Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - May 23, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemicals Exports in 2019 Hinge on Chinese Tariffs
May 23, 2019 | JOC.com
By Hugh R. Morley
After a 4.4 percent increase in the volume of US containerized chemical exports in 2018, the sector’s health this year will be shaped by the outcome of US-China trade negotiations and global economic conditions, especially in Europe. -
EPA 'May Supplement' TSCA Confidentiality Procedural Rule
May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has announced that it "may seek to supplement" its TSCA confidential business information (CBI) procedural rule in view of a recent court decision. The news follows a ruling last month from the US Court of Appeals... -
US EPA Round-Up
May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch
Wheeler signs cost-benefit memo: EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has sent to agency assistant administrators a memo directing them to outline how they will consider cost-benefit analyses in future rulemaking. It is designed to... -
Company Safety Data Sheets on New Chemicals Frequently Lack the Worker Protections EPA Claims They Include
May 22, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Readers of this blog know how concerned EDF is over the Trump EPA’s approval of many dozens of new chemicals based on its mere “expectation” that workers across supply chains will always employ personal protective equipment... -
Vermont, Environmentalists Urge Court to Remand Mercury Inventory Rule
May 23, 2019 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists and the state of Vermont are urging a federal appellate court to reject EPA arguments aimed at dismissing their suit over its rule creating an inventory of mercury use, supply and trade and are instead calling for the... -
Vermont Legislature Clears Bill to Amend Children's Product Reporting Scheme
May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Vermont’s legislature has passed a bill to amend its existing children’s reporting rule, despite governor Phil Scott having vetoed a similar measure late last year. The bill (S55) includes several NGO-backed changes to Act 188... -
Air Force Agrees to Reimburse W.Va. City for PFAs Cleanup
May 23, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
The Air Force has agreed to reimburse $4.9 million to the city of Martinsburg, W.Va., for expenses related to the 2016 cleanup of hazardous chemicals from the city's water supply. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) announced the... -
Phthalates: Why You Need to Know About the Chemicals in Cosmetics
May 23, 2019 | Guardian
By Lauren Zanolli
What are phthalates? Phthalates are a group of chemicals most commonly used to make plastic more flexible and harder to break. They also act as a binding agent or a solvent. Also known as plasticizers, they are found in a wide... -
‘It’s Raining Plastic’: Researchers Find Microscopic Fibers in Colorado Rain Samples
May 23, 2019 | Eco Watch
By Brett Walton
When Greg Wetherbee sat in front of the microscope recently, he was looking for fragments of metals or coal, particles that might indicate the source of airborne nitrogen pollution in Rocky Mountain National Park. What caught his eye... -
Pee in the Pool Toxic or Just Gross?
May 23, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
By Sydney Evans
It’s no secret that pee finds its way into swimming pools. In fact, the typical residential pool contains about two gallons of urine. What’s worse, there are other, more alarming contaminants lurking in the depths, and pee in the pool could be... -
Bayer Judge Picks Top Mediator for Roundup Settlement Talks
May 23, 2019 | Bloomberg (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Joel Rosenblatt and Jef Feeley
A U.S. judge overseeing Roundup-cancer lawsuits against Bayer AG provisionally appointed high-profile mediator Ken Feinberg to lead settlement talks over the herbicide litigation, which has tanked the company's stock since it acquired... -
Echa Outlines Approach to Assessment of Priority Chemicals
May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa has informed industry of the measures it must take to ensure compliance on chemicals that will be assessed under the agency's new prioritisation plan. Last month, Echa’s inaugural report Mapping the chemical universe to... -
Ecetoc Publishes Conceptual Framework for Polymer Risk Assessment
May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (Ecetoc) has developed a ‘conceptual framework’ for polymer risk assessment called CF4Polymers. A task force has reviewed polymer grouping and risk assessment... -
EU to Publish 'Fitness Check' on Non-REACH Chemical Laws in June
May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Commission will publish in June its long-delayed report on the regulatory fitness of all chemicals legislation excluding REACH, sources at the EU executive have said. The report concludes three years of work to... -
Study: Copper in Wood Preservatives May Induce Liver Toxicity
May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Maria Delaney
Copper oxide and copper carbonate nanoparticles used as antimicrobial agents and wood preservatives may induce liver toxicity, in addition to causing changes in multiple organs, if ingested, according to a rodent study. -
Oil Drillers and Greens Unite Against Ohio Nuclear Bailout Plan
May 23, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jim Efstathiou Jr.
The Sierra Club, the American Petroleum Institute and billionaire Charles Koch have found at least one thing to agree on: they hate Ohio’s plan to take away renewable power subsidies and give them to coal and nuclear plants. -
The Critical Importance of Investing in American Energy Infrastructure
May 22, 2019 | Real Clear Energy
By Robin Rorick
With Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer meeting with President Trump recently to continue their conversation on infrastructure, the importance of rebuilding, modernizing and expanding America’s infrastructure should remain front... -
PHMSA Issues Landslide Warning to Natural Gas Pipeline Owners
May 23, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By David Bradley
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has issued an advisory bulletin to remind owners and operators of natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines of the potential for damage caused by earth... -
ITC Resumes Rail, Truck Activity at Deer Park Terminal
May 23, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
Rail and truck activity is ramping back up at Mitsui's Intercontinental Terminal Co.'s Deer Park terminal, two months after a tank fire and subsequent chemical spill temporarily cut off regional markets from a large petrochemical hub... -
AGA Offers Pipeline Safety Recommendations
May 23, 2019 | Daily Energy Insider
By Douglas Clark
The American Gas Association’s (AGA) leadership has issued a series of recommendations to improve pipeline safety that includes the identification, prevention, and remediation of safety hazards. The AGA Board of Directors recently... -
Ewire: CEQ Readies NEPA Rule Overhaul
May 23, 2019 | Inside EPA
The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is poised to begin inter-agency review of its draft proposed overhaul of implementing rules for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a measure that environmentalists... -
The Energy 202: Republicans Vote Against Bill Containing Their Key Climate Priority: Researching Energy Innovation
May 23, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
In recent months, several Republicans have rallied around a single idea when describing their plans to address climate change: innovation. They argue that investing in new technology — including in the next generation of nuclear reactors...
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) US Chemicals Exports in 2019 Hinge on Chinese Tariffs
May 23, 2019 | JOC.com
By Hugh R. Morley
After a 4.4 percent increase in the volume of US containerized chemical exports in 2018, the sector’s health this year will be shaped by the outcome of US-China trade negotiations and global economic conditions, especially in Europe.
Chinese retaliatory tariffs targeted about 1,000 products with 2017 sales of about $10.8 billion, according to the American Chemistry Council, which has predicted a 15 percent cut in US chemicals exports to China if the tariffs are in place in the short term. Chemical exports could decline 50 percent if the tariffs are in place in the long term, the council predicts. But that was before the latest round of tariffs and retaliation in May, and it’s unclear yet how that will impact the sector..
China accounted for 14.2 percent of US chemical exports in 2018, according to data from PIERS, a sister company of JOC.com within IHS Markit. Data show US containerized chemical exports last year totaled 1.5 million TEU.
On the other side of the ledger, exports will likely get a boost from the rapidly growing resins sector, which accounted for 45 percent of the export total in 2018, the PIERS figures show. Resins volumes rose 13 percent year over year in 2018 to 677,000 TEU and are expected to accelerate in the second half of 2019. IHS Markit predicts US resin exports will reach 1 million TEU in 2019.
However, the fast-growing sector faces challenges, including shortages of packaging and railcar capacity. Producers and transportation providers have responded with additional packaging plants and new railcars. The sector also is facing tariffs from the European Union, which released a list of tariffs that includes epoxide resins after the US placed a tariff on European plane parts and began investigating imports into the US of cars and auto parts for any impact on national security.
Still, resins can only go so far in mitigating the damage from tariffs. Chemicals producers get hit twice by tariffs, the council says: First with higher-priced raw material imports because of US tariffs, and then by also reduced demand for US exports to China because of that country’s retaliatory tariffs.
And the longer the uncertainty continues, the more Chinese chemical importers are likely to make permanent decisions to look outside the US for their supply, said Emily Sanchez, director of economics and data analytics at the American Chemistry Council.
“You’re going to have more and more time for demand to shift and supply chains to adjust,” she said.
The tariffs have marred what otherwise would be a healthy period for the industry, Sanchez said. Strong investment in recent years has created production facilities well beyond what is needed domestically, and the country’s cheap energy helps make US chemicals highly competitive, she said.
“We are really setting the scene for growth that we haven’t seen for decades,” she said. Still, the slowing Chinese economy has affected exports, as have the softening economies in Europe.
PIERS data show a year-over-year decline of 2 percent in exports to China last year. Exports to Belgium jumped 20.7 percent, TEU volume to Brazil increased 8.3 percent, and chemicals to South Korea inched up 1.5 percent.
The throughput of chemical exports declined at 11 of the top 20 ports but jumped 18.9 percent at the top port for this commodity, Houston, which benefited from the arrival of the long-awaited synthetic resins export boom and handled 412,090 TEU in 2018. Resins also contributed to a 3.5 percent increase, to 128,003, in the cargo volume handled by the Port of New Orleans,
The Los Angeles-Long Beach gateway was the second-largest for this commodity group in 2018, with chemicals up 1.2 percent year over year to 279,568 TEU. The Port of New York and New Jersey’s traffic in this commodity fell 1.9 percent to 150,870 TEU.
https://www.joc.com/regulation-policy/trade-data/united-states-trade-data/us-chemicals-exports-2019-hinge-chinese-tariffs_20190523.html
-
EPA 'May Supplement' TSCA Confidentiality Procedural Rule
May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has announced that it "may seek to supplement" its TSCA confidential business information (CBI) procedural rule in view of a recent court decision.
The news follows a ruling last month from the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit with respect to an NGO legal challenge to the EPA’s final inventory notification rule. Issued in 2017, the rule had set out a reporting process for the agency to determine which substances have been active in US commerce in the past 10 years.
In a 26 April order, the court largely upheld the EPA’s rule. But it determined that the agency had erred by not requiring companies to substantiate that a chemical is not "readily discoverable through reverse engineering" when making a confidentiality claim. And it directed the agency to remedy this.
The EPA sent notice to stakeholders via email on 23 May that it accordingly may need to make changes to the CBI procedural rule – proposed in April – to establish "a plan to review CBI claims for chemical identity asserted in notice of activity (NOA) form" as submitted during the ‘inventory reset’ process.
The agency said it "intends to provide public notice in the Federal Register and an opportunity for public comment on any future action supplementing that proposed rule".
But it added that those with an interest in the original April proposal should still plan to submit comments by the 24 June deadline.
With respect to the 2017 inventory notification rule, the EPA advised manufacturers and processors subject to it that "no part of the rule has been vacated and that all requirements of the rule remain in effect".
Any proposed or final changes to the rule that come in response to the court’s directive to amend it, it added, will be announced in the Federal Register.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77881/epa-may-supplement-tsca-confidentiality-procedural-rule
-
May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch
Wheeler signs cost-benefit memo
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has sent to agency assistant administrators a memo directing them to outline how they will consider cost-benefit analyses in future rulemaking. It is designed to ensure that the EPA's regulatory decisions are "rooted in sound, transparent and consistent approaches to evaluating benefits and costs".
The guiding principles he highlights in the memo include: ensuring the agency balances benefits and costs in regulatory decision-making; increasing consistency in the interpretation of statutory terminology; providing transparency in the weight assigned to various factors in regulatory decisions; and promoting adherence to best practices in conducting the technical analysis used to inform decisions.
Mr Wheeler said the memo was informed by public comments received on a June 2018 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). This included "a large cross-section of stakeholders [who] identified instances when the agency underestimated costs, overestimated benefits or evaluated benefits and costs inconsistently".
But he said this ongoing rulemaking effort "should not forestall near-term benefit-cost methodological changes for individual regulatory actions", and thus he "has determined that the agency should proceed with benefit-cost reforms using a media approach".
TSCA ‘not likely’ findings
The US EPA has issued nine TSCA 5(a)(3)(c) findings for substances subject to pre-manufacture notices (PMNs). These determinations "not likely to present an unreasonable risk" will allow the substances to come to market without restriction.
The findings cover the following substances: P-19-0045 – generic: non-metal tetrakis (hydroxyalkyl)-, halide, polymer with amide oxidized; P-19-0032 – generic: carbonic dichloride, polymer with 4,4'-(1-methylethylidene)bis[phenol] ester, polymer with tetrol and polyether tetrol; P-19-0030 – generic: triethanolamine modified phosphinicocarboxylates, sodium salts; P-18-0375 – specific: fats and glyceridic oils, vegetable, sulfonated, sodium salts; P-18-0312 – generic: formaldehyde, polymer with 2-phenoxyalkanol and alpha-phenyl-omega hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-alkylnediyl), dihydrogen phosphate 2-phenoxyalkyl hydrogen phosphate, alkaline salt; P-18-0122 – generic: alkylamide, polymer with alkylamine, formaldehyde, polycyanamide, alkyl acid salt; P-19-0040 – generic: alkyl bis(dialkylamino alkyl) amide; P-19-0010 – generic: hydrogenated fatty acid dimers, polymers with 1,1'-methylenebis[4-isocyanatobenzene], polypropylene glycol, polypropylene glycol ether with trimethylolpropane (3:1), 1,3-propanediol, propylene glycol monomethacrylate-blocked; and P-18-0222 – generic: silane, alkenylalkoxy-, polymer with alkene and alkene.
The decisions on these nine substances came between 15 and 24 April.
Agency seeks nominees for science board, chemical committee
The EPA has invited nominations of scientific experts for appointment to the agency’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) and four SAB committees.
One of these is the Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC), which provides advice on toxicological reviews of environmental chemicals. The agency seeks nominees with expertise in: toxicology, including development/reproductive and inhalation toxicology; carcinogenesis; biostatistics; uncertainty analysis; epidemiology; and risk assessment.
Nominations are due 24 June. The agency plans to fill the positions by October 2019.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77776/us-epa-round-up
-
May 22, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Readers of this blog know how concerned EDF is over the Trump EPA’s approval of many dozens of new chemicals based on its mere “expectation” that workers across supply chains will always employ personal protective equipment (PPE) just because it is recommended in the manufacturer’s non-binding safety data sheet (SDS).
How much farther under the bus will the Trump EPA throw American workers?
The typical course has been for EPA to identify risks to workers from a new chemical it is reviewing under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), but then – instead of issuing an order imposing binding conditions on the chemical’s entry onto the market, as TSCA requires – to find that the chemical is “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” and impose no conditions whatsoever on its manufacturer. This sleight of hand is pulled off by EPA stating that it:
expects employers will require and workers will use appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) … consistent with the Safety Data Sheet prepared by the new chemical submitter, in a manner adequate to protect them.
We have detailed earlier the myriad ways in which this approach strays from the law, is bad policy and won’t protect workers. But here’s yet another gaping problem: When we are able to look at the actual SDSs – that is, when EPA has made them available and when they are not totally redacted – we are frequently finding that the specific PPE that EPA claims to be specified in the SDSs – and that EPA asserts is sufficient to protect all workers handling the chemical – is not in the SDSs.
EDF recently examined the SDSs for each of five new chemicals where EPA has declared them “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” and included the language I cited above. EPA has also included the five in a proposed Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) that would require companies to notify EPA if they intend to use chemical in a particular manner that EPA has defined as a “significant new use.” On Monday, EDF filed extensive critical comments on those proposed SNURs.
The reason we are focusing here on these chemicals is because, by law, EPA had to establish a rulemaking docket for the SNUR and place in that docket certain supporting documents pertaining to each new chemical. Among those documents is (supposed to be) the chemical’s corresponding SDS.
Unfortunately, for two of the five chemicals (identified as P-18-0073 and P-19-0010, because the companies claimed their actual identities to be confidential), EPA failed to provide a copy of the SDS in its docket even though it is part of the documentation the company was required to submit to EPA. For another of the five (P-17-0239), the copy of the SDS EPA included in the docket is totally redacted – even though much if not all of its content comprises health and safety information not eligible for confidential business information (CBI) protection under TSCA and, for the remainder, there is no evidence EPA has reviewed and approved any CBI claims the company asserted for the SDS.
That leaves us with the SDSs for the remaining two cases (P-18-0048and P-18-0122), which are unredacted. Now we can compare what they specify by way of PPE to the specific PPE that EPA relied on in determining these chemicals are “not likely to present an unreasonable risk.”
P-18-0048: Here is what the “not likely” determination document for P-18-0048 states:
Risks to workers: Reproductive toxicity via dermal exposure; corrosion to all tissues via dermal and inhalation exposures.
PPE EPA relies on: EPA identifies as “appropriate PPE” the use of “impervious gloves and a respirator.” EPA goes on to state:
EPA expects that employers will require and workers will use appropriate personal protective equipment, including dermal and respiratory protection with an Assigned Protection Factor [APF] of 50, consistent with the Safety Data Sheet submitted with the PMN [premanufacture notice], in a manner adequate to protect them. (p. 6, emphasis added)
The associated SDS does recommend wearing “protective gloves,” “suitable protective equipment,” and “appropriate chemical resistant gloves.” Its only reference to respiratory protection, however, is this:
[I]n the case of insufficient ventilation, wear suitable respiratory equipment.
Nowhere does the SDS specify use of a respirator with an APF of 50. The SDS is clearly not consistent with EPA’s own description of it.
P-18-0122: Here is what the “not likely” determination document for P-18-0122 states:
Risks to workers: Lung toxicity via inhalation; irritation to skin, eyes, lung and GI tract.
PPE EPA relies on:
Risks will be mitigated if exposures are controlled by the use of appropriate PPE, including respiratory protection with an APF of 10. Risks could not be quantified for irritation hazards, but appropriate PPE, including impervious gloves and protective eye wear, would mitigate concerns. EPA expects that employers will require and workers will use appropriate personal protective equipment (i.e., impervious gloves, protective eye wear, and a respirator), consistent with the Safety Data Sheet prepared by the PMN submitter, in a manner adequate to protect them. (pp. 5-6, emphases added)
While the corresponding SDS does recommend certain types of gloves and safety glasses, it specifically states:
Other protective equipment is not generally required under normal working conditions.
The only mention of use of a respirator anywhere in the SDS is where an OSHA regulatory workplace standard is exceeded – which is clearly not the case here, as no such standards exist for the new chemical. Nowhere does the SDS specify use of a respirator with an APF of 10. Here again, the SDS is clearly not consistent with EPA’s own description of it.
Other recent cases found
This finding spurred us to look further at other “not likely” determinations and the corresponding SDSs. This is slower-going, because there is no electronically accessible docket. That’s not only because EPA has not proposed a SNUR for other new chemicals to which it recently gave the green light; it’s also because EPA has failed to comply with its own regulations requiring it to provide electronic access to all new chemical submissions it receives.
As we have described elsewhere, EDF has had no choice but to request the “public files” for these chemicals through EPA’s Docket Center, which can take several weeks (they come by snail mail on a CD-ROM).
I looked at a number of recent new chemicals EPA has green-lighted for which we have received public files. In one case no SDS was provided in the public file, while in two others the SDS was there but again totally redacted. In some of the remaining cases the SDS recommended PPE that matched that EPA described in its “not likely” document, or at least came close.
But in other cases, there was not a match. Here are two examples:
P-19-0021/22: Here is what the “not likely” determination document for P-19-0021 and P-19-0022 states:
Risks to workers: Lung overload via inhalation.
PPE EPA relies on:
Risks will be mitigated if exposures are controlled by the use of appropriate PPE, including a respirator with APF of 50. EPA expects that workers will use appropriate PPE consistent with the SDS prepared by the PMN submitter, in a manner adequate to protect them. (p. 5, emphases added)
The associated SDS makes only this reference to respiratory protection:
Respiratory protection Mist respirator, include single use respirator
Nowhere does the SDS specify use of a respirator with an APF of 50. The SDS is clearly not consistent with EPA’s own description of it.
P-18-0212: Here is what the “not likely” determination document for P-18-0212 states:
Risks to workers: Systemic effects via inhalation exposure; portal of entry/contact effects to the eyes, lungs and skin following ocular, inhalation, and dermal exposures
PPE EPA relies on:
The risks and hazards identified will be mitigated if exposures are controlled by the use of appropriate PPE, including impervious gloves, respirators with an APF of at least 10, and eye protection. EPA expects that workers will use appropriate personal protective equipment (i.e., impervious gloves, respirator with an APF of at least 10, and eye protection), consistent with the Safety Data Sheet submitted with the PMN, in a manner adequate to protect them. (p. 5, emphases added)
The associated SDS makes this reference to respiratory protection:
Respiratory Protection: For operations where inhalation exposure can occur use an approved respirator. Recommendations are listed below. Other protective respiratory equipment may be used based on user’s own risk assessment. Recommended respirators include those certified by NIOSH.
Recommended: Full Face Mask with a combination particulate/organic vapor cartridge.
Nowhere does the SDS specify use of a respirator with an APF of 10. The SDS is clearly not consistent with EPA’s own description of it.
Conclusion
In each of these cases, EPA identified a particular type of respirator as necessary for its finding that the chemical is not likely to present an unreasonable risk, and in each case, EPA asserted that the corresponding SDS specified that type of equipment. But in fact, in each case, the SDS does not specify that type of respirator. EPA’s decisions run counter to the actual evidence before the agency, and EPA has actually mischaracterized that evidence. That amounts to arbitrary decision-making. Practically speaking, this mismatch means that workers could follow the SDS to a T and be using a respirator that is not sufficient to protect them against the chemical’s identified risks.
As we have noted before, EPA’s reliance on SDS-recommended PPE flouts the law and falls vastly short of what TSCA requires EPA to do to protect workers. Amended TSCA requires EPA to issue binding orders to mitigate identified risks posed to workers by new chemicals, which it has identified in each of the cases we cite above. EPA’s mere “expectation” that PPE will universally be available, used and effective is wholly insufficient to address the identified risks. The recommendations in an SDS are not binding on employers, neither on manufacturers nor on other companies downstream in supply chains. Failure to always use PPE or for it always to be effective is clearly reasonably foreseeable, and EPA is required to mitigate risks from “reasonably foreseen conditions of use” of a new chemical. PPE is the option of last resort under the longstanding Industrial Hygiene Hierarchy of Controls adopted by OSHA and embraced by the industrial hygiene community. Reliance on expected use of PPE shifts the burden of protection off of EPA and employers and onto the backs of workers.
Now, we find that even the PPE EPA identifies as necessary to be in an SDS in order to determine that a new chemical is not likely to present an unreasonable risk is frequently absent from the SDS. Even under its own flawed theories, EPA is utterly failing to protect workers from the risks of these chemicals.
How much farther under the bus will the Trump EPA throw American workers?
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/05/22/company-safety-data-sheets-on-new-chemicals-frequently-lack-the-worker-protections-epa-claims-they-include/
-
Vermont, Environmentalists Urge Court to Remand Mercury Inventory Rule
May 23, 2019 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists and the state of Vermont are urging a federal appellate court to reject EPA arguments aimed at dismissing their suit over its rule creating an inventory of mercury use, supply and trade and are instead calling for the court to remand the rule, charging the agency unlawfully omitted certain categories of companies from its requirements.
“EPA’s Mercury Reporting Rule, which unlawfully carves out two major exceptions to Congress’s reporting requirement, will subvert EPA’s ability to prepare a complete and accurate 'inventory' as Congress required,” the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) argues in its May 22 brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.
“If allowed to stand, the Reporting Rule will ensure that EPA, Congress, and the public continue to lack the information needed to make informed decisions about regulating this dangerous neurotoxin. NRDC respectfully urges the Court to hold EPA to the plain terms of TSCA and vacate the challenged portions of the Rule.”
NRDC's brief responds to EPA's brief filed last month, which urged the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that its rule met requirements that Congress included in its 2016 reform of TSCA and that Congress gave EPA discretion in crafting the implementing rule.
EPA's June 2018 final rule under TSCA section 8(b)(10)(D) is one of a series of actions the agency was required to take within two years of TSCA's 2016 update. It requires reporting from manufacturers of mercury or mercury-added products to support an inventory of mercury supply, use and trade in the United States. The rule is also intended to help the United States comply with its international obligations to regulate mercury under the United Nations' Minamata Convention on Mercury, signed by the Obama administration. The treaty took effect in August 2017.
EPA's rule exempts from reporting certain companies that incorporate components containing mercury in their products and also exempts companies who manufacture quantities of mercury in excess of requirements for reporting under EPA's existing Chemical Data Reporting Rule (CDR).
The exemptions prompted NRDC and Vermont, one of 13 states operating the existing Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC), to sue.
The resulting consolidated case is now being heard in the 2nd Circuit.
In its latest brief, NRDC argues that “TSCA unambiguously requires reporting from 'any person' who manufacturers or imports 'mercury or mercury-added products.'” The group argues EPA concedes in its opening brief the statutory terms include products with mercury components which “all but resolves the first issue presented: the Component Exception … is unlawful.”
Similarly, NRDC argues that the rule's CDR exemption is “contrary to Congress’s directive ... and incompatible with EPA’s duty to produce a meaningfully accurate inventory.” The group says “EPA has never offered a reasoned explanation for its assertion that the data CDR reporters submit under the CDR program is, in fact, duplicative of the data EPA has excused them from submitting under the Mercury Reporting Rule.”
And it cites a 1983 Supreme Court case, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., to argue that “Because EPA has failed to 'articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action,' ... the CDR Exception cannot stand.”
NRDC's arguments are joined and adopted by Vermont, which also argues in its May 1 reply brief that “states have a strong interest to ensure that EPA complies with TSCA. … By leaving out a vast category of mercury use and products, EPA has frustrated states’ abilities to identify mercury uses in their states.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/vermont-environmentalists-urge-court-remand-mercury-inventory-rule
-
Vermont Legislature Clears Bill to Amend Children's Product Reporting Scheme
May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Vermont’s legislature has passed a bill to amend its existing children’s reporting rule, despite governor Phil Scott having vetoed a similar measure late last year.
The bill (S55) includes several NGO-backed changes to Act 188 – a 2014 Vermont law that put in place the state’s Chemicals of High Concern in Children’s Products Rule. Like requirements in other states, the scheme mandates that manufacturers notify the presence of any of dozens of substances of concern in products intended for children, and includes mechanisms for the state to impose regulations on them.
Supporters of the bill, like the NGO Vermont Conservation Voters, say that S55 would improve the existing Act 188, because it would "fix flaws in the current law and result in greater protection for Vermont’s children".
These include modifications such as: increasing reporting frequency from biennially to annually; removing the requirement that new chemicals be added to the scheme based on the "weight of scientific evidence", but rather on the basis of "credible, scientific evidence"; easing the pathway to imposing regulations on products, by stipulating that these can be promulgated if children ‘may’, rather than ‘will’, be exposed to a chemical of high concern, and that there is a ‘possibility’, rather than a ‘probability’, that the exposure could contribute to an adverse health impact; modifying the role of a stakeholder advisory committee; and directing the state’s Department of Health to report
The measure passed the Senate in March, and cleared the House with amendments on 17 May. The Senate concurred with those modifications through a voice vote on 22 May, sending the legislation to the governor for consideration.
Governor Scott vetoed a similar measure last year, citing concern that it was duplicative of existing laws and a threat to the state’s economy.
His decision, however, was nearly reversed, with the Senate voting to overturn it and the House falling just four votes shy of the needed two-thirds majority. And in November 2018 elections, Democrats picked up enough seats to secure a veto-proof majority for the current session.
PFAS actions
Meanwhile, progress has also been made on two other bills related to chemicals.
On 15 May, Governor Scott signed into law a bill directing the state’s Agency of Natural Resources to establish drinking water standards for five per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs): perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA); perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS); perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS); perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA); and perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA).
The measure (S 49) also puts in place water monitoring requirements, and directs the natural resources agency to conduct a rulemaking regarding the "regulation of PFAS compounds", as a class or a subclass, under the state’s Water Supply Rule.
On 21 May, the legislature also passed a bill (S 37) that would allow people who have been exposed to a toxic chemical to seek the costs of medical monitoring from industrial facilities responsible for the emissions.
It also includes a provision that would allow the state’s to sue chemical manufacturers for the cost of clean-up resulting from the release of a substance they produced.
Governor Scott vetoed a similar measure last year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77891/vermont-legislature-clears-bill-to-amend-childrens-product-reporting-scheme
-
Air Force Agrees to Reimburse W.Va. City for PFAs Cleanup
May 23, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
The Air Force has agreed to reimburse $4.9 million to the city of Martinsburg, W.Va., for expenses related to the 2016 cleanup of hazardous chemicals from the city's water supply.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) announced the agreement yesterday.
A statement released by Capito's office says EPA identified high levels of contamination linked to chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. EPA mandated that additional water filtration systems be installed at a treatment plant.
The statement says the source of the contamination was revealed to be firefighting foam used by the Air National Guard at the Eastern West Virginia Regional Airport.
Similar contamination has been found at dozens of military sites across the nation.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/23/stories/1060384817
-
Phthalates: Why You Need to Know About the Chemicals in Cosmetics
May 23, 2019 | Guardian
By Lauren Zanolli
What are phthalates?
Phthalates are a group of chemicals most commonly used to make plastic more flexible and harder to break. They also act as a binding agent or a solvent. Also known as plasticizers, they are found in a wide range of products and were first introduced in the 1920s as an additive in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and some healthcare products, such as insect repellent.
Exposure to phthalates is widespread and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) studies have foundphthalates present in the majority of the population, particularly among children and women of child-bearing age.
What are phthalates in?
Cosmetics and personal care products (shampoo, perfume, nail polish, hairspray, sanitary pads and more), vinyl flooring, mini blinds and wallpaper, raincoats, medical equipment and devices (including blood storage bags and IV tubes), plastic pipes, shower curtains, plastic film and food packaging, pharmaceuticals, lubricating oils and detergents.
Phthalates are believed to leach into food products via the plastic found in food packaging and in production facilities; the chemicals have been found in food, particularly in milk and spices, researchers at the University of Washington said in 2013.
They are known to spread across the food chain and have been found in the eggs of birds in the Canadian Arctic, scientists at the Canadian Wildlife Service recently discovered.
Can phthalates cause harm?
Phthalates’ effects on humans have not been studied extensively, but they are believed to be an endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC) that can alter hormonal balance and potentially cause reproductive, developmental and other health issues.
Links have been found to reproductive and genital defects, lower sperm count, disrupted hormones and infertility has been found in numerous studies on animals, the National Research Council stated in a 2008 risk assessment report.
Exposure to phthalates can increase the risk of miscarriage and gestational diabetes in pregnant women, according to two recent Harvard studies.
In infants and children, phthalates have been linked to allergies, male genital deformities, premature puberty, eczema, asthma, lowered IQ andADHD. A 2010 study on New York schoolchildren associated prenatal phthalate exposure with social impairment later in life. Researchers in Korea last year found, through a review of existing studies, a “significant association” between DEHP exposure and neurodevelopmental effects in children.
Other studies have linked phthalates to other effects in adults. A Harvard-led research team concluded in a 2008 study that levels of certain phthalates were linked to sperm DNA damage among men at an infertility clinic. The US Consumer Product Safety Commission said in a 2014 risk report that exposure to certain phthalates may induce adverse effects to the thyroid, liver, kidneys and immune system. Some phthalates – like DEHP, among the most widely-used phthalates – are listed as a probable carcinogen by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
How can consumers limit any risks?
Most exposure to phthalates come from eating and drinking food that has absorbed the chemicals. Phthalates may also be inhaled through vapors from fragranced cosmetics or cleaning products absorbed through the skin. Because they are in so many products, avoiding phthalates altogether is tricky.
Minimize exposure by avoiding plastic food containers (plastic marked with a number 1, 2, 4 or 5 recycling code are probably safest).
Use glass instead and never reheat food in plastic.
Check product labels – avoid anything with “fragrance” or phthalates listed.
How are phthalates regulated?
In the US, a few federal agencies have oversight of phthalates.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) monitors use of phthalates in food packaging, and the EPA regulates a handful of phthalates under its clean air and water powers. In 2008, Congress passed a bill to ban or restrict the use of eight types of phthalates in certain children’s products, a rule finalized by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The EU has been tightening restrictions on the use of phthalates in consumer products since the early 2000s, but many chemicals have remained in use. In 2003, the EU moved to ban five phthalates incosmetics. Last year, EU agencies voted to remove a loophole that allowed four phthalates – DEHP, BBP, DBP and DIBP – that had been previously banned in consumer products.
Canada has also banned the use of DEHP in cosmetics and restricted its use in other products.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/23/phthalates-everyday-products-toxics-guide
-
‘It’s Raining Plastic’: Researchers Find Microscopic Fibers in Colorado Rain Samples
May 23, 2019 | Eco Watch
By Brett Walton
When Greg Wetherbee sat in front of the microscope recently, he was looking for fragments of metals or coal, particles that might indicate the source of airborne nitrogen pollution in Rocky Mountain National Park. What caught his eye, though, were the plastics.
The U.S. Geological Survey researcher had collected rain samples from eight sites along Colorado's Front Range. The sites are part of a national network for monitoring changes in the chemical composition of rain. Six of the sites are in the urban Boulder-to-Denver corridor. The other two are located in the mountains at higher elevation.
The monitoring network was designed to track nitrogen trends, and Wetherbee, a chemist, wanted to trace the path of airborne nitrogen that is deposited in the national park. The presence of metals or organic materials like coal particles could point to rural or urban sources of nitrogen.
He filtered the samples and then, in an inspired moment, placed the filters under a microscope, to look more closely at what else had accumulated. It was much more than he initially thought.
"It was a serendipitous result," Wetherbee told Circle of Blue. "An opportune observation and finding."
In 90 percent of the samples Wetherbee found a rainbow wheel of plastics, mostly fibers and mostly colored blue. Those could have been shed like crumbs from synthetic clothing. But he also found other shapes, like beads and shards. The plastics were tiny, needing magnification of 20 to 40 times to be visible and they were not dense enough to be weighed. More fibers were found in urban sites, but plastics were also spotted in samples from a site at elevation 10,300 feet in Rocky Mountain National Park.
The findings are detailed in a report published online on May 14.
Where did the plastic fibers come from? Are they locally produced, or carried from distant states or countries? How do they affect fish and other aquatic life after the plastics precipitate out in rain? And just how much plastic is aloft? Austin Baldwin, a study co-author, would like to know.
"There are more questions than answers right now," Baldwin, a USGS hydrologist who studies microplastics, told Circle of Blue.
Plastic pollution is ubiquitous, an unfortunate residue of contemporary consumer culture. Bottles, bags and containers litter beaches and clog streams. Seabirds and whales eat the debris, their stomachs coming to resemble a garbage bin.
These are the most visible signs of an even deeper problem. The consequences of microplastics, those comparable to grains of salt or human hairs, are less well understood. Baldwin said there are even fewer studies to date that have examined microplastics in rain. He mentioned two studies from Paris and one from the Pyrenees. "It's kind of exciting," in the sense of scientific discovery, he said.
The atmosphere is a powerful and tireless recirculator — of pollution as well as water. Dust carried by wind and rain from America's southern deserts falls on the Rocky Mountains and causes snowpack to melt more quickly. Mercury emissions from thermal power plants as distant as China have been detected in the remote alpine lakes of Olympic National Park and Mount Rainier National Park, where the toxic chemical is consumed by fish. Even PFAS compounds, the contaminants du jour, hitch an aerial ride. New Hampshire regulators traced groundwater contamination near a Saint-Gobain manufacturing facility to the site's blower stacks, which had lofted the chemicals into the air before they precipitated onto land.
Baldwin outlined several theories for the source of microplastics in Colorado. The fibers suggest the residue from synthetic clothing. Residential clothes dryers could be venting a waste stream into the air, he said. Or laundry water could be a source. Fibers sent to a wastewater treatment plant could end up in the sludge that is then spread on farm fields for fertilizer. As the sludge dries, the fibers could be lifted into the air. Another possible source could be the slow degradation of car tires.
The next step is to estimate the mass of microplastics in rain and whether the phenomenon is evident in other regions. Wetherbee said that an evaluation of snow-season deposition of microplastics across the U.S. Rockies, from Montana to New Mexico, is already in progress.
Though individual microplastics have their own shape, size and chemistry, Baldwin did not think that the Colorado sites are particularly unique. The fibers could have been carried for a significant distance.
"We're seeing plastics virtually everywhere we look," he said.
https://www.ecowatch.com/plastics-in-rain-colorado-2637876643.html?rebelltitem=4#rebelltitem4
-
Pee in the Pool Toxic or Just Gross?
May 23, 2019 | Environmental Working Group
By Sydney Evans
It’s no secret that pee finds its way into swimming pools. In fact, the typical residential pool contains about two gallons of urine. What’s worse, there are other, more alarming contaminants lurking in the depths, and pee in the pool could be making the problem worse.
Pools are vulnerable to all the biological and chemical contaminants swimmers bring with them: sweat, saliva, lotion, sunscreen, hair, makeup, gel, oil, skin cells, bacteria and, of course, urine. Disinfectants like chlorine are added to the water to keep it safe and free of viruses, bacteria and other pathogens.
Chlorine kills or deactivates the pathogens, but other contaminants can combine with it to form toxic disinfection byproducts, such as chloroform. Scientists have identified more than 600 different disinfection byproducts, and many have been linked to cancer and harm to the developing fetus. As with many other toxic chemicals, disinfection byproducts can pose a particular risk to children, and exposure for children is often much greater than for adults.
The Environmental Protection Agency has set a legal limit for two groups of disinfection byproducts in drinking water – 80 parts per billion, or ppb, for trihalomethanes and 60 ppb for haloacetic acids. Yet no such regulations exist for swimming pools.
In contrast to drinking water, residual chlorine and disinfection byproducts in swimming pool water cannot be completely filtered out, because filters that remove the byproducts would also remove the chlorine. The water must always contain a low level of disinfectant to ensure it is not re-contaminated with pathogens whenever anyone enters the pool.
Pools are rarely emptied and refilled, and the regular addition of chlorine and contaminants from swimmers results in a continuous buildup of disinfection byproducts. Some can be reduced by the addition of other chemicals, broken up by sunlight, or released into the air. Even after the pool water is filtered, as it is recirculated over months or years, contaminants accumulate.
Dozens of studies on indoor swimming pools have found often alarmingly high levels of disinfection byproducts. In one study of 23 indoor pools, researchers reported that haloacetic acids were found at an average concentration of 1,541 ppb, more than 25 times the level the EPA allows in drinking water. At this level, accidentally swallowing a third of a cup of pool water – what a child ingests in just an hour and a half – would exceed the maximum daily legal dose established by the EPA for drinking water.
In addition to the risks of accidentally swallowing water with disinfection byproducts, these chemicals can be also inhaled from poolside air or absorbed through the skin. Swimmers who are children or teenagers have an increased risk of developing bronchial hyperreactivity, asthma and rhinitis because of exposure to disinfection byproducts from pools.
To decrease disinfection byproduct levels, a number of chlorine alternatives have been explored, but with little success. A common misconception is that salt pools are free from chlorine, but that’s not so. Chlorine is generated from the salt after it passes through a salt-chlorine generator, so salt pools also have chlorine-related disinfection byproducts.
Some pools may use bromine, a chemical disinfectant similar to chlorine. However, scientists from the University of South Carolina reported in 2016 that pools using bromine as a disinfectant still carried high concentrations of disinfection byproducts, and some of these byproducts were more toxic than chlorine-based byproducts.
Disinfection methods such as ultraviolet light and ozone can decrease the level of certain byproducts but increase the level of others. Some companies have started marketing copper-silver ionization technologies in place of, or along with, chlorine for pool disinfection. More research is needed to assess the safety and effectiveness of this approach.
Part of the problem may be using too much chlorine. High levels of residual chlorine may contribute to high levels of disinfection byproducts. The minimum level of chlorine required in public pools and spas in the U.S. is higher than in many other countries. Using the minimum amount of chlorine necessary to disinfect the pool may help keep disinfection byproduct levels low, but will not eliminate them altogether.
There is no need to boycott your neighborhood pool. The major source of disinfection byproducts in pool water – “human input” – is also part of the solution. The key is to keep contaminants like lotions, body oils and urine out of the pool in the first place.
In an experimental study published in 2014, disinfection byproduct formation was reduced by more than two-thirds when swimmers used the bathroom to relieve themselves and showered for just 60 seconds before they got in the pool.
Reducing these contaminants could also help maintain good pool chemistry. Pool owners may find it easier to keep pool chemicals at acceptable levels when there are fewer contaminants using up chlorine, clouding up the water and shifting the pH balance.
Of course, when the sun is shining, it is important to wear sunscreen – or even, better seek shade. Swimmers should always apply and re-apply sunscreen when swimming outdoors. Sunscreen works best when applied early and often, so slather it on after each rinse and during every bathroom break. Use EWG’s Guide to Sunscreens to find safer sun-protective products.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2019/05/pee-pool-toxic-or-just-gross
-
Bayer Judge Picks Top Mediator for Roundup Settlement Talks
May 23, 2019 | Bloomberg (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Joel Rosenblatt and Jef Feeley
A U.S. judge overseeing Roundup-cancer lawsuits against Bayer AG provisionally appointed high-profile mediator Ken Feinberg to lead settlement talks over the herbicide litigation, which has tanked the company's stock since it acquired Monsanto almost a year ago.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco, who's handling hundreds of lawsuits filed against Bayer in federal court, told lawyers for both sides yesterday that they must meet with Feinberg in the next two weeks so he can decide whether to lead the mediation process. Feinberg has helped broker and oversee some of the biggest civil settlements in U.S. history.
Bayer, which contends Roundup doesn't cause cancer, hasn't shown much interest in jumping into settlement talks before appeals courts consider the company's arguments that there were flaws in the three California trials it lost. Those appellate reviews, challenging jury verdicts that socked Bayer with more than $2 billion in damages, could take years to complete.
Feinberg, recognized as one of the U.S.'s leading dispute-resolution gurus, was tapped to administer compensation funds for victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and the 2010 BP PLC oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. He also was hired by Volkswagen AG to oversee compensation for car owners affected by the diesel emissions-cheating scandal.
Bayer fell as much as 1.8% in Frankfurt.
Bayer's lawyers said last week while they'll participate in mediation in "good faith," the company still wants to "assess cases over the long term."
"As this litigation is still in the early stages — with no cases that have run their course through appeal — we will also remain focused on defending the safety of glyphosate-based herbicides in court," Chris Loder, a Bayer spokesman, said yesterday in an emailed statement.
A lawyer for cancer victims said her team will plan to continue to take cases to trial if Bayer doesn't engage in negotiations.
"The plaintiffs are always interested in discussing a settlement in order to advance their cases," said Jennifer Moore, one of the lawyers representing a California man awarded $80 million over his cancer that he blamed on the weed killer.
Chhabria said yesterday he'd spoken with Feinberg about the Roundup litigation and said he favors putting him in charge of negotiations "if he can do it." Chhabria rejected the mediators recommended by Bayer and plaintiffs' attorneys.
Given Bayer's lack of enthusiasm for settlement talks, Chhabria may see Feinberg as a powerful lever, said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond professor who teaches about product-liability law.
"In my experience, sometimes companies from outside the U.S. need to get hit in the head with a 2X4 so they'll wake up and decide it's time to settle," Tobias said. "Ken Feinberg might well be that 2X4."
Feinberg oversaw a $20 billion fund in the BP case and $1.2 billion recovery in the Sept. 11 case. "The final settlement number in this case will have a B attached to it and he's comfortable playing in that league," the professor said.
Tony Sebok, a law professor at Benjamin Cardozo School of Law in New York, said Feinberg is known for coming up with creative and clever ways to untangle thorny legal problems and get recalcitrant litigants to compromise. "He's known as a careful and thoughtful mediator who can bring people together," Sebok said.
Feinberg may have his work cut out for him after a state court jury in Oakland, Calif., awarded more than $2 billion in damages to an elderly couple this month. Jurors concluded Alva and Alberta Pilliod's exposure to Roundup that they used for residential landscaping was a "substantial factor" in their non-Hodgkin lymphoma and hit the company with the eighth-largest product-defect verdict in U.S. history.
That was Bayer's third-straight trial loss and prompted some analysts to boost settlement-cost estimates to as much as $10 billion. The company still faces cancer claims by more than 13,000 people. At yesterday's hearing, the judge said Bayer must post a bond of $100 million while it challenges the $80 million verdict it lost in his court in March.
Chhabria said he wants to schedule the next trial in his court for February and told lawyers he would like at least 16 other cases to be "ready" for trial in other courthouses in California even sooner.
The litigation has eroded Bayer's value by more than 40% since the German pharmaceuticals giant acquired agrochemical titan Monsanto for $63 billion in June. Bayer has said all three verdicts are excessive and defended the safety of Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate, since inheriting the product from Monsanto.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/23/stories/1060384819
-
Echa Outlines Approach to Assessment of Priority Chemicals
May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa has informed industry of the measures it must take to ensure compliance on chemicals that will be assessed under the agency's new prioritisation plan.
Last month, Echa’s inaugural report Mapping the chemical universe to address substances of concern identified about 1,300 ‘high priority’ substances registered on the EU market for which further data needs to be generated or assessed. When that has been done authorities can decide whether further regulatory risk management is needed.
The report reveals that about 950 chemicals are deemed to be low priority – 500 of which are deprioritised – with the remainder already regulated. Of the high priority substances, data generation is ongoing for the 1,300, while risk management measures are foreseen for 270.
Some companies may have a large portfolio of chemicals with varying degrees of priority, Echa’s head of computational assessment unit Mike Rasenberg said at the agency's safer chemicals conference on 22 May. High priority ones are those that have a high tonnage registration, data gaps and high exposure potential.
An uncertain region or "grey area" exists on the map, comprising 2,700 chemicals for which there is lack of reliable hazard information.
Mr Rasenberg said Echa will focus in the coming years to "especially" clarify this area.
The agency will publish further details "as fast as possible". But, he warned industry, "in the meantime you are still responsible for compliance of your own dossiers".
He told companies to initiate screening studies on substances in an "intelligent way" rather than waiting for Echa to "come after you".
The agency, Mr Rasenberg said, has "preached endlessly"on volume use information, which it uses to deprioritise chemicals. But so far, Echa has not seen a systematic approach by companies looking at uses of their substances.
Where companies have standard information requirements, it is likely that work will be required to be compliant and achieve safe use, Mr Rasenberg said.
"If you leave it to us you will get orders to do the testing. You can initiate it yourself but bear in mind that lengthening the waiving statement does not do an awful lot other than bring more work for us, but we will muddle through it. Very often there is a principle lack of data."
He also told companies to "make sure you communicate upwards that there will be pressure on the portfolio of chemicals" and there will be a need for appropriate staff and funding.
Grouping
Grouping is one approach Echa is using to make screening "more holistic and predictable", Mr Rasenberg said.
The practice has been "heavily applied" by industry in registration dossiers where people are using each other’s data to fill gaps. On average a study is used seven times to fulfil an information requirement. This may seem "very efficient, but maybe not scientifically sound", he said.
After identifying the chemicals that are already "heavily regulated", Echa looks for chemicals that are very similar using algorithms. It is based on composition, not necessarily on identification. "We intend to publish these groups as soon as feasible to give industry transparency."
Once grouping is formalised "we see that many of these chemicals are touched on in one way or another". Grouping them enables "consistency" and the ability to target the right substance at the right time, and pool information to enable faster assessment, despite data gaps, he added.
"By doing all that we hope at least to avoid regrettable substitution and even achieve informed substitution. Once we have done this we will look at groups [on a] case-by-case basis."
https://chemicalwatch.com/77876/echa-outlines-approach-to-assessment-of-priority-chemicals
-
Ecetoc Publishes Conceptual Framework for Polymer Risk Assessment
May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (Ecetoc) has developed a ‘conceptual framework’ for polymer risk assessment called CF4Polymers. A task force has reviewed polymer grouping and risk assessment procedures to provide guidance for assessing potential ecological and human health hazards and risks.
The report takes into consideration the fact that polymers are diverse and complex, containing intentionally-added substances, such as stabilisers or UV-stabilisers, as well as impurities and contaminants. Polymers can also change form during different lifecycle stages.
Polymers tend to be listed and named based on the chemical composition of the principal monomers used to make them. This means that a wide range of polymers that vary in terms of unreacted monomers, physical form and chemical reactivity can have the same Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) name and number, explains the report.
The framework includes using expert knowledge to determine all structural descriptors as well as physicochemical and fate properties relevant for risk assessment. Polymer identification should also include intentionally and non-intentionally added substances.
The report represents "the first time that the polymer risk assessment process not only addresses the polymer itself, but also any potential impurities or added substances," said Olivier de Matos, Ecetoc secretary general. "It is anticipated that the guidance will evolve in light of future developments in the state of knowledge," he added.
The framework outlines eight steps, from polymer identification to exposure scenarios, hazard assessment and risk characterisation.
It contains advice on how to determine polymer similarity for grouping purposes, including setting a hypothesis, such as whether polymers have the same molecular initiating event for a given endpoint.
The report points out that some analytical tools have "technical limitations" restricting their suitability for assessing polymers. The task force is working on a review of the applicability of tools, methods and models to assess the different properties of polymers.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77874/ecetoc-publishes-conceptual-framework-for-polymer-risk-assessment
-
EU to Publish 'Fitness Check' on Non-REACH Chemical Laws in June
May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Commission will publish in June its long-delayed report on the regulatory fitness of all chemicals legislation excluding REACH, sources at the EU executive have said.
The report concludes three years of work to assess hazard and risk management processes across the EU chemicals policy framework. It will be released before the Commission's high level EU Chemicals Policy 2030 conference in Brussels on 27-28 June, they said.
This, they added, will give participants a chance to comment on the findings and "contribute to the discussion" on future EU policy. However, the report will not set out any follow-up actions, like the REACH review report has, as these should be determined under the new Commission term, said the sources.
The current Commission's term of office ends on 31 October. The next Commission president and commissioners will be nominated by the new EU parliament following this week's MEP elections.
The report, initially expected in 2017 and then in the middle of last year, has experienced severe delays due to the vast amount of information generated through stakeholder consultations.
These highlighted concerns around inefficiencies in harmonised classification (CLH) processes, and poor labeling and information on detergents and cosmetics, among others.
The fitness check exercise focuses on the most relevant of the EU's more than 40 pieces of chemicals legislation. This includes EU Regulations or Directives on CLP, biocidal products, chemical agents and carcinogens and mutagens in the workplace, as well as those focused on product categories, such as toys, cosmetics and detergents.
Several working documents and annexes will accompany the report, the sources said. However, as its scope is much bigger than that of the REACH Review, it is not expected to have as much detail.Clear conclusions
Tatiana Santos, policy manager at the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), said she hoped the Commission would bring "clear conclusions and recommendations" to address gaps in legislation to compensate for the delays.
Urgent action is needed, she said, to tackle inconsistencies such as SVHCs still allowed in food contact materials, challenges in implementation and enforcement, as well as transparency issues, cocktail effects, mixtures and endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC).
Meanwhile, the EU is looking at the conference in Brussels to put its long-term policy ambitions firmly on the agenda, the sources said.
The conference will feature speakers including environment commissioner Karmenu Vella, commissioner for DG Grow Elżbieta Bieńkowska, Echa executive director Bjorn Hansen, as well as some ministers from member states and high-level industry and NGO representatives.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77877/eu-to-publish-fitness-check-on-non-reach-chemical-laws-in-june
-
Study: Copper in Wood Preservatives May Induce Liver Toxicity
May 23, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Maria Delaney
Copper oxide and copper carbonate nanoparticles used as antimicrobial agents and wood preservatives may induce liver toxicity, in addition to causing changes in multiple organs, if ingested, according to a rodent study.
Led by Wim De Jong from the National Institute for Public Health and Environment (RIVM) in the Netherlands, a European group from academia and industry estimated the oral toxicity of the copper compounds, assuming that people could ingest the chemicals through hand-to-mouth transfer.
Copper is the most widely used fungicide for treating wood in contact with soil as it is the only biocide that shows significant effects against soil-borne fungi. It is a preferred wood preservative due to its minimal effect on mammals, including humans, although it shows a relatively high toxicity against aquatic communities.
Solid copper carbonate needs to be micronized by milling to generate particle sizes able to penetrate into the wood during pressure treatment. But the study authors could find "no publications available on oral toxicity of this micronized copper carbonate", they report in the journal Nanotoxicology.
Both nanoparticles induced changes in haematology parameters and clinical chemistry markers indicative of liver damage. Organ damage in the GI-tract, kidney, and the lymphoid organs (spleen, thymus) were more severe for copper carbonate compared with copper oxide nanoparticles.
The researchers looked at the dissolution characteristics of the nanoparticles in both stomach and intestine conditions. The primary particles simultaneously shrank and agglomerated into large structures in the intestine which led the researchers to conclude that "both copper ions and the particulate nanoforms should be considered as potential causal agents for the observed toxicity".
The team calculated bench mark doses for the copper chemicals, giving values "surprisingly similar" to the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (Noael) for copper sulfate, where the copper ion is "likely the main toxicant".
The researchers suggest that copper ions may play an important role in the mechanism of copper nanomaterial toxicity. Their data also identified that the immune system may be "severely affected" by these copper ions, matching their findings on silver nanoparticles.
"In view of the potentially high migration of nanomaterials to the spleen, the immune system may be a target for nanomaterial toxicity and needs consideration for a more specific toxicity evaluation", they write.
They suggest that their data may be useful for deriving an acceptable daily intake for wood preservatives.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77880/study-copper-in-wood-preservatives-may-induce-liver-toxicity
-
Oil Drillers and Greens Unite Against Ohio Nuclear Bailout Plan
May 23, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jim Efstathiou Jr.
The Sierra Club, the American Petroleum Institute and billionaire Charles Koch have found at least one thing to agree on: they hate Ohio’s plan to take away renewable power subsidies and give them to coal and nuclear plants.
The groups, normally at odds over energy issues, have all found elements to rail against in the “Ohio Clean Air Program.” The Republican proposal would scuttle wind and solar quotas and establish a $190 million annual fund, primarily to bail out two reactors owned by bankrupt FirstEnergy Solutions Corp. A key vote could come as early as Thursday.
The move would be unprecedented. While New York, New Jersey and Illinois have all begun subsidizing nuclear power as part of their clean-energy strategies, Ohio would be the first to do so by directly yanking support from renewables. Environmentalists decry the move as an assault on wind and solar, while fossil fuel advocates warn it will drive up power prices and unfairly tilt markets. Both say it’s a blatant corporate “bail out.”
“It is cronyism on full display,” Micah Derry, Ohio director for the Koch-backed group Americans for Prosperity, told lawmakers at hearing earlier this month.
The stakes are high. Ohio has the fourth-highest retail power sales in the nation. But the state’s two reactors, which account for about 12% of its power generation, are struggling to stay afloat as cheap natural gas pulls down wholesale power prices. Without subsidies, FirstEnergy Solutions has said it will close the plants, which employ 2,200 people.
Republicans, who control both house of the Ohio legislature, say the measure will boost the state’s commitment to clean energy. Akron, Ohio-based FirstEnergy Solutions, which filed for Chapter 11 last year, heralds it for putting nuclear on a “level playing field” with wind and solar.
Environmentalists, meanwhile, blast the measure for scrapping the state’s goal to get 12.5% of electricity from renewables. The American Petroleum Institute says it would shortchange natural gas plants. And Ohio’s largest utility, American Electric Power Co., warned that a bailout for a single company wouldn’t benefit customers at large.
“Bill sponsors put together a package that is massively unpopular for many different reasons,’’ said Neil Waggoner, an Ohio representative for the Sierra Club.
Walkout
Debates have been so contentions that Democrats briefly walked out of a hearing earlier this month after they were barred from questioning a witness.
In a push to shore up support from Republicans and utilities, the bill’s sponsors expanded the measure this week to provide support for two coal plants owned by the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation, whose owners include American Electric Power.
“This dramatic shift in strategy shows that House Speaker Larry Householder has lost hope in getting Democrats on board and is opting to bolster support with powerful utilities to attract additional Republicans,’’ Height Securities analyst Josh Price wrote in a research note Thursday.
A hearing on the bill before a Ohio House of Representatives committee is scheduled for Thursday, where lawmakers may vote whether to advance it.
State Representative David Leland, a Democrat from Columbus, said in a Tweet Wednesday that the bill ‘has gone from bad to worse.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/oil-drillers-and-greens-unite-against-ohio-nuclear-bailout-plan
-
The Critical Importance of Investing in American Energy Infrastructure
May 22, 2019 | Real Clear Energy
By Robin Rorick
With Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer meeting with President Trump recently to continue their conversation on infrastructure, the importance of rebuilding, modernizing and expanding America’s infrastructure should remain front and center. From highways, bridges, roads and airports to water and sewer systems, pipelines and the energy grid, there are few areas of the U.S. economy, and few aspects of our modern lives, that don’t benefit from our nation’s infrastructure – precisely why infrastructure investment is a rare issue worthy of widespread consensus.
Earlier this month, this consensus was on display as both parties touted the importance of infrastructure investment. I couldn’t agree more with a statement from Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer following their last meeting with President Trump: “Building America’s infrastructure is about creating jobs immediately, and also bolstering the commerce it facilitates, advancing public health with clean air and clean water, and improving the safety of our transportation system, and addressing climate change with clean energy, clean transportation and resilient infrastructure.”
For the energy industry, improving infrastructure is crucial to ensuring that Americans across the country can reap the benefits of the U.S. energy revolution– going beyond affordable energy to include lower emissions and cleaner, more efficient products. We’ve known for a while that the increased use of natural gas in power generation is the main reason U.S. CO2 emissions have fallen to their lowest level in a generation, even as global emissions have risen 50 percent since 1990. We also know that, since 2005, the EIA estimates that natural gas has been responsible for more CO2 emissions reductions in electricity generation than renewables.
For these reasons and more, demand for natural gas and oil has grown across the country. Upgrading our nation’s pipelines, storage tanks, export terminals, waterways, ports and more, is vital to delivering the reliable and affordable flow of energy resources we all count on to cook our food, heat our homes and improve the quality of our lives. The United States leads the world in natural gas and oil production, yet there are manufacturers, businesses and American families in parts of the country who aren’t adequately connected to America’s energy abundance – and won’t be without new and/or expanded state of the art pipelines and other infrastructure to deliver energy to markets and consumers.
U.S. natural gas and oil pipelines are remarkably safe, reliable and resilient. Our industry utilizes highly trained workers, best-in-class standards, the latest advanced technologies, continually updated leading practices and ongoing collaboration with regulators to ensure that pipelines remain one of the safest ways to deliver the energy we use every day. For both physical and cybersecurity, the U.S. natural gas and oil industry has demonstrated its resiliency time and again.
However, to maintain this strong safety record and ensure consumer access to clean, abundant, and affordable energy, it is imperative that the regulatory environment and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) keep pace in effectively addressing current and future safety challenges. We recognize and appreciate PHMSA’s efforts to implement past Congressional mandates, but more work needs to be done to institute practical and performance-based regulations. As the process for reauthorization of PHMSA and other safety programs moves forward, we must ensure that they maximize our investment in people, technology and safety culture to effectively and efficiently advance pipeline safety.
Furthermore, building and maintaining a 21st-century energy infrastructure network will require increases in the efficiency, transparency and certainty of infrastructure permitting, as well as updated processes for improving existing pipelines and allowing new pipelines to be built in areas where energy development takes place.
By addressing these challenges and modernizing our energy infrastructure system we can provide opportunities for major economic growth and job creation, and realize the full benefits of our nation’s energy abundance for all Americans.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/05/22/the_critical_importance_of_investing_in_american_energy_infrastructure.html
-
PHMSA Issues Landslide Warning to Natural Gas Pipeline Owners
May 23, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By David Bradley
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has issued an advisory bulletin to remind owners and operators of natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines of the potential for damage caused by earth movement from landslides and subsidence in variable, steep and rugged terrain and for varied geological conditions.
“These conditions can pose a threat to the integrity of pipeline facilities if those threats are not identified and mitigated,” PHMSA said.
In the notice, published in the Federal Register earlier this month, PHSMA advised operators to consider taking a series of actions to ensure pipeline safety, including identifying areas that may be prone to large earth movement, utilizing geotechnical engineers during design, construction and operation of pipelines, and developing design, construction, monitoring and mitigation plans for pipelines.
PHMSA said it was “aware of recent earth movement and other geological-related incidents/accidents and safety-related conditions throughout the country, particularly in the eastern portion of the United States.”
Events identified by PHSMA over the past three years included gasoline, crude oil, propane and natural gas spills as well as pipeline ruptures caused by flooding, soil erosion and landslides in five states.
Other notable recent events include an Energy Transfer Partners LP pipeline in Western Pennsylvania that slipped and exploded in September, likely because of a landslide. A landslide was also blamed for an explosion on Columbia Gas Transmission LLC’s Leach Xpress in June 2018.
Such incidents have the Mariner East and other pipeline projects facing additional scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/118458-phmsa-issues-landslide-warning-to-natural-gas-pipeline-owners
-
ITC Resumes Rail, Truck Activity at Deer Park Terminal
May 23, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
Rail and truck activity is ramping back up at Mitsui's Intercontinental Terminal Co.'s Deer Park terminal, two months after a tank fire and subsequent chemical spill temporarily cut off regional markets from a large petrochemical hub relied on by dozens of refineries and petrochemical plants.
The closure of the terminal, which has 242 tanks with 13 million barrels of storage, has created massive disruptions in supply for solvents, methanol and other chemicals across the Gulf Coast region, analysts say.
Government officials gave ITC permission to reopen most of its docks in early May, but rail and truck shipments were still severely limited. Last week, petrochemical and research firm ICIS reported that there was some rail and truck activity returning to the terminal.
An ITC spokesperson confirmed this week that rail and truck operations have resumed normally except for in the area in front of the affected tanks.
On Monday, the Port Terminal Railroad Association lifted an embargo on the company receiving incoming rail tank cars, an ITC spokesman said. Rail and truck activity in front of an 80,000-barrel tank farm affected by the fire and another tank farm adjacent to it remain closed.
Last week a small flash fire erupted at the plant workers took apart one of the tanks in the farm that caught fire in March. Pre-staged firefighting crews quickly put out the fire. There were no reported injuries and air monitoring during the incident didn't not show any elevated levels of benzene, officials said.
The March 17 chemical fire burned for three days, destroyed 11 storage tanks and sent chemicals spewing into the ship channel. The U.S. Coast Guard closed the Houston Ship Channel for three days during the cleanup and shipping was restricted for nearly a month, forcing refineries to limit production and constraining shipments for nearly a month.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/ITC-resumes-rail-truck-activity-at-Deer-Park-13878553.php?cmpid=ffcp
-
AGA Offers Pipeline Safety Recommendations
May 23, 2019 | Daily Energy Insider
By Douglas Clark
The American Gas Association’s (AGA) leadership has issued a series of recommendations to improve pipeline safety that includes the identification, prevention, and remediation of safety hazards.
The AGA Board of Directors recently approved a resolution recommending all members implement Pipeline Safety Management Systems (PSMS), a holistic approach to improving pipeline safety that includes the identification, prevention, and remediation of safety hazards.
“We never stop searching for new and innovative ways to enhance the safety of the natural gas delivery network,” AGA President and CEO Karen Harbert said. “Safety is at the very core of what we do and Pipeline Safety Management Systems is yet another way that America’s natural gas utilities go above and beyond to protect our employees, customers and the communities that we serve.”
The PSMS includes, among other initiatives, Leadership and Management Commitment; Management of Change processes for asset, compliance, procedure, and organizational changes; and a Corrective Action Program that logs, tracks and follows up on hazards submitted by employees and contractors.
The Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration maintains natural gas pipeline incidents have continued to decline over the past 20 years. Between 2014 and 2018, excavation damage and other outside forces were the leading causes of severe incidents on distribution systems.
The American Gas Association, founded in 1918, represents more than 200 local energy companies that deliver clean natural gas throughout the United States.
https://dailyenergyinsider.com/news/19555-aga-offers-pipeline-safety-recommendations/
-
Ewire: CEQ Readies NEPA Rule Overhaul
May 23, 2019 | Inside EPA
The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is poised to begin inter-agency review of its draft proposed overhaul of implementing rules for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a measure that environmentalists fear would unnecessarily weaken environmental protections.
Reuters reports that CEQ plans to send its draft NEPA plan to the White House Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in June, a step that means the rulemaking is only slightly behind CEQ's projection in the just-updated Unified Agenda of publicly releasing the proposal next month.
“This is a significant undertaking and I expect we will hold to a fairly ambitious schedule moving through the OIRA process,” CEQ official Ted Boling told a May 22 conference in Baltimore held by the National Association of Environmental Professionals.
The Unified Agenda does not include a target deadline for finalizing the NEPA rule overhaul.
During a May 15 Senate hearing, CEQ Chairwoman Mary Neumayr largely side-stepped questions about the status of the NEPA implementing rule changes, saying merely that they had not yet been submitted for OIRA review.
She also said little about CEQ's separate effort to revise Obama-era guidance for how agencies should consider climate change in NEPA reviews, saying only that a draft rewrite would be released “in the near future.”
CEQ last June issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) asking a host of questions about what aspects of NEPA rules should be streamlined. Democratic state attorneys general, former EPA officials and scores of environmental groups have urged CEQ to drop the effort, arguing that NEPA is rarely the reason for delays to major infrastructure projects.
However, major industry groups are praising the effort, charging that environmental reviews under NEPA take an unacceptable amount of time to complete.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-ceq-readies-nepa-rule-overhaul
-
May 23, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
In recent months, several Republicans have rallied around a single idea when describing their plans to address climate change: innovation.
They argue that investing in new technology — including in the next generation of nuclear reactors and nascent ways of sucking carbon dioxide directly out of the air — is the best way to address climate change.
But in a vote this week, all but one Republican rejected a spending bill that included increases in funding for government programs researching just this sort of alternative energy innovations.
The measure, approved in a 31-21 vote in the Democratic-led House Appropriations Committee almost entirely along party lines, illustrates how Republicans are still prioritizing getting funding for other Energy Department initiatives over bipartisan provisions on climate change. So much so that they are willing to vote against a bill that would go toward showing they are serious about their calls for innovation as House Democrats raise climate change to the forefront this Congress.
No Republican lawmaker objected to the proposed increases in clean-energy research as the committee reviewed the bill on Wednesday. And some, such as Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), did press for more funding for new types of nuclear reactors, a low-carbon form of energy heavily researched in Simpson's own state at the Idaho National Laboratory..
But they did object to what they saw as insufficient funding for a number of other programs in the package, such as those for the storage of nuclear waste, for the maintenance of the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal and for the construction of water storage projects out West.
Republicans also protested committee Democrats for rushing ahead of top congressional leaders before they agreed upon final spending caps for the next federal budget.
“While there were many provisions in the bill he agrees with,” said Alex Lanfranconi, a spokesman for committee member John Rutherford (R-Fla.), “it makes no sense to advance these bills until we have a bipartisan agreement on top line funding levels.”
Like several Republicans on the committee, Rutherford has praised “free market solutions and innovations” as the best way toward the goal of 100 percent clean energy.
The $46.4 billion spending bill for energy and water programs would increase spending for the Energy Department's technology incubator for such innovations — called the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy — to $425 million, a $59 million increase above levels for fiscal year 2019.
That program, better known as ARPA-E, supports the research and development of novel energy technologies by academics and startups. Authorized under George W. Bush and set up under Barack Obama, the program has remained popular with many congressional appropriators in both parties.
Indeed, during the first two years of Donald Trump’s presidency, congressional Republicans and Democrats alike championed the program by keeping funding around Obama-era levels and rejecting a call from the White House to completely eliminate it.
“I was pleased we were able to reverse the administration’s wholly inadequate budget request and provide robust funding for the clean energy technology programs that will spur innovation as we work to mitigate climate change,” said Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), chairwoman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water. “A vote for this bill was a vote to support those critical programs.”
The new Democratic spending bill would also up funding for the Energy Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) to $2.65 billion, making for an increase of $273 million over 2019 levels. The White House had requested to cut its budget by almost 90 percent.
Such year-to-year budgetary uncertainty is a drag on long-term research programs investing in technology that may take decades to develop, said Dan Reicher, research fellow at the Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance at Stanford and former EERE head under Bill Clinton.
“It’s hard to run a long-term innovation program with an annual budget process,” he said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2019/05/23/the-energy-202-republicans-vote-against-bill-containing-their-key-climate-priority-researching-energy-innovation/5ce5cac3a7a0a46b92a3fd94/?utm_term=.279be0168767
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