Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - March 21, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Maritime Community Addresses Plastic Pollution in Oceans
Mar 21, 2019 | Cruise and Ferry
By Elly Yates-Roberts
The world has begun to recognise that plastic pollution in the ocean is not solely, or even mostly, a shipping problem. However, it is gratifying to see that the maritime community has stepped up to do what it can to address the growing... -
(ACC Mentioned) Stakes High for TSCA Low Priority Candidate Chemical Selections
Mar 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
This week’s announcement by the US EPA of its next set of chemicals for risk evaluation under TSCA saw half of those listed classified as low priority. However, even for these 20 substances, the stakes were high for getting the picks right... -
(ACC Mentioned) NGOs Blast TSCA Formaldehyde Prioritisation as 'Confusing and Deceptive'
Mar 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Consumer advocacy groups are protesting that the US EPA’s designation of formaldehyde as a high priority candidate for risk evaluation under TSCA is a tactic that will delay action on it. And they are concerned that it means that a... -
US EPA Round-Up
Mar 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has issued eight TSCA 5(a)(3)(c) findings for substances subject to pre-manufacture notices (PMNs). These "not likely to present an unreasonable risk" determinations will allow the substances to come to market without... -
EPA Issues First Set of Priority Chemicals for TSCA Risk Assessment
Mar 21, 2019 | JD Supra
By Joseph Green
Earlier today, US EPA released the inaugural draft list of 20 “high priority” and 20 “low priority” chemicals for risk evaluation purposes as required by the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA must... -
US Congress Round-Up
Mar 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch
In view of Congress’ increased interest in, and oversight of, the EPA and other toxics-related topics, this is the first of what will be a semi-regular US Congress round-up of news articles, similar to those we already publish about the EPA... -
EPA Is Shirking Its Responsibility to Require Chemical Safety Testing
Mar 21, 2019 | Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
By Bob Sussman
"We can no longer operate under the assumption that what we do not know about a chemical substance cannot hurt us. Tragic results associated with too many toxic substances have taught us that lesson all too well. Chemicals, not... -
Despite Rulings, Farmers Remain Loyal to Bayer’s Roundup
Mar 21, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Jacob Bunge
Farmers are standing by Bayer AG’s Roundup herbicide despite rulings from two juries that the world’s most widely used weedkiller caused cancer in plaintiffs. The chemical, used on the vast majority of corn, soybean and cotton... -
Roundup Judge Loosens His Grip on Monsanto Ghosts Haunting Bayer
Mar 21, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joel Rosenblatt
To understand the depth of Bayer AG’s reversal of fortune in the trial over its Roundup weed killer, one need look no further than the judge handling the proceeding. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria has maintained a white-knuckle... -
Anchorage, Alaska Unanimously Approves Flame Retardant Ban
Mar 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The city of Anchorage, Alaska has unanimously approved an ordinance banning flame retardants in certain consumer products. The 19 March vote of the municipality’s Assembly means that from 1 January 2020 there will be a ban on... -
Army Bill for Public Records on Contaminant: About $300,000
Mar 21, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Ellen Knickmeyer
The Army has put a price tag on releasing the results of water tests for a dangerous contaminant at military installations: nearly $300,000. In a March 12 letter, the Army told the Environmental Working Group that the military would charge... -
On Cosmetics Safety, U.S. Trails More Than 40 Nations
Mar 21, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
By Alyssa Katzenelson and Scott Faber
U.S. regulation of chemicals and contaminants in cosmetics is falling behind the rest of the world, according to an EWG analysis. More than 40 nations – ranging from major industrialized economies like the United Kingdom and... -
Top Senate Democrats Press EPA, DoD on PFAs Groundwater Guidelines
Mar 21, 2019 | Inside EPA
Eighteen Senate Democrats -- many of whom are ranking members on key committees -- are questioning the Defense Department's (DOD) reported push within the Trump administration to persuade EPA to weaken proposed groundwater... -
Unea4 Adopts Resolutions to Push Forward Sound Management of Chemicals
Mar 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Last week's fourth UN Environment Assembly adopted a number of resolutions aimed at speeding up the sound management of chemicals globally. Unea4, which took place in Nairobi, adopted 30 resolutions in all, tackling a wide... -
Echa Round-Up
Mar 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch
Echa has issued a further reminder to companies about preparations for the UK's withdrawal from the EU without a transition period. The advice and practical instructions it has already published remain valid in the current situation... -
(ACC Mentioned) A Fracking-Driven Industrial Boom Renews Pollution Concerns in Pittsburgh
Mar 21, 2019 | Yale Environment 360
By Nick Cunningham
Pittsburgh is a city on the upswing, rebounding this century from its rustbelt past by developing more innovative sectors such as health care, education, and technology. Uber is testing its self-driving cars in Pittsburgh. Carnegie... -
Houston’s Shipping Bottleneck Could Curb Expansion of Major US Oil and Petchems Hub
Mar 21, 2019 | S&P Global Platts
By Kristen Hays
An impasse has emerged between key operators on the Houston Ship Channel, a critical lifeline for growing US energy exports, as thriving activity in both tanker and container shipping has exacerbated competition for space. -
Federal Oil, Natural Gas Leasing in Jeopardy After Wyoming Ruling
Mar 21, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Wyoming's resurgent oil and natural gas production may be in jeopardy after a federal judge on Tuesday ruled against the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for not adequately considering the effects of climate... -
We Need North American Energy Trade
Mar 20, 2019 | Real Clear Energy
By Robert L. Bradley, Jr.
At a press conference last month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed cautious optimism about the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which is set to replace the quarter-century-old North American Free Trade... -
Chemical Safety Board Highlights Consensus Standards
Mar 21, 2019 | Safety BLR
The U.S. Chemical and Safety Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) recently released a Safety Spotlight recommending that employers closely apply industry consensus standards to safeguard employee and public safety. Titled “The... -
People near Burned Texas Chemical Plant Told to Stay Indoors
Mar 21, 2019 | AP
By Juan A. Lozano and David Warren
Authorities on Thursday warned people to stay indoors after high levels of benzene were detected in the air near a scorched petrochemicals storage facility outside of Houston. Firefighters on Wednesday extinguished the blaze at the... -
The Latest: Vapors Escape Burned Petrochemical Storage Site
Mar 21, 2019 | AP (In the Washington Post)
The Latest on a fire that had been burning at a Texas petrochemical storage facility (all times local): 9:25 a.m. Authorities say it appears that the suppressive foam firefighters are using at a Houston-area petrochemicals storage... -
Traders Can Now Spot Oil Refinery Problems by Tracking Phones
Mar 21, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Aaron Clark
In the $40 trillion global oil-trading market, the smallest clue can be worth millions. Take the number of people working at a refinery: Outside contractors are brought in for routine maintenance or to handle accidents that could... -
Energy Panel’s Tonko Sets Guideposts for Climate Legislation
Mar 21, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
The head of a House energy subcommittee unveiled a set of climate policy principles March 21, sketching out in broad terms what he believes any climate legislation should incorporate. Rep. Paul Tonko’s (D-N.Y.) principles include an... -
Tonko Outlines Guideposts for Climate Solutions Debate
Mar 21, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Anthony Adragna
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) today outlined his goals for eventual legislation to address climate change. Tonko, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee, says he wants to introduce... -
How the Green New Deal Is Forcing Politicians to Finally Address Climate Change
Mar 21, 2019 | TIME
By Justin Worland
When a group of more than 20 protesters showed up in the halls of the U.S. Senate on a recent February day, they would have been forgiven for expecting a chilly reception. For the past seven months, sit-ins at a range of offices–from...
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
-
(ACC Mentioned) Maritime Community Addresses Plastic Pollution in Oceans
Mar 21, 2019 | Cruise and Ferry
By Elly Yates-Roberts
The world has begun to recognise that plastic pollution in the ocean is not solely, or even mostly, a shipping problem. However, it is gratifying to see that the maritime community has stepped up to do what it can to address the growing threat to marine life, which can ingest or become entangled in plastic debris. In October 2018, this recognition took the form of a new action plan adopted by the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) to address plastics in the marine environment. The action plan is built on the commitment by the IMO to meet the targets set forth in the United Nation’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goal 14 (SDG 14), which is to “conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.”
The action plan, set forth in MEPC Res.310(73), consists of the following major elements, among others, described in greater detail below:
1. Reduction of marine plastic generated from fishing vessels
2. Reduction of shipping’s contribution to marine plastic pollution
3. Improvement of port reception facilities
4. Enhanced public awareness, education and seafarer training
5. Improved understanding of the contribution of ships to marine plastic pollution
6. Strengthened international cooperation.What role does shipping play in the world’s plastic pollution?
The shipping community is subject to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). Annex V of MARPOL contains regulations addressing garbage management and strictly prohibits the discharge of plastics. In 2013, new regulations went into effect that imposed stricter garbage management procedures and documentation requirements for all vessels, as well as fixed and floating platforms and a general prohibition on the discharge of all garbage unless the discharge is expressly provided for under the regulations. The new regulations allow the limited discharge of only four of categories of garbage: food waste, cargo residues, certain operational wastes not harmful to the marine environment, and carcasses of animals carried as cargo. Under the prior regulations, discharge of garbage into the sea was generally allowed unless specifically prohibited or limited. In 2018, Annex V was strengthened further, changing the criteria for determining whether cargo residues are harmful to the marine environment and revising the Garbage Record Book to include a new category for electronic waste.Many cruise lines have adopted their own standards to control garbage beyond those contained in Annex V. For example, the Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA), a trade association representing more than 50 cruise lines encompassing over 90% of global cruise capacity, adopted a comprehensive waste management policy, which its members must follow. Some major cruise lines have gone beyond the CLIA policies and agreed to eliminate plastic straws and other single-use plastics. In October 2018, the European Parliament voted for a complete ban on a range of single-use plastics across the European Union (EU) to help prevent ocean pollution. The ban includes plastic cutlery and plates, straws, drink stirrers and balloon sticks. The EU intends for it to go into effect across member nations by 2021.
At the grassroots level, in September 2018, the Ocean Cleanup Project deployed its 2,000-foot long Ocean Cleanup System OO1 to pick up the plastic found in the famed – or infamous – Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is twice the size of the State of Texas. Known as Wilson, the system is designed to pick up the plastic before it degrades into microplastics. Unfortunately, in late December 2018, the clean-up system malfunctioned and was taken back to port but is expected to become operational again in 2019. Finally, some Caribbean nations have decided to ban or impose taxes on plastics and Styrofoam. Barbados, for example, is banning the import, use and sale of single-use plastics as of 1 April 2019, following the lead of Antigua, Barbuda, Grenada and St. Lucia.
These are just some examples of what is happening worldwide to combat the plastic pollution crisis in the oceans.
Congress investigates the sources of marine debris
US Congress passed, with strong bipartisan support, the ‘Save Our Seas Act of 2018’ (SOS Act), which was signed into law on 11 October 2018. Among other things, the SOS Act reauthorises the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s marine debris programmes for five years. It calls on the Administration to: support research on materials that reduce derelict fishing gear and solid waste from land based sources that enter the marine environment; work with foreign countries that discharge the largest amounts of solid waste from land-based sources into the marine environment to reduce such discharges; and work with those countries to conclude one or more new international agreements to mitigate the discharge of land-based solid waste into the marine environment. By requiring the US State Department to enter into international agreements, the SOS Act recognises that the problem is larger than garbage entering the oceans from ships.The US Congress has also held hearings on marine debris. In September 2018, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing at which industry witnesses and non governmental organisations testified about marine debris. Opening statements from the John Barrasso, State Senator of Wyoming, and Tom Carper, State Senator of Delaware, recognised the scope of the issue and committed to taking new action. This was also echoed by Senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska, who is working on an expanded version of the SOS Act, called ‘SOS2,’ with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island for introduction this year in the 116th Congress. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) witness stated that “while marine debris is a huge problem, it is also a solvable one.” The ACC has set a goal of ensuring that 100% of plastic packaging is recyclable or recoverable by 2030. Similarly, the Coca Cola Corporation witness committed to a multi-year investment to make its packaging 100% recyclable by 2025.
Land-based sources of marine debris and the role of IMO’s action plan
On 21 November 2018, The New York Times reported about a beached whale in Indonesia containing 1,000 pieces of plastic in its stomach. This story and photo gained worldwide attention, particularly in Indonesia, which had been labelled one of the major sources of marine pollution. Subsequently, Indonesia, one of the top six plastic waste producers, set a goal of reducing plastic waste by 70% by 2025 and set aside US$1 billion per year to combat the problem. vThe IMO action plan addresses the main sources of marine plastics pollution and gives the shipping community a key role in addressing them. Some of the more specific tasks in the action plan and associated responsibilities for Member States regarding implementation follow:
1. Fishing gear
Consider making mandatory, through an appropriate IMO instrument, the marking of fishing gear with an IMO Ship Identification Number, in cooperation with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. In addition, consider the development of best management practices to facilitate incentives for fishing vessels to retrieve derelict fishing gear and deliver it to port reception facilities.2. Reduce shipping’s contribution to marine plastic pollution
Review the application of placards, garbage management plans and garbage record-keeping and consider making the Garbage Record Book mandatory for ships of 100gt and above (now, the requirement only applies to vessels greater than 400gt), working with the IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee.3. Improve the effectiveness of port reception facilities
Encourage Member States to implement their obligation to provide adequate facilities at ports and terminals for the reception of garbage. The lack of adequate port reception facilities is a serious problem in the Caribbean and other developing countries and would require international financial commitments to do this effectively.4. Enhance public awareness, education and seafarer training
Review fishing vessel personnel training to ensure they receive basic training on marine environmental awareness focused on marine plastic pollution. IMO’s MEPC is to work with the Human Element, Training and Watchkeeping Subcommittee to review training under the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers.5. Improve understanding of the contribution of ships to marine plastic pollution
Conduct a study on marine plastic pollution, including macro and microplastics from all ships and encourage member states to share results of the research. The MEPC is to work with the FAO, the United Nation’s World Ocean Assessment and the Regional Seas Convention to accomplish this task.6. Strengthen international cooperation
Work with other United Nation’s agencies, such as FAO and the United Nations Environment Program, which are active in marine plastic litter and cooperate with the Global Partnership on Marine Litter.Another key element of the action plan will be to review the existing regulatory regime to identify gaps that might require new legislation and regulations.
Call to action
The maritime community is stepping up to address its role in combatting marine plastics debris by adopting IMO’s action plan and taking additional stringent actions either independently or through industry trade associations. While the action plan is voluntary at this point, it is a blueprint for how the maritime community and countries can do their part to reduce marine plastics debris in conjunction with other United Nation’s organisations and member states.The action plan recognises that the maritime community continues to have a role to play in reducing plastics that enter the marine environment – even though there is recognition that the major sources of marine plastics debris come from land-based sources. All countries producing plastic and waste have a part to play in solving this problem. Finally, as citizens of the world and lovers of clean oceans, we urge everyone to do their part to minimise single-use plastics in their daily lives.
http://www.cruiseandferry.net/articles/Maritime-community-addresses-plastic-pollution-in-oceans
-
(ACC Mentioned) Stakes High for TSCA Low Priority Candidate Chemical Selections
Mar 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
This week’s announcement by the US EPA of its next set of chemicals for risk evaluation under TSCA saw half of those listed classified as low priority. However, even for these 20 substances, the stakes were high for getting the picks right, a recent conference heard.
The reformed TSCA defines high priority substances as those that may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment because of a potential hazard and a potential route of exposure, under their conditions of use.
Low priority substances, on the other hand, are those which the EPA determines, based on sufficient evidence, do not present this unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.
However, a complication of the statute is that if a substance is nominated a low priority but evidence does not support that it fully meet this standard, it will be automatically designated a high priority – and become subject to a risk evaluation that must be completed within three years.
Each of the substances in the low priority group (see table) were selected from the EPA’s Safer Chemicals Ingredients List (Scil).
But even though they have previously been evaluated and determined to meet the criteria of the Safer Choice programme, there are potential pitfalls, speakers at the recent GlobalChem conference in Washington, DC, pointed out.
"Even something as non-toxic as water has hazards associated with it," Mark Duvall, a principal with law firm at Beveridge & Diamond, said regarding the low priority substances. "I see this as a challenge for the EPA."
Alexandra Dunn, head of the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, agreed that the provision is tricky to navigate.
Twenty low priority substances, she said "should be easy to identify, one would think; out of a very large list of chemicals, [finding] 20 that we are confident are not risky."
But the ongoing dispute from the first list of priority substances over whether pigment violet 29 (PV29) presents an unreasonable risk is an example, she said, of how such determinations can be fraught.
The agency, she said, has been "working very hard to make sure that in identifying those 20, we have scoured the literature." This has included searching for studies that suggest any sort of impact, and considering such factors as whether the substance is used in cosmetics or in products marketed to children.
"We should be very confident in picking our lows, and we want to be very confident in picking our lows," she said. "Because under the statute, if one of our lows is not correctly picked, it becomes a high, and then we have to work it the other way."
EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) Director Jeff Morris added that determining the slate of candidates "has taken a lot of our time."
But, he added, "it’s time very well spent" as the agency works to have a better understanding of the chemicals space.
Increasing confidence?
The TSCA statute does not require the EPA to designate more than an initial batch of 20 low priority chemicals. And a low priority determination can be revisited if new information becomes available.
But during the GlobalChem conference, the American Chemistry Council’s Mike Walls asked whether designating more low priority chemicals could be a pathway to enhancing public confidence in the safety of substances.
Canada, for example, has set aside thousands of substances in its screening-level process, and these "haven’t generated much concern about the government missing opportunities for review," he said.
But Mr Duval said that during negotiations in 2016 to reform TSCA, there was "a certain amount of paranoia expressed about the low priority provision as something that industry could ask EPA to drive a truck through; that it would be a way of sheltering chemicals from further scrutiny, whether or not they deserved to get further scrutiny."
And he said that the agency is limited by the requirement that it have an adequate basis for determining that a substance is a low priority.
Nevertheless, Rebecca Bernstein of specialty chemicals manufacturer Arkema said that she is hopeful the process "will instil some confidence in our downstream stakeholders, all the way down to the consumer, that all chemicals are not bad."
"Perhaps it will provide some reassurance to users that there are chemicals that, in fact, are appropriate and acceptable for the uses that they have," she added. "I think that certainly is a goal, but we’ll have to see how it plays out."
https://chemicalwatch.com/75333/stakes-high-for-tsca-low-priority-candidate-chemical-selections?q=%22American+Chemistry+Council%22
-
(ACC Mentioned) NGOs Blast TSCA Formaldehyde Prioritisation as 'Confusing and Deceptive'
Mar 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Consumer advocacy groups are protesting that the US EPA’s designation of formaldehyde as a high priority candidate for risk evaluation under TSCA is a tactic that will delay action on it.
And they are concerned that it means that a controversial Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) evaluation on the substance will never be finalised.
This week, the US announced that formaldehyde is among the 20 candidate substances scheduled to undergo a TSCA risk evaluation that will start at the end of this year.
The substance, used in a variety of building and household products and as a preservative, can cause certain types of cancer at high exposures, as well as skin, eye, nose and throat irritation. If its high priority designation is confirmed, TSCA requires the agency to begin an evaluation to determine if it presents an unreasonable risk under its conditions of use, and then move to impose restrictions to address any identified concerns.
But the Environmental Working Group characterised the move as "confusing and deceptive".
"Under the guise of taking action, the decision likely will have the effect of delaying further restrictions on its use," said EWG legislative attorney Melanie Benesh.Final IRIS assessment?
Chief among NGO concerns is that the EPA’s plans to evaluate formaldehyde under TSCA could mean it is ditching an assessment of the substance conducted under IRIS. The draft evaluation developed under the programme linked formaldehyde to leukaemia.
But there have been reports of efforts to suppress the release of a final version. And the EPA’s most recent update of IRIS programme priorities does not mention the assessment.
In the EPA’s prioritisation announcement, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Assistant Administrator Alexandra Dunn said that addressing the substance under TSCA "does not mean that the formaldehyde work done under IRIS will be lost".
In fact, this "will inform the TSCA process", she said. "By using our TSCA authority EPA will be able to take regulatory steps; IRIS does not have this authority."
But Richard Denison, senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, dismissed this reassurance saying that such consideration is already required by law.
"What is absolutely essential is that the IRIS programme be able to complete its assessment of formaldehyde, which has been suppressed for the last year and a half by conflicted EPA political appointees," he said. "Then EPA’s TSCA office, just like every other EPA office, can and should rely on it to make regulatory decisions."
When asked if the agency plans to finalise the IRIS assessment, an EPA spokesperson told Chemical Watch: "Now that formaldehyde has been identified as a high priority under TSCA, EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) will be coordinating with the OCSPP on next steps."
Daniel Rosenberg, a director at NGO the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the EPA’s plan is "plainly to create an industry-approved alternative assessment of formaldehyde under TSCA".
This, he said, will involve using "Trump EPA standard tactics: suppressing independent science; bending (and breaking) the rules of how to evaluate chemical hazards; and, taking only those steps that meet the approval of the nation’s largest chemical manufacturers."
Congressman Frank Pallone (D–New Jersey) also raised concern that the administration’s record on chemicals provides "good reason to worry that it is now opting to revisit these well-known risks in an effort to muddy the evidence" on heavily studied substances like formaldehyde and phthalates.
In response to the EPA’s prioritisation decision, the American Chemistry Council’s Kimberly Wise White said that the trade group’s formaldehyde panel "fully supports a risk review of the uses of formaldehyde chemistry by means of transparent science-based standards that include a weight-of-evidence approach and consider the best-available science to draw conclusions."
"EPA’s evaluation of formaldehyde will include review of potential hazards, uses and exposures, which will ensure regulatory decisions about the safe use of formaldehyde are consistent with real-world circumstances and are protective of human health and our environment," added Dr White.
https://chemicalwatch.com/75341/ngos-blast-tsca-formaldehyde-prioritisation-as-confusing-and-deceptive
-
Mar 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch
TSCA "not likely" findings
The US EPA has issued eight TSCA 5(a)(3)(c) findings for substances subject to pre-manufacture notices (PMNs). These "not likely to present an unreasonable risk" determinations will allow the substances to come to market without restriction.
They cover:P-18-0077: urea, reaction products with N-butyl phosphorothioic triamide and formaldehyde, intended for use as a fertiliser additive; P-17-0387 and P-17-0388: confidential polymers imported for use as paint; P-19-0007: a polymer imported for use as a coating resin binder applied to metal substrates; P-18-0277: a confidential substance, generically described as poly[2-(dimethylamino)ethyl acrylate chloride salt, vinyl acetate, methacrylic acid and alkyl acrylates], manufactured for use as an adhesive; P-18-0379: a cashew nutshell liquid polymer imported for use as a hardener for waterborne epoxy system; P-18-0107: an alcohol capped polycarbodiimide imported as a part of polyester plastic for use as a hydrolysis stabiliser; P-18-0118 and P-18-0119: two confidential polymers manufactured and/or imported for use as industrial adhesives; and P-18-0132: a confidential substance imported for use as a pigment dispersing aid.
PMN receipts for September 2018
The US EPA received 92 pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) in September 2018 and 71 amendments to past PMNs, according to a 21 March Federal Register notice. The manufacturer's identity was withheld as confidential business information (CBI) on 106 of the 163.
This reflects a significant surge in notifications ahead of a 1 October 2018 jump in TSCA fees for PMN submissions and other programme activities.
The agency also notified that in September it received: five significant new use notices (Snuns) and five amended Snuns; test data in support of six previously submitted PMNs; 13 notices of commencement (NOCs) and three amended NOCs; and one amendment to a test marketing exemption (TME).
Section 5 of TSCA requires notification when any person intends to manufacture or import a chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose, either for the first time (PMN) or for a 'significant new use', for substances subject to a significant new use rule (Snur). Submitters must provide the EPA with the appropriate information before initiating the activity; the agency reviews those notices, evaluates risk and takes appropriate action.
Under 2016 updates to TSCA, the EPA must publish a list of these submissions monthly.
Access to TSCA CBI
The EPA has authorised the following contractors and subcontractors to access information submitted under TSCA sections 4, 5, 8 and 21, including some information that has been claimed as CBI: Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC) of East Syracuse, New York; BeakerTree Corporation of Arlington, Virginia; Eastern Research Group (ERG) of Chantilly, Virginia; Essential Software Inc. of Potomac, Maryland; and Versar Inc of Springfield, Virginia.
The companies will be given access to the data until 19 December 2023 in order to assist the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). These tasks include: providing support in scientific health and environmental assessments; risk management evaluations; maintenance and enhancement of scientific tools and models; and document processing for new and existing chemicals and products of biotechnology and nanotechnology under TSCA.
Healthy schools grant programme
The EPA is proposing a $50m grant programme with the goal of identifying and addressing environmental health risks in schools.
The Healthy Schools Grant programme is intended to assist schools in identifying, reducing and resolving environmental hazards. These include childhood exposure to toxic chemicals and lead and asthma triggers.
Eligible recipients would include state and local governments and non-profit organisations.
https://chemicalwatch.com/75181/us-epa-round-up
-
EPA Issues First Set of Priority Chemicals for TSCA Risk Assessment
Mar 21, 2019 | JD Supra
By Joseph Green
Earlier today, US EPA released the inaugural draft list of 20 “high priority” and 20 “low priority” chemicals for risk evaluation purposes as required by the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA must finalize the listings by December 2019, at which point “high priority” chemicals will be required to go through the new TSCA risk evaluation process (the “low priority” designation indicates that risk evaluation is not warranted at this time).
There will be a 90-day comment period, upon publication of the draft list notification in the Federal Register (scheduled for March 21), with the aim of collecting additional information from the public regarding “uses, hazards, and exposure for these chemicals.”
When prioritization is completed later this year, a 3-year risk evaluation process will be initiated to determine if the “high priority” chemicals, under their conditions of use, present an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment. In announcing the list, EPA made clear that the “high or low” designation does not mean that the agency “has determined the chemical poses unreasonable risk or no risk to human health or the environment; it means we are beginning the prioritization process.”
Most notably, the draft “high priority” chemical list includes formaldehyde, which the agency recently dropped (to much criticism from environmental groups and Democratic Members of Congress) as a priority chemical under the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), despite years of work under that program. By shifting the formaldehyde assessment to the TSCA program, EPA emphasized that the agency will build off the existing IRIS work but also be able to streamline potential regulatory action to address any identified risks from the use of formaldehyde.
“Moving forward evaluating formaldehyde under the TSCA program does not mean that the formaldehyde work done under IRIS will be lost. In fact, the work done for IRIS will inform the TSCA process. By using our TSCA authority EPA will be able to take regulatory steps; IRIS does not have this authority.” – Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
The EPA action is unlikely to quell calls for prompt release of the IRIS risk assessment for formaldehyde, which has been near-completion for almost two years (after an initial draft assessment in 2010 was the subject of intense opposition based on the agency’s preliminary finding that exposure to the substance was associated with increased risk for leukemia). Significantly, the TSCA review process is likely to be narrower and focused on a limited set of uses of the chemical, whereas an IRIS risk assessment would have broader applicability for regulators and toxicologists seeking to assess a wide range of uses.
In addition to formaldehyde, the 20 high priority candidate chemicals include seven chlorinated solvents, six phthalates, four flame retardants, a fragrance additive, and a polymer precursor. The 20 low priority candidate chemicals were selected from EPA’s Safer Chemicals Ingredients List, which includes chemicals that have been evaluated and determined to meet EPA’s “safer choice” criteria.
The EPA home page for prioritization, including the draft list of “high” and “low” priority chemicals, can be found here.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/epa-issues-first-set-of-priority-56863/
-
Mar 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch
In view of Congress’ increased interest in, and oversight of, the EPA and other toxics-related topics, this is the first of what will be a semi-regular US Congress round-up of news articles, similar to those we already publish about the EPA and Echa.
Senator presses EPA on PFAS groundwater contamination level
Senator Tom Carper (D-Delaware), top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW), has sent a letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler urging him to resist alleged outside efforts to establish weakened perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) groundwater cleanup limits.
According to an investigation by the New York Times, the Department of Defense (DOD), National Aeronautic and Space Administration (Nasa) and Small Business Administration (SBA) are pressing for a cleanup standard of 400ppt; the EPA’s current health advisory level is 70 parts per trillion (ppt).
The DOD allegedly has a stake in the issue due to cases of PFAS-containing fire fighting foams contaminating waterways. And Mr Carper expressed concerns that a delay in finalising the EPA’s PFAS cleanup guidelines are due to these interagency conflicts.
Adopting the DOD’s recommended level would "among other consequences, subject fewer sites that were contaminated through the military’s use of PFOA/PFOS from having to be remediated in the first place,'' he said.
He noted, however, that the EPA has "reportedly resisted these weakening measures".
House science committee hearing on IRIS
The House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology will host a hearing reviewing "progress and roadblocks" of the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) programme.
It will take place at 10am EDT on 27 March, in Washington, DC.Senate EPW hearing on PFAS response
The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) will hold a hearing entitled 'Examining the federal response to the risks associated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)'.
It will take place at 10am EDT on 28 March, in Washington, DC.
https://chemicalwatch.com/75342/us-congress-round-up
-
EPA Is Shirking Its Responsibility to Require Chemical Safety Testing
Mar 21, 2019 | Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
By Bob Sussman
What we don’t know about chemicals CAN hurt us
"We can no longer operate under the assumption that what we do not know about a chemical substance cannot hurt us. Tragic results associated with too many toxic substances have taught us that lesson all too well. Chemicals, not people, must be put to the test."
— Senator James Pearson (KS) co-sponsor of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (March 26, 1976)
The lifeblood of chemical safety evaluation is data. We know that dioxin, PCBs, asbestos, benzene, lead, mercury, formaldehyde, PFOS, and trichloroethylene cause cancer, birth defects and other diseases because scientific studies tell us so.
Test data doesn’t materialize out of thin air. If we don’t do studies, we won’t know whether chemicals can harm people and may erroneously assume that they are safe. We’ve learned this lesson the hard way: time and again, ubiquitous chemicals like asbestos and PCBs have caused widespread damage that might have been prevented if timely testing had been conducted.
The data we have on the hazards of the tens of thousands of chemicals in commerce is woefully inadequate. Research conducted by the federal government and academic institutions can help fill this gap but, on its own, will fall far short of meeting our needs. Most people would agree that safety testing is a basic responsibility of the companies that profit from making and selling chemicals. But the chemical industry has a poor track record on chemical testing and experience has shown that it will not step up unless the government forces it to do so.
The Trump EPA is failing a key test
From its enactment in 1976, a central tenet of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has been that “adequate data should be developed with respect to the effects of chemical substances and mixtures on health and the environment and that the development of such data should be the responsibility of those who manufacture and those who process such chemical substances and mixtures.” In 2016, at the urging of Safer Chemicals Healthy Families and other groups, Congress strengthened TSCA to give EPA increased authority to require the industry to test chemicals. Yet not a single chemical has been subjected to these expanded testing requirements. Even worse, the current EPA leadership seems to believe that it can make chemical safety decisions based on inadequate data and that the absence of data means the absence of risk.
Chemical testing has a central role in TSCA
The 2016 TSCA amendments created a new integrated process for prioritizing and then conducting risk evaluations on chemicals of concern and at the same time broadening TSCA’s testing authority. These two improvements were intended to work hand-in-hand: Congress expected that, by requiring more testing, EPA would obtain the “best available science” for determining the risks of chemicals and in turn would conduct robust, comprehensive risk evaluations.
Demonstrating this linkage, TSCA section 4 was amended to authorize EPA to require testing “for the purposes of prioritizing a chemical substance” and “to perform a risk evaluation.” And to enable testing to be conducted quickly and efficiently, Congress empowered EPA to issue testing orders instead of relying on resource-intensive rulemaking.
Retreating from pre-prioritization
The Obama EPA recognized the interdependence of high-quality safety evaluations and strategic data collection in its January 2017 proposed rules for prioritization and risk evaluations. These proposals sought to establish a “pre-prioritization process” to assess the sufficiency of available data well in advance of listing chemicals as high-priority and to “do a significant amount of upfront data gathering . . . if information gaps are identified.”
But the chemical industry opposed this process and the Trump EPA dropped it from the final rules it published in July 2017. This retreat sent a strong signal that the agency was not serious about using its new testing authority to support its initial risk evaluations.
Pigment violet 29: untested hypotheses, preliminary data, and sweeping extrapolations collide
We are now seeing the unfortunate consequences of this decision. In December 2018, EPA released its first draft risk evaluation, for Pigment Violet 29 (PV29). The draft evaluation concludes that this chemical does not present an unreasonable risk of injury but bases this sweeping conclusion on limited hazard and exposure information that most scientists would consider inadequate to demonstrate the absence of risk. Comments by Safer Chemicals Healthy Families and other groups strongly faulted the draft evaluation for giving PV29 a clean bill of health without a credible scientific basis.
For example, reliable experimental data on PV29 were available for only 5 of the 15 critical health effects that EPA’s Safer Choice program uses to identify non-hazardous chemical products. Moreover, EPA’s determination of “safe” exposure levels was entirely based on a screening study for reproductive and developmental toxicity that EPA guidelines term “insufficient by itself to make an estimate of human risk without further studies to confirm and extend the observations.” Similarly, without any carcinogenicity data, the draft risk evaluation asserted that PV29 is “unlikely to be a carcinogen” – a classification that under EPA guidelines for assessing cancer risk is only justified where “animal evidence (sic) demonstrates lack of carcinogenic effect in both sexes in well-designed and well-conducted studies in at least two appropriate animal species.”
While we can’t say for sure that PV29 has adverse health effects, we certainly don’t have the data to say with confidence that it is not dangerous. EPA has no business assuring the public that PV29 is safe when it simply doesn’t know.
Had EPA used its TSCA section 4 authority when it selected PV29 for a risk evaluation in the fall of 2016, this data vacuum could have been avoided. A testing order could have set in motion several studies on health effects that would now be in hand to inform the ongoing risk evaluation.
Dropping the ball on upcoming chemical risk evaluations
Despite the recommendations of Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, EPA made no effort to conduct an early assessment of data gaps for the other nine chemicals now undergoing risk evaluations. Several of these chemicals lack information on health concerns like endocrine effects and developmental neurotoxicity as well as human exposure and environmental release.
We are about to see these problems magnified as EPA prepares to embark on the next round of risk evaluations. By the end of this year, the law requires EPA to designate 20 chemicals as high-priority and 20 as low-priority. EPA just announced the 40 chemicals for which it plans to make these designations.
Since the high-priority candidates are all on EPA’s 2014 “Workplan” list, it could have begun to identify data gaps on these chemicals and issued testing orders to fill them shortly after the new law took effect. Yet no such efforts have been undertaken. While the 20 high-priority candidates have received some testing, they have not been studied for all health effects and available data is likely insufficient for comprehensive determinations of risk. Unless EPA takes immediate action, it will be too late to fill these gaps.
The candidates for low-priority listing will not undergo further evaluation because EPA must conclude that existing “information is sufficient to establish” the absence of health or environmental risks. These chemicals, too, have not been tested under TSCA. In the likely event that unanswered questions arise about their health or environmental effects, low-priority listing will be unjustified.
Ignoring safety testing needs for new chemicals
Section 5 of TSCA should provide a first line of defense against the hundreds of new chemicals introduced each year by ensuring that they do not enter commerce without a careful evaluation of their potential risks. Recognizing that EPA needed more authority to obtain data on new chemicals, the TSCA amendments directed EPA to require testing where available information “is insufficient to permit a reasoned evaluation of the[ir] health and environmental effects.” But the Trump EPA is not only ignoring this mandate but actually requiring less testing today than under the old law.
Following a recent change in policy, EPA has allowed dozens of new chemicals to enter production without testing, based on scientifically dubious determinations that they are “not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury.” For chemicals with suspected adverse effects, EPA is relying on voluntary exposure controls to demonstrate the absence of risk. However, EPA’s calculations of “safe” exposure levels are uncertain because no data are available on the new chemical itself, the data on analog (similar) chemicals are often incomplete or of limited relevance, and exposures are poorly characterized. Although these uncertainties preclude a “reasoned evaluation” of risk, EPA is turning a blind eye to the need for testing under the law.
A cynic would say that industry and the Trump EPA are resisting testing because they know it will reveal new and unsuspected hazards for chemicals now assumed to be safe. But Congress rejected this mindset when it enacted TSCA in 1976 and again when it strengthened the law in 2016: it wanted EPA to lift the veil of secrecy over the chemical industry because it recognized that we cannot protect the public from dangerous chemicals without timely data. By returning to the pre-TSCA era of toxic ignorance, EPA is rejecting this accepted principle of chemical risk management.
https://saferchemicals.org/2019/03/21/epa-is-shirking-its-responsibility-to-require-chemical-safety-testing/
-
Despite Rulings, Farmers Remain Loyal to Bayer’s Roundup
Mar 21, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Jacob Bunge
Farmers are standing by Bayer AG’s Roundup herbicide despite rulings from two juries that the world’s most widely used weedkiller caused cancer in plaintiffs.
The chemical, used on the vast majority of corn, soybean and cotton acres planted in the U.S., remains prized by farmers for its low cost and effectiveness.
“I don’t have any concerns with safety,” said Danny Murphy, who raises soybeans and corn near Canton, Miss. Mr. Murphy on Wednesday was preparing to apply glyphosate to his soybean fields after a bout of wet weather over the past week delayed his work.
A U.S. District Court jury in San Francisco on Tuesday found that exposure to Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide, caused a man’s cancer. It was the second such ruling since July against Bayer, which markets Roundup and is one of the world’s biggest glyphosate suppliers. The company faces more than 11,000 similar lawsuits filed by U.S. farmers, landscapers and gardeners.
Farmers in the U.S., Canada, Brazil and other countries have boosted their use of glyphosate since the mid-1990s, when seed and pesticide maker Monsanto introduced crops genetically engineered to survive the chemical. Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, said farmers know how to use glyphosate safely.
“They are well-educated on this subject and know that regulators around the world have examined glyphosate’s safety and concluded that it can be used safely,” a spokesman said.
Biotech crops helped make glyphosate the most widely used weedkiller in the world, accounting for around $5 billion in annual global sales, or roughly one-fifth of the entire global pesticide market, according to Sanford C. Bernstein analysts.Crop PatternGlyphosate use has been heaviest in agricultural Midwestern states.
Regulators like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the European Chemicals Agency have deemed it safe to use, including in reassessments in recent years. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2015 classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen, raising concerns over its safety and fueling lawsuits against Bayer.
Using mechanized spraying equipment, U.S. farmers apply nearly 300 million pounds to their fields annually, according to data from the U.S. Geological Survey. In the U.S., more than 90% of corn, soybean and cotton acres are genetically engineered to withstand herbicides, mostly glyphosate.
Farmers say they prefer glyphosate to harsher weedkillers such as paraquat and atrazine. Those chemicals tend to linger in soils and don’t break down as quickly as glyphosate, farmers say. Glyphosate also has been regarded as less toxic to humans.
So far, the jury verdicts haven’t affected glyphosate sales in the U.S. Farm Belt, where skepticism of lawyers and lawsuits often runs high. Some farmers worry that lawsuits could drive glyphosate prices higher if manufacturers like Bayer raise prices to cover litigation costs or that regulators could add new restrictions on how it is sprayed.
Near Waverly, Iowa, Mark Mueller said he considers the herbicide essential to sustainably farming his 1,600 acres. For the past decade, Mr. Mueller said, killing off weeds with Roundup has allowed him to stop tilling his corn and soybean fields each fall, a practice that can raise the risk of erosion washing away valuable topsoil.
Similar reasons have increased glyphosate use among overseas farmers, including Karen Williams, who raises sheep, cattle and crops on 580 acres just north of New Zealand’s capital city of Wellington. Spraying glyphosate and avoiding tilling has helped reduce soil lost to high winds, she said.
“If you take that [herbicide] out of the toolbox we would have to completely redesign our farming system,” said Ms. Williams.
Jay Feldman, executive director of Washington-based advocacy group Beyond Pesticides, said many corn and soybean producers don’t see ready alternatives to glyphosate. A five-year downturn in the U.S. farm economy has left farmers reluctant to deviate from established products, he said, and many remain invested in biotech seeds designed for use with the spray.
“Farmers feel like they’re locked into these practices and don’t have a choice,” Mr. Feldman said. He said the rising focus on glyphosate has helped drive sales in the organic sector, where glyphosate isn’t used.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/despite-rulings-farmers-remain-loyal-to-roundup-11553175429?mod=hp_lead_pos3
-
Roundup Judge Loosens His Grip on Monsanto Ghosts Haunting Bayer
Mar 21, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joel Rosenblatt
To understand the depth of Bayer AG’s reversal of fortune in the trial over its Roundup weed killer, one need look no further than the judge handling the proceeding.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria has maintained a white-knuckle grip on the case, and has kept lawyers suing Bayer on an especially tight leash -- until now.
In rulings before and during the first part of a trial in San Francisco federal court, the judge tossed witnesses and whittled evidence offered up by lawyers representing Ed Hardeman, one of more than 11,200 people in the U.S. suing Bayer over claims exposure to Roundup caused their cancer. When Hardeman’s lead lawyer strayed too far from his rules during her opening presentation, Chhabria sanctioned her and confiscated offending slides she had planned to show the jury.
It was Chhabria who ordered the trial split into two parts, a format that legal experts said gave the company its best chance of winning and evening the score after losing its first Roundup trial last summer. Despite the company’s advantage this time around, Hardeman won the first phase of his trial on Tuesday -- sending Bayer’s shares down more than 10 percent -- after jurors concluded that Roundup was a substantial factor in his illness.
The judge was very clear about the challenge facing Bayer when he rejected earlier this month the company’s request to throw out the case. He wrote that there is “strong evidence” from which a jury could conclude that “Monsanto does not particularly care whether its product is in fact giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue.”
Over Bayer’s objections, Chhabria permitted jurors on Wednesday to see an email unsealed in the case two years ago that Hardeman’s lawyers say is evidence Monsanto ghostwrote influential studies, treating them as scientific propaganda to ensure that glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, wasn’t classified as carcinogenic.
The 2015 email, written by Monsanto toxicologist William Heydens, was shown to the jury as part of a presentation titled “Monsanto’s Pattern of Ghostwriting.”
In the message, Heydens suggests Monsanto “ghost-write” two sections of a study “by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak” -- a reference to the scientists named as authors of the report. “Recall that is how we handled Williams Kroes & Munro, 2000,” Heydens wrote. Williams Kroes & Munro is a widely cited scientific review published in 2000 that found glyphosate doesn’t cause cancer.
Bayer’s lawyer, Brian Stekloff, told jurors “there are two sides to every story.” He urged the panel of five women and one man to focus on whether the company had a duty to issue a cancer warning about Roundup based on the science available during the period Hardeman sprayed the weed killer, from 1986 to 2012.
The 2015 email is an example of “cherry-picked evidence, pieces of evidence, pieces of emails that did not tell you the whole story,” Stekloff said. “This case is about what the science at the time told the world and told Monsanto about Roundup, and whether Monsanto acted responsibly.”
What matters most is what jurors make of the email. But Chhabria’s forceful rejection a day earlier of Stekloff’s attempt to prevent it getting to the jury is a reflection of how much the trial has changed in Hardeman’s favor.
Stekloff told the judge, as he’d later tell jurors, that the acknowledgment section of the Williams 2000 article “specifically lists the role of several Monsanto scientists.”
“Does it say that Monsanto scientists drafted the article, and then the listed authors just edited and signed their names?” Chhabria asked.
“No, it doesn’t. But I’m not so sure that that’s what happened either,” Stekloff replied.
“That’s what this says, right? That’s what this says happened for -- with Williams, Kroes and Munro -- right?” Chhabria asked.
Stekloff didn’t argue. “Understood, your Honor,” he said.
Bayer said in a statement late Wednesday that “Monsanto’s conduct with regard to scientific research and regulatory oversight has been appropriate.”
“This includes the fact that authors of scientific research and reviews have continued to stand by their independent conclusions, and expert independent regulators around the world, who have evaluated hundreds of studies, have continued to conclude that our glyphosate-based herbicides can be used safely and that glyphosate is not carcinogenic,” spokesman Chris Loder said in an email.
Then there’s what Chhabria described as evidence of Monsanto’s “ cozy relationship” with an official at the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. regulator for pesticides. According to court filings, the official, Jess Rowland, bragged to Monsanto’s Heydens in a phone conversation that he deserved a medal if he could kill another agency’s investigation of glyphosate.
Hardeman wants to use internal communications about Rowland to refute Monsanto’s arguments that it relied on the EPA’s conclusions that Roundup is safe.
The information about Rowland “is evidence that Monsanto thought that it had a guy in the EPA,” Chhabria told Stekloff. “Why isn’t the Rowland evidence -- the Rowland stuff, you know, potential evidence that Monsanto had, you know, partially captured the EPA?”
The judge hasn’t ruled on the evidence yet.
The case is In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2741, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/roundup-judge-loosens-his-grip-on-monsanto-ghosts-haunting-bayer
-
Anchorage, Alaska Unanimously Approves Flame Retardant Ban
Mar 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The city of Anchorage, Alaska has unanimously approved an ordinance banning flame retardants in certain consumer products.
The 19 March vote of the municipality’s Assembly means that from 1 January 2020 there will be a ban on manufacturing, selling or distributing any of the following products that contain, or have a constituent component containing, a prohibited flame retardant chemical at levels above 1,000 parts per million: upholstered or reupholstered furniture; and juvenile products.
Prohibited flame retardant chemicals in the state’s largest city will include: halogenated, organophosphorus, organonitrogen, or nanoscale flame retardant chemicals; penta or octa mixtures of polybrominated diphenyl ethers, the deca mixture of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), or decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE); antimony; substances listed as 'designated chemicals' under the Biomonitoring California programme; and chemicals listed on Washington state's list of Chemicals of High Concern to Children (CHCC).
Retailers may continue to sell stock acquired before 1 January 2020. Waivers may be granted if the applicant can show that strict compliance with the prohibition will cause "undue hardship, practical difficulty ... or is not feasible."
Secondhand products are not included in the ban. Child restraint systems, children's toys and clothing, electronic products, electronic components of covered products and any associated casing for those are also excluded.
Pamela Miller, executive director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT) welcomed the vote. "This ordinance moves our city one step closer to eliminating the unnecessary use of harmful flame retardants in all household products," she said.
The ordinance AO 2019-15 (S) began its passage through the Assembly earlier this year. And at a state-wide level, Alaska is also considering a bill to regulate flame retardants.
California, Maine and Rhode Island already prohibit certain FRs in a variety of products, as does the city of San Francisco.
According to analysis by NGO Safer States, Alaska is among at least 15 other states considering bans on the substances during this legislative year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/75231/anchorage-alaska-unanimously-approves-flame-retardant-ban
-
Army Bill for Public Records on Contaminant: About $300,000
Mar 21, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Ellen Knickmeyer
The Army has put a price tag on releasing the results of water tests for a dangerous contaminant at military installations: nearly $300,000.
In a March 12 letter, the Army told the Environmental Working Group that the military would charge the advocacy group $290,400 to provide records of water tests at 154 installations for a family of compounds known as PFAS, which federal authorities say appear linked to certain cancers and other health and developmental problems.
Formally called perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS are found in firefighting foam used at military bases and are in a wide range of nonstick and stain-resistant consumer products. First made after World War II, the tough compounds have been dubbed "forever chemicals" because they are expected to take hundreds or thousands of years to break up.
A deputy assistant Defense secretary, Maureen Sullivan, told a House panel this month that the Defense Department has identified 401 military sites where it believes PFAS were used and has found 24 U.S. military drinking water systems around the world with PFAS levels above the current U.S. advisory level.
Environmental attorneys asked for the water test records under the Freedom of Information Act.
"We are really trying to get the full scope of the problem, and it seems like the Pentagon has that data," said Melanie Benesh, one of the attorneys who made the request.
The results also would be of interest to ordinary people and communities that are worried about water contamination but may not have lawyers able to wrangle with the Pentagon "and certainly don't have the money to pay for this kind of information," Benesh said.
The Army declined to comment. In the Army's letter, attorney Paul DeAgostino said the environmental group's request was too broad and asked the group to narrow it. Complying with the request would take an estimated 6,400 work hours, he wrote.
The environmental group said it submitted an appeal yesterday.
Federal agencies typically waive fees for processing open-records requests for journalists, nonprofit advocacy or education groups or others seeking release of public records for the purposes of public education.
Three Navy and Marine offices that the group also asked for the results of the water tests waived the processing fees, Benesh said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/21/stories/1060127855
-
On Cosmetics Safety, U.S. Trails More Than 40 Nations
Mar 21, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
By Alyssa Katzenelson and Scott Faber
U.S. regulation of chemicals and contaminants in cosmetics is falling behind the rest of the world, according to an EWG analysis.
More than 40 nations – ranging from major industrialized economies like the United Kingdom and Germany to developing states like Cambodia and Vietnam – have enacted regulations specifically targeting the safety and ingredients of cosmetics and personal care products. Some of these nations have restricted or completely banned more than 1,400 chemicals from cosmetic products. By contrast, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has banned or restricted only nine chemicals for safety reasons.
Among the toxic chemicals that have been banned or restricted around the globe are:Formaldehyde. Regulators in some nations subject formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, and chemicals that release formaldehyde, to tight restrictions. But similar restrictions are not placed on formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers used in cosmetics and other personal care products sold in the U.S.Parabens. Parabens are regulated in Japan, the EU and the Southeast Asian nations, where officials have set maximum concentration standards. In the EU and Southeast Asian nations, some parabens that EWG found in U.S. products (isobutyl and isopropyl parabens) are not permitted in any cosmetic product.PFOA. Beginning in July 2020, the use of PFOA – one of the thousands of fluorinated compounds known as PFAS – will be restricted in cosmetics and other personal care products sold in the EU. But there are no such restrictions on this carcinogen in the U.S. EWG found 13 PFAS compounds in nearly 200 cosmetics and other personal care products.Triclosan. The FDA has banned the use of triclosan, which disrupts the hormone system, in antiseptic wash products like liquid hand soaps, but not in other consumer products. By contrast, more than 40 other nations restrict the amount of triclosan in consumer products.Toluene. This chemical, linked to reproductive and neurological harm, is restricted in nail products in Europe and Southeast Asian nations, but can be used at any level in cosmetics sold in the U.S.
Many of these toxic chemicals and contaminants are also being phased out of the store-brand products offered by U.S. retailers even though they are still legal in this country. CVS Health, Target, Rite Aid and Walgreens have publicly committed to restricting or banning many of these chemicals from their own cosmetic brands in coming years.
How America Can Catch Up to the World
Federal cosmetics law was put in place in 1938, and has not kept up with the changes to the industry, even though some retailers and other countries have. There are efforts in the current Congress to modernize the lax regulation and keep pace with the international community. Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) have introduced legislation to give the FDA more power to review and, if needed, regulate or even ban chemicals of concern.
But states are not waiting for Congress to act. Two California state legislators have introduced legislation to ban 20 of the worst chemicals and contaminants in cosmetics. A Connecticut state senator has introduced legislation to subject U.S. cosmetics to the same standards as those adopted by the EU.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/03/cosmetics-safety-us-trails-more-40-nations
-
Top Senate Democrats Press EPA, DoD on PFAs Groundwater Guidelines
Mar 21, 2019 | Inside EPA
Eighteen Senate Democrats -- many of whom are ranking members on key committees -- are questioning the Defense Department's (DOD) reported push within the Trump administration to persuade EPA to weaken proposed groundwater cleanup levels for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
In a March 20 letter led by New Hampshire's senators, the lawmakers press Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan and EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler for “any communications” between their agencies as well as with the White House “regarding the establishment of standards for PFAS chemicals and groundwater pollution related to these chemicals.”
The letter marks the latest congressional correspondence over concerns that EPA's groundwater guidelines have been stalled in interagency review since last August as DOD and other agencies have sought to weaken them.
A group of House and Senate Democrats first launched an investigation into the issue earlier this month.
In addition, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the top Democrat on the Senate environment committee, last week reported that DOD and other agencies were pressing to significantly weaken EPA's proposed groundwater cleanup guidelines.
He said that while EPA had recommended that cleanup be triggered if groundwater contamination from two PFAS reaches 70 parts per trillion (ppt), combined, DOD and other agencies have pressed for remedial action for the two chemicals only if concentration levels exceeded 400 ppt.
He urged Wheeler to “resist” efforts by DOD and other federal agencies to “weaken the clean-up standard and quickly finalize guidelines that are sufficiently protective of human health and the environment.”
In the new letter, the senators, many of whom also represent states facing PFAS contamination, reference a March 14 New York Times report on the issue, writing that if this report is correct, “DOD's actions may endanger the health of servicemembers and families who live and work near the 401 military installations where there are known or suspected releases of PFAS chemicals in the drinking water or groundwater."
“We urge you to act in the best interests of impacted communities and support efforts to develop groundwater and drinking water standards that will protect the public from the health hazards associated with PFAS contamination.” Concerns over PFAS contamination have grown around the country as the chemicals have been found contaminating drinking water sources; the chemicals have been linked to adverse health effects.
The letter was signed by a host of ranking Democrats on key committees, including Sens. Jack Reed (RI), ranking on the Armed Services Committee; Bernie Sanders (VT), ranking on the Budget Committee; Patrick Leahy (VT), ranking Appropriations Committee member; Maria Cantwell (WA), ranking on the commerce committee; Joe Manchin III (WV), ranking on the energy committee; Debbie Stabenow (MI), ranking on the agriculture committee; Patty Murray (WA), ranking on the health committee; and Sherrod Brown (OH), ranking on banking committee.
In addition to asking for communications among agencies, the senators also ask DOD and EPA to “provide a joint briefing to our offices and interested members on interagency efforts on this issue, as well as regular updates on the progress of those efforts."
During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing March 14, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), who led the effort on the letter, pressed Shanahan to confirm or deny whether, as the Times had reported, DOD had urged a weaker standard.
“I can't speak to that specific,” Shanahan replied, adding, “I will very quickly get an answer back to you."
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/top-senate-democrats-press-epa-dod-pfas-groundwater-guidelines
-
Unea4 Adopts Resolutions to Push Forward Sound Management of Chemicals
Mar 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Last week's fourth UN Environment Assembly adopted a number of resolutions aimed at speeding up the sound management of chemicals globally.
Unea4, which took place in Nairobi, adopted 30 resolutions in all, tackling a wide range of issues.
Resolutions relevant to chemicals include a call to governments, international organisations, industry, civil society and the scientific communities, to: improve the information on chemicals in products in consumer goods as well as throughout the supply chain; establish programmes that provide consumers and the general public with information on the risks from chemicals; strengthen the science-policy interface; and pursue an improved framework for the sound management of chemicals and waste after 2020.
Another resolution included actions on sharing ideas and information to achieve safer and less-toxic material flows in order to protect human health and the environment.
More action needed
Launched at the meeting, a summary of the UN’s second Global Chemicals Outlook (GCOII) sets out potential issues associated with expected growth in chemical production and consumption, as well as solutions to address them.
It also says the global goal to minimise adverse impacts of chemicals and waste will not be achieved by 2020, an objective under the UN’s voluntary programme the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm).
The Saicm Open Ended Working Group will meet on 2-4 April to discuss whether Saicm should continue or be replaced with an alternative framework.
Meetings took place at Unea4 to discuss how to press forward, including a meeting of government ministers and representatives from key international bodies. The group, called the High Ambition Alliance, set out a vision for a global chemicals framework after 2020.
In an exclusive interview with Chemical Watch, Sweden’s deputy prime minister, Isabella Lövin, who leads the alliance with Uruguay’s environment minister, said the government will push the international community to agree strong measures to tackle the adverse impacts of chemicals and plastics.
In order to progress, a resolution on the sound management of chemicals and waste calls on UN Environment executive director, Inger Andersen, to carry out a number of tasks, including: use UN Environment’s analysis of best practices in green and sustainable chemistry to develop manuals; prepare a report by 30 April 2020 on relevant issues, where emerging evidence indicates a risk to human health and the environment identified by Saicm and the GCOII; prepare by 30 April 2020 an assessment of options for strengthening the science-policy interface at the international level for the sound management of chemicals and waste.
A budget to carry out the activities agreed under the Unea4 resolutions was approved, which includes a total of $23.4m allocated to chemicals, waste and air quality.
Key figures from the international community will discuss how Saicm and global discussions on chemicals are taking shape at Chemical Watch's Global Business Summit next week in Brussels.
https://chemicalwatch.com/75338/unea4-adopts-resolutions-to-push-forward-sound-management-of-chemicals
-
Mar 21, 2019 | Chemical Watch
Reminder for UK withdrawal preparations
Echa has issued a further reminder to companies about preparations for the UK's withdrawal from the EU without a transition period.
The advice and practical instructions it has already published remain valid in the current situation; for example on transferring REACH registrations from a UK-based registrant to one based in an EU27 member state.
But the agency points out that while UK companies can initiate a REACH asset transfer in its IT tools at any time before the withdrawal date, the successor company in the EU27 should only accept it after this.
Echa has produced a step-by-step guide on how to transfer UK registrations prior to withdrawal.
Restriction proposals consultations on microplastics, formaldehyde and D4, D5 and D6
Echa has submitted proposals to restrict:
-microplastics. Scope: restricting the use of intentionally added microplastic particles in consumer or professional use products of any kind;
-formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers. Scope: restricting release from consumer articles; and
-octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4); decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5); dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane (D6). Scope: leave-on personal care products and other consumer/professional products (e.g. dry cleaning, waxes and polishes, washing and cleaning products) containing D4/D5/D6 in concentrations exceeding 0.1% shall not be placed on the market. This includes wash-off and rinse-off cosmetic products containing D6 in concentrations > 0.1%.
While the deadline for comments is 20 September, the agency is encouraging early comments by 20 May to help with first discussions on the proposals.
Conformity agreed
The consultations follow a recent agreement from the agency's Committees for Risk Assessment and Socio-economic Analysis' (Rac and Seac) that the proposals are all in conformity with the requirements of Annex XV of REACH.
All restriction proposals are checked for this prior to the committees starting their evaluation and developing opinions.
Four new CLH consultations started
Echa has started four new public consultations into the classification, labelling and harmonisation of substances.
These are: corrosive substance beta-cyfluthrin; corrosive substance cyfluthrin; reproductively toxic and aquatically hazardous substance imazamox; and explosive and flammable substance pyridalyl.
The consultations will run until 17 May. Comments can be submitted via the agency's website.
New substance evaluation conclusion published
The agency has published a new conclusion document for this substance: phenol, paraalkylation products with C10-15 branched olefins (C12 rich) derived from propene oligomerization, carbonates, calcium salts, overbased, sulfurized including distillates (petroleum), hydrotreated, solvent-refined, solvent dewaxed, or catalytic dewaxed, light or heavy paraffinic C15-C50.
The substance was added to the Community Rolling Actin Plan (Corap) list in 2013 and evaluated by the Netherlands. It concluded that further evaluation of risk management measures under REACH is appropriate.
Board of Appeal recruitment
Echa has provided information for candidates interested in applying for the forthcoming vacancies for technically qualified alternate/additional members in the agency's Board of Appeal.
The body is responsible for deciding on appeals against certain individual decisions of the agency.
Candidates must be EU or European Economic Area nationals and able to serve a minimum five-year term.
Among selection criteria, they must also have:a minimum of 12 years' professional experience in scientific or technical fields relevant to REACH; and a thorough knowledge of one of the EU's official languages.The closing date for applications is 26 April. Mercedes Ortuño, who led the BoA and its work for ten years, will leave her post in April. She spoke to Chemical Watch about her work and legacy in February.
https://chemicalwatch.com/75253/echa-round-up
-
(ACC Mentioned) A Fracking-Driven Industrial Boom Renews Pollution Concerns in Pittsburgh
Mar 21, 2019 | Yale Environment 360
By Nick Cunningham
Pittsburgh is a city on the upswing, rebounding this century from its rustbelt past by developing more innovative sectors such as health care, education, and technology. Uber is testing its self-driving cars in Pittsburgh. Carnegie Mellon University is home to a world-renowned Robotics Institute. And the city made an aggressive bid for Amazon’s HQ2, which the mayor viewed as key to moving the Steel City beyond its roots in heavy industry.
Progress toward a cleaner, post-industrial future is not linear, however. Although the air in Pittsburgh has dramatically improved from the days when it was one of America’s most polluted cities, it still contains high levels of hazardous pollutants, in large part because of several major steel foundries and coke works still in operation, according to the Clean Air Council. The rise of hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas, now more than a decade old, has exacerbated regional air quality problems. Allegheny County, where Pittsburgh is located, is out of compliance with federal air quality standards on fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) and sulfur dioxide. In 2018, the region barely met the federal ozone standard after falling short in years past.
Now, Pittsburgh and the surrounding area are embracing a new wave of industry tied to the fracking boom in western Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio. Nothing better embodies this surge than a massive, $6 billion ethane cracker currently being built 30 miles northwest of Pittsburgh by Shell Chemical Appalachia, a subsidiary of the oil giant Royal Dutch Shell. The facility will process huge quantities of natural gas and natural gas liquids from the prolific Marcellus and Utica shales and turn them into the building blocks of plastic. The plastic pellets produced by “cracking” ethane molecules will then be sold to manufacturers producing consumer and industrial products such as plastic bags, packaging, automotive parts, and furniture.
When it comes online in 2021, Shell’s ethane cracker will also add significantly to air pollution in western Pennsylvania, becoming the region’s largest sourceof volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are harmful gases emitted by solids or liquids, including combusted fossil fuels. The facility will also emit substantial amounts of nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), fine particulate matter, and other hazardous air pollutants, the Clean Air Council says. All of these have been linked to an increased risk of respiratory problems such as asthma, as well as to cardiovascular effects and a heightened risk of cancer.
Environmental groups, along with some local residents, have fought the ethane cracker. But local and state political leaders are almost uniformly supportive of the project, regardless of party affiliation. So are labor leaders and many local citizens, seeing the arrival of Shell’s facility as a pivotal moment in the creation of a new, large-scale industrial sector that could rival the region’s glory days of steel production.
“Employment in western Pennsylvania has never been better,” says Ken Broadbent, business manager at Steamfitters Local 449, noting that construction at Shell’s ethane cracker will eventually provide jobs for 1,500 steamfitters, some of whom will make more than $100,000 a year. “I’ve never seen this many jobs for construction workers in western Pennsylvania, and I’ve been a steamfitter for 45 years. Natural gas is going to be bigger than the steel industry back 30 or 40 years ago. There’s 50 years to 100 years of natural gas in this tri-state region. This thing is not going away.”
Asked if he is concerned about air pollution from the plant, Broadbent acknowledged the threat, but said the economic opportunities are too important. “It concerns everybody — we fish, we hunt, our kids breathe the air like everybody else,” he said. “But we’ve also got to realize that people have got to work for a living, too. If you’re not working, it won’t matter how much pollution you have.”
Construction of the Shell facility is expected to reach its peak this year, with up to 6,000 total workers on site. When operational, the plant will employ 600 people on a permanent basis.
Pennsylvania’s Governor Tom Wolf, a Democrat, has hailed Shell’s ethane cracker as the “biggest private-sector investment in Pennsylvania since World War II” and touted the prospect of a transformation of western Pennsylvania as a fracking-driven energy “hub,” with the cracker just the first in a series of petrochemical projects. Executives and industry analysts refer to Shell’s ethane cracker as an “anchor” project around which new infrastructure would be built — the associated pipelines, compressor stations, gas processing facilities, and a new ethane storage facility.
But this reindustrialization of western Pennsylvania, and the resulting increase in air and water pollution, is of growing concern to some in the region. They note that in recent years the Pittsburgh area has benefitted from a job-creating shift to cleaner economic sectors, driven by major local institutions like the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.
“This region for [the last] 30 years started making some really smart decisions — investing in education and health care, letting universities lead the way, letting innovation be the driver, having a much more diversified economy and, especially, climbing up the value chain and getting away from those basic commodities that leave a toxic legacy,” says Matt Mehalik, executive director of the Breathe Project, a local nonprofit working to reduce air pollution.
Others see the arrival of the ethane cracker as further evidence of the fracking industry’s increasing dominance of western Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio. Although the fracking boom has undeniably created jobs and pumped money into the region, scientists and environmentalists say it is bringing with it polluted wastewater, dirty air, roads crowded with gas industry trucks, and rural areas dotted with noisy and unsightly drilling platforms.
Ted Auch of the FracTracker Alliance, a non-profit that keeps tabs on the health effects of the shale gas industry, notes that it has gone through several phases over the past decade. At the start of each phase, he says, the industry pushed for new investments that justified the next level of intensification. First, the industry needed more pipelines in order to move excess gas out of the region. Then it needed more wells to dispose of fracking wastewater, says Auch. Then the ability to export gas abroad. A year ago, exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) began from a newly constructed terminal on the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, moving Marcellus shale gas across the world to Japan.
Auch says he fears that Shell’s ethane cracker, plus others in the works, may unleash yet another wave of drilling. “So now we’re on like our third or fourth version of reasoning for why [the industry] needs X, Y, and Z,” says Auch.
Auch and others say that at a time when scientists are issuing increasingly stark warnings about the worsening impacts of global warming and the need to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the fracking boom in northern Appalachia, coupled with the construction of related infrastructure and facilities, is moving the region and the U.S. in precisely the wrong direction. They note that in 2017 the city of Pittsburgh unveiled an ambitious plan to slash greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030 (using a 2003 baseline), which would equate to a reduction of 2.1 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Shell’s ethane cracker, which needs to burn natural gas to create the high temperatures needed to “crack” ethane, is expected to emit 2.2 million tons of greenhouse gases annually. In other words, all of Pittsburgh’s work on combatting climate change through 2030 would be negated by a single plant.
The plant’s critics also maintain that Shell’s ethane cracker represents a significant setback in the region’s long battle to clean up its air. Pittsburgh is ranked in the top 10 nationwide for most polluted cities in terms of year-round particulate matter. Allegheny County, where Pittsburgh is located, is ranked in the top 2 percent nationally in terms of cancer risk from hazardous air pollutants, according to a 2013 study by the Center for Healthy Environments and Communities at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health.
Shell refutes the notion that its Pittsburgh-area ethane cracker will adversely affect the health of nearby communities. “Shell takes the health of the community and our staff very seriously,” says Joe Minnitte, a company spokesman. He notes that the potential health effects from hazardous air pollutants were evaluated when Shell applied for, and received, its air permits from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP). Indeed, the DEP concluded that the air and health impacts would not exceed federal standards.
“Inhalation risk assessments performed by Shell and PA DEP during that period concluded that chronic cancer and non-cancer risks as well as acute non-cancer risks do not exceed PA DEP’s benchmarks,” Minnitte says. Shell agreed to implement air quality monitoring around its facility.
Moreover, Shell purchased pollution credits to offset its emissions. Industrial emitters frequently buy such credits, particularly in areas that don’t meet federal air quality standards. In Shell’s case, however, this has been controversial, because while the company secured enough credits for its nitrogen oxide pollution, it could not find enough credits for its VOC emissions. So it lobbied the Pennsylvania DEP to convert surplus nitrogen oxide credits into VOC credits. While this may help reduce pollution in a neighboring county from a shuttered facility, pollution will increase in the vicinity of the cracker plant when it comes online, opponents warn.
Another ethane cracker about 75 miles downriver in Ohio — backed by PTT Global Chemical, a Thailand-based petrochemical giant, and its Korean partner, Daelim Industrial Co. — has cleared the regulatory process and expects a final investment decision soon. A third ethane cracker has been proposed nearby in West Virginia. A 2017 report from IHS Markit, an industry consulting firm, found that northern Appalachia – the tri-state area of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia – could support four additional crackers after Shell’s project comes online.
According to the Breathe Project, the Shell facility, plus the PTT Global Chemical and the West Virginia plant, could result in additional health care costs of $20 million to $46 million annually just for Beaver County, where Shell’s facility is under construction. Those estimates include treatment for increased respiratory ailments, lung cancer, asthma, and cardiovascular disease, as well as for loss of work. Neighboring Allegheny County, where Pittsburgh is located, could see $14 million to $32 million in additional health care costs annually due to the toll exacted on public health from the three plants, the Breathe Project estimated, based on modeling used by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Those numbers only accounted for fine particulate matter, not the array of other pollutants expected from the plant. In addition, the region already is impacted by the pollution, including methane leaks, from thousands of shale gas wells, compressor stations, and storage facilities.
Shell’s ethane cracker alone would require 1,000 fully producing shale gas wells to feed it on an ongoing basis, according to John Stolz, director of the Center for Environmental Research and Education at Duquesne University. But he notes that shale gas wells are known to have steep declines in their production rates, meaning that many more wells will need to be drilled to keep the cracker plant running for decades to come.
Some citizens in the region already are alarmed by the health and environmental impacts of the fracking boom. Allen Young is a correctional officer who lives roughly a mile or two from a shale gas well in Powhatan Point, Ohio that exploded and leaked gas for several weeks in February 2018 before it was contained by its owner, XTO Energy, a subsidiary of ExxonMobil. In the days following the explosion and gas leak, Young, his wife, and their two children started having nosebleeds, headaches, and respiratory problems, which he attributes to the leak.
When asked about the possibility of several ethane crackers coming into the region, including the proposed PTT Global Chemical cracker that would be built just a few miles from his house, Young replies, “I’ve seen firsthand there’s no regulation with these people. They do what the hell they want, when they want, how they want to do it. Money talks … This is kind of like the little Cancer Alley of the Ohio Valley.”
Young was referring to Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley,” a stretch of petrochemical and chemical facilities along the Mississippi River between New Orleans and Baton Rouge that has been emitting toxic pollution into nearby communities for decades. Late last year, the U.S. Department of Energy laid out the case for locating a network of petrochemical plants in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, citing the national security concerns of having too many storage and petrochemical facilities concentrated near the Gulf of Mexico coast due to its vulnerability to natural disasters — a danger that will only grow as the climate continues to change.
The ethane crackers under construction or planned in the Ohio River Valley are illustrative of a broader wave of investment flowing into petrochemicals. According to the American Chemistry Council, from 2010 to late last year, more than $200 billion in investment poured into 333 chemical and petrochemical projects in the U.S., much of it “geared toward export markets for chemistry and plastics products.”
Although the growth in consumption of natural gas and oil is expected to slow worldwide in the decades ahead, in part because of the wider adoption of electric vehicles, no end is in sight for the consumption of plastic. “Petrochemicals are rapidly becoming the largest driver of global oil consumption,” the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in a 2018 report. By mid-century, according to the IEA forecast, petrochemicals will account for half of the total growth in oil demand – more than trucks, aviation, or shipping.
It’s increasingly common for consumer plastic to make a mind-boggling journey that begins with drilling for oil and gas in Texas, separating out the various natural gas liquids from one another, cracking the ethane to produce polyethylene along the Gulf of Mexico coast, and shipping the plastic pellets to Asia to be processed into plastic wrap or packaging, which is then shipped back to grocery stores in the U.S. Ultimately, when that plastic reaches the consumer, it is often used once and discarded in a matter of minutes or seconds. The climate impact is profound. Carbon dioxide emissions from the petrochemical sector are expected to rise by 20 percent through 2030, according to the IEA.
In the Ohio Valley, the lure of major sources of new employment in a region that has seen an exodus of industries is hard to pass up, says Mehalik of the Breathe Project. But he adds that these communities shouldn’t have to bear the burdens of pollution that might also preclude other forms of cleaner economic development. Pittsburgh’s recent comeback has had little to do with heavy industry, Mehalik says, and the emergence of a major petrochemical industry puts a lot of that progress in jeopardy.
“So now, all of a sudden, it’s like, ‘Here we go again,’” says Mehalik. “It’s like we’re going back on a bender, doing things that we know are bad for us. And yet it’s happening. That, to me, is the ultimate outrage. It’s just an insane economic development strategy.”
https://e360.yale.edu/features/a-fracking-driven-industrial-boom-renews-pollution-concerns-in-pittsburgh
-
Houston’s Shipping Bottleneck Could Curb Expansion of Major US Oil and Petchems Hub
Mar 21, 2019 | S&P Global Platts
By Kristen Hays
An impasse has emerged between key operators on the Houston Ship Channel, a critical lifeline for growing US energy exports, as thriving activity in both tanker and container shipping has exacerbated competition for space.
Before August 2018, fog shutdowns were the main hindrance to ship traffic in and out of Houston, the second-largest petrochemical port in the world. However, that month the first container ship to exceed 1,100 feet in length traversed the 23-mile stretch between the entrance to the channel and one of the port’s two container terminals, facing no oncoming traffic, while outbound tankers were forced to sit and wait until it docked.
It was the first of 10 such ships with length and width too large to safely allow two-way traffic. All ships normally flow freely toward each other in the channel and veer around one another in a carefully orchestrated move dubbed the “Texas Chicken” to maintain consistent two-way traffic.
According to the Houston Pilots, who oversee ship traffic safety in the channel, the bigger container ships cannot safely veer around tankers because they essentially become 54% wider when at an angle. All other oncoming traffic – whether waiting to get in or leave the channel – must stand down for up to 10 hours or more until the container ship passes.
For companies that load and unload crude, refined products and liquid chemicals – as well as those who produce natural gas liquids – such traffic interruptions resulting from container ship arrivals are unacceptable. They say it could jeopardize export growth and chill investment throughout the entire 52-mile-long channel to Galveston that is home to nearly 300 facilities, including refineries, chemical plants, storage tanks and support infrastructure like pipelines, rail, import/export terminals and trucks.
“Reliable exports are absolutely critical to the energy value chain – and maintaining two-way traffic is essential to that reliability,” Enterprise Products Partners CEO Jim Teague told a Texas Senate committee in early March.
Port officials concede the importance of two-way traffic and insist that larger container ships will not cause frequent interruptions because they expect only about 19 to arrive in 2019. However, that estimate could change. The port authority has also rejected proposals from liquids operators for a moratorium on larger container ships until all sides have more time to study the issue, and a limit of one per week because two could possibly show up at the same time.
“We have container folks saying if we put a restriction on it, they’ll stop sending larger ships to Houston. That’s great for energy, but not necessarily for containers,”. Ric Campo, the newly appointed chairman of the Port of Houston Commission, told the same Texas Senate committee on March 6.
Both sides agree the ultimate solution is widening the of the 530-foot-wide channel to at least 750-800 feet to accommodate two-way traffic that includes larger container ships. However, such a project would likely cost billions of dollars and require Congress to provide federal funds – which can take years, if not decades.
The US Army Corps of Engineers is in the fourth and last year of a $10 million study examining whether it would be feasible to deepen and widen the channel, but it could be just an incremental step in a years-long process while two-way traffic interruptions continue.
Even if channel operators try to pool resources to widen the channel without federal funds, the Army Corps must first deem it a valid project, and it could take up to five years. Steve Kean, CEO of Kinder Morgan, said liquids operators need a solution now.
“It’s a little bit like there’s a fire in the house,” Kean said. “We don’t want to let the entire house burn down before we do something about it.”
So both sides are at impasse without a short-term solution that satisfies all, and the liquids operators have turned to the Texas Legislature to intervene. Multiple bills are pending that could limit or block arrivals of larger container ships, as well as address what the coalition sees as a conflict of interest with the port authority’s dual role as owner of the container terminals – benefiting from their cash flow – and regulator of the entire channel.
Enterprise and Kinder Morgan, both major ship channel operators, with millions of barrels of liquids storage, export capabilities, pipelines and production facilities, are among 13 companies that banded together to form the Coalition for a Fair and Open Port, which wants certainty of consistent two-way traffic to ensure that all Houston Ship Channel exports can grow in tandem with onshore production growth.
Campo agreed that uncertainty “kills business,” but said new laws could lead to unintended consequences from restrictions in the future, and port officials fear a moratorium could prompt bigger container ships to bypass Houston permanently.
Growth all around
Houston is the top US crude oil exporter, shipping out about 2.5 million b/d. The Energy Information Administration expects US crude production to average 12.3 million b/d in 2019 and 13 million b/d in 2020. Most of that growth will be in the vast Permian Basin in West Texas and Southeast New Mexico, where projected output of 3.9 million b/d in 2019 could double by 2025. The EIA also expects the US will be a net crude and petroleum product exporter by late 2020.
“All that stuff needs to get from where it is to a place where it can get on a vessel,” Kean told the Texas Senate committee. “If the Permian doubles, we need the Houston Ship Channel to be able to take on more. There’s a conflict of interest when you have a port that is regulating us, but also is in business and competing for the scarce resources of access to the Houston Ship Channel.”
The port also is the top US polyethylene resin exporter, alongside startups of more than 13.67 million mt in PE capacity from 2017-2027, more than 76% of which is or will be in Texas and Louisiana. Of the total, 23% is in operation – most of that at or near the ship channel.
Both sides in the Houston Ship Channel dispute also have strong competition from other ports to handle growing crude and resin output.
The Port of Corpus Christi has spent years marketing itself as an alternative to Houston for energy exports, highlighting its proximity to the Eagle Ford shale in South Texas as well as the Permian Basin. While the port exports less than 1 million b/d currently, Carlyle Group is investing $400 million in a project awaiting regulatory approval to deepen the Corpus Christi Ship Channel to accommodate Very Large Crude Carriers that can hold up to 2 million barrels of oil.
Industry sources note that, unlike Houston, Corpus Christi offers primarily exports and few other options for crude. Houston offers exports, more storage and refineries, as well as pipelines that can move oil further east to plants in Beaumont and Port Arthur, Texas, and to Louisiana. Channel operators want to boost their export market share on the back of crude production growth, and they say they need consistent two-way traffic to do it.
Container competition too
On the container side, ports in Charleston, South Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; New Orleans and Los Angeles are enticing PE producers and traders to send some plastic pellets their way for export. Of 4.3 million mt PE exports in 2018, 2.67 million mt were waterborne, with most shipped out of Houston and those ports. Of volumes exported by these five, Houston’s share fell to 74% in 2018 from 87% in 2017 while flows from the other four showed gains, according to US International Trade Commission data.
Houston exported 308,270 containers packed with resins and plastics in 2018 – nearly 30% of all containers and up 20.7% from 2017 – mostly on ships that did not disrupt two-way traffic, according to port data.
And pressure has been on for Houston’s container terminals to compete. The port answered concerns about a lack of consistent empty container availability by soliciting more imports, bringing loaded import containers to parity with loaded exports. The competitors, particularly Los Angeles and ports on the East Coast, are primarily import centers and can accommodate even larger container ships, which are growing in size amid ocean carrier consolidation.
“We know ultimately that we are going have more of those ships and we know ultimately we’re going to have more petrochemical exports and those exports are going to require bigger and more ships as well,” Campo said.
Growth at stake
However, the coalition contends that the vast majority of ship channel business involves liquids and natural gas, and those interests cannot be jeopardized by two-way traffic disruptions. In 2018, 71% of 18,790 ships that traversed the channel involved energy – 55% tankers, 10.5% natural gas and 5.6% barges. Of the rest, 11.1% were container ships, according to Houston Pilots data.
The US’ recent shale boom sharply accelerated the channel’s importance to the emergence of the US as a global energy supplier. In 2011, the US started moving out more refined products than it consumed. The lifting of a decades-old domestic crude export ban in 2015 allowed US oil to flow freely into global markets. And seemingly boundless cheap feedstock ethane reversed the once-downtrodden US chemical industry’s fortunes, spurring tens of billions of dollars in new infrastructure to turn that overabundant feedstock into export-bound resins and other petrochemicals.
But bottlenecks caused by larger container ships could send more outflows to competitors. “It’s the biggest sponge,” Enterprise’s Teague said. “You have water access through one of the most important waterways in the world – unless we screw it up.”
https://blogs.platts.com/2019/03/21/houston-shipping-bottleneck-oil-petchems/
-
Federal Oil, Natural Gas Leasing in Jeopardy After Wyoming Ruling
Mar 21, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Wyoming's resurgent oil and natural gas production may be in jeopardy after a federal judge on Tuesday ruled against the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for not adequately considering the effects of climate change in authorizing lease sales in the West.
Subscription needed for full text of story.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/117786-federal-oil-natural-gas-leasing-in-jeopardy-after-wyoming-ruling
-
We Need North American Energy Trade
Mar 20, 2019 | Real Clear Energy
By Robert L. Bradley, Jr.
At a press conference last month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed cautious optimism about the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which is set to replace the quarter-century-old North American Free Trade Agreement.
"I have always thought that this was probably one of the easier trade agreements to come to agreement on, but so far we're not there yet," she said.
For the sake of the American energy industry, lawmakers should get "there" soon. By ratifying USMCA, the United States will spur economic growth and bolster our booming domestic energy sector for years to come. It's time for Congress to put partisan hangups aside and pass the deal as quickly as possible.
USMCA retains key provisions from NAFTA that have helped sustain North American energy trade. The new agreement will keep oil and gas products like gasoline tariff-free. It will also reduce tariffs on thinning materials that help crude oil pass through U.S.-Canadian pipelines.
USMCA maintains an important legal provision for U.S. oil and gas firms operating in Mexico. The investor/state dispute settlement allows companies to sue governments that impose harmful regulations. This would be crucial for American firms if Mexico attempts to nationalize its energy industry and expel foreign companies as it did in 1938.
Such protection is crucial to continuing the vast flow of energy between North American nations.
According to the Congressional Research Service, petroleum products made up between 10 and 17 percent of total North American trade over the past decade. More than 80 refineries across America process imported crude oil from Canada or Mexico for domestic use.
In addition to providing us with the energy we need, Canada and Mexico are some of our best energy customers. In 2016, energy exports to Mexico exceeded imports by a two-to-one margin. Mexico is now the biggest market for U.S. natural gas exports, and the fourth largest market for exported oil and gas equipment.
In fact, American petroleum and natural gas exports to our southern neighbor exceeded $20 billion in 2017 -- more than double that of a decade ago. And that figure is expected to rise. Mexican demand for natural gas will likely jump more than 26 percent by 2031, according to Mexico's Secretariat of Energy.
Canada's demand for American energy is also growing. Canadian imports of U.S. crude oil increased more than a hundredfold between 1993 and 2017. Most of that growth has come in the last decade.
Passing USMCA would benefit countless Americans. The oil and natural gas industry supports over 10 million U.S. jobs and accounts for nearly 8 percent of the nation's economy.
USMCA will also continue to reduce our dependence on oil from hostile foreign countries. Rather than import oil from the Middle East to supplement domestic energy production, we can turn to our friendly neighbors to the north and south. In 2017, we imported more oil from Mexico than Iraq.
One USMCA sticking point has been the Trump administration's insistence on inflicting tariffs or quotas on North American steel. Both Mexican and Canadian officials have said they won't ratify the deal if current tariffs on steel and aluminum remain in place.
Both quotas and tariffs would ultimately backfire. America needs steel from our trading partners as much as they need our oil. American energy firms rely on Canadian and Mexican steel to outfit pipelines, drilling well casing, refineries, and petrochemical plants.
Nixing steel tariffs and ratifying USMCA is in the best interest of all three North American countries.
Congressional leaders have no time to lose.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/03/20/we_need_north_american_energy_trade_110410.html
-
Chemical Safety Board Highlights Consensus Standards
Mar 21, 2019 | Safety BLR
The U.S. Chemical and Safety Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) recently released a Safety Spotlight recommending that employers closely apply industry consensus standards to safeguard employee and public safety. Titled “The Importance of Industry Safety Guidelines, Codes, and Standards,” the report highlights the CSB’s role in accident investigation and focuses on several safety codes and standards that were issued or updated following incidents investigated by the CSB.
Like the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), CSB does not issue fines or citations. The board investigates explosions and other accidents at facilities to determine the root causes or safety management deficiencies that may have led to the accident. After concluding investigations, CSB makes recommendations to: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Industry groups, Labor unions, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Other regulatory agencies, and Plant owners and managers.
Standard developing organization involvement
In addition to its investigation work, CSB makes recommendations to standard-developing organizations whenever it concludes there are safety gaps or deficiencies in an existing standard. For example, following its investigation of a series of combustible dust explosions, the board concluded the employer had strictly adhered to an existing standard despite experiencing the explosions.
The three combustible dust explosions took place over a six-month period at a facility in Gallatin, Tennessee, and included: An iron dust flash fire on January 31, 2011, that killed two workers; A second iron dust flash fire on March 21 that injured one employee; and A hydrogen explosion and resulting iron dust flash fire on May 27 that killed three and injured two other workers.
During the course of its investigation, CSB learned the city of Gallatin and state of Tennessee had adopted the International Fire Code (IFC), developed by the International Code Council (ICC) into law. IFC Chapter 13, Combustible Dust-Producing Operations, referred to the National Fire Protection Association’s (NFPA) standard NFPA 484 Combustible Metals, Metal Powders, and Metal Dusts; however, the IFC’s standard did not specify whether NFPA 484 compliance was voluntary or mandatory.
The CSB recommend the ICC revise the language in the IFC. The revised standard clearly states facility owners are responsible for complying with all the referenced standards.
Other industrial standards
The CSB found that worker fatigue contributed to a March 23, 2005, explosion at a BP refinery in Texas City, Texas. The board concluded there was no industry standard or safety guideline addressing fatigue as a risk factor. The CSB recommended the American Petroleum Institute (API) and United Steel Workers collaborate on developing a standard for managing fatigue and mitigating the associated risks at petrochemical facilities.
On April 2010, the API issued Recommended Practice (RP) 755 – Fatigue Risk Management Systems for Personnel in the Refining and Petrochemical Industries. The API then invited CSB staff to participate in the revision of the recommended practice. A second edition of RP 755 is slated for release this year.
Other standards have been revised or updated based on CSB recommendations, including: National Fuel Gas Code, NFPA 54/ANSI Z223.1 revisions, after a June 9, 2009, explosion at a ConAgra Foods SlimJim meat processing facility when natural gas was purged indoors from pipes connected to a newly installed water heater and a February 7, 2010, explosion at a Kleen Energy facility where workers forced natural gas through the piping at a high pressure and volume to clear debris; and American Chemical Society recommended practices for hazard evaluation in academic laboratories after a student at Texas Tech lost three fingers and experienced burns to the hands and face when the chemical he was working with detonated.Standards made more useful for employers
While employers must comply with federal occupational safety and health standards, adhering to industry consensus standards can help ensure safety and prevent accidents. Many consensus standards formed the basis of federal regulations, and some have been incorporated by reference in OSHA standards.
CSB’s work has contributed to the ongoing improvement of industry standards.
https://safety.blr.com/workplace-safety-news/safety-administration/safety-general/Chemical-Safety-Board-highlights-consensus-standar/
-
People near Burned Texas Chemical Plant Told to Stay Indoors
Mar 21, 2019 | AP
By Juan A. Lozano and David Warren
Authorities on Thursday warned people to stay indoors after high levels of benzene were detected in the air near a scorched petrochemicals storage facility outside of Houston.
Firefighters on Wednesday extinguished the blaze at the Intercontinental Terminals Company in Deer Park, which started Sunday and destroyed several large tanks that contained gasoline and chemicals used in nail polish remover, glues and paint thinner. They continued to spray foam on the site Thursday to try to prevent flare-ups.
Officials said Wednesday that benzene levels near the facility didn’t pose a health concern. But authorities issued a shelter-in-place order Thursday due to “reports of benzene or other volatile organic compounds” in Deer Park, which is about 15 miles (24 kilometers) southeast of Houston. Several school districts also canceled classes for the day due to the air quality concerns.
Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo, who is the county’s top administrator, said at a news conference Thursday that light winds were helping to keep the vapors from spreading more broadly.
“Outside of that immediate area we’re not seeing elevated levels right now,” said Hidalgo.
Dr. Umair Shah, who heads the county health agency, said there’s still only a minimal public health risk, but he cautioned that the elderly, pregnant women and other vulnerable groups should try to limit their exposure.
“The most important thing is that the levels that have been detected are still not high enough for the level of concern that people may be having,” he said.
The county fire marshal, Laurie Christensen, said the benzene vapors may be escaping from gaps in the foam that firefighters have been spraying to try to prevent flare-ups at the site.
The Texas National Guard’s 6th civil support team was assisting at the scene Thursday. The team of about a dozen was helping to contain hazardous materials and provide other assistance to local emergency responders.
Environmental groups said residents who live near the facility have experienced various symptoms, including headaches, nausea and nose bleeds. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, long-term exposure to the highly flammable chemical causes harmful effects on the blood, including bone marrow.
The Environmental Protection Agency conducted air quality tests throughout the Houston area, both on the ground and from a small airplane, and “measured no levels of hazardous concentrations,” EPA official Adam Adams said Wednesday.
Some residents who live near the facility, though, said they didn’t have confidence in the air quality test results.
“Everything has been wrapped up in this nice perfect bow in saying that there were no problems. Every air quality was perfect. Every wind was perfect, blowing it away. And if everything was so perfect, why did it happen?” longtime Deer Park resident Terri Garcia said.
Bryan Parras, an organizer in Houston with the Sierra Club, said his environmental group had concerns not just about the air quality, but about the potential impacts to the environment and the fishing industry if chemicals from the storage facility or firefighting foam get into the Houston Ship Channel, which leads to the Gulf of Mexico.
“This issue isn’t over just because the fire is out. We want systems in place that will protect our communities,” Parras said Wednesday.
The EPA and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality said Wednesday that they were waiting for test results of water samples to determine any potential impacts from the foam used to fight the fire on waterways next to the storage facility, including the Houston Ship Channel.
https://www.apnews.com/37c594d104f54520a918d6a924fe6cf4
-
The Latest: Vapors Escape Burned Petrochemical Storage Site
Mar 21, 2019 | AP (In the Washington Post)
The Latest on a fire that had been burning at a Texas petrochemical storage facility (all times local):
9:25 a.m.
Authorities say it appears that the suppressive foam firefighters are using at a Houston-area petrochemicals storage facility is separating at times and allowing dangerous benzene vapors to escape before another layer of foam can be applied.
Harris County Fire Marshal Laurie Christensen said at a news conference Thursday that crews are applying layer after layer of foam where several storage tanks burned at the Intercontinental Terminals Company in Deer Park, southeast of Houston.
The fire began Sunday and was extinguished Wednesday, but a flare-up occurred later Wednesday that crews are working to prevent from occurring again.
Authorities say winds are light Thursday so the vapors aren’t spreading beyond the immediate area of the ITC plant.
They say orders to stay indoors are being done “out of an abundance of caution.”
At least three area school districts cancelled classes Thursday.
___
8:10 a.m.
National Guard troops are on the scene and residents are being told to stay inside after elevated levels of benzene were detected near a Houston-area petrochemicals storage facility that caught fire this week.
Harris County officials said Thursday that the Guard and hazardous materials teams have established perimeters around the Intercontinental Terminals Company in Deer Park.
The Environmental Protection Agency said Wednesday that benzene levels near the facility didn’t pose a health concern. But authorities now say a shelter-in-place order following “reports of action levels of benzene or other volatile organic compounds” within Deer Park.
Several school districts also canceled classes for the day, citing “unfavorable air quality conditions.”
The fire started Sunday, sending a huge, dark plume into the air, and spread to storage tanks holding components of gasoline and materials used in nail polish remover, glues and paint thinner.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/the-latest-vapors-escape-burned-petrochemical-storage-site/2019/03/21/c038e832-4bf1-11e9-8cfc-2c5d0999c21e_story.html?utm_term=.f058486431e1
-
Traders Can Now Spot Oil Refinery Problems by Tracking Phones
Mar 21, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Aaron Clark
In the $40 trillion global oil-trading market, the smallest clue can be worth millions.
Take the number of people working at a refinery: Outside contractors are brought in for routine maintenance or to handle accidents that could limit demand for crude oil or curb the supply of fuels. While oil companies rarely reveal such sensitive information, traders can gain insight into refinery operations by tracking the number of mobile phones at the plant, a proxy for the arrival of support crews.
It is the latest example of how traders, rival companies, and analysts are turning to new sources of information to get an edge in markets where trading is increasingly driven by algorithms that crunch vast troves of data. By using so-called geolocation information that can originate from mobile apps, data scientists can track human behavior, from shopping habits to hotel occupancy rates.
“For oil traders, knowing where the workers are and how many there are will absolutely help traders know how much output the refinery is producing,” Claire Curry, BloombergNEF’s head of digital industry, said in an email. “Unconventional forms of data, like where people are in a plant, or the levels of oil in tankers, will become available not to just large companies who collect the data, but to the cleverest data scientist with the best algorithms.”
One company mining this information is Orbital Insight Inc., which uses mobile phone geolocation data—providing the times and locations for individual devices—to track staffing changes. The Palo Alto, Calif.-based company, which also monitors global oil inventories via satellite imagery, said it can access location data for more than 800 million mobile devices worldwide through vendors.
Gleaning Data
While most geolocation data use has focused on consumer-facing businesses such as retailers, hotels, and amusement parks, “valuable insights can be gleaned from the data by examining activity at specific manufacturing facilities,” said Octavio Marenzi, co-founder of Opimas LLC, a capital markets management consultant.
Thasos Group has used the data to show increases in shifts at Tesla Inc.’s factory in Fremont, Calif., the Wall Street Journal reported.
Refinery outages, whether planned or unplanned, can have a huge impact in the oil market and plants routinely delay or accelerate maintenance to maximize profit based on oil and fuel prices. The disruptions are closely tracked by press and data services, including Bloomberg News.
For example, Bloomberg reported Jan. 1 that Philadelphia Energy Solutions LLC planned to shut about 200,000 barrels a day of capacity at its Philadelphia refinery starting Jan. 15 for approximately 30 days of maintenance. Orbital’s data shows a spike in maintenance crews at the plant that lasted through February. PES wouldn’t comment about its operations.
In another instance, Orbital data appeared to confirm planned maintenance at HollyFrontier Corp.’s refinery East Plant in Tulsa, Okla., started on schedule. Bloomberg News reported Nov. 30 the planned work would start in mid-February and last until late March.
Craig Biery, director of investor relations at HollyFrontier, confirmed that the company is due to complete the maintenance at Tulsa East by the end of March.
The sale of geolocation data has come under scrutiny in the U.S. amid concerns over consumer privacy, fueled by the disclosure that political consultancy Cambridge Analytica improperly obtained data on tens of millions of Facebook Inc. users.
Virtually all the data originates from mobile apps or providers of software development kits for mobile apps that have geolocation routines built into their offerings, according to Opimas. Orbital receives location data without any personal identification information and aggregates it.
The company’s service, which starts March 21, could be useful to identify changes in planned refinery maintenance schedules that can be “fluid” as plants delay or accelerate work, said Michael Tran, a commodity strategist at RBC Capital Markets LLC in New York, an Orbital customer that had early access to the data.
“The ability to sharpen a view, or to really gain an edge, based not on anecdotal but more statistically significant signals, is extremely advantageous,” Tran said in an interview arranged by Orbital. “There is an information asymmetry in this market” and Orbital’s product “lifts the hood and evens the playing field,” he said.
Orbital has received funding in the past from Bloomberg Beta, a venture-capital unit of Bloomberg LP.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/traders-can-now-spot-oil-refinery-problems-by-tracking-phones
-
Energy Panel’s Tonko Sets Guideposts for Climate Legislation
Mar 21, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
The head of a House energy subcommittee unveiled a set of climate policy principles March 21, sketching out in broad terms what he believes any climate legislation should incorporate.
Rep. Paul Tonko’s (D-N.Y.) principles include an emphasis on setting a science-based greenhouse gas target toward achieving carbon-neutral emissions by 2050. Tonko chairs the Energy and Commerce Committee’s Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee, which will be the starting point for considering most climate legislation on the House side.
The set of nine principles, which Tonko released during the Climate Leadership Conference in Baltimore, reflect more than a year of work by the New York lawmaker.
“The plan here is to make certain that we have a common understanding of the guidelines” that will serve as a tool to assess climate policy solutions, Tonko told Bloomberg Environment.
Tonko said the principles should serve as a guidepost for the work of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reconvened this year.
But that committee, headed by Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), doesn’t have legislative authority. As a result, Tonko said he expects legislative solutions to come out of the subcommittee he chairs.
“In a sense, they’re doing the marketing strategy, and we’ll be doing the product development,” he said of Energy and Commerce’s relationship to the select climate panel.
Green New Deal
But Tonko’s principles will have to find a space in a climate discussion on Capitol Hill that has been crowded in recent months by the Green New Deal—the resolution (H.Res. 109) championed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) that calls for a rapid transition to clean energy—as well as a number of other progressive priorities around health care, education, and social justice.
Tonko said his principles are complementary to the Green New Deal, which he said has brought a new momentum and spirit, raising the consciousness of climate change as a political issue.
And the framework is also something he hopes his Republican colleagues can get behind. Many GOP lawmakers have condemned the Green New Deal as a gigantic overreach.
“There’s no prescriptive element to these principles. They’re values that many of us hold in common,” Tonko said of his work.
For example, the principles call for a focus on clean energy investment, work on a just transition for communities that have historically relied on fossil fuel industries, and attention to bolstering communities’ resilience to the impacts of climate change.
Tonko said he has been encouraged by his subcommittee’s hearings on climate change thus far, and is optimistic that this Congress can work on bipartisan, bicameral near-term climate solutions.
Those include efforts to boost energy efficiency, weatherization, modernization of the electric grid, and increases in low-carbon research and development, he said.
The Climate Leadership Conference’s headline sponsor is Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg Environment is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/energy-panels-tonko-sets-guideposts-for-climate-legislation
-
Tonko Outlines Guideposts for Climate Solutions Debate
Mar 21, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Anthony Adragna
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) today outlined his goals for eventual legislation to address climate change.
Tonko, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee, says he wants to introduce a bill that would put a price on carbon and bring net U.S. emissions to zero by mid-century. He released nine principles today to guide that work, including the need to ensure a "just and equitable" transition that avoids “disproportionate burdens” on low-income households and displaced workers.
“Carbon pollution has been free,” Tonko said. ”It’s time to set a price onto that carbon pollution.”
Tonko, first elected in 2008, plans to formally unveil the principles today at the Climate Leadership Summit in Baltimore. He said they came together following 18 months of extensive discussions with and input from climate scientists, economists, businesses, labor groups, environmental advocates, utilities and think tanks. Those conversations will also inform a comprehensive report examining various approaches to setting a price on carbon that will be released later this year.
A carbon-pricing bill should be ready for introduction towards the end of this Congress, Tonko said, although he acknowledged any legislation would not make it through the Republican-controlled Senate and President Donald Trump. He said he might include other climate-related policies promoting workforce development or infrastructure resiliency as part of the ultimate package.
Tonko's emphasis on pricing carbon comes as many environmentalists have cooledto that approach, citing its continued political struggles at the ballot box and the need for a more comprehensive approach. Backers of the Green New Deal, H. Res. 109 (116), like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), have argued the “time has run out” for viewing pricing carbon as the comprehensive solution to climate change.
Tonko welcomed the energy progressive activists have brought to the debate and said he supports the concept of decarbonization. He also said he was not prejudging any solutions ahead of a lengthy discussion and pledged to build a coalition for climate action.
“It’s very complex, the solutions won’t be simple, but we’re up for this challenge,” he said. “But we want to make certain these principles guide us every step of the way.”
In the near term, the subcommittee will advance legislation concerning energy efficiency, conservation, weatherization, clean energy research, modernization of the electric grid, electric vehicle charging stations and making infrastructure more resilient. Many of those approaches have previously enjoyed significant bipartisan support.
Those bills “may not be headline grabbers, but in cumulative format they can make a major contribution to emissions reduction,” Tonko said. “Then again, that won’t be a cure-all. So we need to go forward with this carbon pricing thing that takes a while to develop if its science-based and evidence-based.”
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2019/03/tonko-outlines-guideposts-for-climate-solutions-debate-1285791
-
How the Green New Deal Is Forcing Politicians to Finally Address Climate Change
Mar 21, 2019 | TIME
By Justin Worland
When a group of more than 20 protesters showed up in the halls of the U.S. Senate on a recent February day, they would have been forgiven for expecting a chilly reception. For the past seven months, sit-ins at a range of offices–from California Governor Jerry Brown’s to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s–had followed a similar pattern: show up, sing songs, get led away in handcuffs for disrupting the peace. But on that particular Wednesday, things were different.
Instead of being dismissed or arrested, this band of environmental activists from a group known as the Sunrise Movement was warmly welcomed. Democratic Senators’ aides applauded their songs, led them to back offices for meetings and cheered their efforts. “It starts with what you’re doing, from the bottom on up,” Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders told them. “I just want to thank you.” In the weeks that followed, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, after years of near radio silence on climate change, gave a series of speeches on the chamber floor. “For the first time in a long time, the Senate is finally debating the issue of climate change, and if you ask me, it’s about time,” he said. “Climate change is an urgent crisis and an existential threat.”
It’s not just Democrats who suddenly want to focus on climate change. President Trump seized the opportunity to double down on his denial of climate science, while other Republicans began recalibrating their messaging. Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz, an ardent defender of the President who introduced a bill in 2017 to eliminate the EPA, responded to Trump by tweeting, “Climate change is real.” In December, John Cornyn of Texas, who until recently served in GOP Senate leadership, tweeted positively about a tax on carbon emissions, and a month later, Republican Representative Francis Rooney of Florida and Democratic colleagues joined to introduce a carbon-tax measure in the House.
This shift has been a long time coming. Scientists have understood for decades that climate change is happening and that humans are causing it; recent studies, including a landmark report in October from the U.N., have shown that things are even worse than we thought. Global temperatures have already risen 1°C since the Industrial Revolution; if the planet heats by much more than an additional half a degree, we could see some of the most catastrophic effects of climate change, including the death of the world’s coral reefs and the inundation of entire island nations.
That reality has resonated with the public: more than 70% of Americans now understand that climate change is taking place, according to data from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. A February NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey found that two-thirds of Republicans believe their party is “outside the mainstream” on the issue.
Into this new political reality came the Green New Deal–equal parts policy proposal and battle cry. The resolution, introduced by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts, calls for the U.S. to launch a broad “mobilization” to decarbonize the economy while tackling a slew of other social ills. The response was mixed. People loved it. People loathed it. Others were confused by it. But in D.C., where climate has long been relegated to third-tier status, lawmakers could no longer avoid the issue.
Within weeks of the proposal’s release, Democrats competed to burnish their green credentials. Nearly every Democratic candidate for the 2020 presidential nomination has endorsed the Green New Deal. Washington Governor Jay Inslee entered the race on a climate-themed campaign–something unthinkable just a few years ago, when Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump didn’t field a single question about climate change in their presidential debates.
Some Republicans scrambled to counter what they saw as a liberal threat: if they didn’t come up with a viable climate position, at least one they could point to rhetorically, they risked further ceding the issue to the Democrats, whose proposal they decry as socialist overreach. Behind the scenes, Republicans gathered in working groups trying to grasp for a solution. Major corporations–including in the oil-and-gas industry–pulled out their checkbooks to support conservative climate measures.
Love the Green New Deal or hate it, the conversation it has unleashed represents a shift in the discussion surrounding climate policy in the U.S., with ripples that will spread across the globe. The outcome of the debate will go a long way toward determining if humanity can avoid the most catastrophic consequences of a rapidly warming world.
Even before Ocasio-Cortez released her Green New Deal resolution, critics had begun to scrutinize the program, using every detail as a chance to condemn it. A congressional newcomer, Ocasio-Cortez has developed a reputation for taking critics and their talking points head-on, but in a recent interview with TIME she rejected the idea that she should have to defend the particulars.
“It’s a statement. It’s a vision document. And people want to pick it apart to death,” she says, agreeing with those who liken her proposal to the “bold persistent experimentation” that President Franklin Roosevelt advocated to end the Great Depression. “I hope that we start to get to more of an experimental spirit in government,” she says.
The Green New Deal experiments indeed, calling for everything from massive government spending on clean-energy research and development to cleaning up polluted industrial sites, all in service of quickly weaning the U.S. off greenhouse-gas emissions and helping vulnerable communities. The pieces of the package seem jumbled, but they are built on a rich history of ideas. Thomas Friedman first coined the term Green New Deal in a 2007 New York Times column and described the program as government “seeding basic research, providing loan guarantees where needed and setting standards, taxes and incentives.” Van Jones, the activist and political commentator, published The Green Collar Economy in 2008, about solving inequality and climate change at the same time. Chapter 4, titled “The Green New Deal,” outlined his vision for a program that would “birth a just and green economy.”
Around the same time, Inslee, then a Congressman, wrote Apollo’s Fire, highlighting stories of Americans’ benefiting from clean energy and calling for a moon-shot-like program to invest in a green economy. These ideas were so popular that Senators Barack Obama and John McCain pushed for green jobs in their 2008 presidential campaigns, and a handful of states have adopted some Green New Deal policies in recent years.
In California’s agricultural region, for example, former Fresno mayor Ashley Swearengin, a Republican, initiated a comprehensive plan to establish new transit options and redevelop the local economy while reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by 40%. The state as a whole has a plan to achieve 100% carbon-free electricity, a vision that’s gaining adherents in cities big and small and in a range of states from New Mexico to New York. “It’s not radical. By no stretch of imagination,” says Kevin de León, a Democrat who spearheaded many of California’s climate initiatives as president pro tempore of the state senate. California’s GDP is larger than that of all but four countries and its economy continues to thrive, he says, dismissing the critique that environmental reform would kill economic growth.
Still, the Green New Deal faces pushback not just from the political right but also from labor–a longtime stalwart of the Democratic Party. In early March, the AFL-CIO published a stinging critique of the proposal, calling it unrealistic and a threat to “members’ jobs and their families’ standard of living.” The oil-and-gas industry in particular supports millions of jobs, and while the text of the Green New Deal calls for a “just transition” to other industries, it offers few details. Republicans latched on to a talking point suggesting that the proposal would turn the U.S. into another Venezuela, pointing to the resolution’s inclusion of a job guarantee and universal health care, goals that many Democrats agree have no place in a climate package.
But if this ambitious climate plan seemed likely to wrench lawmakers further apart, it may actually do the opposite. In an era of festering dysfunction in Congress, all the green talk has actually sprouted green shoots, encouraging a national discussion around climate and, improbably, creating an opportunity to push real legislation. “If you care about moving the solution up the agenda, you have to salute what’s been accomplished here,” says Eric Pooley, a senior vice president at the Environmental Defense Fund, which has not endorsed the Green New Deal. “The fact that there are different points of view on different policy instruments is healthy.”
A carbon tax–once anathema to the right–is an unlikely beneficiary of this environmental glasnost, gaining support on both sides of the aisle. “If your goal is to reduce carbon emissions, a carbon tax will do that,” says Congressman John Delaney, a Maryland Democrat who is running for President and has introduced carbon-tax legislation. “It has an opportunity to get pretty broad support, including bipartisan support.”
Carlos Curbelo, a former GOP Florida Congressman who has led efforts for a carbon tax, said the Green New Deal offers a useful political foil. “It’s going to give Republicans and conservatives something that they can clearly oppose, which is always appreciated by the right,” he says. At the same time, he adds, Republicans are aware that public opinion is shifting. “It’s not going to be enough for a lot of members to say the Green New Deal is a massive socialist program. The next question is, What’s your solution?”
Democrats, of course, are happy to press that question. With the 2020 presidential campaign already under way, candidates are painting themselves as climate warriors. Nearly all of the dozen-plus Democratic hopefuls have endorsed a version of the Green New Deal, touted their environmental cred and described global warming as an existential threat.
But activists say most Democratic presidential candidates have a lot of catching up to do: while the party embraces climate science, that’s not the same as proactively fighting to halt dangerous warming. For now, few campaigns are proposing more than restoring Obama-era rules like the Clean Power Plan and recommitting the U.S. to the Paris Agreement.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has a 99% voting record from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), has portrayed herself as the policy wonk among the presidential candidates, but she has introduced only one piece of climate legislation in her six years in the Senate, and her office lacks a dedicated climate staffer. Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand, who both serve on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, have drafted a flurry of bills to deal with everything from toxic chemicals to cleaning up polluted sites, but neither has introduced comprehensive legislation to reduce emissions. Beto O’Rourke has come under fire for taking donations from people in the oil-and-gas industry. Kamala Harris, who joined the Senate in 2017, has a 100% score from the LCV but hasn’t proposed any significant climate legislation.
There are exceptions. Sanders, who has a long record of introducing climate legislation big and small in the Senate, plans to unveil a broad environmental plan. It is expected to include massive investment in infrastructure, the elimination of fossil-fuel subsidies and a ban on fossil-fuel extraction on public lands. Inslee and Delaney have both promised big on climate. Inslee says the issue will be a centerpiece of his presidency, while Delaney says a carbon-tax proposal could be enacted in his first 100 days.
But both Inslee and Delaney have thus far attracted only minimal support in presidential polls, and many Democrats fear that climate policy will fade as an issue if it isn’t a focus on the campaign trail. Indeed, many environmental leaders are still upset at President Obama for allowing cap-and-trade legislation to die in the Senate in 2009 after it passed the House. “When Democratic leaders see climate as a No. 7 issue,” says Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat who has delivered more than 200 climate speeches on the Senate floor, “it stays a No. 7 issue.”
Behind the scenes, the energy surrounding the Green New Deal debate in D.C. has pushed top national Democrats to develop a policy that is both ambitious and workable. Before the current session of Congress began, House Speaker Pelosi responded to demands for a Green New Deal by creating a House select committee charged with laying the ground for climate legislation. In recent weeks, a group of Democratic staffers have convened in regular meetings led by Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz’s office to discuss a path forward on climate legislation. In the meantime, some members of Congress may introduce bits of Green New Deal–related legislation that they think could actually pass Congress now, like a proposal from Sanders on water infrastructure.
Congressional Republicans, feeling the shifting politics, have begun exploring policies that could answer the Democrats. GOP Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Cory Gardner of Colorado, both of whom are up for re-election next year, established a group for Republican members of Congress in February called the Roosevelt Conservation Caucus that looks for “market-based approaches” to environmental problems. Other GOP lawmakers have convened behind closed doors to discuss what ideas they can bring to the table. That’s a tall order for a party whose officials have ignored or denied the issue in recent years, and it remains to be seen whether the efforts will drive any wholesale change.
The private sector may help. In recent years, major oil-and-gas companies have slowly drifted away from long-standing opposition to climate policy. For an industry that thinks in decades-long time frames, federal legislation to combat climate change now seems inevitable, and industry leaders would rather see a conservative approach than a paradigm-shifting program like the Green New Deal. In recent months, a coalition of corporations has announced plans to spend millions of dollars lobbying for carbon-tax legislation paired with regulatory repeal and protection from climate-related lawsuits. For moderate lawmakers, it’s becoming possible to imagine a grand compromise that could include some elements geared for both sides of the aisle, say, investing carbon-tax revenue in clean-energy research and development, with a tax cut elsewhere and support for ailing coal communities.
But any compromise would face the scrutiny of the activists who at last have helped make climate change a front-of-mind issue. Advocacy groups have promised to ensure that Democrats not only continue to talk about the environment but also commit to bold action. Piecemeal commitments from Democratic lawmakers will not suffice, they say, and weak measures from Republicans should be rejected out of hand. “There are people talking about how a Green New Deal is improving the tax code or people saying that putting a climate provision into the infrastructure package is the Green New Deal,” says Varshini Prakash, executive director of the Sunrise Movement. “All of those things are good to do; they’re not the Green New Deal.”
Where does this leave all of us and the planet we inhabit? Even thinking optimistically, enacting climate-change legislation that matches the scale of the challenge is hard to imagine: the science is damning and the clock is ticking. And while the conversation may be shifting, there’s still a climate-change-denying President in the White House and nothing like a broad consensus on a path forward among Democrats.
In the face of all that, it would be easy to dismiss the new breed of climate activists as noisy but dreamy, idealists distant from the powers who run the show. But that’s the thing about social movements, from civil rights to gay rights. At first the activists may look naive, and maybe they are. But in the rearview mirror, they come to look like instigators of massive and, in hindsight, obvious change.
http://time.com/5555721/green-new-deal-climate-change/
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