timelines that TSCA requires, they have not yet created all the necessary guidance for staff implementing the law. According to GAO, “[o]fficials likened it to building an airplane as they fly it, as they must create guidance and processes, while simultaneously applying them to chemical evaluations.” Staff from four of five technical teams that GAO interviewed are either currently updating their guidance, still developing their guidance, or have never developed guidance before. Staff from two teams is developing the guidance as they apply it to their work. GAO states that OPPT officials stated that that they are using some guidance that was in place before the Lautenberg Act was enacted, though they are working on updates.
Representatives from both industry stakeholder organizations interviewed by GAO stated that the new chemicals program “is too slow and unpredictable, which can negatively affect innovation.” For example, according to representatives from one company, it submitted a PMN for a substance that would decrease the potential for worker and environmental exposure while providing improved product performance. The approval process extended to nearly 550 days compared to the 90 days it typically took to obtain approval prior to new TSCA’s enactment in 2016. No information was provided in the report that would help explain what could support such an extended review time. According to EPA, it does not violate the mandated timelines because submitters agree to voluntarily suspend the review process. Representatives from one industry stakeholder organization noted that as of December 2018, with the passage of time and greater familiarity with new TSCA, “OPPT’s decision making process has improved and is more predictable.”
GAO reports that it interviewed representatives from industry stakeholder organizations who stated that delays motivate companies to introduce chemicals first in foreign markets. According to one company, it developed a new technology in the U.S. but, because of the lengthy delays experienced with new chemicals reviewed under TSCA, “they will neither register nor commercialize the product in the United States at this time.” Instead, the company has decided to pursue commercialization in Europe, that will enable the company to deliver the benefits of this new technology to their customers in the European market sooner than is possible in the U.S.Agency Comments
GAO provided a draft of its report to EPA for its review and comment. EPA responded that while the draft report comprehensively describes the challenges facing TSCA implementation and the IRIS Program, it does not appropriately address EPA’s “extensive progress” in implementing TSCA, and EPA recommended that the final report include information regarding its accomplishments under new TSCA. GAO notes that it reports only on the steps EPA has taken to respond to the requirements of new TSCA because, in many instances, whether EPA’s response is legally sufficient is in litigation, and GAO does not typically express a view on legal or factual matters in dispute before a court. GAO updated its report with additional examples provided by EPA of steps it has taken to implement new TSCA.
EPA stated that to monitor progress made in addressing and controlling toxic chemicals, it has put into place a rigorous program; as a regular practice, Deputy Assistant Administrators from the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) conduct monthly Business Review meetings with the Office Directors, Deputy Office Directors, lead region representatives, and other key staff. According to EPA, during these meetings, participants discuss their organizations’ operations and performance, including TSCA implementation status, and use performance charts to track progress on mission measures, identify and update countermeasures, and resolve problems. GAO notes that over the year that it conducted its review, however, “EPA officials did not mention conducting such meetings and did not provide documentation that such meetings took place.”
Further, in its written comments, EPA provided technical comments on the draft report that GAO addressed as appropriate. GAO states that in one case, the technical comments contradicted facts that GAO gathered during its review. For instance, while EPA stated that the draft report incorrectly noted that most of the IRIS staff had been working on TSCA activities, GAO revised the draft report to provide further information to support its original statement; it replaced the term “most” with specific data on the number of IRIS staff and the percentage of their time that was devoted to TSCA activities.Commentary
The GAO report reviews current developments regarding the IRIS Program and TSCA implementation efforts. While the report notes that GAO made recommendations previously in these areas, GAO does offer any new recommendations.
The report draws attention to the many steps that EPA has taken to implement process changes to IRIS that were previously identified by GAO, NAS, and others, but states that EPA has not made progress toward producing IRIS assessments. We agree that IRIS has made progress in improving and strengthening its scientific review process and approaches. Recent efforts by EPA officials to gather information about and deliberate Agency priorities for IRIS assessments have led to delays in the development of assessments and may indicate a shift in EPA efforts to complete certain assessments, including the formaldehyde assessment. The report also indicates that IRIS staff has been working on OPPT risk evaluations with a resultant drop in resources focused on IRIS assessments. From our perspective, while we welcome increased attention to the TSCA work, it is not clear what these changes may be signaling for IRIS more generally, if any, and the absence of EPA clarity on this may work to EPA’s detriment in the harsh light of public opinion.Regarding TSCA implementation, the report dutifully reviews EPA implementation efforts on completing the Framework and other TSCA rules, on the ten risk evaluations that are underway on TSCA Work Plan chemicals, and on the development of various policies. The report draws attention to the challenges facing EPA, including:
-Pending litigation by environmental groups against many of the final rules;
-Ensuring appropriate resources and staffing to meet the increased workload required under amended TSCA;
-Need for development of internal guidance documents to ensure consistency in EPA’s approaches;
-Ensuring that new chemical review is efficient and predictable, and
-Attempting to move forward with a major reorganization of OPPT.
While the discussion in the GAO report on these items is interesting and offers some useful insights, the report does not consider or offer any recommendations for steps that might be taken in resolving problems or improving EPA’s efforts. We appreciate that it may be too soon for GAO to offer such points, preferring instead to give EPA time to address the many lawsuits that TSCA implementation has inspired, and other issues. We offer our hope that future GAO reports will get more into the substance and issues associated with TSCA implementation and offer recommendations where needed to improve implementation performance. According to the report, this appears to be in the offing, as GAO’s forthcoming 2019 update to its “high-risk” list (which includes IRIS and TSCA) will address the actions taken by EPA and other agencies on the list in dealing with the vulnerabilities identified by GAO.
Finally, GAO acknowledges the significant resource challenges that EPA, especially OPPT, faces in implementing TSCA. We hope that Congress recognizes that OPPT is just beginning to collect the higher fees and that the other EPA offices that support OPPT, including ORD and OARM, also have a critical role to play in supporting OPPT’s TSCA implementation. It is critical that these other offices be properly staffed and resourced, otherwise OPPT will not be able to attract the experts that it needs to hire, will not be able to initiate new contracts, and may not have the research and development (R&D) support needed to inform and improve its scientific and assessment capabilities.https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/gao-reviews-epa-s-iris-assessment-48550
-
(ACC Mentioned) Looming Industry Disruptions Prompt Chemicals Companies To Refocus On Consumers
Mar 7, 2019 | Forbes
By Jean-Marc Ollagnier
A perfect storm that includes growing consumer attention on plastics waste, changing manufacturing and new digital technologies threatens to disrupt chemical companies’ long profitability run.
The rapid growth cycles driven by emerging economies are slowing just as these disruptive changes are beginning to intensify. For example, after years of campaigns to end pollution, we are entering a new era where the next wave of environmental protection and consumer activism will require new business models.
Already, the European Union has banned single-use plastics and has a goal for all plastics to be recyclable or reusable by 2030. Similar measures exist in several U.S. states. Both cases will help drive the “circular economy”— replacing the ‘take-make-dispose’ model with designing for reuse and constantly recycling materials.
One of the most visible examples in the chemical industry is the move from disposable to durable plastics, such as the water bottles we carry in our backpacks. Our initial analysis anticipates a 65-percent reduction of polymer volume from this trend alone.
In fact, plastics recycling could equate to 81 million metric tons lost yearly in conventional capacity. That’s equal to more than 160 world-scale polymer plants, by 2030, representing a serious challenge for the industry.
Then, there’s the emerging trends of mass customization and localization, such as the Adidas speed factory in Atlanta, where automation and technologies have cut the time to order a custom-fit shoe from months to weeks. Because shoes are virtually comprised of chemicals, chemical companies must be much nimbler in supplying customers who now may be located in many places down the street, versus in one place on the other side of the world.
As re-use of plastics grows and downstream demand shifts, the trend of moving from volume to value will grow. The chemical companies that deliver specialty and high-performance products or reinvent new uses for plastics — such as turning them into fuel through heat and other processes — stand to gain the most.
The American Chemistry Council estimates that advanced technologies that convert used plastics into a range of new products including fuel could create almost 39,000 jobs in the United States alone.
The winners of tomorrow will also use digital technologies to reinvent themselves. Digitalization could add up to $550 billion of value to chemical firms over the next decade according to our recent research.
Already, 40 percent of chemical companies use digital technologies to increase efficiency and 32 percent are applying digital technologies ranging from data analytics to artificial intelligence to drive growth.
Agribusiness is one of the best examples, where makers of fertilizers and pesticides are applying drones, climate software and other technologies to create new value. Enhanced crop yields portend benefits for farmers, who can identify plant disease earlier using drone cameras.
So far, however, not enough companies are embedding digital connectivity across the supply and value chain to enable new levels of end-to-end visibility, traceability, transparency and data-driven insights. But if you want to better sense and predict demand, personalize manufacturing for customers, maximize margins, deliver quickly, price in real time, record transactions and close books fast — digitalization can help.
It takes a strategy, of course, and the chemical companies that use a north star and a roadmap will have a greater advantage over those that don’t.
First, producers should look beyond their immediate customers and intermediaries and learn about the people who are ultimately consuming their products — and how differentiating those products can influence buying decisions.
With the end customer in mind, they can reimagine their offerings, engage customers and inspire their workforces to attract and retain the best talent with strong brand appeal and a compelling sense of transformative purpose.
With new personnel will come the need to break down traditional silos and company boundaries to co-create smart products, drive open innovation, share knowledge and extend ecosystems and networks of partnerships.
Finally, chemical companies should drive new value by controlling the molecule lifecycle and enabling downstream circularity, replacing the take-make-dispose cycle with re-use and constant recycling. This includes creating new business models, like renting rather than selling molecules.
Chemical companies will never be weather-proof against the storms of disruption. But by reinventing their businesses, they can better achieve their goals for growth and profitability and demonstrate their ability to weather epic disruption.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanmarcollagnier/2019/03/07/looming-industry-disruptions-prompt-chemicals-companies-to-refocus-on-consumers/#4f4bbfdb488f
-
(ACC Mentioned) Impacted Communities Are Fed up with EPA’s Failure to Regulate Toxic Chemicals
Mar 7, 2019 | Think Progress
By E.A. Crunden
When Hope Grosse was growing up in Warminster, Pennsylvania, she rarely thought about her home’s proximity to the Naval Air Warfare Center nearby, and how that might impact the safety of the water she drank and bathed in daily.
Now 53 years old, Grosse was diagnosed with stage four cancer at age 25, shortly after her father died from brain cancer. The cause, she is certain, was the presence of chemicals found in the water, known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a group of man-made chemicals that are toxic to humans and can increase the risk of cancer, among other health risks.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been under mounting pressure to regulate and restrict the use of PFAS, which can be found in everything from non-stick pans to firefighting foam. But impacted communities say the government hasn’t done enough, something they worry reflects the Trump administration’s ties to the chemical industry.
“The EPA’s basically saying ‘yeah, we’re going to do it,’ but…,” Grosse told ThinkProgress on Wednesday, trailing off. “From our area, we aren’t seeing it.”
Grosse’s frustration came hours after the House Oversight Committee’s subcommittee on the environment held a hearing to address PFAS contamination and regulation. Both Reps. Harley Rouda (D-CA) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) referenced Grosse’s story specifically during the hearing.
“Ms. Grosse’s father died of cancer at 52 years of age, and her sister suffered from ovarian cysts, lupus, fibromyalgia, and abdominal aneurysms. [Grosse] worries that she has unwittingly exposed her own children to these toxic chemicals,” said Ocasio-Cortez, who submitted Grosse’s testimony for the record.
The government and industries alike have been aware of the dangers posed by PFAS for years, but as awareness grows, so too has the expectation that something be done to protect the public. Recent crises — including when two Michigan communities were forced to drink bottled water after alarmingly high PFAS levels were detected last summer — have prompted outrage across the country. But the federal government has yet to step in and regulate the chemicals, which include PFOA, PFOS, and GenX, among others.
EPA’s plan to address deadly manufacturing chemicals panned as an ‘empty gesture’
In February, then-Acting Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler unveiled an “action plan” announcing that the agency intends to ultimately address PFAS. But environmental groups and those impacted by contamination panned the announcement, which failed to establish Maximum Containment Levels (MCL) for PFAS in drinking water. At present, the agency relies on a non-enforceable health advisory level for only PFOA and PFOS of 70 parts per trillion. Experts have repeatedly stated they believe the threshold for the chemicals should be far lower, and advocates want to see PFAS use restricted in products as well as drinking water.
Among the communities most impacted by PFAS contamination are military personnel and their families living on or near bases. On Wednesday, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) released a report mapping all of the areas where the Department of Defense (DoD) has found PFAS in water with levels above what the EPA has deemed “safe.” The report found at least 106 U.S. military sites where either drinking water or groundwater is contaminated with the toxic chemicals.
PFAS used at military sites easily enters local water sources and research has indicated that such contamination could lead to the devastating ramifications experienced by people like Grosse. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has found that certain PFAS chemicals increase the risk of cancer, in addition to affecting growth and learning behavior in children, among other health problems.
In addition to David Ross, the EPA’s assistant administrator on water issues, Wednesday’s hearing also included testimony from Maureen Sullivan, deputy assistant secretary for the environment at DoD.
“Our health affairs staff is going to be conducting a health study… in coordination with the Veterans Administration,” said Sullivan, while Ross argued that the EPA has “a robust plan” to combat PFAS.
But Grosse said she felt both Ross and Sullivan largely punted on the issue, with neither official explaining why discussing PFAS contamination has taken so long, or why, even now, the plan offered by the EPA is still largely an “invisible” effort set to materialize down the road.
“It’s just vague,” Grosse said. “It’s the same thing they’ve been telling us,” she went on, referencing Wednesday’s hearing. “It was like Wheeler’s speech [last month]… too little, too late.”
Mistrust of the government is a common sentiment expressed by people who have been working for years to address PFAS contamination in their communities. But under the Trump administration, that skepticism has deepened.
“They say, ‘oh, we’re for clean water and clean air,’ but [they] roll back everything in the history of the EPA,” said Loreen Hackett, 54, a resident of Hoosick Falls, New York.
Hackett’s village has grappled with groundwater contamination for several years, with high cancer levels in the area linked to PFOA in the municipal water supply. Community members have agitated for help, but Hackett said she’s been underwhelmed by the responses from top officials like Wheeler, as well as the figures surrounding him.
The Trump administration maintains close ties with industries that government agencies are meant to regulate and reign in. That has been the case at the EPA, where David Dunlap, a former Koch Industries official, now serves in the agency’s Office of Research and Development, working on chemical research. Dunlap has participated in numerous meetings relating to PFAS, even though Koch subsidiary Georgia-Pacific, a pulp and paper company, has used PFAS in its products.
Outside of Dunlap, another chief source of concern is the outsized influence of the American Chemistry Council (ACC). The industry trade association has heavily lobbied the EPA for years on behalf of chemical companies, along with the plastics and chlorine industries.
In addition to companies like ExxonMobil Chemical and Chevron Phillips Chemical, ACC’s clients include DuPont, which has faced years of litigation over PFOA contamination in West Virginia. ACC subsidiary FluoroCouncil has called it“inappropriate” to regulate “the universe of PFAS” as a single class, arguing that different chemicals should be assessed separately.
Under the Trump administration, ties between ACC and the EPA have strengthened, and the agency is now dotted with former ACC staff. One of the most prominent names is Nancy Beck, who serves in the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and formerly worked as a senior director at ACC.
At the EPA, Beck has worked to loosen regulations on toxic chemicals, all while remaining friendly with her former coworkers. As ThinkProgress reported last month, Beck agreed in 2017 to help find a current ACC employee’s husband a “senior” position at the EPA through an email exchange later made public through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Another former ACC employee, Liz Bowman, served as the top EPA public affairs official under former administrator Scott Pruitt before departing in May 2018. The current EPA assistant administrator on toxic substances, Alexandra Dunn, is meanwhile serving as the keynote speaker for this week’s Global Chemical Regulations Conference and Exhibition, which is hosted by ACC.
“We know who they’re working for,” Hackett said, referencing the EPA’s staff. “They’ve made it evident.”
EPA official agreed to help former colleague’s husband find ‘senior’ position at the agency
A lack of trust in the government means PFAS-impacted communities feel largely on their own. Grosse said that she and a friend are organizing educational sessions to inform their neighbors about the contamination, rather than waiting for officials to do so. And along with other parents, she is trying to take a proactive approach with the knowledge that the contamination could be found anywhere in the body. Grosse said she is collecting her children’s baby teeth as they fall out, with plans to have the teeth tested for traces of PFAS.
Hackett similarly has had conversations with friends about the risks, including one who unwittingly transmitted the chemicals to her newborn while breastfeeding. “No one told her what could happen,” Hackett said.
Even with the federal government slowly turning to PFAS regulation, Hackett and Grosse both told ThinkProgress they think the responsibility will ultimately fall to states. But in the absence of federal standards, state actions have varied widely and sometimes with little demonstrable impact, as evidenced by ongoing problems in places like Warminster and Hoosick Falls. Meanwhile, advocates worry, agencies like the EPA and DoD will continue to drag their feet.
“Each community has its own little battles,” said Hackett, but she emphasized that regardless of their differences, they always wind up facing the same bureaucratic wall.
“It’s just always, what Goliath do we have to battle to get work done?” she asked.
https://thinkprogress.org/impacted-communities-epas-failure-regulate-toxic-chemicals-d5ef4a541a90/
-
EPA Chemicals Office Delays Draft Risk Reviews to End of Summer
Mar 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA won’t release nine draft chemical risk evaluations that were originally slated for 2018 until the end of the summer, Cathy Fehrenbacher, acting director of risk assessment in the EPA’s chemicals office said.
The agency issued one of the 10 draft evaluations, a review of pigment violet 29 used in coatings and paints, last November.
The updated risk evaluation release schedule, which Fehrenbacher mentioned at the GlobalChem conference March 6 in Washington, means it is taking longer than the agency anticipated to complete 10 risk evaluations mandated under the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments.
If the EPA finds the chemicals pose risks, the agency could take steps to regulate or restrict them.
Summer of Peer Reviews
The agency expects to have independent toxicologists, exposure analysts, and other experts critique the 10 draft risk evaluations in the May-August time frame, Alexandra Dunn, assistant administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said March 7.
Some similar chemicals may be grouped together when peer reviewed, Dunn said.
She referred to the scientific panels of peer reviewers that will evaluate the science underlying the EPA’s conclusions about whether those 10 chemicals—or certain uses of them—pose an unreasonable risk of injuring people or the environment.
More Public Data Coming
Dunn and Fehrenbacher updated attendees in this year’s Global Chemical Regulations Conference about the status of many tasks that the amended TSCA required the agency to complete this year.
The EPA anticipates releasing more information to the public regarding its rationales for concluding that current uses of pigment violet 29 wouldn’t be likely to cause harm, Dunn added.
In its draft risk evaluation of the pigment, the EPA incorrectly kept some details confidential that it received from health and safety studies provided to European regulators, Dunn said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-chemicals-office-delays-draft-risk-reviews-to-end-of-summer
-
D.C. Circuit Poised To Hear Rival Refrigerant Makers’ Fight Over HFC Rule
Mar 7, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
A federal appeals court is poised to hear oral argument March 8 in a lawsuit where rival manufacturers of climate-warming hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants are battling over the merits of EPA’s policy on replacing the substances, with some companies seeking to partially vacate the Obama-era rule while others are defending it.
Litigants filed final briefs last month in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit case, Mexichem Fluor, et al. v. EPA. The briefs reprise arguments for and against EPA’s policy on replacement refrigerants, with chemical companies Mexichem and Arkema challenging the 2016 rule that changed the status of some HFCs in different end-uses to “unacceptable.”
Rival chemical firms Chemours and Honeywell, and environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), are defending the Obama HFC replacement policy.
In the case, the Trump administration is siding with Mexichem and Arkema in calling for partial vacatur of the rule, arguing some provisions conflict with a prior D.C. Circuit ruling.
Mexichem and Arkema argue that the court’s 2-1 2017 ruling in a case known as Mexichem I compels the court to remand and partially vacate the 2016 rule, which they say is inconsistent with the earlier ruling. The court in that ruling held that EPA may not require substitution of refrigerants that have already replaced ozone-depleting chemicals under the agency’s significant new alternatives program.
EPA in its Feb. 6 final reply brief says that the court must follow its own precedent set in Mexichem I and revise the 2016 rule to make it consistent with the prior ruling. The court in the earlier suit found that the 2015 Obama EPA rule at issue in Mexichem I changed EPA policy and re-opened the policy to judicial review.
“Because Mexichem I said, unambiguously and repeatedly, that the 2015 Rule represented a change in EPA’s approach from the 1994 Framework Rule, the Court is bound by this decision and Respondent-Intervenors are estopped from advocating that the Court reach a different, inconsistent conclusion,” EPA says. Chemours, Honeywell and NRDC therefore “are foreclosed from re-litigating whether the Court in Mexichem I had jurisdiction.”
Mexichem and Arkema in their Feb. 6 reply brief agree with EPA, saying, “the 2016 Rule is invalid insofar as it requires HFCs to be replaced.” The court in Mexichem I unambiguously determined that it had jurisdiction, the firms argue, and their commercial rivals may not re-open the issue.
Chemours, Honeywell and NRDC counter that the present suit, Mexichem II, is untimely because it challenges an underlying EPA policy on refrigerant replacement adopted in a 1994 regulation. Because the challenge is years too late, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the present case, they argue.
Chemours, Honeywell and NRDC in their joint Feb. 6 final brief say, “[w]hile Petitioners claim to be challenging the 2016 Rule, the substance of their challenge is to the 1994 Rule, which was promulgated almost a quarter-century ago. Because their challenge to the 1994 Rule is almost 25 years late, this Court lacks the authority to review it.”
Further, “Mexichem I did not address, or state any holding on, the Court’s jurisdiction to invalidate the regulatory prohibition on any person’s use of a substitute in a use listed as ‘unacceptable,’ which was promulgated in the 1994 Rule, not in the 2015 Rule.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/dc-circuit-poised-hear-rival-refrigerant-makers%E2%80%99-fight-over-hfc-rule
-
United States: EPA Releases PFAS Action Plan; State Efforts In The Northeast Well Underway
Mar 7, 2019 | Mondaq
By Elizabeth C. Barton, Harold Blinderman, Taylor C. Amato, and Paul D. Williams
On February 14, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its long-awaited Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Action Plan with a focus on the potential impacts of PFAS compounds in the environment. The EPA's Action Plan presents a framework for future federal regulatory initiatives, but many states in the Northeast have already taken steps to regulate these substances.
PFAS are a family of chemicals. Their widespread product applications range from nonstick cookware and electronics to medical garments and firefighting foam. These chemicals are persistent in the environment. They don't break down easily, and they can accumulate over time. PFAS compounds may be present at sites throughout the country and can present remediation challenges.
Federal Initiatives
The EPA's PFAS Action Plan describes long- and short-term actions that include the following:Drinking Water: The EPA is moving forward with the maximum contaminant level (MCL) process outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS). By the end of 2019, the EPA advises it will propose a regulatory determination, the next step in the SDWA process for establishing an MCL. This would be the first time a new MCL has been established since the passage of the SDWA in 1996. Over the next two years, the EPA intends to propose nationwide monitoring for other PFAS compounds in drinking water.
-Cleanup: The EPA has initiated the regulatory development process for listing PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances and advises it will develop interim groundwater cleanup recommendations for sites contaminated with PFOA and PFOS.
-Monitoring: The EPA will propose to include PFAS in nationwide drinking water monitoring under the next Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule program.
-Toxics: The EPA will consider listing PFAS chemicals as part of the Toxics Release Inventory Program under the Toxic Substances Control Act. This listing reflects the agency's interest in identifying where these chemicals are being released. The Action Plan also indicates that the EPA will publish draft toxicity assessments for five other compounds — perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA), perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid PFHxS) and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA). The EPA expects to publish these drafts in 2020.Research: The EPA advises of its commitment to the development of new analytical methods, whereby PFAS chemicals can be more readily detected in drinking water, soil and groundwater.
State Initiatives
In the absence of enforceable federal standards, many states, particularly in the Northeast, have proposed or developed their own regulatory guidance or standards relating to PFAS in drinking water and groundwater. These efforts have varied by state and reflect a range of approaches to regulating PFAS, including:
-Connecticut: In December 2016, the Connecticut Department of Public Health set a Drinking Water Action Level for private wells for PFAS of 70 parts per trillion (ppt). Additionally, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection has recommended numeric criteria for PFAS as an alternative polluting substance and alternative criteria under the Remediation Standard Regulations, §§22a-133k-1 through 22a-133k-3 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies.
-Maine: The Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, on December 31, 2016, set a maximum exposure guideline for drinking water of 70 ppt for PFOS and PFOA, collectively.
-Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP) expanded the EPA Health Advisory level of 70 ppt in drinking water for PFOA and PFOS to also address three additional PFAS (PFHxS, PFNA and perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)). On January 28, 2019, the MA DEP announced that it will initiate a process to develop a drinking water MCL for a presently undefined group of PFAS compounds.
-New Hampshire: On December 31, 2018, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services initiated a rulemaking to set drinking water limits for four PFAS, including 38 ppt for PFOA, 70 ppt for PFOS, and 70 ppt for combined PFOA and PFOS.
-New Jersey: On January 16, 2018, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP) established a permanent groundwater quality standard for PFNA of 10 ppt. Concurrent adoption of amendments to the Discharge of Petroleum and Other Hazardous Substances rules added PFNA to the List of Hazardous Substances. Additionally, in August 2018, the NJ DEP adopted an MCL of 13 ppt for PFNA. The NJ DEP has proposed but not yet adopted MCLs of 14 ppt for PFOA and 13 ppt for PFOS.
-New York: Effective March 3, 2017, New York began regulating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances. The regulation requires the proper storage of the substances, limits releases to the environment and enables the state to use its legal authority and the State Superfund program resources to advance investigations and cleanups of impacted sites. On December 18, 2018, the New York Drinking Water Quality Council recommended adoption of the nation's most stringent drinking water standards related to PFOA and PFOS, proposing that the New York State Department of Health adopt individual maximum contaminant levels of 10 ppt for PFOA and PFOS.
-Rhode Island: In October 2017, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management established a groundwater quality standard for GAA and GA groundwater of 70 ppt for combined PFOA and PFOS.
-Vermont: The Vermont Health Department has adopted a health advisory for drinking water of 20 ppt for the sum of PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFHpA and PFNA.
The EPA's PFAS Action Plan is the latest regulatory development as federal and state agencies continue to assess potential health risks from PFAS. These efforts will impact the regulated community, including, for example, in connection with remediation efforts and due diligence for various property and corporate transactions.
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/786818/Environmental+Law/EPA+Releases+PFAS+Action+Plan+State+Efforts+In+The+Northeast+Well+Underway
-
New Orleans Prepped for Deluge of Mardi Gras Beads
Mar 7, 2019 | Bloomberg Businessweek (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Eric Roston
As more than 1 million tourists descended on New Orleans for Mardi Gras this week, the city took steps to address toxic plastic pollution from the holiday's notorious beads.
About 45 million pounds of plastic comes to New Orleans every year in the form of the beads and other objects tossed from parade floats.
Much of that plastic gets left behind.
The city told the Times-Picayune in January 2018 that it pulled 93,000 pounds of beads from only five blocks of storm drains. In total, it collected 7 million pounds of debris.
As the plastic degrades, it can leach toxic contaminants, including lead, researchers said.
New Orleans is now offering more locations for bead recycling. And it has deployed "gutter buddies" to block them from flowing into storm drains.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/07/stories/1060123421
-
US Firm Claire’s Removes Products after FDA Asbestos Investigation
Mar 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
US accessories and cosmetics retailer Claire’s has removed three products from its store shelves, following an investigation into asbestos contamination by the Food and Drug Administration.
The agency launched its investigation following 2017 reports of asbestos contamination in certain cosmetic products, sold by the retailers Claire’s and Justice (see box).
This week the FDA issued a warning to consumers not to buy the three products from Claire’s, after it confirmed that its test results found traces of asbestos.
The agency did so after the company "refused to comply with the FDA’s request, and the agency does not have authority to mandate a recall," it said.
A Claire’s spokesperson told Chemical Watch that "out of an abundance of caution" it has removed the three products identified by the FDA from its stores, and is also removing any remaining talc-based cosmetic products. While it has not recalled the products, it says it will "honour returns" of any Claire’s talc-based cosmetics.
According to the FDA, Justice stopped selling the products and issued a full recall in 2017, which is why they are not covered in the consumer warning. Justice did not respond to Chemical Watch’s request for comment by the time of publishing.
In a statement to Chemical Watch, Claire’s backs the safety of its three products tested by the FDA, saying it wants to "assure customers that our products are safe".
It adds that the products were "extensively tested by multiple independent accredited laboratories" and "all products were found to be compliant with all relevant cosmetic safety regulations".
"The recent test results the FDA have shared with us show significant errors. Specifically, the FDA test reports have mischaracterised fibres in the products as asbestos, in direct contradiction to established EPA and USP criterion for classifying asbestos fibres."
"We are disappointed that the FDA has taken this step, and we will continue to work with them to demonstrate the safety of our products," the statement says.
Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr (D-New Jersey), who requested that the FDA investigate the products, said in a statement: "Examples like Claire’s' refusal to voluntarily recall their asbestos-tainted products demonstrates the need to modernise the current regulatory framework for cosmetic and personal care products to ensure that the FDA can act to protect consumers when industry fails to do so."
Mr Pallone is one of the authors of a bipartisan bill that aims to reform US cosmetics legislation, which hasn’t been updated since 1938 (see box). "I look forward to receiving feedback on this proposal in the coming weeks and working with FDA and stakeholders to protect consumers and modernise our cosmetics regulatory framework," he said.
Products recalled or withdrawn from Claire's and Justice
In September 2017, Justice voluntarily recalled Just Shine Shimmer Powder and seven additional cosmetic products including: Just Shine Bronzer Brush, Makeup Palette Pinks, Blues and Glitter Cream, and Eye Shadow Palette Cool, Pinks, Eye Shadow and Glitter Cream.
In December 2017, Claire’s removed from its stores the following products: Ultimate Mega Make Up Set, Metallic Hot Pink Glitter 48-Piece Makeup Set, Bedazzled Rainbow Heart Makeup Set, Rainbow Bedazzled Star Make Up Set, Rainbow Glitter Heart Shaped Makeup Set, Mint Glitter Make Up Set, Rainbow Bedazzled Rectangle Make Up Set, and Pink Glitter Palette with Eyeshadow & Lip Gloss.
FDA issues call to action
The provisions in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) – the law governing the FDA’s oversight of cosmetic products — have not been updated since it was first enacted in 1938.
The current law does not require cosmetics to be reviewed and approved by the FDA prior to being sold to consumers.
Because of this, the FDA says it will work with cosmetics manufacturers and request information about what procedures they use to ensure their cosmetics are safe and, in particular, how they ensure that talc used in any cosmetic product is free from asbestos.
"We will be investigating how manufacturers source talc with appropriate traceability, and whether they test raw talc and/or their finished products," it says.
It also wants to know how many cosmetics products contain talc and whether manufacturers have received reports of adverse reactions associated with talc-containing products.
Although the law doesn’t require cosmetic products to be registered with the FDA, the agency is calling on cosmetic firms to "take responsible steps" to voluntarily register their products and list ingredients, including talc, used in their products via the FDA's Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program (VCRP).
Another step it is recommending is for manufacturers to report adverse events involving cosmetic products to the agency’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition’s Adverse Event Reporting System. "Although this is not required by current law, we believe this reporting is an important component of responsible marketing and safe oversight of these products."
https://chemicalwatch.com/74889/us-firm-claires-removes-products-after-fda-asbestos-investigation
-
EU Ministers Push Commission to Speed Up EDC Strategy
Mar 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Caterina Tani
The EU should speed up initiatives to handle endocrine disruptors and provide a concrete timetable for action, EU ministers have said.
Their views came during a policy debate at an EU Environment Council meeting on 5 March concerning the EU’s delayed strategy on EDCs, published in November.
Jakob Ellemann-Jensen, Denmark’s environment minister, said "clear action" is required from the Commission, including an "early implementation date".
The main actions proposed by the EU executive are disappointing while the presented framework is unambitious and not sufficient, he added.
Several member states agreed with Denmark, including Belgium, France, Finland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden.
Concern is growing and people are becoming more and more aware of the dangers, Dutch infrastructure and water management Secretary of State Stientje Van Veldhoven told delegates. "We have the responsibility to act."
NGOs and MEPs have also blasted the Commission’s approach and the lack of practical measures.
Sector identification
Ministers also debated the identification of EDCs criteria, which currently only exist under legislation on pesticides and biocides.
They raised concerns about the lack of specific provisions and identification criteria for EDCs in legislation regarding toys, cosmetics and food contact materials.
EDCs should be banned "automatically" from these products in the same way carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR) substances are prohibited, Ms Van Veldhoven said. "We don’t want to lead to prolonged use of products which leads to prolonged exposure to EDCs" in the context of a circular economy, she added.
The legislation on cosmetics was due to be re-examined before 2015 to take into account EDCs, another minister said.
According to the Belgian Walloon climate minister Mr Jean-Luc Crucke, the way to fill in the gaps would be identifying standards, creating framework tests and developing frameworks for decisions based on information.
Cocktail effect
France – which is developing its own second strategy on EDCs – insisted on the need to strengthen the approach towards cocktail effects. Currently this is far "too timid".
Denmark called on the EU to outline actions to enable evaluation of groups of substances and compare them, as the current individual chemicals tests provide "insufficient protection in real life situations".
Steps forward
The Commission is now expected to launch a fitness check of relevant EU laws addressing EDCs and a public consultation.
At the 5 March meeting, Environment Commissioner Karmenu Vella confirmed the EU executive’s commitment. Many different bodies within the Commission itself have been dealing with the subject and now they have to start working on the different actions, he said.
He added that the EU executive has allocated €50 million for further research, which will be allocated by early next year. He requested that all stakeholders actively engage in the consultations.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74893/eu-ministers-push-commission-to-speed-up-edc-strategy
-
Glyphosate Ruling in EU Court Confirms Public’s ‘Right to Know’
Mar 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was wrong to cite commercial confidentiality when refusing access to studies on the possible toxic and carcinogenic effects of a common herbicide, the EU Court of Justice ruled in twin March 7 judgments.
The impact on pesticide manufacturers of the two rulings on transparency of safety assessments could be limited, because companies are already starting to make their safety studies public.
The Luxembourg-based court annulled two separate EFSA decisions dating from 2014 and 2017 that refused access to studies on glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide.
Since the European Food Safety Authority issued those decisions, however, pesticide companies have voluntarily committed to make public their proprietary studies into the safety of their products. Companies previously argued that release of such information could harm their interests.
Bayer AG, which in 2018 took over Monsanto Co., the original developer of glyphosate, already has made public about 300 glyphosate study summaries and in March will make full reports available, spokesman Utz Klages told Bloomberg Environment March 7.
Pesticides companies remain committed to a 2018 pledge “to make all of the safety-related data from studies publicly available to show that we have nothing to hide,” Graeme Taylor, public affairs director of the European Crop Protection Association, said March 7.
Access To Environmental Information
The rulings didn’t directly concern pesticide manufacturers but were rather about procedures adopted by the EFSA in relation to the information it receives from companies when they apply for EU pesticide authorizations.
The EFSA had argued it wasn’t required to release studies provided to it by companies because there was no overriding interest that trumped the harm that could be done to companies’ commercial and financial interests if studies were made public.
The court rejected EFSA’s argument, saying that because glyphosate and other pesticides are emitted into the environment, there was a public right to “know not only what is, or foreseeably will be, released into the environment, but also to understand the way in which the environment could be affected.”
The court’s rulings followed a 2016 judgment that found, in relation to the U.N. Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, there is a public right to know about “emissions into the environment” that in general cannot be overruled for commercial confidentiality reasons.
The new rulings were welcome and clarified the obligations of EU bodies under the EU law that implements the Aarhus Convention, EFSA said in a March 7 statement.
Spotlight Back On Glyphosate
Environmental groups welcomed the rulings as enabling independent scrutiny of the science around pesticide safety assessments.
“From now on, the public and independent scientists will be able to see how chemical giants write their own reports on the safety of their products for authorization,” said Bart Staes, a Belgian Green member of the European Parliament who was one of a group of Green lawmakers who contested one of the EFSA decisions to withhold glyphosate studies.
Environmental groups and some lawmakers have sought to block the authorization of glyphosate in the EU, in particular since in 2015 the U.N. International Agency for Research on Cancer labeled glyphosate a likely carcinogen.
EFSA’s assessment of glyphosate, and a separate assessment carried out by the European Chemicals Agency, didn’t find evidence that the substance increases the risk of cancer. Glyphosate is currently authorized for use in the EU through 2022.
“Glyphosate-based herbicides have been used safely and successfully for over four decades worldwide,” and Bayer’s publication of safety studies, including on glyphosate, would “connect the public with our scientific community in a way that builds trust,” Klages said.
Anna Bakola, spokeswoman for Syngenta AG, which was one of a group of companies that applied for EU authorization of glyphosate, referred a request for comment to the European Crop Protection Association.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/glyphosate-ruling-in-eu-court-confirms-publics-right-to-know
-
Commission Assesses Plastics Strategy Voluntary Pledges
Mar 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has published a staff working document assessing voluntary pledges under the European strategy for plastics in a circular economy.
These pledges are key in ensuring that by 2025, 10 million tonnes of recycled plastics find their way into products on the EU market.
By the end of 2018, 70 companies and business organisations – including those representing entire supply chains for the major plastic materials currently recycled in Europe – had made pledges.
Some stakeholders made commitments to work only with fully recyclable products by 2025 or to invest in new technology, such as recycling of chemicals used in plastics.
"Chemical recycling is frequently mentioned by pledgers as an upcoming game changer to deal with mixed and contaminated plastic waste," the report says. However, "very few pledgers have integrated chemically recycled plastics in their pledged volumes by 2025 as the technology is only emerging".
The report found that better information on the chemicals and contaminants in plastic waste and easier shipment of plastic waste across borders is needed to meet the target within six years.
Industry has been proactively engaging with policy developments concerning plastics and the circular economy. At the end of 2018 a group of 13 organisations from the plastics value chain called on member states and other stakeholders to help them meet their EU circular economy goals.
Belgian industry recently said it is fully behind a voluntary national agreement to phase out microplastics in all rinse-off cosmetic products and toothpastes by 31 December.
And across the continent, member states have been ramping up controls on microplastics.
Meanwhile, last month Echa published an inventory containing information on 419 substances used as additives in plastics in the union.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74886/commission-assesses-plastics-strategy-voluntary-pledges
-
Industry Wants to Join in on Development of Echa SVHC Database
Mar 7, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
A group of EU trade associations is asking the European Commission if they can contribute to the development of Echa’s substances in articles database.
The database came out of the revised waste framework Directive (WFD) that entered into force in July. It will hold information provided by companies producing, importing or supplying articles that contain candidate list substances. They will need to submit this information for articles placed on the market from 5 January 2021.
In a letter to the Commission, seen by Chemical Watch, the group (see box) says it would like to be invited into Echa’s technical focus groups working on the database in order to "develop a solution that is fit for purpose".
It also suggests the creation of a "platform" where the industry associations can share their "considerations and concerns with the authorities" and follow the development process of the database.
"Our expertise and experience should prove valuable to your work, because we, the signatory associations, represent the majority of EU article manufacturers, assemblers, importers and distributors," the letter says.
The letter follows a position paper, released late last year by many of the trade bodies from the group, raising their concerns and calling on Echa to reconsider the proposal.
The group reiterates the concern that a "one size-fits-all solution will be very difficult to achieve".
"If not carefully developed and implemented, it will put at risk industrial processes and data collection systems that already work well."
These industry systems, it says, should directly link to the database to transfer the information already gathered.
Echa has started work on a "scaled-down prototype" of the database, after failing to get clearance from the Commission for the full funding needed to develop it.
The letter says that whatever form the database takes "we have no doubt that it will cause significant additional administration and costs for the European economy, which could potentially be disproportionate to the value of it".
The group urges the Commission to wait for the results of its feasibility study before proceeding with the detailed development of the database "to avoid decisions that are possibly irreversible or only reversible at high costs, because they are taken without due consideration of the competence of article manufacturers, waste operators or other external expertise".
The Commission put the feasibility study On the use of comprehensive tools to manage information flows from product supply chains to waste out to tender last year. The Commission had not responded to Chemical Watch's query, on when the results of the study will be available, by the time of publishing.
The letter concludes by saying that, despite the concerns raised, the group "sees the opportunity to develop a system that will support the objectives of a circular economy, add transparency where it is needed and reaffirm that European products are safe".
Signatories to the letter:
-Acea – European Automobile Manufacturers Association;
-Acem – the European Association of Motorcycle Manufacturers;
-Amfori – the global business association for trade, formerly the Foreign Trade Association;
-ASD – AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe;
-Clepa – European Association of Automotive Suppliers;
-Cocir – European Coordination Committee of the Radiological, Electromedical and Healthcare IT Industry;
-DigitalEurope – the European digital technology industry association;
-ESIA – European Semiconductor Industry Association;
-ETRMA – European Tyre and Rubber Manufacturers Association;EuPC – European Plastics Converters;
-Euratex – The European Apparel and Textile Confederation;
-EuroCommerce – retail, wholesale and international trade association;
-IPC – electronic equipment and assembly industry association;
-I&P Europe – Imaging and Printing Association;
-Lighting Europe – the European lighting industry association;
-SEMI – global industry association representing the electronics manufacturing supply chain; and
-SMEunited - the European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74883/industry-wants-to-join-in-on-development-of-echa-svhc-database
-
Trump Said to Again Seek Deep Cuts in Renewable Energy Funding
Mar 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
The Trump administration is again seeking severe cuts to the U.S. Energy Department division charged with renewable energy and energy efficiency research, according to a department official familiar with the plan.
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy would see its $2.3 billion budget slashed by about 70 percent, to $700 million, under President Donald Trump’s fiscal 2020 budget request, which is set to be released on March 11.
The request is unlikely to be granted by Congress, especially with Democrats in charge of the House, but the figure represents an opening bargaining position for negotiations by the White House.
The Energy Department declined to comment and the White House Office of Management and Budget didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
“It’s a shutdown budget,” said Mike Carr, who served as the No. 2 official within the division under President Barack Obama. “That’s apparently what they want to signal to their base—they still want to shut these programs down.”
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which provides hundreds of millions of dollars a year in grants and other financial assistance for clean energy, has financed research into technologies ranging from electric vehicles to energy projects powered by ocean waves. It has been credited with financing research to help make the cost of wind power competitive with coal, and cutting the costs of LED lighting.
The Trump administration has tried to gut the program before, only to be rebuffed by Congress. Last year, the White House proposed cutting the agency’s funding by nearly two-thirds, but Congress instead provided $2.3 billion for the agency, more than three times the White House’s request.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/trump-said-to-again-seek-deep-cuts-in-renewable-energy-funding
-
Trump Delays on Appliance Efficiency Hurt Companies, Consumers
Mar 7, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Work on energy efficiency standards for appliances has virtually ground to a halt during the Trump administration, leaving manufacturers and consumers in the lurch.
The Energy Department is responsible for putting out regulations to ensure appliances like air conditioners, refrigerators, and dishwashers are energy-efficient.
Since Trump took office, the department has missed 16 statutory deadlines to assess the need for stronger standards, including three it inherited from the Obama administration.
The administration is also attempting to limit new standards it issues with a proposed rule that could make stricter requirements more difficult to impose.
Missed deadlines and the administration’s proposed rule are the subject of a March 7 hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy.
Appliance Makers Frustrated
The lack of consistency in the standards process has frustrated home appliance makers.
Stephen Yurek, president and chief executive officer of the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, said the industry needs predictability and consistency.
“We’ve been very consistent—be it with the prior administrations or this administration—that they need to issue rules in a timely manner,” he told Bloomberg Environment.
The institute represents 300-plus appliance makers, including GE Appliances and Honeywell International.
Between March 2016 and January 2019, the Energy Department hadn’t issued any determinations as to whether a new efficiency standard is necessary for 13 appliances and hadn’t released final rules for three products, including commercial water heaters, according to an analysis by the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, a group that advocates for efficiency standards.
The Energy Department estimates that by 2030, existing efficiency standards issued before February 2016 will save 132 quadrillion British thermal units (quads) of energy, save consumers nearly $2 trillion on their utility bills, and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 7 billion metric tons.
That’s compared to about 100 quads of energy that the entire U.S. uses in a year.
‘Disregarding Law’s Mandate’
The 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act requires the Energy Department to review efficiency standards for more than 40 different types of appliances every six years and decide whether stricter standards would lead to more energy savings for consumers, while being technically and economically feasible for manufacturers.
“This administration has spent the last two years writing proposals that weaken efficiency standards,” Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) told Bloomberg Environment. He said the Energy Department is ignoring the law’s mandate to update or finalize efficiency standards for 16 different products.
“When the law says you need to take a specific action, the department’s job is to carry out the law, not go off and do whatever it wants,” he said.
The Obama administration issued at least 44 energy efficiency standards during its eight years in office, making up for missed deadlines under the George W. Bush administration, which issued just four. The Natural Resources Defense Council sued the Bush administration’s Energy Department twice over the delays.
“The feast-or-famine rulemaking is very disruptive to consumers and to manufacturers,” said Yurek, who will testify at the hearing.
Feds May Set Higher Bar
Daniel Simmons, the head of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office at the Energy Department, which issues the standards, said in his testimony for the hearing that the department is reworking what’s known as the “Process Rule” by which it decides to issue new standards.
The amended rule would set a higher bar for any new standard to be issued. Energy efficiency advocates fear it would lead to fewer standards getting developed.
Charles Hon, the engineering manager at True Manufacturing Co. Inc., which makes commercial refrigerators, said the company is going to continue to make efficiency improvements despite delays in the standards.
“We’re moving forward on our business model,” Hon said. “We’re frustrated by the fact that they’re not on schedule.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/trump-delays-on-appliance-efficiency-hurt-companies-consumers
-
Colo. Plan to Focus Oil, Gas Rules Advances
Mar 7, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Dan Elliott
A plan to refocus Colorado's oil and gas regulations on health and safety passed its first milestone in the Legislature yesterday after 187 people testified during a 12-hour hearing.
The Senate Transportation and Energy Committee voted 4-3 to approve a measure that would require regulators to make the protection of human health and the environment their top priority. Current law makes energy production the primary goal.
The legislation also gives local governments the option of regulating the location of new wells. Existing law says only the state has that authority.
All the panel's Democrats supported the measure and all the Republican members opposed it. Democrats control both houses of the Legislature, and Democratic Gov. Jared Polis has endorsed the measure.
Democratic state Senate Majority Leader Stephen Fenberg, a bill co-sponsor, said it is a commonsense approach to dealing with frequent conflicts over drilling, especially in fast-growing communities north of Denver, which overlap the rich Wattenberg oil and gas field.
Opponents say it could lead to a virtual ban on drilling in some areas and cost jobs.
They got a boost yesterday from Ken Salazar, one of Colorado's Democratic elder statesmen and a former U.S. senator and Interior Department secretary.
Salazar said the measure would give local governments "unfettered" authority over the location of new wells and allow them to effectively ban drilling.
In a written statement, Salazar said Colorado's oil, gas and renewable energy is important to national security because it helps keep the country from depending on other nations.
Salazar, an attorney, is now in private practice and works for oil, gas and renewable energy companies.
His statement, also published as an op-ed in The Denver Post, said he understands the need to reform the rules, especially on health and safety, but he called the legislation "too extreme" for Colorado.
Salazar was a U.S. senator from 2005 to 2009 and Interior secretary under former President Obama from 2009 to 2013.
Nearly 400 people signed up to testify before the Transportation and Energy Committee hearing in person or by video from a half-dozen sites around the state. By the time the hearing ended, about half spoke — 101 in favor of the changes and 86 against them.
The committee made five minor changes to the legislation.
The next stop is a hearing today before the Senate Finance Committee. Fenberg said the bill could go through six hearings before final votes in the House and Senate.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/07/stories/1060123415
-
Alaska Regulators Order BP to Plug, Abandon 14 Wells
Mar 7, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
State oil and gas regulators have ordered BP PLC to plug and abandon 14 wells in northern Alaska that were identified as at risk of failure.
The state Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has also ordered BP to gather additional information about wells at Prudhoe Bay after multiple wells have failed, causing leaks, Alaska's Energy Desk reported Tuesday.
State and BP officials linked an April 2017 well accident that caused a dayslong leak to thawing permafrost and the well's design. The company then identified and shut in 14 wells that shared a design, indicating they were at risk.
An accident occurred last December at one of the 14 wells, leading to another investigation.
In the order last week, the commission said BP has not proven that thawing permafrost will not cause more accidents at other wells with a common design, which accounts for most of the 1,800 wells at Prudhoe Bay.
"That's why we're ordering BP to gather additional data on those wells so we can gain an understanding of whether or not there is a risk associated with those wells also," said Cathy Foerster, a commission member. "We haven't had anything to cause us to believe that they do have a risk, but we just want to make sure they don't."
The company is working with the state to comply with the order, and it remains committed to operating in a "safe, reliable and compliant manner," BP spokeswoman Megan Baldino said.
BP is monitoring the 14 wells in real time, and their flow lines and well houses have been removed to prevent future accidents, the company said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/07/stories/1060123399
-
US Gulf Coast NGPL Expansion to Serve Corpus Christi LNG Terminal
Mar 7, 2019 | S&P Global Platts
By Sean Sullivan
A Kinder Morgan-operated natural gas pipeline system that provides the backbone of the feedgas for Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass LNG export terminal is seeking regulatory approval for an almost 330,000-Dt/d compression-based expansion in order to supply Cheniere's second export project on the US Gulf Coast.
Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America (NGPL) applied for a Natural Gas Act certificate to expand its Gulf Coast Mainline system to provide 300,000 Dt/d of firm southbound transportation capacity to Corpus Christi Liquefaction. The expansion would also enable NGPL to make 28,000 Dt/d available to the market.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission gave notice Wednesday that NGPL applied for the estimated $145.2 million Gulf Coast Southbound project. The original February 28 application was marked as privileged and protected in the FERC library.
The project would include an additional 10,000-hp compressor unit and related facilities at a compressor station in Victoria County, Texas; an additional 15,900-hp turbine at a compressor station in Wharton County, Texas; and two additional 23,470-hp turbines at a compressor station in Harrison County, Texas. NGPL would also abandon in place a dozen compressor units at two of those stations (CP19-99).
On March 1, FERC approved Cheniere's Corpus Christi Liquefaction to start gas liquefaction and export activities on the first train at the Corpus Christi LNG export terminal on the Texas coast. The train has a production capacity of 4.5 million mt/year of LNG. On March 4, Cheniere announced that a unit of engineering and construction company Bechtel had turned over control of the train to it (CP12-507).
On January 18, NGPL applied for a 500,000 Dt/d expansion of its Lockridge gas pipeline in the Permian Basin area in Texas.
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/natural-gas/030719-us-gulf-coast-ngpl-expansion-to-serve-corpus-christi-lng-terminal
-
Democrats Slam Energy Efficiency Delays
Mar 7, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy Dillon
Energy and Commerce Democrats hammered the Trump administration this morning for delays and failures in promulgating more than a dozen energy efficiency standards, some of which were basically finalized in the last days of the Obama administration.
The House Democrats painted the delays as antithetical to congressional intent as well as problematic for consumers and efforts to combat climate change.
"Every day the Administration delays updating efficiency standards for these common household products, consumers' electricity bills remain higher than necessary, and more electricity is unnecessarily generated to power these less efficient appliances," said Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.).
"These delays must come to an end," Pallone said during a hearing.
Democrats and advocacy groups have complained about the slow pace the Department of Energy has taken for some 16 efficiency standards for household products like refrigerators and air conditioners.
Congress set deadlines in its 2007 energy bill. DOE has blown through those deadlines, causing a pileup of regulations.
Democrats today argued the Obama-era standards were projected to save consumers approximately $665 billion through 2050.
The energy efficiency program has also helped save the average family over $500, annually, off their energy bills, Energy Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) said.
The Obama DOE finalized four of those standards, including for portable air conditioners and packaged boilers, in December 2016.
The Trump team, however, never placed the final rules in the Federal Register, preventing them from going into effect.
"Under the Trump administration, DOE has not only failed to publish its legally mandated efficiency standards but has instead proposed to take the country backward by recently announcing two proposals that would negatively impact consumers, the public health, employment and the environment," Rush said.
A federal court told DOE to publish the standards in February 2018, but an appeal by the federal government led to a stay.
The ongoing legal proceedings prevented DOE Assistant Secretary Daniel Simmons, who leads the Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, from commenting on those rules.
The EERE chief did say the department would continue with the dozen efficiency rulemakings required by Congress, but only "some" may be finalized by the end of the year.
"It is important that we meet our legal deadlines, but it is also important we meet the substantive requirements of [the Energy Policy and Conservation Act]," Simmons said. "And there are many substantive requirements."
DOE has argued it needs to update its procedures for evaluating how it determines new standards. That proposal, which came out last month, would alter testing procedures and the definition for a "significant" threshold for energy savings, among other areas.
Advocates claim the reforms would make it harder to bolster efficiency standards. Simmons argued change was needed to better meet legal requirements.
Republicans defended that procedural effort.
"The proposed update to the Process Rule would enhance transparency, accountability, and regulatory certainty for manufacturers and consumers alike," said Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Greg Walden (R-Ore.).
"While it's hard to believe," said Walden, "this is the first update to the Process Rule in more than 20 years."
DOE's commitments did not appear to assure Democrats.
"Quite frankly, the record of the appliance and equipment standards program under the Trump administration is dismal," Pallone said. "I think it's time for the department to step up to the plate and begin acting on these standards."
The chairman added, "It doesn't seem like you will, but hopefully you will."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/07/stories/1060123435
-
“Wasted Energy:” DOE's Illegal Inaction on Energy Efficiency
Mar 7, 2019 | Natural Resource Defense Council
By Kit Kennedy
In the search for powerful climate change action that can win support from both parties in Congress, it's hard to beat energy efficiency standards. Long-established federal efficiency baselines for appliances and equipment have saved consumers and businesses nearly $2 trillion on utility bills over the past three decades while creating jobs in every state.
That's why it's unconscionable that the Trump administration has allowed these energy efficiency standards to languish, a failure highlighted in Congressional hearings today. Along with other consumer and environmental advocates, I am honored to be testifying today before lawmakers on the House Energy subcommittee. This committee oversees the critically important efficiency standards program, and I will be urging an end to the U.S Department of Energy (DOE)'s irresponsible delays and rollbacks.
DOE's Appliance and Equipment Standards are the reason your refrigerator, clothes washer, and other major appliances use far less energy today than they did back in 1987, when the program was created under a Republican president, a Republican Senate, and a Democratic House. Developed in concert with manufacturers, the standards will help the U.S. avoid 7 billion tons of carbon pollution by 2030.
Yet the current administration has brought this program to a grinding halt and is attempting to throw it into reverse. In the past two years, DOE has not issued one new or updated energy efficiency standard — or even released any for consideration. Instead, the agency is pursuing unnecessary changes that will undermine the programand threaten its impact.
Worse yet, DOE is attempting to illegally roll back previous standards—for example, by attempting to weaken lighting standards signed into law by President George W. Bush and creating loopholes in the definitions of the types of included bulbs.
As NRDC explained in our recent report, America’s Clean Energy Frontier: The Path to a Safer Climate Future, the U.S. needs profound increases in the efficiency of the nation's buildings, appliances, products, and lighting in order to stave off the worst effects of climate change. We don't have time to spare: Already, wildfires are becoming more destructive, extreme weather more frequent, and coastal flooding the norm. Federal spending for direct disaster assistance neared $15 billion between 2015 and 2018—more than nine times higher than the first half of the 1980s, according to a recent House Budget Committee report.
Efficiency is our best weapon in this crisis. It lowers carbon emissions and consumer energy bills, strengthens the electricity grid, and avoids other forms of air and water pollution. After all, the cheapest and cleanest kilowatt-hour is the one you don’t have to generate.
And one of the most effective policies to promote efficiency is through minimum energy performance standards for appliances and equipment. Technology-neutral and cost effective, standards reduce energy consumption while encouraging innovation toward better levels of service and comfort.
For DOE, the legal obligations to this program are crystal clear, set out in both the Energy Policy Conservation Act (EPCA) and the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA). Federal courts have enforced these obligations when DOE has failed to take required actions on energy efficiency standards on time or has attempted to weaken the program.
As a lawyer, I've participated in many landmark cases that have helped shape DOE’s mandatory energy efficiency responsibilities. Two in particular come to mind: NRDC v. Abraham, which holds that DOE cannot weaken an established energy efficiency standard because of the “anti-backsliding” provision that Congress enacted in NAECA; and New York v. Bodman, which resulted in a consent decree requiring DOE to issue 23 overdue appliance program rules by specific deadlines.
Appliances and equipment have relatively long lifetimes. With every inefficient piece of equipment installed today in our homes, businesses, and factories, we essentially guarantee a higher level of global warming. The more we delay, the harder it will be to reverse course.
This subcommittee should be gravely concerned that DOE’s illegal delays and inaction, combined with the agency’s actions to halt or destroy the program entirely, will have consequences stretching far beyond this administration. Fighting climate change without a robust efficiency standards program is like trying to finish a puzzle with missing pieces: It's harder, it takes longer, and at the end, it’s impossible. That’s not a risk we can afford to take.
DOE must fulfill its statutory obligations to update efficiency standards under the legally required schedule and should act to expand the program’s energy and carbon savings. This would benefit all Americans, our economy, and our environment, protecting our children both now and in the future.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/kit-kennedy/wasted-energy-does-illegal-inaction-energy-efficiency
-
Fewer Petrochemical Deals Expected in 2019
Mar 7, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
Uncertainty in the global economy could dampen merger and acquisition activity in the chemical industry 2019, but deal volume will remain relatively robust particularly in the United States, according to a new report.
Last year, the global volume of M&A deals dropped 5 percent compared to the year before, according to the report from the accounting and professional services firm Deloitte.
In 2019, rising interest rates, trade tensions and slowing economic growth could further put the brakes on some chemical M&A activity globally, the report said.
Deloitte pointed to several headwinds for the chemical industry that could affect M&A deals. The International Monetary Fund recently cut its expectations for global economic growth. Trade conflicts threaten to increase uncertainty and make international M&A deals less attractive. Plus trade talks with China and a Brexit deal could affect chemical companies' outlooks.
"Protectionism and trade concerns are weighing heavily on companies and global regulators continue to heavily scrutinize deals," said Dan Schweller, Deloitte global M&A leader for the chemicals and specialty materials. "As a result, we may see hesitancy towards cross-border M&A deals."
Those same global macroeconomic forces could also ding profits for U.S. petrochemical companies as they contend with intensifying competition and potential spikes in raw material costs of ethane.
So far this year, acquirers have been cautious to close M&A deals in the United States because of those headwinds, the report said.
Even still, the U.S. will continue to attract a lot of M&A deals and international buyers because of strong market fundamentals such as proximity to ample amounts of natural gas feedstocks that are converted into petrochemicals.
"Underlying conditions for a strong M&A market remain intact— ample cash on-hand for buyers, availability of relatively cheap credit and the desire to increase (return-on-investment) for investors," Schweller said.
Barring any major shocks, the number of new M & A deals in the U.S. will stay steady this year.
Some major M& A deals in the chemical industry this year include: Houston's LyondellBasell's potential deal to buy the Braskem of Brazil and Aramco's potential acquisition of a big stake in Saudi Basic Industries Corp, which is building a Western Hemisphere headquarters in the Houston suburb of Katy. The SABIC deal could be one of the biggest in the petrochemical industry in years, the report said.
Deloitte also suggested that a growing concerns about plastic waste and the industry's efforts to address it spur additional M & A activity. Dozens of chemical companies are investing an cross-industry group, the Alliance to End Plastic Waste, which encourages additional investment and collaboration on preventing plastic waste spilling into oceans.
Shareholder activists could also continue to significantly shape chemical M&A deals and impacting companies' strategic direction, the report said.
Several of these macroeconomic trends will be addressed at the 34th IHS Markit's World Petrochemical Conference March 19-22, 2019, at the Henry B. González Convention Center in San Antonio. The conference includes more than 135 speakers and 1,500 attendees from more than 40 countries.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Fewer-petrochemical-deals-expected-in-2019-13668901.php
-
Proposed Oil Regulation Would Increase Transparency on Spills, Violations
Mar 7, 2019 | New Mexico In Depth
By Elizabeth Miller
In mid-February, 300 barrels of crude oil and 1,000 barrels of the salty, chemical-laden water that comes out of the ground along with fossil fuel spilled from a pipeline in northwestern New Mexico and ran for 1.6 miles down a wash. An employee with the company that runs the pipeline called the Oil Conservation Division. The agency’s online incident report describes an effort to stop the spread with earthen dikes and berms. Then, it snowed, covering the trail. The operator used absorbent pads and booms to try to recover some of the oil and liquids, and told the division it has plans to flush the area with fresh water to move the contaminants to a single collection point. Weeks later, the records don’t show whether the cleanup of either the water or oil was successful.
While the details are often available for those who know how to dig long enough through state-run databases, zooming out to see if spills like this one are part of a trend is tough. The way the state currently reports spills and violations makes it difficult to track a spill through enforcement actions, or to see if a particular company is prone to offenses, or if a specific region has been hard hit.
A bill working its way through the legislative process, SB 186, would reinstate the division’s authority to issue fines, which have been rare since 2009 when a court ruling pushed that authority to the state attorney general’s office. Its sponsor, Sen. Richard Martinez, has said those fines are key for enforcing the Oil and Gas Act.
But the bill would also advance transparency around how those rules are implemented. It would require the division to publish an annual report on the number of violations, as well as the total penalties collected and for each violation, the name of the person penalized, the location, the nature of the violation and the penalty calculation. That annual report would also include defendant names, nature of violation and outcome of litigation for lawsuits filed for violating the Oil and Gas Act.
Right now, environmental watchdogs struggle to access that cumulative information.
In 2018, the division noted 1,712 violations, said Nathalie Eddy, with the Earthworks Oil and Gas Accountability Project. She was given that figure by OCD staff over the phone. Quarterly inspection reports haven’t been updated on the agency website since 2017. Currently, she has filed an open records request seeking more detail, and quarterly inspection reports, if they exist.
“We want to know what those look like—we want to know, are those paper violations? Are they spills? Are they emissions? Are they unable to get appropriate permits?” she said. “We don’t have that information. We have no sense of the severity of any particular operator or for any particular area.”
The division reports spills routinely, including the location and cause, but that information is disjointed from violation reports, she pointed out, making it tough to know how much of one number is included in another or discern further meaning.
The difficulty in finding public information about violations makes it tough to identify trends or the “bad actors,” she said, and “leaves the public in the dark regarding how, if at all, those violations were resolved.”
Oil and gas industry advocates have argued that the fines the bill would allow could see them paying thousands for paperwork missteps. Eddy said it’s difficult to vet that statement.
“One point that came up is, if operators are running careful operations, then this bill won’t have an impact on them. There won’t be violations,” Eddy said. “I think it’s hard to say because I’m not sure we have a complete picture of what these violations indicate and how widespread they are. That kind of pattern or trend—I’m not sure we have the data to say what that looks like.”
The New Mexico Oil and Gas Association is not in opposition to the reporting provision, according to spokesperson Robert McEntyre. The association’s executive director, Ryan Flynn, spoke against the bill when it was heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying their opposition “really hinges on the trigger for when an action will go from administrative into courts.”
If a fine reaches $250,000, then it moves from the division to a state district court judge. The Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Department had previously agreed to a $500,000 threshold. Those fines would be stacked up at a rate of $2,500 per violation per day. If a fine is considered a threat to public health, safety or the environment, then the fine could go up to $10,000. That’s lower than the $15,000 per day originally in the legislation, but a step up from the $1,000 per day rate set in 1935. But as Sen. Peter Wirth has pointed out, that rate would have reached more than $18,000 had it been adjusted for inflation since then.
But the reporting requirement gives pause to Larry Marker, who operates “stripper wells”—low producing oil wells that might yield a few barrels of oil a day, rather than a few hundred. He’s concerned that existing problems with vandalism and theft could be exacerbated.
“This notification stuff is basically inviting people out to my locations,” he said. “If the state puts together a website that points out all of these issues and gives the location, the name and everything else of the individuals involved, that could create some problems.”
That information is already publicly available, he conceded, but this measure would make it more easily accessible.
And it’s possible it would also actually decrease reporting, he said.
The absence of penalties and a generally cooperative attitude from Oil Conservation Division staff has led to more operators reporting more spills, Marker said. Add the threat of penalties, and that could change. The Oil Conservation Division relies on companies to self-report incidents. Of 1,600 spills in 2018, just 40 were reported by an entity other than an industry representative. Yet another bill, SB 553, has taken a run at fixing a staffing shortage at the Division by implementing application fees to help pay for the costs of overseeing the industry. Whether that would fund more inspectors in the field to spot rule violations is not yet clear.
Marker said the working relationship with those at the Division has led to reporting more of these spills.
“A lot of that has to do with the relationship the OCD has with the industry itself and particularly some smaller guys like me. It’s not really an adversarial position,” he said. “If I pick up a lease and find there was a spill there several years ago, because of how hard those guys [employed at the Oil Conservation Division] have worked, I’m more confident calling those guys and saying, ‘Hey, I found a spill. I’ll get it cleaned up. I just want you guys to know about it.’”
For small producers, like himself and Phelps White, a small operator from Roswell, the fines discussed could be a game-changer.
“A $100,000 fine, especially any of the wells that I have, it would never pay off,” White said. If he, or other small producers, went out of business as a result, he said, that would leave the state paying to plug those wells.
“Even a major company, if they’re looking at $100,000 fine, they would much rather fix the damn problem than pay that $100,000, so it’s got a good bite in it,” he said. But any fine, he said, would do: “I don’t want a fine and I don’t want to screw anything up.”
http://nmindepth.com/2019/03/07/proposed-oil-regulation-would-increase-transparency-on-spills-violations/
-
Are Chemical Storage Facilities Safe from Sea Level Rise?
Mar 7, 2019 | Bacon's Rebellion
By James A. Bacon
If the threat of leaking coal ash pits kept you up at night, wait until you read, “Toxic Floodwaters: The Threat of Climate-Driven Chemical Disaster in Virginia’s James River Watershed,” a report just published by the Center for Progressive Reform.
Authors Noah Sachs (a University of Richmond professor and a friend of mine) and David Flores argue that the James River watershed “is among the regions of the country most vulnerable to the consequences of climate change” due to higher-than-average sea-level rise, intensifying rainfall, and increased hurricane risk. “As major storms cause serious and potentially toxic flooding in the James River watershed … residents are reminded that the industries surrounding them are not doing enough to plan and adapt to our changing world.”
Also, as we have come to expect from the modern environmental movement, there is a social justice component to the report. “Social vulnerability interacts with geography and climate to produce a climate crisis,” the authors write.
The study raises some legitimate questions, but I can’t find any evidence to buttress its strongest assertions. I’ll get to those reservations in a moment. But first, let’s see what the report says.
“Toxic Floodwaters” is the first comprehensive examination of the threat that storms and flooding pose to the socially vulnerable communities surrounding hazardous chemical storage sites throughout the Commonwealth, the authors write. The research project is the product of a three-year partnership between the Center for Progressive Reform, the James River Association, and Chesapeake Commons.
The three-part methodology of the study: (1) identified all industrial facilities in the watershed “likely” to handle toxic and hazardous substances; (2) created a geospatial model to map how these facilities are exposed to potential flooding; and (3) overlaid demographic data to identify census tracts that are most socially vulnerable to disaster events. The index includes metrics for vehicle access, crowded housing, age, education, English language usage, household income, and federal poverty status. Among the key findings: More than 2,700 industrial facilities regulated by federal and state programs for toxic and hazardous chemicals are located in the most socially vulnerable census tracts in the James River watershed.In the tidal region of the James River, from Hampton Roads upriver to Richmond, 234 facilities regulated for hazardous or toxic substances would be flooded by future sea-level rise between one and five feet. Moreover, 91 of these facilities would be flooded by just one foot of sea level rise, which climate scientists expect to occur no later than 2050.On average, 125 socially vulnerable census tracts contain 25 flood-exposed industrial facilities each. Some 473,000 Virginians live in these census tracts.
Conclude Sachs and Flores: “Our research and analysis show that lawmakers and regulators in the Commonwealth have not effectively addressed flooding risks at industrial facilities – risks that are growing due to climate change.”
The study proposes a welter of new regulations to identify potential flooding risks, increase transparency, and tighten standards for siting, building and maintaining chemical storage tanks. “DEQ should realign its enforcement policy and invest new resources to prioritize inspection and enforcement efforts on flood-exposed facilities located near the Commonwealth’s most socially vulnerable communities.”
Bacon’s bottom line: Sachs and Flores have raised a significant issue that has so far eluded public attention. The risks they have identified are potentially of a magnitude that warrant closer scrutiny. The sea level is rising. Whether it’s rising as rapidly as climate-alarmist scenarios suggest is worth debating. Whether the risk of hurricane activity is actually intensifying is another empirical question that may or may not be substantiated by the evidence. But there is no denying the fact that, between sea-level rise globally and subsidence in Virginia’s Tidewater, water tables and the frequency and severity of flooding in the tidal reaches of the James River are creeping higher.
I’m not sure the social-justice angle adds anything to the debate, however. If there is a risk that floodwaters could be contaminated, does it really matter if a census tract is “socially vulnerable” or not? A threat to public health is a threat to public health. Are we now elevating threats to the “social vulnerable” population to a higher level of priority than to the general public?
My biggest concern is that the authors pre-suppose that there is a problem. As they write: “Residents are reminded that the industries surrounding them are not doing enough to plan and adapt to our changing world. … Our research and analysis show that lawmakers and regulators in the Commonwealth have not effectively addressed flooding risks at industrial facilities.”
Who says? They provide no evidence to back up that statement. They describe a hypothetical risk that bears looking into, but they over-reach when they assert definitively that the current regulatory regime is inadequate.
DEQ regulates and inspects chemical-storage facilities. “Toxic Floodwaters” provides no specific instances in which chemical and gasoline storage poses a tangible threat. The report provides no statistics on the number of inspections, much less the number of facilities that have failed inspection, nor does it critique anyone’s risk-management plans.
Sachs and Flores make the legitimate point that regulations should be forward-looking. Regulators should anticipate the elevated risk of flooding as the sea level rises in the decades ahead. However, in contrast to, say, coal ash, which has been buried in open pits through which rainwater and groundwater can migrates, gasoline and toxic chemicals used in industrial and commercial processes are stored in sealed tanks and containers. Moreover, the volumes are much smaller. Rather than talking about millions of tons, which will take years to remove, as with coal ash, we may be talking about millions of gallons or pounds. The logistical challenge of relocating chemical storage facilities as flooding risks increase in the years and decades ahead, I expect, is a fraction of that posed by coal ash. Even if the sea level is rising, one might conjecture, there is plenty of time for industry to adapt.
Still, I agree with the authors that transparency is vital. Citizens have a right to public records such as permit applications, inspection reports, companies’ risk-management plans, and compliance data. In particular, citizens have a right to know if risk management plans, which are updated every five years, consider the implications of sea-level rise. DEQ should make this information available online. Citizen activism is a safeguard against industry and government complacency. Perhaps a closer inspection of these records will expose real dangers rather than hypothetical ones.
https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp/are-chemical-storage-facilities-safe-from-sea-level-rise/
-
Olympia Weighs Regulations on Oil Trains
Mar 7, 2019 | Inlander
By Samantha Wohlfeil
In what could be considered an end-run around federal rules governing rail safety, Washington could require that crude oil stored in or unloaded from rail cars in the state be at a vapor pressure less than 9 pounds per square inch.
Effectively, that means Senate Bill 5579, passed by the Senate 27-20 on Monday, would regulate the pressure of Bakken region crude oil transported on trains, many of which enter the state through Spokane and spread across the region every day.
Proponents say the bill was drafted because federal regulators have stalled on drafting national limits on vapor pressure. Because federal rules generally supercede states' abilities to regulate railroads, the state would instead regulate the pressure at facilities that offload the crude, such as refineries. The bill doesn't require rail cars be checked for pressure when entering the state or traveling, and would implement a fee of up to $2,500 per day, per rail car, for violations at the loading/unloading sites.
"This bill [is] about safety — the safety for the workers who unload Bakken crude oil at their endpoint in Washington state, and for the safety for everyone along the route by which it travels from North Dakota. These large shipments of extremely flammable fuel run through the heart of our state, starting with my community in Spokane," announced Sen. Andy Billig (D-Spokane), prime sponsor of the legislation. "People and their safety must come first. Experts know that highly flammable Bakken oil poses greater risk and it's time to take meaningful action to reduce the threat of a serious catastrophe."
North Dakota currently requires Bakken crude be shipped at no more than 13.7 psi, but trains with oil at a lower pressure have still derailed and sparked an explosion. The 2016 oil train derailment and fire in Mosier, Oregon, involved crude oil at 9.2 psi, the Oregonianreported at the time.
https://www.inlander.com/spokane/olympia-weighs-regulations-on-oil-trains/Content?oid=16768250
-
The Energy 202: Congress Has Held at Least 15 Climate Hearings since Democrats Won the House
Mar 7, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
There’s been one on climate change and infrastructure. Another on climate change and publicly owned lands. And there have been two on climate change and oceans.
Now that they have control of the House, Democrats have used their newfound power to pack the calendar in Congress with hearings on what they see as the biggest environmental crisis facing the nation and the world.
In the first 64 days of the new Congress, various congressional committees have scheduled at least 15 hearings explicitly on the causes and effects of — and potential response to — the world’s warming climate.
Democrats want to elevate an issue that they say House Republicans almost entirely ignored during their eight years in power in the chamber.
“Today’s hearing on climate change is long overdue,” House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) said during his panel’s first hearing in the new Congress in early February. “We are feeling its effects now, and the influence of unchecked climate change is becoming more obvious every year.”
Democrats sought to cast February as the month in which they would put a focus on climate, though the hearings are stretching into March. Most of the time, the meetings were not convened to discuss any particular piece of legislation. They also didn’t tackle the nonbinding Green New Deal resolution that has captured the attention of Washington.
They served instead as an opportunity for members to gather testimony from climate experts — and to stump about the urgency needed to address global warming.
One hearing in the House Natural Resources Committee sought to examine how climate-fueled floods and wildfires are disrupting Native American communities. Another in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee looked at how emissions from cars, airplanes and other modes of transportation makes global warming worse.
Showing how deep into the weeds Democrats want to dive, the most recent of those 15 hearings, in the Energy and Commerce Committee on Thursday, will focus on rules that would increase the energy efficiency of lightbulbs and other devices.
And Democrats are far from done. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reinstituted a special select committee on climate that was disbanded by Republicans when they were in the majority. It has yet to meet, but that panel, chaired by Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), will collect facts about climate change from scientists and experts rather than focus on crafting legislation.
“We’re facing the crisis of our generation," Castor said at one of the other several climate hearings on the Hill in February. "We feel like we’re in the bullseye in Florida.”
Even one Republican chairwoman on the side of the Capitol still controlled by the GOP — Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — has joined in the hearing frenzy, convening one this week on advancing new technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector.
Like much of the rest of the Arctic, her state has warmed twice as fast as the Lower 48 states, a fact she noted during her opening remarks.
“This has got to be a priority for all of us,” Murkowski said. “Certainly in Alaska we view that there is no choice here.”
During their eight years in power in the House, Republicans largely declined to shine a spotlight on climate change.
When they did, it was often to criticize the climate scientists themselves — as former House Science Committee chair Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) did when he probed a group of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration researchers.
But some top GOP lawmakers are singing a different tune in response to the new political reality in Washington, calling for action on climate change — as long as it is bipartisan.
At times, Republicans' remarks even got personal.
Rep. Greg Walden, the ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce panel, held up a jar of ash during one hearing to illustrate the devastation of wildfires in his eastern Oregon district. And the new top Republican of the science panel, Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), cited his experience as a farmer during another hearing as he called for more investment in carbon capture and nuclear energy technologies.
“Drought, heat waves come and go naturally,” he said, “but the changing climate has intensified their impacts.”
But other Republicans are pushing back on the volume of climate hearings Democrats are holding.
Republicans on the House Natural Resouces Committee, led by Rob Bishop of Utah, said Democrats were failing to address issues within the committee’s jurisdiction after holding seven climate-related hearings. During one panel, Bishop jokingly thanked Democrats for picking "the shortest month" to hold the hearings. During another on climate change denial, GOP members even used a procedural tactic to end the meeting only minutes after it began after too few Democrats showed up for its start.
"Many of the Majority witnesses has proposed that the United states undertake a radical transformation to combat climate change, with seemingly no regard to the impact on the economy, jobs, or energy prices," Bishop wrote to Natural Resouces Chairman Raúl Grijalva this week in a letter on the jurisdictional issue.
In response, Grijalva wrote that the agencies and departments the committee helps oversee determine the federal government's response to climate change.
"That was clearly your belief as Chairman," he said. "It is not mine."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2019/03/07/the-energy-202-congress-has-held-at-least-15-climate-hearings-since-democrats-won-the-house/5c80458b1b326b2d177d6004/?utm_term=.de7ca4473f57
-
Ewire: White House Pressures US Automakers to Back GHG Rule Freeze
Mar 7, 2019 | Inside EPA
The Trump administration is trying to shore up support for its plan to freeze vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards -- with the White House reportedly focusing its lobbying on the industry its rollback is ostensibly aimed at helping, automakers.
The dynamic underscores that the Trump EPA in several instances has been pushing environmental rollbacks that are more aggressive than industry is requesting -- though the vehicle rules are perhaps the most high-profile example.
Reuters brings us the news of the March 1 meeting at the White House with the “Big 3” domestic automakers -- General Motors, Ford and Fiat Chrysler. The story does not get into the details of Trump officials pitch, though it suggests that they are conflicted about how automakers' support for the rollback -- or lack thereof -- would affect the rule's future.
“Some administration officials have suggested the White House could abandon the effort to freeze the Obama rules if automakers are not supportive, but others are skeptical the administration would drop one of its most important deregulatory measures,” the story says.
Automakers have publicly called for the administration to drop the proposed rule freeze and to issue requirements that have annual stringency increases. They have also urged the White House to reach a deal with California on the standards, even though the administration recently said it was ending efforts to achieve a compromise.
The auto sector also has not endorsed another key aspect of the Trump proposal -- preempting California and other states' authority to regulate vehicle GHGs, though the Reuters report says “some of the auto officials expressed some support for preempting California's rules.”
The story comes as EPA released its annual fuel economy trends report, which both supporters and critics of existing Obama-era standards are citing to back their arguments. Backers of the rules, for example, say it shows the potential to further reduce vehicle GHGs, but EPA and other opponents of the current rules say the report highlights looming compliance problems that justify the planned rollback.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-white-house-pressures-us-automakers-back-ghg-rule-freeze
-
Schumer: 'Some Progress' from GOP on Climate, but Government Action Needed
Mar 7, 2019 | Politico Pro - Energy Whiteboard
By Anthony Adragna
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer today said he saw "some progress" from his Republican colleagues in acknowledging climate change but warned the GOP emphasis on technological innovation alone would be insufficient to address the problem.
"Democrats are not going to sit around while Republicans come to the floor and yell about socialism as they have for the past two decades. We’re going to make Republicans answer core questions about real change," Schumer said on the floor. "I suspect many of my more reasonable colleagues would prefer that: a real debate rather than gotcha politics that Leader [Mitch] McConnell is so adept at playing and is playing once again with this Green New Deal ploy."
Schumer said government action would be necessary to drive emission reductions.
"It’s not going to happen through the free market alone because of what even Adam Smith recognized — there are externalities that have to be captured — and that’s government’s job: to make sure they are captured," he said.
The comments came after Democrats took the unusually aggressive step of repeatedly interrupting Republican speeches bashing the ambitious Green New Deal on the floor Wednesday to pressure them to offer an alternative and acknowledge the problem.
McConnell did not mention the disruptions or the underlying climate debate in his remarks. He's promisedto call the Green New Deal resolution S. Res. 59 (116), which aims to decarbonize the U.S. economy in a decade, within the next couple weeks.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard/2019/03/schumer-some-progress-from-gop-on-climate-but-government-action-needed-2819682
-
State Launches $30m Green Building Contest
Mar 7, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
A state-sponsored competition is offering financial incentives for "carbon neutral" building projects.
The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority will administer the $30 million "Buildings of Excellence" competition announced yesterday. Officials say it's part of the state's clean energy goals aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The competition will reward building construction and operation projects that reduce energy costs for residents while offering developers a competitive edge with predictable revenue and cost projections.
Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo says the competition is part of his goal to transform New York's entire building stock as part of his Green New Deal clean energy and jobs agenda.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/07/stories/1060123401
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested