Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 3/20/2019
-
High-Level U.S.-China Trade Talks to Resume in Final Push for Deal
Mar 19, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Bob Davis
Negotiators for the U.S. and China have scheduled a new round of high-level trade talks in Beijing and Washington, aiming to close a deal by late April to end the yearlong dispute between the world’s two largest economies. -
(ACC Mentioned) Part 2: Busting More Industry-Perpetrated Myths about New Chemicals and Worker Protection under TSCA
Mar 19, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
This post shows why the chemical industry has been so anxious to convince EPA to defer to OSHA rather than regulate worker risks from new chemicals under TSCA. -
Children's Cosmetics Asbestos Warning Bill under Consideration in US House
Mar 19, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US House of Representatives is considering a bill requiring talc-containing cosmetics marketed to children to bear a warning label that the product may be contaminated with asbestos. -
(ACC Mentioned) Pesticide Residues Found in 70% of Produce Sold in US Even after Washing
Mar 20, 2019 | The Guardian
By Emily Holden
About 70% of fresh produce sold in the US has pesticide residues on it even after it is washed, according to a health advocacy group. -
California Legislators Consider Banning All Cosmetics with Cancer-Causing Chemicals
Mar 19, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
California is considering a bill that would ban the sale of all cosmetics in state that contain certain chemicals known to cause cancer and other health effects. -
Hawaii Bills Push 1st State Ban on Plastics in Restaurants
Mar 19, 2019 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Audrey McAvoy
Hawaii would be the first state in the U.S. to ban most plastics at restaurants under legislation that aims to cut down on waste that pollutes the ocean. -
U.S. Resists India’s Push to Ban Single-Use Plastic at UN
Mar 20, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott and Lou Del Bello
India’s proposal for a global ban on single-use plastic was scuttled last week by U.S. objections, a move that environmental groups call the latest example of the Trump administration’s continued weakening of international environmental agreements. -
Important Insight from the Organic Certification Approach to Chemical Additives in Food
Mar 19, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
Since 2014, chemicals in food[1] have been consumers’ most important food safety issue, reaching a high of 35% in 2018, according to annual industry surveys by the International Food Information Council. -
Echa Adopts Corap Update to Evaluate 100 Chemicals in 2019-21
Mar 20, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Echa has adopted a revised community rolling action plan (Corap) for member states to evaluate 100 chemicals for risk assessment measures in the next three years. -
Expert Focus: Resorcinol Faces the Latest in a Long Line of Regulatory Challenges
Mar 19, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Paul Ashford
Chemical Watch readers will have seen the 14 February article ‘Echa considers re-opening concluded REACH evaluation in ‘exceptional’ move’, documenting the latest in a long saga of regulatory uncertainties placed before the resorcinol industry over the last 20 years. -
Monsanto Weedkiller Roundup Was ‘Substantial Factor’ in Causing Man’s Cancer, Jury Says
Mar 19, 2019 | New York Times
By Mihir Zaveri
A federal jury found Tuesday that Monsanto’s popular weedkiller Roundup was a “substantial factor” in causing a California man’s cancer, dealing a significant blow to the company as it aggressively defends its products against thousands of similar claims. -
Study Highlights Potential Hazards of Nine Alternative Flame Retardants
Mar 20, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Nina Notman
Scientists in the Czech Republic have said that a group of nine compounds used as substitutes for polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants are of "toxicological concern based on substantial information" and "should be considered for regulation". -
Oil Majors Rush to Dominate U.S. Shale as Independents Scale Back
Mar 20, 2019 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Jennifer Hiller
In New Mexico's Chihuahuan Desert, Exxon Mobil Corp is building a massive shale oil project that its executives boast will allow it to ride out the industry's notorious boom-and-bust cycles. -
In the LOOP: Third VLCC of the Year Departs Louisiana, Bound for South Korea
Mar 20, 2019 | Platts
By Laura Huchzermeyer
Louisiana Offshore Oil Port continues to load on average one VLCC crude tanker per month for export and logged its third such export of the year late last week. -
New England Algonquin Pipeline Approval Upheld by Appeals Court
Mar 20, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The federal government’s approval of Enbridge Inc.'s Algonquin natural gas pipeline project takes precedence over a Massachusetts town’s opposition to the pipeline, a federal appeals court ruled March 19. -
Fearing Litigation Delays, Industry Urges EPA to Finalize RMP Revisions
Mar 19, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Groups representing major industries are urging EPA to quickly finalize its rollback of an Obama administration rule that strengthened the Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility accident prevention program, fearing expected litigation over the rollback... -
Houston Chemical Blaze Extinguished as Smoke Shuts Schools
Mar 20, 2019 | Bloomberg
By Joe Carroll and Stephen Stapczynski
Firefighting crews early Wednesday extinguished a petrochemical tank fire near Houston that had blazed for almost four days, spewing black smoke into the skies above the energy capital and spurring the hurried cancellation of classes for tens of thousands of children. -
Chemical Fire Timeline Abandoned as Plume Towers Over Houston
Mar 19, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joe Carroll and Rachel Adams-Heard
As a towering plume of black smoke billowed a mile above Houston for a third day, local officials said they don’t know how long the petrochemical blaze that sent orange fireballs into the sky will continue. -
Houston ‘Kind of Normalized’ to Chemical Fires
Mar 20, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Authorities in Harris County, Texas, face a difficult task in letting a chemical fire burn for days even as the Houston region is covered in dark smoke. -
DHS Proposes Tackling Cyberthreats on a Slimmer Budget
Mar 20, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
President Trump is requesting a slimmer budget for the Department of Homeland Security's top cyber office as top administration officials warn of a rising threat to critical U.S. computer networks. -
Court Orders Interior to Redo Climate Analysis
Mar 20, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
A federal court last night struck down climate reviews for a series of Obama-era oil and gas lease sales, a significant win for environmental groups concerned about the impacts of burning fossil fuels. -
EPA Defends Decision to Ease Air Permit Obligations
Mar 19, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
State regulators will be under no obligation to follow federal guidance and loosen air pollution permitting requirements for factories and power plants with new or expanded facilities near national parks and wilderness areas, the EPA told a federal court. -
Trump's Top Economic Adviser Still Supports Carbon Tax
Mar 20, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
President Trump's top economic adviser is not backing away from his belief that a carbon tax would be an effective way to address greenhouse gas emissions. -
Carbon Taxes Are the Original Green New Deal
Mar 20, 2019 | New York Times
By Steven Rattner
Yes, of course, we need a Green New Deal to address the world’s most urgent crisis, global warming. -
NRDC, States Urge Court to Scrap EPA HFC Guidance
Mar 19, 2019 | Inside EPA
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and several Democratic-led states are urging a federal appeals court to scrap an EPA guidance document, alleging it went too far by revoking a prior rule limiting uses of some hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in refrigeration... -
DOE, Industry Await Guidance on Tax Incentives
Mar 20, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
A Department of Energy official said yesterday the agency is "constantly pushing" the Internal Revenue Service to release a framework for how the nascent carbon capture, utilization and storage industry can access new federal funding.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
High-Level U.S.-China Trade Talks to Resume in Final Push for Deal
Mar 19, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Bob Davis
Negotiators for the U.S. and China have scheduled a new round of high-level trade talks in Beijing and Washington, aiming to close a deal by late April to end the yearlong dispute between the world’s two largest economies.
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin plan to fly to Beijing next week to meet with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He, Trump administration officials said. The following week, a Chinese delegation led by Mr. Liu is expected to continue talks in Washington, the officials said.
People tracking the negotiations said the talks appear to be in their final stages, following a rocky patch after Chinese leaders were unnerved by President Trump’s decision to abruptly break off nuclear-disarmament talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in February.RELATED COVERAGE
U.S. Chip Makers Fear Trap in a Trade Deal With China (March 18)Trump Ratchets Up Criticism of GM for Plant Closure (March 18)China Aims to Placate U.S. With Law Banning Theft of Foreign Trade Secrets (March 14)
“We’re in the endgame,” said Myron Brilliant, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
If the two sides continue to make progress, he said, they should be able to finish a trade deal by the end of April—or about one month later than previously expected.
The two sides are aiming for a package deal that includes substantial increases in U.S. exports to China, and Chinese pledges to boost protection of intellectual property, end pressure on U.S. companies to transfer technology to their Chinese partners and reduce subsidies for Chinese firms.
But the two sides still have important issues to resolve including how to enforce a deal and the pace at which the U.S. and China will roll back the tariffs imposed over the past year. The U.S. has levied tariffs on $250 billion of Chinese goods, covering about half the value of Chinese exports to the U.S. Beijing has retaliated with tariffs on $110 billion of U.S. goods, about 90% of U.S. exports to China.
Mr. Trump vowed last week to walk away from a deal he considered insufficient. But behind the scenes, the president has been pressing Mr. Lighthizer to finish a deal, people familiar with the discussions said.
“When can you get a deal done?” Mr. Trump asked the trade representative in a March 12 exchange, these people said. “Two or three weeks,” Mr. Lighthizer replied. Earlier in the day, Mr. Lighthizer had told the Senate Finance Committee, “Our hope is we are in the final weeks of an agreement.”
A deal also appeared to be at hand late in February. U.S. negotiators were optimistic that a pact could be sealed at a summit between Mr. Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida by the end of March.
That timetable unraveled after Chinese negotiators saw red flags in the failed Hanoi summit between Messrs. Trump and Kim. They feared Mr. Trump could press their leader with take-it-or-leave it demands at Mar-a-Lago, and concluded that a deal should be locked down before the two leaders met face to face.
In addition, the two sides have been negotiating the text in English, creating a delay as language had to be translated into Chinese. Mr. Liu also had limited authority, forcing him to seek approval of deal provisions from Mr. Xi and other senior Communist party officials, those following the talks said.
“There should have been an agreed-upon Chinese text before Liu He left Washington” in the last round of talks in late February, said Michael Pillsbury, a China scholar at the Hudson Institute who consults with the White House on trade.
Negotiators for China and the U.S. are still working to resolve one of the most stubborn sticking points: how to ensure China makes good on its promises to ease burdens on U.S. companies operating in China.
Mr. Lighthizer has sketched out key provisions in Congressional testimony, describing a protocol in which the two sides would hold consultations on disputes, starting with lower-level officials. If those officials didn’t resolve the problem, Messrs. Lighthizer and Liu would get involved. If no agreement is reached, the U.S. could impose tariffs, Mr. Lighthizer has said.
But he hasn’t publicly discussed another U.S. priority—that China agree not to retaliate against U.S. tariffs imposed for violations of the pact, at least in some circumstances. Beijing hasn’t approved that request.
Another big issue is the pace at which the two sides would remove tariffs now in force. The U.S. wants to roll them back slowly, after China reaches certain milestones. Beijing wants the tariffs quickly lifted.
U.S. negotiators have divided the tariffs into two kinds. They are more willing to roll back the 10% tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods, which took effect in September as the U.S. tried to put more pressure on China—or at least some of those levies..
But they want to keep in place the 25% on $50 billion of Chinese goods levied, in two stages, in July and August. Those tariffs was meant to compensate the U.S. for what the White House calculated was the harm to U.S. companies caused by China’s forced technology transfers.
The U.S. is also pressing China to ease its restrictions on cross-border data flows, people familiar with the negotiations said. Those talks include permitting U.S. companies to set up cloud computing operations in China and market their services there, rather than being limited to licensing technology to Chinese firms. Negotiations on those subjects are moving slowly, the people involved said.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/lighthizer-mnuchin-to-travel-to-beijing-11553015413?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=4
-
Mar 19, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
This post shows why the chemical industry has been so anxious to convince EPA to defer to OSHA rather than regulate worker risks from new chemicals under TSCA.
I started blogging last week about myths the chemical industry is perpetrating when it comes to EPA’s review of the risks new chemicals may present to workers. In this post, I address another such myth, one that the industry promotes to argue why the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can and should defer to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in addressing the risks posed by new chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This myth was on full display at last week’s House Energy & Commerce Committee hearing on EPA’s failures to protect workers from chemical risks.
Myth #2: OSHA regulations provide ample protection of workers from any exposures to new chemicals EPA is reviewing under TSCA.
In his hearing testimony, Mark Duvall of Beveridge & Diamond, currently a primary outside counsel to the chemical industry’s main trade association, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), and before that a longtime Dow Chemical attorney, made both broad and specific assertions that OSHA regulations will protect workers – and do so to an extent that is sufficient to meet TSCA’s requirements. He broadly asserted the following:
EPA has apparently based its “not likely to present” finding in part on the reasonable assumption that employers will comply with applicable OSHA requirements, and that compliance with OSHA requirements means that the PMN [premanufacture notification] substance is not likely to present an unreasonable risk to workers. …
In light of these applicable OSHA PPE [personal protective equipment] requirements, EPA concluded that the PMN substances for which it made “not likely to present” determinations were not likely to present an unreasonable risk even in the absence of a section 5(e) or section 5(f) order or a SNUR [Significant New Use Rule].
Duvall then specified the OSHA regulations to which he was referring. These include:
· OSHA’s hazard communication standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200
· OSHA’s general PPE standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.132
· OSHA’s standard for respiratory protection, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.134
· OSHA’s standard for glove use, 29 C.F.R. § 1910.138
This looks impressive at first glance. But the devil is in the details, in this case the major exceptions and caveats that apply to each regulation.
OSHA’s hazard communication standard (HCS): The HCS requires a company making a chemical to provide a Safety Data Sheet (SDS) identifying the chemical’s hazards and recommended precautions. The SDS is required to be made available to a company’s workers and to accompany a chemical if it is sold to customers downstream in a supply chain. However, the HCS does not impose ANY requirements on employers to implement those recommended precautions. This is made clear in the preamble to the final HCS (p. 17693, emphases added):
While the current HCS and this final standard require the provision of information on recommended control measures, including respiratory protection, personal protective equipment, and engineering controls, there is no requirement for employers to implement the recommended controls. An employer should use all available information when designing an appropriate protective program, but a recommendation on a safety data sheet by itself would not trigger the need to implement new controls.
OSHA’s general and specific PPE regulations: These regulations have two very important limitations as to when they are applicable and hence when use of PPE is mandatory: They apply only where the employer has determined that workers are subject to sufficient hazardsfrom chemical exposures, and they apply only “where necessary.”
To illustrate, here is what OSHA’s general PPE standard states (emphases added):
Protective equipment, including personal protective equipment for eyes, face, head, and extremities, protective clothing, respiratory devices, and protective shields and barriers, shall be provided, used, and maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition wherever it is necessary by reason of hazards of processes or environment, chemical hazards, radiological hazards, or mechanical irritants encountered in a manner capable of causing injury or impairment in the function of any part of the body through absorption, inhalation or physical contact.
Similar caveats appear in the specific PPE standards. They mean that it is the employer who gets to decide both whether and what hazards exist and whether worker use of PPE is necessary. Let’s look closer at each of these factors.
Deciding whether a hazard exists
Under OSHA’s HCS, employers have considerable latitude in deciding whether a hazard exists in the workplace. Even a hazard classification of a chemical issued by an authoritative government body need not be relied on. That is, the employer can apply his/her own weight-of-evidence (WoE) approach to decide a chemical does not present a hazard even if a government authority has determined that it does. The employer can do so even if that government authority applied a WoE approach to make its hazard determination.
For example, for many chemicals, government authorities such as EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) or the National Toxicology Program (NTP) have reached determinations as to which human health hazards are posed by a particular chemical, such as whether a chemical is known or suspected to cause cancer in people. They do so by applying WoE approaches that have been subject to independent peer-review. Yet even where such a government body has classified a chemical as a carcinogen, under OSHA’s HCS and associated guidance a company can decide the chemical is not carcinogenic, by weighing the evidence differently using its own methodology.
This issue figured prominently in 2016, when OSHA took public comment on its draft “Guidance on Data Evaluation for Weight of Evidence Determination” as it related to changes OSHA made in 2012 to the HCS. In that draft, OSHA proposed to give deference to decisions made by authoritative bodies:
If a classifier reaches a final WoE conclusion that differs from that of the NTP or IARC [International Agency for Research on Cancer], OSHA would look, in the event of a compliance inspection, for a clear justification for the different classification. If OSHA disagrees with the classifier’s classification after evaluating the classifier’s justification, OSHA may issue a citation.
However, this and other language in the draft still retained the HCS’s approach of providing the company with the option of making its own determination that differs from that made by an authoritative body. And that determination would only be questioned in the rather unlikely event of a compliance inspection that focused in on this aspect of a company’s SDS.
An example of a company’s SDS substituting the company’s own conclusions about a chemical’s hazards for those of authoritative government bodies is this 2015 Dow Chemical SDS for methylene chloride, which asserts: “Methylene chloride is not believed to pose a measurable carcinogenic risk to humans when handled as recommended.”
This despite the following:
· EPA’s IRIS program 2011 weight-of-evidence characterization determined that the chemical is “Likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”
· The National Toxicology Program’s latest (2016) Report on Carcinogens classifies the chemical as “Reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.”
· The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified the chemical in 2017 as “Probably carcinogenic to humans.”
EDF and numerous other commenters urged OSHA to require companies to rely on hazard classifications by authoritative bodies identified by OSHA for chemicals, where they exist. Unfortunately, it appears this guidance did not move forward.
(Of more than passing interest is that Dr. Nancy Beck, at the time a senior official at the ACC, authored ACC’s extensive comments on this draft OSHA guidance. ACC’s comments urged OSHA to allow companies to apply their own WoE approaches and reach different hazard classifications even where authoritative government bodies had already done so. Now that Beck is Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator in EPA’s TSCA office, she is centrally involved in the agency’s decisions that seek to defer worker risks to OSHA and that agency’s regulations.)
Deciding whether PPE is “necessary”
“Necessary” under OSHA’s statute is a very different animal than “necessary” under TSCA.
This matters enormously because the dangerous tack EPA has takendeems regulations developed by OSHA to be sufficient and defers to them as a basis for greenlighting new chemicals. This has several major consequences. First, it means EPA itself will rarely impose any mandatory worker protections on companies.
Second, an employer can decide that worker protections are not “necessary” under OSHA standards unless it believes there is clear evidence of a hazard. Usually, with a new chemical such evidence of hazards is limited or lacking altogether. In contrast, under TSCA the lack of sufficient information to evaluate a new chemical’s hazards and risks – in and of itself – mandates that EPA issue an order to address any potential risks pending receipt of the information (see TSCA section 5(e)(1)).
Third, in deciding whether a hazard necessitating protections exists, the company’s point of reference will be OSHA’s, not TSCA’s, safety standard. Here is how the two standards differ:
TSCA’s safety standard: First, the 2016 amendments to TSCA explicitly preclude EPA from considering feasibility or other non-risk factors when determining whether a chemical presents an “unreasonable risk,” including to workers. Moreover, in implementing TSCA (even before the amendments) and its other environmental statutes, EPA has generally sought to reduce population risks from chemicals in commerce that are carcinogens to below about one case per one million people, or in some cases one case per 100,000 people (see Appendix B of this 2004 National Academy of Sciences report). And the head of EPA’s TSCA office at the time the new law was passed indicated she expected the same approach would be taken under amended TSCA in identifying chemicals in commerce that “present an unreasonable risk” (see p. 184 here).
In the present case, we are talking about new chemicals not yet in commerce. For them, TSCA requires EPA to regulate the chemical even if it “may present an unreasonable risk” – which means an even lower level of risk should trigger regulatory action.
OSHA’s safety standard: In contrast, the Occupational Safety and Health Act allows OSHA to regulate only “significant” risks in the workplace. And as a result of the landmark 1980 Benzene case, for carcinogenic chemicals OSHA has interpreted as “significant” a risk of one or more cases per 1,000 workers (see Appendix B of the 2004 NAS report). This means that OSHA tolerates risks to workers from chemicals that are several orders of magnitude higher than are allowed under TSCA.
In addition, OSHA can only regulate workplace exposures where it is “feasible” to do so. In practice, OSHA has frequently concluded that it is infeasible to reduce workplace risks below or even down to the 1 in 1,000 level (again, see Appendix B of this 2004 National Academy of Sciences report), leaving workers at even greater risk than contemplated by the Benzene decision. Indeed, evidence cited at last week’s hearing indicated that actual workplace risks posed by many carcinogens are even higher than one case per 1,000 workers.
Now you can see why the chemical industry has been so anxious to convince EPA to defer to OSHA rather than regulate worker risks from new chemicals under TSCA.
***
In my next post I will look at the industry’s mythic claims that requirements for SDSs and use of PPE are effective and universally complied with. Stay tuned.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/03/19/part-2-busting-more-industry-perpetrated-myths-about-new-chemicals-and-worker-protection-under-tsca/
-
Children's Cosmetics Asbestos Warning Bill under Consideration in US House
Mar 19, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US House of Representatives is considering a bill requiring talc-containing cosmetics marketed to children to bear a warning label that the product may be contaminated with asbestos.
The Children’s Product Warning Label Act, introduced by Representatives Debbie Dingell (D–Michigan) and Jan Schakowsky (D–Illinois), comes amid heightened Congressional scrutiny of asbestos in products.
A House hearing last week centred on a recent Food and Drug Administration investigation into its presence in certain talc-based makeup products sold at two major national retailers, Claire’s and Justice. And concern continues around alleged asbestos contamination in Johnson & Johnson’s talcum baby powder.
The recently introduced legislation would require children’s cosmetics to contain a warning label that the product has not been evaluated for such contamination, unless the manufacturer has demonstrated to the FDA that the product has been sourced from an asbestos-free mine.
Ms Schakowsky characterised the bill as "an important step towards eliminating toxic beauty and personal care products and giving the FDA the authority it needs to keep Americans safe."
"I will continue to fight for full disclosure of the many chemicals in our products, including dangerous carcinogens like asbestos," she added.
Separate legislation is also in the works to strengthen the FDA’s authority over cosmetics. Current law has not been amended significantly since 1938.
And both the Senate and House have seen the reintroduction of the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act. The bill seeks to amend TSCA to ban the manufacturing, processing, use and distribution in commerce of asbestos and any mixture or article containing it, with limited exemptions.
Asbestos is one of the first ten chemicals subject to risk evaluation under the amended TSCA. A draft assessment to determine whether the substance poses an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment, under its conditions of use, is expected in the coming weeks.
https://chemicalwatch.com/75169/childrens-cosmetics-asbestos-warning-bill-under-consideration-in-us-house
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pesticide Residues Found in 70% of Produce Sold in US Even after Washing
Mar 20, 2019 | The Guardian
By Emily Holden
About 70% of fresh produce sold in the US has pesticide residues on it even after it is washed, according to a health advocacy group.
According to the Environmental Working Group’s annual analysis of US Department of Agriculture data, strawberries, spinach and kale are among the most pesticide-heavy produce, while avocados, sweetcorn and pineapples had the lowest level of residues.
More than 92% of kale tested contained two or more pesticide residues, according to the analysis, and a single sample of conventionally farmed kale could contain up to 18 different pesticides.
Dacthal – the most common pesticide found, which was detected in nearly 60% of kale samples, is banned in Europe and classified as a possible human carcinogen in the US.Advertisement
“We definitely acknowledge and support that everybody should be eating healthy fruits and vegetables as part of their diet regardless of if they’re conventional or organic,” said Alexis Temkin, a toxicologist working with the EWG.
“But what we try to highlight with the Shopper’s Guide to Produce is building on a body of evidence that shows mixtures of pesticides can have adverse effects.”
Other foods on the group’s “dirty dozen” list include grapes, cherries, apples, tomatoes and potatoes. In contrast, its “clean 15” list includes avocados, onions and cauliflower.
Leonardo Trasande, an environmental medicine specialist at the New York University medical school, called the EWG report “widely respected” and said it can inform shoppers who want to buy some organic fruits and vegetables, but would like to know which ones they could prioritize.
Despite a growing body of research, scientists say it is difficult to pinpoint how many pesticides people are exposed to in their daily lives, and in what quantity. And it is also hard to say how those chemicals in combination affect the body.
One recent French study found that people eating organic foods were at a significantly lower risk of developing cancer, although it suggested that if those findings were confirmed, the underlying factors would require more research. Nutritional experts at Harvard University cautioned that that study did not analyze residue levels in participants’ bodies to confirm exposure levels.
While 90% of Americans have detectable pesticide levels in their urine and blood, “the health consequences of consuming pesticide residues from conventionally grown foods are unknown, as are the effects of choosing organic foods or conventionally grown foods known to have fewer pesticide residues,” they said.
A separate Harvard study found that for women undergoing fertility treatment, those who ate more high-pesticide fruits and vegetables were less likely to have a live birth.
The CDC explains that “a wide range of health effects, acute and chronic, are associated with exposures to some pesticides,” including nervous system impacts, skin and eye irritation, cancer and endocrine disorders.
“The health risks from pesticide exposure depend on the toxicity of the pesticides, the amount a person is exposed to, and the duration and the route of exposure,” the CDC says, noting evidence suggests children are at higher risk.
The Environmental Protection Agency sets rules for how pesticides are used, but those rules do not necessarily prevent cumulative exposure in a person’s diet.
The agency is fighting a court order to ban chlorpyrifos, a pesticide that is associated with development disabilities in children.
EPA has also scaled back what types of exposure it will consider when evaluating human health risks. And President Trump has appointed a former executive from the industry lobbying group the American Chemistry Council, Nancy Beck, as the head of its toxic chemical unit.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/20/pesticide-residues-produce-even-after-washing-us
-
California Legislators Consider Banning All Cosmetics with Cancer-Causing Chemicals
Mar 19, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
California is considering a bill that would ban the sale of all cosmetics in state that contain certain chemicals known to cause cancer and other health effects.
State legislators introduced a bill Tuesday that would ban makeup made with 20 highly toxic chemicals including asbestos, mercury, lead, formaldehyde and fluorinated compounds known as PFAS.
The cosmetics under the bill would be classified as “adulterated cosmetics,” and would not be able to be sold in the state. Some of the chemicals have been linked to reproductive harm and hormone disruption in addition to cancer.
“Californians deserve to know whether the cosmetic products they purchase in the state are not harmful to their health,” said Assembly member Al Muratsuchi (D), a co-sponsor of the state bill in a statement.
“While cosmetic products sold in the U.S. are largely unregulated, other nations — and even retailers — have proactively banned or restricted the use of hundreds or thousands of cosmetic ingredients. AB 495 will protect consumers by banning the sale in California of cosmetics containing known carcinogens, reproductive toxins, and endocrine disruptors that are harmful to human health.”
Environmental and consumer advocacy groups have long argued that the US does not do enough to regulate the chemicals used in makeup and personal care products.
“Toxic chemicals that cause cancer or reproductive harm have no place in any consumer products, especially those that adults and children alike apply to their bodies every day,” said Susan Little, senior California advocate for government affairs of the Environmental Working Group.
“This common-sense proposal is exactly what is needed to clean up the cosmetics aisle so that Californians can be assured their makeup, soap and shampoos don’t include harmful chemicals.”
PFAS, one of the chemicals that would be banned under the bill, is currently under the microscope federally as the Environmental Protection Agency is working to propose new limits for the chemical in drinking water.
PFAS is used in non-stick cookware and fire retardants and its use has been linked to cancer. Advocates have long asked the EPA to set more stringent standards for the chemical, which is often found at heightened levels of drinking water near military bases.
If passed, California’s cosmetics bill would not be the first environmental issue the state has taken the lead on.
In December, California was the first state to ban the sale of animal-tested cosmetics with its Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act. The state was also the first state to effectively ban the use of plastic straws by retailers.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/434805-california-bill-would-ban-all-cosmetics-containing-cancer-causing
-
Hawaii Bills Push 1st State Ban on Plastics in Restaurants
Mar 19, 2019 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Audrey McAvoy
Hawaii would be the first state in the U.S. to ban most plastics at restaurants under legislation that aims to cut down on waste that pollutes the ocean.
Dozens of cities nationwide have banned plastic foam containers, but Hawaii’s measure targeting fast-food and full-service restaurants would make it the first state to do so. The liberal state has a history of prioritizing the environment — it’s mandated renewable energy use and prohibited sunscreen ingredients that harm coral.
A second, more ambitious proposal would go even further and prohibit restaurants, stores, wholesalers and government agencies from distributing and using plastic drink bottles, utensils, stirring sticks, bags and straws.
The Hawaii efforts would be stricter than in California, which last year became the first state to ban full-service restaurants from automatically giving out plastic straws, and broader than in Seattle, San Francisco and other cities that have banned some single-use plastics.
Activists believe the foam container measure has a better chance of passing in Hawaii.
“We have this reputation of setting the example for the world to follow, and that’s what we’re trying to do here,” state Sen. Mike Gabbard, lead author of the more ambitious measure, said to the Senate. “Our state can once again take the lead in protecting our environment.”
Gabbard, father of Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, said 95 percent of plastic packaging worldwide is thrown out after being used once. In the U.S., 500 million plastic straws are used and thrown out every day, he said.
Discarded, slow-to-degrade plastic is showing up at sea, as in a massive gyre northeast of the Hawaiian islands, and on beaches.
Plastics also contribute to climate change because oil is used to make them, said Stuart Coleman, Hawaii manager for the Surfrider Foundation.
Eric S.S. Wong, co-owner of two fast-food establishments on Oahu, said not being able to serve food in plastic foam containers would drive up his costs at a time when he faces rising health insurance charges for his employees and a possible minimum wage hike that lawmakers also are considering.
He said he’ll have to raise prices.
“Now all of the sudden, your family’s $30 dining experience became $37 or $38,” Wong said.
His Wiki Wiki Drive Inn takeout counter in Honolulu sells sandwiches, breakfast meals and Hawaii favorites like Loco Moco, which features white rice topped with a hamburger patty, fried egg and gravy.
A package of 200 foam boxes costs him $23, while the same number of biodegradable boxes would cost $57, he said.
Chris Yankowski of the Hawaii Restaurant Association, which represents 3,500 restaurants, said lawmakers are trying to do “too much too fast.”
Yankowski, who is also president of Triple F Distributors, argued that good alternatives to plastic products are not yet available. Hawaii’s cities and counties also don’t provide composting facilities, so there is no organized place to dispose of compostable containers that lawmakers say restaurants should use instead, he added.
“It’s almost like we want to do great things for the environment, but we’re not ready to handle it when we change it over,” Yankowski said.
The Hawaii Food Industry Association, which counts the state’s biggest supermarkets and convenience stores as members, initially opposed the foam container ban but now supports it.
The group said in written testimony that it’s encountered difficulties coping with varied local regulations and it wants the state to create a consistent standard. Two main counties — Hawaii and Maui — have already adopted plastic foam bans. Maui’s took effect on Dec. 31, while Hawaii’s takes effect on July 1.
The association still opposes the broader measure, which also would ban plastic garbage bags.
The president of Island Plastic Bags, a Hawaii company that makes plastic bags, said the legislation would prohibit his company from selling trash bags to nursing homes and hospitals as well as restaurants and hotels.
Grocery stores wouldn’t be able to sell trash can liners, Adrian Hong said in written testimony. It would create a “public health crisis,” he said.
Gabbard said his proposal was in the early stages so lawmakers have time to address such concerns.
The state Senate has passed both bills. They still must get through several House committees and the full House before heading to the governor.
Cindy McMillan, a spokeswoman for Gov. David Ige, said he hasn’t stated a position on the measures yet.
Justin Macia, a pharmacist in Honolulu, said he would like people to use less plastic and stop using plastic foam entirely because of how long it takes to degrade. Cardboard containers would be a great alternative, he said.
“It’s definitely something that’s got to go,” he said, after eating a sandwich from a foam takeout box.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/hawaii-weighs-first-in-nation-plastic-bans-at-restaurants/2019/03/19/be93d282-4a05-11e9-8cfc-2c5d0999c21e_story.html?utm_term=.993524bad56d
-
U.S. Resists India’s Push to Ban Single-Use Plastic at UN
Mar 20, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott and Lou Del Bello
India’s proposal for a global ban on single-use plastic was scuttled last week by U.S. objections, a move that environmental groups call the latest example of the Trump administration’s continued weakening of international environmental agreements.
The clash led to the adoption of guidelines under the United Nations Environment Assembly on plastic waste management that were more or less in line with the U.S. demands instead of a plastics ban. That outcome triggered alarms among Indian lawmakers that their country will bear the brunt of the compromise through increased ocean pollution.
“It’s once again a signal that the U.S. is no longer leading on these international issues,” Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy, told Bloomberg Environment.
While decisions under the Environment Assembly are non-binding, backing a ban “would have sent a signal” that countries intended to at least begin tackling the enormous production of single-use plastic bags, water bottles, and other plastic containers, he said.
“The U.S. rationale was, ‘We’re a major producer of plastics and our industry says the solution is responsible reuse and recycling, certainly not a ban,’” Rosenberg said.
He also said U.S. plastics aren’t likely to walk away from cheaper plastics production driven by a boom in U.S. natural gas, which is used to make plastics.
State Department Response
The U.S. State Department defended its position in a March 19 statement to Bloomberg Environment, saying it welcomes efforts to reduce the impact of plastics in the environment but believes a ban is unworkable.
“The United States recognizes that marine plastic pollution is an important and growing issue, and that urgent action is needed to reduce the release of plastic into the environment,” a State Department spokesperson said in the statement.
The department said the U.S. and other countries “are taking ambitious action to reduce plastic pollution,” but “we do not believe in a prescriptive approach where we target a specific product type because it is the subject of regulation in some countries, and with no consideration of the associated environmental consequences.”
India Effort
After it committed to eliminate single-use plastic in the country by 2022, India brought its effort to the international stage with a proposal urging “all Member States to step up actions to phase out all single-use plastic products by 2025.”
“In other parts of the world, the waste management system is quite good so the impact of plastic and littering is minimal,” said Manoj Kumar Gangeya, a director at the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. “But all plastic will eventually find its way into the ocean, and oceans are common good,” he said.
He added that all countries have to do their part, and India wants to show that if single-use plastic can be phased out in a developing country facing huge enforcement issues, others can follow suit.
The working document originally presented by the Indian delegation notes that only 9 percent of the 9 billion tonnes of plastics the world has ever produced have been recycled.
If current consumption patterns and waste management practices do not change, it said, “by 2050 there will be around 12 billion metric tonnes of plastic litter in landfills and the environment.”
Managing, Not Banning, Single-Use Plastics
The final document approved on March 14—and soon to be officially ratified—talks about “significantly reducing single-use plastic products by 2030,” without specifying the scale and scope of such reduction.
The resolution will need to be assessed to determine its costs, said a U.N. spokesperson.
“Once that is done, member states would have to contribute funding to its full implementation,” the spokesperson said.
At first, India’s proposal was met with questions about how such an ambitious goal could be implemented, but its vision quickly gained support from most countries, said David Azoulay, environmental health program director with the nonprofit law firm Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).
“But the U.S. [delegation] was absolutely against considering the very idea of recommending a phaseout,” he said. “They only wanted to consider this as an issue of waste management, and made it quite clear in the room that plastic is only an issue if it’s not managed properly.”
This, Azoulay explained, is problematic because it neglects other issues related to plastic production, including environmental and health impacts as well as marine pollution.
The Threat of Polluted Oceans
Arvind Kumar Nautiyal, joint secretary at the Indian environment ministry, said that the interest shown at the U.N. assembly in India’s proposal is encouraging, and that India will go ahead with its domestic targets for the elimination of single-use plastic.
However, he said, “plastic that is managed on land is not the worst concern, or at least not as serious as the waste that finds its way into streams and then the ocean.”
Criticizing the idea that segregating and recycling plastic on land is a sufficient response to the problem, he said that managing waste is more challenging once it enters the water, affecting marine environments and biodiversity.
“Some countries are saying, ‘Why don’t we just improve management?’ but then the issue remains, because plastic pollution knows no boundaries,” he added.
“The U.S.’ stance is understandable,” conceded Vivek Adhia, head of business engagement at the think tank World Resources Institute India. “If you look at the distribution of these single-use materials, North America produces 21 percent of the world’s single-use plastic.”
He said that focusing on recycling and management instead of directly eliminating plastic makes sense in the context of the U.S. economy, as it makes sure that homegrown industries are taken care of.
“There are ways to help transition to ambitious goals over time,” he added.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/u-s-resists-indias-push-to-ban-single-use-plastic-at-un
-
Important Insight from the Organic Certification Approach to Chemical Additives in Food
Mar 19, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
Since 2014, chemicals in food[1] have been consumers’ most important food safety issue, reaching a high of 35% in 2018, according to annual industry surveys by the International Food Information Council. For comparison, “foodborne illness from bacteria” was half that percent.
Food companies have responded to this growing consumer alarm by adopting policies banning artificial flavors, colors and other ingredients that sound like chemicals. This approach is unlikely to do more than serve as window dressing for the underlying problems since it’s not science-based – many of these additives may be safe. The Center for Science in the Public Interest called out this practice in its 2017 “Clean Label: Public Relations or Public Health?” report and pointed readers to its Chemical Cuisine system that rates common additives for health and safety.
There are some companies, like Panera Bread, that are taking a more systematic approach to the ingredients used in the food they sell, starting with the question of whether the additives used are essential and whether the ingredients pose health or safety concerns. As a result, the company worked closely with their suppliers and reformulated many of their products.
And now, thanks to a fascinating new report from the Environmental Working Group (EWG), we are learning about another structured approach that addresses health concerns with chemical additives – the Federal organic certification program for processed foods. To be honest, before reading the report, I viewed the organic program as narrowly focused on pesticides and was only vaguely aware of how it dealt with chemical additives. I was missing the bigger picture.
According to the report, the organic certification program run by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) prohibits “synthetic substances” that have an adverse effect on human health from use in processed organic food. It also considers other factors, such as adverse impact on the environment, nutritional value, and availability of a natural alternative. The NOSB allows use of these chemical additives only after evaluation through a transparent review process that invites public participation. The final decision is promulgated in a rule. In addition, decisions must be reassessed every five years. Currently, fewer than 40 synthetic chemical additives are allowed in certified organic processed food.
The table below compares the mandatory NOSB review process to the one for chemical additives in conventional processed foods.
Note that the organic certification process does not address the more than 3,800 chemicals currently allowed by FDA for use in packaging or food handling equipment. Due to the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) loophole, these additives – regardless of their use with organic or conventional processed foods – are only reviewed by FDA if a company chooses to request review.
Despite limitations in the chemical additives allowed, processed organic food is apparently meeting consumer demands for quality, safety and shelf-life because its share of the marketplace is growing quickly. This serves as a compelling counterpoint to the conventional processed food industry’s argument that it needs a palette of more than 2,500 chemical additives to meet consumer demands. The EWG report sheds new light on this argument that industry has long wanted us to believe.
At EDF, we want all foods to be safe and healthy. FDA’s food additive program isn’t ensuring food is safe, given how many chemicals are allowed to be used in food, packaging, and handling equipment that have not been reviewed for safety using modern science. To fix the food additive program, we must end secrecy by closing the GRAS loophole, use modern science to evaluate chemicals, and ensure existing chemicals are safe. FDA must be given the tools and funding it needs to set priorities and make decisions.
Finally, I am not suggesting that the organic certification process is perfect or that 40 chemical additives are sufficient to make the range of foods that consumers want. Clearly, the manufacturers are yet to tackle chemicals in food from packaging and food handling equipment which can pose health risks. And the accessibility and cost disparity between processed organic and conventional food raises equity concerns about people being priced out of the organic market. However, the organic certification approach to chemical additives that relies on transparency, public engagement, and a systematic reassessment serves as a potential model that should be considered to address consumers’ growing concern with chemicals in their food.
[1] The International Food Information Council varies the specific categories. For 2018, I combined the categories of “carcinogens or cancer-causing chemicals in food”, “chemicals in food”, and excluded “food additives and ingredients”, “pesticides / pesticide residues”, and “animal antibiotics.”
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/03/19/important-insight-organic-certification-approach-chemical-additives-food/
-
Echa Adopts Corap Update to Evaluate 100 Chemicals in 2019-21
Mar 20, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Echa has adopted a revised community rolling action plan (Corap) for member states to evaluate 100 chemicals for risk assessment measures in the next three years.
The agency's final Corap list for the period 2019-21 has four more substances than envisaged in a draft published in October, due to last minute additions from member states.
The list catalogues chemicals that EU member states have either evaluated, or intend to evaluate at a future date, because of specific concerns. It currently has 375 unique substances or entries, including 95 for which evaluations have concluded.
The plan for 2019-21 now contains 24 newly allocated substances, with the remaining 76 already published in the previous Corap list in March 2018.
Of the 100 chemicals, 31 will be evaluated this year by 11 member states, it added. They have until March 2020 to do this.
This group includes the four substances submitted late:
· HFE-7000 – it has several uses including for cooling and temperature calibration of electronics, as well as industrial and pharmaceutical applications;
· HFE-7100 – can be used as a cleaning and rinsing agent and a spot-free water drying agent (with surfactants added);
· HFE-7800; and
· resorcinol.
In 2020 and 2021, 44 and 25 chemicals will be evaluated respectively.
The current plan will be updated again in a year's time, and changes may be introduced for substances listed for 2020 and 2021, the agency said. Substances may also be added or withdrawn for those years.Changes
This Corap update has 43 changes related to the year of evaluation compared with the previous for 2018-20.
Evaluations were brought forward to 2019 for two substances – triclocarban and bis(4-chlorophenyl) sulphone – and for the remaining cases action was postponed.
This is so results are ready from ongoing dossier evaluations, or those in process for similar substances. But in some cases, it is on account of limited resources of the evaluating member state, Echa said.
In addition, eleven entries were withdrawn from Corap upon requests of the evaluating member state. This was due to:
· the initial ground of concern has been verified and considered of low priority;
· a regulatory risk management process already addressing the concern;
· dossier evaluation clarified the concern; or
· the registrants ceased manufacture of the substance rendering an evaluation obsolete.
The withdrawn substances are:
· 4,4'-methylenediphenyl diisocyanate, oligomeric reaction products with butane- 1,3-diol, 2,4’- diisocyanatodiphenylmethane, 2,2’-oxydiethanol and propane-1,2-diol;
· 1-isocyanato-2(or 4)-(4-isocyanatobenzyl)benzene and their reaction products with (methylethylene)bis(oxy)]dipropanol and butane-1,3-diol and propylene glycol;
· (1-methylethyl)-1,1'-biphenyl;
· diiron tris(sulphate);
· 10-undecenyl 2-cyano-3,3-diphenylpropenoate;
· trimethyloctadecylammonium chloride;
· two members of the oximino silanes category;
· disodium 4,4'-bis[(4,6-dianilino-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino]stilbene-2,2'-disulphonate;
· piperonylbutoxide; and
· dinitrogen tetraoxide (234-126-4).
Echa adopted the updated Corap list on the basis of the Opinion of the Member State Committee (MSC) in February.
If initial concerns about a substance are confirmed through the process, the member state then analyses the options to manage the risk. It may propose harmonisation of the classification, identification as an SVHC or restrictions on its use.
In February, Echa said it was considering reopening a substance evaluation for resorcinol – a first in Corap. Finland closed its evaluation in 2017, but France is now proposing to relist the chemical because it believes further investigation into its environmental effects is required.
https://chemicalwatch.com/75163/echa-adopts-corap-update-to-evaluate-100-chemicals-in-2019-21
-
Expert Focus: Resorcinol Faces the Latest in a Long Line of Regulatory Challenges
Mar 19, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Paul Ashford
Paul Ashford, managing director of Caleb Management Services, discusses two decades of regulatory uncertainty for the resorcinol industry
Chemical Watch readers will have seen the 14 February article ‘Echa considers re-opening concluded REACH evaluation in ‘exceptional’ move’, documenting the latest in a long saga of regulatory uncertainties placed before the resorcinol industry over the last 20 years.
The subtitle, ‘France would take over from Finland on resorcinol evaluation’, provides further insight into a very peculiar set of circumstances emerging for this substance and, as such, is a good example of the lack of regulatory predictability which is adversely affecting the decision-making processes across a number of industry sectors.
While, as a result of Brexit, we will see the responsibility for ongoing substance evaluations being transferred from one member state competent authority (CA) to another, this will be typically to ensure that a particular evaluation is taken to a conclusion. However, in the case of resorcinol, one (Finland) had already taken the evaluation to conclusion in 2017 and had even gone as far as publishing a Risk Management Options Analysis (RMOA) in 2018, only to find this opinion being challenged at recent Member State Committee meetings (MSC-62 & MSC-63).
The unprecedented French intervention is understood to be based on the precept that if one CA concludes that ‘no further action’ is necessary, it apparently deprives other member states from scrutinising the argumentation behind that conclusion because no draft Decision (DD) is generated for comment.
This would seem to point to a fundamental flaw in the REACH procedures whereby a substance evaluation can only be concluded satisfactorily if a further action, either by industry or by regulators, is required.
This seems strange since both the substance evaluation report and the RMOA offer extensive explanations of the rationale for the conclusions reached which can be viewed by other CAs and discussed at relevant Expert Group meetings.
In the case of resorcinol, this took place at the Endocrine Disruptor Expert Group meeting in November 2016. What seems to be missing is a formal consensus process on the content of substance evaluation reports. We will return to this later.
Why the concern over resorcinol?
Resorcinol has been known as a thyroid-active substance ever since its use in topical ointment formulations back in the second half of the 19th century. In those days of unregulated pharmacies, individual pharmacists would develop their own ointments and often use high levels of substances such as phenol and resorcinol because of their antiseptic properties and general propensity to promote healing. This might often lead to the application of ointments to ulcerated (broken) skin with levels of free resorcinol greater than 25%.
In a series of early medical reports, it was noted that goiters (a swelling of the thyroid gland) were observed in some patients. These would disappear when treatment with the ointment was interrupted, leading to the conclusion that the ointment was somehow instrumental to this effect. A second conclusion was that the effect was demonstrably reversible.
All of this is consistent with the subsequent observation that resorcinol acts as a thyroid-active substance through a thyroid peroxidase (TPO) mode of action.
Well before this was fully understood, pharmacists realised that reducing the resorcinol levels in their ointments would be a wise precautionary measure.
The advent of an organised approach to this through the Pharmacopoeia has meant that there have been no recorded recurrences of the medical reports since the early 1950s.
What also became obvious, was that no other human exposure to resorcinol was having any similar effect. Topical ointment use represents less than 0.1% of total resorcinol consumption globally, with the major use being in tyres (>50%) as an important adhesion promoter between rubber and fibre components.
While the Chemical Watch article highlighted European consumption in the 10,000-100,000 tonnes/annum range, the reality is that annual consumption is no more than 20,000 tonnes. Other applications include use of resorcinol-based resins as structural wood adhesives, intermediate uses for flame retardants and as a component of many hair dyes.
In view of this latter use and the skin contact associated with it, particular attention has been paid to epidemiological studies in the hair dye industry. This led to the publication of a report by the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) in March 2010 which concluded that resorcinol was safe for use at levels up to 1.25% within formulations. No reference was made to any possible effects on the thyroids of those using hair dyes or those professionals regularly exposed. The main focus was on any sensitisation effects that might be evident. Resorcinol had even been cleared for use as a food additive by the European Food Safety Agency during the same period.
The role of the Resorcinol Task Force
The Resorcinol Task Force, consisting of the major global producers at the time, was formed in 1999 to assist in filling any gaps that might exist in the resorcinol dataset and to bring together a dossier that could be used to meet the requirements of the US High Production Volume (HPV) Chemical Program and the OECD Screening Information Dataset (SIDS) Programme. Inevitably this work became the precursor to the REACH dossier that followed. However, the trigger for the formation of the task force was not REACH but the redefinition of the Endocrine System for regulatory purposes to include the thyroid gland. Up until that moment, resorcinol had been considered as a chemical of low regulatory concern by virtually all regulatory authorities. For that reason, resorcinol had not previously been prioritised and no risk assessment had been conducted on the substance.
This proved to be an ‘Achilles heel’ for resorcinol because, in the early stages of the development of the EU endocrine disruptor strategy, the consultancy BKH had been actioned to prepare a literature study of all those substances with any evidence of endocrine disrupting activity (including thyroid), and to highlight those which were not already regulated for other reasons and for which no regulatory risk assessment existed. Resorcinol therefore found itself as one of only nine industrial chemicals that fitted into that category. In response, the task force visited a number of CAs in late 2001 to ascertain whether they might have interest in commissioning such a risk assessment. The experience was that none of the regulators had resorcinol on their radar-screens at that time.
Meanwhile, the European Commission had engaged the company WRc to conduct what became known as the ‘9 + 3’ study which included a desk-top assessment of the literature related to resorcinol. This work was fully supported by the task force and the final report documented the initiatives that the task force was already taking, including the conduct of a two-generation reproductive toxicity study, with specific focus on thyroid end-points.
This study was completed in 2005 and was subsequently reported in a published paper within the International Journal of Toxicology. The finding was that even at the highest palatable doses within that drinking water study no definitive effect was able to be generated on the thyroid, leading to the conclusion that exposure via normal ingestion was not capable of triggering an adverse outcome. This observation was consistent with the fact that resorcinol is readily biodegradable and is understood to be metabolised completely in the first pass through the liver.
The route of exposure – the key
Recognising that the only likely route of exposure to the thyroid was directly via the blood-stream, the task force commissioned a paper by the study director of the two-generation study to put these various observations into context. Also published in the International Journal of Toxicology in 2008, the paper concluded that the critical element in the medical case studies that had been reported was the presence of compromised skin, thereby giving direct access to the bloodstream for relatively high levels of resorcinol. Dermal application on intact skin (eg, in hair dyes) does not reveal the same evidence, even amongst industrial and professional workers.
The WHO definition of an endocrine disruptor also plays into this discussion, since a substance needs to ‘cause adverse effects’ in an ‘intact organism’ to qualify as an endocrine disrupting substance. There is justifiably some debate about whether a demonstrably reversible effect on the thyroid can be classified as ‘adverse’ and there is also some discussion about whether ulcerated skin would classify as an ‘intact organism’.
The particular irony with respect to the latest French intervention is that, in its RMOA Report on Resorcinol Diphenyl Phosphate (RDP), ANSES (the responsible French Agency) when assessing resorcinol as a potential breakdown product concluded as follows: "Data indicate that the production of resorcinol from RDP is possible, but due to the efficiency of phase II metabolic pathways (conjugation), the presence of resorcinol in target tissues should be limited, if any."
This effectively aligns with the findings from over 15 years of evaluation of the task force and supports the conclusion made by the Finnish CA. The concluding section of the RDP RMOA Report says that: "In summary, the limited data available are not in favour of a specific effect of resorcinol as a metabolite of RDP."
Are there any remaining data gaps?
In the view of the task force, the Chemical Watch article gave an incorrect impression by commenting that there were ‘significant data gaps’ in the resorcinol dossier.
In reality, one of the issues arising from the resorcinol experience is that there is actually too much data and the challenge has been to evaluate it all on the basis of age and quality to determine the most appropriate studies. The only significant data gap identified in the earlier ‘9 + 3’ study was the two-generation study which the task force had filled in 2005.
Of course, thyroids are not limited to mammals and some discussion started to emerge in the same year within the EU Endocrine Disruptor Strategy Group (EDSG) about the need to consider any potential impact on amphibians.
Bearing in mind the ready biodegradability of resorcinol and the high level of waste water management for key applications, as evidenced through a series of water monitoring studies conducted by the task force, adverse environmental impacts were not expected to be an issue of any significance. This questions the need for any further environmental studies. Nonetheless, the task force would have been willing to fund a study to fill this data-gap had there been any agreement amongst regulators about the selection of appropriate test methods.
The discussion historically has been between the AMA and Larval Amphibian Growth and Development Assay (Lagda) studies, but the Finnish SEv concluded that neither would provide meaningful new evidence bearing in mind that both are focused more on mechanistic than apical outcomes. While the OECD had updated its Guidance Document 150 in September 2018 on the basis of test methods finalised in 2015, there are still aspects of the LAGDA test method that are not sufficiently defined for the reliable consideration of resorcinol.
It is not clear whether the intent of the French intervention is to trigger the filling of this particular data-gap, but the experience on such tests is still limited and further dialogue would be required with industry to agree on the basis of such an approach. Certainly, the task force has not been approached so far. Otherwise, the only other rationale for re-opening the evaluation in the absence of significant new information is simply because making a decision to take ‘no further action’ doesn’t seem to be an option – at least not without a formal decision to agree it!
The litany of uncertainties
Throughout the 20-year history of the Resorcinol Task Force, the challenge has been to manage through a whole litany of uncertainties which are mostly regulatory in origin. These can be listed as follows:
· Treatment of the thyroid as part of the endocrine system for regulatory purposes;
· Arbitrary screening processes which focused on nine industrial chemicals for their lack of previous regulatory concern;
· An early disagreement among member states about whether the definition of an endocrine disruptor should be seen to have irreversible effects to qualify (‘irreversible’ included in the ED Strategy definition but not in Art. 57(f) of REACH when outlining ‘possible serious effects’);
· A long-running debate amongst member states about the criteria to be used to categorise potential endocrine disruptors, with ‘reversibility’ and ‘potency’ being particularly important for resorcinol. Thankfully, in recent months, progress has been made in finalising the criteria, which are intended to be consistent horizontally across all relevant legislation, including REACH. There are now simply three criteria all of which need to be met – ‘adverse effect that produces pathology or functional impairment’, ‘endocrine mode of action’ and ‘a plausible link between the two’. The concept of a potential endocrine disruptor is now firmly off-the-table, at least at EU level; and
· Most recently, the lack of agreement on how the current amphibian test methods (AMA or LAGDA) can be used to robustly assess adverse effects on populations.
Managing communications with the respective supply-chains on these complexities and uncertainties for nearly 20 years has been a significant challenge to the task force members.
While it is understood that new evidence can emerge on a chemical at any stage and that no substance can be considered appropriately regulated in perpetuity, it is reasonable for industry to expect that member states should not have the ability to re-open substance evaluations on grounds which are self-evidently unclear and seemingly subjective.
The French position certainly needs further publicly-scrutinised arguments to support its case. The frustration is that such explanations will not be visible until after the 2019 CoRAP List is finalised and published. Surely this is not the correct way around!
In parallel, the legal basis for re-listing will need better explanation from the Commission, especially the switch from Finland to France as the evaluating CA, assuming that the agency decides to go ahead with the French proposal. There is certainly a need for predictable and proportionate regulation going forward, without the addition of a further layer of uncertainty on SEv procedures at the MSC level.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74576/expert-focus-resorcinol-faces-the-latest-in-a-long-line-of-regulatory-challenges
-
Monsanto Weedkiller Roundup Was ‘Substantial Factor’ in Causing Man’s Cancer, Jury Says
Mar 19, 2019 | New York Times
By Mihir Zaveri
A federal jury found Tuesday that Monsanto’s popular weedkiller Roundup was a “substantial factor” in causing a California man’s cancer, dealing a significant blow to the company as it aggressively defends its products against thousands of similar claims.
The six-member jury delivered the unanimous verdict in the United States District Court in San Francisco, months after a groundskeeper who said Roundup caused his cancer was awarded about $80 million in a separate case in California.
Tuesday’s verdict concluded the first of two phases in the federal case about the possible health risks of Roundup and whether Monsanto misled the man, Edwin Hardeman, about those risks.
Mr. Hardeman used Roundup to control weeds and poison oak on his property for 26 years. He learned he had non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2015.
The second phase of the case, which begins Wednesday, will focus on whether Monsanto, which was acquired by Bayer AG last year, should be held liable for partly causing Mr. Hardeman’s cancer, said his lawyer, Jennifer Moore. Ms. Moore said lawyers would seek to prove that Monsanto manipulated public opinion and science to play down Roundup’s health risks.
Lawyers will argue that Monsanto knew or should have known that Roundup causes cancer, Ms. Moore said in an interview Tuesday. Mr. Hardeman’s team will ask that the jury have the company pay his medical bills and an undetermined amount of damages, she added.
“We feel confident based on the evidence that a jury, when presented with all of the evidence, will see that Monsanto has committed 40 years of corporate malfeasance,” Ms. Moore said.
Bayer said in a statement Tuesday that it was disappointed in the jury’s verdict and that “the evidence in phase two will show that Monsanto’s conduct has been appropriate and the company should not be liable for Mr. Hardeman’s cancer.”
“We have great sympathy for Mr. Hardeman and his family, but an extensive body of science supports the conclusion that Roundup was not the cause of his cancer,” Bayer said in the statement. “Bayer stands behind these products and will vigorously defend them.”
The verdict in the closely watched case is a milestone in the contentious public debate over Roundup, which was Monsanto’s flagship product. Its active ingredient, glyphosate, is the world’s most widely used weedkiller.
Ms. Moore said the verdict would most likely influence the thousands of other similar cases — about 11,200 people had sued Monsanto over Roundup as of February, according to Bayer.\Bayer, on the other hand, said the jury’s decision Tuesday “has no impact on future cases and trials because each one has its own factual and legal circumstances.”
Edward K. Cheng, a Vanderbilt University law professor, said that legally, Tuesday’s finding cannot be used as precedent in other Roundup cases. But practically, he said, Tuesday’s verdict and the verdict from last year, in which juries have found a link between Roundup and cancer, “have some import.”
“What ends up happening is these start to be markers,” he said. “I would expect that Monsanto is going to start thinking about ‘How much risk do we face here?’ if one jury after another is going to say ‘Yes.’”
Bayer has consistently defended the safety of Roundup and glyphosate, and industry-funded research has long found the herbicide to be relatively safe. Regulators have mostly agreed.
In December 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a draft human health risk assessment that said glyphosate was most likely not carcinogenic to humans.
Central to the criticism of Roundup, however, is a decision by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2015 to declare glyphosate a probable carcinogen.
That spurred Mr. Hardeman to file a lawsuit in February 2016, and prompted California to declare glyphosate a chemical that is known to cause cancer.
In August, a California jury found that Monsanto had failed to warn a school groundskeeper of the cancer risks posed by Roundup, which he used as part of his job as a pest control manager. Monsanto was ordered to pay $289 million in damages.
In October, a judge reduced that total to about $80 million, saying the jury’s award was too high. Monsanto is appealing that verdict, a spokesman said.
Mr. Hardeman’s case was the first federal case to go to trial, Ms. Moore said. She said the legal team presented expert testimony and research that Roundup causes mutations in human cells and that human populations that are exposed to Roundup are more likely to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Documents unsealed in 2017 in Mr. Hardeman’s case suggested that Monsanto had ghostwritten research that was later attributed to academics. The documents indicated that a senior official at the E.P.A. had worked to quash a federal review of glyphosate.
The documents also revealed that there was some disagreement within the E.P.A. over its own risk assessment.
Concepción de León contributed reporting.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/business/monsanto-roundup-cancer.html
-
Study Highlights Potential Hazards of Nine Alternative Flame Retardants
Mar 20, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Nina Notman
Scientists in the Czech Republic have said that a group of nine compounds used as substitutes for polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants are of "toxicological concern based on substantial information" and "should be considered for regulation".
Their recommendation is based on analysis of published in vitro and in vivo toxicology data.
When PBDEs were banned under the UN’s Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants, companies began using a wide range of alternative flame retardants, mostly brominated, chlorinated and organophosphate compounds. However, there is little knowledge of their potential hazards.
The scientists, from Masaryk University in Brno, previously published a priority list of 62 flame retardants for the EU’s human biomonitoring project, HBM4EU. In this latest work, published in Environmental Sciences Europe on 26 February, the team sorted these compounds into categories ranked according to potential toxicity.
"The aim of the present paper is to support research and regulatory efforts by prioritising [these] flame retardants regarding their hazards," say the team. The scientists used both literature in vivo and in vitrotoxicological data from the ToxCast database to inform their categorisations.
Nine highest-priority flame retardants were identified. The team considered possible mechanisms of toxicity for these, using information published on the AOP-Wiki, an online platform hosting adverse outcome pathways. The team concluded that there is enough toxicological information on these nine compounds to warrant considering increased regulation of them.
"We particularly highlight TDCIPP, TPhP, TCEP and TMPP, for which data suggest a high toxicological concern and to which people seem to be highly exposed," say the team. These are all phosphorus-containing compounds.
The use of TDCIPP [tris(1,3-dichloropropyl)phosphate] and TCEP [tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine] is already partially restricted in some applications, in some regions. The use of TMPP [tris(methylphenyl) phosphate] and TPhP (triphenyl phosphate) is not.
The team also concluded that there was insufficient toxicity data for the large majority of the other 53 flame retardants, and called for more studies to enable comprehensive evaluation and risk assessment.
https://chemicalwatch.com/75168/study-highlights-potential-hazards-of-nine-alternative-flame-retardants
-
Oil Majors Rush to Dominate U.S. Shale as Independents Scale Back
Mar 20, 2019 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Jennifer Hiller
In New Mexico's Chihuahuan Desert, Exxon Mobil Corp is building a massive shale oil project that its executives boast will allow it to ride out the industry's notorious boom-and-bust cycles.
Workers at its Remuda lease near Carlsbad - part of a staff of 5,000 spread across New Mexico and Texas - are drilling wells, operating fleets of hydraulic pumps and digging trenches for pipelines.
The sprawling site reflects the massive commitment to the Permian Basin by oil majors, who have spent an estimated $10 billion(??7.55 billion) buying acreage in the top U.S. shale field since the beginning of 2017, according to research firm Drillinginfo Inc.
the rising investment also reflects a recognition that Exxon, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell and BP Plc largely missed out on the first phase of the Permian shale bonanza while more nimble independent producers, who pioneered shale drilling technology, leased Permian acreage on the cheap.
Now that the field has made the U.S. the world's top oil producer, Exxon and other majors are moving aggressively to dominate the Permian and use the oil to feed their sprawling pipeline, trading, logistics, refining and chemicals businesses. The majors have 75 drilling rigs here this month, up from 31 in 2017, according to Drillinginfo. Exxon operates 48 of those rigs and plans to add seven more this year.
The majors' expansion comes as smaller independent producers, who profit only from selling the oil, are slowing exploration and cutting staff and budgets amid investor pressure to control spending and boost returns.
Exxon Chief Executive Darren Woods said on March 6 that Exxon would change "the way that game is played" in shale. Its size and businesses could allow Exxon to earn double-digit percentage returns in the Permian even if oil prices - now above $58 per barrel - crashed to below $35, added Senior Vice President Neil Chapman.
Exxon's 1.6 million acres in the Permian means it can approach the field as a "megaproject," said Staale Gjervik, the head of shale subsidiary XTO Resources, whose headquarters was recently relocated to share space with its logistics and refining businesses. The firm also recently outlined plans to nearly double the capacity of a Gulf Coast refinery to process shale oil.
"It sets us up to take a longer-term view," Gjervik said.
The majors' Permian investments position the field to compete with Saudi Arabia as the world's top oil-producing region and solidifies the United States as a powerhouse in global oil markets, said Daniel Yergin, an oil historian and vice chairman of consultancy IHS Markit.
"A decade ago, capital investment was leaving the U.S.," he said. "Now it's coming home in a very big way."
The Permian is expected to generate 5.4 million barrels per day (bpd) by 2023 - more than any single member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) other than Saudi Arabia, according to IHS Markit. Production this month, at about 4 million bpd, will about double that of two years ago.
Exxon, Chevron, Shell and BP now hold about 4.5 million acres in the Permian Basin, according to Drillinginfo. Chevron and Exxon are poised to become the biggest producers in the field, leapfrogging independent producers such as Pioneer Natural Resources.
Pioneer recently dropped a pledge to hit 1 million bpd by 2026 amid pressure from investors to boost returns. It shifted its emphasis to generating cash flow and replaced its chief executive after posting fourth quarter profit that missed Wall Street earnings targets by 36 cents a share.
Shell, meanwhile, is considering a multi-billion dollar deal to purchase independent producer Endeavor Energy Resources, according to people familiar with the talks. Shell declined to comment and Endeavor did not respond to a request.
Chevron said it would produce 900,000 bpd by 2023, while Exxon forecast pumping 1 million barrels per day by about 2024. That would give the two companies one-third of Permian production within five years.
SMALLER PRODUCERS GET SQUEEZED
At first, the rise of the Permian was driven largely by nimble explorers that pioneered new technology for hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and horizontal drilling to unlock oil from shale rock, slashing production costs.
The advances by smaller companies initially left the majors behind. Now, those technologies are easily copied and widely available from service firms.
Surging Permian production has overwhelmed pipelines and forced producers to sell crude at a deep discount, sapping cash and profits of independents who, unlike the majors, don't own their own pipeline networks.
Even as the majors have ramped up operations, the total number of drilling rigs at work in the Permian has dropped to 464, from 493 in November, as independent producers have slowed production, according to oilfield services provider Baker Hughes.
Shell, by contrast, plans to keep expanding even if prices fall further, said Amir Gerges, Shell's Permian general manager.
"We have a bit more resilience" than the independents, Gerges said.
In west Texas, the firm drills four to six wells at a time next to one another, a process called cube development that targets multiple layers of shale as deep as 8,000 feet.
Cube development is expensive and can take months, making it an option only for the majors and the largest independent producers. Shell has used the tactic to double production in two years, to 145,000 bpd.
The largest oil firms can also take advantage of their volume-buying power even if service companies raise prices for supplies or drilling and fracking crews, said Andrew Dittmar, a Drillinginfo analyst.
"It???s like buying at Costco versus a neighbourhood market," Dittmar said.
The majors' rush into the market means smaller companies are going to struggle to compete for service contracts and pay higher prices, said Roy Martin, analyst with energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie.
"When you???re sitting across the negotiating table from the majors, the chips are stacked on their side," he said.
REBIRTH
The revival of interest in the Permian marks a reversal from the late 1990s, when production had been falling for two decades.
"All the majors and all the companies with names you???ve heard left with their employees," said Karr Ingham, an oil and gas economist. "Conventional wisdom was this place was going to dry up."
Chevron was the only major that stayed in the Permian. It holds 2.3 million acres and owns most of its mineral rights, too, but until recently left drilling to others.
But this month, Chief Executive Mike Wirth called the Permian its best bet for delivering profits "north of 30 percent at low oil prices."
"There's nothing we can invest in that delivers higher rates of return," Wirth said this month at its annual investor meeting in New York.
'HUNGER AND FEAR'
Matt Gallagher, CEO of Parsley Energy Inc, calls the majors' investments "the best form of flattery" for independents operating here.
Parsley holds 192,000 Permian acres - most of which was snatched up on the cheap during oil busts - and sees its smaller size as an advantage in shale.
"We???re not finished yet," Gallagher said. "We can move very quickly."
The majors have greater infrastructure, but independents continue to innovate and design better wells, said Allen Gilmer, a co-founder of Drillinginfo.
"Nothing is a bigger motivator than, 'Am I going to be alive tomorrow?'" Gilmer said. "Hunger and fear is something that every independent oil-and-gas person knows - and that something no major oil-and-gas person has ever felt in their career."
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/03/20/business/20reuters-usa-shale-majors-insight.html
-
In the LOOP: Third VLCC of the Year Departs Louisiana, Bound for South Korea
Mar 20, 2019 | Platts
By Laura Huchzermeyer
Louisiana Offshore Oil Port continues to load on average one VLCC crude tanker per month for export and logged its third such export of the year late last week.
The 2 million barrel-capacity VLCC Dilam loaded at LOOP and set sail for South Korea on Wednesday, according to cFlow, Platts trade flow software.
Dilam marks the third VLCC export from LOOP so far this year. All of the LOOP-loaded tankers have been taken to South Korea. New Caesar departed LOOP on February 1 and was observed in South China Sea on Monday. The tanker is expected to arrive at the Port of Yeosu in South Korea on March 26. The 2 million barrel-capacity Amad set sail from LOOP on January 6 and also made a trip to the Far East.
The vessels’ destination of Yeosu is home to the 785,000 b/d GS Caltex refinery, which runs mainly light and medium sour crudes. South Korea continues to be a popular destination for US crudes. The country has taken on average, 2 million barrels/week during the past five weeks, according to Platts data.
LOOP, which is only facility in the US that can directly load a VLCC without using ship-to-ship transfers, first started exporting crude on VLCCs in February 2018. The facility averaged loading about one tanker a month for the remainder of the year.
LOOP exported 1.94 million barrels of crude oil in February 2018, which was the first month of LOOP exports, according to data from the state of Louisiana. In December, the most recent month for which data is available, LOOP exported about a record-high 6 million barrels. That same month LOOP reported loading three VLCCs.
US crude exports have exploded in the past year, reaching or exceeding 3 million b/d twice in 2018.
US crude exports reached a record high of 3.6 million b/d for the week ending February 15 and the four-week crude export average is about 3 million b/d, according to data from the Energy Information Administration.
The US exported around 2.3 million b/d for the week ending March 15, according to S&P Global Analytics.
https://blogs.platts.com/2019/03/19/loop-third-vlcc-crude-tanker-departs/
-
New England Algonquin Pipeline Approval Upheld by Appeals Court
Mar 20, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The federal government’s approval of Enbridge Inc.'s Algonquin natural gas pipeline project takes precedence over a Massachusetts town’s opposition to the pipeline, a federal appeals court ruled March 19.
Enbridge’s approval for the project from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission preempts a Weymouth, Mass., town ordinance prohibiting the project from being built, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston affirmed.
Enbridge is seeking to build a natural gas compressor station in Weymouth as part of its 1,130-mile Algonquin natural gas pipeline running from Massachusetts through New England states and ending in New Jersey.
The court found the ordinance preempted, saying that the FERC approval of the project would serve the public interest. The court said FERC’s approval of the project preempts the Weymouth Conservation Commission’s permit denial because the denial is a significant obstacle to FERC’s ultimate determination that “public convenience and necessity” mandate that the compressor station be built.
The appeals court ruling clears the way for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection to issue a Coastal Zone Management Act permit to Enbridge for the gas compressor station. Enbridge still needs the state permit in addition to FERC approval for the project.
Judge William J. Kayatta wrote the opinion. Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter and Judge Bruce M. Selya joined the opinion.
The case is Algonquin Gas Transmission v. Weymouth Conservation Comm., 1st Cir. App., No. 18-1686, 3/19/19.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/new-england-algonquin-pipeline-approval-upheld-by-appeals-court
-
Fearing Litigation Delays, Industry Urges EPA to Finalize RMP Revisions
Mar 19, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Groups representing major industries are urging EPA to quickly finalize its rollback of an Obama administration rule that strengthened the Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility accident prevention program, fearing expected litigation over the rollback could extend beyond some of the existing RMP rule’s compliance deadlines.
But their effort faces resistance as environmentalists and public health groups are ramping up their calls for EPA to drop the planned rollback, citing the ongoing industrial fire at a Houston-area refinery. These proponents of the January 2017 rule tightening the RMP program say the rule could help to prevent such incidents in the future.
The Trump administration has already missed its non-binding self-imposed deadline of January for issuing the final version, and has yet to submit a draft rule for White House pre-publication review. And former Trump EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s attempt to delay implementation of the Obama-era stricter RMP requirements failed when an appellate court ruled in August that the postponement made a “mockery” of Clean Air Act provisions.
As a result, industries subject to RMP safety planning requirements face a series of more-stringent mandates from 2020 through 2022 unless EPA can quickly finalize the rollback and win a legal battle over it. The proposed version of the rollback would undo most of the previous administration’s changes to the program, which generally requires facilities to consider safer process, conduct third-party audits, and increase disclosures to local emergency planners.
In a March 14 email to Inside EPA, Earthjustice attorney Emma Cheuse, who represents groups critical of the rollback including the Union of Concerned Scientists and Air Alliance Houston, says that if the Trump administration finalizes its proposed rollback, “EPA should expect fierce opposition.”
The Trump administration issued the proposed rollback in May, taking comment through Aug. 23. Environmental and community advocates threatened to sue if EPA completes the rollback and raised legal arguments that an industry official has said could take EPA months to answer, potentially delaying the final revisions.
“We need them to get this rule out,” Robert Helminiak, the Society of Chemical Manufacturer’s and Affiliates’ vice president for legal and government relations, told Inside EPA March 15. He added that litigation over the final rollback could delay the effort, requiring facilities to comply with the more onerous provisions of the Obama-era rule while the suit continues. “We have been meeting with EPA on this and they know it is urgent,” he said.
Other industry groups are also have met with EPA about the delayed rule. Five trade associations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA), in a Feb. 15 meeting with senior EPA officials reiterated concerns from comments submitted last summer. Those comments backed the Trump administration's revision rule, arguing that the Obama-era changes are costly, unnecessary, and increase security risks.
‘Safe Workplace’
“AF&PA continues to engage with the EPA to reiterate our position that manufacturers are committed to providing a safe workplace for employees and the communities that surround their facilities,” AF&PA Chief Scientist Stewart Holm, said in an email responding to an Inside EPA inquiry about the meeting. “Any new rules should facilitate and not impede those efforts.”
An EPA notice on the meeting posted to the agency’s online docket for the rollback says that senior Trump administration officials urged trade association representatives to comply with requirements to coordinate with Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs), a provision of the Obama-era rule for which compliance dates have passed.
An EPA official who attended the meeting, Steven Cook, the agency’s deputy waste chief, told an Oct. 23 Process Safety Summit in Washington, DC, that EPA still plans to finalize the rollback.
Cook backed industry arguments that greater disclosure of facility data required under the Obama administration RMP revisions would increase risks and that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration should be the lead agency for overseeing process safety.
The proposed rollback would scrap requirements for third-party auditing, hazard analysis and streamlined disclosure of facility data, while preserving, with modifications, new requirements for coordinating with first responders.
But an industry official told the conference that EPA may need until the third quarter of this year to finalize the revisions given the difficult task of responding to “novel legal arguments” in environmentalists’ comments.
The official also said that the-then prospect of a Democratic House could increase scrutiny on EPA’s reversal of its Obama-era opinion that a stronger RMP rule is necessary. No committee in the lower chamber has yet announced any plans to hold a hearing on the RMP revisions and planned rollback specifically.
The industry official cited advocates’ argument in comments filed by Earthjustice that EPA must respond to the U.S. Chemical Safety Board’s (CSB) recommendation in a May 2018 report on a facility fire sparked by Hurricane Harvey floodwaters that EPA and OSHA should require facilities to account for greater risks posed by more-extreme storm events spurred by climate change in their relevant rules and policies.
New Fires
Meanwhile, environmental and community groups are pointing to recent fires in the Houston ship channel as showing that the stricter rule is necessary and are calling for Trump’s EPA to enforce the Obama-era mandates.
In a March 18 statement, Public Citizen’s Texas office says two recent fires -- at an Intercontinental Terminals Company chemical storage plant in LaPorte, and an ExxonMobil refinery in Baytown, show the “dire need” for stricter regulation and oversight. The group specifically faults EPA’s plans to roll back the RMP rule. "The ITC chemical fire demonstrates how chemical disasters happen far too often in our region, often due to lax regulatory oversight and enforcement," Stephanie Thomas, researcher for Public Citizen's Texas office, says in a March 18 statement.
"While this fire rages on for days, the Trump administration is trying to slash the budgets of the EPA and the Chemical Safety Board (CSB), and is rolling back the 2017 Risk Management Plan amendments, which sought to bring greater safety to communities like Deer Park that are surrounded by the petrochemical industry,” she said.
The remarks echo Air Alliance Executive Director Bakeyah Nelson’s testimony to a Feb. 26 House Energy & Commerce Committee hearing on EPA enforcement. She faulted EPA and Texas state regulators’ lack of enforcement against accidental releases during flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey.
“It is essential for EPA to do inspections and ensure compliance with the 2017 Chemical Disaster Rule, which a court ordered EPA to put in full effect after the agency unlawfully tried to delay these protections,” Nelson said in written testimony. “Now we need EPA to implement, not roll back those regulations, because communities need both stronger safety measures and more enforcement.”
In a March 12 op-ed in the Houston Chronicle, the Sierra Club’s Bryan Parras, along with Ana and Juan Parras, executive director of Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services (TEJAS), fault the Trump EPA’s RMP rollback, as well as state and federal regulators’ rejection of NASA’s offer of a pollution monitoring flight after Hurricane Harvey as showing the administration is failing to adequately protect communities from industrial accidents.
“Before the next hurricane ravages our state, the EPA and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality [TCEQ] must implement enforcement of the Chemical Disaster Rule, and strengthen the Clean Air Act’s risk management program,” the advocates say.
Earthjustice’s Cheuse argues that an Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) report last month showing a sharp decline in EPA enforcement in recent years undermines the Trump administration’s claims in the proposed revision rule that it would bolster facility safety through targeted enforcement rather than preserving the Obama-era rule strengthening RMP.
EIP’s report “stands in stark contrast to EPA’s statement in the rollback proposal that EPA is considering an enforcement-only approach,” Cheuse said. “And, even though EIP called out serious problems at all oil refineries and chemical plants in the wake of Hurricane Harvey, communities still haven’t seen corrective action or meaningful enforcement there.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/fearing-litigation-delays-industry-urges-epa-finalize-rmp-revisions
-
Houston Chemical Blaze Extinguished as Smoke Shuts Schools
Mar 20, 2019 | Bloomberg
By Joe Carroll and Stephen Stapczynski
Firefighting crews early Wednesday extinguished a petrochemical tank fire near Houston that had blazed for almost four days, spewing black smoke into the skies above the energy capital and spurring the hurried cancellation of classes for tens of thousands of children.
Smoke and steam may still be visible from the area, and firefighting crews will continue to spray foam and water on the tanks to keep them cool, as the possibility for reigniting still exists, according to a press release from Intercontinental Terminals Co., which operates the tank farm in the industrial suburb of Deer Park.
Officials shut schools in the city and in nearby districts late Tuesday, two days after the blaze began. Changing weather conditions raised fears the massive black smoke cloud that’s been billowing since Sunday would descend close enough to the ground to affect people’s breathing.
Forecasts suggested an end to conditions that allowed the torrent of smoke to push up into the atmosphere, at what government officials said earlier Tuesday was a safe distance from people on the ground. The switch in the weather “could cause the smoke plume from the fire to directly affect our school district,” the administration in La Porte said on Twitter. “Employees should not report to work.”
While the skies over Houston were inky and in some neighborhoods a pungent odor was pervasive, residents were told not to worry throughout the day.
“I know the cloud of dark smoke seems ominous,” Mayor Sylvester Turner said in the afternoon, but there was so far no threat to public health. “We want to assure everybody that the air quality is being monitored around the clock.”
Pollution gauges showed the air was safe to breathe, probably because the intensity of the fire continued to propel the smoke upwards, said Jeff Lindner, a meteorologist who works for Harris County.
What’s more, the “black disgusting blob” overhead didn’t contain any more toxins than would be emitted from a backyard fire pit, according to Ryan Sitton, a member of the Texas Railroad Commission, which oversees the state’s oil industry.
The compounds in the hydrocarbons stored at the facility burn so intensely and completely that smoke and soot are all that’s left to surge off in the cloud, Sitton said. Benzene and other chemicals are completely incinerated.
Not all were reassured. The town of Galena Park, directly upwind from the blaze, canceled after-school sporting events and other activities on Tuesday. Some people said they were holing up in their homes, windows shut tight.
“It’s very scary,” said Patricia Walker, 85, as she walked her dog in downtown Houston. She was out and about but her 9-year-old granddaughter, who lives close to Deer Park, was stuck in the house with her parents. “They didn’t allow her to go outside because of the fumes.”
Houstonians are no strangers to spectacular events at the warren of refineries and chemical plants along the Gulf Coast. An industrial fire, blast or leak occurs every 36 hours, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Gas flares and the occasional orange fireball dot the southeastern skyline.
The huge dark cloud, though, was unusual. “Being an oil and gas guy, I didn’t freak out, but a lot of my friends panicked that we’re going to have a Gotham black cloud over our city for the next 10 years,” said Doug Tinsley, 36, a petroleum engineer.
Intercontinental’s facility in Deer Park has a total of 242 tanks located near the Houston Ship Channel, a primary port of call in the Gulf Coast industrial nexus that supplies a big chunk of the world’s fuel, chemicals and plastics. Intercontinental is owned by Japan’s Mitsui & Co., which said Wednesday that the cause of the fire hasn’t been determined.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-20/houston-chemical-plume-shifts-with-weather-shuttering-schools
-
Chemical Fire Timeline Abandoned as Plume Towers Over Houston
Mar 19, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joe Carroll and Rachel Adams-Heard
As a towering plume of black smoke billowed a mile above Houston for a third day, local officials said they don’t know how long the petrochemical blaze that sent orange fireballs into the sky will continue.
Five tanks holding gasoline ingredients were still afire about 20 miles (32 kilometers) east of downtown Houston March 19 and three have burned out, according to facility owner Intercontinental Terminals Co. Previous expectations that the conflagration would exhaust itself by the middle of the week no longer hold, however, officials said.
The fire that began early March 17 in the industrial suburb of Deer Park intensified overnight after a dip in water pressure interfered with firefighting efforts and two more tanks erupted in flame. The pressure drop has been rectified and additional help in fighting the fire was summoned.
“Fuel has burned off and we’ve said from the beginning that may be what has to happen,” Harris County Fire Marshal Laurie Christensen said during a meeting with reporters. “I’m not going to give you a time because as we know overnight it has changed.”
Ground Level
In the downtown Houston business district, the smoky smell that pervaded high-rise offices March 18 had eased. But in residential neighborhoods on the city’s north side, a chemical odor descended the following morning on an otherwise clear day. Air pollution remained below health-concern levels, an ITC spokeswoman said.
Since assuring residents of the fourth-largest U.S. city March 18 that there were no “immediate health concerns at ground level,” the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality hasn’t issued any new advisories or assessments. The agency doesn’t know when it will issue an update, spokesman Brian McGovern said in a telephone interview March 19.
State regulators are “asleep at the wheel,” said Adrian Shelley, director of the Texas arm of Public Citizen, which advocates for environmental protection. “They collect a wealth of data across Texas and Houston is certainly one of the most heavily air-monitored places on the planet. But they don’t use their channels to communicate with the public.”
The Deer Park facility has a total of 242 tanks located near the Houston Ship Channel, one of the busiest ports along the Gulf Coast.
Schools in Deer Park and neighboring communities that were shut Monday reopened Tuesday.
The fire “demonstrates how chemical disasters happen far too often in our region, often due to lax regulatory oversight and enforcement,” said Stephanie Thomas, a Public Citizen researcher.
Chemical Communities
She criticized the Trump administration for seeking to reduce funding to the Environmental Protection Agency and other government plans “which sought to bring greater safety to communities like Deer Park that are surrounded by the petrochemical industry.”
Potential health effects of the smoke include coughing, difficulty breathing, and irritation to eyes and throat, according to the One Breath Partnership, an organization that works to improve air quality.
“You can really smell & taste it now,” real-estate agent Jon Gardella said on Twitter, referring to the black smog enveloping Houston on Monday morning.
The tank farm occupies 265 acres on the Houston Ship Channel east of the city. It can store more than 13 million barrels of chemicals, petroleum, fuel oil, and gases. It serves marine, train, and trucking transportation with five tanker berths and its own rail spur.
—With assistance from Mike Jeffers, Sheela Tobben, Barbara Powell, Jack Kaskey, Simon Casey, and Kevin Crowley.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/chemical-fire-timeline-abandoned-as-plume-towers-over-houston
-
Houston ‘Kind of Normalized’ to Chemical Fires
Mar 20, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Authorities in Harris County, Texas, face a difficult task in letting a chemical fire burn for days even as the Houston region is covered in dark smoke.
The fire broke out at the Intercontinental Terminals Co. LLC facility in La Porte, Texas, when a storage tank caught fire March 17. The company has said in press statements that firefighters are controlling the fire with water and foam. No injuries have been reported.
It’s not unusual for chemical plants to catch fire or for it to take time to put them out. Still, the large quantity of chemicals involved in the Intercontinental Terminals blaze means it will take an especially long time to tackle. The fire is affecting tanks that store the gasoline components naphtha and xylene, and toluene, which is used in nail polish and paint thinners.
The EPA found plants regulated by its risk management program, which sets standards for emergency planning and response at high-risk chemical sites, experienced 2,200 reportable accidents between 2003 and 2013, or about one every 1.5 days. About 150 fires, explosions, and other chemical releases occur each year.
“It happens more often than it should, and it’s kind of normalized around here,” Corey Williams, research and policy director at Air Alliance Houston, said. Air Alliance Houston is an advocacy organization that works on regional air quality and health issues.
Burn It OffAuthorities fighting chemical fires focus on controlling the blaze while it consumes available fuel.
Houston-area firefighters suffered a setback March 19 when a temporary loss of water pressure allowed the flames to regroup and spread to two additional tanks. Now it’s not clear how much longer it will take to quell the fire, Harris County Fire Marshal Laurie Christensen said at a press conference.
In a petrochemical fire, firefighters use water not to extinguish the flames but to cool the blaze so the storage tank containing the substances doesn’t fall apart, leading to a loss of containment, Jim Spell, founder of HAZPRO Consulting LLC and a former firefighter, said. Responders can also apply firefighting foam to the burning liquids in hopes of smothering the flames, though large quantities of foam would be needed for a blaze of this magnitude, Spell said.
Unlike fighting wildfires in the western U.S., chemical tank fires rarely produce embers that can ignite nearby areas.
“Right now, it’s like a big barbecue,” Spell said, as the fire burns out “in a controlled environment.”
As the ignition fuel is exhausted, the fire’s temperature will lower until it’s extinguished, Spell said.
Firefighters in rural areas such as West, Texas, have struggled to control blazes involving hazardous materials, but first responders in metropolitan Houston are considered some of the nation’s best-trained, Spell said.
“This ain’t their first rodeo,” Spell said.
DelaysEstimates of when the fire will be put out have shifted.
Intercontinental Terminals at first said it would take another two days to extinguish the flames.
“The safety of our surrounding community, our employees, and the environment is our first priority,” Intercontinental Terminals said in a statement.
The dark ash spewing into the air will eventually settle on the ground downwind of the plant, Spell said. If the plume contains harmful chemicals, it could present a health hazard to residents.
While local authorities have said air monitors don’t show cause for concern, Williams said further data analysis will be needed to confirm what the blaze emitted.
“There are folks that are naturally sensitive to air pollution—asthmatics, folks in nursing homes, on oxygen, with other respiratory ailments—that need to know these things,” he said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/houston-kind-of-normalized-to-chemical-fires
-
DHS Proposes Tackling Cyberthreats on a Slimmer Budget
Mar 20, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
President Trump is requesting a slimmer budget for the Department of Homeland Security's top cyber office as top administration officials warn of a rising threat to critical U.S. computer networks.
A detailed breakdown of Trump's budget request posted to DHS's website Monday night asks for nearly $3.2 billion for the newly established Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in fiscal 2020, down about 6 percent from enacted 2018 levels.
CISA is charged with defending federal civilian networks from cyberthreats, inspecting and securing large chemical facilities, and helping power grid operators root out hackers, among other roles. The office employs more than 3,500 people nationwide.
"The rate at which the [cyber] threats and risks are emerging is outpacing our ability to identify, assess and address them," Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said at a DHS-sponsored conference yesterday morning.
Her office's latest budget request would set aside slightly more money for DHS's cybersecurity checkups, which are carried out on a voluntary basis. It would also carve out $11 million for a pilot program dubbed CyberSentry to monitor for suspicious activity at the edge of industrial control systems that underpin vital U.S. energy networks.
CISA Director Chris Krebs spoke of the need to "streamline" the agency's cybersecurity activities and "provide something of value" to private companies. "It was critical that we really pulled the elements together that were necessary to execute on the department's mission. That's what led us to CISA."
Another newly minted federal cybersecurity office — the Department of Energy's Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security and Emergency Response — would get a 30 percent boost from current funding levels under Trump's 2020 budget proposal (Energywire, March 12).
That office was established to be the primary point of contact for power utilities or oil and gas companies facing a cyberattack, though DHS can still step in to offer on-the-ground support and information sharing.
Nielsen cited recent Russia-linked intrusions into the U.S. power grid as cause for concern in an address at George Washington University on Monday. She said the word "cyber" topped her list of threats to the U.S. homeland.
"What worries me is not what these threat actors have done, but what they have the capability to do," she said. "Stealing our most sensitive secrets. Deceiving us about our own data. Distracting us during a crisis, launching physical attacks on infrastructure with a few keystrokes."
Locked up
Nielsen also cited concerns about hackers "holding our infrastructure hostage," an apparent reference to "ransomware" malware that locks up victims' computer networks and demands anonymous online payments to unlock them.
Later that night, Norwegian aluminum giant Norsk Hydro ASA fell prey to a suspected "LockerGoga" ransomware attack originating at its U.S. plants, forcing facilities worldwide to revert to "manual" mode or else curtail operations. Norsk Hydro has roughly 35,000 workers and operates across 40 countries.
"Let me be clear: The situation for Hydro through this is quite severe," the company's chief financial officer, Eivind Kallevik, said at a press conference yesterday in Oslo. "The entire worldwide network is down, affecting our production as well as our office operations. We are working hard to contain and resolve the situation and to ensure the safety and security of our employees."
He added that some of the companies' plants "are hit harder than others" and declined to say whether the company would rule out paying off its digital assailants to unlock files.
"The main strategy is to use the backup data that we have" to restore networks back to normal, Kallevik said.
Past ransomware outbreaks have cost hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to global companies, including the Danish shipping conglomerate A.P. Møller-Mærsk A/S and U.S. pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. Inc.
U.S. electricity regulators have warned of the rising ransomware threat to American utilities in the past, writing in 2016 that such companies "may be seen as an attractive target" for hackers seeking a payday.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/03/20/stories/1060127705
-
Court Orders Interior to Redo Climate Analysis
Mar 20, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
A federal court last night struck down climate reviews for a series of Obama-era oil and gas lease sales, a significant win for environmental groups concerned about the impacts of burning fossil fuels.
Officials from the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management should have attempted to predict greenhouse gas emissions linked to drilling and downstream uses of the oil and gas from the Wyoming leases, according to Judge Rudolph Contreras for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The National Environmental Policy Act also requires BLM to put those estimates in the context of broader emissions forecasts and other federal projects, he found.
"By asserting that these crucial environmental analyses are overly speculative at the leasing stage and more appropriate for later, site-specific assessments, BLM risks relegating the analyses to the 'tyranny of small decisions,'" Contreras, an Obama appointee, wrote in his opinion yesterday.
"NEPA is intended to avoid that outcome," he continued. "Given the national, cumulative nature of climate change, considering each individual drilling project in a vacuum deprives the agency and the public of the context necessary to evaluate oil and gas drilling on federal land before irretrievably committing to that drilling."
WildEarth Guardians and Physicians for Social Responsibility sued BLM in 2016, while former President Obama was still in office. Their challenge focuses on five lease sales BLM held between May 2015 and August 2016.
BLM fell short of its duty to take a "hard look" at the climate impacts from the sales, the plaintiffs contend.
The groups, represented in part by the Western Environmental Law Center, pushed the court to rule swiftly in their favor in June 2017, citing concerns about the Trump administration's push to open more public lands for oil and gas development.
The law center has also helmed lease sale challenges in Colorado and Utah as part of a larger push for more robust climate reviews under NEPA (Energywire, June 13, 2017).
Last night's ruling has "broad ramifications" for BLM's approach to analyzing cumulative emissions, said Kyle Tisdel, director of WELC's climate and energy program.
NEPA reviews associated with the sales will be sent back to BLM, but Contreras declined to vacate the leases.
BLM may be able to do that analysis and still support the conclusions it reached in its environmental assessments and findings of no significant impact, he found.
"That determination does not excuse BLM from giving serious consideration to the Court's concerns," Contreras wrote.
Until BLM completes its supplemental analysis, the agency may not approve new oil and gas wells on the Wyoming leases.
Contreras said he would retain jurisdiction over the case until BLM corrects the NEPA problems.
The agency does not comment on pending litigation.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/03/20/stories/1060127713
-
EPA Defends Decision to Ease Air Permit Obligations
Mar 19, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
State regulators will be under no obligation to follow federal guidance and loosen air pollution permitting requirements for factories and power plants with new or expanded facilities near national parks and wilderness areas, the EPA told a federal court.
The agency’s defense came March 18 in a legal brief responding to a lawsuit that argues the EPA move last year to ease Clean Air Act new source review permitting requirements for large emitters will pollute air that today is mostly free of smog and haze.
The environmental group claims the added pollution could cause these areas to become so polluted as to violate federal air quality standards for ground-level ozone and fine airborne pollution. Both pollutants are associated with aggravating heart and lung diseases.
Nearly Fourfold Increase
At issue is an April 2018 memo in which the Environmental Protection Agency announced revisions to metrics known as significant impact levels that under the Clean Air Act set thresholds for how much pollution can be emitted by large sources during construction or expansion.
The April 2018 revisions increased nearly fourfold the threshold for emissions of fine particulate matter that affect national parks and wilderness areas.
The EPA insists these are just recommendations and not a binding final agency action. The EPA also said that the memo leaves it up to the states to implement it.
“The Guidance does not ‘exempt’ sources or ‘authorize violations,’” the EPA wrote in its March 18 response to claims the Sierra Club made in a lawsuit filed last June in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg Environment is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg.
‘Punching a Hole’ in Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act prohibits large manufacturers and power plants from expanding or adding new construction unless these facilities can demonstrate that the added emissions won’t cause or contribute to pollution in areas that already meet federal air quality standards for ozone and fine airborne particle pollution, or microscopic specks of pollution from industrial and natural sources.
The Sierra Club in November alleged that EPA is “punching a hole in this statutory bulwark against the degradation of clean air” by not requiring companies to demonstrate that they will not cause or contribute to violations of clean air standards.
The EPA says that permitting agencies in states have the discretion to use its revised metrics to decide how much air pollution facilities can emit when they expand or upgrade their plants.
But the Sierra Club alleged the EPA, through its memo, is authorizing permitting authorities in states to skip the required demonstration, and would allow the construction of new plants or factories without looking at whether they violate federal air standards or worsen air quality.
Not true, the EPA responded. The agency said it isn’t asking permitting authorities to skip the required demonstration, but is instead guiding permit writers to decide when pollution levels from these facilities aren’t significant enough.
The EPA said states must support each permitting decision with an administrative record and legal justification that includes the use of the recommended pollution thresholds.
The case is Sierra Club v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 18-1167, 3/18/19
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-defends-decision-to-ease-air-permit-obligations
-
Trump's Top Economic Adviser Still Supports Carbon Tax
Mar 20, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
President Trump's top economic adviser is not backing away from his belief that a carbon tax would be an effective way to address greenhouse gas emissions.
Kevin Hassett, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, has expressed support for a carbon tax for years. In 2007, he wrote that it would be a "no regrets policy" that could address climate change without harming the economy.
Hassett co-authored a paper in 2007 as a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute with Steven Hayward and Kenneth Green, both of whom were AEI fellows at the time, to tout the benefits of using a carbon tax to reduce corporate and income taxes and to cut greenhouse gas emissions. That would be less damaging economically than a cap-and-trade program, they said.
"A program of carbon-centered tax reform, by contrast, lacks most of the negative attributes of cap-and-trade, and could convey significant benefits unrelated to GHG reductions or avoidance of potential climate harms, making this a no-regrets policy," they wrote. "A tax swap would create economy-wide incentives for energy efficiency and lower-carbon energy, and by raising the price of energy would also reduce energy use."
In a separate paper, Hassett, who has been a researcher at the Federal Reserve as well as on the faculty at Columbia University, suggested that "concerns over the distributional impact of a shift to a carbon tax may be overstated."
Yesterday, Hassett said he has a long record of supporting carbon taxes, but would not say if he has broached the subject with Trump, who rejects climate science.
"I've written a lot about the economics of carbon taxes and how they work, who pays them, and my record in that space is clear," Hassett said in response to a question from E&E News. "But conversations I have or don't have with the president are deliberative and subjected to executive privilege."
Instead, Hassett and other government economists credited the administration's deregulatory agenda as an effective tool for building the economy. The administration is rolling back a number of climate rules adopted by the Obama administration, including tighter vehicle emissions standards and power plant pollution controls. The Trump administration claims that federal agencies saved $23 billion in regulatory costs, and that it issued 12 deregulatory actions for every new significant regulatory action.
"Deregulation is part of the story there, deregulation both in energy and in banking, because bank loans are an important part of that industry; also, technological innovations and conditions in some of the world's markets have contributed here. But the amazing result is United States oil production has passed all other countries in the world, passed Saudi Arabia, passed Russia, and we're producing like never before," said Casey Mulligan, the chief economist at the Council of Economic Advisers.
Trump and many congressional Republicans have mocked the Green New Deal proposal, a Democratic initiative that envisions a societywide effort to address climate change and poverty through a huge public jobs program. Some Republicans have argued that the party needs its own plan to address climate change, instead of ignoring the body of climate science that predicts a cascading set of risks in a warming world.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/03/20/stories/1060127655
-
Carbon Taxes Are the Original Green New Deal
Mar 20, 2019 | New York Times
By Steven Rattner
Yes, of course, we need a Green New Deal to address the world’s most urgent crisis, global warming.
Just, please, not the one that a flotilla of liberal politicians, including seven of the top Democratic presidential hopefuls currently in the Senate, are signing up for in droves, like children following the pied piper in the old legend.
Our modern-day pied piper, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is trying to lure us into a set of policies that might help save the planet but at the cost of severely damaging the global economy.
To be sure, by the time the resolution was introduced into Congress, some of its most ludicrous provisions (like the deadline of 2030 for a full transition to renewable energy and the immediate halt to any investment in fossil fuels) had been eliminated or watered down.
But as important as continuing to prune the absurd or damaging provisions would be to add what is the most effective way to attack climate change: using taxes and market forces rather than government controls to reduce harmful emissions.
That has been a problem for decades, at least since Washington got seriously into the business of improving the environment, back in 1970with the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency — under President Nixon!
Politicians prefer that approach because using regulation hides the costs of reducing emissions. The decision, for example, to force improvements in automobile mileage by requiring each manufacturer to improve overall fleet efficiency has added thousands of dollars to the cost of cars.
Higher car prices have the countervailing impact of encouraging Americans to hang onto their older, less fuel-efficient cars for a longertime, offsetting at least some of the gains from newer cars. Nor have the regulations, with their many escape hatches, kept consumers from buying even more sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks as gas prices have remained historically low.
Fortunately, there is a better way to address the climate problem at far lower cost to the economy: a tax on greenhouse gas emissions. That can be imposed in any number of ways. The 18.4 cent federal gasoline tax, for example, hasn’t been increased since 1993 even as most other developed countries impose far higher levies.
A particularly thoughtful proposal has come from the Climate Leadership Council, a bipartisan organization that counts more than 3,300 economists among its signatories. Elegant in its simplicity, the key provision would be the imposition of an escalating tax on carbon. At an initial rate of $43 per ton, the levy would be roughly equivalent to 38.2 cents per gallon of gasoline.
To prevent polluters from fleeing overseas, the tax would be imposed on imports from countries lacking a similar provision while exports to those countries would not be taxed. While difficult to implement, that component is important to work out.
The entire proceeds from the tax would be rebated to consumers. The council suggests an equal amount for each American; my view would be to exclude the wealthy (who hardly need the estimated $2,000 a year in payments) and disproportionately favor those closer to the bottom.
Why are so many economists, even conservative ones, in favor of a massive new tax? Because markets do not always price in “externalities” like pollution. In addition to cutting consumption, raising the price of carbon would arguably do more to encourage development of alternative power sources than all the massive new government spending programs that advocates of the Green New Deal envision.
Some technical problems would need to be addressed, such as how the higher prices would filter through inflation calculations and create unintended cost of living adjustments to wages and Social Security payments.
But those are details; the key point is that a carbon tax has been judged by climate hawks like Resources for the Future to be far more effective in reaching the goals of the Paris agreement than the well-intended regulations put in place by President Obama and his predecessors.
That’s at least part of why the plan enjoys support from an armada of organizations not often on the same page, like Exxon Mobil and Conservation International.
Historically, the politics of even small increases in the gasoline tax have been tough. A 2017 proposal in the House to increase tax by just one penny went nowhere. But recent polls suggest that perhaps sentiment is changing; a survey by the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago found that 44 percent of Americans favor a carbon tax while only 29 percent oppose one.
Given how late we are to the climate battle, maintaining some sensible regulation will also be necessary. But a hefty carbon tax would go a long way toward winning the war.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/opinion/green-new-deal-carbon-taxes.html
-
NRDC, States Urge Court to Scrap EPA HFC Guidance
Mar 19, 2019 | Inside EPA
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and several Democratic-led states are urging a federal appeals court to scrap an EPA guidance document, alleging it went too far by revoking a prior rule limiting uses of some hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in refrigeration, air conditioning and other products in final reply briefs in the litigation.
HFCs are a potent greenhouse gas that were recently added to the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty to protect the stratospheric ozone layer. They were made to replace chloroflurocarbons, which are both GHGs and ozone depleting substances.
The suit challenges EPA’s April guidance that the agency issued in response to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s August 2017 decision in Mexichem Fluor, Inc., v. EPA, which struck down part of the Obama-era 2015 rule intended to limit HFC use. The rule would have helped the U.S. comply with its initial obligations under the treaty, though the Trump administration has not yet sent the HFC-related agreement to the Senate for ratification.
NRDC filed suit last June in NRDC v. Wheeler, also in the D.C. Circuit, arguing that the guidance was unlawful because it struck the HFC rule in its entirety, without notice-and-comment. EPA in the guidance said it would initiate a rulemaking to respond to the court ruling, and that the guidance was interim.
The state plaintiffs -- New York, California, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia -- in their March 15 reply counter EPA’s argument that the guidance is not judicially reviewable. They say the guide goes well beyond what the Mexichem ruling required, making the guidance a “reviewable final agency action and a legislative rule unlawfully promulgated without notice or comment.”
The states also say that if EPA had tailored its guidance faithfully to the Mexichem court ruling, it would have preserved at least some of the health and environmental benefits from the 2015 rule. “Instead, EPA arbitrarily and capriciously obliterated the Rule’s HFC use restrictions part and parcel.”
NRDC says in its March 15 reply that EPA and its chemical company backers build their arguments in defense of the guidance on a “faulty foundation,” which is that the Mexichem ruling fully vacated the 2015 rule’s HFC listings, a position the group calls “untenable.”
Instead, NRDC says Mexichem held that EPA acted reasonably in listing HFCs as unacceptable substitutes for ozone-depleting substances and “thus affirmed the listings and their applications to entities currently using ozone-depleting substances. The Guidance does not offer an alternative interpretation of Mexichem; it just ignores the Court’s second holding affirming the listings and mislabels Mexhichem’s partial vacatur as a full vacatur.”
The group also says the guidance “cloaks its suspension of the HFC listings in the guise of interpretation” and “erroneously presumes that EPA’s only option following Mexichem was to scrap the HFC listings altogether. Not so. EPA could have continued to apply the listings to current uses of ozone-depleting substances . . . and thereby prevented significant emissions of a potent [GHG].”
NRDC says in a press release that EPA’s action is a “clear violation of basic administrative law.”
Mexichem and Arkema intervened on EPA’s behalf, and in a March 1 brief argued that the court’s vacatur “also necessarily undid the rest of the Rule with respect to its restrictions on HFCs. No part of those restrictions were severable.” They add that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner arguments, and that they lack standing to challenge “a document that merely informs the regulated public about existing law.”
Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled, though the wrap up to briefing comes as the same court heard another round in the Mexichem case March 8, where EPA switched sides and is no longer defending the agency’s 2015 HFC rule.
There, a three-judge panel signaled it is likely to back calls to remand the HFC rule to EPA, as Mexichem and Arkema are seeking, and over the objections of NRDC and rival chemical companies, which want the court to leave in place the rule that bans the use of certain HFCs
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/nrdc-states-urge-court-scrap-epa-hfc-guidance
-
DOE, Industry Await Guidance on Tax Incentives
Mar 20, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
A Department of Energy official said yesterday the agency is "constantly pushing" the Internal Revenue Service to release a framework for how the nascent carbon capture, utilization and storage industry can access new federal funding.
At issue is the disbursement of what many in the industry describe as a game-changing pot of funds that will more than double an older tax credit for carbon capture projects. Stakeholders expect the funds will spur a boom in CCUS and make the United States a world leader in use of the technology.
DOE provided input to the IRS several months ago about the "need for speed" in setting up guidelines for companies to access tax credits that were enacted just over a year ago, according to Lou Hrkman, DOE's deputy assistant secretary for fossil energy, in remarks at a CCUS event yesterday hosted by the Global CCS Institute.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin sharing the agency's views on implementing the credit commonly referred to as 45Q, after the section of the tax code in which it appears, said Hrkman. The department has not been updated on when the IRS will publish its guidelines for what project developers must do to be eligible for the funding or what the rules will be, he added.
Under the legislation passed last year, the credits will provide $35 per ton of carbon dioxide captured and stored underground or used in products, or up to $50 per ton in some technology applications, and eliminate a program cap that advocates say has hampered projects.
Stakeholders worry about a provision stating that projects must be under construction by 2023 in order to take advantage of the expanded credits, which could be tight for projects with multiyear planning requirements (Energywire, Jan. 29).
CCUS is a still-developing technology that can be used at coal- and natural gas-fired power plants to siphon off their carbon dioxide emissions, as well as at industrial facilities that emit high levels of CO2. The fossil fuel industries have seized on CCUS as a way to make existing assets conform to a climate-constrained world, but the technology remains expensive.
DOE is a strong backer of CCUS and has set a goal of reducing the cost of capturing carbon from about $70 per ton today to $35 per ton. The 45Q tax credit expansion is expected to help reach that goal by allowing more projects to be built, advancing the technology learning curve.
Hrkman said DOE has had staff-level interactions with the IRS about the pending rules and expects that following their release, there will be a public comment period before they are finalized.
"I don't think we know anything more than what you're hearing in the press right now," Hrkman said. "It can be self-implemented, versus waiting for it to come out. There is risk involved in that, but there are parties talking about that right now."
Hrkman said he welcomed the U.S. industry's leadership on CCUS but pointed a finger at up-and-coming emitters, China and India, as having a responsibility to play along.
"You can shut down the entire U.S. coal fleet here in the United States — 260, 300 gigawatts — it's not going to make a hill of beans' worth of difference unless China and India also get on board with CCUS," he said.
'Like we do with plastic bottles'
Carbon capture was a hot topic last week at CERAWeek by IHS Markit, a major energy conference where numerous people described the technology as critical to meeting the world's energy needs while also limiting carbon emissions.
OGCI Climate Investments is the venture arm of the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, a voluntary industry group that includes European and U.S. supermajors and has adopted shared climate goals. Pratima Rangarajan, the CEO of OGCI Climate Investments, said on a panel last week that 45Q holds promise to advance the industry and pointed to a host of technology startups developing new ways to use carbon dioxide as an input to make new materials.
Rangarajan acknowledged some environmentalists have rejected CCUS as a lifeline for fuels that they see as ready for retirement and said the industry has not done a good job of explaining how important it is to meeting world climate goals.
"It's carbon recycling, like we do with plastic bottles so they don't go in the ocean," she said.
DOE Undersecretary Mark Menezes said at that event that it's in the U.S. national interest and the global interest to treat carbon dioxide as an industrial byproduct like any other.
Menezes announced $30 million in new DOE funding to be split between two engineering and design projects for commercial-scale carbon capture systems applicable to existing and new facilities.
Rangarajan announced that her organization would hold a "CCUS Investment Day" in Chicago this fall, at which startups will be able to pitch the fund on their carbon capture-related technologies in an effort to "close some gaps" around the approach.
In Washington, D.C., yesterday, Hrkman described CCUS support as a better climate strategy than a carbon tax.
"There's some advocates for a carbon tax; I see 45Q as a much more economical way of doing it," Hrkman said.
Punching at the recent discussion of an aggressive push for 100 percent renewable energy, Hrkman dismissed that option. "It's demonization and it's lack of common sense. Everybody knows you could not have 100 percent renewable. Everybody knows that, they know it's uneconomic, and they know it's unreliable," he said.
Hrkman also encouraged stakeholders to update how they talk about advanced fossil energy plants and said he has moved away from the term "clean coal," which is frequently derided by critics as an oxymoron.
"I say 'carbon-free fossil energy.' I don't say 'clean coal' anymore," said Hrkman.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/03/20/stories/1060127703
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested