Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - May 17, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Makers Fret over Renewed Us-China Trade War
May 16, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
The US and China are escalating their trade war, and the US chemical industry is caught in the cross fire. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Suppliers Take Hits from Both Sides of the Trade War
May 16, 2019 | Supply Chain Dive
By Emma Cosgrove
Chemical suppliers are taking hits from both sides of the U.S. trade war and mitigation tactics are running thin, according to Ed Brzytwa, the director for international trade at the American Chemistry Council. -
(ACC Mentioned) Spotlight: U.S. Businesses Vexed by Possible Tariff Hikes Against EU
May 17, 2019 | Xinhua
U.S. companies and interest groups representing a wide range of industries have been lining up to air their grievances over the potential tariffs Washington is threatening on imports from the European Union (EU). -
(ACC Mentioned) Comment: China, India Key to Achieving Global Sound Chemicals Management
May 17, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
Issued in 2013, the UN’s first Global Chemicals Outlook (GCO) was commissioned to inform governments and industry on trends in chemicals production, use and disposal, and offer policy advice aimed at meeting the goal – first adopted by governments at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 – to "use and produce chemicals in ways that do not lead to significant adverse effects on human health and the environment" by 2020. -
(ACC Mentioned) Shipments of Plastic Waste Will Need Advance Approval from Recipient Countries
May 16, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
Countries exporting contaminated or mixed types of postconsumer plastic waste will need consent from importing countries before shipping the material, under an international deal struck May 10. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Refuses to Join Global Effort to Curb Plastic Pollution
May 17, 2019 | Truthout
By Amy Goodman and Nermeen Shaikh
Nearly every country in the world except the United States took a historic step to curb plastic waste last week, when more than 180 nations agreed to add plastic to the Basel Convention, a treaty that regulates the movement of hazardous materials between countries. -
(ACC Mentioned) California Weighs How to Lighten Its Plastic Problem
May 16, 2019 | KQED
By Monica Lam
A pair of ambitious bills currently making their way through the state legislature aim to stem the flood of plastic in stores, landfills and increasingly in the environment by placing aggressive new regulations on how plastics are manufactured and recycled in California. -
Former Administrators to Testify
May 17, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
Four former EPA administrators will head to the House next month to discuss the future of the agency. -
Investigators Urge E.P.A. to Pursue Scott Pruitt for $124,000 in ‘Excessive’ Travel Costs
May 17, 2019 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
Federal investigators concluded in a report Thursday that Scott Pruitt had spent nearly $124,000 on “excessive” travel arrangements as head of the Environmental Protection Agency and recommended that the agency try to recover the money. -
Judges Hint At NGOs' Standing To Target Key TSCA Rule On Legacy Issues
May 16, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Appellate judges appear to agree with EPA lawyers that environmentalists generally lack standing to challenge the agency's framework rule for evaluating risks of existing chemicals under the revised toxics law, but they left the door open to sue over officials' decision to preclude legacy uses from the scope of any evaluation. -
Judges Hint Lawsuit over TSCA Rules Is Premature
May 16, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Alex Guillén
A panel of federal judges today expressed skepticism that a coalition of public health and environmental groups can challenge EPA’s “framework” rules implementing updates to the Toxic Substances Control Act — at least until the agency takes action later this year. -
Comment: Chemical Industry R&I Mustn’t Neglect Detoxification
May 17, 2019 | Chemical Watch
Chemical firms are the natural leaders of efforts to reduce the use of hazardous chemicals in materials: some, like Clariant, BASF and Dow are already ahead of the crowd, but it’s time more followed. -
EPA, Environmentalists’ Attorneys Joust Over Chemical Regulation (1)
May 17, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
The question of whether the EPA is adequately overseeing chemicals to protect health and the environment was overshadowed in arguments before an appeals court May 16 by whether the case was ready to come before the three-judge panel. -
Vermont Imposes Tough PFAS Limits in Drinking Water (1)
May 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel
Vermont will require testing for fluorinated chemicals in drinking water using the toughest limits in the nation under a bill signed by Gov. Phil Scott (R). -
House Seeks To Boost PFAS Funds But Policy Push Unlikely To Slow
May 16, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
House lawmakers are stepping up efforts to provide funds to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) -- including a massive proposed $2.5 billion grant program to aid drinking water systems -- funds that seek to address contamination concerns in the short term though sources say they are unlikely to deter lawmakers from advancing policy measures, sources say. -
Water Group Goes to Court Over Pennsylvania Fluorochemicals (1)
May 17, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Herzfeld
An environmental group went to court in a bid to compel Pennsylvania to set a maximum contaminant level for drinking water pollution from fluorinated chemicals. -
Grouping of Flame Retardants for Hazard Assessment Endorsed by US National Academies
May 16, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
Dividing organohalogen flame retardants into groups for collective assessment and regulation is scientifically justifiable, says a committee of the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. -
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 proposed liquefied natural gas projects on the Gulf Coast by raising construction costs in the United States and prices in China, hurting the emerging industry's competitiveness in one of the world's biggest energy markets, analysts and economists say. -
Fuel Restrictions Could Heighten Trump's Trade Spat — Report
May 17, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
Forthcoming restrictions on the use of dirtier shipping fuels could send costs for global trade spiking, affecting markets worldwide, according to a new assessment. -
Committee Mulls 'Federal Floor' for Wastewater Rules
May 17, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Ariel Wittenberg
Lawmakers sparred over whether states are doing enough to regulate wastewater from hydraulic fracturing during a hearing of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources yesterday. -
Colorado Issues Interim Oil, Gas Permitting Guidelines
May 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Colorado’s top drilling regulator issued final oil and gas permitting guidelines to be followed while new, stricter rules are being developed to govern the state’s industry. -
New York Reinforces Appalachian Natural Gas Blockade, Rejecting Transco Expansion
May 16, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
New York has for now blocked even more Appalachian shale gas from entering the state after denying a key permit for the Northeast Supply Enhancement Project. -
Greens Sue Interior to Block Pipelines, Power Lines
May 17, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Scott Streater
A coalition of environmental and public health advocacy groups is suing the Interior Department over its decision to allow pipelines and power lines associated with a proposed Utah oil shale plant to cross federal lands. -
Water Budget Cuts Contradict Trump Infrastructure Aims, Dems Say
May 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bobby Magill
Cuts to two federal water resources agencies in the White House’s fiscal 2020 budget request reveal a disconnect between the administration’s plans for the agencies and its agenda to build new infrastructure, Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) said May 16. -
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Production, Use Linked to Climate Change, Report Says
May 16, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
The expansion of plastic production and use is threatening Earth’s climate, says a report from the Center for International Environmental Law. -
(ACC Mentioned) Study Blames Plastic for Climate Change
May 16, 2019 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson
A new study claims growing use of plastics is having a devastating impact through climate change, but a trade group representing the industry counters with an exact opposite view. -
Climate Fund, Paris Accord Get House Funding Panel Approval (1)
May 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
House Democrats’ plan to bar President Donald Trump from using any funding to withdraw from the Paris climate accord lives on, at least for now. -
Funding Bar On Paris Exit May Indicate Democrats' Selective Rider Strategy
May 16, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
House Democrats are advancing a fiscal year 2020 State Department spending bill that would bar the Trump administration from using funds to withdraw from the Paris climate deal, a move that may signal a selective strategy on environmental policy riders after an initial draft EPA funding bill largely omitted them. -
EPA May Struggle to Meet Its Own Ozone Review Deadlines
May 17, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The EPA is racing to meet its goal to review ozone pollution standards by the end of 2020, with a draft due early next year, but such a goal may not be possible and risks undermining the entire process, former agency employees and science advisers say.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Makers Fret over Renewed Us-China Trade War
May 16, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
The US and China are escalating their trade war, and the US chemical industry is caught in the cross fire.
In September, the Trump administration imposed 10% tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods—among them 1,364 chemicals—adding to tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese goods levied earlier in the year. On May 10, the Office of the US Trade Representative raised the 10% tariffs to 25% as US officials expressed frustration over negotiations with China. They accused their Chinese counterparts of retreating from “specific commitments” made in earlier negotiation rounds.
Ratcheting up the pressure further, the US is putting into motion a plan to impose tariffs of up to 25% on another $300 billion worth of Chinese goods. That list is laden with consumer items, such as cell phones and textiles. It also contains chemicals like vinyl chloride, vanillin, and sucralose.
In retaliation for the May 10 action, China is raising tariffs on $60 billion worth of US goods. This is in addition to 25% tariffs on about $50 billion in US goods the Chinese government imposed last year.
In this most recent salvo, China will tax some 2,500 items at 25%. Among them are chemicals such as methylene diphenyl diisocyanate and polyethylene terephthalate chip. The list also includes agricultural products such as peanut oil, sugar, and maple syrup and raw materials like wood, steel, and textile products.
China is also tacking tariffs of 5, 10, and 20% on more than 2,600 goods. The tariffs are far reaching, covering everything from pasta to grand pianos. Chemicals on these lists include benzoic acid, titanium dioxide, polybutylene terephthalate, phenol, propylene oxide, and silicone.
“The tariffs are not going to be helping this sector,” says Edward Brzytwa, director of international trade for the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the leading US chemical industry trade group. “They are constraining our growth and limiting our export potential.”
According to the ACC, the US tariffs implemented thus far affect $15.4 billion in annual chemical and plastic imports from China, while the Chinese tariffs impact some $10.8 billion in US chemical and plastic exports. The US chemical trade deficit with China last year increased from $1.4 billion in 2017 to $4.0 billion last year, in part because of the tariffs, the ACC says.
With the tariff rates now being hiked on both sides, the trade impact may be even “more dramatic,” Brzytwa says. He’s particularly worried about the list of $300 billion worth of goods the US published last week. On it are 114 chemicals and plastics the Trump administration proposed for tariffs last year but withdrew, largely because of outcry from chemical makers. These products represent about $2.7 billion in imports from China.
The Office of the US Trade Representative has scheduled public hearings for June on the new list of products. So far, the administration has promised not to impose tariffs on rare-earth materials, pharmaceuticals, and pharmaceutical inputs.
The Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, another trade group, is worried that the tariffs will disproportionately affect the specialty chemical makers it represents, especially firms that rely on exotic molecules from abroad. “Specialty chemical supply chains are particularly dependent on China because in many cases China is the sole supplier of raw materials and building block chemicals,” the group says.
https://cen.acs.org/policy/trade/Chemical-makers-fret-over-renewed/97/i20
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Suppliers Take Hits from Both Sides of the Trade War
May 16, 2019 | Supply Chain Dive
By Emma Cosgrove
Dive Brief:
Chemical suppliers are taking hits from both sides of the U.S. trade war and mitigation tactics are running thin, according to Ed Brzytwa, the director for international trade at the American Chemistry Council. The chemicals on list four are relevant to food, beverage, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, personal care products, a multitude of industrial applications and more. Between the first three lists, chemicals represent $28 billion in tariffed imports, Brzytwa said.
Tranche three included hundreds of tariff lines related to chemicals and chemical manufacturing and few players in the space have escaped tariffs under the existing lists. But if any had avoided the duties until now, list four likely put a stop to that, Brzytwa said, noting that he and the industry are still sorting through the extensive list of $300 billion in proposed new tariffs.
Chemicals produced in the U.S. are suffering from both higher cost of materials imported from China and the shrinking Chinese export marketdue to retaliatory tariffs. The U.S. exports $7.9 billion in chemicals to China.
Dive Insight:
Because of the nature of chemical manufacturing, producers don't have as much wiggle room to tweak their processes to change how their products are classified and avoid tariffs as some other supply chains. Apparel manufacturers can, for example, produce some garments to 95% complete in China and then finish the product elsewhere to avoid tariffs.
Maneuvers like this are "a lot harder with molecules," Brzytwa said. Furthermore, some rare chemical components can only be purchased from China. Chemical companies have thus actively pursued tariff exemptions and Brzytwa said that will likely continue with regard to the fourth tranche.
"The mitigation strategies that our companies talk about aren’t related to tariff classifications," he said. "They're about trying to figure out how to absorb the cost so they don’t have to pass it to the customer."
Chemical manufacturing is a global business for global customers so the major players have facilities all around the world that can handle some shuffling. It's the smaller players without vast global networks of production facilities or diversified supplier options that will suffer, especially from China's retaliatory tariffs, according to the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates.
While Chemical producers are working to keep extra costs away from their customers, consumers are less likely to feel pain from both sides of the trade war. Linda Lim, professor of corporate strategy and international business at the University of Michigan, told Supply Chain Dive consumers are unlikely to feel this category of tariff since chemicals are ubiquitous, but often found in consumer products in very small quantities.
Industrial buyers of chemicals, however, may eventually see a price increase if mitigation strategies run out.
Agrochemicals are a particular point of concern for the industry since farmers are already suffering from low prices on commodity crops and Chinese tariffs on imported American soybeans, corn, pork and others. At least seven tariff lines on list four concern broad categories of pesticides that have previously not been subject to the tax.
Some chemical manufacturers may choose to move production out of the U.S. to escape both the import tariffs on Chinese raw materials and the Chinese tariffs on their finished products, suggesting that where the general public may feel chemical tariffs is in job losses. $204 billion in new chemical manufacturing plants are currently in development in the U.S. according to the Houston Chronicle and if the list three and four tariffs stick around, those may not look as attractive as they once did.
"Every time I talk to a member company, what I hear is we are going to have to make very difficult business decisions. We may have to let people go — may have to shut down production in the United States," said Brzytwa.
https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/chemical-suppliers-are-taking-hits-from-both-sides-of-the-trade-war-as-miti/554948/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Spotlight: U.S. Businesses Vexed by Possible Tariff Hikes Against EU
May 17, 2019 | Xinhua
U.S. companies and interest groups representing a wide range of industries have been lining up to air their grievances over the potential tariffs Washington is threatening on imports from the European Union (EU).
"It is American consumers and our heartland that has borne the brunt of America's global trade war," said Hun Quach, vice president of international trade at the Retail Industry Leaders Association.
Quach is one of the more than 40 witnesses who testified at a two-day public hearing held by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday and Thursday.
The hearing, according to the USTR, aims to solicit public comments on proposed action against "harmful subsidies on large civil aircraft" by the EU or EU members.
On April 8, the USTR said in a statement that it had begun a process "to identify products of the EU to which additional duties may be applied until the EU removes those subsidies."
A list published later includes a number of products in the civil aviation sector, such as Airbus aircraft, as well as a variety of seafood, dairy products, processed fruits, wine and garments.
In response, the European Commission has threatened to put additional tariffs on 20 billion dollars' worth of U.S. goods as countermeasures against what Brussels deems as American subsidies to Boeing.
Testifying before a committee comprising officials from multiple government departments, Quach said her association believes tariffs on American family staples, such as olive oil, salmon, biscuits and jams, are not the solution to solving the dispute with the EU.
"As we've seen over the past year, placing tariffs on imported goods ... has led to increased prices and business uncertainty," she said.
North American Olive Oil Association Executive Director Joseph Profaci said Americans "have no realistic alternative supply in place for European olive oil, which typically accounts for close to 70 percent of the world's annual production."
Noting that olive oil "is one of the healthiest foods we eat," Profaci said the potential tariffs will force Americans to either "pay increased prices for olive oils or switch to less healthy -- or even unhealthy -- but less expensive cooking fats."
In his testimony, Ed Brzytwa, director of international trade at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), said the ACC's initial analysis "indicates that the chemical industry is again in the crosshairs of another set of possible tariff actions."
"If the tariff rates go up to the maximum level allowed, which is 100 percent, this could effectively block U.S. chemical manufacturers from accessing the EU market for the products on the EU list," Brzytwa said.
"U.S. chemical manufacturers seeking to maintain access to the EU market may decide to move production and jobs out of the U.S. into the EU, the Middle East, or Asia," he added.
Robert Land, associate general counsel of JetBlue Airways Corp., said that slapping tariffs on EU products will raise costs for the airliner, and that the extra expenses will ultimately be transferred back to American consumers.
In the name of protecting domestic industries, the White House has placed steep tariffs on billions of U.S. dollars' worth of products from its major partners, including the EU, Canada, China and Japan, raising trade tensions around the world and shaking the foundation of the global trading system.
The potential flare-up of U.S.-EU trade tensions is poised to add fuel to the decade-long fight in the World Trade Organization between Brussels and Washington over subsidies to Airbus and Boeing, the world's two leading large aircraft makers.
"We did not expect to be testifying today," Nate Herman, senior vice president for supply chain at the American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA), said at the hearing.
The industry the AAFA represents "has nothing to do with" the U.S.-EU aviation dispute but was "dragged into this issue," he said. "It makes no sense, but here we are."
Speaking to Xinhua after the testimony, Herman said AAFA member companies have already been seriously affected by U.S. tariff measures against China, and are particularly concerned about Washington's threat to extend additional duties to virtually all Chinese imports, including clothing, shoes, and other textiles.
"We're trying to prepare (for the new tariffs), but as you know, it's not easy to move supply chains that have been built up, in many cases, over 15 to 20 years in China," he said.
At the hearing, Herman stressed that "imposing new tariffs on imports is the same as imposing new taxes on American businesses and American consumers."
The apparel and footwear industry and the 4 million American workers it directly employs "can't afford yet another new tax on our businesses and our consumers," he said.
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-05/17/c_138066664.htm
-
(ACC Mentioned) Comment: China, India Key to Achieving Global Sound Chemicals Management
May 17, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
Issued in 2013, the UN’s first Global Chemicals Outlook (GCO) was commissioned to inform governments and industry on trends in chemicals production, use and disposal, and offer policy advice aimed at meeting the goal – first adopted by governments at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 – to "use and produce chemicals in ways that do not lead to significant adverse effects on human health and the environment" by 2020.
In his foreword, the then UN Environment Programme (Unep) executive director Achim Steiner warned that human health and the environment were being compromised by the current arrangements for managing chemicals and hazardous wastes and that these concerns had taken on "a new level of urgency". Calling for a switch from a chemical-by-chemical approach to one that addressed all chemicals, the report said a global ‘sustainable chemicals convention’ could be the way to go. The report recommended that governments "regulate and reduce the use of chemicals of highest concern and substitute with safer alternatives". It argued that the chemical industry wasn’t faced with a binary choice between the economics associated with industrial development on the one hand, and the costs of regulation on the other, because the failure to manage chemicals safely can also impose large costs and, conversely, sound chemicals management can yield economic benefits in terms of reduced environmental and health risks.
Of course, long term economic benefits to society, such as lower healthcare or welfare costs, are not the same thing as immediate economic benefits to an industry, such as continuing the production of a hazardous chemical until the maximum return on investment for those chemical plants has been gained. And chemical companies, like those in other sectors, are under pressure to produce good returns for their investors, whether they be private companies or national governments.
But a restriction on particular chemicals is as much an opportunity for producers of alternatives as it is a threat to the producers of the restricted chemicals. And while chemical companies have taken a financial hit from the cost of REACH registrations and other regulatory requirements, they also stand to benefit from better knowledge about who their customers are and how they use their chemicals, and better data on the hazards and exposures associated with their substances.
The GCO raised the profile of chemicals management and was an invaluable reference for governments and businesses. But choosing and applying the best policy instruments to help governments, the chemical industry and its customers reduce the planet’s toxic footprint while, at the same time, sustaining strong economic growth was always going to be a marathon rather than a sprint.
So seven years after the GCO appeared, it is no surprise that the second edition says the 2020 goal will not be met and that "urgent action" is needed to reduce the health and environmental damage caused by chemicals. Furthermore, trend data suggests the predicted doubling of the chemicals market between 2017 and 2030 will increase chemical releases, exposures, concentrations and adverse health and environmental effects unless "gaps to manage chemicals worldwide are addressed".
Evidence of insufficient progress, it says, includes the fact that hazardous chemicals continue to pollute the environment in large quantities and are ubiquitous in ecosystems and people’s bodies. Citing the World Health Organization, it says 1.6 million people died because of exposure to a few selected chemicals in 2016 and a further 45 million had their life expectancy reduced.
Much pollution comes from sources other than the production and use of chemicals, such as coal, steel and cement plants and vehicle emissions. But a lot can be done regarding chemicals production and use. For example, as the GCO-II points out, some 120 countries have not implemented the UN Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of classification and labelling. And while the number of different substances in commerce grows rapidly and the proportion of chemicals production in developing and emerging economies shoots up, a big gap in chemicals management capacity, knowledge and funding remains between developed countries and the rest of the world.
Issues such as microplastics and PFAS pollution show that the developed world still cannot claim to be practising sound chemicals management. And rich countries should provide greater funding for capacity building in African, Caribbean and central Asian countries. But while such work is vital, it is bringing the new global giants up to speed fast that will make the biggest contribution to sound chemicals management at the global scale.
Here the biggest gains would be achieved if China and India improved the quality and use of safety data sheets and labels, and enforced emissions and safety standards for mines, chemical plants, downstream factories and transportation. They should also phase out production and use of the most hazardous chemicals.
China – the world’s biggest chemical producer – uses the GHS as the basis for its classification system and has key chemicals management laws. But despite the government closing down hundreds of plants that violated HSE laws, its chemical industry still suffers accidents with many fatalities and enforcement remains patchy. It is the world’s biggest producer of cadmium, lead and the highly persistent fluorochemical PFOA, and one of the few countries that still produces asbestos and mercury.
India, meanwhile, has yet to create a national chemicals inventory, adopt the GHS or introduce substance registration requirements. Seven years after it first published a draft national chemicals policy, we are still waiting for the final version.
Although the GCOs have provided valuable evidence that action is needed, it is not Unep or a voluntary chemicals programme like Saicm that will transform China or India’s record. Instead it will be engagement and assistance from business organisations and major trading countries, and pressure from consumers and the media. Hopefully similar pressures will persuade Brazil’s government to reverse its decision to scrap the proposed industrial chemicals bill.
Let’s be clear that rich countries are not absolved of responsibility here and can also reap market opportunities by developing safer chemicals and technology that can reduce exposure to toxic substances and help make more circular economies a reality.
In particular trade bodies like Cefic and the ACC should support calls for UN policy framework Saicm’s successor to have powers to set priorities and direct governments to take action to achieve them, rather than just highlighting issues and raising awareness.
The GCO-II’s "key messages" are a common sense wish list but, like those in its predecessor, no deadlines are included. Many of the recommendations are vague, if applaudable, aspirations rather than Smart objectives. Bowing to today’s geopolitical forces, it doesn’t repeat the call for a chemicals convention.
But some of its recommendations are clear and practicable and will gain traction. For example, the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) and Unep have submitted proposals to Saicm for a free access database of assessed and classified chemicals in commerce to be used by governments and businesses around the globe – something that would be invaluable to developing and emerging economy countries.
It will be a big achievement if Unep’s international conference on chemicals management next year in Bonn agrees a fleshed out definition of ‘sound chemicals management’ and adopts a framework with clear, measurable and achievable targets assigned to specific stakeholders. But if the third GCO is to report major progress the key battles will have been won elsewhere.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77678/comment-china-india-key-to-achieving-global-sound-chemicals-management
-
(ACC Mentioned) Shipments of Plastic Waste Will Need Advance Approval from Recipient Countries
May 16, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
Countries exporting contaminated or mixed types of postconsumer plastic waste will need consent from importing countries before shipping the material, under an international deal struck May 10.
The move is designed to help developing countries control imports of used plastic from industrialized nations. Developing countries have been flooded with shipments of plastic waste, which they have little infrastructure to handle, since China stopped accepting it in 2018.
“Many developing countries will, for the first time, have information about plastic wastes entering their country and be empowered to refuse plastic waste dumping,” says Sara Brosché, science adviser to the environmental coalition IPEN(International Persistent Organic Pollutants Elimination Network).
Governments meeting in Geneva adopted the new restriction under an international environmental treaty, the 1989 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal.
Environmental activists say the change will have the biggest impact on the US, which is not a party to the Basel convention but attends negotiations as an observer. The pact prohibits the 187 countries that are Basel convention parties from accepting wastes controlled under the pact from any country, regardless of whether it’s part of the treaty. But the decision “may unintentionally make it more difficult for developing countries to properly manage their plastic waste,” says the American Chemistry Council, the main lobbying group of the US chemical industry, including plastics makers. The world’s least developed countries and small island nations often export their recyclable plastics to jurisdictions with technology and infrastructure to manage these materials responsibly, the ACC says.
The US, along with Argentina, Brazil, and the plastics industry, opposed the new notification requirement.
The new restriction carves out an exclusion for certain cured resins and fluorinated polymers, IPEN says. These materials can continue to be freely traded without notification.
https://cen.acs.org/policy/trade/Shipments-plastic-waste-need-advance/97/i20
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Refuses to Join Global Effort to Curb Plastic Pollution
May 17, 2019 | Truthout
By Amy Goodman and Nermeen Shaikh
Nearly every country in the world except the United States took a historic step to curb plastic waste last week, when more than 180 nations agreed to add plastic to the Basel Convention, a treaty that regulates the movement of hazardous materials between countries. The U.S. is one of just two countries that has not ratified the 30 year-old treaty. During negotiations last week in Geneva, the Environmental Protection Agency and State Department joined the plastics industry in trying to thwart the landmark, legally-binding agreement. Despite this, the United States will still be affected by the agreement, because countries will be able to block the dumping of mixed or unrecyclable plastic wastes from other nations. The amended treaty will make it much more difficult for wealthy countries to send their plastic waste to poorer nations by prohibiting countries from exporting plastic waste that is not ready for recycling. The U.N. estimates there are 100 million tons of plastic waste in the world’s oceans. We speak with Pam Miller, co-chair of the International Pollutants Elimination Network and executive director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics.
TRANSCRIPT
NERMEEN SHAIKH: We end today’s show with the growing crisis of plastic pollution. Nearly every country in the world, but not the United States, took a historic step to curb plastic waste last week when more than 180 nations agreed to add plastic to the Basel Convention, a treaty that regulates the movement of hazardous materials between countries. The U.S. is one of just two countries that has not ratified the 30-year-old treaty. During negotiations last week in Geneva, the Environmental Protection Agency and State Department joined the plastics industry in trying to thwart the landmark legally-binding agreement. Despite this, the United States will still be affected by the agreement because countries will be able to block the dumping of mixed or unrecyclable plastic wastes from other nations. The amended treaty will make it much more difficult for wealthy countries to send their plastic waste to poorer countries by prohibiting nations from exporting plastic waste that is not ready for recycling. Only around 9% of plastic is recycled.
AMY GOODMAN: The U.N. estimates there are 100 million tons of plastic waste in the world’s oceans. For more, we go to Anchorage, Alaska, where we’re joined by Pam Miller, co-chair of the International Pollutants Elimination Network, or IPEN. It’s a global network of NGOs dedicated to a toxics-free future. Miller is also executive director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Pam. It is great to have you in from Alaska. Can you talk about what the U.S. is refusing to do and the significance of the problem?
PAM MILLER: Yes. It was appalling really to see the U.S. government behave in the way that they did at the Basel Convention last week, especially knowing that they are not a party to the Convention and yet they tried to thwart efforts to establish plastics waste under the Basel Convention because they have a vested interest. The U.S. is the world’s largest exporter of plastics, mostly to developing nations. And this has created a global crisis of waste in countries in South and Central Asia as well as South America and Africa.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Explain how this entire process works. Is it possible for these developing countries to refuse to accept this plastic waste?
PAM MILLER: Under the new amendment to the Basel Convention, which had been proposed by Norway in 2018, yes, developing countries will now have the right to refuse imports from developed countries such as the U.S. so that they will have the right to refuse dirty plastics, mixed waste, that have created such a huge problem in so many countries, particularly in Asia where we see that, as you mentioned, most of these plastics cannot truly be recycled so they are essentially dumped on the land adjacent to communities where these plastics are burned, creating a huge health hazard to many communities in these developing nations.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: It was just last year that China put a ban on foreign waste imports. Can you talk about how much plastic waste was going to China and where that waste is now going?
PAM MILLER: Yes. So China did make this landmark decision, which was really important for their country to have the right to refuse this dirty plastic waste that’s highly toxic. These plastics are not only a physical hazard in the environment, but they’re also a human health hazard because they contain many toxic additives such as phthalates and bisphenols and persistent pollutants that are endocrine-disrupting and cancer-causing chemicals. So a country such as China made the decision, because this was such a huge problem in their country, to have the right to refuse it. Unfortunately then, the U.S. began shipping it to other countries in Asia such as Indonesia, as well as India, Malaysia and others.
AMY GOODMAN: American explorer Victor Vescovo recently broke the record for the deepest dive ever when he descended nearly seven miles into the Pacific Ocean’s Mariana Trench. On the ocean floor, he saw new species of crustaceans but he also found a plastic bag and candy wrappers. This is Vescovo speaking shortly after the dive.
VICTOR VESCOVO: It wasn’t completely surprising, although it was very disappointing to see obvious human contamination of the deepest point in the ocean. Because when I first got to the bottom, it seemed very pristine, almost like a moonscape. And I did see life.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s American Explorer Victor Vescovo. If you can respond to that, Pam, and also just describe the scope of the problem. How large are these plastic islands that are floating around the world right now?
PAM MILLER: The problem of plastics in the ocean is just immense. The plastics in the Pacific Ocean are just a huge mass of hundreds of thousands of acres of plastics in a huge plastic dump in the Pacific Ocean. So it’s an immense problem. And it’s not just a physical threat in the marine environment, but as these plastics break up, certainly we’ve all seen the images of how plastics can choke sea life such as sea turtles and marine mammals and birds, but as these plastics break up, they create an even more insidious problem. They become micro-plastics, which then can be ingested by marine animals such as fish, marine mammals and others, which then pose a threat to human health because these plastics at sea not only contain toxic additives in themselves, but when they are at sea, they absorb persistent pollutants such as PCBs, flame-retardant chemicals such as PBDEs. These are highly persistent toxics and these plastics simply continue to absorb these toxic chemicals.
Then when they are ingested by marine life, these toxics are conveyed into the bodies of these animals which then create a problem for human health because we rely on fish and other marine life as a source of food. So it’s a very serious not only physical and unsightly problem to the marine environment, but it’s also a toxic problem that we really have to solve by stopping the production of plastic upstream. The production of plastic relies on fossil fuels, and ultimately, this is also a contributor to climate change. So the entire cycle of plastics production, waste disposal and use, is really a toxic hazard.
AMY GOODMAN: And circling back to the United States refusing to sign on to this global treaty, talk more about the significance of the U.S., the most powerful player in the world. Certainly a historic polluter when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. What does it mean when they don’t sign on to a treaty that would curb plastics?
PAM MILLER: The U.S. is not a very good player in the international convention arena, including the three chemical conventions that have met over the past three weeks including the Basel Convention, the Rotterdam Convention and the Stockholm Convention. The U.S. is party to none of those treaties. However, the U.S. Department of State and EPAshow up and in the case of the Basel Convention, played a very negative role in trying to persuade a small handful of countries to go against the will of the majority of the countries who really wanted to include plastics in the Basel Convention.
So the U.S. played an extremely negative role. Their position that they vocalized in the plenary sessions and also in the contact groups that met to hash out the amendments really mirrored the positions of the plastics and the chemical industry. The American Chemistry Council was there representing the major petrochemical manufacturers. There were plastic waste trade companies and associations. The U.S. position was essentially the same. So it was really not only disappointing but appalling as an American citizen in an international arena such as this to see the U.S. behaving so badly.
AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you so much for being with us, Pam Miller, co-chair of the International Pollutants Elimination Network, known as IPEN. Executive director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics. Speaking to us from Anchorage, Alaska.
https://truthout.org/video/us-refuses-to-join-global-effort-to-curb-plastic-pollution/
-
(ACC Mentioned) California Weighs How to Lighten Its Plastic Problem
May 16, 2019 | KQED
By Monica Lam
A pair of ambitious bills currently making their way through the state legislature aim to stem the flood of plastic in stores, landfills and increasingly in the environment by placing aggressive new regulations on how plastics are manufactured and recycled in California.
Senate Bill 54 and its companion Assembly Bill 1080 would require that manufacturers and retailers slash the amount of waste generated by single-use packaging and products by 75% over the next decade — and to do it by making their products recyclable or compostable, or to simply not make them in the first place.
The bills target items that are typically used only once before being thrown away, like plastic forks, takeout food containers, or the packaging for everyday items like toothbrushes or toys. A lot of it can’t be recycled because of the type of plastic it’s made from or because it contains mixed materials.
State Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, who co-authored AB 1080, tweeted Thursday, “Plastic #pollution is a global crisis and #CAMustLead the nation in fighting against it,” after her bill passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee. SB 54 passed the Appropriations Committee on the Senate side, also on Thursday.
An estimated 2.37 million tons of plastic material ended up in California landfills in 2017, according to the state agency CalRecycle. And the list of plastics in the dump is long and varied — cups and lids, trays for cookies or raw meat, bags for potato chips or bread, pouches for baby food or refillable soap, just to name a few.
“Our mission is to send almost nothing to landfill,” said Eric Potashner, Vice President of San Francisco’s waste management company, Recology, which is backing the legislation and gave input on its drafting.
After achieving a 75% reduction in single-use plastic waste by 2030, the legislation would ramp up the goal even further: after 2030, all these types of products would need to be recyclable or compostable.
The goals set forth in the bills are aggressive, and they would place more responsibility on the plastics industry to help account for the total lifecycle of their products. A separate bill written by state Assemblyman Phil Ting would require that beverage bottle manufacturers buy back recycled plastic and use them in new bottles.
But being recyclable and actually getting recycled aren’t the same thing, so the bills have a provision for that, too: Manufacturers would need to show that their goods are getting recycled at a rate that starts at 20% in 2022 and gradually increases to 75% in 2030.
Those are also ambitious goals. Californians have embraced the recycling of beverage containers, thanks to the state’s CRV program, which offers cash incentives to return bottles and cans. An encouraging 88% of aluminum cans and around 70% of #1 and #2 plastic bottles (overall what most water and soda comes packaged in) are being recycled, according to the state’s most recent report. But the rates plummet for all other types of plastic: only 8% of #5 plastic, commonly used in yogurt containers, for example, makes its way back to recyclers.
Then there’s the question of whether there’s even a market for many types of recycled plastics. For anything besides #1 and #2 plastics, the answer is “not really,” according to Martin Bourke of Berkeley’s Ecology Center, which started the nation’s first curbside recycling program.
“For years, it was — collect all plastics in a really big blue bin and hope that somewhere in the land of rainbows and unicorns it’s all being sorted,” Bourke said. “The reality is much grittier.”
Representatives of the plastics industry agree there are challenges in getting more plastics recycled.
“One of the reasons why the recycling rate [of plastic] is lower is because there's not an end market to actually send a lot of the materials to,” said Shannon Crawford, Director of State Government Affairs for the Plastics Industry Association, which has registered its opposition to both bills. “There needs to be an increased investment in infrastructure in the state and increased investment in market development.”
While the bill could encourage the development of a more robust market for recycled plastic, the details of implementing the bill would fall to CalRecycle, officially known as the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.
That lack of clarity is one reason why the American Chemistry Council is opposed to the bill.
“We are not objecting to what they're trying to do in terms of getting more material out of landfill and into recycling and composting streams,” said Tim Shestek, senior director of state affairs for the Council. “We're opposed to the bill just because of so many open-ended, unanswered questions that are out there right now.”
Shestek pointed at a number of plastic products that would be hard to replace, including medical equipment, diapers, feminine hygiene products, and even ball point pens. He said that food safety was also a concern, if the right type of plastic can’t be used to package certain foods.
The American Chemistry Council hopes to work with legislators to refine the bill. “We're hoping to sit down between now and the end of the year to try to work something out that makes sense for recycling, for composting, for the environment, for manufacturers,” Shestek said.
Still, the time may be right in the court of public opinion. Support for reducing plastic waste is building, fueled by stark images of whales with bellies filled with plastic and mountains of plastic trash polluting poor communities in Asia.
Some enterprising companies are trying to cash in on the trend towards more sustainable packaging — a new startup called Loop plans to offer name brand products in specially designed refillable packaging. Häagen-Dazs, Pantene and Clorox are among the companies that have signed up to partner with Loop, which is offering to let you reserve a spot “in line” before the company has even launched.
In Europe, you can try water pouches made out of seaweed and soon bring empty bottles back to the Body Shop in exchange for store coupons. And in San Francisco, entertainment venues like The Midway and The Fillmore are offering concertgoersalternatives to plastic-bottled water.
The language of SB 54 and AB 1080 are essentially the same and were written in tandem to ease their parallel passage through both houses of the state Legislature. The bills now head to the Senate and Assembly floors for consideration.
https://www.kqed.org/news/11747798/california-weighs-how-to-lighten-its-plastic-problem
-
Former Administrators to Testify
May 17, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
Four former EPA administrators will head to the House next month to discuss the future of the agency.
The former heads of EPA from Republican and Democratic administrations will testify before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
Lee Thomas, William Reilly, Christine Todd Whitman and Gina McCarthy have been named as witnesses for the June 11 hearing, announced yesterday.
Reps. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the full committee chairman, and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), the subcommittee chairwoman, said in a joint statement that "there has never been a more important time to affirm the bipartisan mission of the Agency."
They continued, "The Committee will examine the management and policy challenges facing the Agency today, the essential role of rigorous consensus science, and the need for an EPA that is robust and credible."
All four former administrators have been critical of the Trump EPA, which has faced hundreds of staff departures and rollbacks of several environmental regulations under the current administration.
Thomas, who served as EPA chief under President Reagan, signed onto a May 2017 Washington Post op-ed that blasted proposed budget cuts for the agency's science and technology spending in the face of climate change. Reilly, President George H.W. Bush's head of EPA, also signed onto the op-ed.
Whitman, who was President George W. Bush's first EPA administrator, criticized Scott Pruitt when he led the agency, saying he was responsible for "policy dismantling" that was threatening the environment and endangering public health.
McCarthy, President Obama's EPA chief during his second term, has been a vocal critic of the agency under the current administration. Both she and Reilly chided EPA's recent moves last month during a congressional hearing (E&E News PM, April 23).
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/05/17/stories/1060346679
-
Investigators Urge E.P.A. to Pursue Scott Pruitt for $124,000 in ‘Excessive’ Travel Costs
May 17, 2019 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
Federal investigators concluded in a report Thursday that Scott Pruitt had spent nearly $124,000 on “excessive” travel arrangements as head of the Environmental Protection Agency and recommended that the agency try to recover the money.
The report, issued by the E.P.A.’s inspector general, brings to a close a nearly two-year investigation into Mr. Pruitt’s travel. It found that 40 trips or planned trips that were later canceled during 10 months starting in March 2017, the time frame of the investigation, had cost taxpayers a total of more than $985,000.
About 82 percent of that was for first-class and business-class airfare, and 16 of the trips involved stops in Tulsa, Okla., where Mr. Pruitt owned a home. The expenses also included a $629-per-night hotel room in Italy. Many of the trips were approved by agency officials retroactively after Mr. Pruitt’s travel.
Of the total cost, inspectors concluded that $123,942 had been spent “without sufficient justification and, initially, without appropriate approval authority.”
The investigation was one of more than a dozen into the former administrator’s conduct at the agency before he resigned in July amid ethics questions about his round-the-clock security and the pay raises given to select aides. He was also under scrutiny for renting a condominium at $50 a night from the wife of a lobbyist with business before the agency.
In a statement, the E.P.A. said it would not seek to recover any travel costs. It described the expenses in question as “valid” and properly justified, and added that the agency had since adopted new rules for approving travel.
“E.P.A. believes that the trips were authorized by an appropriate official, making cost recovery inappropriate,” an agency spokesman wrote. The inspector general’s office cannot compel the agency to pursue Mr. Pruitt to recover the funds.
Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer for Mr. Pruitt, said in a separate statement that the former administrator had at all times “followed the procedures and processes dictated by the E.P.A. travel office as well as the E.P.A. general counsel’s office.” She called the decision not to recover costs appropriate.
When Mr. Pruitt was in office, his aides said the first-class travel was a necessary security measure. But the investigation found that the documents that granted Mr. Pruitt permission to travel first class had not been properly approved and were “without appropriate justification to support E.P.A.’s allegation that the former administrator’s life was endangered when flying coach class,” said John Trefry, associate director for forensic audits at the E.P.A. inspector general’s office.Editors’ PicksVanity Is Not a Deadly Sin. It’s One of Life’s Last Vital Signs.Peggy Lipton, ‘Mod Squad’ and ‘Twin Peaks’ Actress, Dies at 72The Last Five Glamour Shots Locations in the United States
On Thursday, Senator Tom Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, which oversees the E.P.A., and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, called on the agency to overturn the retroactive approvals of Mr. Pruitt’s travel and recover the costs.
“Resigning in disgrace shouldn’t let you off the hook for unprecedented unethical behavior,” the senators said in a joint statement.
The report cleared Mr. Pruitt and the E.P.A. in a related matter, the use of chartered and military flights. Investigators said travel costs of $101,761 for three military and two charter flights had been “justified and approved in accordance with regulations.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/climate/scott-pruitt-epa-travel-expenses.html
-
Judges Hint At NGOs' Standing To Target Key TSCA Rule On Legacy Issues
May 16, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Appellate judges appear to agree with EPA lawyers that environmentalists generally lack standing to challenge the agency's framework rule for evaluating risks of existing chemicals under the revised toxics law, but they left the door open to sue over officials' decision to preclude legacy uses from the scope of any evaluation.
During May 16 oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, a three-judge panel peppered Sarah Tallman, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, about petitioners' standing to sue over EPA's rule governing the scope of risk evaluations under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
But Judge Michelle Friedland later suggested that environmentalists' arguments over EPA's discretion to ignore legacy uses of chemicals in its TSCA risk evaluations may be a unique claim, appearing to suggest that it could advance -- though she remained concerned about adjudicating over “vague” EPA rules.
“I do wonder whether the legacy issue is a little different. Some of these rules seem to be a little vague,” Friedland said. “It seems the legacy one is a little different. We may learn more in the application. But if they just stop, we may never learn more about legacy” uses.
The suit, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families et al. v. U.S. EPA et al., is litigation consolidated in the 9th Circuit that challenges the Trump EPA's framework rules for evaluating risks of existing chemicals under TSCA and for prioritizing existing chemicals for future assessment and possible regulation.
As such, the litigation could determine how EPA implements the revised law, which provided significant new authority to the agency to address the tens of thousands of chemicals that were in commerce when the law was first enacted in 1976 but which were largely grandfathered from regulatory requirements.
Of the two rules at issue, the evaluation rule has been most controversial after EPA decided to generally limit the scope of its evaluations to preclude legacy uses, as well as uses regulated by other EPA programs and other agencies, from the scope of most evaluations.
The issue is critical to the new law's implementation as it could determine what uses the agency will regulate if it finds that existing chemicals pose “unreasonable risk.”
Environmentalists, labor groups and other petitioners argued the agency's approach was unlawful, citing statutory text they say requires the agency to consider all uses.
But in briefs to the court, EPA pushed back on the merits, arguing it has discretion to exclude certain conditions of use. The agency also made a series of procedural arguments, including that environmentalists lacked standing to sue, a point the judges had signaled prior to the arguments they wanted to discuss.
Samara Spence, the Justice Department attorney representing EPA, acknowledged under Friedland's questioning that petitioners' claim over the legacy issue is “a close case on ripeness, but as you mentioned, a little different” from their other claims.
Spence argued that EPA is assessing ongoing uses of chemicals that are currently on the market “because that's were we get the most bang for our buck for the initial rules. … I could see them going back after addressing all the low hanging fruit.”
But Friedland questioned how the judges could tell that, asking whether, given the thousands of existing chemicals “will we ever get past the first round” of risk evaluations?
“The numbers are staggering,” Spence agreed. “The way EPA sees it, it's the best it can do. This was a big regulatory gap before” the TSCA reform law was enacted.
'Squares With' TSCA
Judge William Pauley III, a district court judge from the Southern District of New York who is sitting by designation, also questioned Spence over EPA's general exclusion of legacy uses in the risk evaluation rule, and how the decision “square[s] with language in the statute?”
Spence argued that the statute gives EPA discretion, and she pointed to language in TSCA section 6 regarding evaluating known or reasonably foreseen uses of chemicals. “That involves some line drawing. It has to,” Spence argued, adding the statute “doesn't say 'known to have been.' It says 'known to be.' EPA thinks that's forward looking, things in the future.”
Spence argued that EPA's implementation of TSCA is “a triage program. There's 80,000 chemicals and they are supposed to get to the worst ones. … The strongest tool EPA has is a ban. You can't ban something that has already been taken off the market. … EPA looked at this and said, 'Where can I do the most good?'”
Friedland and Senior Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain also questioned Tallman over how EPA could address legacy uses with TSCA, and why they are concerned about the uses being removed from risk evaluation.
Tallman replied that petitioners are concerned that ignoring legacy uses in a risk evaluation ignores ongoing exposures that could contribute to overall risk from all of the chemical's uses and that EPA won't address legacy uses. Both Friedland and O'Scannlain expressed confusion over how EPA could use TSCA to address, for example, firefighters exposed to asbestos while fighting a building fire.
But Tallman replied that EPA has “lots of tools” such as requiring notices, use of protective equipment or air monitoring. She added that if at the risk management stage EPA determines another agency could better address a risk, “at that stage, they can talk to other agencies, talk to OSHA. It's not a legitimate reason for excluding them at this stage.”
The battle over environmentalists' standing to challenge the TSCA rule stems from the court's May 6 order requiring the parties to “be prepared to discuss, for each issue raised in the Petition for Review, whether this court has jurisdiction to reach the merits.”
The judges questioned Tallman repeatedly over various aspects of the standing issue, suggesting the petitioners' arguments would be better made after EPA has issued final risk evaluations. Friedland also asked Tallman what the judges should do “when we read these rules and we can't really tell what they mean?”
She noted that EPA's preamble to its rule states that it “may” preclude legacy uses, adding, “until they do, we don't know if your clients are injured. … I don't understand how we review this.”
Tallman replied that petitioners “would be happy to submit supplemental briefing” and acknowledged that they could challenge the final evaluations. She argued that fact does not mean the case does not have standing now, and delaying their case would result in “undue harm to petitioners” from continuing exposures.
The agency is working against a December 2019 statutory deadline to complete its first 10 risk evaluations as required by TSCA as revised by Congress in 2016. EPA could trigger a six-month extension, but toxics chief Alexandra Dunn has pledged that EPA will complete the first 10 evaluations on time, even as the agency has released just one draft for public comment and has yet to hold peer review on any of the draft assessments.
Tallman also argued that “Congress wanted immediate review of these rules,” pointing to language in TSCA section 19(a)(1)(A), which states, “not later than 60 days after the date on which a rule is promulgated … any person may file a petition for judicial review” in an appellate court.
Tallman also argued that the petitioners' suit meets the test for standing laid out in the 2016 Supreme Court case Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins because EPA's implementing framework rule on how it will perform risk evaluations of exiting chemicals “violates statutory requirements to protect public health and” the petitioners have “submitted unrebutted evidence showing” harm. The “injuries are concrete and not conjectural,” Tallman argued. “EPA is already evaluating chemicals that cause our members harm. EPA is using the unlawful procedures” to do so.
The court last December granted EPA's request to vacate and remand a provision in the rule for evaluating risks of existing chemicals that would allow industry submitters to face criminal penalties for providing incorrect information. But the court also rejected EPA's requests to remand two other provisions addressing the scope and quality of data industry must submit, and instead agreed with environmentalists and labor unions that remand would deny their right to judicial review and referred the provisions to a merits panel.
Spence told the judges that EPA “still request[s] remand” on those two provisions, while on the petitioners' remaining claims, she said, “we think those are really a challenge to a hypothetical scenario. … The injury is very difficult to tie to coming from these rules.”
Industry intervenors, represented by Peter Keisler, argued that petitioners cannot “establish standing for any [of their] conditions of use arguments,” arguing that the challenges would be better brought against final agency decisions.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/judges-hint-ngos-standing-target-key-tsca-rule-legacy-issues
-
Judges Hint Lawsuit over TSCA Rules Is Premature
May 16, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Alex Guillén
A panel of federal judges today expressed skepticism that a coalition of public health and environmental groups can challenge EPA’s “framework” rules implementing updates to the Toxic Substances Control Act — at least until the agency takes action later this year.
The challengers argued that EPA had wrongly given itself the discretion to avoid evaluating and possibly banning or regulating certain uses of potentially hazardous substances. That includes “legacy” products that are no longer on the market but are still present in many homes and offices, such as asbestos insulation.
But all three judges on a panel for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals indicated they thought the lawsuits were too early.
“It seems like maybe we need to wait to see [if they are] actually ignoring all these things, and then deal with it then,” said Judge Michelle Friedland, an Obama appointee.
The judges suggested the groups may have to wait until EPA finishes evaluating specific chemicals — like it plans to do by the end of the year for asbestos and nine others — before challenging EPA.
“Why wouldn’t it be more appropriate, though, to challenge EPA’s exercise of its discretion as applied to an individual risk evaluation?” asked Judge William Pauley III, a Clinton appointee on the U.S. District Court for Southern New York sitting on the 9th Circuit panel as a visiting judge.
The challengers’ attorney, Sarah Tallman, replied that waiting for each EPA evaluation would cause “significant undue hardship … by delaying for years potential health protections.”
She also argued that the law does not give EPA the discretion to exclude “legacy” uses, although that immediately drew questions from the judges.
“If I may suggest, you seem to be racing by ‘reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed or distributed in commerce,'” said Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, a Reagan appointee, citing the law. Products like asbestos insulation may remain inside people's walls but are no longer being manufactured or distributed.
TSCA gives EPA the authority to study and regulate such "in situ" uses, Tallman replied. She noted that EPA has already used TSCA to impose requirements for the removal of asbestos insulation, such as mandating that workers wear protective gear.
Justice Department attorney Samara Spence rebutted that claim, arguing that while EPA can set the rules on how a substance such as asbestos must be cleaned up, the law does not give EPA the ability to force anyone to remove it in the first place.
“EPA cannot send the EPA police out to your house and make you remove a couch that has an offending flame retardant. That’s just not something EPA can do under these rules,” she said.
Spence faced less aggressive scrutiny than Tallman, though the judges did pose questions about EPA’s interpretations of the law. Pauley, for example, questioned whether EPA's exclusions mean the agency really is studying all "conditions of use," as the law requires.
The law is forward-looking at current or future uses, Spence replied, not uses that are "known to have been." EPA generally limiting itself to studying chemicals as they are used in commerce is part of a “triage process” to help the agency get the “most bang for its buck.”
The term "use" can be stretched, but not so far as to apply to asbestos installation that was installed long ago, she added.
EPA says it is on track to finish the first 10 chemical evaluations, including asbestos, under the updated TSCA law this year.
EPA so far has released just one draft evaluation, for a dye called Pigment Violet 29. The agency said it presents no “unreasonable risk” to human health or the environment, but environmentalists and congressional Democrats have criticized that conclusion and said it ignores toxicity concerns.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/05/judges-hint-lawsuit-over-tsca-rules-is-premature-1450819
-
Comment: Chemical Industry R&I Mustn’t Neglect Detoxification
May 17, 2019 | Chemical Watch
Chemical firms are the natural leaders of efforts to reduce the use of hazardous chemicals in materials: some, like Clariant, BASF and Dow are already ahead of the crowd, but it’s time more followed.
The chemical industry is a vital player in the global economy. Sitting between basic material and feedstock production and the manufacture of materials and formulations, chemistry is the science that makes possible all the products needed by industry and consumers.
To meet the rapidly changing needs of its customers and of society as a whole, chemical firms’ R&I programmes are increasingly becoming aligned with sustainable development themes, from more recyclable plastics to bio-based feedstocks and materials that replace fossil fuels, from process efficiency to the recycling of emissions and wastewater.
But you need to look hard to discover what chemical producers are doing to design, select and deselect less toxic molecules or find new markets for existing substances of low toxicity.
Sooner or later, this will change. A strategy being prepared by the European Commission for achieving a ‘non-toxic environment’ - a Europe where exposure to toxic substances was minimised and non-toxic material cycles had become the norm - says there a big gaps in our knowledge about nanomaterials, endocrine disruptors, which substances are present in which articles, and the combination effects of chemicals. Meanwhile, new studies every week reveal more about how plastic fragments, dust and air emissions are depositing a host of chemicals in environmental media and in our bodies.
Some chemical company strategists believe that detoxification will be no less disruptive to their business models in the coming years than decarbonisation, dematerialisation or digitalisation. The NGO ChemSec says the problems caused by hazardous chemicals are of the same magnitude as those caused by climate change. Leading downstream sustainability thinkers such as Lego have included detoxification in their quest for sustainable materials. And companies like diagnostics provider Hoffmann-La Roche have publicly set deadlines for removing all SVHCs from their products.
Given these trends, detoxification should be a key plank of the mid-century strategy Cefic is preparing to put before EU policy makers in the coming months. Cefic’s broad consultation of experts on the societal challenges the industry faces found strong agreement that safety and environmental issues will be of even greater concern 30 years from now than they are today.
Today green chemistry programmes usually centre on resource efficiency or creating bio-based chemicals and polymers rather than finding molecules or alternative technologies that are ‘benign by design’. And while many leading chemical firms require their R&I centres to deliver ‘sustainable products’ it is is rarely possible to judge the role toxicity considerations play in their methodologies.
Many highly toxic substances are used to make products that provide benefits to society, and often the risks associated with these substances are - in some countries at least - adequately controlled. Some argue that risk management is so effective that, apart from some well established cases such as asbestos or lead, there is no need to find less toxic alternatives. But the REACH dossiers show that there are big gaps in what we know about the properties and uses of many substances. Our knowledge of exposure is also limited for many substances.
The industry best placed to reduce the toxicity footprint of the world’s chemical production is the chemical industry - and the business case for doing so is now emerging into the light. Business and consumer demand for this is growing, and there are surely lucrative opportunities on offer. Conversely, there are looming pitfalls for those who are not proactive.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77682/comment-chemical-industry-ri-mustnt-neglect-detoxification
-
EPA, Environmentalists’ Attorneys Joust Over Chemical Regulation (1)
May 17, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
The question of whether the EPA is adequately overseeing chemicals to protect health and the environment was overshadowed in arguments before an appeals court May 16 by whether the case was ready to come before the three-judge panel.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Seattle heard a challenge by a coalition of organized labor and environmental groups who say the Environmental Protection Agency is “slicing and dicing” by considering only certain uses of a chemical, which could ignore crucial risks to health and the environment.
But within hours, the court had given the petitioners less than three weeks to explain in writing why they should even be allowed to bring a legal case against EPA.
“Petitioners shall file, on or before June 3, a supplemental brief addressing the Article III justiciability of each issue raised in the Petition for Review,” the three judge panel wrote. “EPA shall file a response no later than 14 days after the filing of Petitioners’ brief. “
Industry trade groups who intervened in the case have argued that If the judges invalidate the EPA’s regulatory approach to how chemicals are made, their members might not be able to use chemicals pivotal to their businesses.
During arguments, attorney Sarah Tallman of the Natural Resources Defense Council had barely gotten out a few words before Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain asked the petitioners’ attorney if her clients had standing to be before the court.
Tallman replied that they did, saying the EPA rules violate the statutory requirements laid out by the Toxic Substances Control Act. And she pointed to evidence that asbestos exposures sustained by members of the United Steelworkers also confer standing.
“We have shown that the rules represent a material risk of harm,” she said.
‘Maybe We Wait and See’But Judge Michelle T. Friedland questioned whether the case was ripe to be heard.
“What they’re saying is that we may do this,” Friedland said, in reference to the EPA’s asserted power to ignore some uses of chemicals and attend to others. “We don’t know whether they will. How do we know your clients are injured?”
When Tallman began to respond with reference to evidence of injury, Friedland cut her off, saying: “But we don’t have that on our record.”
Friedland added: “Maybe we wait and see, are they actually ignoring all these things?”
Tallman responded: “It is clear they have started exercising this authority” to evaluate risks by partitioning off some uses and considering others. “There is no question, they are doing this for every risk evaluation and priority decision.”
An example of such partitioning of uses is the chemical 1,4-dioxane, a byproduct found in common items like paints, household cleaners, and textile dyes, that according to petitioner’s opening brief will not be evaluated for risk by EPA.
The agency’s exclusion of such uses on the rationale of acting on substances with “the greatest potential for risk” doesn’t square with the TSCA statutory mandates, Tallman said.
The EPA is “going to ignore these conditions of use,” said Tallman. “And the legal question of whether they have the authority to do it is squarely before this court.”
“You may be absolutely right that they are ignoring things,” Friedland said. But briefing supporting that contention isn’t before the court, she said.
‘The Numbers are Staggering’Attorney Samara M. Spence of the Department of Justice rose in defense of the EPA, saying petitioners were raising “a challenge to a hypothetical scenario” that may or may not to come to pass in some future ruling about a specific chemical.
With tens of thousands of chemicals awaiting evaluation, Friedland asked Spence: “Are we ever going to get past the first round of this process?”
“Yes, I believe we will get past this first round,” Spence said. “The numbers are kind of staggering.”
Spence said the EPA administrator has flexibility under the statute to deal with the huge number of chemicals with what amounts to a regulatory “triage program.” EPA is focusing its attention on where chemicals are entering the market, the point at which the largest regulatory gap exists, she said.
Friedland—seeking clarity as to whether the EPA is regulating in the manner portrayed by petitioners—asked Spence for her view as to what is on the record before the court.
Spence responded: “What we don’t have on this record or anything tied to this rule is, would there be any injury” giving petitioners standing.
The case is Safer Chemicals Healthy Families v. EPA, 9th Cir., No. 17-72260, oral argument 5/16/19.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-environmentalists-attorneys-joust-over-chemical-regulation
-
Vermont Imposes Tough PFAS Limits in Drinking Water (1)
May 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel
Vermont will require testing for fluorinated chemicals in drinking water using the toughest limits in the nation under a bill signed by Gov. Phil Scott (R).
Vermont enforces the strictest limits in the nation on the compounds, called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), of 20 parts per trillion combined for any of five common types, if detected at contaminated sites.
Since July 2018 the state Department of Health has applied the same limit on the five PFAS combined, if found randomly in drinking water. But no regular testing of water systems has been required.
That’s changing under the bill (S. 49) signed by Scott on May 16. Starting Dec. 1, all public and private municipal water supplies and wells must test regularly for the five common PFAS: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS).
If detected above 20 parts per trillion combined, the water system must provide clean water and issue a “do not drink” advisory, according to the bill.
Test for Many PFASThere are thousands of types of PFAS, and some are considered more dangerous than others.
The Agency of Natural Resources is directed by Aug. 1, 2020, to determine whether Vermont should begin regulating many more types of PFAS, possibly by grouping them into classes.
Lawmakers wrote in the bill that the steps are necessary in order to “reduce the potential harmful effects of PFAS on human health and the environment.”
Found NationwideThe PFAS chemicals, linked to thyroid malfunction and cancer, are widely used in nonstick and stain-resistant coatings in consumer and industrial products, in addition to firefighting foam.
PFAS have been detected nationwide in drinking supplies and groundwater. In southern Vermont, 470 private wells at homes and businesses were found in 2016 to have significant levels of PFAS. The chemicals were linked to a former chemical plant now owned by St. Gobain Performance Plastics.
States are scrambling to address the chemicals in the face of ongoing debate in Washington about how best to regulate them. Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency have said the agency plans to list two of the common types, PFOA and PFOS, as hazardous substances by the end of 2019.
SludgeThe Agency of Natural Resources will begin a broad testing program for PFAS throughout the state, including testing municipal sludge, to determine if the state needs to restrict its use to protect public health. The sludge has been used as fertilizer on farms for years and is the suspected source for high PFAS detected in cows’ milk at an Arundel, Maine, dairy farm.
Vermont announced a final settlement with St. Gobain in April to extend public water connections to 470 homes and businesses in Bennington, Vt.
Saint-Gobain has worked cooperatively with state and local officials, Lia LoBello, spokeswoman for Saint-Gobain, said.
Conservation Law Foundation, an environmental group that had petitioned Vermont and every New England state to prohibit any detectable amount of any PFAS in drinking water, was pleased by Vermont’s new requirements.
“Until the federal government wakes up and takes these toxic chemicals off the market, it’s up to states to protect us,” Jen Duggan, vice president and director of the foundation in Vermont, said. “This law is a huge first step in ensuring Vermonters have safe, clean drinking water.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/vermont-imposes-tough-pfas-limits-in-drinking-water
-
House Seeks To Boost PFAS Funds But Policy Push Unlikely To Slow
May 16, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
House lawmakers are stepping up efforts to provide funds to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) -- including a massive proposed $2.5 billion grant program to aid drinking water systems -- funds that seek to address contamination concerns in the short term though sources say they are unlikely to deter lawmakers from advancing policy measures, sources say.
Such a spending provision is “a stop-gap measure” to make sure that drinking water that is currently contaminated is addressed, says Betsy Southerland, a former EPA Superfund and water office official now with the Environmental Protection Network (EPN), a group of more than 400 former agency officials who advocate for EPA's environmental protection mission.
But she says that regardless of the amount of funding that lawmakers provide to clean up drinking water, pollution prevention and other regulatory measures are still needed.
And, she says, broader policy measures are still needed to address sources of exposure other than drinking water.
In a sign that policymakers plan to continue examining policy plans, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee announced May 16 that it is slated to hold a legislative hearing May 22 on several PFAS bills, including a bipartisan bill introduced May 15 by Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) that would require EPA to set a drinking water standard for PFAS.
The bill is similar to a House version, but differs on specifically calling for a maximum contaminant level for PFAS.
Even as lawmakers weigh various policy responses to PFAS, they are also seeking to bolster funding for the issue. Most recently, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and dozens of other Democrats May 15 introduced a sweeping infrastructure bill that seeks to authorize a $2.5 billion grant program spread over five years to remove PFAS from drinking water, according to a bill summary.
It also directs EPA to develop a list of eligible treatment technologies, “defined as those which can remove all detectable amounts of PFAS from drinking water,” the summary says.
In addition, House appropriators are slated to mark up EPA spending legislation for fiscal year 2020 that includes $18 million in “additional funding” for scientific and regulatory work on the issue, more than doubling current levels for such activities.
Such funds underscore Democratic efforts to quickly address growing concerns about contamination from the chemicals in the face of slow action from EPA.
In addition to the funding measures, on the same day that the infrastructure bill was introduced, a House Energy & Commerce Committee panel reviewed 13 bills aimed at addressing PFAS -- many of which would force EPA's hand on policy issues.
Among other things, the bills include measures to require EPA to craft drinking water rules, amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to bar the introduction of any new PFAS into commerce, and, under TSCA, bar in coming years the processing of existing PFAS. They also require EPA to regulate PFAS as a “hazardous air pollutant” under the Clean Air Act, require EPA to designate all PFAS as “hazardous substances” under the Superfund law, instruct EPA to create labeling for cookware free of PFAS, require Toxic Release Inventory reporting of PFAS and ban PFAS incineration, among other provisions.
Policy Concerns
Many of the bills set speedy deadlines for EPA to act and, despite mostly bipartisan support, some of the measures drew criticisms from some Republicans for short-circuiting existing EPA review processes.
“I think we ought to be real careful [of using legislative fiat to ban] things which we may or may not know are harmful,” said Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), the subcommittee's ranking Republican.
But Southerland said that lawmakers should continue to craft policy measures because EPA's existing processes usually take a long time. For example, she noted that the TSCA process would be very slow in addressing the individual chemicals that make up the PFAS class, and alluded to PFAS being different from other chemicals.
She pointed to testimony given by toxicoloy professor Jamie DeWitt of East Carolina University who told the panel that PFAS are likely to do more harm than other chemicals because they degrade slowly and bioaccumulate in the body in ways that make them more bioavailable than other chemicals, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
She said this is why PFAS need to be dealt with as a class -- an issue that is sparking disparate views among various stakeholders.
Southerland does not think, though, that funding measures such as that in the infrastructure bill for treatment of PFAS, will lower incentives for moving ahead on policy bills because there are other sources of exposure besides drinking water occurring -- prompting the need to apply a TSCA approach to addressing these. Further, it is “always cheaper” to address pollution at the source, rather than at the tap, she noted. Therefore, grants for water treatment would be an interim measure to ensure that drinking water is safe, but should not preclude other bills aimed at pollution prevention.
While the policy measures face hurdles, Pallone's plan for a new drinking water grant program is also drawing criticism.
Tracy Mehan, a former EPA water chief who is executive director for government affairs at American Water Works Association, in an interview cautioned against such a grant program specified for PFAS, noting he would support such funding going to EPA's state revolving fund, or SRF, where states would be free to choose whether to apply the money toward PFAS treatment or other pressing needs.
Given how little is known about the toxicity and causal relationship between PFAS and health effects, “to distort investment priorities” in such a way may create risk, he warned. He noted other pressing needs besides PFAS, such as for basic infrastructure.
Another former EPA water official says funding legislation would not “be dispositive” of EPA's decision on whether it will regulate PFAS or not. “There are still many legacy sources of PFAS contamination that will contribute to drinking water impacts for many years,” the source says. And the source does not believe Republicans will be interested in backing more EPA spending.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/house-seeks-boost-pfas-funds-policy-push-unlikely-slow
-
Water Group Goes to Court Over Pennsylvania Fluorochemicals (1)
May 17, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Herzfeld
An environmental group went to court in a bid to compel Pennsylvania to set a maximum contaminant level for drinking water pollution from fluorinated chemicals.
The May 16 filing by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network sought a court order to get the state Department of Environmental Protection to act on the water quality group’s May 2017 petition for a standard limiting amounts of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and other fluorinated chemicals permitted in drinking water.
The action, submitted in state Commonwealth Court, seeks to add Pennsylvania to New Jersey, Massachusetts, and other states acting to set drinking water limits on PFOA and other per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the absence of enforceable limits from the Environmental Protection Agency.
The chemicals, linked to cancer and other serious health conditions, are no longer manufactured in the U.S. but have been used widely in industrial processes and consumer products, such as carpeting, apparels, upholstery, food paper wrappings, firefighting foams, and nonstick cookware.
The Pennsylvania DEP failed to take legally required actions to respond to the Riverkeeper group’s petition to the state Environmental Quality Board to establish a PFOA maximum between 1 part per trillion and 6 parts per trillion, according to the court filing. The board voted unanimously to accept the maximum amount.
The agency committed to issuing a report on the proposal by last June, but hasn’t produced it or said when it would come out, the Riverkeeper group said.
‘Foot Dragging’ or Not?“DEP has engaged in indefensible foot dragging, just like the federal government, when it comes to protecting our communities from the dangers of PFOA in their drinking water and environment,” Maya van Rossum, the leader of the Delaware Riverkeeper network, said in a statement. The delay in responding, she said, “violates people’s environmental rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution, including the right to pure water, and violates the clear letter of state law.”
The DEP, in a statement, said it’s “utterly false” to say that state has been dragging its feet. Gov. Tom Wolf (D) established a PFAS task force last September to address drinking water contamination found across the state.
The agency said that it’s “absolutely committed” to setting a state limit as a top priority of the Wolf Administration. “DEP has been transparent and timely in its updates on addressing PFAS through the Wolf Administration’s PFAS Action Team, online, in discussions with the public, in the recently announced sampling plan, and more,” according to the statement. The agency also said it’s “pursuing cleanup standards and ways to take the chemical out of commerce.”
Setting an appropriate and defensible standard “is not a simple task,” the agency said, adding that it is “moving forward as quickly as possible while adhering to the legal requirements of the rulemaking process, as well as the best available science on PFAS health risks.”
The agency said it “understands and shares the concerns and frustrations of Pennsylvanians in the lack of regulation of PFAS in drinking water,” but has to await the completion of the sampling plan. Even once a proposal comes out, the typical rulemaking process can take two years, it said.
Legislative ProposalMeanwhile, a pair of Democratic state legislators pushed for support for a package of bills to strengthen environmental enforcement against PFAS and other pollutants by adding it to the jurisdiction of the state attorney general.
The legislation would give the AG’s office concurrent jurisdiction with county prosecutors and the state DEP, so it wouldn’t have to wait for a legal referral to take action, Sens. Steve Santarsiero and Maria Collett said.
The case is Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. Pennsylvania DEP, Pa. Commw. Ct., 5/16/19.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/water-group-asks-court-to-force-pennsylvania-on-fluorochemicals
-
Grouping of Flame Retardants for Hazard Assessment Endorsed by US National Academies
May 16, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
Dividing organohalogen flame retardants into groups for collective assessment and regulation is scientifically justifiable, says a committee of the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
This endorsement bolsters the approach of evaluating and regulating commercial chemicals that share similar properties—and often substitute for one another—in groups rather than individually.
Organohalogen flame retardants cannot be lumped into a single category for hazard assessment, the National Academies committee says in a report released May 15. However, the substances can be split into 14 subclasses for assessment on the basis of chemical structure, physicochemical properties, and predicted biologic activity.
These widely used compounds are found in many types of consumer goods, and their metabolites have been detected in the blood of most people in the US. Exposure to organohalogen flame retardants is linked to endocrine disruption, cancer, and developmental and reproductive problems.
The report will guide the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) as it decides whether and how to implement a ban on certain household items containing organohalogen flame retardants. The agency requested the report after its commissioners granted a petition for a ban on four types of products that have these chemicals added to materials but the chemicals are not bound within a polymer structure. The products are children’s items, except car seats; residential furniture; mattresses and mattress pads; and casings that surround electronics such as home computers.
The petitioners, which include environmental, consumer, and worker advocates as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics, asked the CPSC for a blanket ban on such products containing any organohalogen flame retardant. “Treating chemicals by class is needed to ensure that cumulative toxic exposures are not ignored and that inadequately tested chemicals are not added to household products,” says Eve C. Gartner, director of the toxics program at the environmental group Earthjustice, counsel for the petitioners.
https://cen.acs.org/safety/consumer-safety/Grouping-flame-retardants-hazard-assessment/97/i20
-
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 proposed liquefied natural gas projects on the Gulf Coast by raising construction costs in the United States and prices in China, hurting the emerging industry's competitiveness in one of the world's biggest energy markets, analysts and economists say.
China's decision to impose 25 percent tariffs on U.S. LNG comes as developers are poised to make final investment decisions for several Gulf Coast projects, including Driftwood LNG near Lake Charles, La., and Calcasieu Pass LNG in Cameron Parish, La. Cheniere Energy of Houston also is nearing a final investment decision on an expansion of its Sabine Pass complex in Louisiana.
The trade war adds uncertainty into long-term planning for energy projects, said Peter Rodriguez, dean of the 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."
The tariffs come with China poised to become the world's largest importer of liquefied natural gas. The research and consulting firm 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.
Rystad Energy said that Chinese tariffs would make U.S LNG less attractive than that of competitors, such as Australia, and give Chinese buyers more bargaining power. In addition, the continued standoff between the United States and China could make Chinese buyers reluctant to sign long-term contracts with U.S. suppliers, which in turn rely on those contractors to obtain financing for multibillion dollar LNG production and export complexes.
Cheniere Energy, for example, negotiated a 20 year deal, estimated in media reports as worth $18 billion, with the Chinese energy company Sinopec. But the agreement has yet to be signed as the trade conflict drags on, Rystad noted.
"Rystad Energy expects China to be one of the biggest contributors in sponsoring new LNG projects over the coming years," Sindre Knutsson, a senior analyst, said in a statement, "and there will be a reluctance to signing new deals with US projects as long as this trade war persists."
The United States is the fastest growing LNG exporter thanks to growing Asian demand. Rystad Energy projects that U.S. export volumes will nearly quadruple in coming years, reaching 84 million metric tons per a year by 2025, based on sanctioned projects.
Ed Hirs, an economist and energy fellow with University of Houston, said there's still opportunities for U.S. producers to sell to other Asian countries and Europe. But the ongoing trade war could hit energy projects in the works by raising costs of steel for pipelines and 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.
"These little headwinds over time change the course of the ship or the economy," Hirs said. "Most U.S. producers are looking at these trade wars and thinking with any luck they'll be temporary and so they haven't changed 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."
Trump has downplayed the impact on the U.S. economy, 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 Chinese companies 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?cmpid=ffrefining
-
Fuel Restrictions Could Heighten Trump's Trade Spat — Report
May 17, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
Forthcoming restrictions on the use of dirtier shipping fuels could send costs for global trade spiking, affecting markets worldwide, according to a new assessment.
Costs for China's energy imports are already poised to rise as that nation retaliates for the Trump administration's higher tariffs on Chinese goods.
The new tariffs add 25% to the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of goods imported from China to the United States; Beijing responded by slapping higher tariffs on U.S. liquefied natural gas.
The International Monetary Fund worries that the China-U.S. trade dispute will slow the world's economy. Less discussed is the impact on trade that may be felt from new rules imposed by the International Maritime Organization, the United Nation's global shipping regulator, analysts at the Boston Consulting Group say in a new report.
IMO's 2020 rules barring high-sulfur-content shipping fuel will mean much higher costs for the global shipping industry. The industry will almost certainly pass those costs on to the rest of the global economy, the analysts predict.
"Regardless of what path shippers ultimately choose, they will try to pass along their costs to consumers," the BCG researchers concluded. "How successfully they will be able to do so remains to be seen."
The IMO's tighter regulations on shipping fuel enter into force Jan. 1, 2020. From that date the London-based global shipping authority will only permit ocean-crossing vessels to burn bunker fuels with a sulfur content of 0.5% or less, down from the current limit of 3.5% (Energywire, Jan. 28).
Complying will mean shipping companies will either have to purchase more expensive low-sulfur fuel, convert their vessels to burn LNG instead or install expensive scrubbers on their ships. None of these three options is affordable for the industry, as the new BCG report explains.
Retrofitting an older ship to run on LNG instead of traditional bunker fuel is expensive and causes a vessel to lose valuable cargo space. And analysts warn that the cost of installing scrubbers is rising the closer 2020 approaches, in part because of shortages in the skilled labor necessary to perform the work.
The industry report puts the cost of a scrubber installation at about $2 million to $3 million per vessel, "and installation can take up to six months," analysts note, adding further expenses for companies that must put vessels out of service during the process. "Scrubber installation is also hindered by the shortages of skilled craftsmen and necessary raw materials, such as high-quality steel and chrome alloys."
Analysts fear the global refining sector isn't ready for the change, either, although refineries in the United States are deemed better prepared than most others. It's forecast that the IMO 2020 rule will see demand for higher-sulfur fuel plummet while spiking demand for cleaner varieties and possibly diesel fuel, increasing prices for both.
All told, analysts estimate the IMO shipping fuel rule could add at least $60 billion in additional fuel costs to shipping companies, foreseeing companies meeting the additional expense by raising the cost of shipping, even as the trade dispute between the world's two largest economies could slow demand for cross-Pacific shipments.
"Some shipping companies might turn to marine diesel, an established fuel that poses no compatibility risk, for their fuel needs," says the report. "But marine diesel will be the most expensive option among the oil-derived products."
Trade-dependent nations are already responding to the pending IMO 2020 rule, moving to lower costs for their shipping concerns interested in using LNG as a bunker fuel.
In March, South Korea's government lowered duties on importing LNG into the country in a bid to encourage both the power sector and South Korean shipping to switch to the cleaner fuel. Japan's government followed suit, easing regulations and financial burdens on companies seeking to import LNG for use in marine shipping in an explicit bid to get ahead of the IMO 2020 rules, according to The Nikkei.
Most expect the IMO to next take up the shipping industry's greenhouse gas emissions once the 2020 fuel sulfur content rule takes effect.
A study by Columbia University researchers published in the journal Energy Policy agrees that IMO 2020 will see higher costs for low-sulfur fuel and will harm refining interests that can't make the switch to producing lighter fuels fast enough.
The researchers also believe the rule will "paradoxically end up slowing down what might have otherwise been a more rapid transition of the shipping market away from traditional bunker fuels," thus frustrating any designs the IMO may have on lowering shipping's greenhouse gas emissions.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/05/17/stories/1060345513
-
Committee Mulls 'Federal Floor' for Wastewater Rules
May 17, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Ariel Wittenberg
Lawmakers sparred over whether states are doing enough to regulate wastewater from hydraulic fracturing during a hearing of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources yesterday.
The dispute fell along party lines, with Democrats and their witnesses saying that a "federal floor" is necessary and that Congress should not have exempted fracking from Safe Drinking Water Act requirements in 2005.
"If we don't drill for oil, it's not the end of the world; the oil will still be there in the future if we need it," Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) said. "But if we end up polluting our aquifers, they are polluted forever."
Republicans and their witnesses, on the other hand, said states had done a good job of regulating wastewater from fracking.
"I am aware of the environmental concerns some of my colleagues across the aisle will raise about water quality and how it relates to the oil and gas industry," said Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.).
"However, I'm also aware that in recent years states like Oklahoma have worked to update their regulations and enforce environmental protections surrounding water quality," he said. "I feel we should commend these states on their ability to work together to address environmental and safety concerns."
Hern's home state of Oklahoma is one of three, along with Texas and New Mexico, asking EPA for permission to take over Clean Water Act permitting for oil and gas wastewater.
That could one day allow oil companies to divert their oil-field wastewater to other uses like irrigating crops, watering livestock or discharging it into rivers and streams (Energywire, Dec. 20, 2018).
The idea has been opposed by environmentalists and some residents who fear it could lead to increased contamination.
Texas Alliance of Energy Producers President John Tintera told the committee about how Texas works to protect groundwater and surface water from the impacts of fracturing. He described how state inspectors are based near oil rigs in order to facilitate oversight.
While Texas accounts for about 40% of crude oil production nationwide, he said, "there has not been a single documented groundwater contamination case associated with the process of hydraulic fracturing in Texas."
"Skillful regulators should follow the 'Goldilocks' principle: not too big, not too small, but just right," Tintera said.
But Emily Collins, executive director of Fair Shake Environmental Legal Services, which serves Appalachia, said not every state is as protective as Texas.
"The kind of processes Mr. Tintera described, I think all of us would be comfortable if that's what the federal floor was, and that's what removing the exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act would accomplish," Collins said.
She said more inspections — both before oil and gas projects are built and afterward — could prevent many of the problems her clients face.
Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) said inspections and permit applications should be carried out by states, which "know their own geology best of all; they know it better than, frankly, the bureaucrats sitting in Washington who have to look at all 50 states."
Collins said that she agreed with Lamborn but that updating the Safe Drinking Water Act would not necessarily take power away from states and that states could be delegated permitting authority the way they currently issue other water permits.
"Not every state has gotten to the place that Texas and Pennsylvania has where they have learned by fire how to deal with shale gas development and have improved their regulations over time," she said. "It's not that I think the federal government should take over; I think the federal government should establish a floor that states implement."
The subcommittee also heard from Daryl Peterson, a farmer in Antler, N.D., whose farmland has been damaged from spills of oil fracking wastewater.
Peterson said he strongly supported the oil and gas industry, including the employment opportunities it could bring to states like North Dakota, but said regulators had to do more to ensure industry practices were safe.
"We feel we have adequate regulations in North Dakota, but they are not enforced," he said. "The attitude in North Dakota is we want to catch up to Texas and we don't want to stand in the way of good production. It's a little bit of the gold rush atmosphere, and we've overlooked some of the potential harms."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/05/17/stories/1060345299
-
Colorado Issues Interim Oil, Gas Permitting Guidelines
May 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Colorado’s top drilling regulator issued final oil and gas permitting guidelines to be followed while new, stricter rules are being developed to govern the state’s industry.
The rules were released May 16 by Jeff Robbins, director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Required by a major oil and gas law signed by Gov. Jared Polis (D) in April, they spell out guidance for the approval and denial of drilling permits while the new rules are being formulated.
The new law changed the mandate of the commission from fostering oil and gas development to prioritizing the protection of public safety, health, and the environment in considering whether to issue drilling permits.
It also established local governments’ regulatory authority over the siting and surface impacts of oil and gas development in the state, revamped the membership of the commission, and called for new rules governing flow lines and methane emissions.
Further AnalysisUnder the new law, the director may delay the final determination of an energy company’s permit application if further analysis is needed to ensure minimal impacts to safety, health, and the environment, according to the May 16 guidance Roberts issued. Most of the criteria concern siting of oil and gas facilities.
For example, additional analysis would be required when wells or other oil and gas operations are to be located within 1,500 feet of a building such as a home or a high-occupancy building like a school or hospital. At present the state requires that such facilities be located at least 500 feet from a home or 1,000 feet from a high-occupancy building.
The requirement for additional analysis also would apply to oil and gas locations within 1,500 feet of a municipal boundary, subdivision, or county line. It would apply to facilities within 2,000 feet of a school property lines, as well as any facility proposed to be built within a floodplain, public drinking water supply area, or area with sensitive water resources.
Robbins said the new oil and gas law, the focus of hearings and debates in the 2019 session of the Colorado General Assembly, doesn’t require him to delay all permit determinations until new rules are promulgated under the act.
Moratorium SoughtBut at a hearing May 15, environmental groups called for the commission to put off the issuance of any new permits until the rules are completed.
Industry said a moratorium on oil and gas activity is an approach rejected by Polis, legislative leaders, and voters across Colorado.
“These extreme activists have one objective, to ban the oil and natural gas industry, plain and simple,” Dan Haley, president and CEO of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, said in an emailed statement provided to Bloomberg Environment. “These keep-it-in-the-ground activists merely want to grind these proceedings—or any proceedings that could eventually lead to development of resources they all use every day—to a halt with these theatrics.”
The rulemaking process is the time “for thoughtful, technical deliberations, not over-the-top rhetoric and intimidation tactics,” he said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/colorado-issues-interim-oil-gas-permitting-guidelines
-
New York Reinforces Appalachian Natural Gas Blockade, Rejecting Transco Expansion
May 16, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
New York has for now blocked even more Appalachian shale gas from entering the state after denying a key permit for the Northeast Supply Enhancement Project.
In a closely watched decision viewed as another test of New York’s climate protection mettle, regulators said construction of Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co.’s (Transco) Northeast Supply would result in water quality violations and fail to meet state standards.
Regulators late Wednesday made another 11th hour decision as they have before on similar projects with little time to spare ahead of the statutory deadline, denying Northeast Supply’s water quality certification (WQC). Without it, construction can’t proceed. Along with similar projects that have been rejected in recent years by the state, the latest decision means more than 1.5 Bcf/d of Appalachian gas is trapped from reaching more markets in the Northeast.
Specifically, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) said the project, part of which would cross the Raritan and New York bays underwater, would result in “significant water quality impacts” from the re-suspension of sediments and other contaminants, including mercury and copper. The pipeline would also “cause impacts to habitats” because of disturbances to shellfish beds and other resources.
The agency denied Transco’s application “without prejudice” in what parent company Williams said amounts to a “minor technical issue with our application.” Williams spokesman Christopher Stockton said “our team will be evaluating the issue and resubmitting the application quickly.” He said “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,” referring to gas supply shortages announced by utilities in New York City and suburbs to the north.
The “technical issue” referenced by Williams, Stockton said, mainly relates to the agency’s concerns about the effects of dredging and the mitigation of impacts on clam beds.
It’s unclear how long the outstanding issues may take to resolve. Transco first filed for a WQC in 2017, but it was forced to refile last year after the DEC deemed its first application incomplete pending FERC’s environmental review. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a favorable final environmental impact statement earlier this year, clearing the project to advance, and it approved the project this month.
While DEC’s rejection letter on Wednesday left the door open for Transco to reapply, the agency has not “provided any indication that it would take less than a year to act on a revised application,” ClearView Energy Partners LLC said Thursday in a note to clients. Under current law, if a new application is filed the agency has up to a year to make a decision.
When asked if Williams would submit a new application or simply amend its latest, Stockton said “we will be filing a new WQC application that will incorporate by reference information already on file” with DEC. The agency suggested in comments to NGI’s Shale Daily on Thursday that the leading option to resolve the issues is a new application, as it’s obligated to follow the statutory process, which would in fact provide for another year to review new materials.
“DEC subjects all applications for environmental permits to an extensive and transparent review process that encourages public input at every step,” the agency said.NATURAL GAS BLOCKADE
As New York continues to favor stronger climate goals it has declined to authorize a series of natural gas pipeline projects over the last three years, declining WQCs for the Northern Access expansion project, Constitution Pipeline and an eight-mile lateral to feed a gas-fired power plant in the Upstate region. The agency has employed various tactics involving review timelines that have impeded the projects, creating broader questions for the courts and FERC to wrestle with.
For example, Millennium Pipeline Co. LLC’s Valley Lateral was eventually built after it earned a favorable court decision, but both Northern Access and Constitution -- another project backed by Williams -- continue to battle the state to get their projects off the ground.
President Trump recently signed an executive order aimed at expediting approval of natural gas pipelines in a move aimed at curbing states’ ability to slow down projects. It directs the Environmental Protection Agency to update Clean Water Act guidance for states by June 6.
However, ClearView analysts said it isn’t yet clear whether the revised guidance would have an impact on DEC’s review of Northeast Supply. The firm also noted that Williams could appeal the decision to DEC or seek judicial review at the state or federal level, which are likely to be time-consuming options.
In the meantime, utilities in the state, particularly those serving New York City and the surrounding region, have repeatedly warned of gas shortages. Consolidated Edison Co. (Con Ed) earlier this year implemented a moratorium on new gas hook-ups to the north of the city in Westchester County. Con Ed and National Grid have also warned of similar moratoriums in the city if Northeast Supply is not built. ConEd has already inked deals to expand the Iroquois and Tennessee interstate gas systems to get more volumes into downstate. Those agreements, however, wouldn't provide more supplies until 2023.
Northeast Supply is fully subscribed by National Grid, which has separate agreements with undisclosed producers to supply the gas. Spokesperson Wendy Ladd said the company remains “cautiously optimistic” that the project will move ahead on schedule and be in service for Brooklyn, Queens and Long Island customers by the winter of 2020-21.
“Until we have greater certainty around the project’s application approval timeline, we will continue to advise all new commercial and residential applicants that our ability to provide firm gas service is contingent on the timely construction” of the project, she added.
Con Ed, which shares infrastructure with National Grid that serves all of New York City’s boroughs, warned of the potential fallout from the DEC’s decision. “Without the addition of new gas capacity to meet rising demand and support economic growth, there will be increased competition for existing natural gas supplies between Con Ed and National Grid’s customers in New York City,” it said. “Those constraints will impact the price and availability of natural gas.”
Northeast Supply is designed to create 400 MMcf/d of incremental firm capacity to meet demand for gas in New York City. The expansion would include 10 miles of pipe in Pennsylvania, three miles in New Jersey and 23 miles of pipe that would stretch into offshore New Jersey and New York in addition to a compressor station in Franklin Township, NJ, and more horsepower at an existing station in Pennsylvania. The system would link gas from Transco’s Compressor Station 195 in York County, PA, to its offshore Rockaway Transfer Point, an existing interconnection between the underwater Lower New York Bay Lateral and the Rockaway Delivery Lateral in New York waters.
Pennsylvania issued a WQC for the project in March 2018. Of particular concern for the project’s opponents is the 23-mile segment of pipeline that would cross Raritan Bay from Old Bridge, NJ, to Rockaway Point in Queens. There are already other pipelines installed and operating in those waters. Transco installed the first line in the Raritan Bay in 1951.APPALACHIAN PRODUCERS STYMIED
New York’s reluctance to authorize similar projects that would serve the Northeast has rankled the industry, particularly in Appalachia.
“Critical energy infrastructure projects like this pipeline help ensure that abundant American natural gas can reach families, small businesses, hospitals and manufacturers, as well as power generators whose increased use of the fuel is delivering historic clean-air benefits,” said Marcellus Shale Coalition President David Spigelmyer. “By continuing to block development of these projects, the Cuomo administration’s energy blockade is instead forcing consumers in New York to pay more for energy and have less access to affordable natural gas being produced nearby.”
New Jersey, which under Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy has started to challenge pipeline projects, would also need to issue authorizations for Northeast Supply. The New Jersey Sierra Club on Thursday called on Murphy’s administration to follow New York’s lead and deny a WQC for the project in the state.
Environmentalists had also been pressuring public officials ahead of Wednesday’s deadline. The fight surrounding Northeast Supply has been viewed by the environmental community as a test of Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo's commitment to the environment and renewable energy, culminating in a series of protests and sit-ins over the past few weeks. Dozens of federal, state and local officials have also opposed the project.
Environmental groups on Thursday hosted a rally to address the decision at New York City Hall, expressing concerns over the “lack of an outright denial” from DEC. They have pledged to double-down on efforts to halt the project if it’s eventually approved.
“New Yorkers are winning the fight” against the Williams pipeline, “and we’ll make sure this dangerous and unnecessary pipeline is never built,” said the Stop the Williams Pipeline Coalition. The group said utilities in the city are “manufacturing false demand,” and the coalition again called for a ban on all new fossil fuel infrastructure projects across the state.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/118401-new-york-reinforces-appalachian-natural-gas-blockade-rejecting-transco-expansion
-
Greens Sue Interior to Block Pipelines, Power Lines
May 17, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Scott Streater
A coalition of environmental and public health advocacy groups is suing the Interior Department over its decision to allow pipelines and power lines associated with a proposed Utah oil shale plant to cross federal lands.
Enefit American Oil needs the two transmission lines and three underground pipelines for water, natural gas and oil products to operate its long-planned "South Project," billed as the nation's first oil shale production plant.
The company — the Salt Lake City-based arm of Estonian-owned Eesti Energia AS — plans to build a 50,000-barrel-per-day oil shale production plant on private lands. The power lines and pipelines at issue would cross about 420 acres of BLM lands.
But the new lawsuit filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah is as much about the coalition's opposition to the oil shale production plant as the impacts of the pipelines and power lines to federal lands and waters.
The groups — the Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Trust, Living Rivers, Colorado RiverKeeper, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment and the Waterkeeper Alliance — have fought the plant for years, saying it will cause air and water pollution in the region.
They also note it will drain as much as 3.5 billion gallons a year from the Green River, a move that could harm habitat for the endangered Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker. Critics of drilling in the region say the process of extracting crude oil from shale rock is too resource-intensive and could take 3 barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced.
"This is a prescription for disaster for our climate, wildlife, and the Colorado River Basin," Ted Zukoski, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement.
"Draining the Green River to mine one of the most carbon-intensive fuels on the planet sends us in exactly the wrong direction," Zukoski added. "It's putting us on a collision course with climate catastrophe so a foreign fossil-fuel company can make big bucks."
The complaint says the environmental review by the Bureau of Land Management and the Fish and Wildlife Service was too narrow — only looking at the "relatively minimal impacts" of the pipelines and transmission lines, not the overall impacts of the planned oil shale development.
"This impermissibly narrow review violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), undermined informed decision making and public participation, and failed to prevent harm to imperiled fish and plant species," it adds.
The groups ask the court to throw out BLM's September 2018 record of decision approving the right-of-way grants, as well as an associated biological opinion conducted by FWS.
An Interior Department spokeswoman said she could not comment on ongoing litigation, and a Justice Department spokesman could not be reached for comment.
The lawsuit follows a notice of intent to sue that the groups filed in February (Energywire, Feb. 27).
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/05/17/stories/1060345677
-
Water Budget Cuts Contradict Trump Infrastructure Aims, Dems Say
May 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bobby Magill
Cuts to two federal water resources agencies in the White House’s fiscal 2020 budget request reveal a disconnect between the administration’s plans for the agencies and its agenda to build new infrastructure, Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) said May 16.
The budget cuts could prevent the Bureau of Reclamation from building water projects to help weather long-term drought conditions, Huffman said, speaking at a hearing of the House Natural Resources Committee’s Water, Oceans and Wildlife panel.
Huffman, who chairs the subcommittee, also said the U.S. Geological Survey’s budget request underfunds important data collection.
The White House is proposing a $1.48 billion budget for the Bureau of Reclamation—an 8.4% cut, or $136.3 million, below the agency’s fiscal 2019 budget.
The bureau is the nation’s largest water manager and the second-largest hydropower producer, and it manages hundreds of reservoirs and dams nationwide.
The Colorado River system, which provides water and hydropower for cities from Denver to Los Angeles, is experiencing a major drought, and the bureau is “committed to protecting and mitigating against the effects of drought,” Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Brenda Burman said at the hearing.
The bureau’s budget request supports collaboration and “helps to mitigate against the environmental impacts of our projects,” she said.
Water Project Cut CriticizedRep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.) criticized the Bureau of Reclamation for proposing to cut its WaterSMART program by more than 80%—from $113.2 million to $19.9 million. The WaterSMART program supports local water supply reliability through local water project investments.
Burman described WaterSMART as “a great program,” but said “it’s not mandatory, it’s discretionary.”
“In times of limited budgets, which is what we find ourselves in, we have to do what’s mandatory first,” including protecting and maintain existing dams and other water infrastructure, she said.
The Trump administration is requesting to cut the Geological Survey budget by 14.3 percent from $1.149 billion in fiscal 2019 to $984.3 million in fiscal 2020.
The agency operates waterway stream flow gauges, maps federal public lands, provides geospatial data to the public and federal agencies and conducts a broad array of research on natural hazards facing the U.S., including climate change, earthquakes, and volcanoes.
The Geological Survey budget request supports and sustains water data-gathering programs, Don Cline, associate director of the USGS Water Mission Area, said at the hearing.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/water-budget-cuts-contradict-trump-infrastructure-aims-dems-say
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Production, Use Linked to Climate Change, Report Says
May 16, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
The expansion of plastic production and use is threatening Earth’s climate, says a report from the Center for International Environmental Law.
For 2019, the annual greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fuel extraction for raw materials as well as from plastics production and disposal by landfilling or incineration is estimated to be 0.86 billion metric tons (t) of carbon dioxide equivalent. But if plastics manufacturing and use increase as currently expected, their related greenhouse gas emissions will rise to 1.34 billion t of CO2 equivalent in 2030, the report predicts.
To meaningfully curb worldwide emissions from the entire life cycle of plastics, the report recommends ending the production and use of single-use, disposable plastics. It also calls for stopping the development of new infrastructure for oil, gas, and petrochemical production.
However, the study “falls short of comparing the carbon profiles of products and packaging made with plastics to those of alternatives, which tend to be much greater as documented in numerous life cycle studies,” says the American Chemistry Council, the largest chemical industry trade association in the US. Additionally, “because plastics are strong and lightweight, they help us do more with less”—such as by reducing the volume or weight of products for shipping and by making vehicles more fuel efficient, the ACC says.
https://cen.acs.org/environment/climate-change/Plastic-production-use-linked-climate/97/i20
-
(ACC Mentioned) Study Blames Plastic for Climate Change
May 16, 2019 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson
A new study claims growing use of plastics is having a devastating impact through climate change, but a trade group representing the industry counters with an exact opposite view.
"Plastic & Climate: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet" is a new report from a handful of environmental groups, including the Center for International Environmental Law, Break Free From Plastic and 5 Gyres.
The report said it studied greenhouse gas emissions "at each state of the plastic lifecycle" and concluded rapid expansion of the plastic industry during the past 10 years, as well as future growth, means greenhouse gas impacts are accelerating.
"It has long been clear that plastic threatens the global environment and puts human health at risk. This report demonstrates that plastic, like the rest of the fossil economy, is putting the climate at risk as well," CIEL President Carroll Muffett said in a statement.
"Because the drivers of the climate crisis and the plastic crisis are closely linked, so too are their solutions: Humanity must end its reliance on fossil fuels and on fossil plastics that the planet can no longer afford," Muffett continued.
The Plastics division of the American Chemistry Council pushed back against the report, claiming plastic products compare favorably against those made with other materials.
"A recent lifecycle study of plastic packaging found that replacing plastics with alternatives would nearly double greenhouse gas emissions," said Steve Russell, vice president of the ACC Plastic division, in a statement.
"Although plastic production does generate low levels of greenhouse gas emissions, plastics are often used in products that help to reduce much larger amounts of greenhouse gas emissions over their lifecycle," he said.
The CIEL report suggests some far-reaching changes, including ending production of single-use, disposable plastic products, stopping development of new oil, gas and petrochemical infrastructure and transitioning to "zero-waste communities."
The report also calls for implementing extended producer responsibility "as a critical component of circular economies."
The report claims that annual greenhouse gas emissions for the entire plastics lifecycle, including production and incineration, will be equivalent of 189 coal-fired power plants this year. That number will increase to 295 in 2030 and 615 in 2050 as the industry grows.
The emergence of hydraulic fracturing of shale — or fracking — has unlocked vast amounts of natural gas and oil that previously was thought to be unreachable in the United States.
While that has led to lower gasoline prices for drivers, the report authors said the advent of less expensive natural gas also is creating a plastics boom.
"Unfortunately, the CIEL report focuses largely on the anticipated growth of plastic production but fails to note that production is growing in response to increasing global demand for lightweight automotive parts, building insulation and product packaging — all of which will play an important role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions," Russell said.
Courtney Bernhardt is director of research at the Environmental Integrity Project, another group involved in the study.
"Our world is drowning in plastic, and the plastics industry has been overlooked as a major source of greenhouse gases. But there are ways to solve this problem. We need to end the production of single use, disposable plastic containers and encourage a transition to a zero-waste future," she said in a statement.
https://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20190516/NEWS/190519955/study-blames-plastic-for-climate-change
-
Climate Fund, Paris Accord Get House Funding Panel Approval (1)
May 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
House Democrats’ plan to bar President Donald Trump from using any funding to withdraw from the Paris climate accord lives on, at least for now.
The House Appropriations Committee May 16 voted down a Republican amendment to kill the prohibition. The committee approved the Democrats’ funding ban, along with a separate provision opening the door to resuming U.S. support for the United Nations Green Climate Fund, hours after rebuffing the amendment.
The fiscal 2020 spending measure, which the committee approved 29-23, would provide $56.4 billion for the State Department, U.S. Agency for International Development, and money for other international programs. The figure represents a $2.2 billion increase over current year spending.
The full House likely will take up the bill in June, a House Appropriations Committee aide told Bloomberg Environment.
The bill takes the first step toward resurrecting U.S. support for the U.N. Green Climate Fund, not by proposing a set funding amount but by scrapping a Republican prohibition against such spending in previous spending bills.
Republican committee members tried—but failed—to strike Democrats’ effort to cut off funding for Trump’s continued withdrawal from the Paris accord, which Trump first announced in June 2017. The House Appropriations panel voted down an amendment offered by Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.) to strike the funding prohibition by a vote of 23-29.
Republican: No Clear StrategyRep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), the top Republican on the Appropriations energy and water subcommittee, said he and other Republicans aren’t opposed to working on the climate issue. But he complained that Democrats aren’t setting a clear strategy for climate spending.
Simpson also said too little debate has occurred over what costs the U.S. might incur by staying in the climate accord, reached in Paris in 2015.
“All I ask is that we do an analysis of how much money we’re spending, where it’s going, what our plan is, and how we’re going to address this issue,” Simpson said. “No one is sitting over here saying we don’t that believe climate change is real, all you’ve got to do is have a thermometer outside.”
He said the global deal didn’t push China or India to do enough to curb their greenhouse gas emissions.
“We need to get onto the real issue of addressing climate change,” Simpson said, instead of what he said was a political move designed to confront Trump over his withdrawal from the climate accord.
‘Puzzled’ by ComplaintsHouse Appropriations Committee Chairman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) said she was “puzzled” by such complaints, adding that withdrawing from a global climate agreement would hurt rather than help address climate change.
If Republicans have suggestions for addressing climate, Democrats “are delighted to talk to you about it,” Lowey said. “But it seems to me we have to lead, and saying ‘no’ to this and ‘no’ to that—that’s not leadership.”
The spending measure doesn’t provide specific funding for the Green Climate Fund but opens the door for resuming U.S. support, stating that funding “may be made available for a contribution, grant, or any other payment for the Paris Agreement.”
The Obama administration backed the green fund, one of several proposals richer industrialized nations put on the table in the run-up to the 2015 Paris Agreement to get developing nations to join the climate accord. Trump eliminated its funding, as well as the bulk of other international climate assistance, after coming into office in 2017.
The previous administration in 2014 pledged $3 billion over four years toward the Green Climate Fund, but was able to provide only one-third of that amount before Trump took office due to congressional opposition, mostly from Republicans.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/climate-fund-paris-accord-get-house-funding-panel-approval
-
Funding Bar On Paris Exit May Indicate Democrats' Selective Rider Strategy
May 16, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
House Democrats are advancing a fiscal year 2020 State Department spending bill that would bar the Trump administration from using funds to withdraw from the Paris climate deal, a move that may signal a selective strategy on environmental policy riders after an initial draft EPA funding bill largely omitted them.
While the strategy could shift as the spending bills advance through the Appropriations Committee and to the floor, some sources suggest it could allow Democrats to focus on what they argue is a needed funding boost for EPA, as opposed to high-profile disputes over policy direction.
Yet lawmakers are not avoiding such a major clash in the State Department bill. “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act, or prior Acts . . . may be used to provide formal notification under Article 28 of the Paris Agreement of the withdrawal of the United States from such Agreement,” states a provision in the broader bill for State, foreign operations and related programs.
If approved by the House, the provision would set up a major clash with the GOP-controlled Senate and White House, given President Donald Trump's 2017 pledge to leave the Paris deal that he calls unfair to the United States.
The budget rider is broadly in line with the House's recent approval of H.R. 9 -- legislation that stands little chance of enactment but which calls on the Trump administration to remain in the Paris deal and develop a plan for meeting the Obama administration's Paris target of a 26-28 percent cut in greenhouse gases below 2005 levels by 2025.
But that rider appears to be something of an outlier to date, with Democrats otherwise largely steering clear in a separate budget bill for EPA from imposing similar funding restrictions on EPA programs.
Democrats' EPA bill -- which calls for a $672 million boost to agency funding from FY19 levels, to $9.52 billion -- contrasts with prior House GOP proposals that included numerous riders, including language scrapping the Obama-era Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule and declaring biomass power to be carbon neutral.
In line with this shift, House Republicans during a May 15 subcommittee markup of EPA's funding measure objected to the fact that several directives to EPA from previous years are omitted from the draft FY20 bill, while deferring fights over such issues to a full committee markup expected the week of May 20.
Possible Strategies
One observer of the budget process says it is premature to conclude that Democrats are adopting a strategy focused on minimal riders. The source notes that Democrats have yet to release report language for EPA's funding bill, which could seek to limit or direct a variety of agency activities.
There is also the possibility that Democrats might choose to tee up yet-to-be-floated riders on the House floor to attract maximum political attention.
But the observer notes that Democrats' new House control gives them the power to press for more funding -- as Democrats are already proposing -- for EPA and other agencies, and legislation light on controversial policy riders could increase the chance of bipartisan support for such a funding increase
This may be “one way to reduce the likelihood of a conflict with the Senate, which is likely to come in with lower numbers for its spending bill,” the observer suggests.
Democrats in the Senate are also pushing for a FY20 funding bill for EPA that omits “anti-environmental riders.”
Democrats' inclusion of the Paris rider in the State Department's FY20 funding bill may complicate ultimate enactment of that legislation.
But the opportunity cost of adding another controversial issue to the bill may also be minimal, with lawmakers already sparring during a May 16 markup of the State Department's bill over what kind of abortion restrictions the legislation should impose on international groups that receive U.S. funding.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/funding-bar-paris-exit-may-indicate-democrats-selective-rider-strategy
-
EPA May Struggle to Meet Its Own Ozone Review Deadlines
May 17, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The EPA is racing to meet its goal to review ozone pollution standards by the end of 2020, with a draft due early next year, but such a goal may not be possible and risks undermining the entire process, former agency employees and science advisers say.
The Environmental Protection Agency set a December 2020 goal to finish reviewing the 2015 air quality standards for ozone—a known lung irritant—and the 2012 standards for fine airborne particle pollution.
But the reviews under the Clean Air Act require a multi-step, time-consuming process that involves counsel from advisers on the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). The agency must decide whether to keep the current limits on both pollutants or tighten them to be more protective of public health in light of the latest research.
Former EPA chief Scott Pruitt last May set an aggressive goal to streamline the review process for both pollutants to two years, down from the four- to eight-year time frame typical in the past.
“The public can expect to see a proposed decision by early 2020,” the EPA said about the ozone review in a May 15 email. The EPA has not set a specific timeline for the proposal on airborne particle pollution standards.
But current and former EPA science advisers and former employees say the timeline is too aggressive. The accelerated schedule is unrealistic and doesn’t account for the time EPA staff need to also review the current particulate matter standards, said John Bachmann, a former EPA associate director for science policy on air quality.
“This is not possible,” Bachmann said about the ozone proposal deadline. “That is barking mad.”
No Final PlanThe EPA has defended its timeline as necessary to get on track with five-year reviews mandated by the Clean Air Act. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has also supported the effort to accelerate the process.
Both ground-level ozone and fine particulates are formed by combustion of fossil fuels in power plants, or stationary or mobile engines. Industry is eagerly awaiting any decision, as tighter standards would mean more pollution controls on power plants, refineries, cars, and trucks to reduce smog and haze.
Last October, Wheeler disbanded the agency’s practice of using outside experts to assist the seven CASAC scientists conducting the reviews. He said the outside panels of experts took too long to provide advice.
Christopher Frey, a former chairman of the committee and an environmental engineering professor at North Carolina State University, said the move risks “steamrolling” the science in order to meet EPA’s self-imposed deadlines.
“The science review process not only was not broken, but was thorough, rigorous, appropriate, and consistent with law until political appointees interfered with it by making changes secretively and without input from career staff, CASAC, and the public,” he said in an interview.
Despite its deadline, the EPA hasn’t finalized how it will review the ozone limits. EPA staff released the draft in November and said the final plan would come in early 2019. That hasn’t happened yet.
That plan will spell out how the EPA’s science advisers should assess the latest science on the pollutants’ impact, examine risk exposure studies, and consider policy implications. After a series of other lengthy steps involving these assessments, the advisers will make a recommendation to Wheeler, who will decide whether the standards should be tightened or maintained.
Wehrum Meets With StaffWheeler is adamant that the EPA will meet its December 2020 deadline for both pollutants because it is no longer bogged down by the ad hoc subcommittee of experts.
“Part of the problem was having the subcommittees, which are not required under the statute” and took a lot of time, Wheeler told Senate appropriators April 3.
Senior EPA officials may also be getting an earful on the schedule.
In April, Bill Wehrum, the agency’s assistant administrator for air and radiation, met three times with his staff to discuss the status of ozone and particle pollution reviews, according to a record of his calendar obtained by Bloomberg Environment under a Freedom of Information Act request.
On April 24, he met to discuss the concerns raised by science advisers over the review of fine airborne particle pollution. The advisers want Wheeler to reinstate the outside panel of experts because they say they lack the expertise to assess the latest scientific research for particle pollution. They also want more time to review the scientific assessment.
And the EPA sidestepped questions from Bloomberg Environment on how it simultaneously plans to produce reviews of two major pollution standards—for ozone and for particle pollution—by the end of 2020.
The EPA now finds itself in a tight spot because of its decision to complete both standards so quickly, Bachmann said.
“They made mistakes in trying to hurry up the process, and the biggest mistake they made is in shortchanging the scientific review process,” he said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-may-struggle-to-meet-its-own-ozone-review-deadlines
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested