Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - April 18, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Environmental Advocates Are Abandoning an Oregon Ban on Plastic Straws
Apr 17, 2019 | Willamette Week
By Nigel Jaquiss
CHIEF SPONSOR: The Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, chaired by state Sen. Michael Dembrow (D-Portland). -
Comment Period Reopened For TSCA PV29 Evaluation
Apr 18, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA is reopening the comment period on its draft TSCA risk evaluation for pigment violet 29. This is in light of its release of studies supporting the assessment that had previously been withheld as confidential. -
(ACC Mentioned) Lawmakers Consider Banning Chemicals Common In Food Packaging
Apr 17, 2019 | Press Herald
By Kevin Miller
Concerns are growing about the health effects of both PFAS and phthalates, but manufacturers and others say a blanket prohibition is an overreach. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Announces Nearly Complete Ban On Asbestos
Apr 17, 2019 | CNN
By Gregory Wallace
The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday announced a nearly complete ban on the manufacturing and importing of asbestos. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA to Oversee More Products With Asbestos Under Final Rule (1)
Apr 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
U.S. manufacturers would be barred from reviving abandoned uses of the cancer-causing mineral asbestos without EPA approval, under a final agency rule released April 17. -
E.P.A. Moves to ‘Close the Door’ on Asbestos. Consumer Groups Say Loopholes Remain.
Apr 18, 2019 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
The Trump administration on Wednesday issued a regulation it said would impose new restrictions on asbestos, a deadly substance once commonly found in insulation materials. -
EPA Broadens Asbestos SNUR But Still Faces Criticism Over Lack Of Ban
Apr 18, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has expanded the number of renewed asbestos uses for which manufacturers would have to seek agency approval though its final significant new use rule (SNUR), issued under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), still falls short of calls from some states and environmentalists for even broader restrictions or a total ban. -
EPA Rule Restricts Sale Of Phased-Out Products
Apr 18, 2019 | E&E PM
By Corbin Hiar,
A new EPA regulation will make it harder for companies to resume selling discontinued asbestos products. -
EPA Restricts New Asbestos Products From Market
Apr 18, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén
EPA announced on Wednesday it would prohibit companies from importing or selling any new asbestos products that have not been reviewed and approved by the agency. -
Critics Say New EPA Rule Could Reintroduce Asbestos Use
Apr 18, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Beitsch
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced Wednesday a new rule they say will limit the use of asbestos in the U.S., but critics, including some of the agency’s own staff, describe it as a half measure that could reintroduce some asbestos products to the market. -
Walmart, Sanofi, Others to Face Claims Over Talc Products
Apr 17, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Bausch Health Companies, Sanofi, CVS, Dollar General, Target, Walgreens, and Walmart have been notified that they will soon face suit alleging arsenic, chromium, lead and silica in talcum powder products. -
US Alternative Testing Committee Co Convene Public Forum
Apr 18, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The US National Toxicology Program's Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (Iccvam) will hold its annual public forum on 23 May. -
California Clarifies Methylene Chloride Paint Remover Compliance
Apr 18, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control has issued guidance for complying with its regulations regarding paint removers containing methylene chloride, after the US EPA issued a rule banning the products for consumer uses. -
California EPA To Hold Webinar On Human Health Risk Assessment
Apr 18, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) is holding a webinar entitled: Understanding and applying read-across for human health risk assessment’ on 2 May. -
EPA Sends Proposed Perchlorate Goal To OMB
Apr 17, 2019 | Inside EPA
EPA has formally floated its proposed health-based drinking water goal on the rocket fuel ingredient perchlorate to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, part of an effort to meet a court-ordered April 30 deadline for what could drive one of the first regulatory standards since Congress amended the drinking water law in 1996. -
Resisting EPA, DOD Chief Defends Eased PFAS Groundwater Cleanup Level
Apr 18, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan is strongly defending his department's stance that the acceptable risk level for remediating groundwater contaminated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) should be much weaker than the 70 parts-per-trillion (ppt) level that EPA favors, raising doubts that officials will be able to quickly issue a long-promised policy. -
UN Rapporteur ‘Deeply Concerned’ About Titanium Dioxide Labelling Proposal
Apr 18, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The UN's special rapporteur on human rights and hazardous substances has expressed his doubts about a proposed amendment to the CLP Regulation that would define specific labelling obligations for mixtures containing titanium dioxide. -
Chemical Assessments Have Long Road Ahead for European Agency
Apr 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Chemicals Agency faces a mountain of work in the next few years as it seeks to identify whether thousands of substances registered under the European Union’s REACH law should be targeted with new regulatory controls. -
France to Ban Titanium Dioxide in Food Products
Apr 17, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
France will ban titanium dioxide in food products starting in 2020, the government announced. -
Waste Management Bodies Back Echa SVHC Database
Apr 17, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
A group of associations representing hazardous waste operators are supporting the development of Echa’s SVHC database, saying the data will help them manage waste streams better. -
Echa Calls For Evidence On Lead, Diisocyanates
Apr 18, 2019 | Chemical Watch
Echa has issued a call for comments and evidence on lead and diisocyanates, to support its recommendations on occupational exposure limits (OELs) for the compounds. -
Final EIS Issued for Kinder’s Gulf LNG Export Project in Mississippi
Apr 17, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
FERC staff has completed a final environmental impact statement (EIS) for three affiliates of Kinder Morgan Inc. (KMI) to convert an existing liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal in Mississippi into an export terminal. -
Kinder Morgan's Planned Gulf LNG Export Plant In Mississippi Passes Environmental Test
Apr 17, 2019 | Reuters
By Scott DiSavino
Kinder Morgan Inc’s proposed Gulf liquefied natural gas (LNG) export plant in Mississippi took a step toward receiving federal approval for construction on Wednesday after staff at the federal energy regulator prepared an environmental report. -
FERC Nominees? We’re Waiting, Natural Gas Council Tells White House
Apr 18, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By David Bradley
With one seat on FERC's nominally five-member panel empty for more than three months and another due to be vacated this summer, natural gas and oil organizations are anxious for the White House to nominate new commissioners. -
LyondellBasell progresses on $2.4 billion petrochemical expansion
Apr 17, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
At LyondellBasell’s Bayport plant, dozens of construction workers in neon vests are dwarfed by bulldozers moving mounds of dirt. A crane rises several stories into gray blue sky. Steam plumes puff from towers behind the construction site as a maze of silver, yellow and blue pipes form the veins of a petrochemical plant in the middle of a massive growth spurt. -
How Toxic Is Oilfield Wastewater? New Paper Highlights Gaps In Our Understanding.
Apr 17, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Cloelle Danforth and Nichole Saunders.
The paper comes at a crucial moment for the oil and gas industry, which generates some 900 billion gallons of salty, chemical-filled water (also called produced water) each year. -
Houston Chemical Fires Won’t Spur New Laws, For Now
Apr 17, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Taylor Goldenstein
After three chemical fires ignited in a three-week period in the Houston area — spewing plumes of noxious black smoke into the air for days, shutting down schools and sending entire cities indoors to shelter in place — lawmakers say it’s too soon to know whether new laws are needed to improve prevention or emergency response. -
How Hacking Threats Spurred Secret U.S. Blacklist
Apr 18, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
U.S. energy regulators are pursuing a risky plan to share with electric utilities a secret "don't buy" list of foreign technology suppliers, according to multiple sources. -
Fifty Years Later, A Lifesaving Technology That Could Have Saved Over 300 Lives Inches Toward Completion
Apr 17, 2019 | The Washington Post
By Ashley Halsey III
On an August evening in 1969, a Connecticut train wreck made history. A pair of passenger trains in Darien collided head-on, killing five people and injuring 35. -
N.Y. Sues EPA For Failing To Act On 'Good Neighbor' Petition
Apr 17, 2019 | E&E PM
By Sean Reilly,
New York state, already embroiled in one lawsuit over the scope of EPA's "good neighbor" responsibilities, has launched another. -
Dems Want 'Meaningful' Environmental Standards In NAFTA 2.0
Apr 18, 2019 | E&E PM
By Geof Koss
House Democrats are putting the Trump administration on notice that they want to see an assortment of environmental concerns addressed before supporting the successor treaty to the North American Free Trade Agreement. -
Ocasio-Cortez Releases 'Green New Deal' short film
Apr 17, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Beitch
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is broadening her push on the "Green New Deal," narrating an animated short film outlining the policy advocated by progressive lawmakers. -
Former Officials Warn EPA Lacks Legal Power To Scrap MATS Finding
Apr 17, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Former EPA officials, including several who helped craft the Obama-era mercury and air toxics standards (MATS), are warning the Trump administration that it lacks legal authority for its proposal to scrap the cost-benefit finding underpinning the MATS rule, unless it pursues a major new cost review that the agency has so far avoided. -
Pa. Might Follow Calif. On Cap And Trade
Apr 18, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Pennsylvania regulators are considering a petition to institute an economywide cap-and-trade program, a move that immediately thrusts the Keystone State to the forefront of national conversations over how to curb greenhouse gas emissions. -
A Case for a Market-Driven Green New Deal
Apr 18, 2019 | The New York Times
By Amory B. Lovins and Rushad R. Nanavatty
Any serious energy transformation will need to harness America’s powerful and creative economic engine.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Environmental Advocates Are Abandoning an Oregon Ban on Plastic Straws
Apr 17, 2019 | Willamette Week
By Nigel Jaquiss
hat's because the bill was rewritten to prohibit local jurisdictions from making their own rules about straws.
Bill of the Week: Senate Bill 90
CHIEF SPONSOR: The Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, chaired by state Sen. Michael Dembrow (D-Portland).
WHAT PROBLEM IT SEEKS TO SOLVE: Single-use plastic straws are a significant contributor to the gyre of garbage in the Pacific Ocean and are a major source of litter.
WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO: The bill would require businesses serving drinks to give straws only to consumers who specifically request them. It provides limited exceptions for drinks that require straws, such as Slurpees, and at drive-thru windows.WHO SUPPORTS IT: Initially, the bill drew support from a range of environmental groups. But after interested parties—including the American Chemistry Council, which represents the plastics industry—offered a flurry of amendments, the bill was rewritten to prohibit local jurisdictions from making their own rules about straws. "Who would have expected 12 amendments on a bill dealing with plastic straws?" Dembrow said before sending the bill to the Senate floor, where it passed 23-6. The bill awaits a hearing in the House.
WHO OPPOSES IT: After the bill was amended to prohibit local governments from passing their own regulations on straws, Surfrider Foundation, an environmental group that backed the original bill, withdrew its support for the new version. The city of Eugene went further, announcing its opposition. In testimony, Ethan Nelson, a lobbyist for Eugene, said the bill's proposed fines ($25 a day, up to a maximum of $300 a year) are too small to matter and the bill would "greatly impede Eugene's ability to enact a more comprehensive, single-use plastic ordinance." The city of Portland doesn't like the pre-emption embodied in the amended bill, but the city's newly adopted plastic-straw policy would be unaffected.
https://www.wweek.com/news/2019/04/17/environmental-advocates-are-abandoning-an-oregon-ban-on-plastic-straws/
-
Comment Period Reopened For TSCA PV29 Evaluation
Apr 18, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA is reopening the comment period on its draft TSCA risk evaluation for pigment violet 29. This is in light of its release of studies supporting the assessment that had previously been withheld as confidential.
The move follows an announcement last month that the companies that had submitted the 24 studies had "revised most of their confidentiality claims", allowing the agency to publish additional information.
Alexandra Dunn, assistant administrator to the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, wrote in a blogpost that the agency will therefore be taking additional comments. The period will extend beyond the initial consultation that ran from the draft evaluation’s 15 November 2018 release until 14 January.
"I believe strongly that we must provide for the fullest possible public participation in all of our decision making. In addition, when new information comes to light or is made public, we want to ensure that the public has the opportunity to review and provide input to the agency before a final decision is made," she wrote.
But despite the newly available data, controversy around the substance’s review continues; critics have faulted the agency for allowing the health and safety information to be published with redactions.
Testifying last week before a House of Representatives subcommittee, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler was pressed by Energy and Environment Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D–New Jersey) on whether the redacted data tables would be shared publicly.
"The data that was redacted was confidential business information," said Mr Wheeler. Under the TSCA law, the agency cannot release that information, he said.
Mr Pallone, however, responded that this was "a question of interpretation."
The comment period has been reopened for 30 days.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76648/comment-period-reopened-for-tsca-pv29-evaluation
-
(ACC Mentioned) Lawmakers Consider Banning Chemicals Common In Food Packaging
Apr 17, 2019 | Press Herald
By Kevin Miller
Concerns are growing about the health effects of both PFAS and phthalates, but manufacturers and others say a blanket prohibition is an overreach.
AUGUSTA — Public health and environmental groups urged lawmakers on Wednesday to approve a bill that would allow state regulators to ban the use of two chemical classes – phthalates and PFAS – in food packaging in Maine.
But representatives for Maine’s paper mills and national packaging manufacturers cautioned legislators against enacting “overly broad” bans on a broad range of chemicals commonly used in products worldwide.
“Food packaging is the great new frontier for our mills,” said Patrick Strauch, executive director of the Maine Forest Products Council, a trade group that includes paper manufacturers. “We have great opportunities and many of our mills are moving into this area, so we need to be cautious about how we go about sending out messages about support for their efforts.”
Maine has already banned sale of children’s products containing bisphenol-A, or BPA, and requires manufacturers to disclose the use of certain phthalates in children’s products.
A bill pending in the Legislature would prohibit the use of all phthalates – a chemical commonly used to soften plastics and in some personal care products – in food packaging beginning in 2022. The proposal would also authorize the Maine Department of Environmental Protection to begin the process of prohibiting the type of chemicals known as PFAS in all food packaging in Maine.
Both chemical compounds are under increasing scrutiny nationwide for possible impacts on human health, particularly in children. And earlier this year, Gov. Janet Mills created a task forceto examine contamination from PFAS – used in non-stick cookware, firefighting foam and grease-repellent packaging – throughout Maine.
“We have the opportunity to make a small step towards keeping more of these forever chemicals out of our environment by phasing out their use over time without putting an undue burden on food packagers and manufacturers,” said bill sponsor Rep. Jessica Fay, D-Raymond.
Four types of phthalates are already listed by the Maine DEP as “priority chemicals” that require manufacturers to notify the state when they are used in some children’s products. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says human effects from exposure to phthalates is “unknown” but points to studies showing some impacts on the reproductive system of lab animals.BUSINESS Posted Yesterday at 8:00 PM Updated at 12:00 AMINCREASE FONT SIZELawmakers consider banning chemicals common in food packaging
Concerns are growing about the health effects of both PFAS and phthalates, but manufacturers and others say a blanket prohibition is an overreach.BY KEVIN MILLERSTAFF WRITER Share
AUGUSTA — Public health and environmental groups urged lawmakers on Wednesday to approve a bill that would allow state regulators to ban the use of two chemical classes – phthalates and PFAS – in food packaging in Maine.
But representatives for Maine’s paper mills and national packaging manufacturers cautioned legislators against enacting “overly broad” bans on a broad range of chemicals commonly used in products worldwide.RELATED HEADLINES Mills forms task force to study impact of ‘forever chemicals’ in Maine
“Food packaging is the great new frontier for our mills,” said Patrick Strauch, executive director of the Maine Forest Products Council, a trade group that includes paper manufacturers. “We have great opportunities and many of our mills are moving into this area, so we need to be cautious about how we go about sending out messages about support for their efforts.”
Maine has already banned sale of children’s products containing bisphenol-A, or BPA, and requires manufacturers to disclose the use of certain phthalates in children’s products.RELATEDBPA ban approved for Maine food packages
A bill pending in the Legislature would prohibit the use of all phthalates – a chemical commonly used to soften plastics and in some personal care products – in food packaging beginning in 2022. The proposal would also authorize the Maine Department of Environmental Protection to begin the process of prohibiting the type of chemicals known as PFAS in all food packaging in Maine.
Both chemical compounds are under increasing scrutiny nationwide for possible impacts on human health, particularly in children. And earlier this year, Gov. Janet Mills created a task forceto examine contamination from PFAS – used in non-stick cookware, firefighting foam and grease-repellent packaging – throughout Maine.
“We have the opportunity to make a small step towards keeping more of these forever chemicals out of our environment by phasing out their use over time without putting an undue burden on food packagers and manufacturers,” said bill sponsor Rep. Jessica Fay, D-Raymond.
Four types of phthalates are already listed by the Maine DEP as “priority chemicals” that require manufacturers to notify the state when they are used in some children’s products. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says human effects from exposure to phthalates is “unknown” but points to studies showing some impacts on the reproductive system of lab animals.RELATEDMills forms task force to study impact of ‘forever chemicals’ in Maine
The per- and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals collectively known as PFAS, meanwhile, have emerged as a health concern nationwide. A growing number of studies suggest PFAS – particularly two phased-out varieties, PFOA and PFOS – are linked to cancer, thyroid disruption and low birth weights as well as changes in the reproductive and immunological systems of lab animals.
Chemical and packaging manufacturers testified Wednesday that Fay’s proposed “blanket prohibition” on phthalates and PFAS ignores the fact that many varieties of the chemicals have been approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European health officials.
Raymond David, a toxicologist who serves on a phthalates panel of the industry trade group the American Chemistry Council, said while four phthalates were identified as likely to harm the human reproductive system, none of the others have been flagged as potentially harmful. So, David said, it would be wrong to classify all phthalates as “chemicals of concern” because there are so many different varieties.
“There is no regulatory body in the world that has done that because the science simply doesn’t support that,” David told the committee.
Strauch, with the Maine Forest Products Council, said the papermaking industry is concerned about PFAS issues but, rather than regulatory mandates, his members would prefer the “collaborative, fact-finding” approach envisioned in the governor’s PFAS task force.
Bill supporters dismissed such statements, however, as predictable responses from chemical companies. Instead, they urged lawmakers to ban these long-lasting chemicals and continue leading the nation on regulation of potential toxics in consumer products.
“We are told by manufacturers that the substitutes are safer and we have nothing to worry about, but inevitably similar health and environmental concerns arise after we’ve already been exposed, so we end up back where we started from,” said Gail Carlson, an assistant professor of environmental studies at Colby College.
“The common-sense approach to protect public health is to ban food packaging that contains any of these chemicals, the old ones and the new substitutes from the same chemical families,” Carlson said.
The most emotional testimony of the day came from Fred Stone, an Arundel farmer who says his century-old business family business has been ruined by PFAS contamination.
Like many farmers in Maine and around the nation, Stone spread treated municipal sludge on his farm fields for decades as fertilizer. But in 2016, the Kennebunkport, Kennebunk and Wells Water District notified Stone of elevated PFAS levels in water from a district well on his farm.
Subsequent testing showed PFAS levels in soils that were 42 times higher than “action levels” set by the Maine DEP and levels in milk that were seven times higher than the state’s cut-off for dairy processors to accept milk. Stone eventually lost his contract with Oakhurst Dairy and estimates he is losing $450 a day, despite installing a state-of-the-art water filter and shipping in hay grown on farms in other states that did not receive sludge.
Last month, the Maine DEP ordered wastewater treatment plants across Maine to begin testing sludge for PFAS before it can be spread on farm fields or sold as compost. That testing is expected to begin next month.
The bill discussed Thursday would affect food packaging, not sludge spreading. But Stone urged lawmakers to take steps to regulate chemicals that can leach out of food packaging into landfills, soils and waters.
“These chemicals do not dissipate,” Stone said. “Our fields are just as contaminated today as they were when we spread the sludge on those fields” more than 12 years ago.
“I’m sure some in the chemical industry may stand up here with new formulas . . . and think they are safe,” Stone said. “But after being ruined by this thing, I’d be pretty damned reluctant to believe any chemical companies.”
https://www.pressherald.com/2019/04/17/lawmakers-consider-ban-on-pfas-chemicals-in-food-packaging/
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Announces Nearly Complete Ban On Asbestos
Apr 17, 2019 | CNN
By Gregory Wallace
The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday announced a nearly complete ban on the manufacturing and importing of asbestos.
The rule will close loopholes in a decades-old partial ban, and EPA is separately reviewing the limited instances where asbestos is still used in industrial processes or included in products, said Alexandra Dunn, the agency's assistant administrator overseeing chemical regulation.
"We had a very dangerous loophole that we had not addressed," Dunn told CNN on Wednesday. "We're essentially closing the door on these products. We are making sure they cannot come into the marketplace without action from the EPA."
When the agency proposed this Significant New Use Rule, or SNUR, last summer, safety advocates raised concerns that it would allow importers and manufacturers to apply for an EPA permit, and the prohibited uses were narrowly construed. But Dunn said a SNUR is the agency's best regulatory option, considering it does not have the authority for an outright ban.
She said the agency received "extensive" feedback on the proposal, and expanded the scope of the proposal to include any use of asbestos not currently taking place.
The industry group American Chemistry Council voiced support for the rule, which it said "will strengthen EPA's ability to regulate asbestos."
The industry group also said that any requests for exceptions to the ban would require "a rigorous safety review, regulation and restrictions."
Gary Timm, a retired EPA official who now works with the Environmental Protection Network, said the rule is a positive action by the Trump administration.
"Most of the things coming out of the EPA these days aren't good," he said, "but their asbestos work is so well documented."
He said the natural next step for the agency would be to work toward an outright ban on asbestos use.
Asbestos is still used in a limited number of industrial settings, such as for filtering chemicals, and is included in some vehicle brakes. But the widespread use of asbestos in building products, including insulation, was discontinued years ago.
One mesothelioma victims advocacy group, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, said EPA's actions were "deeply disappointing" and called for Congress to take action on a more complete ban.
EPA is currently reviewing the ongoing uses of asbestos, and could propose a ban or further restrictions, Dunn said. She pointed out a number of laws and regulations govern the processing and clean up of buildings constructed with asbestos.
Asbestos is a naturally occurring substance that is mined and prized for its string-like fibers. It has been linked to mesothelioma, which causes about 3,000 deaths annually, according to 2017 CDC data.
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement the regulation will give EPA "unprecedented authorities to protect public health from domestic and imported asbestos products."
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/17/politics/epa-asbestos/index.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA to Oversee More Products With Asbestos Under Final Rule (1)
Apr 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Final EPA asbestos rule intended to close regulatory loophole
Rule applies to U.S. makers and importers of asbestos-containing products
U.S. manufacturers would be barred from reviving abandoned uses of the cancer-causing mineral asbestos without EPA approval, under a final agency rule released April 17.
The rule, the first in 30 years that addresses products that contain asbestos, is intended to close a regulatory loophole. It strengthens the EPA’s oversight over asbestos, a known carcinogen that also causes a deadly lung disease. end tweak
The rule (RIN 2070–AK45) would also apply to imported products.
“Prior to this new rule, EPA did not have the ability to prevent or restrict certain asbestos products from being reintroduced into the market,” Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in announcing the regulation.
EPA staff members and others had been concerned that the loophole could allow companies to resume manufacturing the mineral.
18 CategoriesThe EPA’s “significant new use rule” requires companies to notify the agency before they make or import any of 18 categories of products that used to contain asbestos but no longer do. After notifying the EPA, the agency would have 90 days to decide whether to allow production or importation to begin again or to prevent it.
The final rule expanded the categories of products requiring EPA’s oversight compared to the 15 categories included in a proposed rule released in June 2018. Among the expansions is a “catch all” category called “any use of asbestos not otherwise identified.”
The rule excludes ongoing uses such as the importation of raw asbestos to make equipment for producing chlorine and caustic soda; flame-resistant brakes used in oilfields; and certain industrial gaskets and seals.
Neither asbestos nor most products made with the mineral are banned in the U.S. That’s because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 1991 overturned an EPA regulation that would have banned most uses.
‘Toothless Regulation’Yet in the 30 years since, U.S. manufacturers have stopped using the mineral due to liability concerns.
The EPA’s rule, therefore, is a “toothless regulation,” said Linda Reinstein, president of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization. To think that any company would willingly attempt to resurrect obsolete uses of the cancer-causing mineral is “ludicrous,” she said in a statement.
Meanwhile, chlor-alkali manufacturers, which use asbestos to make equipment that produces chlorine and caustic soda, imported hundreds of tons of the mineral last year, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
EPA’s regulation fails to address these continuing imports, “effectively giving the chlor-alkali industry a free pass to continue to import and use hundreds of metric tons of the deadly mineral,” Reinstein said.
Final Assessment Due June 2020The EPA is examining the way asbestos and asbestos containing products continue to be used in the U.S. to decide whether they pose an unreasonable risk warranting regulation.
The agency is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act to complete a final risk assessment of such ongoing uses by June 2020.
EPA’s rule strengthens the agency’s ability to regulate asbestos by reinforcing restrictions on the mineral’s use in building, construction, and other products that have not been used in decades, Jon Corley, a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, said by email.
But environmental and health groups said the agency’s rule does not go far enough.
“This new rule makes it more difficult for industry to resume some abandoned uses of asbestos, but that is a half step at best,” Melanie Benesh, a legislative attorney at the Environmental Working Group, said in a statement.
That group, along with the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, called on the EPA to ban all uses of asbestos.
(Updated with additional reporting throughout.)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-to-oversee-products-containing-asbestos-under-final-rule
-
E.P.A. Moves to ‘Close the Door’ on Asbestos. Consumer Groups Say Loopholes Remain.
Apr 18, 2019 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Wednesday issued a regulation it said would impose new restrictions on asbestos, a deadly substance once commonly found in insulation materials.
The final Environmental Protection Agency rule goes somewhat further than the initial version the agency had proposed, but public health advocates said it still fell short of the protections needed.
Under the rule, the agency will require companies to obtain federal approval in order to domestically manufacture or import specific types of products using asbestos. Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, the E.P.A. assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, said the rule would “close the door” on using asbestos without approval.
Asbestos is a set of six naturally occurring fibrous minerals that have the ability to resist heat, fire and electricity but are also known carcinogens. Under the rule, if a company wanted to use the substance in any of 15 specific ways, including as a component in floor tile or roofing felt, it would have to seek E.P.A. review and approval. Previously banned asbestos items like pipe insulation would remain banned.
“Prior to this new rule, E.P.A. did not have the ability to prevent or restrict certain asbestos products from being reintroduced into the market,” Andrew Wheeler, the agency’s administrator, said in a statement. He said the measure gave regulators “unprecedented authorities” to prohibit asbestos products from entering or re-entering the market.
The move comes just days after Mr. Wheeler testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee that he would commit to banning current uses of asbestos under federal chemical safety law. Consumer groups said the E.P.A.’s new regulation falls well short of that pledge.
Linda Reinstein, president of Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, an asbestos victim advocacy group, called the rule “toothless.” She noted that the regulation does not restrict the import of raw asbestos, which is commonly used in the chlorine industry.
According to the organization, asbestos poisoning is linked to about 40,000 deaths in the United States annually.
“More than 60 nations around the world have put public health before private profits and banned asbestos,” Ms. Reinstein said. “Americans deserve the same from our government.”
The E.P.A. was required to create the new process for regulating uses of asbestos under a 2016 amendment to the Toxic Substances Control Act. That Obama-era amendment requires the agency to regularly re-evaluate the harmfulness of toxic materials.
A version of the asbestos rule put forward last year prompted an outcry from E.P.A. scientists, who said in internal emails obtained by The New York Times that they feared the regulation would make it easier for asbestos to come back into more widespread use.
But public health activists said the final rule had one important improvement over the previous version. It added a catchall category of “any use of asbestos not previously identified” that also would trigger review.
Gary Timm, a former chief of chemical testing at the E.P.A. who retired in 2011 and now works with the Environmental Protection Network, a consortium of former agency employees that has been critical of the rule, praised the measure on Wednesday and said the group would not oppose it.
“A complete ban is appropriate but this is an easier thing to do. It’s something that should put a fence around the current uses,” Mr. Timm said. “It’s a partial step, a good first step.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/climate/epa-asbestos-rule.html
-
EPA Broadens Asbestos SNUR But Still Faces Criticism Over Lack Of Ban
Apr 18, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has expanded the number of renewed asbestos uses for which manufacturers would have to seek agency approval though its final significant new use rule (SNUR), issued under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), still falls short of calls from some states and environmentalists for even broader restrictions or a total ban.
“Considering that asbestos has been used in thousands of applications, EPA recognizes the public’s comments on the [SNUR] as originally proposed and whether it covered all uses of asbestos that are no longer ongoing in the United States,” a pre-publication copy of the SNUR states.
EPA's proposed version of the SNUR, issued last June, would have governed 15 abandoned uses of asbestos if manufacturers sought to revive them. Once published in the Federal Register, the SNUR requires anyone seeking to start using asbestos in the ways outlined in the rule to notify EPA and be subject to a review process, wherein EPA can bar or restrict future use.
But the final version of the rule, issued April 17, adds at least two new categories of uses subject to the regulation, including a broad category of “all other uses of asbestos that are no longer ongoing and not already prohibited under TSCA,” as well as a category covering “friction materials."
“The Agency’s intent in this final SNUR is to cover all uses of asbestos that are neither ongoing in the United States nor already banned under TSCA,” the notice says.
By definition, a SNUR cannot apply to ongoing uses of a chemical. As a result, the final rule notes that in the SNUR, “EPA is explicitly excluding from this rulemaking uses of asbestos that are already prohibited under TSCA through the 1989 partial ban under TSCA section 6 or are currently ongoing.”
EPA's 1989 attempt to ban asbestos under section 6 of the original 1976 TSCA -- and its reversal by the Fifth Circuit in 1991 -- were part of the impetus for reforming the original statute in 2016.
The final rule appears to have reverted to an approach similar to that of an early internal draft of the SNUR which was never publicly released. According to internal emails obtained by The New York Times, agency staff in several offices preferred the broader approach over the public proposal because it required companies to provide EPA “a significant new [use] notice (SNUN) for all uses [of asbestos] that are not ongoing.”
In an April 2018 email, a toxics office staffer informs other members of the intra-agency workgroup developing the SNUR that Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention “upper management asked us to take a different approach” on the SNUR. “Instead of requiring a [SNUN] for all uses that are not ongoing ... they have instead asked us to specifically list out certain uses that are no longer ongoing that will require a SNUN.”
'Deeply Disappointing'
But the expanded SNUR has not appeased the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), a group which has been advocating for a total ban on all uses of asbestos for years.
ADAO President Linda Reinstein released an April 17 statement calling the SNUR “deeply disappointing,” especially after Administrator Andrew Wheeler told a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing that he was committed to “banning ongoing uses of asbestos.”
Calling the SNUR “toothless,” Reinstein argued that because it does not ban uses of asbestos it “leaves the door open to their return to the marketplace.
Among other things, she said the rule “fails to address the continuing imports of raw asbestos into the United States, effectively giving the Chlor-Alkali industry a free pass to continue to import and use hundreds of metric tons of the deadly mineral. It also ignores legacy asbestos, which remains an ever present threat in our homes, workplaces, and schools.”
Her comments echo earlier criticisms from ADAO, Democratic attorneys general, environmentalists and former agency officials, who said it precluded a host of possible uses and fell short of the total ban that is needed.
For example, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) charged the proposed rule might fail to capture the full scope of future uses of the substance, and that EPA should further clarify the methodology it will use in reviewing risks from future uses.
MDEP also called on EPA to address in the SNUR “the use of legacy materials that may be manufactured into new products,” and “how these materials and products would be evaluated under the proposed SNUR to ensure protection of human health and the environment” in August 2018 comments.
The state cited asbestos brake linings, taken from scrapped vehicles, and then turned into materials for car parts and other new products, or recycled demolition building products as two examples.
EPA appears to respond to the comments, noting that ongoing uses of asbestos will be covered by its ongoing risk evaluation of existing uses rather than through the SNUR. “Ongoing uses identified by EPA as conditions of use under consideration for the TSCA section 6 risk evaluation (i.e. imported chrysotile for the fabrication of asbestos diaphragms and the following imported chrysotile products: Sheet gaskets, oilfield brake blocks, aftermarket automotive brakes/linings, other vehicle friction products, and other gaskets) are not significant new uses of asbestos and therefore would not require a significant new use notice submission to the Agency.”
But EPA does expand the asbestos uses covered in the SNUR to include “friction materials … to encompass all uses that the Agency has determined to be neither ongoing in the United States nor already prohibited under TSCA.”
The agency also notes in the rule that it received “several public comments on the proposed rule requesting that disposal and recycling of asbestos-containing products ... as well as asbestos mining … be addressed.”
“The Agency does not interpret the disposal of asbestos-containing materials to be 'processing' for a significant new use; therefore, such activity does not require a significant new use notice under this final rule. Disposal is considered to be the end of life for a product.”
“By contrast, however, the Agency does interpret recycling to be processing under TSCA, and recycling of any asbestos-containing material for a significant new use of asbestos subject to this rulemaking requires a SNUN. For example, recycling asbestos building material, such as roofing tiles, for reuse is prohibited without notification, review, and, as necessary, regulation by EPA.”
EPA's release of the final SNUR may indicate that the draft assessment of asbestos' ongoing uses may be released soon, as the proposed rule's release was timed with the release of earlier scoping documents for the assessment.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-broadens-asbestos-snur-still-faces-criticism-over-lack-ban
-
EPA Rule Restricts Sale Of Phased-Out Products
Apr 18, 2019 | E&E PM
By Corbin Hiar,
A new EPA regulation will make it harder for companies to resume selling discontinued asbestos products.
While the rule is more expansive than the agency's initial proposal, it still falls far short of the total ban public health advocates had sought on imports and ongoing uses of the cancer-causing mineral.
"Prior to this new rule, EPA did not have the ability to prevent or restrict certain asbestos products from being reintroduced into the market," EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said today in a press release.
Once published in the Federal Register and in effect, the new rule will prohibit companies that want to make roof sealants, cement, tiles and 13 other types of phased-out asbestos-containing products from doing so "without EPA's prior notice, review and, as necessary, regulation by EPA." The agency had initially proposed restrictions on fewer historical uses (Greenwire, June 1, 2018).
EPA is also evaluating whether the ongoing use of asbestos — mainly for the chloralkali chemical production process — "presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment," according to a scoping document.
That review, however, isn't considering "legacy uses" of the mineral and risks associated with disposing of it.
Much of the harm associated with asbestos occurs when the fire-resistant mineral breaks down. Its fibers are very thin and can get stuck deep in people's lungs, where they can cause scarring, inflammation and lung cancer.
But Wheeler touted the agency's combined efforts to reduce the dangers posed by asbestos.
"This new rule, combined with our ongoing risk evaluations, gives us unprecedented authorities to protect public health from domestic and imported asbestos products and gives us the ability to prohibit asbestos products from entering or reentering the market," he said.
Public health advocates, however, were outraged by the agency's limited steps to regulate the mineral.
"To think that any company would willingly attempt to resurrect these 15 obsolete asbestos uses is ludicrous," Linda Reinstein, president of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, said in a statement. "That EPA would enable it is unconscionable."
Reinstein added, "This rule fails to address the continuing imports of raw asbestos into the United States, effectively giving the Chlor-Alkali industry a free pass to continue to import and use hundreds of metric tons of the deadly mineral. It also ignores legacy asbestos, which remains an ever present threat in our homes, workplaces, and schools."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/04/17/stories/1060174927
-
EPA Restricts New Asbestos Products From Market
Apr 18, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Alex Guillén
EPA announced on Wednesday it would prohibit companies from importing or selling any new asbestos products that have not been reviewed and approved by the agency.
The widely known carcinogenic effects and legal liabilities associated with using asbestos have prompted companies to stop selling most asbestos products used by the public, including building insulation and tiling. Still, EPA said Wednesday’s finalization of a rule first proposed last year — which is separate from a broader EPA analysis of the risks posed by asbestos in products still in use — closes a three-decade-old loophole to stop any potential new asbestos products from slipping into market.
“Essentially there was a dangerous loophole that we identified,” said Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Alexandra Dapolito Dunn in an interview. “We are closing the door on that to ensure that the asbestos products affected by today’s rule will not return back to the marketplace in the U.S. … without EPA review.”
Responding to concerns from a wide range of parties, from environmentalists to Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), EPA expanded the final rule to include a “catch-all” category that ensures no new products can get to market without review by EPA, Dunn said.
“It’s a blanket coverage,” said Dunn. “We want to make sure that we are closing the door on asbestos products coming back to market.”
Last year’s proposal named more than a dozen specific product categories but did not include such a catch-all. Critics argued that could have left the door open to companies selling asbestos products not predicted by EPA.
Along with the broad new category, the final Significant New Use Rule, known in EPA lingo as a SNUR, lists a number of product categories that were once legal but are no longer in use by companies. The products cannot be imported, made or sold in the U.S. without first informing EPA, giving the agency a chance to study them and potentially issue restrictions.
Products listed include insulation and other building materials; vinyl floor tiles; roofing felt; pipeline coatings formerly used by the oil and gas industry; various adhesives, sealants and coatings; millboard; and missile lining. EPA also added four more specific products to the list first published last year, including cement products and packing materials.
Although the SNUR does not outright ban those products, it does ensure EPA will be notified about and able to study any potential future asbestos products. Dunn said she can't pre-judge the outcome of such reviews but said the EPA process was designed to protect public health.
“We’re putting out a very strong regulation to make it clear that we do not anticipate any of these uses coming back into the marketplace,” Dunn said.
In addition, a few asbestos products previously banned in 1989 remain banned, including several types of paper that once contained asbestos, along with flooring felt and rollboard. Those specific bans remained in place even after EPA’s wider attempt to ban asbestos was thrown out in court in 1991.
Lawmakers from both parties continue to mull further legislative action on asbestos.
Daines is drafting a bill that would ban all potential new uses of asbestos, similar to Wednesday’s rule from EPA.
Meanwhile, Democrats in both chambers, including Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, have introduced legislation that would ban all uses of asbestos and require EPA to study "legacy" asbestos previously installed as insulation in buildings around the U.S. Asbestos exposure has been an issue for Montana because of a vermiculite mine near the town of Libby that infamously exposed many workers and residents to asbestos dust.
The final SNUR will take effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Separately, EPA is in the midst of studying current uses of asbestos as part of its initial round of reviews under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act.
Asbestos — all of which is imported to the U.S. — is still used in filters that are part of the chlorine manufacturing process and in a few other chemicals and products. The industry has argued those uses are different from insulation-based asbestos and do not present the same cancer risks.
EPA rejected calls to study the risks posed by insulation installed in the past or by disposal practices. TSCA’s definition of current uses does not cover such “legacy” uses, the agency concluded.
That evaluation is set to conclude in December. EPA will then have one to two years to write and issue any restrictions for those current uses.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/04/epa-restricts-new-asbestos-products-from-market-1363447
-
Critics Say New EPA Rule Could Reintroduce Asbestos Use
Apr 18, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Beitsch
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced Wednesday a new rule they say will limit the use of asbestos in the U.S., but critics, including some of the agency’s own staff, describe it as a half measure that could reintroduce some asbestos products to the market.
The EPA said the new rule closes a loophole from a 30-year-old law that prevented the agency from restricting the sale of certain asbestos products.
“Today, we are following the laws Congress gave us to close the door on certain asbestos products to prevent them from returning to the marketplace without EPA’s review,” Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, assistant administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said in a release, referring to a 2016 law that gave the EPA the power to prohibit asbestos.
But many argue the review process itself could reopen the door to 15 uses of the substance while questioning why the agency didn’t outright ban asbestos.
Under the new rule, manufacturers must notify and seek approval from the EPA before resuming use of asbestos in certain cases.
“To think that any company would willingly attempt to resurrect these 15 obsolete asbestos uses is ludicrous. That EPA would enable it is unconscionable,” the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, which was founded by asbestos victims, wrote in a statement.
Asbestos is currently not banned by the federal government, although the once widely used substance is now almost never used in ways that would expose people to it. Officials have known for decades that asbestos causes illnesses like lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis.
“This new rule makes it more difficult for industry to resume some abandoned uses of asbestos, but that is a half step at best,” Melanie Benesh, legislative attorney at the Environmental Working Group, wrote in a press release. An outright ban “is the only way the public can trust industry will never again be able to use this dangerous material that has literally killed tens of thousands of Americans.”
EPA career staff also questioned why the agency stopped short of a ban when the rule was being developed in the spring of last year.
“This new approach allows asbestos-containing products that are not currently used to be used in the future,” Mark Seltzer, an attorney in the EPA’s enforcement office, told his colleagues in emails first reported on by The New York Times last August. “Many manufacturers have stopped using asbestos in their products but would be allowed to through this.”
Sharon Cooperstein from the EPA’s policy office said in one of the emails that senior officials have “provided the workgroup no clear explanation of why the new approach is preferable” to broader restrictions.
The EPA responded to earlier criticism of the rule saying it was inaccurately being portrayed as opening the floodgates to asbestos.
“If someone wants to start the manufacturing and processing, if we find risk, we can prevent it,” said Nancy Beck, principal deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, told The Hill. “This is a very good story for public health protection.”
It’s possible past remarks by President Trump also fueled skepticism about the EPA’s intentions.
“If we didn't remove incredibly powerful fire retardant asbestos & replace it with junk that doesn't work, the World Trade Center would never have burned down,” he tweeted in 2012. In his 1997 book “Art of the Comeback,” he speculated that the mob had led efforts to stop its use.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/439395-critics-say-new-epa-rule-could-reintroduce-asbestos-use
-
Walmart, Sanofi, Others to Face Claims Over Talc Products
Apr 17, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
COMPANY INFO: Bausch, Sanofi, CVS, Dollar General, Target, Walgreens, Walmart(Bloomberg Law Subscription)
Bausch Health Companies, Sanofi, CVS, Dollar General, Target, Walgreens, and Walmart have been notified that they will soon face suit alleging arsenic, chromium, lead and silica in talcum powder products.
Firms representing California resident Jan Graham filed the 60-day required notice of intent to sue the companies under California’s Proposition 65.
The state law mandates consumer warnings by manufacturers whose products contain listed chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.
With penalties of up to $2,500 per day, per violation, the companies could be subject to hefty fines if the allegations are proven.
In separate notices filed April 15 and 16, the plaintiffs allege the following products fail to meet the Prop. 65 labeling requirements: Equate Medicated Body Powder and Equate Soothing Foot Powder sold by Walmart; Up & Up Maximum Strength Medicated Foot Powder, sold by Target; Well Beginnings Baby Powder, Walgreens Foot Powder Odor Control, and Walgreens Medicated Foot Powder, sold by Walgreens; CVS Health Protective Powder Fresh Scent, sold by CVS; DG Baby Baby Powder, DG Body Shower & Bath Body Powder, DG Body Medicated Body Powder, Rexall Foot Powder, and Rexall Medicated Foot Powder, sold by Dollar General.
The plaintiffs also filed notice against manufacturers Bausch and Sanofi over the following products: Shower to Shower Original Fresh, Shower to Shower Morning Fresh, and Shower to Shower Sport made by Bausch; and Gold Bond Medicated Original Strength Body Powder, Gold Bond Medicated Extra Strength Body Powder, Gold Bond Ultimate Men’s Essential Body Powder, Gold Bond Maximum Strength Foot Powder made by Sanofi.
Cause of Action: California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65).
Relief: Injunctive relief, penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs.
Response: A spokesperson for Bausch Health said the formulation of SHOWER to SHOWER® being distributed by Bausch Health does not contain talc. A spokesperson for Sanofi said the company is assessing the content of the letter and has no further comments to provide. A spokesperson for Target declined to comment. The other companies didn’t immediately respond to request for comment.
Attorneys: Abtahi Law Group PC represents the named plaintiff.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/talc-manufacturers-retailers-to-face-failure-to-warn-claims
-
US Alternative Testing Committee Co Convene Public Forum
Apr 18, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The US National Toxicology Program's Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (Iccvam) will hold its annual public forum on 23 May.
Iccvam aims to advance alternatives to animal testing through collaboration between various stakeholders. These include governmental and nongovernmental groups, such as academia, industry and advocacy organisations.
It has held forums since 2014 to "facilitate direct communication of ideas and suggestions".
The meeting will be in Bethesda, Maryland, and will focus on the development of alternative test approaches, as well as the implementation of the organisation’s strategic roadmap for evaluating the safety of chemicals and medical products.
Interested persons may provide public oral statements and attend either in person or via webcast.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76587/us-alternative-testing-committee-to-convene-public-forum
-
California Clarifies Methylene Chloride Paint Remover Compliance
Apr 18, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control has issued guidance for complying with its regulations regarding paint removers containing methylene chloride, after the US EPA issued a rule banning the products for consumer uses.
The DTSC designated paint and varnish removers containing methylene chloride as priority products under its Safer Consumer Products programme effective 1 January. This triggered the requirement for any manufacturer selling these products in California to submit a notification by 4 March.
Under the state’s scheme, manufacturers then would either need to reformulate in order to continue selling in California, or prepare an alternatives analysis.
However, last month, the EPA issued a final rule under TSCA banning the products for consumer uses. And this, said the DTSC in a 10 April memo, may result in manufacturers also covered by its regulations removing products from commerce by the EPA’s November retail sales prohibition.
The memo advises those who will be pulling their products to submit a product removal intent notification or a product removal confirmation by 1 July. The former requires the company to stop fulfilling orders in California within 90 days and to submit a removal confirmation once it has done so.
But the DTSC noted that the EPA's ban extends only to retail sales and not to distributors who sell only to commercial end users.
And if a manufacturer continues to sell to these distributors, the company "should continue to comply with all requirements of the Safer Consumer Products regulations, including the submittal of a preliminary alternatives analysis report or abridged alternatives analysis, by 1 July," it said.
According to the CalSafer information portal, ten companies have submitted priority product notifications to the state.
And a spokesperson for the DTSC told Chemical Watch it did not know yet how many, if any, of these companies will move forward with completing an alternatives analysis in light of the EPA’s decision.
While the majority of companies had not responded to Chemical Watch’s request for comment by press time, maintenance product company NCH Corporation said it has not made any final decisions.
The manufacturer Prosoco, meanwhile, submitted a product removal confirmation notification to the state on 4 March.
The DTSC says it is available to assist manufacturers with any questions on the regulations.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76653/california-clarifies-methylene-chloride-paint-remover-compliance
-
California EPA To Hold Webinar On Human Health Risk Assessment
Apr 18, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) is holding a webinar entitled: Understanding and applying read-across for human health risk assessment’ on 2 May.
The webinar will be divided into three sessions, with the second focusing on read-across principles in testing and assessing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). Featuring both federal and state government officials, this will include discussions on:PFASs in California: the current need for characterisation;PFAS prioritisation for targeted testing;NTP approach to testing of PFASs; andapproaches to hazard and dose response assessment.
Oehha has selected PFASs as a case study because the general approach of the EPA and the National Toxicology Program "to using read-across for these chemicals could be applied more broadly to other classes." They also cited a high level of interest in PFASs from the public, stakeholders and regulators.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76655/california-epa-to-hold-webinar-on-human-health-risk-assessment
-
EPA Sends Proposed Perchlorate Goal To OMB
Apr 17, 2019 | Inside EPA
EPA has formally floated its proposed health-based drinking water goal on the rocket fuel ingredient perchlorate to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, part of an effort to meet a court-ordered April 30 deadline for what could drive one of the first regulatory standards since Congress amended the drinking water law in 1996.
OMB's website indicates that it received the proposed maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) April 16, which gives it limited time to review the rule before the deadline set by Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York last December. Generally, OMB is allotted 90 days to review rules before they can be published for public comment, though this review can be longer or shorter.
Ramos last Dec. 10 extended EPA's deadline by six months at the agency's request, after it encountered delays in peer-reviewing and revising a complicated model it intends to use to set the standard. “A six-month extension is suitably tailored to the delays that EPA has experienced,” Ramos wrote in the order. “The Court expects that the EPA will work diligently to meet its revised deadline.”
The deadline is the result of a settlement between EPA and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which sued in February 2016, charging that EPA missed a two-year deadline under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for proposing the MCLG after the agency's 2011 determination that perchlorate should be regulated.
But EPA's efforts to set such a goal have been hobbled by challenges in expanding a biologically-based dose-response (BBDR) model to help set the standard, as recommended by agency science advisors in 2013, and undergoing peer review of the updated model.
Some stakeholders, however, are urging EPA to move away from the BBDR approach, and instead use the traditional algebraic formula to set the perchlorate standard using the National Academy of Sciences' 2007 risk estimate for perchlorate. The American Water Works Association has proposed a return to this earlier approach, and funded a recent publication by consultants in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology supporting the argument. They question the BBDR model's fitness for use in crafting the standard.
MCLGs are non-enforceable goals that consider only public health and not the limits of detection and treatment technology effectiveness, according to EPA. Therefore, they sometimes are set at levels which water systems cannot meet because of technological limitations.
One EPA sets a final MCLG, the agency is generally required to set an enforceable standard or maximum contaminant level that “is set as close to the MCLG as feasible” but takes cost and technical feasibility into account.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-sends-proposed-perchlorate-goal-omb
-
Resisting EPA, DOD Chief Defends Eased PFAS Groundwater Cleanup Level
Apr 18, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan is strongly defending his department's stance that the acceptable risk level for remediating groundwater contaminated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) should be much weaker than the 70 parts-per-trillion (ppt) level that EPA favors, raising doubts that officials will be able to quickly issue a long-promised policy.
In an April 10 letter to Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), first obtained by Inside EPA, Shanahan denies the Defense Department (DOD) is “seeking to weaken” EPA's preferred groundwater cleanup level for the two most common PFAS: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). “The short answer is no,” he says.
At the same time, he defends his department's position in the long-running inter-agency dispute for a risk cleanup level of 380 ppt -- much less stringent than EPA's preferred 70 ppt level -- saying DOD's level is based on the risk-based process EPA endorses under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
DOD “has proactively addressed PFOS and PFOA,” applying CERCLA, he says. “As such, the Department is not seeking a different or weaker cleanup standard, but supports the use of the long-established CERCLA risk-based cleanup approach based on [EPA's] implementing regulations.
“This approach is based on sound science and applies to everyone and every chemical, nationwide,” he adds.
“Using the EPA risk assessment process, the unacceptable risk to human health for cleanup of groundwater with PFOS and PFOA is approximately 380 parts per trillion (ppt),” he says.
Shanahan's letter responds to questions from Shaheen at a March 14 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing where the senator pressed him to confirm or deny a press report that DOD had urged EPA to set a weaker groundwater cleanup standard than the agency had recommended.
His response appears to cement DOD's position in its long-simmering dispute with EPA over a groundwater cleanup policy even as calls have built in recent weeks from Democratic lawmakers urging EPA not to accede to pressure from DOD and other agencies to set a weaker level than 70 ppt.
For example, Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the Environment & Public Works Committee ranking member, sent EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler a March 13 letter that urged him to “resist these or any other efforts to weaken the clean-up standard and quickly finalize guidelines that are sufficiently protective of human health and the environment.”
His letter referred to EPA's interim federal groundwater cleanup recommendations to address PFOA and PFOS in groundwater, which has been stalled at the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) since last August due to debate among EPA and other agencies over the appropriate cleanup level.
According to Carper, EPA's plan called for a groundwater cleanup level for PFOA and PFOS at 70 ppt, equivalent to the agency's 2016 lifetime health advisory for the two chemicals, combined.
But DOD, as well as the National Aeronautics & Space Administration and Small Business Administration, opposed such a limit and insisted on a level of 400 ppt, which would significantly reduce the number of contaminated sites and cleanup costs the federal agencies face, according to Carper.
The cleanup level is critical for DOD as officials have estimated the department faces about $2 billion in cleanup liability stemming from PFAS contamination -- though it is not clear what cleanup level that figure assumes.
PFAS Contamination
PFAS -- which were used in a host of non-stick commercial and industrial applications, including in firefighting foam used by the military -- have been linked to adverse health effects including certain cancers, ulcerative colitis and other conditions.
As a result, growing evidence of water contamination in states across the country is raising fears and calls from lawmakers and others for EPA to address it though the agency has been slow to adopt regulatory standards.
Nevertheless, Wheeler and other EPA officials promised in their PFAS Action Plan that they would issue the groundwater cleanup policy. And EPA water chief David Ross told a House hearing last month that the policy would be issued “in the very near future."
In the absence of a federal standard, states, including New Jersey, have been stepping in and setting their own standards that are stricter than EPA's proposed standard.
As a result, one former EPA official hopes a resolution on the groundwater policy is reached soon, saying it is needed to stave off inconsistency among states on cleanup levels.
The issue will almost certainly continue to receive close congressional scrutiny. Shaheen, for example, also led a letter from 16 senators later in March asking both Shanahan and Wheeler to release communications among their departments and the White House over both the pending groundwater guidance and on work toward developing drinking water standards for the chemicals.
But it is not clear what action Congress will take. Both Carper and Maureen Sullivan, DOD's top environment official, recently expressed doubts over the prospects for bipartisan and bicameral legislation that seeks to boost regulation and funding for addressing PFAS cleanup.
It is “never a good sign” when a bill is referred to multiple committees, Sullivan told state regulators recently, referring to a bill that seeks to list all PFAS as “hazardous substances” under Superfund law.
And Carper recently touted the bill and said he expects to add co-sponsors.
But, he said, “in the meantime,Congress needs to continue conducting consistent and persistent oversight on the administration, especially EPA and the Department of Defense, and impart a strong sense of urgency.” --
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/resisting-epa-dod-chief-defends-eased-pfas-groundwater-cleanup-level
-
UN Rapporteur ‘Deeply Concerned’ About Titanium Dioxide Labelling Proposal
Apr 18, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The UN's special rapporteur on human rights and hazardous substances has expressed his doubts about a proposed amendment to the CLP Regulation that would define specific labelling obligations for mixtures containing titanium dioxide.
In an 11 April letter to European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker, Baskut Tuncak raised concerns that a proposed entry of titanium dioxide into the 14th Adaptation to Technical and Scientific Progress (ATP) of CLP does not include all forms and sizes of the substance.
Titanium dioxide is used in spray-on sunscreen, cosmetics and spray paints.
Mr Tuncak’s letter coincided with the latest REACH committee meeting, which has discussed the proposal several times, with scheduled votes being postponed while talks continue between committee members and the European Commission.
At the March sitting, concerns were raised over waste containing titanium dioxide. Notably these included how to handle waste containing the substance when it can be in powder, solid or liquid forms.
In late January the Commission proposed restricting the substance’s classification mainly to mixtures in powder form. It argued that titanium dioxide-induced carcinogenicity is only associated with inhalation.Warning exemptions
However, Mr Tuncak said that, with the exception of certain powders, this would exempt various forms of titanium dioxide of concern from cancer warning requirements. This, he added, "may amount to denying access to information about potential carcinogenic properties of titanium dioxide in most titanium-dioxide-containing products in common use".
Vital information on hazardous substances and wastes "continues to remain unavailable and/or inaccessible", including information about their hazardous properties, exposure levels and incidences of diseases and other adverse health impacts, he said.
"I am deeply concerned that withholding from workers, consumers, and the public at large, information concerning titanium dioxide’s suspected carcinogenic properties would deprive them of essential information that is their human right."
For workers in particular, "this may be a form of exploitation by deception and violation and abuse of numerous rights encompassed by their right to safe and healthy working conditions," he said.
He also took aim at the private sector, saying he was "deeply concerned by the alleged failure of certain business interests", including the Titanium Dioxide Manufacturers Association (TDMA) and its members, "to fully respect human rights in their products and various activities implicating the hazards and risks" of the substance.
He noted a need for EU member states to "better integrate" human rights considerations in the management of toxic chemicals and wastes.TDMA reaction
In comments to Chemical Watch, the TDMA said the letter specifies that Echa recommended titanium dioxide be classified as a suspected carcinogen by the inhalation route, but also states that all forms should therefore be classified.
This, it said, is a contradiction "since not all forms and sizes" are inhalable. If the classification was applied to all forms, it added, this would result in labelling of products "where titanium dioxide is fully bound and is impossible to inhale, providing incorrect information about the potential hazard properties of the product".
According to the association, many stakeholders have highlighted concerns that misleading labelling would be applied to products for which there is no hazard, "likely" leading to consumer confusion.
"This is essential as the suspected hazard described for titanium dioxide is a secondary dust effect, caused by prolonged inhalation exposure to respirable particles at an extremely high concentration." These conditions, it said, are unlikely to occur in real-life situations.
TDMA said it has a "strong and longstanding commitment" to protect the health and safety of our workers and the users of the chemical.
"The integrity of our industry rests upon the integrity of our product safety data and communications. We firmly believe this and it is the reason we are fighting hard to ensure that this information is presented factually and clearly to all stakeholders."
In March the US asked the EU to postpone its proposal to classify titanium dioxide and cobalt metal as carcinogens, warning that these moves may be "unnecessarily disruptive to billions of dollars of US-EU trade".
https://chemicalwatch.com/76668/un-rapporteur-deeply-concerned-about-titanium-dioxide-labelling-proposal
-
Chemical Assessments Have Long Road Ahead for European Agency
Apr 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Chemicals agency says 16,440 chemicals need review for possible controls by 2027Process will trigger requests to companies to provide more substance safety data
The European Chemicals Agency faces a mountain of work in the next few years as it seeks to identify whether thousands of substances registered under the European Union’s REACH law should be targeted with new regulatory controls.
In a report issued April 17, the Helsinki-based agency said that of about 19,000 chemicals registered by May 2018 under REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation, authorization, and restriction of chemicals), 16,440 are considered “uncertain” in terms of what might need to be done to regulate them.
Of substances registered under REACH that have so far been through safety evaluations, more than half—51.4 percent—have been categorized as requiring more information before a final decision can be made on whether they need regulatory controls.
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) can require companies to provide more information on the chemicals they sell. The large number of substances currently rated “uncertain” means companies can expect to continue receiving such requests for sometimes costly safety studies for years to come.
“This could require considerable work from industry,” and ECHA should issue a list of substances or groups of substances considered uncertain to help companies prioritize, said Sylvie Lemoine, executive director for product stewardship at the European Chemical Industry Council.
Reducing Uncertainty PoolECHA said it has already front-loaded the work on identifying the most hazardous chemicals under REACH, and therefore, most uncertain substances would likely be classified as needing more information or as low priority for further analysis.
The designation of substances as uncertain “does not necessarily mean that there is uncertainty about the safe use of the substance, but it is currently open whether regulatory measures will be started in the future,” said Florian Tholey, spokesman for BASF SE. The company has filed about 1,800 REACH registration dossiers.
ECHA said identifying uncertain substances as high priority for regulatory assessment, as needing more data, or as low priority would be done in two phases: by the end of 2020 for chemicals traded in the EU in annual volumes above 100 metric tons, and by 2027 for other chemicals.
ECHA is currently “grouping substances together and trying to identify those groups of clearly low priority,” which should be complete by the end of 2019, the agency said in an email to Bloomberg Environment.
Information RequestsBut ECHA could be underestimating the number of substances for which binding requests will need to be sent to companies for new data, Tatiana Santos, chemicals policy manager with nonprofit advocacy group the European Environmental Bureau, told Bloomberg Environment.
Previous reports by ECHA on the compliance of registration dossiers with REACH information requirements have shown noncompliance in about three quarters of cases, and “we can forecast that similar rates will apply to the uncertain area,” Santos said.
ECHA’s move from assessing substances individually to assessing groups of structurally similar substances was welcome and should mean the aim of classifying all substances registered under REACH by 2027 is realistic, she said.
For correct classification, ECHA would need information from registrants. That could mean authorities will “punish those who have done their job and submitted proper information and reward those who don’t with prolonged time lines to comply and also a longer time before regulation of their substances kicks in,” Jerker Ligthart, senior chemicals adviser with ChemSec, told Bloomberg Environment.
Chemical companies are working with ECHA to see which substances and groups of substances should be focused on “so that the uncertain zone of the chemical universe of registered substances is sorted out,” Lemoine said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/european-chemicals-agency-report-illustrates-safety-assessment-mountain
-
France to Ban Titanium Dioxide in Food Products
Apr 17, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
overnment takes ‘precautionary’ move on food additive
Agency says lack of safety data prevents setting daily admissible intake
France will ban titanium dioxide in food products starting in 2020, the government announced.
The ministers of ecology and economy said they made the April 17 decision to bar the sale of food products containing the E171 additive in France as a precautionary measure. The move came after an opinion from the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health, and Safety.
In its April 15 opinion, the agency—known as ANSES—said there wasn’t enough data to decide how much of the additive is safe.
“In particular, no acceptable daily intake can be set for it, because of the lack of data,” the agency reported.
E171 is a food additive used in numerous food products for its coloring and opaque properties. It is made up of titanium dioxide, especially in nanoparticle form.
“Evaluation of risks linked to the use of this additive still suffers from a lack of data that marketers and manufacturers should have supplied,” the agency said.
Trade Threat?The government statement said that a decree implementing the suspension has already been signed and will be published soon in the country’s Official Journal.
Because the E171 additive has an EU authorization, France is required to inform the European Commission and other EU members of the suspension, and they are to meet within 10 to days to examine the measure, it said.
A European Union plan to add warning labels to products with titanium dioxide is under fire from the governments of the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand for potentially disrupting the multibillion-dollar trade in the substance and in products that contain the compound.
U.S. exporters sell $3 billion worth of titanium dioxide annually, plus $7 billion to $8 billion of products containing the substance that could be caught up in the labeling requirements, the U.S. has said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/france-to-ban-titanium-dioxide-additive-from-food-products-jan-1
-
Waste Management Bodies Back Echa SVHC Database
Apr 17, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
A group of associations representing hazardous waste operators are supporting the development of Echa’s SVHC database, saying the data will help them manage waste streams better.
The database came out of the revised waste framework Directive (WFD) that entered into force in July. It will hold information provided by companies producing, importing or supplying articles that contain candidate list substances.
They will need to submit this information for articles placed on the market from 5 January 2021. The agency has until the end of this year to develop it.
The database is being backed by waste treatment and recycling associations:the European Union for Responsible Incineration and Treatment of Special Wastes (Eurits);the Spanish Association of Industrial and Hazardous Waste Operators (ASEGRE); andthe International Solid Waste Association (ISWA).
Their support follows strong opposition from a group of downstream industry associations that will be subject to the requirements. Expressing their concerns, the group has called on Echa to reconsider its development.
And while it welcomes a centralised location for this information, and its use in improving traceability, the European recycling industry association (EuRIC) says in a position paper that the level of detail contained in the database is likely to be "overwhelming".
EuRIC also raises a number of other concerns, including its inability to provide information on chemicals in legacy products.Increased costs
Speaking at Chemical Watch’s Global Business Summit in Brussels last month, Nicolas Humez, chair of the Hazardous Waste Working Group of the ISWA, said: "Some operators are not happy with the database because if they know that there are substances of concern in the waste streams they receive, they will have problems with recycling these materials."
It will increase the cost of recycling, says Mr Humez. But "we have to take on this responsibility because it is up to the [waste operators] to ensure that we don’t have those substances of concern in the material loop."
Along with other EU regulatory measures that address hazardous substances and waste, the development of the database means Europe now has a "very powerful" framework to deal with the problem of contaminated materials.
These measures enable traceability, non-dilution and decontamination. "This will ensure safer recycling of hazardous waste containing chemicals," Mr Humez says.
Mike Hale, Eurits secretariat, says many in the waste management sector do see a value in the new database.
"As with all of these things the devil is in the detail." However, fundamentally the issue is one of knowledge transfer from the substance/material/object producer through the value chain to ultimately the waste management operator, adds Mr Hale.
"The better the quality of information we [in the waste management sector] have, the greater the opportunity to correctly treat the waste and … recycle or recover as much as possible."
"Having that data in one place will be a great help," he says.
From Eurits’ perspective, the biggest challenge will be the scope of the database. Echa talks about using the REACH candidate list or substances of very high concern (SVHCs) as the starting point but the waste framework Directive refers to all hazardous substances, not just SVHCs, says Mr Hale.
Luis Palomino, ASEGRE secretary general, welcomes "any information that helps us make decisions to protect our employees, collect separately, not mix [waste], and to decide the appropriate treatment route".Design challenges
Martina Melander, public affairs manager at Swedish recycling and waste treatment firm Fortum, told Chemical Watch that in "the longer-term the database can be helpful for our industry".
However, there are "challenges" in the design.
It is unclear, she says, how waste operators will be able to search the information and how the results can be interpreted, considering the long life span of some articles that probably will not be in the register because they were put on the market before the database was established.
We do not yet know enough about how this will be designed, so it is difficult to assess how useful it is going to be, adds Ms Melander.
The scope of the information requirements are still under discussion. A decision was made to first develop a prototype and then, according to Echa, "further improve it, based on user feedback".But the agency has not yet started work on this, due to a lack of a long-term financing plan and unresolved staffing issues, over which discussions with the Commission are still ongoing.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76620/waste-management-bodies-back-echa-svhc-database
-
Echa Calls For Evidence On Lead, Diisocyanates
Apr 18, 2019 | Chemical Watch
Echa has issued a call for comments and evidence on lead and diisocyanates, to support its recommendations on occupational exposure limits (OELs) for the compounds.
The call targets companies, trade associations and any other stakeholders or member state authorities, the agency says. It is asking for information on:uses;exposure;health effects;toxicology;epidemiology; andmodes of action.
This will help Echa in drafting the scientific reports that will form the basis of its proposals for OELs under the carcinogens and mutagens Directive (CMD) and the chemical agents Directive.
Lead and its compounds and diisocyanates are the first OEL recommendations Echa has been tasked withsince it took over the responsibilities of DG Employment's Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits (Scoel), earlier this year.
The deadline for comments is 30 June 2019.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76658/echa-calls-for-evidence-on-lead-diisocyanates
-
Final EIS Issued for Kinder’s Gulf LNG Export Project in Mississippi
Apr 17, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
FERC staff has completed a final environmental impact statement (EIS) for three affiliates of Kinder Morgan Inc. (KMI) to convert an existing liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal in Mississippi into an export terminal.
The Gulf LNG Liquefaction Project calls for expanding KMI facilities in Jackson County that would include two liquefaction trains, each with a capacity of 5 million metric tons/year (mmty) and maximum capacity of more than 5.4 mmty. Affiliates Gulf LNG Liquefaction Co. LLC, Gulf LNG Energy LLC and Gulf LNG Pipeline LLC also propose modifying the existing pipeline system to provide bidirectional flow.
Constructing and operating the project “would result in limited adverse environmental impacts," the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said in the final EIS [CP15-521]. "If the project is constructed and operated in accordance with the mitigating measures discussed in this EIS, and our recommendations, adverse environmental impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels." The draft EIS was issued last November.
FERC's determination that the project would have minimal environmental impacts includes the fact that the terminal would be an expansion of an existing, operating LNG import terminal with existing LNG storage tanks and other facilities. The Commission also said a compensatory wetland mitigation plan proposed by Gulf LNG would adequately address impacts on wetlands.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/118073-final-eis-issued-for-kinders-gulf-lng-export-project-in-mississippi
-
Kinder Morgan's Planned Gulf LNG Export Plant In Mississippi Passes Environmental Test
Apr 17, 2019 | Reuters
By Scott DiSavino
(Reuters) - Kinder Morgan Inc’s proposed Gulf liquefied natural gas (LNG) export plant in Mississippi took a step toward receiving federal approval for construction on Wednesday after staff at the federal energy regulator prepared an environmental report.
Construction and operation of the project would result in some adverse environmental impacts, but those “would be avoided or reduced to less-than-significant levels” if the company follows some recommendations, staff at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) said in the report, known as a final environmental impact statement.
The FERC commissioners take the staff’s recommendations into consideration when they decide on the project.
Kinder Morgan has not yet made a final investment decision to build the plant.
Gulf LNG is designed to have two liquefaction trains that together will produce up to 10.8 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) of LNG, which is roughly 1.4 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd) of natural gas. One billion cubic feet is enough gas to fuel about 5 million homes for a day.
Gulf LNG is one of dozens of LNG export terminals under development in the United States, Canada and Mexico.
The United States, which was a net importer of LNG before U.S. LNG company Cheniere Energy Inc shipped its first cargo from Sabine Pass in Louisiana in February 2016, became the third biggest exporter of the super-cooled fuel by capacity in 2018, behind Australia and Qatar.
Looking at only the plants currently under construction, U.S. LNG export capacity is expected to rise to 8.5 bcfd by the end of 2019 and 10.0 bcfd in 2020 from 5.2 bcfd now.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kinder-morgan-gulf-lng-ferc/kinder-morgans-planned-gulf-lng-export-plant-in-mississippi-passes-environmental-test-idUSKCN1RT24U
-
FERC Nominees? We’re Waiting, Natural Gas Council Tells White House
Apr 18, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By David Bradley
With one seat on FERC's nominally five-member panel empty for more than three months and another due to be vacated this summer, natural gas and oil organizations are anxious for the White House to nominate new commissioners.
"The lack of a full Commission can delay the approval of pending projects, such as natural gas infrastructure projects, thereby hindering the advancement of critical infrastructure," members of the Natural Gas Council (NGC) wrote in a letter sent to President Trump Monday.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission currently has four members -- Chairman Neil Chatterjee and Bernard McNamee, who are Republicans, and Cheryl LaFleur and Richard Glick, who are Democrats.
Commissioner and former Chairman Kevin J. McIntyre, who had been battling cancer since 2017, died Jan. 2. LaFleur recently announced that she will step down at the end of her term on June 30. McNamee's term expires in 2020; Chatterjee's in 2021; and Glick's in 2022.
The NGC letter comes only days after Trump signed a pair of executive orders to expedite approval for a growing backlog of natural gas pipelines, liquefied natural gas facilities, oil infrastructure and related projects. But, according to NGC's members -- the American Gas Association, American Petroleum Institute, Independent Petroleum Association of America, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, and Natural Gas Supply Association -- that effort could be hindered by less than a full contingent at FERC.
"A full complement of FERC commissioners is critical to achieve the administration's goal to streamline the review and permitting of natural gas infrastructure projects," NGC said.
The White House has given no indication whom President Trump might nominate to replace McIntyre or LaFleur. By law, no more than three seats at FERC may be held by one political party, so speculation is that Trump would nominate a Republican first and then a Democrat when LaFleur leaves later this year.
Among the names floated as possible nominees have been Barry Smitherman, former Railroad Commission of Texas chairman and Texas Public Utilities Commission member; Patrick McCormick, former chief counsel for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee; and Ellen Nowak, former chairwoman of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, all of whom were also reportedly under consideration for FERC in 2017. Also reportedly under consideration is David Hill, former general counsel for NRG Energy.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/118076-ferc-nominees-were-waiting-natural-gas-council-tells-white-house
-
LyondellBasell progresses on $2.4 billion petrochemical expansion
Apr 17, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
At LyondellBasell’s Bayport plant, dozens of construction workers in neon vests are dwarfed by bulldozers moving mounds of dirt. A crane rises several stories into gray blue sky. Steam plumes puff from towers behind the construction site as a maze of silver, yellow and blue pipes form the veins of a petrochemical plant in the middle of a massive growth spurt.
The Houston petrochemical company is pumping new life into the heart of the Bayport plant - which just marked its 50th anniversary this week - with a multimillion dollar expansion, part of a broader $2.4 billion project that is LyondellBasell’s biggest capital undertaking to date.
Construction crews working for the S&B Construction are completing ground preparations and foundation work before hauling in more cranes to begin above ground construction on a new 34-acre unit that produce fuel additives, said Darren Dickens, who oversees maintenance at the plant. That site is connected via pipeline to the second half of the project, a 140-acre plant under construction at LyondellBasell’s Channelview complex that will produce chemicals used in carpeting, cushions, coating, paints and packaging. Fluor is the engineer on the project.
Once the project is complete in 2021, the Bayport-Channelview project will be the largest propylene oxide and tertiary butyl alcohol plant in the world, according to the company. Propylene oxide is used in the manufacture of bedding, furniture, carpeting, coatings, building materials and adhesives, while tertiary butyl alcohol will be converted to two high-octane fuel additives that can be blended into gasoline to reduce emissions.
The project is generating an estimated $453 million in economic benefits to the Houston region, plus 2,230 construction jobs at peak construction and 160 permanent jobs.
Since Bob Patel took the reins as chief executive officer in 2015, LyondellBasell has expanded, acquiring Ohio plastics maker A. Schulman for $2.25 billion last year and investing billions into upgrading its plants, including the Bayport-Channelview project. A new polyethylene unit in La Porte is expected to be completed in the third quarter.
Patel said this wave of expansions isn’t over yet. LyondellBasell is evaluating more potential Gulf Coast projects and would focus on growing existing infrastructure.
Patel said global demand for petrochemicals is rising and the Gulf Coast can tap into ample supplies of ethane, a byproduce of oil and gas drilling and feedstock for petrochemicals. This supply-demand relationship, Patel said, should make those new investments profitable for years to come.
“When we commit to these projects we’re thinking about it in terms of decades,” Patel said.
The 880-acre Bayport complex traces its roots to 1969 when it was ran by the Oxirane Chemical Company, a joint venture between subsidiaries of Atlantic Richfield Co. and Halcon International Inc. Eventually the plant came under LyondellBasell's ownership when Lyondell and Basell merged in 2007. The Bayport complex generates more than $530 million in annual economic activity and supports 1,150 jobs, according to the company.
The plant - which has earned industry safety awards from the industry group American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers - houses a fire station on site and several volunteer firefighters.
Preventive maintenance - like updates to cooling towers underway in Bayport - and extensive safety training are critical to maintaining Bayport’s safety record. Any time there is a safety incident or malfunction at any of the company’s global, no matter how minor or uncommon, Patel said he personally reviews the incident with his plant managers to see if there is anything to learn or improve upon. And expansion projects such as the one in Bayport and Channelview provide opportunities to modernize equipment to further improve safety.
“The key is continuous improvement,” Patel said. “I tell my team, you can never relax. You always have to be thinking about how else can we get better.”
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/LyondellBasell-progresses-on-2-4-billion-13774550.php
-
How Toxic Is Oilfield Wastewater? New Paper Highlights Gaps In Our Understanding.
Apr 17, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Cloelle Danforth and Nichole Saunders.
Collaborative research is a critical element for identifying unforeseen risks associated with using the oil industry’s wastewater outside the oilfield. That’s the recommendation of a new peer-reviewed paper accepted this week in the Journal of Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM).
The paper comes at a crucial moment for the oil and gas industry, which generates some 900 billion gallons of salty, chemical-filled water (also called produced water) each year. Traditionally, companies dispose of this wastewater deep underground where it is less likely to cause contamination. But economics and water scarcity are forcing questions about other ways to treat, reuse and even repurpose this wastewater. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will release a report very soon that could make it more common for companies to discharge their wastewater into rivers and streams.
The IEAM paper outlines the conclusions of a multi-day toxicity workshop where experts from the oil and gas industry, academia, government and the environmental community collectively identified key knowledge gaps associated with this waste stream and determined tools, technologies and methods needed to help close those gaps.
How toxic is it?
That’s one of the critical questions researchers are trying to answer before allowing potentially risky practices (like using wastewater to recharge our aquifers or irrigate our crops) to become the norm. In order to protect communities and environments from harm, policy makers should understand who, or what, may be at risk from varying levels of produced water exposure. Right now, we just don’t have the data we need to prevent unforeseen risks, and that’s a problem because we don’t want to “solve” one problem, only to create several more. As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and clean water isn’t something to gamble with.
In the IEAM paper, experts identified specific tools and practices that can be modified or developed to properly evaluate produced water toxicity, and to develop effective management programs.
Key lessons learned
1. Don’t pass the salt
Produced water can be 10-times saltier than seawater, unfortunately most of the methods we use to detect chemicals simply don’t work in water with such high salt content. Furthermore, researchers warn that toxicity assessments for produced water must not ignore salt. In addition to developing tools that can work despite the presence of salt, we also need to evaluate how salt might influence the toxicity of other chemicals and determine what level of toxins might remain even after treatments that reduce or remove salt.2. Evaluate whole mixtures and individual chemicals
As the paper notes, there are existing scientific methods which have been used to assess other complicated mixtures (like municipal wastewater) that can also be applied to produced water. Take Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Methods, for example. These WET tests have historically helped us evaluate how different mixtures may impact certain aquatic organisms like fish or algae.Importantly, permits that require effluent to pass WET tests can stop treated wastewater from being released if it is still toxic, even though it meets limits for specific chemicals. It is difficult to measure everything in a complex waste stream. Therefore, WET tests are a valuable safety check used to help catch unforeseen issues. However, these methods alone are not enough to really understand whether or not a sample of treated produced water is clean enough or safe enough for its intended purpose.
That’s why it’s important to combine traditional tests with other emerging methods that can help identify and predict toxic effects. These newer methods are designed to evaluate the toxic effects of chemicals and mixtures on things like cells rather than whole organisms like fish or rats. EPA uses these types of methods through the ToxCast and interagency Tox21 chemical testing programs. This creates an opportunity to apply the improved methods to produced water as well. This is critically important because these new tools can help us better model how a sample might affect a variety of organisms over time in a more efficient way than traditional tests.
3. Not all wastewater is created equal
Produced water is not a monolith. It varies from well-to-well and even over time from the same well. Therefore, we need to design research programs that account for the ways different water samples could impact different environments in different scenarios.4. Evaluating impacts on land and water
The majority of available research and toxicity assessment tools primarily focus on detecting or predicting impacts on water quality and aquatic organisms – and less so for crops or soils. Given that some produced water reuse options involve land application, there is a need to develop tools to better investigate potential impacts produced water may have on land and soil.5. Better together
Chemists, agronomists, toxicologists, engineers and others must work collaboratively to collect and share vital data about chemical toxicity as well as potential risks of different management methods. Assessing risk requires information on chemical hazards and exposure pathways that don’t live with any one research group. Collaboration – including making produced water samples available for study — is therefore key to closing these data gaps.Why it matters now
The forthcoming EPA report could open up risky new scenarios for expanding discharges of produced water across the country. Some drought-prone states, like New Mexico and Oklahoma, are also actively considering a wide range of opportunities for reuse in the future. It is clear that there are vital knowledge gaps that need closing. The IEAM paper, which reflects the knowledge of industry experts, environmental regulators and scientists, confirms we have tools to advance the science before policy decisions are made. We can and should prioritize this research before significantly expanding produced water reuse outside the oilfield.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/04/17/how-toxic-is-oilfield-wastewater-new-paper-highlights-gaps-in-our-understanding/
-
Houston Chemical Fires Won’t Spur New Laws, For Now
Apr 17, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Taylor Goldenstein
After three chemical fires ignited in a three-week period in the Houston area — spewing plumes of noxious black smoke into the air for days, shutting down schools and sending entire cities indoors to shelter in place — lawmakers say it’s too soon to know whether new laws are needed to improve prevention or emergency response.
Instead, state Sen. Carol Alvarado and Reps. Ed Thompson and Mary Ann Perez will wait on the results of investigations by agencies such as the Harris County Fire Marshal and U.S. Chemical Safety Board. The fire marshal’s office has said it’s too early to guess how long the inquiries may take. In five weeks, the legislative session ends.
“We can speculate all we want, but I want to see the report and then try to make whatever changes I view are necessary to keep the constituents safe,” said Perez, D-Pasadena, whose district includes some of Deer Park, where a petrochemical storage facility caught fire on March 17.
Still, environmental advocates say the lawmakers should be doing more to support existing bills that would increase accountability for polluters — and to quash bills the advocates say would decrease oversight of chemical companies and restrict local governments’ abilities to take them to court.
While the timing of the fires happened to coincide with the legislative session, advocates pointed to Houston Chronicle reporting from 2016 that showed there’s a major chemical incident in the greater Houston area every six weeks.
“It doesn’t seem like the Legislature has gotten the memo that people are demanding action,” said Luke Metzger, executive director of Environment Texas, an Austin-based environmental advocacy group. “Unfortunately, as they have in previous sessions, rather than strengthening environmental safety programs, they seem to be going in the opposite direction, working to further erode some of the safety standards we have in place.”
At least one gap highlighted in recent legislative hearings about the fires will get immediate attention: lawmakers are backing a budget request for more air monitors to detect pollutants and provide the public with more timely information.
As levels of cancer-causing benzene spiked after the Deer Park fire, city officials said there was at times a three-hour delay in Texas Commission Environmental Equality readings from handheld monitors, which the agency’s employees have to transcribe from paper to a computer.
The tenor of some members of the Houston delegation was decidedly more aggressive at legislative hearings last month on the Deer Park fire.
After hearing reports of slow reaction times to the fire and hours of delay in providing air quality information to the public, several lawmakers said they saw a need for legislative action.
Perez criticized the amount of time it took Intercontinental Terminals Company to report which chemicals were burning in the Deer Park fire, delaying notices to the public.
Since then, though, she said she’s spoken to company officials, including ITC CEO Bernt Netland, who assuaged some of her concerns and reassured her the company “cared a whole lot.” She added she still believes some procedural changes need to be made to improve their reaction time.
“We talked about leaving the water cleaner than it was before the spill, making everything right,” Perez said. “And he agreed. OK, well, time to dust off the knees and keep walking and everything will heal. But we’ve got to do whatever we can in order to make it right.”
Rep. Ed Thompson, R-Houston, who had also suggested a need for legislation at the hearing, said this week that his questions about the fires, including what caused them, need to be answered first.
“I understand the urgency of this,” Thompson said. “That’s not lost on me at all … I hesitate to do something that later on we might look back and say, ‘Well that was a little premature to do that.’”
Alvarado agreed and said until the investigations wrap up, her focus is on TCEQ budget requests for a new mobile air monitoring van and updated software. She said she also plans to encourage local authorities to build a fire station closer to the Houston Ship Channel, where the ITC facility is located. Now, the nearest fire station is about 15 miles away.
Bills calling for tougher standards stall
With six weeks remaining in the legislative session, some bills that environmental advocates say would increase accountability for companies like ITC have stalled in committee.
The bills would cut out exemptions for polluters, mandate better protections for above-ground storage tanks and require penalties be at least equal to the economic benefit of a company’s noncompliance.
Under present laws, the penalties are not enough of a deterrent in some cases, Rep. Erin Zwiener, D-Driftwood, said at the hearing on the Deer Park fire. For example, in 2017, ITC was issued a fine about $3,000 less than the economic benefit of not fixing a leak, she said.
As those bills stagnate, advocates point to legislation that they say will weaken controls on polluters, which has recently passed out of committees.
House Bill 2826, sponsored by Rep. Greg Bonnen, R-Friendswood, would give the Attorney General, rather than the Comptroller, the power to approve or deny state agencies’ and local governments’ contracts for outside attorneys retained on a contingency fee.
It also requires that the public receive notice of the meeting at which the contract would be approved along with information about why it’s necessary. Bonnen said at a March committee meeting that the bill’s goal is to increase transparency.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/texas/article/Houston-chemical-fires-won-t-spur-new-laws-for-13776094.php
-
How Hacking Threats Spurred Secret U.S. Blacklist
Apr 18, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
U.S. energy regulators are pursuing a risky plan to share with electric utilities a secret "don't buy" list of foreign technology suppliers, according to multiple sources.
The move reflects the federal government's growing concern that hackers and foreign spies are targeting America's vital energy infrastructure. And it's also raised new questions about the value of top-secret U.S. intelligence if it can't get into the hands of power industry executives who can act on it to avoid high-risk vendors.
Joe McClelland, director of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Office of Energy Infrastructure Security, told a Department of Energy advisory committee last month that officials are working on "an open-source procurement list" for utilities to use when deciding where to source their software and equipment.
"I've seen equipment that we wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole," he said at the time (Energywire, March 15).
Utility executives and engineers are often left outside the tightknit intelligence circles that produce threat information, making it nearly impossible for them to avoid sketchy digital-age equipment. Intelligence officials at DOE and the National Counterintelligence and Security Center have confirmed that the government is working on ways to be more transparent about high-risk technology.
Work on developing a list for utilities that doesn't have "top secret" written all over it is being led by DOE's new Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security and Emergency Response.
"We work very closely with FERC and the Department of Energy, where we brought in last year hundreds of executives and CEOs," said NCSC Director Bill Evanina. "I had the ability to give everyone a one-day secret clearance. We provide all the CEOs from the energy and telecommunications companies that threat information, and they can go back and mitigate those issues."
But the story doesn't stop there, according to Charles Durant, deputy director of counterintelligence at DOE. Even when armed with specific names of risky vendors, utility executives still need buy-in from regulators to sub out potentially vulnerable equipment.
"We're telling you guys and your parents and your grandparents that, probably, your electricity costs are going to go up, because [utilities] are going to want to recover those costs," he said. "It's not just sharing the threat with that company. You may also have to share the information with the state and local regulators, because they have to approve the rate increases."Huawei and ZTE
There is already an ad hoc system for getting the word out about companies that could pose backdoor threats to critical infrastructure.
In late 2017, the Department of Homeland Security ordered federal agencies and contractors to stop using software from Russian antivirus firm Kaspersky Lab, citing secretive cybersecurity concerns. Worries about the Moscow-based cybersecurity company had percolated for years at classified levels, and organizations like the Defense Intelligence Agency had long since shied away from companies doing business with the firm.
On cue, when concerns about Kaspersky became public, grid regulators at the North American Electric Reliability Corp. extended a warning to America's biggest power utilities. NERC urged companies to check their own networks for Kaspersky software and either trade it out for some other antivirus or develop plans to mitigate the risk. In NERC's telling, 98% of power companies complied.
Since then, cybersecurity officials have sounded a steady drumbeat of alarms over telecommunications equipment from Chinese vendors Huawei and ZTE. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) pressed NERC CEO Jim Robb about his organization's response to potential threats from all three companies at a hearing last month, prompting NERC to promise a private, follow-up meeting (Energywire, March 28).
"We fear the same risks posed to the country's federal agencies and departments, telecommunications networks, and military assets also threaten to impair the reliability of our nation's energy infrastructure," King and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said in a letter to NERC last month.
The day after the letter was publicized, Robb mentioned having also alerted the power sector to "the use of certain Chinese technologies, particularly at Huawei and ZTE," citing warnings couched in last year's National Defense Authorization Act.'Don't buy' lists
It's not clear that power grid authorities at NERC, despite holding security clearances, are always clued into secret threats discussed in the halls of the Pentagon. This month, Yahoo News reported that DOD has been weighing whether to release its own "blacklist" of companies to avoid.
Bill Lawrence, NERC's vice president and chief security officer, alluded to a "don't buy" list of untrusted vendors for military contracts curated by the Department of Defense at a conference last month. "That would be great information for us to get," he said.
Lawrence also leads NERC's Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center, a hub for spreading the word on the latest threats and vulnerabilities.
If officials with the departments of Energy or Defense were to declassify a list of no-go vendors, the information would likely be channeled through the E-ISAC, which is tightly managed by NERC and not subject to open records laws. Whether the federal government will reach that point remains an open question. Teasing classified data out from behind closed doors and SECRET-stamped documents is a delicate art, as current and former officials frequently attest.
"When I first came to FERC and went down to our secure space to get our first briefing, at the end of the briefing, FBI said, 'That was just for your awareness,'" recalled FERC Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur. "It's just natural to want to go out and say, 'OK, now we'll go do something!'"
But that may not be possible because of tight controls on the handling of top-secret information.
"How do we both protect the reason the information is classified — because there might be a law enforcement or national security reason — but also get the information in the hands of the people ... whose hands are actually on the grid?" she said. "That's a considerable issue."Legal quagmire
A number of agencies and groups, from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to the newly established Federal Acquisition Security Council, have a hand in U.S. government handling of supply-chain risks.
CFIUS may step in to block certain deals from foreign-owned companies seeking a foothold in certain U.S. markets, particularly security-sensitive areas like IT management or critical infrastructure.
In the electric sector, FERC and NERC recently established supply-chain security standards for large electric utilities, though the bulk of the requirements aren't enforceable until 2020 (Energywire, Oct. 19, 2018).
"Up until now, there really hasn't been an overarching strategy," said Kathryn Waldron, national security and cybersecurity research associate at the right-of-center R Street Institute think tank, who cited passage of the SECURE Technology Act as a sign of progress. "Part of it has to do with the fractured nature of issues like supply-chain security: What is a risk for one agency may not be the risk for another agency."
Kaspersky, Huawei and ZTE have all vociferously denied that their products pose national security risks.
Kaspersky took DHS to court after the agency issued its binding operational directive, pressuring the federal government to reveal how it came to the conclusion that the company's products could pose a cyberthreat. Federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly dismissed the lawsuit last year.
It's difficult to tell whether Huawei, ZTE and Kaspersky represent the tip of the iceberg for U.S. government concerns, given the classified nature of many analyses.
"One of the issues with the lack of transparency is that these companies are also being used in the private sector," Waldron said. "If the government isn't straightforward about saying, 'We see these as risks,' then private-sector companies will be less likely to look at these products and assess whether they're putting themselves at risk."
But publishing a list of companies could expose the U.S. government to litigation, according to Steve Bunnell, chairman of O'Melveny & Myers LLP's data security and privacy practice and former general counsel for DHS.
"I think the government is expecting that there will be some pushback, and it's healthy to have some pressure-testing" of officials' claims, he said.
Still, Bunnell questioned whether the push to underscore supply-chain risks could come back to haunt the United States.
"One of the risks, particularly with China, is if we end up having two sets of technology — the Chinese one, and the U.S. one — and we force the world to choose between those two, that might make us a little more secure in the short term, but globally it makes us less capable to deal with a lot of hard problems that aren't necessarily limited to China and the U.S., like climate change or cybersecurity," he said.
Reporter Peter Behr contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/04/18/stories/1060176111
-
Apr 17, 2019 | The Washington Post
By Ashley Halsey III
On an August evening in 1969, a Connecticut train wreck made history. A pair of passenger trains in Darien collided head-on, killing five people and injuring 35.
It was the first train wreck on record that could have been prevented by what now is known as positive train control, or PTC. Almost 50 years later, the system that might have saved the five people from death — and more than 300 people who have died in train wrecks since then — is in full operation by just four of the nation’s 41 railroads.
“In the course of 50 years we have investigated 150 PTC preventable accidents that have caused 303 fatalities and 6,800 injuries,” said Jennifer Homendy, a member of the National Transportation Safety Board. “I would have liked to have seen more progress, but at least we’re moving in the right direction.”
Complex in its design, PTC is simple in its intent. It keeps trains from running into each other. And it guarantees they round curves at a safe speed.
Fifty years ago, PTC was a concept in search of a name, and after the Darien wreck the NTSB suggested that the Federal Railroad Administration “study the feasibility of requiring a form of automatic train control.”
In more recent years, the list of PTC-preventable train wrecks includes:
• 2013: The Metro-North crash in the Bronx killed four people and injured 61.
• 2015: An Amtrak wreck in Philadelphia left eight passengers dead and injured 185.
• 2017: An Amtrak derailment near Dupont, Wash., killed three people and injured 62.
• 2018: Another Amtrak train rammed a stationary freight train in Cayce, S.C., killed two crew members and injured 116 others.
Faced with a multibillion-dollar undertaking, the railroads have lobbied Congress for relief on implementation. Railroads have contributed $60 million to incumbent members of Congress since 1990, according to federal records collected by the Center for Responsive Politics.
[Ten years after crash that pushed Congress to mandate lifesaving train technology, one-third of nation’s rail network remains without]
Now, after more than one congressional deadline has slipped away or been postponed, there are signs that by the end of 2020 much of the network will be in place. Progress has been made, with the Virginia Railway Express among the commuter lines fully operational, but other commuter lines have fallen behind. Commuter lines rely on passengers, not freight shipping rates, to raise revenue, and Congress has not fully subsidized PTC for their lines. And most — other than Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor — run on track owned by freight railroads with which their PTC systems may not be compatible yet.
It took 39 years and the worst train wreck in modern history before Congress was spurred into action. The head-on collision in 2008 between a Metrolink commuter train and a Union Pacific freight train in a Los Angeles neighborhood killed 25 people and left 102 injured.
The Metrolink engineer was swapping text messages with a friend, according to the investigation. He missed a signal in Los Angeles, and his train traveled into the path of an oncoming Union Pacific freight train. The trains, weighing 1,800 tons between them, slammed into each other head-on at 84 miles an hour. The Metrolink train was split open as if by a can opener.
By then, Congress already had been considering requiring some form of PTC, and the Los Angeles wreck catapulted the lawmakers into action. They passed legislation — signed into law by President George W. Bush a month later — that mandated PTC be installed on 58,000 of the nation’s 134,000 miles of railroad track, including those most heavily used by passenger rail lines.
The railroad industry objected, saying it would cost billions to install computers in locomotives, put in towers along the rail bed to communicate with those computers and to train workers to use them.
Once Republicans became the majority party in the Senate in 2015, the railroads were able to prevail on Congress to extend the PTC deadline by three years to 2018.
“This has been mandated by Congress, but there has been delay after delay,” NTSB Chairman Robert Sumwalt said in January. “Without PTC we are at risk for another PTC preventable accident.”
In addition to setting Dec. 31, 2018, as the new deadline, Congress also agreed that for railroads that made “substantial progress” toward meeting that deadline, the envelope would expand for another two years until the end of 2020.
[Railroad officials tell Congress many won’t meet deadline for lifesaving automatic braking systems]
The railroads warned Congress more than a year ago that most of them weren’t likely to make the 2018 deadline, and their prophecy was on the mark. Most of them made the required “substantial progress” but failed to have the PTC up and running.
Ian Jefferies, president of the Association of American Railroads, said in a statement that railroads have invested $10.5 billion in PTC.
“The railroads’ commitment to safety is unwavering, and this industry is proud of its accomplishments in this immense undertaking,” Jefferies said.
An FRA spokesman said compliance with the December 2018 deadline is still under review and if “interim milestones” have not been met, “that would be a violation of the statutory mandate and punishable by a civil penalty.” He spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid.
Homendy acknowledged that some railroads didn’t meet the standards but suggested an alternative to fines.
“The FRA doesn’t have to fine them,” she said. “I’m not advocating for that, because I would rather see them use their money to implement PTC.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/fifty-years-later-a-lifesaving-technology-could-have-saved-over-300-lives-inches-toward-completion/2019/04/17/43d3f12e-4f39-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html?utm_term=.829d15412728
-
N.Y. Sues EPA For Failing To Act On 'Good Neighbor' Petition
Apr 17, 2019 | E&E PM
By Sean Reilly,
New York state, already embroiled in one lawsuit over the scope of EPA's "good neighbor" responsibilities, has launched another.
EPA is long past a Clean Air Act deadline to act on the state's petition for help in dealing with ozone-forming emissions from outside its borders, New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) said in the lawsuit filed late last week.
The state's March 2018 petition said power plants and other facilities in nine states as far west as Illinois were spewing nitrogen oxides that undercut New York's efforts to meet EPA's 2008 and 2015 ground-level ozone standards; the state asked federal regulators to set enforceable limits on their emissions.
Under the act, EPA was supposed to respond within two months, or by May 2018. Instead, the agency then gave itself a six-month extension running until last November. Since then, EPA "has failed to hold a public hearing or take final action" on the petition, according to the suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
James is asking a judge to set a timetable for EPA to proceed with a hearing and then make a decision on the state's request for aid. EPA press aides did not immediately respond to a request for comment this afternoon.
By law, regulators are not supposed to allow industrial pollution that makes it harder for downwind states to meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards. New York is already among the challengers to EPA's broader approach to ensuring compliance with those good neighbor provisions in a separate suit pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (E&E News PM, Jan. 31).
Ground-level ozone, a lung irritant linked to asthma attacks in children, is formed by the reaction of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. After setting the standard at 75 parts per billion in 2008, EPA then tightened it in 2015 to 70 ppb.
While both Delaware and Maryland unsuccessfully pursued similar petitions with EPA, the stakes are particularly high in this instance, the suit suggests.
The New York City metro area, which sprawls into New Jersey and Connecticut, is out of attainment with both the 2008 and 2015 ozone benchmarks. As a result, emissions from the upwind sources in other states "regularly compromise the health and welfare of the more than 12 million New Yorkers" living in that metro area, according to the suit.
And while Delaware targeted just four power plants in its petition and Maryland targeted 19, New York wants a federal crackdown on NOx releases from more than 120 facilities in the nine states named in its petition. Besides Illinois, those states are Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and Maryland.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/04/17/stories/1060174861
-
Dems Want 'Meaningful' Environmental Standards In NAFTA 2.0
Apr 18, 2019 | E&E PM
By Geof Koss
House Democrats are putting the Trump administration on notice that they want to see an assortment of environmental concerns addressed before supporting the successor treaty to the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee laid out their concerns today in a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who is President Trump's top trade negotiator on the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
"As our Committee prepares to consider the renegotiated trade agreement with Canada and Mexico, we write to express our concerns regarding whether the new Agreement will lead to meaningful improvements in standards of environmental protection, particularly in Mexico," wrote Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) and other panel Democrats.
The letter notes that Democrats' concerns about the lack of environmental protections in Mexico were a factor in the debate over approving NAFTA during the Clinton administration, eventually leading to a separate agreement and enforcement mechanism.
"Not a single arbitral panel has ever been convened under these provisions," wrote the Democrats. "Meanwhile, environmental protections in Mexico continue to lag significantly behind those in the United States and Canada."
While the administration has yet to submit the treaty to Congress for the approval it needs to take effect, the Democrats say the existing information they have is causing them to ask whether the deal will lead to any improvements given that the lack of "consistent environmental standards in North America promotes the exportation of pollution between nations."
For example, Democrats point to the export and disposal of lead batteries in Mexico by U.S. companies seeking to avoid domestic regulations on lead.
Additionally, Democrats say they are disappointed that the environment chapter fails to require the three nations to adopt, maintain and implement multilateral environmental agreements and lacks "any apparent provisions directed at mitigating the effects of climate change."
They also lament that efforts in USMCA to curb wildlife smuggling and trafficking "appear to be nowhere near equivalent to current U.S. law," while the dispute settlement mechanism for resolving environmental disagreements is "designed to be easily frustrated."
"As we take on the task of considering what will replace NAFTA, we are looking for substantive provisions and enforcement mechanisms that will finally support the sustainable management of North American resources and their trade, and limit the exacerbation of existing environmental problems," the letter concludes. "We look forward to engaging with you to address our concerns to ensure that the terms of NAFTA's replacement will remedy the flaws of NAFTA that Democrats foresaw over 25 years ago."Trade angst
The House Democrats' letter is the latest reminder of the unease lawmakers from both parties have regarding Trump's trade policies, which is adding uncertainty to the upcoming up-or-down vote in Congress on the USMCA.
Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is working on legislation to limit the president's authority to issue tariffs based on national security grounds, as Trump did last year on steel and aluminum imports.
The fate of those tariffs on Canada and Mexico remains a sticking point in the USMCA as well, with industry and many Republicans leaning on the administration to retreat from its use of the tariffs as leverage in the talks (E&E Daily, March 28).
However, Grassley earlier this year suggested it may be too late for Democrats to win major changes to the USMCA, saying he would advise Trump to make good on his past pledges to simply withdraw from NAFTA if Congress won't approve a successor treaty (E&E Daily, Feb. 25).
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/04/17/stories/1060174803
-
Ocasio-Cortez Releases 'Green New Deal' short film
Apr 17, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Beitch
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is broadening her push on the "Green New Deal," narrating an animated short film outlining the policy advocated by progressive lawmakers.
In the video, the New York Democrat narrates as if speaking from the future, talking about how the U.S. “kicked off our social and ecological transformation to save the planet.”
Titled “The Art of the Green New Deal,” a nod to President Trump’s 1987 book, the film published by The Intercept shows artist Molly Crabapple painting watercolor images, with the footage sped up, while Ocasio-Cortez discusses the policy proposal.
Ocasio-Cortez outlines a history of ignoring climate change, describing the present as years where “fossil fuel companies made hundreds of billions while the public paid the lion's share to clean up their disasters.”
She then envisions a turning point when the U.S. acknowledges they have 12 years to “change everything.”
The freshman lawmaker goes on to outline a future that includes policies advocated by progressives that stretch beyond traditional environmental legislation, including "Medicare for All" and a universal child care program.
Ocasio-Cortez joined other liberal Democrats in introducing the Green New Deal legislation earlier this year, while other Democrats have sought to put the proposal in the rearview mirror and pursue other climate legislation.
The video narrated by the congresswoman cautions that policy alone won’t mitigate climate change, with the clip portraying the city of Miami getting hit by a future hurricane and going underwater for the last time.
The first step to taking action, Ocasio-Cortez says, “was just closing our eyes and imagining it.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/439337-ocasio-cortez-releases-green-new-deal-short-film
-
Former Officials Warn EPA Lacks Legal Power To Scrap MATS Finding
Apr 17, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Former EPA officials, including several who helped craft the Obama-era mercury and air toxics standards (MATS), are warning the Trump administration that it lacks legal authority for its proposal to scrap the cost-benefit finding underpinning the MATS rule, unless it pursues a major new cost review that the agency has so far avoided.
In written comments submitted ahead of an April 17 deadline for public input on the proposal, the Environmental Protection Network (EPN) of former EPA staff says, “EPA claims that it can leave the rule in place even while nullifying the legal finding needed to support it, which is arbitrary and disingenuous.”
EPA in its December proposal says it wants to scrap the previous administration’s finding that regulating power plant air toxics with MATS is “appropriate and necessary” under the Clean Air Act, after considering the costs and benefits of the rule. The agency says the existing finding is flawed, yet also says that it wants to keep the broader MATS in place and will not “de-list” utilities as a source subject to air law toxics rules.
Under legal precedent, EPA would likely struggle to meet the high bar required for de-listing, and hence MATS can remain in place even if it finalizes the plan to scrap the appropriate and necessary finding, the agency argues. This position would assuage much of the utility sector, which does not want to see MATS vacated because this would jeopardize utilities’ returns on major investments already made in compliance.
But EPN, hinting at arguments it would make in expected litigation over scrapping the finding, says the agency’s approach is unlawful because it lacks air law authority for the move.
A “rule that rests on a repudiated finding is by definition arbitrary, and likely cannot be enforced. It therefore appears that EPA wants to withdraw the rule but is unwilling to take responsibility for doing so directly,” the comments say, likely previewing claims from other environmental groups and Democratic-led states.
EPA is also taking comment on alternative legal interpretations, including the view that it must rescind MATS if it scraps the appropriate and necessary finding -- a position taken by opponents of MATS led by coal company Murray Energy. Critics of the proposal fear that EPA is implicitly inviting a lawsuit from Murray Energy or others that aims to strike down MATS should the agency finalize its proposal.
EPN says EPA cannot legally scrap the preliminary finding, because of a variety of legal and policy failings in the proposal. Chief among these, EPA has relied on the original rulemaking record from 2011, which is outdated and fails to take into account either the true implementation costs of MATS -- which is in full effect -- or the revised benefits estimates of curbing both air toxics and “ancillary” pollutants such as fine particulate matter (PM2.5). EPA irrationally seeks to ignore the huge PM2.5 benefits afforded by MATS, the group says.
Therefore, “EPA has considerable additional work to do before it can even issue a legally valid proposal to reverse its earlier positive [appropriate and necessary] finding,” it warns.
‘Frankly Misleading’
However, should EPA ever rework its analysis and still conclude that it must revoke the finding -- an outcome EPN thinks EPA unlikely to justify -- the agency could not then keep MATS in place, EPN says.
EPN says, “if EPA does issue such a reversal, EPN cannot think of any legally valid reason why the current rule should remain in effect without further EPA action, much as we would like to support that result.”
If the agency takes the position that scrapping the finding means it must also repeal MATS, it would be a major win for Murray Energy, which has challenged most of the Obama EPA’s Clean Air Act rules for the coal sector and utilities. Supporters of MATS say that the rule has achieved significant health benefits through reductions of mercury and other air toxics, and warn that undoing the entire regulation could lead to air toxics increases.
“EPA’s proposal to leave the rule in place while nullifying the legal finding needed to support the rule is arbitrary and frankly misleading; EPA has offered no persuasive legal explanation as to why the rule can stand if the finding on which it rests is withdrawn. A rule that rests on a repudiated finding is by definition arbitrary, and likely cannot be enforced, even if it technically remains” in the code of federal regulations.
“Nor could it be defended against a legal challenge or a petition to rescind the rule. Certainly there is a substantial risk that the rule would fall.” EPN urges EPA to withdraw the proposal.
The group echoes previously raised arguments from somestate officials that EPA’s proposal lacks adequate justification for undoing the appropriate and necessary finding. If the agency wants to scrap the finding then it must first conduct a broad new cost-benefit review to generate the justification, critics say.
For example, Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General Jillian Riley testified at a March 18 public hearing on MATS, saying that “EPA has no power to reverse its ‘appropriate and necessary’ finding. Outside of a court order to do so, the Clean Air Act expressly prohibits EPA from reconsidering its finding unless EPA can demonstrate that power plants no longer pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment.”
Riley said EPA’s proposal fails to meet such a high bar, and also argued that the agency cannot make such a demonstration based on its outdated and inaccurate assessment of MATS’ costs and benefits.
Utilities’ Arguments
Meanwhile, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), representing investor-owned utilities, in April 17 comments takes a different view than EPN, agreeing with EPA’s argument that under precedent set by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, MATS can remain in place even if EPA revokes the underlying finding.
EEI nonetheless urges EPA to drop its proposal to scrap the finding, asking the agency to leave MATS in place but to provide regulatory flexibility for utilities, for example to conduct compliance tests less often.
The discussion focuses on the 2008 holding of the D.C. Circuit in New Jersey v. EPA, in which the court struck down a George W. Bush-era emissions trading rule for mercury created under the Clean Air Act’s section 111(d) existing source performance standards program. The court found EPA had failed to meet the air law criteria for de-listing, and that de-listing was required to justify the decision to regulate under section 111 instead of the section 112 air toxics program.
After the Obama administration took office, it then developed MATS as a strict air toxics rule for power plants under section 112. EPA argues that the New Jersey precedent protects MATS, regardless of the underlying finding’s fate, and EEI agrees. New Jersey “binds the court and dictates the result,” EEI says.
The “argument that EPA cannot sustain MATS if it reverses the appropriate-and-necessary finding again runs counter to the D.C. Circuit’s holding in New Jersey. The statute is clear that the listing of a source category under section 112 is what drives the requirement to promulgate standards under that section,” EEI says.
The group says that because EPA already revised the MATS appropriate and necessary finding under Supreme Court direction in 2017, EPA cannot now claim it is responding to the Supreme Court’s 2015 remand of the finding in Michigan v. EPA. The high court faulted the Obama EPA for ignoring implementation costs entirely in its initial finding. In a 2017 supplemental finding, EPA offered two methods for considering costs, one based on the same 2011 cost-benefit analysis that the Trump EPA relies on in its 2019 proposal.
EPA uses the high court ruling to argue for rescinding the finding, but EEI says, “it is factually and legally incorrect to contend that the Agency is still in the course of responding to the remand in Michigan.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/former-officials-warn-epa-lacks-legal-power-scrap-mats-finding
-
Pa. Might Follow Calif. On Cap And Trade
Apr 18, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Pennsylvania regulators are considering a petition to institute an economywide cap-and-trade program, a move that immediately thrusts the Keystone State to the forefront of national conversations over how to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
The proposal under consideration by the Department of Environmental Protection is notable in both its ambition and scope.
The Pennsylvania plan goes beyond the cap-and-trade program instituted by its Northeastern neighbors, which is limited to the power sector, and would apply to all sectors of the economy. It is modeled after California's cap-and-trade program and would enable Pennsylvania to participate in the Golden State's carbon-cutting regimen.
The impact to emissions would be considerable. Among states, only California and Texas emit more carbon. Under the proposal, Pennsylvania emissions would be capped at 2016 levels. The cap would fall 3% annually, putting the state on course to completely decarbonize its economy by 2052.
"The petition substantially increases the ambition of the legal proposals being discussed in Pennsylvania right now," said John Dernbach, a professor of environmental law at Widener University and one of 104 petitioners who requested DEP consider the proposal.
A group of environmental organizations, attorneys, scientists and businesses petitioned Pennsylvania regulators on the proposal. A board that oversees DEP voted to accept the petition earlier this week.
The plan faces significant obstacles. First among them: whether DEP can even implement a cap-and-trade program.
Proponents say state law obligates the department to take action to curb greenhouse gases, arguing regulators have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the environment.
"If you take the view that we do, that the atmosphere is a public trust resource, right now the atmosphere is being used as a free disposal area for carbon dioxide," Dernbach said. "The cap-and-trade proposal, if adopted, would charge people to use the atmosphere for carbon dioxide waste."
But business interests and Republican lawmakers are strongly suspicious of that position. They contend the plan represents a tax that must be approved by the General Assembly.
State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R), chairman of the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee, said the proposal represents an end run around the General Assembly, which is controlled by Republicans.
"We have given no taxing powers to the executive," Metcalf said. He noted Pennsylvania is now America's second-largest natural gas producer, adding, "We are a leading state to help America become energy independent, and this would cripple that."
The decision to study a cap-and-trade proposal comes at a crucial time in Pennsylvania.
Gov. Tom Wolf (D) recently signed an executive order to cut greenhouse gas levels by 26% of 2005 emissions by 2025 and 80% by 2050. DEP is expected to release a revised climate action plan in the coming weeks. And lawmakers are weighing a proposal to subsidize struggling nuclear power plants that might close in the absence of state support. The fate of those plants have the potential to shape Pennsylvania's power sector and emissions trajectory for decades to come (Climatewire, March 12).
In agreeing to consider the petition, regulators sided with petitioners who argue DEP has the authority to implement a cap-and-trade program. Wolf signaled his approval of the study but stopped short of endorsing cap and trade.
"Governor Wolf is still evaluating the specific plan submitted to DEP and its impact but did publicly support moving forward to study it further as the overall goal of minimizing air pollution and global warming is in the public interest," J.J. Abbott, a Wolf spokesman, said in an email.
DEP has 60 days to study the plan, though most observers expect the department to request an extension. The department could make a recommendation to adopt the rule, institute another proposal or drop the idea all together.
Advocates said cap and trade would offer a significant benefit to the state at little cost. They estimated the program could raise up to $1.9 billion in revenue, though they noted it is more likely to generate around $1.5 billion after factoring in exemptions for businesses subject to international competition. Gasoline prices would rise by as much of 8 cents per gallon in 2020 under proponents' projections, while natural gas prices would increase by as much as 0.0053 cent per cubic foot.
The proposal would enable Pennsylvania to immediately link to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade regimen covering nine Northeastern states, by accepting the program's allowances.
And it seeks to solve the challenge of low prices for carbon allowances, which has plagued carbon markets elsewhere in previous years, by instituting a gradually increasing minimum price on carbon credits.'A lot of money at stake'
The decision to model the Pennsylvania plan after California's program was made in an attempt to offer some continuity to large companies, which already have familiarity with the Golden State's system, said Robert McKinstry Jr., an environmental attorney and the petition's lead author.
He predicted the proposal would soon win support from a series of large energy companies.
"I think it is something that is the most important topic in front of us and the world today," McKinstry said. "It's clear we're not going to have anything at the federal level."
Opponents, for their part, were eager to draw comparisons to California. In that case, lawmakers decided to adopt cap and trade. The problem is that Pennsylvania lawmakers have not had a chance to weigh in on the potential costs and benefits, said Kevin Sunday, director of the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, a trade group.
"Here there is a pretty clear decision to circumvent the Legislature to have a role in all this," Sunday said, adding, "You would be uncompetitive if you operated a business in the state under this petition."
David Hess, who served as DEP secretary under former Gov. Mark Schweiker (R), said he thought the department was well within its authority to enact a cap-and-trade program. But he predicted Republican lawmakers would have a say before any proposal reached the finish line. Lawmakers could insert a rider in the budget, for example, restricting Wolf's ability to enact cap and trade.
The real question facing DEP is not so much whether California's approach is effective, Hess said. He argued the Golden State program has proven to be sound. Instead, the question is how the California system compares to other alternatives.
"Before you make that sort of major decision, you need to look at all possible options out there," Hess said. "You've got a lot of money at stake, real impact on people and ratepayers. How is that money returned to ratepayers, is it used to encourage renewables, energy efficient, any number of things?
"I don't think you can look at this in isolation," he said. "You look at the major options and look at what's best for Pennsylvania."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1060175755
-
A Case for a Market-Driven Green New Deal
Apr 18, 2019 | The New York Times
By Amory B. Lovins and Rushad R. Nanavatty
Any serious energy transformation will need to harness America’s powerful and creative economic engine.
The best thing to come from the Senate’s floor debate on the Green New Deal late last month may have been these eminently sane remarks, calling on lawmakers of both parties to “move together” in order “to lower emissions, to address the reality of climate change, recognizing that we’ve got an economy we need to keep strong, that we have vulnerable people we need to protect, that we have an environment that we all care about — Republicans and Democrats.”
Who said it? A Republican, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who leads the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “My hope is we get beyond the high-fired rhetoric to practical, pragmatic, bipartisan solutions,” she said on the chamber floor.
The path is there, if our leaders will only choose to take it. In 2011, Reinventing Fire, an energy study by Rocky Mountain Institute, where we work, showed how a business-led transition could triple energy efficiency, quintuple renewables and sustain an American economy 2.6 times larger in 2050 than it was in 2010 with no oil, coal or nuclear energy, and one-third less natural gas. The net cost was $5 trillion lessthan business-as-usual — or even more valuable if a price was put on carbon emissions.
Any serious energy transformation effort — whether the Green New Deal or “pragmatic, bipartisan solutions” called for by Senator Murkowski — will need to harness America’s immensely powerful and creative economic engine, not dismantle it. This means unleashing the market in sectors where we already know how to profitably reduce emissions (electricity, transportation, buildings), creating markets for solutions in areas where there aren’t yet enough answers (heavy industry, agriculture) and fixing market failures (unpriced carbon, for instance, or rewarding utilities for selling more electricity rather than cutting your bill).
Here’s how:
First, we should let competition and flexibility rule our electricity system. Abundant market data show that a renewably powered future would cost less than our current system. Electricity providers have gotten the memo, even if Washington hasn’t. To save their customers money, utilities in Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Colorado and Utahare phasing out old coal and nuclear plants and replacing them with wind and solar. Clean energy portfolios — including affordable battery storage and other flexible resources — are starting to displace natural gas in California and New York.
Concerns about round-the-clock availability of electricity from a highly renewable grid, a common fear, are mostly misplaced. The Department of Energy has assessed that renewables “that are commercially available today,” combined with a more flexible electric grid, can reliably supply up to 80 percent of our electricity in 2050 (and these technologies are advancing every year). Four European countries with modest or no hydropower get from 46 percent to 71 percent of their electricity from renewables, with grids more reliable than those in the United States.
In America, Iowa and Texas are leading the way on wind. Over 35 percent of Iowa’s electricity is wind-generated. This has provided a second source of income to farmers whose lands host turbines and given Iowans among the lowest power prices in the nation. Over all, the estimated $476 billion needed to build a flexible grid that integrates renewables would yield $2 trillion in saved energy and reliabilitybenefits.
Second, correcting our biggest market failure by putting a price on carbon by tax or cap-and-trade would be “the most cost-effective lever to reduce carbon emissions at the necessary scale and speed,” according to a recent statement signed by more than 3,500 economists, including 27 Nobel laureates. Combining carbon pricing with border tax adjustments and rebates for citizens would ensure we didn’t export our emissions or hurt working-class Americans. Clearer price signals could drive cheaper and cleaner practices if we eliminated market barriers that are obstacles to efficiency and clean energy.
For sectors with fewer market-ready substitutes and less sensitivity to fuel prices, like industry and agriculture, we need other approaches. Hence our third point:
We need to take advantage of the world’s most successful research and development organization — the federal government — to solve our remaining technology challenges. Government R&D helped develop the internet, the Global Positioning System, fracking, many vital drugs and, more recently, breakthrough battery technologies. The government now needs to apply its early-stage investment muscle, in concert with private enterprise, to cutting greenhouse gas emissions in these harder-to-abate sectors.Editors’ PicksA Giant Laid Low by Too Many Blows to the HeadI Had to Do It Without Telling My BelovedStephen Curry Has a Popcorn Problem
Failures should outnumber successes, as in any sound early-stage investment portfolio. But just a handful of big wins can deliver potentially incalculable value to our economy and planet. Which brings us to our final point.
We should base investment decisions on net value, not cost alone.
Green New Deal critics often look at only one side of the accounting ledger. A columnist for The Wall Street Journal, for example, recently pointed to the $400 billion estimated cost of retrofitting American buildings without mentioning the $1.4 trillion net value (retrofit costs minus saved energy costs) of doing so.
Much of this value can accrue to working Americans who need it most. Nationally, the average energy burden for low-income families is three times greater than for the rest of the country. Low-income families tend to rely more on expensive heating fuels, and have older, less efficient furnaces, appliances and homes. They are likelier to get sickfrom living near fossil fuel production. Consequently, they can benefit the most from lower-cost renewable energy, phasing out fossil fuels and improved buildings.
And for economywide industrial competitiveness, we can’t afford not to speed these changes. In 2018 China added four times as much solar capacity as the United States, bolstering China’s industrial competitiveness for decades to come. And while American automakers suffer from the collateral damage of this administration's trade war, China is expected this year to double its sale of electric cars, to two million — half of the world total, by some industry estimates.
Energy efficiency and renewables enjoy overwhelming public support because they offer so many benefits — for competitiveness and jobs, national security and community choice, health and environment, equity and innovation. If you like any of those outcomes, you can support a market-driven Green New Deal without needing to like every outcome — or agree on which outcome is most important.
To this point, America’s energy transition has been driven by insurgent entrepreneurs and the private sector, not politicians. Now we finally have an emergent legislative effort with ambition matching the existential crisis, and the unique opportunity, in front of us. Fully leveraging the power of the market through smart, trans-ideological policy would make us unstoppable.
Amory B. Lovins is co-founder and chief scientist and Rushad R. Nanavatty is a principal of Rocky Mountain Institute, an independent, apolitical nonprofit focused on speeding a market-based shift from fossil fuels to efficiency and renewables.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/opinion/green-new-deal-climate.html
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested