Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - May 16, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) US-China Tariff Escalation Threatens H2 Recovery
May 16, 2019 | ICIS
The US-China trade war escalation, with both parties ramping up tariffs, threatens to dampen or kill the second-half earnings recovery many chemical companies and analysts had been expecting. Following a devastating December... -
Recent Federal Developments: May 2019
May 16, 2019 | National Law Review
TSCA/FIFRA/TRI: EPA Issues Final SNUR For Asbestos, Will “Close Loophole And Protect Consumers”: On April 25, 2019, EPA issued a final significant new use rule (SNUR) for asbestos using the definition in Title II, Section 202 of... -
UN Meeting Adopts Amendments to International Conventions
May 16, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Ginger Hervey
Delegates representing more than 180 countries gathered in Geneva last week as part of the UN's Stockholm, Basel and Rotterdam Conventions. Alongside discussions on POPs in waste and the adoption of a compliance mechanism... -
Senate Kills Plastic Straw Bill, Replaces Plastic Bag Bill
May 16, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Kathy McCormack
The New Hampshire Senate yesterday killed a bill targeting soda straws and recycled a measure on town waste reduction goals to replace one that would have banned store plastic bags. Senators said they found the straw bill... -
EPA Confirms Acceptance of Early TSCA Inventory Activity Notifications
May 16, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has confirmed to Chemical Watch that substance activity notifications submitted to the agency since February have been accepted, despite recent clarifications to the timeline for the TSCA inventory ‘transition period’. -
Court to Consider How EPA Oversees Chemical Risks
May 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA should take a broader approach to regulating potentially harmful chemicals, a coalition of 15 health, environmental, and labor groups plans to argue in a federal appeals court May 16. They say the Environmental... -
EPA Weeks Away from Finish Line on New Rules on Lead in Water
May 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The EPA is weeks away from completing work on a proposal that will reshape how lead is regulated in drinking water after years of delays that spanned multiple presidential administrations. The agency’s administrator, Andrew Wheeler... -
Wheeler Says Lead Rule Update Will Target Most Corrosive Pipes First
May 16, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Annie Snider
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the agency's first update to the lead in drinking water standards in decades will target the most corrosive water lines for removal first. Speaking at a Bipartisan Policy Center event this morning... -
EPA Issues Draft Revised Method for ESA Pesticide Assessments
May 16, 2019 | National Law Review
By Lisa M. Campbell, James V. Aidala, and Lisa R. Burchi
On May 16, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it was seeking comment on its Draft Revised Method for National Level Endangered Species Risk Assessment Process for Biological Evaluations of... -
US Congress Round-Up
May 16, 2019 | Chemical Watch
Bill calls for EPA to study oxybenzone, octinoxate: Senator Jeff Merkley (D–Oregon) has introduced a bill, directing the EPA to conduct a study on the environmental and health impacts of the sunscreen ingredients oxybenzone and... -
Bayer Is Hit With $2 Billion Verdict in Roundup Case
May 15, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc Reisch
California jury has ordered Monsanto owner Bayer to pay an elderly couple more than $2 billion after finding that its Roundup weedkiller caused their cancer. The verdict is the third, since Bayer bought Monsanto last June, to order large... -
Congress Told to Stop PFAs at Pollution Sources
May 16, 2019 | MLive
By Paula Gardner
If 2018 was the year of elevating concerns about PFAS contaminating drinking water, then this year already marks a turning point to the conversation. The chemicals have been found in 43 states and officials have identified where at... -
Global Company DSM to Remove NMP From Resin Products
May 16, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Global nutrition, health and materials company, Royal DSM, plans to phase out the solvent n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) from its coating resins products by July 2020. The solvent is the first substance DSM will remove as part of its... -
EU to Appeal Court Judgment on Lead Chromate Authorisation
May 16, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Ginger Hervey
The European Commission is appealing a landmark court judgment from earlier this year, which found one of its decisions to grant authorisation under REACH was illegal, two EU officials told Chemical Watch. -
Resource Issue Kills Echa 'User-Friendly' Alternatives Data Plan
May 16, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Echa has cancelled plans to publish a user-friendly shortlist of safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals amid dwindling resources for non-legislative work. The shortlist was part of the agency's substitution strategy, published... -
Sweden's Kemi Urges Review of Presence of SVHCs in EU FCMs
May 16, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Any substance restricted or phased out under various EU legislation should face the same measures in all types of food contact materials, Kemi, the Swedish Chemicals Agency has said. Its comments, along with those of other... -
The Energy 202: Trump Promotes Natural Gas as It Gets Caught up in U.S.-China Trade War
May 16, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
It is supposed to yet again be Infrastructure Week. President Trump went down to southwest Louisiana to talk up his administration's effort to open U.S. natural gas to international markets. But yet again, Trump went off script, using an... -
FERC Approves Freeport LNG Export Expansion Project
May 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Cunningham
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved construction of Train 4 expansion at Freeport LNG terminal in Texas. The decision, made at FERC’s monthly meeting on Thursday, marks the fourth approval of a liquefied natural... -
Energy Subcommittee Passes 10 Efficiency, Cybersecurity Bills
May 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats easily passed six energy efficiency bills and four cybersecurity measures out of the energy subcommittee May 16, but not without some opposition from Republicans. -
Interior Bill Targets Offshore Drilling Plan: BGOV Closer Look
May 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam M. Taylor
The Environmental Protection Agency, Interior Department, and other land management agencies would receive a combined $37.3 billion in fiscal 2020 under the House Appropriations Committee’s draft spending bill. -
Draft BLM Land-Use Plan Shifts Favor to Oil and Gas
May 16, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Scott Streater
The Bureau of Land Management wants to remove conservation measures covering tens of thousands of acres of sensitive wildlife habitat in north-central Montana, according to a new proposal. The proposed land management plan... -
Lawmakers May Stiffen Penalties for Pipeline Damage
May 16, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Clarice Silber
Lawmakers in Texas are considering a bill that would stiffen penalties for damaging or trespassing around oil and gas operations despite opposition from environmental groups who say it would quell peaceful protests and overly... -
Trade War Could Delay LNG Projects on Gulf Coast, Analyst Says
May 16, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
Escalating trade tensions with China could jeopardize or delay some proposed liquefied natural gas projects on the Gulf Coast by raising construction costs while reducing the competitiveness of U.S. LNG, analysts and economists say. -
Politico New York: Cuomo Administration Rejects Williams Pipeline
May 16, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Marie J. French
Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration has blocked, at least for now, a controversial pipeline to supply natural gas to New York City and Long Island, setting up a potential moratorium on new gas service there. The Department of... -
Refinery Explosions Prompt CSB to Ask EPA for Updated Study on Hydrofluoric Acid
May 16, 2019 | Safety + Health Magazine
The Chemical Safety Board is urging the Environmental Protection Agency to initiate a review and update a 1993 study on the toxic chemical hydrofluoric acid https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/hydrofluoricacid/basics/facts.asp. -
(ACC Mentioned) Slow Market Hampers Open-Deck, Semi-Submersible Carriers
May 16, 2019 | JOC.com
By Keith Wallis
Overcapacity and lackluster charter rates are weighing on the semi-submersible and module carrier market, even as a raft of new projects offers promise of better times in the next two to three years. That comes as the market for semi... -
The Energy 202: Trump's Interior Chief Hasn't 'Lost Any Sleep Over' New Climate Record
May 16, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
House Democrats grilled Interior Secretary David Bernhardt about what his department is doing to address the causes and effects of climate change, noting that levels of carbon dioxide just hit their highest in human history. -
Renewed Climate Debate Highlights Labor as Skeptical but Crucial Player
May 16, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
The renewed climate debate in Congress is underscoring labor's role as a skeptical yet crucial constituency in determining the success or failure of ambitious greenhouse gas mitigation policies, with unions withholding their... -
First Step Toward Fighting Climate Change Is a Simple One
May 16, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rep. Tom Reed
The “Green New Deal’s” massive expansion of federal bureaucracy, technologically implausible guideposts and a tax to kill the American dream is not the answer to the undeniable threats our world is facing from climate change. -
The Sci-Fi Solution That Offers Common Ground on Climate
May 16, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Zack Colman
A long-shot strategy to hack the planet is gaining traction in Washington as a potential tool to tackle climate change. Machines that suck pollution directly out of the air may seem like the stuff of science fiction, but climate scientists...
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) US-China Tariff Escalation Threatens H2 Recovery
May 16, 2019 | ICIS
The US-China trade war escalation, with both parties ramping up tariffs, threatens to dampen or kill the second-half earnings recovery many chemical companies and analysts had been expecting.
Following a devastating December 2018, when orders, especially from China, simply stopped, the first quarter of 2019 was expectedly weak as destocking continued to run its course.
However, on the Q1 earnings conference calls, most companies pointed to improving trends in the second quarter and the belief that business in the second half would be much more robust, especially as China’s economy was starting to see some “green shoots” and the US and China were reportedly nearing a trade deal.
Kiss that rosy scenario goodbye for now. Expect Wall Street to take down earnings per share estimates for 2019 and 2020 on tariff headwinds and a deterioration in China and world business sentiment.
The third round of tariffs on both sides are being ramped up. In this round, the US raised tariffs on $200bn in Chinese products from 10% to 25% as of 10 May, while China in retaliation is boosting tariffs on $60bn in US products from rates of 5-10% to 5-25% as of 1 June.
This third round of tarrif hikes directly impacts $8.8bn in US chemicals and finished plastics exports to China based on 2017 figures, and $13.2bn in China exports to the US, according to the American Chemistry Council.
In the trade war escalation in the third round, for bulk commodity chemicals, the US exports to China most impacted are ethylbenzene and paraxylene (PX), both of which now go up to the 25% tariff tier versus 10% previously.
On the other side, China exports to the US most impacted include caustic soda and titanium dioxide (TiO2) - also now under 25% tariff versus 10% previously.
And on 14 May, the US released a proposed list of new tariffs of up to 25% it is preparing to impose on another $300bn in Chinese imports.
This would include essentially all other imports not covered by the previous three rounds of tariffs with certain exceptions, and could be imposed towards the end of June following a public comment period.
The impact on bulk commodity chemicals from China in this fourth round of US tariffs is negligible but the round does include additional finished plastics products.
FINANCIAL MARKETS HIT
Equity markets worldwide have taken a hit. Even after the US market rebound on Tuesday, 14 May, the US S&P 500 is down 3.8% and the China’s Shanghai Composite off 6.6% since 3 May, the last day of trading in the US before Trump’s threat on 5 May to raise tariffs on 10 May.
While a subsequent broader market rally on 14 May lifted the chemical sector, chemical stock prices in many cases are still down significantly since Trump’s tariff threat.
And the blow to business sentiment bodes poorly for the outlook for the rest of 2019.
Global fundamentals on the manufacturing side have been deteriorating already, with the eurozone in contraction mode, China remaining weak and the US clearly losing momentum, as evidenced by their respective manufacturing purchasing managers’ indexes (PMIs). If the PMIs as leading indicators for manufacturing activity are all pointing down, where is the supposed second-half recovery going to come from?
Jefferies analyst Laurence Alexander also sees weakness in the OECD leading economic indicator (LEI) series, although sequentially month to month, Asia and Europe have been improving recently.
“The OECD LEI series continues the slow roll underway since early 2018. On a year-on-year basis, the global series continues to fade, with the indicators almost back to levels where global recession fears would appear warranted based on historical performance,” according to Alexander. “Even without the trade dispute, the LEIs we track suggest volumes in Q3 [2019] could disappoint,” he added.
On a positive note, though, at least there has been a clear shift in policy on the part of central banks. Since December 2018, the US Federal Reserve has flipped from planning three more rate hikes in 2019 to zero.
It also announced plans to stop shrinking its balance sheet later in the year.
Meanwhile, the Chinese have undertaken stimulus measures to stabilise its economy and players anticipate more to come if the US tariffs start to bite harder. Yet on balance, with the escalation of US-China tariffs and slowing manufacturing momentum, 2019 on balance should be a far more challenging year for the global economy as well as chemical companies.
MEETING CONSENSUS?
Current 2019 consensus earnings estimates for US-based chemical companies, which already show declines versus 2018, will be hard to meet.
In this analysis, we look at what it would take for companies to meet their 2019 consensus earnings per share (EPS) targets, with the first quarter already in the books.
We compare what companies would need to earn from Q2-Q4 2019 to meet consensus, and how this compares to Q2-Q4 in the year-ago period.
In a clearly worse macro environment for the rest of 2019 versus 2018, a number of companies would have to actually beat last year’s Q2-Q4 performance to meet consensus. Others would have to come close with modest single-digit year-on-year declines in EPS.
Looking at the big picture and potential additional negative impacts from the tariff escalation, that is a tough ask for the economically sensitive chemical sector.
CORRECTION
The Commentary on page 5 of the 10 May issue incorrectly listed the US bulk commodity chemicals impacted in the escalation of the 3rd round of China’s retaliatory tariffs as including ethylene dichloride (EDC), polypropylene (PP) and butadiene (BD). Rather, these US products were impacted in the 2nd round. This has been corrected in this article, along with the chart depicting US chemicals most impacted in the 2nd and 3rd rounds combined.
https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2019/05/16/10365111/us-china-tariff-escalation-threatens-h2-recovery
-
Recent Federal Developments: May 2019
May 16, 2019 | National Law Review
TSCA/FIFRA/TRI
EPA Issues Final SNUR For Asbestos, Will “Close Loophole And Protect Consumers”: On April 25, 2019, EPA issued a final significant new use rule (SNUR) for asbestos using the definition in Title II, Section 202 of TSCA, which defines asbestos as the “asbestiform varieties of six fiber types -- chrysotile (serpentine), crocidolite (riebeckite), amosite (cummingtonite-grunerite), anthophyllite, tremolite or actinolite.” 84 Fed. Reg. 17345. The restricted significant new use of asbestos (including as part of an article) is manufacturing (including importing) or processing for uses that are neither ongoing nor already prohibited under TSCA. Persons subject to the SNUR may not undertake any of these activities; they are required to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing any manufacturing (including importing) or processing of asbestos (including as part of an article) for a significant new use. The required notification initiates EPA’s evaluation of the conditions of use associated with the intended use. Manufacturing (including importing) and processing (including as part of an article) for the significant new use may not commence until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and taken such actions as are required in association with that determination. The final SNUR is effective June 24, 2019. More information is available online.
Ninth Circuit Issues Order Requiring EPA To Rule On Objections To Denial Of Tolerance Revocation For Chlorpyrifos Within 90 Days: On April 19, 2019, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) issued an order following an en banc rehearing in League of United Latin Am. Citizens (LULAC) v. Wheeler, No. 17-71636. The February 6, 2019, Ninth Circuit decision to grant EPA’s request for rehearing effectively vacated an August 9, 2018, decision in LULAC that had ordered EPA to revoke all tolerances and cancel all registrations for chlorpyrifos. After the rehearing, the en banc panel issued a writ of mandamus directing EPA “to issue, no later than 90 days after the filing of this order, a full and fair decision on LULAC’s objections” to an initial EPA order denying a 2007 petition to revoke all tolerances for chlorpyrifos. The en banc order states that the court has discretion to construe the Petitioners’ opening brief as a request for mandamus relief, even though the Petitioners sought judicial review of EPA’s initial denial decision without waiting for EPA to rule on their objections and even though they did not file a petition for mandamus under the applicable procedural rule. The court then states that “[c]onsidering the history and chronology of this matter and the nature of the claims, we conclude mandamus is appropriate, and we hereby GRANT the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus.” The court states that “EPA represented that it could issue a final decision with respect to petitioners’ objections within 90 days of an order issued by this court” during oral argument on March 26, 2019. The en banc ruling, however, does not discuss the jurisdictional issues presented when the Petitioners sought judicial review of EPA's initial denial decision without waiting for EPA to rule on their objections. Moreover, the ruling does not discuss the substantive dispute concerning EPA’s authority to decline to revoke the tolerances and cancel the registrations for chlorpyrifos based on the current administrative record. More information on the protracted litigation concerning chlorpyrifos is available on our blog under key words chlorpyrifos and ninth circuit.
EPA Announces Proposed Procedures For Review Of CBI Claims For The Identity Of Chemicals On The TSCA Inventory: On April 23, 2019, EPA issued a proposed rule regarding its plan to review certain confidential business information (CBI) claims to protect the specific chemical identities of substances on the confidential portion of the TSCA Inventory. 84 Fed. Reg. 16826. The CBI claims that would be reviewed under this plan are those that were asserted on Notice of Activity (NOA) Form A’s filed in accordance with the requirements in the Active-Inactive rule. TSCA Section 8(b)(4)(C) requires EPA to promulgate a rule establishing a plan to review all CBI claims to protect the specific chemical identities of chemical substances on the confidential portion of the TSCA Inventory that were asserted in an NOA Form A. This rule must be promulgated not later than one year after the publication of the first TSCA Inventory containing all “active” substance designations. TSCA also requires EPA to implement the CBI review plan so as to complete all CBI claim reviews not later than five years after such TSCA Inventory publication, with the possibility of a two-year extension. EPA states that since it released the updated TSCA Inventory on February 19, 2019, the deadline for issuing a final rule is February 19, 2020, and the deadline for completing all the CBI claim reviews is February 19, 2024. If EPA invokes the two-year extension under TSCA, the deadline for completing all the CBI claim reviews would then become February 19, 2026. As reported in our February 21, 2019, memorandum, “EPA Releases Updated TSCA Inventory,” of the 40,655 chemicals in commerce, more than 80 percent (32,898) have identities that are not CBI and fewer than 20 percent (7,757) have identities that were claimed as CBI. EPA notes that other types of CBI claims are outside the scope of the review plan under TSCA Section 8(b)(4)(C) through (E), and hence are outside the scope of the proposed rule. Those claims are governed by other statutory and regulatory provisions. Substantiation and review of CBI claims for other data elements in an NOA Form A are governed by TSCA Section 14(g) and 40 C.F.R. Section 710.37(b) and (c)(1). EPA states that substantiation and review of CBI claims for specific chemical identity in an NOA Form B -- “a forward-looking reporting form required when reintroducing an ‘inactive’ chemical substance into U.S. commerce for a nonexempt commercial purpose” -- are governed by TSCA Section 8(b)(5) and 40 C.F.R. Section 710.37(a)(2). Comments are due by June 24, 2019. More information is available in the full memorandum.
EPA Proposes TSCA CDR Revisions And Update To Small Manufacturer Definition For TSCA Section 8(a): On April 25, 2019, EPA issued a proposed rule that would amend TSCA Section 8(a) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) requirements and the TSCA Section 8(a) size standards for small manufacturers. 84 Fed. Reg. 17692. The current CDR rule requires manufacturers (including importers) of certain chemical substances listed on the TSCA Inventory to report data on chemical manufacturing, processing, and use every four years. EPA is proposing several changes to the CDR rule to make regulatory updates to align with new statutory requirements of TSCA, improve the CDR data collected as necessary to support the implementation of TSCA, and potentially reduce the burden for certain CDR reporters. Proposed updates to the definition for small manufacturers, including a new definition for small governments, are being made in accordance with TSCA Section 8(a)(3)(C) and impact certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements for TSCA Section 8(a) rules, including CDR. EPA states that the definitions may reduce the burden on chemical manufacturers by increasing the number of manufacturers considered small. Overall, according to EPA, the regulatory modifications may better address EPA and public information needs by providing additional information that is currently not collected; improve the usability and reliability of the reported data; and ensure that data are available in a timely manner. Comments are due by June 24, 2019.
D.C. Circuit Partially Denies Petition For Review Of TSCA Inventory: On April 26, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its order on petition for review of the EPA final rule on TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements (82 Fed. Reg. 37520 (Aug. 11, 2017)), which denied the petition for review on all but one claim. Petitioner Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) challenged five distinct features of the Inventory final rule: (i) EPA’s exclusion of substantiation questions regarding reverse engineering; (ii) the final rule’s criteria for “maintaining” a confidentiality claim; (iii) EPA’s choice not to incorporate certain regulatory requirements into the final rule; (iv) EPA’s failure to implement the Act’s “unique identifier” requirements in this rulemaking; and (v) the final rule’s exemption of exported chemicals from its notification requirements. More information is available in our blog.
EPA Releases Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision For Glyphosate: On May 6, 2019, EPA announced it was releasing its Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision (PID) for glyphosate acid and its various salt forms. 84 Fed. Reg. 19782. In the PID, EPA states that it “did not identify any human health risks from exposure to any use of glyphosate” but did identify “potential risk to mammals and birds” within the application area or areas near the application area and “potential risk to terrestrial and aquatic plants from off-site spray drift, consistent with glyphosate’s use as a herbicide.” Even with these potential risks, the PID states that “EPA concludes that the benefits outweigh the potential ecological risks when glyphosate is used according to label directions” and proposes certain risk mitigation strategies including: “To reduce off-site spray drift to non-target organisms, the EPA is proposing certain spray drift management measures” with specific spray drift mitigation language to be included on all glyphosate product labels for products applied by liquid spray application; “To preserve glyphosate as a viable tool for growers and combat weed resistance, the EPA is … proposing that herbicide resistance management language be added to all glyphosate labels” and to require measures “for the pesticide registrants to provide growers and users with detailed information and recommendations to slow the development and spread of herbicide resistant weeds”; Inclusion on labels of a non-target organism advisory statement to alert users of potential impact to non-target organisms; and “EPA is also proposing certain labeling clean-up/consistency efforts to bring all glyphosate labels up to modern standards.”
EPA states that these measures were discussed with glyphosate registrants, who do not oppose the proposed risk mitigation measures outlined in the PID. The public can submit comments on EPA’s proposed decision at www.regulations.gov in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361. Public comments are due by July 5, 2019. In addition to the PID, EPA is also posting to the glyphosate docket EPA’s response to comments on glyphosate’s usage and benefits (dated April 18, 2019), EPA’s response to comments on the human health risk assessment (dated April 23, 2018), and EPA’s response to comments on the preliminary ecological risk assessment(dated November 21, 2018).
EPA Denies TSCA Section 21 Petition To Initiate A Reporting Rule Under TSCA Section 8(a) For Asbestos: On May 8, 2019, EPA denied a petition it received under TSCA Section 8(a) from the Attorneys General of Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia requesting that EPA initiate a rulemaking proceeding under TSCA Section 8(a) for the reporting of the manufacture (including import) and processing of asbestos. 84 Fed. Reg. 20062. EPA does not believe that petitioners have demonstrated that it is necessary to initiate a rulemaking proceeding under TSCA Section 8(a) to obtain additional information to conduct its risk evaluation on asbestos and any potential subsequent risk management. Given EPA’s understanding of asbestos and reporting under TSCA Section 8(a), as a result of implementation of the CDR rule and other TSCA Section 8(a) rules, EPA does not believe that the requested reporting requirements would collect the data the petitioners believe the Agency lacks. Where EPA lacks information, it has relied on models. Use of modeled data is in line with EPA’s final Risk Evaluation Rule and EPA’s risk assessment guidelines. EPA intends to provide opportunity for peer and public review of the draft asbestos risk evaluation, which EPA will use to refine the risk evaluation of asbestos.
EPA Announces Meeting Date For TSCA Science Advisory Committee On Chemicals: On May 9, 2019, EPA announced meeting dates for its TSCA Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC). 84 Fed. Reg. 20354. The purpose of the meeting is to consider and review the draft Risk Evaluation for Colour Index (C. I.) Pigment Violet 29 (PV29) and associated documents. The in-person meeting will also include a general TSCA orientation for the TSCA SACC. A portion of the in-person meeting will be closed to the public for the committee’s discussion of information claimed as CBI. As previously announced in April, the public is invited to comment on the draft risk evaluation for PV29 and related documents, including the draft charge questions, in advance of and during this peer review meeting. The TSCA SACC will consider these comments during its discussions. The four-day meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time, June 18-21, 2019. The meeting may also be available via webcast. Written comments are due May 17, 2019. Requests to make oral comments during the meeting will be included on the meeting agenda if received on or before May 28, 2019. For further details, please consult the Federal Register.
EPA Issues Notice To Manufacturers And Processors On The TSCA Inactive Inventory: On May 15, 2019, EPA announced the availability of a signed action signed on May 6, 2019, that identifies chemical substances for inactive designation according to the TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements rule. 84 Fed. Reg. 21772. Specifically, EPA states that the signed action is a companion to the first version of the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory with all listings designated as active or identified as inactive, which was posted on the EPA TSCA Inventory web page on February 19, 2019, and it will initiate a 90-day period after which substances identified as inactive will be designated as inactive. Because the action was signed on May 6, 2019, inactive designations will become effective on August 5, 2019.
Starting on August 5, 2019, manufacturers and processors are required to notify EPA before reintroducing into commerce a substance designated as inactive on the TSCA Inventory. Manufacturers and processors can notify EPA via an NOA Form B, found in EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). Upon receiving such notification, EPA will change the designation of substances from inactive to active.
EPA Extends Comment Period On Draft Guidance For Pesticide Registrants On Plant Regulator Label Claims, Including Plant Biostimulants: On May 15, 2019, in response to public requests for an extension of the comment period, EPA announced it is extending the comment period for the draft guidance document for an additional 60 days. 84 Fed. Reg. 21773. Comments are now due on July 28, 2019.
EPA Requests Comments On Ad Hoc Panelists For FIFRA SAP Meeting On Proposed Guidelines For Efficacy Testing Of Certain Flea And Tick Products: On May 3, 2019, EPA announced it was seeking comments on the experts who are candidates to serve as ad hoc panelists for the review of EPA’s Draft Product Performance Test Guidelines OCSPP 810.3300: Treatments Topically Applied to Pets to Control Certain Invertebrate Ectoparasitic Pests. The candidate list is available on EPA’s Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) website. Comments on the candidates are due by May 18, 2019, to the Designated Federal Official (DFO) Dr. Suhair Shallal (shallal.suhair@epa.gov). EPA is requesting these comments prior to the FIFRA SAP public in-person meeting scheduled for June 11-14, 2019, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (EDT), which will review EPA’s proposed guidelines referenced above and the supplemental document Sample Size for Pet Product Studies. 84 Fed. Reg. 15214. The charge questions to the panel are available here.
EPA Corrects 200 ppb Level Description In Technical Amendment To Data Requirements For Antimicrobial Pesticides Final Rule: On May 3, 2019, EPA announced it was making final a single correction to the data requirements for antimicrobial pesticide products codified in 40 C.F.R. Part 158, subpart W. 84 Fed. Reg. 18993. The correction clarifies that the 200 parts per billion (ppb) level described in the antimicrobial pesticides data requirements regulations (40 C.F.R. § 158.2230(d)) “is based on total estimated daily dietary intake for an individual and not on the amount of residue present on a single food,” as EPA states was incorrectly implied by the previous regulatory text. The final rule will become effective on July 2, 2019.
RCRA/CERCLA/CWA/CAA/PHMSA
EPA Declines To Revise RCRA Regulation Of Oil And Gas Waste:On April 23, 2019, EPA stated that it would not revise the current regulatory status under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for wastes generated by oil and gas production. The determination came in a letter to environmental groups from Barry Breen, EPA’s Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Land and Emergency Management. Currently, EPA regulates wastes from the exploration, development, and production of crude oil, natural gas, and geothermal energy under RCRA’s Subtitle D non-hazardous waste regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 257. In 2016, the Environmental Integrity Project and the Natural Resources Defense Council sued EPA, seeking a revision in how EPA regulates oil and gas wastes. Under a settlement agreement reached in the case, EPA by March 15, 2019 (changed to April 23, 2019, due to the government shutdown) was to issue a proposed rule revising the Part 257 regulations or make a determination that the regulations did not warrant revision. EPA’s April 23, 2019, letter states that “revising the regulations is not necessary at this time.”D.C. Circuit Upholds EPA’s Decision To Not Expand Ozone Transport Region: On April 23, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected a petition from several East Coast states that would have required EPA to impose stricter ozone controls on upwind states. EPA on November 3, 2017, denied a petition submitted by several states seeking to expand the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 82 Fed. Reg. 51238. On December 9, 2013, the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont filed a petition with EPA requesting that EPA expand the OTR by adding the states of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia, and the areas of Virginia not already in the OTR to address the interstate transport of air pollution with respect to the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In its denial, EPA stated that it believes that other CAA provisions “provide a better pathway for states and the EPA to develop a tailored remedy that is most effective for addressing any remaining air quality problems for the 2008 ozone NAAQS identified by the petitioners.” The final action was effective on November 4, 2017. The states then turned to the appeals court, seeking a reversal of EPA’s dismissal of the petition. The court ruled that EPA acted legally and appropriately in rejecting the petition. It stated that achieving compliance by relying on the CAA’s “good neighbor provision,” which requires EPA to impose a federal plan on states that contribute significantly to other states’ ability to meet air quality standards, was the appropriate approach. The court stated that “EPA thus concluded that, compared to the blunt impact of expanding the region, these other tools provided more effective and efficient approaches to the ozone transport problem in light of limited agency resources.”
EPA Releases Interpretive Statement On Whether CWA NPDES Permit Program Applies To Releases Of A Pollutant From A Point Source To Groundwater: On April 23, 2019, EPA announced it was making available its Interpretive Statement addressing whether the Clean Water Act’s (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program applies to releases of a pollutant from a point source to groundwater (Interpretive Statement) for comment. 84 Fed. Reg. 16810. EPA is issuing the Interpretative statement to “provide clarity on [EPA’s] interpretation of the [CWA] given the mixed record of prior [EPA] statements and a split in the federal circuit courts regarding this issue.” EPA’s Interpretive Statement states that it “sets forth [its] interpretation of the [CWA NPDES] permit program’s applicability to releases of pollutants from a point source to groundwater that subsequently migrate or are conveyed by groundwater to jurisdictional surface waters” and “EPA concludes that the [CWA] is best read as excluding all releases of pollutants from a point source to groundwater from NPDES program coverage and liability under Section 301 of the CWA, regardless of a hydrologic connection between the groundwater and a jurisdictional surface water.” EPA also released a fact sheet on its Interpretive Statement, available online. The April 23 Federal Register notice states that the Interpretative Statement reflects EPA’s consideration of the public comments received in response to its February 20, 2018, Federal Register notice (83 Fed. Reg. 7126) which requested comment on EPA’s previous statements regarding whether pollutant discharges from point sources that reach jurisdictional surface waters via groundwater or other subsurface flow that has a direct hydrologic connection to the jurisdictional surface water may be subject to CWA regulation. EPA received over 50,000 comments from a wide range of stakeholders, many of which affirmed that additional clarity from EPA was necessary. EPA reached its conclusion based on the comments received and on “a holistic analysis of the [CWA], its text, structure, and legislative history.” EPA also references numerous policy considerations that support excluding groundwater discharges from NPDES permitting, including existing state and federal authorities and statutes that play a role in regulating groundwater quality (e.g., Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Underground Injection Control (UIC) program). EPA is soliciting public comments on the Interpretive Statement, specifically regarding what may be needed to provide further clarity and regulatory certainty on this issue. Comments are due by June 7, 2019.
EPA Issues Draft Interim Recommendations To Address Groundwater Contaminated With PFOA And PFOS: EPA on April 25, 2019, issued interim recommendations for addressing groundwater contaminated with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and/or perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). The interim recommendations are to be applied to sites being evaluated and addressed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) and corrective action under RCRA. The interim guidance is available online. The guidance provides interim recommendations for screening levels and preliminary remediation goals (PRG) to inform final cleanup levels for PFOA and/or PFOS contamination of groundwater that is a current or potential source of drinking water. EPA states that its recommendations are consistent with existing EPA guidance and standard practices, in addition to applicable statutes and regulations. For groundwater contaminated with PFOA or PFOS, EPA instructs its regional offices to consult on a case-by-case basis with the Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) prior to using the Fund and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) prior to taking enforcement action. The interim recommendations are as follows: sites should be screened using a level set to a Hazard Quotient of 0.1 for PFOA or PFOS individually, which is currently 40 parts per trillion (ppt); and for sites where groundwater is contaminated and is a current or potential source of drinking water, the PRG should be 70 ppt, unless a state or tribal Maximum Contaminant Level for PFOA or PFOS is in place. In situations where groundwater is being used for drinking water, EPA expects that responsible parties will address levels of PFOA and/or PFOS over 70 ppt. EPA is taking comment on the interim recommendations until June 10, 2019.
EPA Issues RCRA Guidance On Planning For Natural Disaster Debris: On May 2, 2019, EPA released the 2019 “Planning for Natural Disaster Debris” guidance. This document is an update to the version that EPA published in March 2008. It is designed to help communities create disaster debris management plans. The guidance is intended to assist communities in planning for natural disaster debris. Information is included on recommended components of a debris management plan, suggested management options for various natural disaster debris streams, case studies, and EPA’s recommended pre-incident planning process to help prepare communities for effective disaster debris management. The guidance is available online.
PHMSA To Hold Public Meeting On Emergency Response Guidebook: On May 7, 2019, the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) announced that it will hold a public hearing to solicit input on the 2020edition of the Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG2020). 84 Fed. Reg. 19999.. The meeting will be held on June 17, 2019, at DOT’s Conference Center at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 from 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. (EDT). PHMSA developed the ERG for use by emergency services personnel to provide guidance for initial response to hazardous materials transportation incidents. During the meeting, PHMSA intends to hold a public discussion of the methodology used to determine the appropriate response protective distances for poisonous vapors resulting from spills involving dangerous goods considered toxic by inhalation. PHMSA also will solicit comments related to new methodologies and considerations for future editions of the ERG. Additionally, the meeting will include discussions on the outcomes of field experiments, ongoing research efforts to understand environmental effects on airborne toxic gas concentrations, and updates to be published in the ERG2020.
PHMSA Solicits Nominees To Serve On Lithium Battery Safety Advisory Committee: On May 9, 2019, PHMSA announced that it is soliciting nominees for a new Lithium Battery Safety Advisory Committee. The announcement was published in the Federal Register on May 14, 2019. 84 Fed. Reg. 21411. The committee is mandated by Section 333(d) of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115–254) and will be established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972. The committee will facilitate communication among manufacturers of lithium ion and lithium metal cells and batteries, manufacturers of products incorporating both large and small lithium ion and lithium metal batteries, air carriers, and the federal government. This communication is intended to promote the safe transportation of lithium ion and lithium metal cells and batteries and improve the effectiveness and economic and social impacts of related regulation. No later than 180 days after the establishment of the committee, it must submit to DOT and appropriate committees of Congress a report that describes and evaluates the steps being taken in the private sector and by international regulatory authorities to implement and enforce requirements relating to the safe transportation of bulk shipments of lithium ion cells and batteries. The committee will also identify any areas of regulatory requirements for which there is consensus that greater attention is needed. Membership of the committee will consist of representatives from: Large volume manufacturers of lithium ion and lithium metal cells and batteries;Domestic manufacturers of lithium ion and lithium metal batteries or battery packs; Manufacturers of consumer products powered by lithium ion and lithium metal batteries; Manufacturers of vehicles powered by lithium ion and lithium metal batteries; Marketers of products powered by lithium ion and lithium metal batteries; Cargo air service providers based in the United States; Passenger air service providers based in the United States; Pilots and employees of air service providers; Shippers of lithium ion and lithium metal batteries for air transportation; Manufacturers of battery-powered medical devices or batteries used in medical devices; and Employees of DOT and other government agencies.
Nominations must be submitted to PHMSA by June 4, 2019.FDA
FDA Requests Comment On Nutrition Facts Label: On April 19, 2019, FDA announced it would be soliciting comments on the collection of information for the nutrition facts label and supplement facts label. 84 Fed. Reg. 16513. FDA states that it promulgated regulations in 21 C.F.R. Section 101.9 setting forth how nutrition information is presented to consumers and the regulations also establish standards to define serving size and require that certain products provide additional information within the nutrition facts label that conveys that information to consumers.Specifically, Sections 101.9 and 101.36 list nutrients that are required or permitted to be declared; provide Daily Reference Values and Reference Daily Intake values that are based on current dietary recommendations from consensus reports; provide requirements for foods represented or purported to be specifically for children under the age of four years and pregnant and lactating women and establish nutrient reference values specifically for these population subgroups; and provide the format and appearance of the nutrition facts label. Comments are due by June 18, 2019.FDA Issues Correction Regarding OTC Proposed Rule: On April 18, 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it was correcting the over-the-counter (OTC) proposed rule regarding sunscreen monograph products to improve the accuracy of the proposed rule -- specifically to make the formulas legible. 84 Fed. Reg. 16220. Comments are due by June 27, 2019.
FDA Announces Public Meeting For Its Preparation For ICCR-13:On May 2, 2019, FDA announced a public meeting for its preparation for the upcoming International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation Thirteenth Annual Meeting (ICCR-13) to be held at the FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 5001 Campus Dr., Wiley Auditorium (first floor), College Park, MD 20740 on June 5, 2019, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EDT).84 Fed. Reg. 18850. FDA’s announcement states that the intention of the ICCR multilateral framework is to pave the way for the removal of regulatory obstacles to international trade while maintaining global consumer protection. Input from this public meeting will help FDA prepare for the ICCR-13 meeting that will be held July 9-11, 2019, in Montreal, Canada.FDA intends to have an agenda available by May 29, 2019.Parties interested in participating must register by May 22, 2019, by sending information (including name, title, affiliation, address, e-mail, and telephone) to Jonathan Hicks (Jonathan.Hicks@fda.hhs.gov).
FDA Releases Final Guidance For Industry On Preparation Of Food Contact Notifications For FCSs In Contact With Infant Formula And/Or Human Milk: On May 9, 2019, FDA announced the availability of a final guidance for industry titled “Preparation of Food Contact Notifications for Food Contact Substances in Contact with Infant Formula and/or Human Milk.” 84 Fed. Reg. 20370. FDA states that this guidance is intended to provide industry with its current thinking on how to prepare a food contact notification (FCN) submission for its review and evaluation of the safety of food contact substances (FCS) used in contact with infant formula and/or human milk. FCSs that would be affected by this guidance document may include infant formula packaging for both liquid (concentrate and ready to feed) and powdered formula, baby bottles, bottle inserts, nipples, and any other materials that are in contact with infant food.
Nanotechnology
Workshop Report Published On EU-U.S. Priorities In Nanosafety: On March 5-6, 2019, a workshop on “Fostering EU-U.S. Cooperation in Nanosafety” was held. According to the workshop report, the workshop intended to answer two main questions: What should be the future research priorities in nanosafety and other advanced materials; and What are the opportunities for European Union (EU)-U.S. cooperation priorities in nanosafety.
More information, including the research priorities identified and potential instruments for advancing EU-U.S. cooperation, is available in our April 29, 2019, blog item.
ISO Issues Method To Quantify Air Concentrations Of Carbon Black And Amorphous Silica In The Nanoparticle Size Range In A Mixed Dust Manufacturing Environment: The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has published standard ISO/TS 21361:2019, “Nanotechnologies -- Method to quantify air concentrations of carbon black and amorphous silica in the nanoparticle size range in a mixed dust manufacturing environment.” The standard provides guidelines to quantify and identify particles of carbon black and/or amorphous silica in air samples collected in a mixed dust industrial manufacturing environment.
France Bans Titanium Dioxide Food Additive Beginning In 2020:On April 17, 2019, the Ministry of Ecological and Solidarity Transition issued a press release announcing that France will prohibit foods containing food additive E171 (titanium dioxide) from being placed on the market beginning January 1, 2020. The press release cites the April 15, 2019, opinion from the Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail (ANSES). ANSES reiterated its previous general recommendations on nanomaterials aimed at limiting the exposure of workers, consumers, and the environment by promoting products that are safe and equivalent products in terms of function and efficiency, without nanomaterials. According to the Ministry’s press release, an order regarding the ban has been signed and will be published as soon as possible.
Recommendations On Priorities For IARC Monographs Include Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes, Nanomaterials: An Advisory Group of 29 scientists from 18 countries met on March 25-27, 2019, to recommend priorities for the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs program during 2020-2024. IARC announced on April 18, 2019, that the recommendations were published in The Lancet Oncology, “Advisory Group recommendations on priorities for the IARC Monographs.” The list of agents previously evaluated by IARC Monographs and recommended for evaluation with high priority includes multi-walled carbon nanotubes. The list of medium priority agents includes nanomaterials, “e.g., titanium dioxide or nanosilica.”
FDA Extends Comment Period For Proposed Rule For OTC Sunscreen Drug Products: On April 18, 2019, FDA published a Federal Register notice announcing that it is extending the comment period for its February 26, 2019, proposed rule that would put into effect a final monograph for nonprescription, OTC sunscreen drug products. The proposed rule describes the conditions under which FDA proposes that OTC sunscreen monograph products are generally recognized as safe and effective (GRASE) and not misbranded. As reported in our February 21, 2019, blog item, “FDA Proposed Rule for OTC Sunscreen Drug Products Addresses Sunscreens Containing Nanomaterials,” FDA invites comment on several issues concerning nanomaterials. Comments are now due on June 27, 2019.
NIOSH Seeks Comment On Proposed Information Collection Project That Will Survey Engineered Nanomaterial Occupational Safety And Health Practices: On April 23, 2019, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) published a Federal Register notice inviting comment on a proposed information collection project entitled “Survey of Engineered Nanomaterial Occupational Safety and Health Practices.” The goal of the project is to assess the relevance and impact of NIOSH’s contribution to guidelines and risk mitigation practices for the safe handling of engineered nanomaterials in the workplace. Comments are due June 24, 2019.
OECD Chemical Safety And Biosafety Progress Report Includes Update On Work Regarding Manufactured Nanomaterials: The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) April 2019 issue of its Chemical Safety and Biosafety Progress Report includes an update on OECD’s work to determine the safety of manufactured nanomaterials.
Germany Announces Research Project To Establish Criteria For Assessment Of The Human Health And Environmental Risks Of Novel (Nano) Materials: On April 29, 2019, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) announced InnoMat.Life, a joint research project to establish criteria for an efficient assessment of the human health and environmental risks of novel (nano) materials. According to BfR, one of the main goals of InnoMat.Life is to establish criteria catalogs such that novel materials can be grouped together with regard to their hazard potential. The project takes into account the full material life cycle, from synthesis to disposal.
NIA Webinar On Nanosafety Available On YouTube: On May 7, 2019, the Nanotechnology Industries Association (NIA) held a webinar on “Nano in Action: Nanosafety.” Participants heard about the latest research and support tools intended to advance the development of safe materials from speakers involved in human and environmental safety research and services. The webinar also addressed how regulations and standards are evolving to build commercial and consumer confidence in nanomaterials. A list of all NIA webinars is available on NIA’s website, as well as on its YouTube channel.
EC JRC Announces Publication Of Article On Measuring Nanoparticles In Medicinal Products: The European Commission’s (EC) Joint Research Center (JRC) announced on May 10, 2019, publication of an article entitled “Measuring particle size distribution of nanoparticle enabled medicinal products, the joint view of EUNCL and NCI-NCL. A step by step approach combining orthogonal measurements with increasing complexity” in the April 10, 2019, issue of the Journal of Controlled Release. The work is part of the collaboration between U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Nanotechnology Characterization Laboratory (NCI-NCL) and the European Nanomedicine Characterization Laboratory (EUNCL).
ACS Will Hold Free Webinar On Working Safely With Nanomaterials In The Laboratory: On May 16, 2019, the American Chemical Society (ACS) will hold a webinar on working safely with nanomaterials in the laboratory. Chuck Geraci, NIOSH Associate Director for Emerging Technologies, will moderate a panel including: Ken Kretchman, Director of Environmental Safety, NC State University; Craig Merlic, Professor of Chemistry, University of California, Los Angeles; and Debbie Decker, Chemical and Laboratory Safety Officer, University of California, Davis.
18th Annual NanoBusiness Conference Will Be Held In June In Washington, D.C.: The NanoBusiness Commercialization Association (NanoBCA) will hold its 18th Annual NanoBusiness Conference on June 4, 2019, in Washington, D.C.
Biobased/Renewable Products
Legislative
Representative Boyle Launches Effort To Research And Regulate PFAS: On April 29, 2019, Representative Brendan Boyle (D-PA) launched a two-pronged effort to address per- and poly-fluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) contamination. Mr. Boyle led a bipartisan group of Representatives in urging the House Appropriations Committee to fund fully a $10 million nationwide study on the impact of PFAS contamination in Fiscal Year (FY) 2020. Mr. Boyle also sought to enact the study in the FY19 National Defense Authorization Act. Mr. Boyle also introduced a bill (H.R. 2377) that would require EPA to amend the SDWA to promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation for total PFAS substances.
House Bill Would Require Funding For Green Infrastructure Projects: On May 1, 2019, while Congressional leaders negotiated a $2 trillion infrastructure plan with the White House, Representative Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL) introduced the Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Efficiency Act (H.R. 2458). The bill would require at least 20 percent of Clean Water State Revolving Funds be invested in green infrastructure and environmentally-innovative water projects.
House Passes Legislation To Keep U.S. In Paris Climate Accord:On May 2, 2019, the House of Representatives passed its first climate change bill in a decade. The Climate Action Now Act (H.R. 9), passed by a vote of 231-190, would keep the U.S. in the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. It specifically would require President Trump to develop and update annually a plan for the U.S. to meet its nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement. The bill would require this plan to describe steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, and confirm that other parties to the agreement with major economies are fulfilling their announced contributions. In addition, the bill prohibits federal funds from being used to withdraw from the agreement. The House’s passage of the bill is largely symbolic, however, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has said that he would not bring the bill up for a vote in the Senate.
Chemical Poisons Reduction Act Of 2019 Introduced In House:On May 2, 2019, Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR) introduced the Chemical Poisons Reduction Act of 2019 (H.R. 2471). The bill would ban the use of two compounds that are used to control predator populations. Specifically, the bill would ban the use of sodium fluoroacetate (commonly known as Compound 1080) and sodium cyanide to kill predatory animals. Although EPA banned Compound 1080 in 1972, after lobbying from the livestock industry, EPA re-approved the compound for use in the “Livestock Protection Collar” (collars containing the compound that are placed around the necks of sheep and burst when punctured by a predator) in 1985. Sodium cyanide is contained within M-44 devices, which are spring-activated ejectors that deliver a dose when pulled. The top of the ejector is wrapped with an absorbent material that has been coated with a substance that attracts canines. When the device is activated, a spring ejects the poison. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state agencies regularly use both of these poisons in their predator control programs.
House Subcommittee Holds Hearing On Bill To Ban Asbestos: On May 8, 2019, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change convened a hearing entitled “Ban Asbestos Now: Taking Action to Save Lives and Livelihoods.” Energy and Commerce Chair Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) opened the hearing, and his opening statement was withering in its criticism of EPA on its inaction on asbestos. Pallone stated: “It has been 30 years since EPA finalized that ban. And it has been 28 years since that ban was struck down in court. Twenty-eight years of frustration, of sickness and loss. We have known the dangers of asbestos for decades. Enough is enough.” The hearing focused on H.R. 1603, the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act. The bill would ban the manufacture, import, processing, and distribution of asbestos. It would also require EPA to assess and report on the risks posed by “legacy asbestos” found in buildings. Mr. Pallone stated that the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century empowered EPA to ban asbestos. “In fact, this Committee’s report on the Lautenberg Act – written under Republican leadership – states, and I’m quoting now: ‘To many members of the Committee, an important measure of TSCA reform proposals has been whether the proposal would enable EPA to take broader regulatory action to protect against unreasonable risks from asbestos. The Committee expects this legislation to enable that regulatory action.’” He added, however, that:
Unfortunately, it is now clear that, despite the best efforts of our Committee, the Trump EPA is not using the tools we gave it to regulate dangerous chemicals. Asbestos is the poster-child for the problems we are seeing in the implementation of the Lautenberg Act. EPA’s actions under the Lautenberg Act have been so legally suspect that I believe we need to pass this bill regardless of whether EPA were to announce that it is moving forward with a full ban of asbestos. We don’t have time for more legal maneuvering and a drawn-out court battle while tens of thousands of people are dying. It is deeply disappointing that 40 years after EPA began work to ban asbestos under TSCA and three years after we passed the Lautenberg Act to reform that statute, we need to pass another law to ban this deadly substance. But it is clear that Congress must act, and so we will.
Testifying at the hearing were: Alexandra Dunn, Assistant Administrator, EPA, OCSPP; Linda Reinstein, Co-founder, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization; Rebecca Reindel, MS, MPH, Senior Safety and Health Specialist, on behalf of the AFL-CIO; Celeste Monforton, DrPH, MPH, Lecturer, Texas State University, on behalf of the American Public Health Association; and Mike Walls, Vice President of Regulatory and Technical Affairs, American Chemistry Council. Member statements, witness testimonies, and an archived webcast of the hearing are available online.
House Democrats Unleash Torrent Of PFAS Legislation: On May 8 and 9, 2019, Democrats in the House unleashed several bills aimed at addressing contamination by PFAS. Leading the charge was House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) on May 8, 2019, who introduced H.R. 2533, the Providing Financial Assistance for SDWA. The bill would authorize sweeping investments for water infrastructure, creating a grant program to upgrade the country’s drinking water systems with treatment technology that can remove PFAS. It is intended to allow affected communities to remove PFAS and other substances from their drinking water. The bill would amend the SDWA to require EPA to establish, within 180 days of enactment, a program to award grants to PFAS-affected water systems to pay the capital costs associated with eligible treatment technologies. The legislation further directs EPA to create a list of eligible treatment technologies, defined as those which can remove all detectable amounts of PFAS from drinking water. Other bills on PFAS introduced on May 8, 2019, are: H.R. 2570, which is intended to ensure that polluters pay ongoing water treatment costs associated with contamination from PFAS; H.R. 2577, a bill that would amend the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) to include PFAS on the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI); H.R. 2591, legislation that would prohibit the incineration of PFAS; H.R. 2596, which would amend TSCA with respect to manufacturing and processing notices for PFAS; H.R. 2600, a bill to regulate PFAS under TSCA; H.R. 2605, which would require EPA to issue a final rule adding as a class all PFAS substances with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom to the list of hazardous air pollutants under CAA Section 112(b); H.R. 2608, the PFAS Testing Act of 2019, which would require EPA to test PFAS chemicals under TSCA; H.R. 2626, which would encourage federal agencies to enter into agreements with states for the remediation of PFAS contamination; and H.R. 2638, a bill that would require EPA to issue guidance to minimize the use of firefighting foam containing PFAS.
Legislation Seeks To Protect Public Health And Coral Reefs From Sunscreen Chemicals: On May 8, 2019, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) introduced two pieces of legislation to address the alleged threat that sunscreen chemicals pose to coral reefs, and to study the impact of these chemicals on human health and the environment. The Oxybenzone and Octinoxate Impact Study Act of 2019 (S. 1371) would require EPA to study the impacts of those two chemicals on human health and the environment. The Reef Safe Act of 2019 (S. 1375) would require FDA to develop standards for a “Reef Safe” label for sunscreens. Companion legislation (H.R. 2588) was introduced in the House by Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI).
Appropriations Bill Would Fund PFOA/PFAS Cleanup On Military Bases: On May 9, 2019, the House Appropriations Committee passed legislation funding Department of Defense (DOD) construction programs. One of the provisions of the legislation would fund remediation for PFOS and PFOA. The FY 2020 Military Construction-Veterans Affairs bill provides $60 million for the remediation. The Committee report on the bill states that members are concerned about PFOS and PFOA contamination at U.S. military institutions. The bill only covers military installations funded through the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) account that are affected by PFOS/PFOA, but the report notes that “the issue is not limited to the Defense Department and affects many communities across the Nation.” Members are “encouraged” by EPA’s announced plan to evaluate the need for a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for PFOA/PFAS under the SDWA, as well as EPA’s consideration of designating these compounds as hazardous substances under CERCLA.
Miscellaneous
NIOSH Seeks Comment On Mesothelioma National Registry: On April 8, 2019, NIOSH announced the opening of a docket to obtain information on the feasibility of a registry designed to track mesothelioma cases in the U.S., as well as recommendations on enrollment, data collection, confidentiality, and registry maintenance. 84 Fed. Reg. 13928. The purpose of such a registry would be to collect information that could be used to develop and improve standards of care and to identify gaps in mesothelioma prevention and treatment. The FY 2019 appropriations act (H.R. 6157) charged NIOSH with initiating a feasibility study for a National Mesothelioma Registry. The conference report accompanying H.R. 6157 explicitly directs NIOSH to “initiate a feasibility study for a patient registry, which would include developing case finding methodology to determine incidence and prevalence, demographics, and risk factors.” The comment period closes on July 8, 2019.ATSDR Announces Availability Of Draft Toxicological Profile For Glyphosate: On April 8, 2019, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATDSR) announced the opening of a docket on the draft toxicological profile for glyphosate. 84 Fed. Reg. 13922. ATSDR seeks comments and additional information or reports on studies about the health effects of glyphosate for review and potential inclusion in the profile. Comments are due by July 8, 2019.
USITC Releases Report Estimating The Economic Impact Of The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement: On April 18, 2019, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) released its report assessing the likely economic impact of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). The report is required under the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015. The report, United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement: Likely Impact on the U.S. Economy and Specific Industry Sectors, assesses the likely impact of the agreement on the U.S. economy as a whole and on specific industry sectors and the interests of U.S. consumers. The USITC investigated the impact the agreement would have on the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP); exports and imports; employment; and the production, employment, and competitive position of industries likely to be affected by the agreement. The report concludes that, if fully implemented and enforced, USMCA would have a modest positive impact on U.S. real GDP and employment. Specifically, the report estimates that USMCA would raise U.S. real GDP by $68.2 billion (0.35 percent) and U.S. employment by 176,000 jobs (0.12 percent). U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico would increase by $19.1 billion (5.9 percent) and $14.2 billion (6.7 percent), respectively. U.S. imports from Canada and Mexico would increase by $19.1 billion (4.8 percent) and $12.4 billion (3.8 percent), respectively. The elements of the agreement that would have the most significant effects on the U.S. economy are provisions that reduce policy uncertainty about digital trade and certain new rules of origin applicable to the automotive sector. The report highlights USMCA’s new international data transfer provisions, including provisions that largely prohibit forced localization of computing facilities and restrictions on cross-border data flows. Because the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) already eliminated duties on most goods and significantly reduced nontariff measures, USMCA’s emphasis is on reducing remaining nontariff measures on trade and the U.S. economy. This includes addressing other issues that affect trade, such as workers’ rights, harmonizing regulations, and deterring certain potential future trade and investment barriers. USMCA’s requirements are estimated to increase U.S. production of automotive parts and employment in the sector, but also to lead to a small increase in the prices and small decrease in the consumption of vehicles in the United States. USMCA would reduce the scope of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, a change that, based on modeling results, would reduce U.S. investment in Mexico and would lead to a small increase in U.S. domestic investment and output in the manufacturing and mining sectors. The report is available online.
ATSDR Requests Comment On Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated For Toxicological Profiles: On April 19, 2019, ATSDR issued a Federal Register notice seeking nominations for substances ATSDR should evaluate for developing toxicological profiles. 84 Fed. Reg. 16511. ATSDR also is soliciting nominations for non- CERCLA substances. CERCLA requires ATSDR to develop a list annually of substances to be considered for toxicological profiles. ATSDR must prepare toxicological profiles for each substance included on the Priority List of Hazardous Substances (the Substance Priority list (SPL)). This list identifies 275 hazardous substances found at CERCLA National Priorities List (NPL) sites that ATSDR and EPA have determined pose the most significant current potential threat to human health. The ATSDR toxicological profile succinctly characterizes the toxicologic and adverse health effects information for these toxic substances. Each peer-reviewed profile identifies and reviews the key literature that describes a substance’s toxicologic properties. Other pertinent literature is also presented, but is described in less detail than the key studies. The focus of the profiles is on health and toxicological information; therefore, each toxicological profile begins with a relevance to public health discussion that would allow a public health professional to make a real-time determination of whether the presence of a particular substance in the environment poses a potential threat to human health. The adequacy of information to determine a substance's health effects is described in a health effects summary. Data needs that are of significance to the protection of public health are identified by ATSDR and EPA. The list of substances to be considered for toxicological profile development is available online. Nominations must be submitted by May 20, 2019.
CSB Calls On EPA To Update HF Study In Wake Of 2017 Husky Refinery Fire: On April 24, 2019, the US Chemical Safety Board (CSB) released a letter calling on EPA to review its existing hydrofluoric acid (HF) study to determine the effectiveness of existing regulations as well as the viability of utilizing inherently safer alkylation technologies in petroleum refineries. In the last four years, CSB has investigated two refinery incidents where an explosion elevated the threat of a release of HF. CSB urged EPA to review its 1993 HF study to ensure the health and safety of communities near petroleum refineries utilizing HF. CSB’s letter to EPA is available online.
CEQ Issues Instructions To Federal Agencies On Meeting Energy And Environmental Performance Requirements: On May 3, 2019, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued instructions to federal agencies for meeting energy and environmental performance requirements. 84 Fed Reg. 19056. The guidance documents are intended to guide federal agencies to comply with Executive Order (E.O.) 13834, “Efficient Federal Operations,” signed by President Trump on May 17, 2018. The purpose of the E.O. is to direct agencies on the management of federal facilities, vehicles, and operations to achieve statutory requirements, while prioritizing actions to reduce waste, cut costs, and enhance resilience of federal infrastructure and operations for effective accomplishment of agency missions. CEQ issued the following instructions: Guiding Principles for Sustainable Federal Buildings; Federal Renewable Energy Certificate Guide; Interim Guidance for Calculating Federal Compliance with Waste Diversion Goals; Federal Agency Implementation of Water Efficiency and Management Provisions; Guidance for Federal Agencies on Sustainable Practices for Designed Landscapes; Sustainable Locations for Federal Facilities: Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting Guidance; and Federal Agency Implementation of Workplace Charging: Guidance for Level 1 Charging Receptacles and EV Supply Equipment.
The instructions are available online.
ATSDR Announces Release Of Draft Toxicological Profiles: ATSDR on May 9, 2019, announced that it has released and is taking comment on several draft toxicological profiles. 84 Fed. Reg. 20359. ATSDR has released draft profiles for: Dinitrophenols; 2-Butanone;Mirex and Chlordecone; 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine; 1,2,3-Trichloropropane; Lead; and Endrin.
The draft profiles are available online. Comments on the draft profiles are due by August 7, 2019.
EPA Seeks Comment On Draft Policy For Enhancing EPA/State Actions On Enforcement: On May 13, 2019, EPA released a draft policy of “Enhancing Planning and Communication Between the EPA and States in Civil Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Work.” 84 Fed. Reg. 20882. The draft policy is available online and EPA is soliciting comments on it until June 12, 2019.The guidance is intended to set out expectations and procedures for enhancing planning and communication on civil enforcement between EPA and state agencies implementing federal environmental programs.
OSHA Issues Final Rule Revising 14 Standards: On May 14, 2019, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a final rule revising 14 provisions in the recordkeeping, general industry, maritime, and construction standards. 84 Fed. Reg. 21416. OSHA believes that the regulatory provisions it revised may be confusing, outdated, or unnecessary. OSHA expects the revisions will increase understanding and compliance with the provisions, improve employee safety and health, and save employers an estimated $6.1 million per year. This is the fourth final rule under OSHA’s Standards Improvement Project, which began in 1995 in response to a Presidential memorandum to improve government regulations.
Almost 200 Parties To The Basel Convention Approve Amendment To Include Restrictions On Plastic Waste And Hazardous Chemicals: On May 10, 2019, 180 governments adopted decisions aimed at protecting human health and the environment from plastic wastes and hazardous chemicals. Governments that are parties to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal approved an amendment to the Convention to include plastic waste. The legally-binding framework “will make global trade in plastic waste more transparent and better regulated, whilst also ensuring that its management is safer for human health and the environment,” the Secretariat of the Basel Convention wrote. At the same time, a new Partnership on Plastic Waste was established to mobilize business, government, academic and civil society resources, interests and expertise to assist in implementing the new measures, to provide a set of practical supports -- including tools, best practices, technical and financial assistance -- for this agreement. The amendment could make it difficult, if not impossible, for the U.S., which is not a party to the Basel Convention, to export plastic wastes to countries that eventually adopt the amendment. Amendments to other global agreements were also adopted. Parties agreed to amend the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants to eliminate two chemical groups, which together total about 4,000 chemicals, listed in Annex A of the Stockholm Convention, namely dicofol and PFOA and its salts and PFOA-related compounds. Listing in Annex A to the Convention obliges Parties to eliminate these chemicals from use. Amendments to the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure (PIC) for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade also were adopted by Parties. Phorate (a pesticide) and hexabromocyclododecane were added to Annex III of the Convention, making them subject to the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure, through which countries can decide on future imports of these chemicals. A further decision to approve procedures and mechanisms on compliance with the Rotterdam Convention was also adopted by the Parties. The amendments were agreed to during a two-week meeting in Geneva entitled “Clean Planet, Healthy People: Sound Management of Chemicals and Waste.” Approximately 1,400 delegates from around 180 countries converged for the meetings of the Conferences of Parties to the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions (Triple COPs).
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/recent-federal-developments-may-2019
-
UN Meeting Adopts Amendments to International Conventions
May 16, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Ginger Hervey
Delegates representing more than 180 countries gathered in Geneva last week as part of the UN's Stockholm, Basel and Rotterdam Conventions.
Alongside discussions on POPs in waste and the adoption of a compliance mechanism under the Rotterdam Convention, delegates focused on plastics, PFOA and the prior informed consent (Pic) procedure.
Country representatives voted to add plastic waste to the scope of the Basel Convention, which regulates the movement of waste between countries. The adopted amendments, proposed initially by Norway, require exporting countries to receive prior informed consent (Pic) from receiving countries before they export any plastics that are not clean, sorted and intended for recycling.
The rules aim to prevent the dumping of plastic waste in developing countries, a practice that has increased since China clamped down on plastic waste imports at the beginning of 2018.
Supporters of the agreement hope it will increase transparency in plastic trade by creating a paper trail of exports.
The decision has major implications for the US and the EU, because it will effectively ban exports of mixed or unwashed plastics to developing countries. The US is not a party to the Basel Convention and non-parties cannot trade with non-OECD countries that are. The EU will face the same consequences because of its domestic legislation regulating waste exports.
The conventions' executive secretary Rolph Payet said he was "proud" of the new rules to manage plastic waste, calling it "one of the world’s most pressing environmental issues".
The changes will take effect in January 2021.
Global ban on PFOA
Delegates agreed to ban the use of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and added it to Annex III of the Stockholm Convention. There were some notable exemptions – including one for firefighting foam – but NGOs applauded delegates’ warnings against substituting PFOA for other per- and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFASs).
Negotiators also tightened an existing restriction on perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) – another fluorinated chemical that was added to Annex A in 2009 – by revoking some exemptions and setting time limits for others.
E-waste guidelines adoption postponed
Countries did not reach agreement on proposed guidelines for managing electronic and electrical waste under the Basel Convention.
The main point of contention was whether to exempt e-waste exports meant for repair from the Pic procedure. Representatives from Africa and India, along with international NGOs, said that this would give a loophole to traders, which could claim exports were intended for this purpose.
Delegates at the next convention in 2021 are set to revisit the guidelines.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77560/un-meeting-adopts-amendments-to-international-conventions
-
Senate Kills Plastic Straw Bill, Replaces Plastic Bag Bill
May 16, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Kathy McCormack
The New Hampshire Senate yesterday killed a bill targeting soda straws and recycled a measure on town waste reduction goals to replace one that would have banned store plastic bags.
Senators said they found the straw bill, which would prohibit restaurants from providing plastic straws to customers unless specifically requested, unnecessary. They said people and businesses are already doing away with straws.
But senators differed on a bill that would have prohibited stores with more than 1,000 square feet of retail space from providing plastic carryout bags to customers. Some felt it needed more committee work, and others felt it should be killed. The House passed the straw and bag bills, but a Senate committee recommended that they be rejected.
"I think we're at that tipping point with our uses and overuses of plastic bags in our society," said state Sen. Jay Kahn, a Democrat from Keene. "We need to make advances."
Democratic Sen. Dan Feltes, of Concord, introduced an amendment that brought back a bill on towns' required reporting of waste reduction "so that we can move forward with the overarching issue of how we deal with waste more generally," he said.
Towns would report to the state the weight of solid wastes collected and diverted to recycling, composting and other categories. Feltes said language in the bill was agreed upon by the New Hampshire Municipal Association and the Department of Environmental Services.
Republican Sen. Jeb Bradley, of Wolfeboro, said that while he supported the measure, he was concerned that the underlying bill could return when lawmakers meet to work out their differences on the legislation.
Supporters of the measures emphasized the harm plastic causes to wildlife and the environment. Opponents portrayed them as over-the-top government intrusions.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/16/stories/1060343797
-
EPA Confirms Acceptance of Early TSCA Inventory Activity Notifications
May 16, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has confirmed to Chemical Watch that substance activity notifications submitted to the agency since February have been accepted, despite recent clarifications to the timeline for the TSCA inventory ‘transition period’.
The development follows an unexpected announcement from the agency last week of a 5 August effective date for ‘inactive’ chemical designations on the updated TSCA inventory, whereas it had been understood previously to be from 20 May.
The nearly three-month delay resulted in a shift to the agency’s 90-day ‘transition period’, during which companies can submit Notification of Activity (NOA) Form Bs to address a small subset of chemicals with resumed uses outside of the reportable ‘lookback’ period.
And this spurred some concern that Form Bs submitted before the new 6 May to 5 August window might not be considered effective.
But the EPA told Chemical Watch this week that it "has been accepting Form B submissions from companies since the updated TSCA inventory was released in February".
"Between 19 February and 6 May, EPA received 183 Form Bs relating to 176 unique chemicals," added the agency spokesperson.
Delay
On last week’s announcement, the EPA said it is "ensuring that all requirements laid out in the TSCA inventory notification rule have been satisfied".
Significantly, the rule calls for a "signed action" to formalise the start of the 90-day period. But the agency did not take this step when it released the updated inventory earlier this year.
The agency’s spokesperson said that, at the time of publishing this in February, "EPA’s top priority was ensuring the timeliness and accuracy of that data".
"This involved a significant update to include the new commercial activity data that was the result of the extensive retrospective commercial activity reporting," they added.
Factoring in the 176 substances notified to the agency, there remain 45,397 slated for designation as inactive in August. Companies will need to notify the agency prior to resuming their manufacture, import or use, after these take effect.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77617/epa-confirms-acceptance-of-early-tsca-inventory-activity-notifications
-
Court to Consider How EPA Oversees Chemical Risks
May 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA should take a broader approach to regulating potentially harmful chemicals, a coalition of 15 health, environmental, and labor groups plans to argue in a federal appeals court May 16.
They say the Environmental Protection Agency is “slicing and dicing” by only considering certain uses of a chemical, which could ignore crucial risks to health and the environment, according to a case the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is set to consider May 16.
But the EPA, and a group of 17 trade associations supporting it, say the agency has the legal discretion to study whichever chemical uses it sees fit.
A loss in the case may force the EPA to redo the risk evaluations it has underway for various chemicals such as asbestos, which could limit how companies make or use those chemicals “essential to the very conduct of their businesses,” the trade associations told the court when they asked to intervene in the case.
Rules of the RoadThe case concerns two EPA rules that set out the agency’s strategy for how it decides which chemicals may be harmful. One rule addresses how the EPA selects chemicals for risk evaluation (RIN: 2070-AK23) and the second looks its procedures for risk evaluation (RIN: 2070-AK20).
If the agency decides a chemical is too risky, the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments require it to issue regulations to reduce that risk. The EPA can do that by requiring new product labels, limiting the ways companies or people could use a chemical, or banning it entirely.
The coalition suing the EPA—which includes the AFL-CIO, the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, and Safer Chemicals Healthy Families—argues that the EPA’s rules unlawfully let the agency exclude some uses of a chemical.
For example, in its plans to evaluate asbestos, the EPA isn’t looking at health risks for firefighters, maintenance personnel, or others from asbestos in insulation, vinyl floors, or other parts of buildings. In another case, the agency is looking at how a solvent used by dry cleaners, trichloroethylene, could injure people using it but isn’t addressing risks to people breathing air with the solvent that’s released by manufacturers.
“EPA’s slicing and dicing will prevent the agency from understanding the full risk posed by each ‘chemical substance,’” the core question it’s supposed to answer, the nonprofit coalition told the court in November. They say that contradicts the law’s purpose of protecting the public from harmful chemicals.
The coalition’s briefs point to ongoing risk evaluations for 10 chemicals, including asbestos and Pigment Violet 29; 1-bromopropane; carbon tetrachloride; 1,4-dioxane; methylene chloride; n-methylpyrrolidone; perchloroethylene; trichloroethylene; and a group of three flame retardants called the cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster.
‘Conditions of Use’The question of how many chemical uses the agency examines is important. The more uses a chemical has, the greater the chance that people or the environment could be exposed to it. The more exposures, the greater the possibility the EPA would decide a substance posed an “unreasonable risk” that must be regulated.
TSCA uses the term “conditions of use” to describe how people and the environment may be exposed to chemicals, and the law defines that term very broadly.
The statute says these conditions are “the circumstances, as determined by the administrator, under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of.”
The critical word appears to be “determined.”
One Critical WordThe nonprofit coalition argues the phrase “as determined by the administrator” refers to the EPA identifying, or “determining,” chemical uses, then studying all of them and their attendant exposures.
But the EPA and trade groups say they view “determined” as referring to a process of selection. The EPA told the court that the chemicals law plainly gives the agency discretion to decide which uses of a chemical it will examine, and which it won’t.
“Congress obviously did not mean for EPA to consider every circumstance that could conceivably exist to be a chemical’s condition of use,” the agency told the court.
And the trade associations that support the EPA’s approach concur, saying it would require a “staggering” amount of resources to study all conditions of a chemical’s use. More time would mean the EPA couldn’t complete risk evaluations at the pace Congress expects, they and the EPA said.
But the nonprofit coalition said the EPA can’t “justify its pick-and-choose” approach by claiming it’s concerned about meeting statutory deadlines, according to its opening brief. The chemicals law prohibits the agency from considering costs or other “non-risk” factors, such as deadlines, during its risk evaluations, it argued.
The Sierra Club is among the challengers to the EPA rules. The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg Environment is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg.
The case is Safer Chemicals Healthy Families v. EPA, 9th Cir., No. 17-72260, 5/16/19.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/court-to-consider-how-epa-oversees-chemical-risks
-
EPA Weeks Away from Finish Line on New Rules on Lead in Water
May 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The EPA is weeks away from completing work on a proposal that will reshape how lead is regulated in drinking water after years of delays that spanned multiple presidential administrations.
The agency’s administrator, Andrew Wheeler, said the EPA will be sending proposed updates to its lead regulations to the White House “in the next couple of weeks.” White House review of a new regulation is typically the final stage before it’s unveiled to the public.
The Environmental Protection Agency has been working since 2011 to overhaul how it regulates lead in tap water, but has struggled to devise a feasible way to replace the millions of lead pipes still in use across the country. Corroded pipes are the primary cause when drinking water is contaminated with lead, a toxic metal that can cause irreversible neurological damage to children even in small amounts.
Current EPA regulations require water utilities to monitor tap water for lead, but don’t require them to replace lead pipes unless contamination levels remain elevated for months.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-weeks-away-from-finish-line-on-new-rules-on-lead-in-water
-
Wheeler Says Lead Rule Update Will Target Most Corrosive Pipes First
May 16, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Annie Snider
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the agency's first update to the lead in drinking water standards in decades will target the most corrosive water lines for removal first.
Speaking at a Bipartisan Policy Center event this morning, Wheeler said that it will take nearly $1 trillion and roughly three decades to replace all of the lead service lines across the country, and that he wants to make sure that those that get the initial attention are those that pose the greatest health risk.
"What we’re doing is we’re going to target through testing and monitoring and mapping of all the lead pipes as well to try and figure out where the most corrosive pipes are so that those pipes get replaced upfront instead of having to wait 29 years," Wheeler said.
Wheeler said that the proposal should be sent to the White House for interagency review "sometime in the next couple of weeks."
The Trump EPA has named updating the Lead and Copper Rule as a top priority, but has punted its timeline for doing so multiple times. Last fall the agency had said a proposed rule would be released in February.
Wheeler said today that the proposal under consideration last fall wouldn't have prioritized the most dangerous water lines for swifter replacement, and so he sent it back for additional work.
-
EPA Issues Draft Revised Method for ESA Pesticide Assessments
May 16, 2019 | National Law Review
By Lisa M. Campbell, James V. Aidala, and Lisa R. Burchi
On May 16, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it was seeking comment on its Draft Revised Method for National Level Endangered Species Risk Assessment Process for Biological Evaluations of Pesticides (Draft Revised Method). 84 Fed. Reg. 22120. It also announced that it would host a public meeting on June 10, 2019, in which it will present the Draft Revised Method and provide an additional opportunity for the public to provide feedback.
The Draft Revised Method states it is intended to be “used in the evaluation of potential risks from pesticides to listed species” and that it will be “used by EPA for making effects determinations under registration review, which will also be used to inform biological opinions from the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service [(the Services)].”
EPA states that the Draft Revised Method document “describes proposed revisions to the interim methods used to conduct effects determinations as documented in EPA’s [biological evaluations (BE)] for federally threatened and endangered species for pesticides.” EPA states the revisions are based on: (1) “refinements” following the method used in the first three national-level BEs for chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion; (2) consideration of public comments provided through stakeholder meetings and submitted to the docket for the pilot draft BEs; (3) consideration of National Research Council (NRC) recommendations; and (4) “lessons learned during the development of the first three BEs.”
EPA states that the following are major aspects of its proposed revisions on which it is seeking comments:
-To more accurately represent where and to what extent a pesticide is likely to be applied, EPA is proposing an approach for incorporating pesticide-specific usage data into Steps 1 and 2 of the BEs. While the pilot BEs relied on use assumptions from pesticide product labels to represent where the pilot chemicals were likely to be applied (e.g., applied to all labeled crops at maximum application rates simultaneously), the Draft Revised Method proposes to incorporate usage data (e.g., survey data, including actual application rates) in the determination.
-Based on the accuracy of the spatial data utilized and the conservative assumptions related to the action area and potential drift, EPA’s notice states that it is proposing to interpret “a <1% overlap of listed species’ ranges with potential use sites as unreliable and not representative of real exposure potential.”
-EPA is proposing an approach for introducing components of probabilistic analysis into the BE, as the “goal of the probabilistic analysis is to more fully capture and characterize the variability in the range of potential exposures and toxicological effects to listed species to better inform the biological opinion.”
-EPA is proposing a weight-of-evidence framework “to distinguish those listed species that are likely to be adversely affected (LAA) from those that are not likely to be adversely affected (NLAA), based on criteria (e.g., dietary preferences, migration patterns, extent of range potentially exposed) associated with the likelihood that an individual will be exposed and affected.”
The June 10 public meeting, which EPA states “is part of the federal government’s coordinated effort to improve the Endangered Species Act (ESA) process that is used when pesticides are federally registered,” will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (EDT) in the lobby-level conference center of EPA’s offices at Potomac Yard South in Arlington, Virginia. Those wishing to attend either in person or via teleconference/webinar must register by May 30, 2019. Registration is available online. Comments on the Draft Revised Method are due by July 1, 2019, in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0185 on www.regulations.gov.
Commentary
This is the latest chapter in the long saga of coordination between ESA review by the Services and EPA registration activities. The steps outlined in the Draft Revised Method are designed to improve the coordination of work between the agencies and represent an important step in designing a framework which might make the current situation more reliable, predictable, and efficient. The current process has been subject to criticism on a number of fronts, with the current BE process seen as unsustainable given the amount or resources and time consumed by the first BEs.
The goal is eventually to have the Services and EPA “play nice together” and implement a leaner and more efficient process, which is considered absolutely necessary if EPA hopes ever to complete appropriate ESA assessments on hundreds of active ingredients formulated into thousands of end use pesticide products. Such efforts could also represent a cornerstone of the agencies’ meeting provisions in the 2018 Farm Bill (Section 10115) which includes requirements for the agencies to “… increase the accuracy and timeliness” of the ESA consultation process, as well as implement these same policies stated in the Memorandum of Agreement between EPA, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Commerce on Establishment of an Interagency Working Group to Coordinate Endangered Species Act Consultations for Pesticide Registrations and Registration Review.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-issues-draft-revised-method-esa-pesticide-assessments
-
May 16, 2019 | Chemical Watch
Bill calls for EPA to study oxybenzone, octinoxate
Senator Jeff Merkley (D–Oregon) has introduced a bill, directing the EPA to conduct a study on the environmental and health impacts of the sunscreen ingredients oxybenzone and octinoxate.
Consideration of the measure (S 1371) comes even as the US Food and Drug Administration seeksadditional data on these and other sunscreen ingredients. And as other vacation destinations look to follow Hawaii’s lead of banning them over concern that they harm coral reefs.
The bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW).
House subcommittee considers PFAS legislation
On 15 May, the House Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee held a legislative hearing on a series of 13 bills addressing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). These are:
-the Toxic PFAS Control Act (HR 2600) – amending Section 6 of TSCA to comprehensively regulate the substances via measures like a manufacturing and processing prohibition – phased in over three years – and requiring labels for articles containing PFASs;
-HR 2596 – amending TSCA to prevent the introduction of any new PFASs into commerce;
-HR 2608 – requiring comprehensive health testing of all PFASs under TSCA and reporting from all manufacturers and processors on health, safety and environmental impacts;
-HR 2566 – amending the Safer Choice programme to require that cookware be PFAS-free to qualify for labelling;
-HR 2638 – requiring the EPA to issue guidance for firefighters and other first responders to minimise the use of, and health risk posed by, foam and other firefighting materials containing PFASs;
-the PFAS User Fee Act of 2019 (HR 2570) – establishing a trust fund, financed through PFAS manufacturer fees, to pay the ongoing operations and maintenance costs to remove contamination in water;
-HR 2577 – requiring reporting on PFAS releases through the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI);
-HR 2605 – requiring the EPA to both list PFASs as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) under the Clean Air Act (CAA), and to identify source categories for PFASs;
-the PFAS Action Act of 2019 (HR 535) – requiring the EPA to designate all PFASs as hazardous under the Superfund programme (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or Cercla) and ensure their cleanup;
-HR 2626 – amending Cercla to require cleanups at federal facilities to meet state limits for PFASs; and
-the Protect Drinking Water from PFAS Act of 2019 (HR 2377) – directing the EPA to set a drinking water maximum contaminant level (MCL) for total PFAS concentration;the Providing Financial Assistance for Safe Drinking Water Act (HR 2533) – requiring the EPA to establish a programme to award grants to PFAS-affected water systems to pay the capital costs associated with installing treatment technologies; andthe PFAS Waste Incineration Ban Act of 2019 (HR 2591) – amending the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) to prohibit the incineration disposal of PFAS-containing fire fighting foams. And also to require the EPA to identify additional wastes containing PFAS for which a prohibition on incineration may be necessary to protect human health.
Senate committee to hold PFAS hearing
The Senate EPW committee has announced a hearing to examine legislation that has been introduced to address the risks posed by PFASs.
It will take place on 22 May at 10:00am EDT.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77624/us-congress-round-up
-
Bayer Is Hit With $2 Billion Verdict in Roundup Case
May 15, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc Reisch
California jury has ordered Monsanto owner Bayer to pay an elderly couple more than $2 billion after finding that its Roundup weedkiller caused their cancer. The verdict is the third, since Bayer bought Monsanto last June, to order large payouts to people who claim Roundup made them sick.
The award came in a case, concluded on May 13, in California’s Alameda County Superior Court. Alva Pilliod, 76, and his wife Alberta, 74, attributed their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma to 40 years of using Roundup to maintain their property. Following two days of deliberation, the jury awarded punitive damages of $1 billion each, plus $18 million and $37 million, respectively, for pain and suffering.
Bayer vows to appeal the verdict. “We have great sympathy for Mr. and Mrs. Pilliod,” a statement from the firm says. “But the evidence in this case was clear that both have long histories of illnesses known to be substantial risk factors for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.” The company adds that glyphosate-based Roundup has been used “safely and successfully” for decades and has nearly global regulatory approval.
Bayer is also appealing two other Roundup cases: In March, a state jury in San Francisco awarded Edwin Hardeman, 70, $80 million for his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. He had used Roundup to control weeds on his property for 26 years. In August 2018, a San Francisco federal jury awarded $289 million, later reduced to $78 million, to groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson, 47, for his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
According to Bayer, at least four more trials are scheduled in Missouri and Montana this year; overall about 13,400 plaintiffs are awaiting their day in court.
In Bayer’s favor are government rulings that Roundup is not a health risk. But Patrick McGinley, a professor at West Virginia University College of Law who has been following the trials, says plaintiff attorneys used previously undisclosed Monsanto documents to suggest that the firm had manipulated scientific opinion and unduly influenced regulatory decisions. The large verdicts so far could influence Bayer, already bashed by shareholders for Roundup costs, to settle with plaintiffs, he says.
https://cen.acs.org/business/agriculture/Bayer-hit-2-billion-verdict/97/i20
-
Congress Told to Stop PFAs at Pollution Sources
May 16, 2019 | MLive
By Paula Gardner
If 2018 was the year of elevating concerns about PFAS contaminating drinking water, then this year already marks a turning point to the conversation.
The chemicals have been found in 43 states and officials have identified where at least 19 million people drink water containing them. Requests to the military for mitigation abound; some cleanups are underway. And many states - including MIchigan - are looking at legislation and new regulation to increase protections for residents.
But the message heading to a Congressional subcommittee on May 15 takes it further: PFAS remains in use in the US, and we know little about many of them, witnesses on May 15 are telling the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Climate Change.
And, they said, increasing scrutiny on the per- and polyfluorinated compounds before they reach drinking water needs to be part of the national agenda.
“The best way to address these contaminants is at their source,” said Brian Steglitz, manager of water treatment services for the city of Ann Arbor, in his written statement.
Steglitz makes that statement after PFAS was found in the city’s drinking water in 2014, as officials learned from the Environmental Protection Agency in 2016. By 2018, the city had made at least a $1 million investment in additional filtering for the raw water coming into the city’s treatment plant - 85 percent of which comes from the nearby Huron River.
The peak combined total PFAS of PFOA and PFOS reached 43 parts per trillion, a level below the EPA’s recommended health advisory and a number giving some comfort to officials and residents. But as the PFAS contamination concerns escalated in Michigan, the city focused on reduction and urged the state to find the source.
That source turned out to be an industrial facility several miles upstream. Tribar Manufacturing had used the chemicals years ago in its metal plating, and they were found discharging into the river from a municipal wastewater plant. By fall 2018, 1,000 miles of the Huron River watershed had been affected and PFOS levels continue to be higher that the state limit of 11-ppt. The company, meanwhile, added filtration on its end to limit new contamination.
The situation speaks to what the federal government can do to prevent chemicals from reaching drinking water supplies, Steglitz says.
“While we have come up with a solution to ensure the city’s drinking water is safe and public health is protected, removing these chemicals at the end of the pipe is not the most cost effective approach,” he said.
He continued: "The EPA (under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976) to require comprehensive risk assessment for new chemicals before they are introduced into circulation.
“For those chemicals that are already in circulation and being actively used by industry, more effective controls are needed to ensure these chemicals are not allowed to enter our watersheds, as well as legislation that would require the polluter to cover the costs of abatement.”
The problem is acute at the nation’s water utilities, he said.
The hearing was entitled, “Protecting Americans at Risk of PFAS Contamination & Exposure.” Other speakers also encouraged a wider look at the chemicals, while pointing to the number of PFAS compounds in use - an estimated 5,000, according to Dr. Jamie DeWitt, associate professor of pharmacology and toxicology at East Carolina University. She said that the nation needs to consider the impact from them as a class of chemicals, not by individual chemical makeup.
Researchers know the chemicals are widespread, persistent, toxic at low doses and highly mobile - notably in water.
But what researchers don’t know about many PFAS is troubling, DeWitt added.
“The US EPA has not set a legally binding regulatory limit for any chemical in two decades,” said DeWitt. “... Of the 5,000 known PFAS, the vast majority have no associated research data or standards for human biomonitoring.
“It is not feasible from a time or resource perspective to test our way out of this crisis,” she added.
Meanwhile, as production of PFOA and PFOS has been reduced, chemical companies put replacements on the market with little public information or health data available.
“We need to learn more about these replacement compounds,” DeWitt said.
Adverse health effects from PFOA and PFOS are documented, speakers said. That warrants moves by Congress and federal agencies, said Erik D. Olson of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
He called from immediate action, including:Stop approving new PFAS and new uses of existing PFAS. Phase out manufacture of existing PFAS and products using them, such as firefighting foams, food contact substances, clothing, cookware. List all PFAS as hazardous substances under for Superfund and military cleanup purposes.Require PFAS polluters to pay for cleanup and water treatment.
“Congress must step in to address the many problems that PFAS are causing, to force clean up the contamination and require polluters to pay for the crisis they have created,” Olson said.
Thirteen bills are pending in the US House, prompting the May 15 hearing. Those would strengthen the nation’s approach to PFAS and bring some uniformity to the response while other measures are enacted on a state-by-state basis, proponents said. Cautions also have been raised, including by attorney Jane C. Luxton in her subcommittee testimony.
“Perhaps the most effective focus for Congressional support at this point is providing additional funding for research and regulatory efforts that target priority concerns,” she said.
But existing tools also can be used toward the goals of trimming exposure, said G. Tracy Mehan, executive director of government affairs for the American Water Works Association.
“TSCA has data-gathering authority that the agency could use to garner more information from the manufacturing sector about the number of PFAS compounds that have been developed, in what quantities they were produced and where they were produced,” Mehan said.
“Deploying TSCA authorities in the service of safe drinking water is 'source water protection’ at the strategic level.”
https://www.mlive.com/news/2019/05/congress-told-to-stop-pfas-at-pollution-source.html
-
Global Company DSM to Remove NMP From Resin Products
May 16, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Global nutrition, health and materials company, Royal DSM, plans to phase out the solvent n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) from its coating resins products by July 2020.
The solvent is the first substance DSM will remove as part of its recently announced plan to phase out all chemicals of concern. Chemicals that the company considers of high concern include carcinogens, mutagens, reproductive toxicants (CMRs), and persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) substances.
NMP is commonly used in the coatings industry for its high solvency, high boiling point and low freezing point. However, the substance is under regulatory scrutiny in several countries and regions, including the US and EU.
The US EPA describes NMP as a developmental toxicant and it is one of the first ten existing chemicals subject to risk evaluation under TSCA. But a proposal in 2017 to ban its use in paint strippers – which would also ban or restrict products containing fellow solvent methylene chloride – appears to have stalled.
A number of US retailers have committed to bans on methylene chloride and NMP-containing paint strippers. They include online retailer Amazon, paints and coatings companies PPG and Sherwin-Williams, retail giant Walmart and DIY store chains Lowe’s and The Home Depot.
In the EU, NMP has been identified as a substance of very high concern (SVHC) and has been added to REACH Annex XVII, the restricted substances list. From 9 May 2020, it will be restricted in mixtures in a concentration equal to or greater than 0.3%.
Martin Vlak, DSM Coating Resins managing director, said: "It’s time to help our customers and their customers make the shift towards existing healthier products, or to proactively develop with our customers healthier products for (professional) painters who apply it in the homes and interiors of consumers and the families who live there."
DSM says it has not developed any new resin products containing NMP for at least 10 years. It instead offers solvent-free waterborne resins, which it hopes will drive the market away from solvents, some of which are classified hazardous.
DSM says it is making "real progress" in waterborne alkyds, urethanes, acrylics and urethane-acrylic hybrids.
"For example, in Asia, where we chair the Waterborne China Platform (WBCP), we’ve helped the entire industrial container market to make the transition from solventborne to waterborne coatings. In years to come, we expect that steady trickle of converts to become a stream," it says.
The company says it is "convinced it has alternatives available and is working closely with customers to fulfill their needs".
DSM uses authoritative lists to identify chemicals of concern, including Echa’s list of substances of very high concern and those classified under the UN’s Globally Harmonised System (GHS) for classification and labelling.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77587/global-company-dsm-to-remove-nmp-from-resin-products
-
EU to Appeal Court Judgment on Lead Chromate Authorisation
May 16, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Ginger Hervey
The European Commission is appealing a landmark court judgment from earlier this year, which found one of its decisions to grant authorisation under REACH was illegal, two EU officials told Chemical Watch.
The Commission has until Monday to file an appeal to the European Court of Justice. One senior official said the institution will only appeal certain aspects of the case, which was ruled on in March.
In 2016 the EU executive granted permission to Canada-headquartered company Dominion Colour Corporation (DCC) to sell pigments for paints containing lead chromates in the EU. The authorisation application was for six uses of lead sulfochromate yellow and lead chromate molybdate sulfate red, covering a wide range of applications including industrial coatings, plastics and road markings.
Sweden subsequently filed a court case against the Commission, claiming that it knew there were alternatives available to lead chromates, because they "had been almost entirely phased out in several member states."
In a ruling on 7 March, the EU General Court ruled in favour of Sweden and said that, effective immediately, DCC can no longer sell these pigments on the EU market.
In April, an NGO wrote to EU commissioners asking them not to appeal against the ruling.
Appeal
The second official said it has not been confirmed exactly what elements will be appealed.
But the Commission will not protest against the Court's statements on the division of competencies in the authorisation procedure, the first official said, including that the Commission alone is responsible for determining that conditions for authorisation are met.
It will also not appeal the statement that the burden to prove suitable alternatives are not available lies with the company applying for authorisation, the official said.
And it will not appeal the Court's decision that, if an authorisation is granted for a substance that has alternatives – but those alternatives are found to be not technically or economically feasible for the company – the company should be required to provide a substitution plan.
What may be challenged, the senior official said, is whether it is unlawful to grant an authorisation to an application that has shortcomings, if the Commission also attaches conditions to the authorisation.
The institution may also challenge the judgment's instruction that the company must stop selling its products on the market, effective immediately. The Commission would argue that the court judgment revokes the approval of the application for authorisation, but does not also equal a negative decision on the application.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77648/eu-to-appeal-court-judgment-on-lead-chromate-authorisation
-
Resource Issue Kills Echa 'User-Friendly' Alternatives Data Plan
May 16, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Echa has cancelled plans to publish a user-friendly shortlist of safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals amid dwindling resources for non-legislative work.
The shortlist was part of the agency's substitution strategy, published last year, which set out how Echa intends to further share and improve access to information.
It has faced growing calls from NGOs and EU member states for more information on alternatives to be made public to encourage substitution of SVHCs.
But executive director Bjorn Hansen told Chemical Watch that following staff cuts of more than 10% over the past few years Echa has to focus on legislative tasks, "and the substitution strategy is not a legislative task".
The agency is facing "big workloads" in evaluation, restriction and authorisation which need to be prioritised, and the spare capacity for additional relevant work is "dwindling fast", Mr Hansen said. "So we need to look at what we can still do under our substitution strategy."
Echa aimed to publish the document, envisaged as a single spreadsheet at a minimum, in the early months of 2019. The database is currently stored in an Excel sheet from which it is difficult to extract information.
The decision to present it in a more accessible format for users was part of initiatives promised following the European Commission's second REACH Review actions last year. Pressure also came from France, Germany, Italy and Norway to reveal more information on substitution possibilities in authorisation applications.
Matti Vainio, Echa’s head of risk management, said he hoped the spreadsheet would "one day" be converted to a searchable database that is available to all.
The agency has shared the Excel sheet with NGO ChemSec to see whether it could carry out the IT work to compile and disseminate the data in a user-friendly format.
Obstacles
ChemSec said it had a "good look" at Echa's database but that there are "some obstacles" to making it useful for external users.
Information on alternatives handed in by authorisation applicants are often "too brief" for others to understand what the alternatives actually are, said ChemSec's Jerker Ligthart. In many cases only the CAS number is available, he added.
Furthermore, he said, some of the "so-called alternatives" put forward by the applicants are "equally bad, truly regrettable substitutes", replacing a carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR) substance with another CMR, or a persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemical with another PBT.
This is primarily due to a gap in the implementation of the authorisation process, severely limiting the value of the aggregation of alternatives, Mr Ligthart added.
If the authorisation process improves as promised, the data on possible alternatives will be "much better and easier to make proper use of".
NGO the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) said it was "unfortunate" Echa was not prioritising substitution, with only three full-time equivalent staff dedicated to the issue out of around 600 the agency employs.
The database on safer alternatives, although not enough to truly promote substitution was "a little step forward", policy manager Tatiana Santos said. "Unfortunately, not even this work may be possible due to the little resources allocated by Echa."
Strategy intact
Despite the setback, Echa plans to carry on with the implementation of its broader substitution strategy "with no plans to change at the moment", Dr Vainio told Chemical Watch.
The agency is holding a workshop on substitution in Helsinki on 29 May, and will report to the management board in December to take stock of the substitution activities and make recommendations, he added.
However, Dr Vainio said Echa's role in substitution is as a catalyst. "One thing that is absolutely clear," he said, "is that we cannot alone be responsible for substitution in Europe."
EEB called for an ambitious work programme to promote substitution over the next few years. It should include:an inter-authority substitution forum and an EU standalone stakeholder forum on substitution;an EU substitution support office and network of substitution support centres that provides technical support for SMEs all around Europe; andfinancial tools to incentivise substitution and discourage the use of substances of concern.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77606/resource-issue-kills-echa-user-friendly-alternatives-data-plan
-
Sweden's Kemi Urges Review of Presence of SVHCs in EU FCMs
May 16, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Any substance restricted or phased out under various EU legislation should face the same measures in all types of food contact materials, Kemi, the Swedish Chemicals Agency has said.
Its comments, along with those of other stakeholders, were submitted to the European Commission’s public consultation on the evaluation of the EU’s food contact materials (FCM) legislation, which ran from February until 6 May.
The list of approved chemicals in plastic material under the legislation that are in contact with food should be reviewed concerning their identification as SVHCs under REACH, Kemi added.
It gave the example of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), which, it said, urgently need to be reassessed. "We consider it indefensible to justify the use of PFAS in any type of FCM" based on the fact that it is "essential to society".
Alongside NGOs, the agency raised concerns about a lack of specific management of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in the legislation. The EU, it said, should move towards "identical management" of EDCs across all sectoral pieces of legislation.
European consumer organisation Beuc said substances of high concern, such as EDCs, should be "automatically prohibited, unless industry can demonstrate that their presence in FCMs does not present a risk to human health".
And the Food Packaging Forum said the fact that several food contact-relevant substances authorised for use in plastics are now classified as SVHCs has resulted in some large food producers issuing their own list of chemicals that should not be used for food packaging.
It called on the Commission to "proactively address" this and recommended that as a next step, substances could be prioritised for reassessment based on hazard.
CHEM Trust argued that action to reform the FCM regulation should be a priority for the next Commission and Parliament.
The new legislation, it said, should be based on the five key principles it has established with other NGOs, including: a phase out of CMRs and EDCS; proper regulation of chemicals in materials such as paper, board and inks; and adequate controls on recycled materials.
According to ClientEarth chemicals lawyer Lara Fornabaio the FCM regulation is an "old fashioned, lax framework that translates into unacceptable risks to public health as well as into obstacles to the circular economy".
Harmonisation
Another common stakeholder criticism of current FCM laws is a lack of harmonised measures for all materials.
The absence of full harmonisation of FCMs at EU level, except for certain materials such as plastics, and the existence of country-specific legislation on FCMs "negatively affect the functioning of the European internal market", Cefic said.
Some sectors, in the meantime, have been taking the initiative and producing their own guidance.
The European Printing Ink Association said "some clarity [is] needed" for specific materials other than plastics. As part of the Packaging Ink Joint Industry Task Force it developed a concept for specific measures for printed food contact materials. The Commission’s intention to adopt such measures has been delayed, the association added.
In April, the European forest fibre and paper industry representative body (Cepi) rewrote its existing voluntary guidance to meet the current challenges. A "practical and technical document", it helps European manufacturers to ensure they meet the highest safety standards.
The "real issue", Cepi told Chemical Watch, is the lack of effective market surveillance mechanisms for paper and cardboard products being imported from outside Europe and ending up in contact with European consumers. "The current situation doesn’t guarantee the highest level of consumer safety, in spite of all our efforts."
And the Food Packaging Forum noted the importance of specific guidance on how safety can be assessed, "but this is currently not the case except for plastics and this guidance is not based on the most recent scientific understanding". As a matter of urgency it called for the provision of necessary guidance which is based on the current scientific knowledge that should "justify any cut-offs or thresholds".
The Commission’s draft final report on the evaluation is expected in the summer, with a second stakeholder workshop planned for next September. The final report is slated to be ready in October.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77619/eu-pressed-to-review-presence-of-svhcs-in-fcms
-
The Energy 202: Trump Promotes Natural Gas as It Gets Caught up in U.S.-China Trade War
May 16, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
It is supposed to yet again be Infrastructure Week. President Trump went down to southwest Louisiana to talk up his administration's effort to open U.S. natural gas to international markets.
But yet again, Trump went off script, using an official White House event at a natural gas export terminal in Hackberry, La. to overtly attack his political rivals all while the the administration's trade policies threaten the growth of the very natural gas export business Trump went to Louisiana to promote.
During the 50-minute speech, Trump was flanked by dozens of plant workers onstage as he touted his energy agenda and made the case that he was turbocharging the economy, Seung Min Kim and I reported Tuesday.
But the natural gas business Trump was there to support just got even more knotted up in Trump's trade war with China. Officials there announced the country is raising tariffs from 10 percent to 25 percent on U.S. liquefied natural gas.
That has some of those in the natural gas export business concerned. "The U.S. is largest natural gas producer in the world, so the two sides deadlocked in a trade dispute its not a great piece of news," Charlie Riedl, executive director of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, told the Houston Chronicle.
Only four cargos of natural gas have been delivered to China from the United States during the eight-month period since tariffs were first put on the fuel last September, according to a new report from the consultancy Wood Mackenzie. That compares 35 cargos during that prior September-April period.
But little of that tension was directly on display during Trump's speech in Louisiana, where energy executives heaped praise on Trump. “This administration and its forward-looking energy policies deserve a lot of credit,” Jeffrey Martin, chief executive of Sempra Energy, the majority owner of the Cameron LNG export facility, said before Trump’s speech.
Trump, for his part, was happy to take the credit, claiming “this was not going to happen with someone else in office.”
Trump mainly used the taxpayer-funded event to attack his political rivals. He drew out the pronunciation of Pete Buttigieg’s uncommon last name, saying: “We’ve got Boot-edge-edge.” Using a derisive nickname for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the president mused: “Pocahontas, I think, is probably out.”
Trump also said former vice president Joe Biden “doesn’t look like the guy I knew” while taking aim at “crazy” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has a “lot more energy than Biden . . . but it’s energy to get rid of your jobs.”
And finally, Trump ridiculed former congressman Beto O’Rourke (D-Tex.) for a Vanity Fair interview in which O’Rourke claimed that he was “just born to be in” the presidential race.
“He was made to fall like a rock!” Trump said.
The president also mocked the Green New Deal, telling the crowd of plant workers that they would lose their jobs under the proposal advanced by some Democrats and saying: “That’s a hoax, like the hoax I just went through,” an apparent reference to the probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2019/05/15/the-energy-202-trump-promotes-natural-gas-as-it-gets-caught-up-in-u-s-china-trade-war/5cdad9751ad2e544f001dd12/?utm_term=.840c01a459d7
-
FERC Approves Freeport LNG Export Expansion Project
May 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Cunningham
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved construction of Train 4 expansion at Freeport LNG terminal in Texas.
The decision, made at FERC’s monthly meeting on Thursday, marks the fourth approval of a liquefied natural gas export project this year.
The expansion will allow the applicant to liquefy for export the equivalent of an additional 0.74 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day.
The project cleared staff review for environmental impact statement in November.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/ferc-approves-freeport-lng-export-expansion-project
-
Energy Subcommittee Passes 10 Efficiency, Cybersecurity Bills
May 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats easily passed six energy efficiency bills and four cybersecurity measures out of the energy subcommittee May 16, but not without some opposition from Republicans.
All 10 measures passed by voice vote and will move to a full committee markup “probably within 30 days,” Energy Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) told Bloomberg Environment.
Republicans balked at the high authorized funding levels for Energy Department efficiency programs and questioned whether such an increase in allowed spending was necessary when there could be overlap with similar programs in the administration.
Energy subcommittee ranking member Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said in his opening statement that the bills needed more work before they could receive bipartisan support.
“We should have taken a little bit more time before moving, I think, to this markup today,” Upton said.
Energy efficiency and cybersecurity issues typically receive support from both parties in Congress.
The subcommittee also voted on legislation that is a top priority for Rush: a bill to boost funding for workforce training programs in the energy sector.
Energy Efficiency Block Grants, Weatherization
H.R. 2088, a bill to reauthorize the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program to provide $3.5 billion annually through fiscal year 2025, is one of the bills Republicans oppose. The programs received a $3.2 billion jolt under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the stimulus bill.
Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) told the committee that a lack of information exists on potential duplication between the block grants program and other grant programs in the federal government.
Flores added that the committee hasn’t evaluated the program or other approaches. The U.S. Government Accountability Office raised questions in 2011 about the program’s ability to meet milestones.
Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said that the GAO report provided lessons to improve the program, but “certainly doesn’t invalidate the importance of the program.”
Upton also criticized the large funding boost in H.R. 2041, which would reauthorize the Energy Department’s Weatherization Assistance Program at $350 million per year through fiscal year 2024, about a one-third increase from the previous authorization.
The legislation would cause a $4 billion increase for new authorizations at the Energy Department and, fully funded, would more than double the budget for its Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Upton said.
“I don’t think we should lose sight of the important energy security, cybersecurity work the department has to do to protect all Americans,” Upton said.
Energy Jobs Bill
H.R. 2119 would set aside $100 million through fiscal year 2025 to improve the energy efficiency of public buildings, more than tripling the current authorized funding. It reauthorizes an expiring program from the 2005 Energy Policy Act that has never been funded.
Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) said it’s unclear how the program would improve the Energy Department’s energy efficiency work if it was never funded in the past.
“As it is, I can’t support it,” he said.
Rush’s jobs bill, H.R. 1315, would create a training program within the Energy Department. Upton said he would support the bill if certain changes are made, including making it more “fiscally aligned” with other department programs.
“This is a legacy issue for you and we respect that,” Upton said.
These additional Energy Department measures passed by voice vote:
H.R. 2665 to create a grant program for energy and water efficiency projects, H.R. 2044 to require the department to launch an initiative to develop “smart” buildings under the umbrella of the department’s Better Buildings Challenge, H.R. 359 to direct it to create and implement a program to enhance the physical and cyber security of electric utilities, H.R. 360 to establish a voluntary program to test the cybersecurity of products in a bulk-power system, which includes facilities and control systems used to operate an interconnected electric transmission network, H.R. 362 to create a new position for a Senate-confirmed assistant secretary to oversee security issues concerning energy supply and infrastructure, H.R. 370 to require the department to implement a program to ensure the security of natural gas pipelines, hazardous liquid pipelines, and liquefied natural gas facilities.https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/energy-subcommittee-passes-10-efficiency-cybersecurity-bills
-
Interior Bill Targets Offshore Drilling Plan: BGOV Closer Look
May 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam M. Taylor
The Environmental Protection Agency, Interior Department, and other land management agencies would receive a combined $37.3 billion in fiscal 2020 under the House Appropriations Committee’s draft spending bill.
The discretionary total would be $1.73 billion more than the fiscal 2019 level and $7.24 billion more than the president’s budget request, according to a summaryfrom committee Democrats.
The measure, which was approved in subcommittee by voice vote on May 15, would constrain the Interior Department’s plans to increase oil and gas drilling on federal lands and waters. It omits several environmental policy riders that were included in the fiscal 2019 spending law.
The bill would include the following amounts for covered departments and agencies:
The measure would provide $523.9 million for projects supported by the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which was permanently reauthorized earlier this year by Public Law 116-9 (see BGOV Bill Summary).
EPA Highlights
EPA funding would include:
$3.11 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking Water state revolving funds, $1.13 billion more than requested.$476 million for geographic programs like the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay initiatives, $438 million more than the request.$105 million for Brownfields cleanup activities, $43 million more than the requested level.The measure omits several EPA policy riders that were enacted under previous spending laws, including:
Prohibitions on regulating greenhouse gas emissions from biological processes associated with livestock and requiring reporting on emissions from manure management systems. A ban on regulating the lead content of ammunition and fishing tackle. A requirement that all federal agencies treat energy from burning forest biomass, which is generally in the form of wood pellets, as carbon neutral and a renewable energy source. A ban on enforcing a rule on emissions from small remote incinerators in Alaska. A prohibition on requiring a permit to discharge dredged or fill material.Interior DepartmentWithin the National Park Service allocation, the bill would provide $657 million — $135 million more than requested — for deferred maintenance and repair activities.
It would also provide $122 million for the Historic Preservation Fund, $89 million more than requested. That total includes grant funding to preserve sites important to civil rights and for historically black colleges and universities.
Appropriators also omitted a rider from recent years blocking the Fish and Wildlife Service from finalizing rules related to the sage grouse. The agency announced in September 2015 that it wouldn’t list the bird under the Endangered Species Act. Listing the sage grouse could block development within habitat areas or require companies to mitigate damage.
The measure would maintain some policy riders from previous years, including:
A requirement that the Fish and Wildlife Service implement a mass marking system to allow commercial and recreational fishers to identify salmon released from federal hatcheries and intended for harvest. A prohibition on euthanizing excess wild horses or burros for nonmedical reasons or destroying or selling them to be processed into commercial products.A ban on using funds provided under the bill for eminent domain unless specifically authorized by Congress. The ban wouldn’t apply to certain takings in the Florida Everglades.Offshore Drilling
The bill would block the use of federal appropriations to implement the Trump administration’s offshore leasing plan for 2019 to 2024 until a final plan is published in the Federal Register. Lease sales that were included in the Obama administration’s final plan for 2017 to 2022 would be exempt from the provision.
The measure also would block the two lease sales in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that are required under the 2017 tax law (Public Law 115-97) unless the sales meet financial thresholds. To go forward, each sale would have to generate net federal proceeds of at least $500 million after the state’s share is paid.
The bill would increase the inspection fees charged to offshore operators by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) for the first time in several years.
Annual fees for facilities that are above the water line at the start of the fiscal year, except for drilling rigs, would be:
$11,500 for facilities with processing equipment and without wells.$18,500 for facilities with 10 or fewer wells, regardless of whether they are active.$34,500 for facilities with more than 10 wells.Drilling rig inspection fees would be $33,500 per inspection for rigs operating in depths of 500 feet or more and $18,500 per inspection for rigs operating in depths of less than 500 feet.
The measure would also require fees to inspect well operations conducted through “non-rig units” as follows:
$13,260 per inspection for those operating in depths of 2,500 feet or more.$11,530 per inspection for those operating in water between 500 and 2,499 feet deep.$4,470 per inspection for those operating in water shallower than 500 feet.It would continue to prohibit mineral energy leasing within the boundaries of national monuments that existed on Jan. 20, 2001, unless the proclamation establishing the relevant monument allows it.
BSEE and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), which conducts offshore lease sales, would have to publish online any waivers or alternative compliance authorizations for laws and regulations. Confidential business information could be redacted.
Wildfire Funding
The measure would provide $5.21 billion for wildfire management and suppression activities conducted by the Interior Department and U.S. Forest Service. That would be $1.6 billion more than in fiscal 2019 and $49 million more than requested.
The figure also includes a $2.25 billion budget cap adjustment that would provide additional spending authority to meet suppression costs that exceed the appropriation. The fiscal 2018 omnibus spending law (Public Law 115-141) allows the nondefense spending cap to be adjusted for wildfire suppression costs that are higher than planned, starting in fiscal 2020.
The Interior Department could provide grants to train nonfederal fire departments and similar groups to fight wildfires. The department could also transfer surplus equipment.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/interior-bill-targets-offshore-drilling-plan-bgov-closer-look
-
Draft BLM Land-Use Plan Shifts Favor to Oil and Gas
May 16, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Scott Streater
The Bureau of Land Management wants to remove conservation measures covering tens of thousands of acres of sensitive wildlife habitat in north-central Montana, according to a new proposal.
The proposed land management plan is a stark departure from a previous, Obama-era version, riling environmentalists and others who called it a "gift" to the oil and gas industry.
The "preferred alternative" in the administration's new draft land-use plan would remove eight existing areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) covering about 26,000 acres that were put in place to protect sensitive wildlife habitat and cultural resources.
"I don't think I've seen a plan that favors energy development and disregards conservation as much as" the draft Lewistown resource management plan (RMP), said Mike Penfold, who retired more than 20 years ago as director of BLM's Montana-Dakotas state office.
"This is a plan obviously tailored for special interests, not for Montanans or the rest of the American public," he added.
Al Nash, a BLM spokesman in Montana, conceded that the draft RMP and associated environmental impact statement (EIS) "are changed somewhat from much earlier working drafts with which some people may be familiar."
"They include additional analysis in some areas, and offer a broader and reformulated range of alternatives that reflect the priorities of the Department of the Interior and the multiple use mission of the Bureau of Land Management," Nash said in an email to E&E News. The Trump administration's BLM has been clear that its priorities have shifted focus to include the economic benefits offered by public land (Greenwire, May 15).
The draft RMP and associated draft EIS would replace two decades-old land-use plans managing about 650,000 acres of public lands and 1.1 million acres of subsurface federal mineral estate.
Other options in the draft land-use plan propose establishing 10 possible ACECs covering roughly 29,000 acres — but none in BLM's preferred alternative.
The preferred alternative "emphasizes resource uses on BLM-administered lands and mineral estate targeting social and economic outcomes while protecting land health," according to the draft document.
Montana conservation groups say this new proposal represents a fundamental shift in land-use planning in the region — and they have proof.
The Montana Wilderness Association obtained the draft RMP for the area that was done in 2016, in the closing months of the Obama administration, via a Freedom of Information Act request.
It shows that the new proposal includes major changes to conservation that were recommended by the Lewistown field office after public scoping.
For example, the Obama-era draft plan proposed managing 100,410 acres in the planning area as "lands with wilderness characteristics" because of their pristine nature, according to the documents obtained by the wilderness association. The new draft would remove those designations.
It also proposes removing "no surface occupancy" stipulations on about 6,400 acres for oil and gas drilling and mining activity of subsurface minerals underlying the ACECs that were in the Obama-era draft, as well as underlying sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the documents show.
Perhaps most concerning to Mark Good, the Montana Wilderness Association's senior conservation adviser, is the removal of the lands with wilderness characteristics designations, which had been recommend by the BLM Lewistown Field Office.
"The Department of the Interior trashed the recommendations it received from the Lewistown Field Office, recommendations that came about after a transparent public process that included local input, citizen surveys, and a healthy regard for what makes this part of Montana special," Good said in a statement. "The RMP we see today was concocted in some swampy D.C. backroom as a gift to the oil and gas industry."
The draft RMP and EIS will be published in tomorrow's Federal Register, kicking off a 90-day public comment period running through Aug. 14.
The draft RMP notes that the final version of the land-use plan could contain parts of different alternatives outlined in the draft, not just the preferred alternative as written.
"The thoughtful and substantive comments we receive from the public and stakeholders during this review and comment period will be thoroughly reviewed and considered as we finalize a document to guide land-use decisions and management actions on these public lands for the next two decades," Nash said.
Also tomorrow, BLM is publishing in the Federal Register a draft RMP and associated draft EIS for the bureau's Missoula Field Office in western Montana, though it covers a much smaller area of about 160,000 acres of land and 267,000 acres of subsurface mineral estate.
That draft plan's major focus is not oil and gas development, but rather "active forest management" that will allow "for the broadest range of management tools to provide forest products and meet forest management objectives."
It will be open for public comment for 90 days, through Aug. 14.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/16/stories/1060344453
-
Lawmakers May Stiffen Penalties for Pipeline Damage
May 16, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Clarice Silber
Lawmakers in Texas are considering a bill that would stiffen penalties for damaging or trespassing around oil and gas operations despite opposition from environmental groups who say it would quell peaceful protests and overly criminalize offenses.
Environmental activists and oil and gas lobbyists returned to the Texas capital yesterday to go head to head over the bill at a public hearing. There, they clashed over its necessity and whether the bill would suppress Texans' right to legally protest pipeline projects.
The effort comes as states around the country have introduced similar measures targeting demonstrations such as those in North Dakota against the Dakota Access oil pipeline, which resulted in hundreds of arrests and cost the state $38 million.
South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) signed a pair of bills into law in March aimed at potential protests against the planned Keystone XL oil pipeline and is now facing a federal lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.
In Texas, the Permian Highway Pipeline project is underway by the Houston-based Kinder Morgan Inc. That project aims to transport up to 2 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas through about 430 miles of pipeline from West Texas to the Houston and Corpus Christi areas, plus Mexico markets.
The bill sponsored by Republican state Rep. Chris Paddie of Marshall would also classify any oil or gas pipelines as critical infrastructure, placing them in the same category as power plants and water treatment facilities. The bill would extend the penalties to protect any property deemed critical infrastructure.
The measure would subject those who trespass, damage or destroy the facility, or impair or interrupt operations, to a third-degree felony with between two and 10 years in prison. Organizations found guilty of breaking the law would face a fine of up to $500,000 under another provision in the bill.
Supporters of the bill, which passed the state House earlier this month, say it would not limit legal protests but would instead ensure safety and security at these facilities.
Robin Schneider of Texas Campaign for the Environment said the organization is concerned the measure makes criminals of people who are trying to defend their community, property and sacred sites.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/16/stories/1060343721
-
Trade War Could Delay LNG Projects on Gulf Coast, Analyst Says
May 16, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
Escalating trade tensions with China could jeopardize or delay some proposed liquefied natural gas projects on the Gulf Coast by raising construction costs while reducing the competitiveness of U.S. LNG, analysts and economists say.
China's announcement Monday that it would slap a 25 percent tariff on U.S. liquefied natural gas comes at a time when several Gulf Coast projects are poised to make a final investment decision to greenlight construction, including Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass Train 6, Tellurian Inc.'s Driftwood LNG, Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass LNG, and several others.
The trade war adds a lot of uncertainty into long-term planning for future energy projects, said Peter Rodriguez, professor and dean Jesse H. Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University.
"If you were thinking this escalating trade war is bad for growth – then you have to think your future scenarios for energy prices look a little darker than before the weekend," Rodriguez said. "It's terrible news for LNG projects under way – not that they won't finish, but I think their expectation is this is going to harm prices."
Already Rystad Energy predicted that if low liquefied natural gas prices linger that could cause more expensive LNG projects in the U.S. to struggle to offer competitive prices to customers, causing companies to defer final investment decisions.
"Most of these projects need to secure long-term contracts in order to get financing for their development. Rystad Energy expects China to be one of the biggest contributors in sponsoring new LNG projects over the coming years, and there will be a reluctance to signing new deals with US projects as long as this trade war persists," said Sindre Knutsson, Senior Analyst at Rystad Energy's Gas Markets team in a statement.
RISKS: China trade war risks thousands of chemical industry jobs, billions of dollars
"For example, Cheniere and Sinopec agreed late last year on a 20-year deal that would supply 2 million metric tons of LNG to China starting in 2023. This deal could have been signed once the trade tensions were resolved, but due to the heightened tensions this has not happened," Knutsson said.
According to multiple media reports, Cheniere and Sinopec had agreed to sign a potentially $18 billion long-term supply contract deal only after the trade dispute was resolved.
Knuttsson said the 25 percent tariff will make non-U.S. LNG more attractive and give China more bargaining power when negotiating deals with U.S. producers.
Tariffs cut come at a time when China is poised to become the world's largest importer of liquefied natural gas. Rystad Energy forecasts that Chinese demand for liquefied natural gas will reach 95 million metric tons per a year in 2025 up from 53 million metric last year.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is the fastest growing LNG exporter thanks to growing Asian and Chinese demand. Rystad Energy expects that US export volumes will nearly quadruple over the coming years, reaching 84 million metric tons per a year t by 2025 based on currently sanctioned projects.
But Ed Hirs, economist and energy fellow with University of Houston, said there's still hope for U.S. producers who will be able to market their LNG to other Asian countries and Europe, and even to Boston.
"Because LNG is becoming much more of a global commodity, and Chinese consume can substitute away from us producers," Hirs said.
Yet at the same time, the ongoing trade war could hit liquefied natural gas projects and hundreds of energy projects in the works by rising construction costs for steel needed to build pipelines and liquefaction plants, Hirs said. And in in the long run if the trade war drags on and triggers a recession, demand for energy could fall, which would certainly hit home in Houston, Hirs said.
"These little headwinds over time change the course of the ship or the economy. Most U.S. producers are looking at these trade wars and thinking with any luck they'll be temporary and so they haven't change their capital allocation this year but if these tariffs are in place for long we're going to start seeing capital moving around the world," Hirs said.
Trump has downplayed the impact on the U.S. economy on Monday, tweeting that he expected many industries would leave China for Vietnam and other Asian nations to avoid the U.S. tariffs. The latest round of talks reportedly broke down over the Trump administration's insistence that China stop subsidizing its domestic industries, a tactic that allows them to undercut foreign competitors and drive them out of global markets.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Trade-war-could-delay-LNG-projects-on-Gulf-Coast-13850374.php
-
Politico New York: Cuomo Administration Rejects Williams Pipeline
May 16, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Marie J. French
Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration has blocked, at least for now, a controversial pipeline to supply natural gas to New York City and Long Island, setting up a potential moratorium on new gas service there.
The Department of Environmental Conservation found that the Northeast Supply Enhancement project, a 24-mile pipeline that would run from New Jersey across Raritan Bay and New York Bay to just off the Rockaways, would have significant environmental impacts on water quality. Specifically, the pipeline would stir up mercury and copper in sediments and disturb shellfish beds.
"As currently conceived in the application, construction of the NESE pipeline project is projected to result in water quality violations and fails to meet New York State's rigorous water quality standards," the agency said in a statement. The denial "without prejudice" means Williams, the project developer, can reapply.
Any new application would have to outline plans to mitigate impacts on shellfish and the re-suspension of copper and mercury, according to the letter sent by the DEC to the developer.
Williams spokesperson Chris Stockton said the company would resubmit its application quickly after evaluating what he called the “minor technical issue” raised by DEC.
“We are confident that we can be responsive to this technical concern, meet our customer’s in-service date and avoid a moratorium that would have a devastating impact on the regional economy and environment,” he said.
Cuomo’s decision is seen by environmental groups across the spectrum as a key test of his commitment to reducing emissions and his energy policy — recently rebranded as a “Green New Deal” — which is aimed at setting the state on a course away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy.
Environmental advocates raised concerns with the emissions from the gas supplied by the pipeline and questioned the need for it in the face of alternatives such as heat pumps and energy efficiency. They also pointed to threats to marine life in the ecologically sensitive New York Bay from contaminated sediment stirred up by construction and other impacts to water quality.
“The state has made it clear that dangerous gas pipelines have no place in New York. This is a victory for clean water, marine life, communities and people’s health across the state,” said Natural Resources Defense Council senior attorney Kim Ong. “Along with our allies, we will continue to ensure this reckless project is shelved forever.”
The department's denial also cites concerns about emissions from greenhouse gas emissions.
"Because of these and other impacts from the construction and operation of the project, mitigation would be required and should adequately address these and other impacts," writes Daniel Whitehead, director of the Division of Environmental Permits.
Even though the company can reapply, the decision will likely have near-term repercussions on Long Island.
National Grid has repeatedly warned that without the additional supply from the NESE project, the company cannot provide guaranteed service to new gas customers. The utility has informed large and mid-size new projects seeking service that they may not receive firm gas supply on the coldest winter days when the system is at full capacity.
The moratorium may go into effect in the near future, based on Grid’s public warnings.
The pipeline has received federal approvals but New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection must also make a decision on a water quality permit by June 20.
The Williams Co. may challenge the DEC’s decision. The permitting process allows for an administrative appeal of the agency's determination within 30 days.
The company has been aggressive in seeking to overturn New York state’s rejection of pipeline permits in the past, but has not yet seen much success in court.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has overturned at least one DEC decision blocking a pipeline because the agency missed a one-year statutory deadline for action under the Clean Water Act.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/05/politico-new-york-cuomo-administration-rejects-williams-pipeline-1446289
-
Refinery Explosions Prompt CSB to Ask EPA for Updated Study on Hydrofluoric Acid
May 16, 2019 | Safety + Health Magazine
The Chemical Safety Board is urging the Environmental Protection Agency to initiate a review and update a 1993 study on the toxic chemical hydrofluoric acid https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/hydrofluoricacid/basics/facts.asp.
In a letter https://www.csb.gov/assets/1/6/letter_to_epa_4.23.2019.pdf sent to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler on April 23 – the one-year anniversary of an explosion and fire at a Husky Energy refinery in Superior, WI – CSB interim Executive Authority Kristen Kulinowski and CSB board members Manuel Ehrlich and Rick Engler call on EPA to reevaluate its regulations and risk management procedures concerning hydrofluoric acid – a substance also known as hydrogen fluoride that may exist as a colorless gas or fuming liquid and can dissolve in water.
Hydrofluoric acid can cause serious injury or death at a concentration of 30 parts per million, CSB states. Exposure to the substance may trigger lung disease, skin damage and visual impairment, among other adverse health conditions, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In the past four years, CSB has investigated separate petroleum refinery incidents in which explosions amplified the threat of a possible hydrofluoric acid release. During public hearings after both blasts – in February 2015 at a former Exxon Mobil Corp. refinery in Torrance, CA, and at the Superior refinery – “members of the surrounding communities indicated great concern about the adequacy of the risk management strategies for the use of HF and the effectiveness of community notification procedures in the event of a catastrophic release,” the letter states.
Kulinowski adds in an April 24 press release, “The EPA is the appropriate agency to assess the adequacy of risk management for the use of chemicals like HF. Refiners, their workforce and communities that surround the refineries need assurances that the risk plans are adequate to prevent a catastrophic release.”
In the letter, the group notes that Congress in 1990 directed EPA to identify any potential hazards hydrofluoric acid poses to public health and the environment. Although the agency’s follow-up report acknowledged the prevalence of facilities using hydrofluoric acid and the potential risks of exposure, EPA didn’t recommend additional legislation. The agency concluded that “the legislative authorities already in place provide a solid framework for the prevention of accidental chemical releases and preparedness in the event that they occur,” the letter states, citing the report.Sign up for Safety+Health's free monthly email newsletters and get the news that's important to you.SUBSCRIBE NOW
CSB’s investigation of the Superior incident is listed as current https://www.csb.gov/investigations/current-investigations/?Type=1. In August, the agency released an update on the investigation https://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/17355-csb-issues-investigation-update-animated-video-on-wisconsin-refinery-explosion-fire#comments-container as well as an animated video that examines the incident’s cause. Thirty-six people sought medical attention after the explosion, according to CSB.
CSB issued a final report https://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/15618-csb-cites-lack-of-safety-management-in-final-report-on-california-refinery-explosion on the Torrance incident in May 2017, stating that a breakdown in safety management played a pivotal role. Four contractors were treated for injuries as a result of the explosion.
https://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/18397-refinery-explosions-prompt-csb-to-ask-epa-for-updated-study-on-hydrofluoric-acid
-
(ACC Mentioned) Slow Market Hampers Open-Deck, Semi-Submersible Carriers
May 16, 2019 | JOC.com
By Keith Wallis
Overcapacity and lackluster charter rates are weighing on the semi-submersible and module carrier market, even as a raft of new projects offers promise of better times in the next two to three years. That comes as the market for semi-submersible and module carriers is increasingly dominated by the transport of modularized cargo, senior shipping executives said.
Peter Hansen, president of Cosco Shipping Heavy Transport, told JOC.com that a sustained rebound in oil prices over the last three years -- currently averaging $71 a barrel, up from a low of $28 a barrel in January 2016 -- “has moderately increased utilization, with some projects now being sanctioned.”
Further outlining the promise that lies ahead thanks to a splurge of projects awaiting the green light, Roberto Frigeni, president and managing director of RollDock USA, said, “The potential is immense to the extent there could be a shortage of ships, especially at the high end for large, sophisticated vessels.”
These planned projects are across all sectors but particularly liquefied natural gas (LNG), wind power, and midstream petrochemical plants. “There are many projects in the pipeline that have still to be awarded to carriers. Some are at the final investment decision stage, some are awaiting notice to proceed,” he said.
Labor costs, shortages driving modularization
Royal Boskalis Westminster, which operates a fleet of 11 semi-submersible vessels mainly acquired from takeovers of carriers Fairstar and Dockwise, said in its 2018 annual report that the near-term market for semi-submersible and module carriers remains under pressure and dependent on the spot charter market, but long-term projects were brighter. “Based on the current tender activity and market, the mid- to long-term prospects for the high-end market look encouraging.”
Boskalis sees new opportunities for transporting box-shaped floating production, storage, and offloading vessels. In February, the carrier won a $55 million contract, with options for a further $30 million worth of work, to transport modules from China to North America for an LNG export facility. Boskalis did not disclose details of the project, but said in a statement that the deal “ties up two high-end open-stern heavy transport vessels commencing the second quarter of 2021 through to the third quarter of 2022.”
Boskalis vessels include the Boka Vanguard, capable of carrying cargos weighing up to 110,000 metric tons (mt). In 2018, the ship transported a 90,000-mt P67 floating production, storage, and offloading (FPSO) unit from Qingdao, China, to Brazil’s Lula-Cernambi oilfield in the Santos basin, being developed by Petrobras.
Globally, increasing labor costs and labor shortages on the project owner and engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) side are driving a trend towards the modularization of cargoes. “We’ve seen an increase in modularization, but it depends on the EPC contractor. The US Gulf is a mix of modularized and loose-item cargoes. In British Columbia, the Canada LNG and Woodfibre LNG projects will be built using prefabricated modules,” said Rolldock’s Frigeni.
“Remote projects require modularization because of the shortage of skilled labor. But some projects are [stick-built] at site because there is a huge labor requirement and politicians have backed the project because of the promise it will provide labor and employment,” he said. Modularization favors transport via semi-submersible and module carriers because of the ships’ wide-open rear decks. Extremely large modules, some weighing thousands of metric tons, and very large units related to oil and gas construction, can be rolled or floated aboard.
Overcapacity weighing heavy
For the semi-submersible sector, a surplus of tonnage is still an albatross. “Continuing low freight levels within the spot market can be attributed to an oversupply of vessels,” Hansen said.
“At the moment, the worldwide module carrier fleet is only 50-60 percent utilized,” Frigeni said. Looking at the broader multipurpose and heavy-lift (MPV/HL) sector, he said, “In our opinion, we could scrap 30 percent of the heavy-lift and project cargo fleet before rates stabilize and we start to see an increase.”
Module carriers and semi-submersibles represent a very small, extremely specialized portion of the heavy transport market, or as Frigeni put it, “It’s a niche inside a niche.” RollDock provides engineering, land transport and related services, he said. Other key module and semi-submersible carriers include Boskalis, BigLift, which also operates super-heavy lift vessels and is a sister company to multipurpose carrier Spliethoff, and Cosco, which also operates a large MPV/HL fleet.
Despite the glut of tonnage, however, further consolidation in the semi-submersible niche is unlikely, carrier executives said. “In our segment, there’s probably not a lot of consolidation left,” Frigeni said. “Zeamarine has been absorbing a lot in the heavy-lift market. Now there are probably four large project cargo carriers: Zeamarine, Cosco, Spliethoff-BigLift Shipping, and BBC Chartering. I don't think they'll merge into two.”
More pools and joint ventures are also unlikely, in Frigeni’s opinion, unless driven by specific project requirements. "Joint ventures and pools, most of the time, never work...To create a successful pool, partners need to think alike," he said.
“We had a joint venture with BigRoll (a partnership between BigLift and Roll Group, parent of RollDock) but that was mainly for the Yamal LNG project in Russia,” Frigeni said. After Yamal ended, the partners separated. On another project, joint EPC contractors Technip and Fluor demanded the module carrier operators work together because they didn't think one carrier could execute the project alone.
Against this backdrop, there is little likelihood of semisubmersibles or module carrier newbuildings being ordered, except where necessary for specific projects. Cosco Shipping Heavy Transport, for example, is planning to expand its fleet of semi-submersible ships with a fourth 50,000-dwt heavy load carrier. “We are building one additional X-Class vessel -- to join sister ships Xiang He Kou, Xiang Rui Kou, and Xiang Yun Kou -- for the upcoming Canada LNG project which requires four vessels of this size,” Hansen said. Details of the newbuilding schedule have yet to be finalized.
Plastics, LNG lifting growth prospects
Hansen, who is based in Houston, said Cosco expects an increase in LNG developments worldwide partly due to increased demand from China, “which leads to an increase in potential onshore module based projects.” Among major projects awaiting the go-ahead are the $18 billion Rio Grande LNG export facility near Brownsville, Texas, the $30 billion Driftwood project on the Calcasieu river in Louisiana, and Anadarko Petroleum’s $20 billion LNG scheme in Mozambique.
“We do not see the offshore market rebounding completely, but onshore module transports are increasing,” he said. “There are also some potential opportunities in the wind farm and decommissioning markets.”
Cosco Shipping Heavy Transport has carved out a niche after pioneering the dynamic positioning (DP) float-over method to transport and install topsides -- the upper section of an offshore oil platform. In October, Cosco’s DP2 vessel, Xiang He Kou, installed the 18,000-mt BorWin Gamma topside, the first topside module to be installed in the North Sea using the method.
Cosco ships also installed three topsides using the DP float-over technique last August and September as part of the NASR Full Field Development Package-2 project in the United Arab Emirates, and Cosco semi-submersible Tai An Kou carried out two DP float-over installations in the Middle East in late 2018. “We can’t speak for the others, but we have a good utilization rate for our fleet,” Hansen said.
Even so, volatile oil prices are still casting a shadow over the market. “In the US, we are still talking about projects we were talking about six or seven years ago,” Frigeni said.
Investment in wind energy, which saw a record 4.9 gigawatts of offshore wind projects come on-stream globally in 2017, according to a Deloitte Insight commentary, has also provided a welcome fillip for semi-submersible and module carrier operators, helping to support the sector even as volatile oil prices curbed investment. The key offshore wind markets of the UK, Germany, Denmark, and China will be joined by the US and Southeast Asia by 2030, analysts said.
But most of the focus for RollDock and Cosco remains in the US and Europe, Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) region. “Some 75 percent of our business is in the US,” Frigeni said. This US focus extends to energy companies and their EPC contractors such as Bechtel and Fluor. While the primary focus is on LNG and oil projects, Frigeni said the shale boom is also driving investment by petrochemical companies in midstream projects -- propane dehydrogenation (PDH) and ethylene plants that create chemicals and plastics used in clothing, tires, and packaging.
Petrochemical products are expected to account for around 35 percent of global oil and gas demand growth by 2030, rising to nearly 50 percent by 2050, according to the International Energy Agency, and the American Chemistry Council estimates shale boom related investment by the US chemicals industry is now more than $200 billion
“Today the market is more related to midstream -- plastics, etc. -- and LNG, especially in the US,” Frigeni said. “America is going through a second boom, a second wave of energy projects due to the development of midstream projects. Gas prices are plateauing, which is why midstream companies are using technology to convert gas into plastics.
“Now nobody is drilling for oil. Energy companies are mainly drilling for gas,” he added. “Drilling for offshore oil in the US has gone pretty much dead ever since the Macondo accident in 2010.”
https://www.joc.com/breakbulk/slow-market-hampers-open-deck-semi-submersible-carriers_20190516.html
-
The Energy 202: Trump's Interior Chief Hasn't 'Lost Any Sleep Over' New Climate Record
May 16, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
House Democrats grilled Interior Secretary David Bernhardt about what his department is doing to address the causes and effects of climate change, noting that levels of carbon dioxide just hit their highest in human history.
His response? “I haven’t lost any sleep over it.”
The exchange is the latest escalation between congressional Democrats and the Trump administration over what responsibility the Interior Department, which oversees more than 400 million acres of federal lands, bears in blunting a worldwide problem such as global warming. It came amid a barrage of legal citations from Democrats who claimed that current law compels the leader of the department to protect public lands from its impacts.
The remark came as Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) pressed Bernhardt about how concerned, on a scale of 1 to 10, he was about the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eclipsing 415 parts per million, as recorded by the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.
“Okay, so you're a zero or a one, is that it?” Cartwright said in response.
Later in the hearing, Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) gave Bernhardt the chance to expand on his comment, saying that for climate scientists it is a “hair-on-fire crisis.”
“It’s one of those clips of testimony that will reverberate,” he said. “People will look back to what you said.”
Indeed, after the hearing, environmental groups shared widely on social media videos of Bernhardt's “sleep” comment.
In response, Bernhardt said: “I absolutely care that our climate is changing and that we need to factor that into our thinking. I absolutely believe that. And I've said that over and over and over.”
He noted that among developed nations, the United States is “number one” in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The hearing Wednesday in front of the House Natural Resources Committee, ostensibly to discuss the Trump administration's budget proposal for the department, was Bernhardt's second since being confirmed as interior secretary.
Last week in front of a House Appropriations subcommittee, Bernhardt punted the climate issue to Congress, telling members it was up to them to pass legislation compelling him to reduce emissions from public lands. Between 2005 and 2014, a quarter of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions came from the extracting and burning of fossil fuels from federal lands.
“There's no 'shalls,' " Bernhardt said, referring to the word in law that indicates a legally binding requirement. “You guys come up with the 'shalls.' "
In the intervening days, House Democrats had clearly dusted off law books.
During the hearing, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) chided the Trump administration for rolling back an Obama-era rule that sought to limit the amount of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, released by oil and gas wells on the Bureau of Land Management lands.
And another Democrat, Mark Levin of California, rattled off four laws that, for example, compel the interior secretary to ensure that national parks are “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations” and to “take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation” to BLM areas.
Bernhardt suggests the language in those laws did not direct him to do anything specific in response to climate change, such as stop leasing land for coal, oil or natural gas extraction.
“What I specifically said is you haven’t given me any direction to stop any particular activity,” he said.
John Leshy, interior solicitor under President Clinton, said that the legal language authorizing the government's land management programs is “necessarily general.”
“I give Bernhardt credit,” Leshy told The Post. “He's a wily guy.”
Leshy said Levin could also have mentioned the Endangered Species Act, which compels the interior secretary to use the “best available” science to determine whether a plant or animal is under threat of extinction.
On the dangers of climate change to biodiversity, he said, “the science is increasingly clear.”
At one point in yesterday's hearing, Democrats got Bernhardt to acknowledge that some laws — including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires agencies to evaluate the environmental impact of their actions — compel him to take climate change into account when managing lands.
“Certainly, NEPA would be one to them.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2019/05/16/the-energy-202-trump-s-interior-chief-hasn-t-lost-any-sleep-over-new-climate-record/5cdc4fd01ad2e5092403d1da/?utm_term=.86d231e7b0f4
-
Renewed Climate Debate Highlights Labor as Skeptical but Crucial Player
May 16, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
The renewed climate debate in Congress is underscoring labor's role as a skeptical yet crucial constituency in determining the success or failure of ambitious greenhouse gas mitigation policies, with unions withholding their support of broad policies like the Green New Deal (GND) until they can be shown the plans can preserve or bolster jobs.
Recent criticism by top AFL-CIO officials of the sweeping GND climate resolution is highlighting the potential for yawning splits among labor unions on climate policy -- a perilous dynamic for Democrats given that unions are a key part of their political base.
Nevertheless, some recent efforts have garnered union backing, including a recently introduced clean energy standard (CES) bill as well as new laws in Washington state and New Mexico that coupled carbon restrictions with labor protections and an attempt to create a “just transition” for fossil fuel-reliant communities.
Observers of labor politics say many unions have been taciturn because there are low expectations that major climate policy will be enacted in the current Congress, giving them little incentive to negotiate concessions right now.
Despite largely laying low on the issue, the AFL-CIO's energy committee in March slammed the GND resolution floated in February by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) as “far too short on specifics” on jobs, making promises that are “not achievable or realistic.”
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka in April 23 remarks said the union federation does not support the GND “as currently written. . . . We weren't part of the process, and so the worker's interest really wasn't really figured into it.”
But Trumka was also careful not to rule out eventual union support for the GND or its component parts. “We would want a whole lot of changes made so that workers and our jobs are protected in the process.”
Michael Williams, deputy director of the BlueGreen Alliance, testified at a February House hearing that climate change and inequality are both exerting pressure on workers. “We will only overcome these twin challenges if good jobs and working families are at the center of a massive economic transformation.”
Some Democratic lawmakers recognize the need to involve unions early as they craft climate policies. For example, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI), a co-sponsor of the CES bill, says the ad hoc climate committee he chairs will start its process by holding internal meetings with labor unions, followed by industry leaders and youth advocates, according to Politico.
“We want to start with labor because we need to demonstrate to our friends in labor that we understand that climate action has to be good for working people and for organized labor, in particular,” he said.
One source familiar with the dynamic says “unions are in a difficult position.” The source acknowledges some labor splits, but also notes that groups have little incentive to stick their neck out in early debates on GHG policies.
“Given that there is unlikely to be any real climate change legislation moving through Congress this year, it's hard to see exactly how they feel the need to respond to the big picture,” the source says.
Technology-Neutral Policies
Unions are not a monolith, the source adds, noting that “building trades” groups and others are becoming more comfortable with longer-term GHG targets as long as proposals are technology neutral. This means allowing a role for nuclear power and a continued role for fossil fuel -- potentially through the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology -- sectors where union jobs are prevalent, the source adds.
Highlighting this stance, two significant labor unions -- the United Steelworkers and the Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA) -- endorsed CES legislation introduced May 8 in both the House and Senate.
The proposal that would require a nearly full decarbonization of the grid between now and 2050, preserve nuclear power and encourage fossil energy coupled with CCS -- while still allowing significant gas-fired generation without CCS out to at least 2035 and boosting wind and solar power.
Other provisions of interest to labor groups are Davis Bacon prevailing wage requirements attached to a state energy efficiency and clean power program the bill creates with proceeds from compliance payments from utilities that elect to not comply with the CES requirements.
UWUA's Lee Anderson tells Inside EPA that the CES legislation will be “a centerpiece around our messaging, when we talk about decarbonizing the economy in a zero emissions way. The bill is “exhibit A” on a way to implement GHG reductions that is “science based.”
AFL-CIO for now is neutral on the measure.
Meanwhile, labor's reaction to the GND has been more positive than Trumka's remarks would suggest, with support coming from groups such as the 32BJ Service Employees International Union -- which represents almost 150,000 workers largely in commercial buildings in the Northeast, the largest such union in the country. That union in February approved a resolution endorsing the GND.
At the state level, the Maine AFL-CIO last month backed a state GND bill that calls for 80 percent renewable power by 2040, as well as a job training strategy for green jobs.
That measure also included some concrete benefits for labor, such as a requirement to develop a residential energy strategy to encourage installation of solar energy systems and heat pumps, a requirement to develop draft legislation for “virtual net metering” to encourage solar energy in schools, and the creation of a commission to ensure a “just transition” to a low-carbon economy.
No 'Actual Just Transition'
Association of Flight Attendants President Sara Nelson, who garnered national attention for a strike threat in the middle of the recent federal government shutdown, recently told In These Times that labor is crucial to the GND, but needs to be made central to the discussion if it is to support such efforts.
“We must recognize that labor unions were among the first to fight for the environment because it was our work spaces that had pollutants, our communities that industry polluted,” she said.
But trust is low among many labor groups due to the fact that they have “never seen an actual just transition.” She added: “You can say those words all day long, but what people hear is 'a couple hours of training and then you're going to leave my community devastated and alone, like a ghost town.'”
She noted that prior environmental rules, such as those that encouraged low-sulfur coal and thus a move of jobs from union coal mines in Appalachia to non-union mines in the West, did not match pro-union rhetoric.
At the presidential level, former Vice President Joe Biden, the early front-runner for the Democratic nomination in 2020, has signaled he is preparing a climate plan that can appeal to blue collar constituencies. That sparked a wave of negative reaction from some climate advocates, including the youth-oriented Sunrise Movement who charged that any embrace of fossil fuels would be a “death sentence” for the next generation.
But a labor source says that any attempt to focus the GND or similar proposals only on renewables, as some environmentalists prefer, would likely alienate labor given concerns that green energy jobs will either be low-paying or have less union protection -- or both -- compared with current fossil energy-related jobs.
“What do these [new] jobs look like?” the source asked, contrasting some high-paying union jobs that make materials for wind turbines with a $15-an-hour, non-union job making solar panels at Tesla. The source also notes that some green sectors, including the solar sector, can be “egregiously anti-union.”
A second labor source criticizes the CES bill for solely focusing on utilities rather than including transportation GHGs -- and argues the measure does not include enough financial support to make CCS on fossil plants truly viable.
State Efforts
Clean energy advocates, however, in a May 7 press call said several recent state laws serve as case studies of cooperation between environmentalists and labor on clean energy policies, including new laws setting long-term zero-emission targets in Washington state and New Mexico.
Labor-friendly provisions in the Washington measure include tying tax breaks for renewable energy-related equipment to labor standards such as prevailing wage requirements or use of the equipment under project agreements friendly to labor.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), another presidential contender, has spotlighted these aspects of the legislation. During an April 2 House Energy & Commerce Committee hearing, for instance, he testified that the bill reflects a “community consensus” on how to aid workers at the state's final coal plant, which is set to close in 2025. The measure provides $65 million for training costs and business development in the area.
New Mexico union official Brian Condit, who is president of New Mexico Building Trades and a member of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 611, told the call that provisions in that state's law are geared toward “smoothing the glide path” for power plant workers losing their jobs as part of an already announced coal plant closure. Such a shift could create new construction jobs or opportunities in the renewable energy field.
Sierra Club's Jodie Van Horn touted these and other state initiatives as “sample language” that will help craft politically popular proposals at the federal level.
The first labor source says “real and direct engagement with labor” -- on workforce issues as well as the specifics of the GHG policies -- will ultimately determine the level of union support for GHG policies.
This source interprets current labor concerns such as Trumka's statements as a warning that “this needs work . . . it [is] a starting point.”
https://insideepa.com/weekly-focus/renewed-climate-debate-highlights-labor-skeptical-crucial-player
-
First Step Toward Fighting Climate Change Is a Simple One
May 16, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rep. Tom Reed
The “Green New Deal’s” massive expansion of federal bureaucracy, technologically implausible guideposts and a tax to kill the American dream is not the answer to the undeniable threats our world is facing from climate change.
The answer is simple. We must use the readily available tools we have to empower change.
We need tax policies to accelerate the deployment of clean energy technologies by incentivizing entrepreneurs and allowing the energy sector to mirror Silicon Valley’s innovation – fast, disruptive, exciting and good for consumers.
The United States is falling behind China in the global clean energy race as our climate continues to deteriorate. China is now the world’s largest producer, exporter and installer of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and electric vehicles. The Chinese are even leading the energy race in underlying technology, with well over 150,000 renewable energy patents, while the U.S. has a little over 100,000 patents.
Here in the U.S., the “newcomer’s tax” for emerging technologies is far too high and stunts the immense benefits to the security and reliability of the power grid they could provide if made available. Existing renewable energies, such as solar and wind, receive up to a 30 percent write off on their investment while emerging technologies receive none – just because the government has not heard of them.
That is not fair.
Innovation is not our enemy. We must give next-generation energy sources an even playing field and allow them to mature and inject more clean and reliable power into the electric grid. Once established and commercialized in the United States, we can then export clean energy technology to countries that continue to rely predominately on fossil fuels – and reduce China’s massive influence around the globe.
I am spearheading legislation to offer a tax incentive for new clean energy technologies which would increase energy on the grid, ensure unneeded energy is not financially rewarded, help cutting-edge technologies break into the market and upend the status quo of federal incentives for existing technologies.
How would it work?
Instead of picking winners and losers in the energy sector, this new tax credit would bolster market-driven innovation across electricity-generating technologies. This means everything from a new power plant which can capture, store or use carbon emissions from fossil fuel generation to facilities using next-generation batteries to store excess power from wind, solar and other renewable sources.
This plan would lead to cleaner power without government mandates or an uncompetitive over-reliance on federal tax credits.
The current market rewards energy whether it is used or not. My bill ensures incentives apply to the value of energy when sold so we do not reward unwanted power.
The plan ends unlimited, market-distorting extenders for tax incentives and has a built-in ramp down for each technology as it grows. By spurring innovation in the market, we can ensure a clean environment for future generations rather than lining the pockets of established technologies and propping up otherwise uneconomical technologies.
We care about promoting clean energy and addressing the challenges of an evolving environment.
We have always said America needs an all-of-the-above energy strategy, and we agree with President Trump’s call for U.S. energy dominance and better energy tax policy. Enabling cleaner, more efficient energy technologies to compete in a free market should be the goal of the U.S. government’s approach to energy. After all, it’s not just about the here and now – it’s about our future.
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/443896-first-step-toward-fighting-climate-change-is-a-simple
-
The Sci-Fi Solution That Offers Common Ground on Climate
May 16, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Zack Colman
A long-shot strategy to hack the planet is gaining traction in Washington as a potential tool to tackle climate change.
Machines that suck pollution directly out of the air may seem like the stuff of science fiction, but climate scientists say they will be necessary within the next few decades to keep temperatures in check. While no single breakthrough is likely to offer a silver bullet, a handful of companies have shown encouraging advancements in being able to extract carbon dioxide from the air, and lawmakers are paying attention.
"It’s fourth down and long yardage. We’ve got a long way to go in a short amount of time and so it is time to think unconventionally," says Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), who supports aggressive policies to limit emissions from the fossil fuel industry. Removing carbon from the atmosphere is "one of those things that would be absolutely cool and transformative if it’s real. ... I have a lot more to learn about how viable it is."
The recent focus on carbon dioxide removal technologies such as "direct air capture," as an emerging attractive option is known, also allows lawmakers to sidestep issues such as clean energy mandates or carbon regulations, where they are sharply divided along regional and party lines.
West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a supporter of his home state's coal and gas industries, says carbon removal and the broader suite of carbon capture technology is necessary because coal, oil and gas use will be inevitable for decades to come. The top Democrat on the Senate Energy Committee has introduced a bill that would for the first time give the Energy Department specific authorization and multiyear funding for carbon dioxide removal research as well as aid traditional carbon-capture technologies.
"We're just trying to find every way we possibly can because there's going to be more fossil fuels used in the next 20 to 30 years than we have in the past with what Asia's doing, not the United States. But you've got to confront it," Manchin said. "We're looking at everything, we really are."
The carbon capture push falls well within Republicans' support for "innovation" instead of carbon regulations. Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso — who regularly derides the Green New Deal as "unworkable, unaffordable and unpopular" — has a bill of his own that would establish a one-year, $50 million research program and a $35 million technology contest for direct air capture. It's also co-sponsored by climate champions such as Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Environment and Public Works ranking member Tom Carper(D-Del.).
“The technology has come a long way,” Barrasso said in an interview. Democrats "realize it’s practical, it’s not just a pipe dream. It’s something that matters and will work.”
The support from coal supporters and fossil fuel companies like Chevron, BHP Billiton and Occidental Petroleum worries some liberal environmentalists, but resistance has waned in recent months. For example, the Green New Deal resolution from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez(D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) envisions the possibility of carbon-capture systemscontributing to its net-zero emissions target.
"While the resolution does not mention any specific technology, it talks about any technology that can dramatically reduce greenhouse gases," Markey said when the Green New Deal was introduced. "So while it doesn't mention carbon capture and sequestration, we are open to whatever works."
Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.), who is co-sponsoring the House version of Barrasso's legislation, welcomes all the help he can get in putting more federal dollars behind emissions-reducing technologies.
“Ten or 12 years ago it was seen as a way to preserve coal, that it was a clean coal play. And it’s not that way anymore,” Peters, who sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and plans this week to launch the bipartisan carbon dioxide removal caucus, told POLITICO. “I think you see now environmental groups and serious research groups saying that carbon capture is something we have to look at as part of the whole mix.”
A major catalyst came last fall, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's models relied heavily on carbon dioxide removal to keep global temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. It was seen as a tacit admission that it's too late for emissions belt tightening alone to address the issue compared to the significantly more modest carbon dioxide removal figures IPCC had previously modeled under a 2-degrees Celsius goal.
The IPCC's reliance on direct air capture gave the idea “legitimacy,” Peters said, and helped ease greens' fears that it would distract from promotingfrom emissions-free technologies like renewable energy, battery-storage or electric vehicles. But most models suggest the technology won't be deployed until later in the century — and even then, it's still only viewed as a last resort rather than saving grace — meaning nations would have to continue to quickly reduce emissions in the interim to hit the IPCC targets.
Advocates of direct air capture technology are making the rounds on Capitol Hill, hoping to seize a moment when Republicans have rallied around a call for "innovation" as a means to address climate change.
"I've been impressed with the bipartisan interest actually," John Larsen, a director at analysis firm Rhodium Group, told POLITICO. "That doesn't tend to happen when you talk about climate and energy stuff.”
Rhodium teamed up with Carbon 180, a non-governmental organization that promotes the technology, for a series of meetings with congressional staff on direct air capture technology this month, as well as a briefing hosted by the Bipartisan Policy Center.
Rhodium presented its report to congressional offices that showed direct air capture would account for as much as 1.8 billion metric tons of negative emissions to reach net-zero emissions by 2045 or up to 742 million metric tons to curb emissions 83 percent by mid-century for the U.S. alone. That high-end scenario is equivalent to removing 34 percent of last year's total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions or 5 percent of global annual emissions.
While advocates of the technology want federal policy to help bring down costs, direct air capture and other carbon dioxide removal concepts are not viewed as replacements for zero-emissions technology like solar, wind and nuclear, or natural measures like planting trees. Instead, they're seen as a necessary complement because nations are still too reliant on fossil fuels to avoid carbon dioxide removal. There's no guarantee at this point that the technology will scale fast enough to adequately address climate change in time.
So far, federal spending has fallen far short of what scientists say is needed to drive advancements in carbon removal technologies. The National Academies of Science last year recommended that federal agencies spend $240 million annually to research carbon dioxide removal technology, such as direct air capture.
DOE has committed just $11 million over the past decade to direct air capture technology, which pales compared to the roughly $700 million annually that the broader set of carbon capture and storage technology linked to coal has received, Larsen said. The Trump administration also gave $1.5 million to researchers at University of Texas-Austin, Arizona State University and Northern Arizona University through the Department of Energy's ARPA-E program, while DOE is also working on three other research projects.
Separately, the IRS is weighing how direct-air capture technology can qualify for a tax credit signed into law last year, though Larsen said that lack of clarity means companies haven't been able to take advantage of the incentive.
Researchers and climate scientists say the technology to achieve "net negative" emissions is necessary to keep global average temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
The 2017 United Nations emissions gap report showed a wide gulf between countries’ efforts to reduce carbon emissions and the pledges they made as part of the Paris climate agreement. Last year the IPCC said maintaining the 1.5-degree target rested on negative emissions of between 100 billion to 1 trillion metric tons by the end of the century; the world emitted 36.5 billion tons last year.
Several start-up companies have demonstrated that generating negative emissions is technically feasible, and some have attracted private investors such as Bill Gates.
Carbon Engineering, based in Squamish, British Columbia, has a pilot facility and just attracted $68 million in private capital — it wants to turn carbon dioxide pulled from the air into a synthetic fuel for cars. Climeworks, a Zurich-based competitor, envisions its technology being able to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at a cost of less than $100 per ton in five years. That would be less than half of DOE's current estimate of average costs, which ranges from $200 to $800 per ton.
Another company, Global Thermostat, run by an IPCC contributor, has run a testing site in Menlo Park, Calif., since 2010. They're hoping to use that carbon dioxide in other industrial processes, like manufacturing, or attach the technology to existing emitting sources.
While environmentalists acknowledge the growing need for those technologies, some remain wary of the support they draw from fossil fuel companies and allied lawmakers.
“The challenge for the environmental community is to separate the viability of the activity from the people who say good things about it and why they like it,” said David Hawkins, climate policy director with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “There are a lot of tools in industrial modern society that can be used to do bad things and can be used to do good things.”
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/05/the-sci-fi-solution-that-offers-common-ground-on-climate-1444243
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested