Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 5/24

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) UN Event to Provide Focus for Plastics Industry's Work Combating Marine Debris
May 23, 2016 | Plastics News
By Gayle S. Putrich

The plastics industry has about 260 projects around the world planned, underway or completed in its effort to combat marine debris under the Declaration of the Global Plastics Associations for Solutions on Marine Litter.
(ACC Mentioned) Global Plastics Industry Outlines Plans to Reduce Marine Litter
May 23, 2016 | Recycling Today

eaders from the global plastics industry have announced that approximately 260 projects are planned, underway or completed as part of the Declaration of the Global Plastics Associations for Solutions on Marine Litter, the industry’s public commitment to tackle plastic in the marine environment.

Chemical Management News

Preventing A Thousand Flints: Getting Reform Of Chemical Regulation Right
May 23, 2016 | Health Affairs Blog
By Leonardo Trasande and Bruce Lanphear

The contamination of water with lead in Flint, Michigan has rightly refocused national attention on the ongoing tragedy of childhood lead exposure in the United States.
(ACC Mentioned) House Set to Subject 64,000 Household Chemicals to Regulation
May 24, 2016 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport

The House is set to pass a bill on Tuesday intended to overhaul the nation’s 40-year-old law governing toxic chemicals, a measure that would for the first time subject thousands of household chemicals to regulation.
(ACC Mentioned) White House Backs TSCA Revamp; House to Vote May 24
May 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

Legislation to overhaul the nation's primary chemicals law by expanding the Environmental Protection Agency's authorities to obtain information and regulate chemicals is backed by the White House and scheduled to be voted on in the House May 24.
(ACC Mentioned) House Weighs TSCA Deal Under Terms Set by Rules Panel
May 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Schank

The Environmental Protection Agency's process for evaluating the use of toxic chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act would be modified by the proposed House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2576.
(ACC Mentioned) How Congress Got to Yes on Toxic Chemical Reform
May 24, 2016 | The Hill
By Megan R. Wilson and Timothy Cama

Lobbyists, senators and congressional aides can recall the moment when the debate changed.
(ACC Mentioned) The Most Significant Changes in TSCA Reform
May 23, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish

Lawmakers on nearing the finish line on a major reform bill that will replace the decades-old Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA).
(ACC Mentioned) House Bill Strengthening Regulation of Chemicals Nears Passage
May 23, 2016 | SF Gate
By Carolyn Lochhead

The House is expected to pass landmark environmental legislation Tuesday that for the first time since Gerald Ford was president would toughen regulation of thousands of industrial chemicals in everyday use, many of which currently receive little federal scrutiny.
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Found in Water Bottles Linked to Child Obesity
May 23, 2016 | The New York Post
By Carl Campanile

The exposure of pregnant women to an industrial chemical used extensively in food cans and plastic water bottles has been linked to obesity in their offspring, according to a new study.
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Advisers to Review Risks of Widely Used Solvent
May 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

An Environmental Protection Agency advisory committee will critique May 24-25 a draft assessment that found a widely used solvent may increase the health risks posed to workers and consumers of cancer or other problems.
(ACC Mentioned) Dems Win More Changes on State Pre-Emption, EPA Authority
May 23, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sam Pearson

Congressional Democrats secured changes over the weekend to pending chemicals legislation that address several thorny issues, which was enough to bring three key lawmakers on board.
Historic Deal on TSCA Reform Reached, Setting Stage for a New Law After 40 Years of Waiting
May 23, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison

House and Senate negotiators have reached agreement on a final reconciled bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), our nation’s badly broken chemical safety law.
White House-Backed Overhaul Heads to House Vote
May 24, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Sam Pearson

The House will vote on compromise legislation to overhaul the nation's chemical safety rules as soon as this afternoon.
Obama 'Strongly Supports' Chemical Overhaul Bill
May 23, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

The Obama administration said it “strongly supports” the bipartisan compromise chemical safety bill rolled out Monday and wants Congress to quickly pass it.
White House 'Strongly Supports' TSCA Deal
May 23, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode

The White House "strongly supports" legislation overhauling the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act, according to a Statement of Administration Policy issued today.
House Dems Win TSCA Concessions
May 23, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darren Goode

House Democrats managed to scale back language in a chemical safety bill that requires states to wait for EPA to review dangerous chemicals before they can take their own action.
Overnight Energy: House Dem Leaders Back Chemical Safety Overhaul
May 23, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama and Devin Henry

Leading House Democrats joined their colleagues Monday in endorsing a bipartisan, bicameral proposal to overhaul the nation's chemical safety standards.
Top House Democrats Announce Support For TSCA Reform
May 23, 2016 | Inside EPA

Several top House Democrats on May 23 announced their support for final compromise legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) -- including House Energy & Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) who had previously opposed the bill -- ahead of a House floor vote later this week.
Why a Safer, Healthier World is at Hand
May 23, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Diane Regas

My eldest son Matt is a brand new dad. Holding his 11-month-old daughter, Cora, I feel a surge of hope for this new child and for the generations after her. They have the chance to grow up in a safer, healthier world.
Initial Analyses of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act
May 23, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison

Based on the text of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act posted today, I have prepared the following analyses of the bill:a description of: (a) How the Lautenberg Act amends the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 and (b) changes made since House and Senate bill passage to reconcile the bills; anda description of what is and is not preempted under the Lautenberg Act.
Flame Retardant Exposure Poses A Significant Health Risk to Women
May 24, 2016 | Earth Island Journal
By Elizabeth Grossman

Exposure to flame retardant chemicals has become nearly ubiquitous in the United States thanks to fire safety standards that, until recently, could rarely be met without their use.
Global Health Officials to Consider Role in Improving Chemical Safety
May 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Chynoweth

This week’s World Health Assembly (WHA) will consider a resolution on the health sector’s role in the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm).

Energy News

Rules Committee to Vote on Energy Bill Additions
May 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter

More than three dozen energy and natural resources bills, including California drought legislation opposed by Democrats, would be added to broad House energy legislation headed to conference with the Senate under an amendment to be considered by the House Rules Committee May 24.
En Banc Review of Clean Power Plan Boosts Opponents' Hopes
May 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's decision to skip straight to an en banc hearing for the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan buoys opponents' hopes that the carbon dioxide standards will be overturned.
White House Threatens to Veto Energy and Water Bill
May 24, 2016 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink

The White House is threatening to veto the House's fiscal 2017 energy and water spending bill over contentious environmental riders, which Democrats vow to fight when the bill hits the floor today.

Chemical Security News

Chemical Board Needs Better Budgeting Guide: OIG
May 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Lee

The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board must write internal guidance for its operating budget process, the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Inspector General found in a May 23 report.

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) Consults for Cooling Water Intakes Debated in Briefs
May 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid

Environmental and industry groups disagree over the extent to which the Environmental Protection Agency should consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the NOAA Fisheries over the impact of the cooling water intake rule on threatened or endangered species (Cooling Water Intake Structure Coal. v. EPA, 2d Cir., 14-04645, opening briefs 5/20/16).
(ACC Mentioned) Groups Spar Over Waste Recycling Rule Off-Ramps
May 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs

The American Petroleum Institute and industry allies contested Earthjustice and a set of environmental advocates in May 19 reply briefs challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's definition of solid waste regulation (American Petroleum Inst. v. EPA,, D.C. Cir., No. 09-1038, briefs filed5/19/16).
API Challenges EPA Cooling Water Rule's 'New Unit' Technology Mandates
May 23, 2016 | InsideEPA
By David LaRoss

The American Petroleum Institute (API) is asking a federal appeals court to scrap a portion of EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) rule for permitting cooling water intake structures that applies to “new units” at many classes of facilities, arguing the term is defined so vaguely that it was impossible for stakeholders to adequately comment on it.
Cramer to Trump: 'Tackle the Clean Water Act'
May 24, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Tiffany Stecker

Rep. Kevin Cramer will be advising GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump on another hot-button issue -- the Obama administration's Waters of the U.S. rule.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) UN Event to Provide Focus for Plastics Industry's Work Combating Marine Debris

May 23, 2016 | Plastics News

By Gayle S. Putrich

The plastics industry has about 260 projects around the world planned, underway or completed in its effort to combat marine debris under the Declaration of the Global Plastics Associations for Solutions on Marine Litter.
Progress during the five years since the Global Declaration was signed, and details of some of the projects will be discussed May 24 at the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA).
Keith Christman, managing director of plastic markets at ACC’s plastics division and World Plastics Council member, will discuss the 2016 progress report on marine litter solutions and the nearly 165 percent increase in the number of projects since the Global Declaration's announcement in 2011, along with Nick Mallos, director of the Ocean Conservancy’s Trash Free Seas Alliance.
The presentation will be Webcast live from Nairobi at 5 a.m. EST on the United Nations Environmental Program's YouTube channel.
“We’re very pleased with the continued growth in the work we’re doing on marine litter,” said Steve Russell, vice president of plastics for the American Chemistry Council in a news release. “Since our last report, we’ve increased the number of industry associations participating as part of the Global Declaration and demonstrated that, united, we can help make a difference.”
Since its launch at the 5th International Marine Debris Conference with 47 plastics associations, the Global Declaration has grown to include 65 plastics industry trade associations from 34 countries supporting projects in six key areas aimed at contributing to sustainable solutions: education, research, public policy, sharing best practices, plastics recycling/recovery, and plastic pellet containment.
“Marine litter is a complex environmental challenge that requires joint efforts at the local, regional and global level,” said Karl-H. Foerster, executive director of PlasticsEurope in a news release. “We look forward to continue developing and executing programs that address marine litter, and work with governments, non-governmental organizations, researchers, and other stakeholders. It is critical that we have these partnerships and continue to bring additional stakeholders to the table to tackle this very serious issue.”
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20160523/NEWS/160529946/un-event-to-provide-focus-for-plastics-industrys-work-combating-marine-debris

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Global Plastics Industry Outlines Plans to Reduce Marine Litter

May 23, 2016 | Recycling Today

Leaders from the global plastics industry have announced that approximately 260 projects are planned, underway or completed as part of the Declaration of the Global Plastics Associations for Solutions on Marine Litter, the industry’s public commitment to tackle plastic in the marine environment. The announcement came with the release of the plastics industry’s annual progress report .
“As a united, global industry, we’ve come a long way from where we started in 2011,” says Callum Chen from the Asia Plastics Forum. “Today we have active marine litter prevention programs occurring in all regions of the globe, and we are continually pursuing opportunities to grow our work.”
Forty-seven plastics associations launched the declaration March 2011 at the Fifth International Marine Debris Conference. Saying they recognize their important role in fighting marine litter, these plastics associations have launched and are supporting projects in six key areas aimed at contributing to sustainable solutions. The six focus areas of the declaration are education, research, public policy, sharing best practices, plastics recycling/recovery and plastic pellet containment.
“We’re very pleased with the continued growth in the work we’re doing on marine litter,” says Steve Russell, vice president of plastics for the American Chemistry Council, Washington. “Since our last report, we’ve increased the number of industry associations participating as part of the Global Declaration and demonstrated that, united, we can help make a difference.”
“Marine litter is a complex environmental challenge that requires joint efforts at the local, regional and global level,” says Karl-H. Foerster, executive director of PlasticsEurope, based in Brussels. “We look forward to continue developing and executing programs that address marine litter and work with governments, non-governmental organizations, researchers and other stakeholders. It is critical that we have these partnerships and continue to bring additional stakeholders to the table to tackle this very serious issue.”
“Whilst the majority of consumers act responsibly, a minority who do not use or dispose of their plastic products appropriately, causing negative impacts such as litter,” says Abdulwahab Al-Sadoun, secretary-general, Gulf Petrochemicals and Chemicals Association (GPCA), Dubai, United Arab Emirates. “That’s why raising awareness about proper waste management and recycling is so important to us.”
Since initiating the declaration, signatories have identified numerous specific actions designed to fulfil these commitments across six focus areas and have agreed to track and report progress. In 2013 the declaration also became part of the United Nations Environment Programme’s Global Partnership on Marine Litter.
Today, 65 associations in 34 countries have signed on to the declaration, and the 260 projects underway, planned or completed (as of December 2015), represent a nearly 165 percent increase in the number of projects since the Global Declaration’s announcement.
http://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/global-plastics-industry-plans-reduce-marine-litter/

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

Preventing A Thousand Flints: Getting Reform Of Chemical Regulation Right

May 23, 2016 | Health Affairs Blog

By Leonardo Trasande and Bruce Lanphear

The contamination of water with lead in Flint, Michigan has rightly refocused national attention on the ongoing tragedy of childhood lead exposure in the United States. As John Oliver has rightly and wittily noted, water is but one source of exposure; another compelling tragedy is our ongoing failure to fund the control of lead-based paint hazards, which represent a large and preventable source of childhood lead exposure.
Prevention of childhood lead exposure makes good economic sense: for every $1 invested in protecting children from lead hazards in their home, society would benefit between $17 and $220. This cost-benefit profile is comparable with childhood vaccines. And, in the US, childhood lead exposure is a big problem, costing $50 billion per year.
The costs of lead poisoning are likely to pale in comparison with a broader, unknown set of synthetic chemical hazards commonly found in the environment. There are over 85,000 such chemicals in widespread use, with over 600 new chemicals introduced each year. Yet the current law for managing chemical hazards, which was promulgated in 1976 as the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), grandfathered-in 60,000 chemicals that were already in use and gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) little power to require proof of safety for newly manufactured chemicals. The flaws in the regulatory framework have been magnified due to accelerating evidence that some of these chemicals are toxic at exceedingly low levels, disrupt basic hormonal functions that contribute to normal human physiology, and contribute to disease.Inadequate Funding For Reviewing Grandfathered Chemicals In A Timely Fashion
Bipartisanship has been rare in Congress of late, and the House and Senate deserve praise for their efforts to reform TSCA. Yet the bill that has emerged from a congressional conference committee fails to establish a robustly funded infrastructure to ensure testing of chemicals that were grandfathered in. Without data about potential health effects, even the strongest principles for chemical regulation will inevitably fail to yield the expected protection of children and other vulnerable populations.
The proposed pace of reviewing chemicals is glacial, with a minimum of 10 chemicals in the first year and 25 in the first three and a half years. How can that be sufficient when there are thousands of highly produced chemicals without testing data?
If 1,000 chemicals need to be evaluated over the next 20 years, and each evaluation costs $1.5 million, then $1.5 billion, or $75 million/year, in funding should be budgeted. Others have estimated the costs to even be higher. The conference version permits EPA to receive user fees to fund this program, but these fees are limited to a total of $25 million, or 25 percent of total costs, whichever is lower. An unfunded mandate for EPA hardly seems appropriate given that its budget is 21 percent lower than 2010.An Over-Reliance On Computer Modeling
We sympathize with the effort to minimize reliance on animal studies, but, as crafted, the legislation could put EPA in the position of deciding about chemical hazards based on a largely unvalidated assumption that computers can model the effect of many chemicals on the human body. While the technology for detecting chemicals of concern through high-throughput testing is promising, a recent study documented its failure to accurately identify chemicals that contribute to obesity in animals and tissues.An Unsound Triaging Approach
The framework of screening chemicals into high and low priorities to triage reviews is also problematic. Prioritizing cancer risks, chemicals with known and immediate effects, and those that stay in the body for long periods of time makes sense because we are lagging desperately behind in evaluating chemical safety.
Yet, more and more science suggests that chemicals “hit and run,” leaving adverse effects long after exposure, especially in pregnancy. A large—and growing—literature demonstrates that synthetic chemicals can disrupt the developing brains of children and illuminates our failure to learn from the lead epidemic.Finding A Better Way Forward
Are we prepared to accept a thousand Flints, or should we stand for stronger reform, more in line with the approach Europe has taken to review chemical hazards? Our children represent the future engines of our economic competitiveness, and children in the US are well known to be exposed in utero to higher levels of brominated flame retardants that effect brain development than in Europe, where they are more stringently regulated.
Does TSCA urgently need to be reformed? Of course; even the chemical industries want that. Are there some very good principles in the conference legislation? Yes. Will it mean that the health of children be protected? Without adequate testing data, the legislation is a “house of cards,” allowing chemicals to be “reviewed” and funneled to a “low priority” bin, handcuffing states that wish to make their own decision. There has been some progress in allowing states to consider legislation while EPA reviews chemicals, but “low priority” does not mean “free of harm.”
Given that TSCA has not been revised for 40 years, it’s unlikely we will get another chance to fix this before the next generation of American children continues to participate in a dangerous and unnatural experiment, without their consent.
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/05/23/preventing-a-thousand-flints-getting-reform-of-chemical-regulation-right/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) House Set to Subject 64,000 Household Chemicals to Regulation

May 24, 2016 | The New York Times

By Coral Davenport

The House is set to pass a bill on Tuesday intended to overhaul the nation’s 40-year-old law governing toxic chemicals, a measure that would for the first time subject thousands of household chemicals to regulation. The House vote will send the bill to the Senate, where it is expected to pass this week or early next, moving the measure to President Obama’s desk.
Public health advocates and environmentalists have complained for decades that the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act is outdated and riddled with gaps that leave Americans exposed to harmful chemicals. Under current law, around 64,000 chemicals are not subject to environmental testing or regulation.
Efforts to tighten the law have stalled for years, in part because of opposition from the chemical industry. The bipartisan authors of the bill say their breakthrough represents a pragmatic, politically viable compromise between better environmental standards and the demands of industry. In particular, Senator Tom Udall, Democrat of New Mexico, worked closely with the American Chemistry Council to come up with language that would win the support of the industry and pass through the generally regulation-averse Republican Congress.
The new bill would require the Environmental Protection Agency to begin conducting tests on those 64,000 chemicals, but at a fairly slow pace: It would require the agency to be conducting tests on about 20 chemicals at a time, with a deadline of seven years per chemical. It would also allow the agency’s regulations to pre-empt stronger state-level rules.
But while the chemical lobby has lauded the bill, environmental groups are lukewarm about it at best. “We’re not in support of the bill. But we’re not formally opposing it,” said Andy Igrejas, the campaign director for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, which has lobbied on the bill on behalf of about 450 environmental and public health groups.
“This bill has some real reforms that give E.P.A. authority to go after more chemicals and order more testing,” Mr. Igrejas said, “but taking authority away from the states is a real limitation.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/25/us/politics/house-set-to-subject-64000-household-chemicals-to-regulation.html

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) White House Backs TSCA Revamp; House to Vote May 24

May 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

Legislation to overhaul the nation's primary chemicals law by expanding the Environmental Protection Agency's authorities to obtain information and regulate chemicals is backed by the White House and scheduled to be voted on in the House May 24.
“The administration strongly supports the bipartisan, bicameral efforts to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) embodied in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2576. The bill is a clear improvement over the current TSCA and represents a historic advancement for both chemical safety and environmental law,” the White House said in a statement May 23.
The bill, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 2576), would overhaul TSCA for the first time since 1976.
H.R. 2576 will come to the floor with only a manager's amendment following its consideration on May 23 by the House Rules Committee, the leadership's channel for setting floor votes.
“When the House takes up this bill tomorrow, we expect it to pass by a wide margin and we expect the Senate will support it without amendment,” Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, told the House Rules Committee.
Key House Democrats announced their support for the bill May 23 after securing wins through weekend negotiations over issues including when states could regulate chemicals.
“Recent changes Democrats made will reduce the harm of the state preemption provisions in the bill,” Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and House Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said in astatement May 23.
The House released a version of H.R. 2576 on May 20 that had been negotiated by Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate, and praised by members in both chambers in a statement. A legislative analysis of the bill is included in a separate story in this issue (See related story).
Industry Requests Don't Trigger Regulatory Pause
Even as that negotiated bill was released, some House Democrats, state environmental officials and organizations including the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition of environmental, health and other advocacy groups sought further changes.
In a key push, they sought to limit the so-called “regulatory pause.” That term refers to a three to four year period established by the legislation during which states would be preempted from regulating chemicals even though the EPA had not yet decided whether it would regulate them (99 DEN A-20, 5/23/16).
Some Democrats will vote against the bill due to their objections to the regulatory pause, Pallone told the House Rules Committee.
A manager's amendment released May 23 made several changes to the negotiated bill including limiting the regulatory pause, he said.
According to the manager's amendment, if a chemical manufacturer or group of companies asks the EPA to assess a chemical—and pays for that assessment—states could still regulate that chemical until the agency makes a final decision about it, environmentalists' legislative analysts told Bloomberg BNA.
Previously, state regulations were preempted from the time the EPA announced the scope of nearly any risk evaluation of a chemical, including chemical assessments requested and paid for by industry, until the agency made a decision or exceeded certain time limits included in the legislation.
The manager's amendment also would provide the EPA with additional authority to “unilaterally demand testing on chemicals it suspects are unsafe for people or harmful to the environment,” Pelosi, Hoyer and Pallone said.
Broad Support
The American Chemistry Council , National Association of Manufacturers, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce were among the many industry groups that voiced support for the bill on May 23. Many other trade associations had backed the bill released May 20.
“The final legislation released today is a major win for America's economy and American consumers. It is a true compromise that balances the interests of multiple stakeholders and has an almost-unprecedented level of bipartisan support in both the House and Senate. We look forward to a speedy vote in the House and quick action in the Senate,” said Cal Dooley, chief executive officer of the American Chemistry Council , in a May 23 statement.
R. Bruce Josten, an executive vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, released an openletter saying legislation would bring much needed reforms to TSCA.
“This bill would also provide clarity for industry and manufacturers to continue economic growth by establishing a new system for the Environmental Protection Agency to manage and evaluate risks of chemicals; preempting certain state regulatory actions during the pendency of an EPA risk evaluation; and maintaining certain confidential business information protections,” Josten said.
Aric Newhouse, National Association of Manufacturer's senior vice president, issued a statementcalling TSCA an outdated law that created “bureaucratic burdens” while failing to reflect modern manufacturing.
The agreed-upon legislation “is a win for everyone, including manufacturers, enabling further improvement of manufactured products and economic growth and opportunities,” Newhouse said.
Not Perfect, but ‘Dramatic Improvement’: EDF
The Environmental Defense Fund, which has supported bipartisan negotiations for TSCA reform for years, said: it welcomed the latest version of the measure.
“With today's announcement, Congress is at last poised to adopt protections for children, pregnant women, workers and all Americans that are decades overdue,” said EDF's President Fred Krupp in an e-mailed statement.
“While not perfect, this will be a dramatic improvement over current law. Congress should act fast to pass this legislation, so we can begin the process of restoring confidence in our chemical safety system,” added EDF Senior Scientist Richard Denison.
Linda Reinstein, president and chief executive officer of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, praised the idea of TSCA reform, but voiced concern about the bill coming before both chambers.
“Although the anticipated passage is a landmark step forward to ensure the EPA can prevent toxic exposures, TSCA reform legislation should have immediately prohibited asbestos imports,” she she told Bloomberg BNA by email, adding, “ each year, up to 15,000 Americans die from preventable asbestos-caused diseases.”
H.R. 2576 does not direct the EPA to take action on any specific chemical, but describes characteristics of chemicals such as their ability to cause cancer, cause other health problems, persist in the environment and bioaccumulate up the food chain, that would make them priorities for EPA action.
If Bill Becomes Law, Fights Likely to Follow: NRDC
Daniel Rosenberg, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council who served as environmental counsel to Lautenberg, the late senator from New Jersey, told Bloomberg BNA the negotiated bill and manager's amendment “on paper” would seem to make it easier for the EPA to obtain toxicity, exposure and other information on chemicals and regulate chemicals of concern.
NRDC is concerned, however, by provisions of the bill that would reduce the EPA's ability to regulate chemicals in manufactured goods, such as cars or televisions, that are imported into the country, he said.
NRDC also is concerned the bill may overly restrict state action to manage chemicals of concern, Rosenberg said.
Participating in the EPA's implementation of the new law will be essential, he said.
Chemical manufacturers and other industries affected by TSCA will continue to fiercely oppose any EPA efforts to manage chemicals, Rosenberg said. He predicted the regulatory and judicial phase of implementing the legislation, if it becomes law, will be “quite contentious.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90279175&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=496304500&searchid=27657050&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) House Weighs TSCA Deal Under Terms Set by Rules Panel

May 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Adam Schank

The Environmental Protection Agency's process for evaluating the use of toxic chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act would be modified by the proposed House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2576.
The House amendment, which reflects a bicameral compromise on the legislation, would require the EPA to establish a risk-based prioritization process to screen chemicals currently in use. The measure would also create a premanufacture review process for new chemicals. The agency would be allowed to impose fees to offset the cost of conducting chemical evaluations.
The bill would also modify how federal chemical oversight policy interacts with state laws.
A manager's amendment was filed May 23 incorporating additional changes (See related story).
TSCA
Enacted in 1976, TSCA allowed the EPA to screen existing and new chemical products that aren't subject to other federal laws, such as food, drugs, cosmetics and pesticides.
The EPA can require a manufacturer or chemical processor to conduct tests to determine the effects of potentially dangerous chemicals. The agency can then limit their use.
Under TSCA, the EPA isn't required to conduct a review unless it finds there is an “unreasonable” risk of harm. The agency has the discretion to determine which chemicals and substances to evaluate.
The EPA makes such determinations based on manufacturer-filed premanufacture notices, or PMNs, which must be submitted to the EPA before a chemical is produced. In most cases, a chemical can be manufactured at the conclusion of a 90-day review period.
As part of its 2012 work plan and 2014 update, the EPA identified more than 1,200 substances that warranted an evaluation. After further screening, the EPA prioritized 90 for further evaluation—of which five reviews were completed, according to a July 8, 2015, report from the Congressional Research Service (133 DEN A-16, 7/13/15).
Differences With Senate Amendment
While largely similar to the Senate passed-version, the House amendment makes several changes to the measure and omits a variety of Senate provisions.
The House amendment would establish a different structure for prioritizing existing chemicals for review. The Senate version would have required 10 high-priority and 10 low-priority substances to be designated 180 days after enactment, increasing to 25 of each within five years of enactment. The House amendment would require 20 of each to be designated within three-and-a-half years of enactment.
The House amendment omits language that would have allowed federal authorities to seize substances deemed a critical hazard, as well as language regarding the regulation of chemical exports. It also excludes Senate-passed language related to a sustainable chemistry program.
The compromise version also would create a different process for disclosing information for a banned or phased-out chemical. The Senate-passed version would have created a rebuttable presumption that disclosure outweighs proprietary interests.
The House amendment also include different state preemption language regarding the dates that existing state laws and regulations took effect.
The compromise also include language related to grants to rural health facilities from the Universal Service Fund.
Review and Testing Process Updates
The legislation would require the EPA to use the “best available science” and develop—within two years of enactment—all policies and procedures necessary to implement the bill. Existing rules and guidance could be used while the new procedures are developed. The agency would also be allowed to incorporate existing rules and procedures as appropriate.
The EPA would have to review and update the procedures and guidance at least every five years.
The policies would address how and when the exposure level of a particular substance would lead to new testing and how the EPA would determine when new data is necessary to carry out the bill's requirements.
The EPA would publish an annual plan that identifies the chemical risk assessments that will be initiated or completed that year as well as the necessary resources. The plan would also include a status update of all incomplete assessments and updates schedules, if necessary.
The EPA would have to establish an advisory committee to provide independent advice and consultation regarding implementation of the measure's requirements. The committee— which would be made up of various health, science, government and industry stakeholders—would have to meet at least once every two years.
The measure would stipulate that previous rules wouldn't be modified and incomplete evaluations could be continued.
The EPA would be required “to the extent practicable” to reduce or replace the use of vertebrate animals in chemical testing. The agency would develop a strategic plan within two years of enactment to promote alternative methods to reduce or replace vertebrate testing.
Potential Exposure
When conducting a review, the EPA would have to consider the effect of new chemical manufacturing or use on “potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation.”
The term would include children, pregnant women, the elderly and other groups that may be more vulnerable to a chemical exposure.
The EPA would have to consult with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, before issuing a rule or order, to consider other restrictions for limiting potential workplace exposure.
The EPA would be allowed to share chemical information with other federal agencies in the event of exposure or release.
PMN Process Changes
When a premanufacture notice, or PMN, is submitted, the EPA would have 90 days to determine if the substance would cause an unreasonable risk or if additional information is needed to make such a determination. The EPA would then be required to issue regulations or an order, or enter into a consent agreement. If the EPA determines the substance is low-risk, the applicant could commence the manufacturing process or new use.
If the EPA doesn't make a determination within the required time, it would have to refund all fees paid to process the PMN. If a PMN is incomplete, the EPA would have to notify the applicant and wouldn't have to provide a refund.
The measure would modify evaluation requirements to require EPA to undertake evaluations “without consideration of costs.”
The measure would also require the EPA to issue an order after conducting an evaluation. Any manufacture for a new chemical use would have to comply with EPA requirements.
Chemical Prioritization
The measure would allow the EPA to require the development of new information regarding a chemical, perform a risk evaluation, or impose use restrictions or requirements. The authority could also be used to meet the request of other federal agencies for toxic chemical testing or to determine the priority of the substance for review under TSCA.
If information is required for a new risk assessment, the EPA would have to determine the chemical's priority within 90 days. The agency would also have to explain why the new information is necessary and how it will be used. It also would have to explain the basis for decisions related to the use of vertebrate animal testing and the use of an order instead of regulation or consent agreement.
The measure would require the use of a “tiered testing process” that would use initial testing to inform subsequent, more rigorous evaluations.
If, after an evaluation, the EPA finds a chemical doesn't present an unreasonable risk, the manufacturer could commence activity and the EPA would have to issue a public notice of its findings.
When issuing a rule or order limiting the use of a chemical, the EPA would have to ensure that the restriction mitigates the identified risk.
Existing Chemical Prioritization
The EPA would have to establish a risk-based process within 12 months of the bill's enactment to evaluate existing chemicals that prioritizes substances currently used or sold in the U.S.
Under the process, chemicals could be designated as high-or low-risk. Low-risk chemicals could subsequently be designated as low-hazard after the EPA considers that the substance doesn't pose a risk to health or the environment. The EPA would have to publish information regarding each designation and provide 90 days for public comment.
The measure would require the agency, within three-and-a-half-years of enactment, to designate at least 20 high-priority substances for additional risk evaluations, as well as and 20 low-priority or low-hazard substances. Low-priority chemicals generally aren't subject to further assessment once designated.
The legislation would require that at least 50 percent of the additional chemicals come from the EPA's 2014 work plan update. Chemicals included in the update that bioaccumulate, are toxic, or persist in the environment would require rules from the EPA within three years of enactment.
The EPA would have to prioritize high-priority substances that are listed in the work plan update, have high bioaccumulation, are known carcinogens and have high chronic toxicity. The agency would have to make a new high-priority designation upon the completion of a risk assessment.
Substances that pose an imminent hazard could be subject to rules without consideration to costs or other non-risk factors.
Chemical manufacturers would be allowed to request risk assessments for specific substances. Requested evaluations could make up only between 25 and 50 percent of the additional designations. The EPA would have to prioritize assessments for chemicals that are subject to state regulations.
All risk evaluations would be completed within three years of their initiation. For chemicals that will be subject to use restrictions or other regulations, rules would be finalized two years after the risk assessment is published. That deadline could be extended for as long as two years. Chemicals from the 2014 work plan wouldn't be eligible for the extension.
Rule Requirements
Proposed chemical rules would have to include a statement of the chemical substance or mixture's health and environmental effects, the benefits of use, and a description of the economic consequences of the rule.
When issuing a rule, the EPA would have to consider “technically and economically feasible” alternatives that would benefit health or the environment.
The measure would generally exempt replacement parts of complex goods unless they contribute significantly to the risk posed by the product.
The EPA would have the discretion to exempt specific essential uses for which no technically or economically feasible alternative exists. Exemptions could also be granted for national security reasons. The EPA would have the discretion to set time limits for granted exemptions.
Judicial Review
The bill would require civil actions responding to a chemical designation to be initiated within 60 days of the EPA's decision. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia would have exclusive jurisdiction.
Rule Review
The EPA, in consultation with the Small Business Administration, would have to re-evaluate the adequacy of standards and provide public comment opportunities regarding potential revisions. Re-evaluation would happen at least once every 10 years.
As part of the process, the EPA would be required to create a list of active and inactive chemicals, which could include confidential substances. Manufacturers would be required to request the continuation of confidentiality.
Fees and Penalties
The legislation would allow the EPA to set fee rates for conducting chemical assessments.
The total collected would be capped at whatever is less:
• 25 percent of the costs of collecting and providing information required under the measure, or
• $25 million plus the EPA's costs to conduct risk evaluations.
The agency could adjust fee amounts for inflation and other factors every three years. Collected fees would be deposited in a new TSCA Service Fee Fund and available to the extent allowed in appropriations laws.
Manufacturers requesting an evaluation would have to pay the full cost of the assessment, unless the chemical was included in the 2014 work plan update, in which case they would have to cover 50 percent of the cost.
The legislation would bar the EPA from assessing fees during a fiscal year in which the appropriated amount for chemical risk review and reduction is less than the fiscal 2014 amount.
Individuals who willfully use a chemical in violation of use restrictions and place a person in “imminent danger” would be subject to a fine of as much as $250,000, a 15-year prison term, or both. The measure would also increase the penalty for violations to $50,000 per day, from $25,000 per day. Individuals could also be subject to a one-year prison sentence for violations.
Organizations that violate the terms of the bill would be subject to a fine of as much as $1 million per violation.
The measure would increase to $37,500 from $25,000 the civil penalties imposed for violations of use restrictions.
Preemption of State Laws
The House amendment would preempt state laws that conflict with an EPA requirement regarding a specific chemical use or restriction. States would be barred from regulating or requiring the same information that would be produced under an EPA regulation, order or consent decree. The restriction would also apply to chemicals that don't pose an unreasonable risk.
The measure wouldn't preempt a state's ability to implement regulations required by other federal laws, or impose reporting and monitoring requirements for a chemical not otherwise subject to EPA rules under TSCA. States would also be permitted to impose reporting requirements related to air and water quality or waste treatment and disposal.
The measure wouldn't preempt state chemical laws and regulations relating to a specific chemical that were in effect before April 22, or any other action taken before Aug. 31, 2003.
On April 22, California designated styrene under state law as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” Under the law, entities are required to label items that contain listed materials and could be subject to civil suits if they don't comply.
The House amendment would establish an EPA-managed waiver process through which states could apply to exempt regulations from preemption. To be granted a waiver the state would have to demonstrate that:
• “Compelling conditions” require action to protect health or the environment.
• Compliance with the state rules wouldn't impose an undue burden on interstate commerce or use of the chemical.
• Compliance wouldn't cause a violation of any federal law or regulation.
• Design of the rule would address an identified risk of using a chemical.
The legislation would require the EPA to grant a waiver if the state's proposed rule would meet the conditions for a discretionary waiver. A state's restriction would have to be enacted, proposed or finalized within 18 months of when the EPA initiates its prioritization process or publishes the scope of the chemical's risk evaluation, whichever is sooner.
The EPA would have to render a decision on a state waiver within 180 days for a discretionary waiver, or 110 days for a required waiver. EPA decisions would be subject to judicial review.
Waivers would remain in effect until the EPA completes a risk evaluation.
Preemption wouldn't affect state causes of action or criminal penalties.
Confidential Information
The measure would stipulate that confidential information mixed with nonconfidential information wouldn't lose protection. It would also stipulate that information associated with a health or safety study could be disclosed, though formulas, molecular structures and manufacturing processes would still be protected. Confidentiality protections would last for 10 years.
Chemicals that are subject to an EPA ban or phaseout would lose confidentiality protections. Substances that have a critical-use exemption would only receive protection for information related to the conditions of use to which the exemption doesn't apply.
Manufacturers could request that information not be disclosed within 30 days of receiving notification that information could be disclosed. Requests would have to describe steps taken to protect information and the reasonable basis to conclude that disclosure would cause competitive harm, among other things.
Requests wouldn't have to include specific information about the manufacturing process of the substance or details regarding the composition of a mixed chemical compound. The EPA would have to provide guidance for substantiating the claims made in a confidentiality request. This process would also be used to extend existing protections.
If a request is denied, the person could file a civil action in U.S. District Court to prevent disclosure. Wrongful disclosure of protected information could result in civil penalties or a one-year prison sentence.
Confidentiality protections wouldn't apply to disclosures to federal law enforcement or public health employees performing official duties or conducting a law enforcement action or emergency response. Information could also be shared with states or health professionals in the event of an imminent threat or health emergency. Shared information could be subject to nondisclosure agreements.
Elemental Mercury
A 2008 law, Public Law 110-414, directed the Energy Department to establish a facility to store mercury generated within the U.S.
Under the law, producers of mercury or a chemical compound containing mercury are required to pay a fee when delivering mercury to the department for long-term storage. The department hasn't opened its own facility, though it has issued permits for eight private locations to accept and store mercury.
The measure would adjust the fee rate for the time after Jan. 1, 2019, that the storage facility isn't active. The department would have to pay the storage and delivery cost for mercury accumulated before Jan. 1, 2020.
Power generators, mineral processors or other industries that accumulate it could hold mercury destined for the storage facility for longer than 90 days without a permit if the department is unable to accept the substance. The department and the EPA would have to create standards for temporary storage by Jan. 1, 2017.
The measure would also bar the export of mercury compounds starting in 2020.
The restriction wouldn't apply to exports to members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development for environmentally sound disposal. The measure would bar such exports if any mercury or related compounds are recovered or recycled after arrival.
Cancer Clusters
Under provisions of the measure known as “Trevor's Law,” the Health and Human Services Department would be directed to develop criteria and standards for designating and investigating “cancer clusters,” which would be defined as a population group or geographic area with a greater incidence of cancer than expected.
The criteria and standards would have to include:
• Identification and reporting protocols to determine if the incidence is greater than would typically be observed.
• Screening standards to ensure that a suspected cluster involves the same type of cancer.
• A way to account for the time period during which a cluster could form.
The HHS would have to use the criteria and standards to establish guidelines for conducting an investigation. The department would have to work with relevant state authorities and provide technical assistance as needed to aid investigations.
Trevor's Law was named for Trevor Schaefer of Idaho, who survived brain cancer that was diagnosed at age 13. Trevor's Trek Foundation was formed to fight childhood cancer and advocates for the cancer cluster legislation.
Rural Health Facilities
The House amendment would make rural skilled nursing facilities eligible for grants from the Federal Communications Commission's Universal Service Fund. Grants could be used by facilities to improve telecommunications and broadband Internet access though the service fund's rural health-care program.
The provision is taken from a separate measure, H.R. 4111, called the Rural Health Care Connectivity Act. The measure was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on April 28, but hasn't been considered by the full chamber.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that measure would reduce the deficit by a net $19 million from fiscal 2017 through 2026. The estimate reflects a $193 million increase in mandatory spending offset by $212 million in new revenue.
The CBO said the change would constitute a private-sector mandate by increasing FCC fee collections that are deposited in the fund. The CBO estimated the cost of the mandate would be not more than $25 million in any of the next five years, and would be below the threshold for such mandates, which is $154 million in 2016 and is adjusted each year for inflation.
Group Positions
Supporters of the compromise in the House amendment include the American Chemistry Council , Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
“The House and Senate compromise to update the 1976 Toxic Substance Control Act goes a long way to providing businesses with much needed clarity and certainty by facilitating a more predictable federal regulatory program,” R. Bruce Josten, the chamber's executive vice president for government affairs, said in a news release.
The Environmental Working Group's Melanie Banesh and Scott Faber said in a May 19 blog post that the compromise “has a few improvements, but still falls short in some key respects.”
In a statement, Andy Igrejas, director of the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families Coalition, called on Congress to “resume negotiations toward a final overhaul that advances public health and which can enjoy broad public support.”
Previous Action
The House originally passed H.R. 2576 by a vote of 398-1 on June 23 (121 DEN A-1, 6/24/15).
The Senate passed an amended version of the bill by voice vote on Dec. 17 (243 DEN A-1, 12/18/15).
The Senate amendment deleted the House-passed text and inserted language substantially similar to S. 697, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.
House and Senate negotiators announced their compromise on May 19.
Prospects
The House is scheduled to consider the compromise during the week of May 23 under terms to be set by the House Rules Committee. It will be considered as a House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill.
A simple majority would be required to adopt the amendment and return the measure to the Senate for further action. Though the final product was embraced by some Democrats, such as Sen. Ed Markey (Mass.), not all approve, as Bloomberg's James Rowley and Catherine Traywick reported.
“The current draft is not only significantly weaker than the bipartisan deal we negotiated, it is actually weaker than current law,” said Rep. Frank Pallone (N.J.), the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Paul Tonko of New York, the ranking member of the panel's Environment and the Economy Subcommittee, said in a May 17 news release.
When the Senate receives such a House amendment, the chamber can take up the measure without needing 60 votes to end debate on a motion to proceed. Sixty votes could still be required to cut off debate on the measure itself.
The White House hadn't issued a statement of administration policy on the House amendment as of May 23.
Editor's note: This story was released May 20 and may not reflect changes made to a manager's amendment May 23.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90279155&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=496304000&searchid=27657050&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) How Congress Got to Yes on Toxic Chemical Reform

May 24, 2016 | The Hill

By Megan R. Wilson and Timothy Cama

Lobbyists, senators and congressional aides can recall the moment when the debate changed.
After years of slogging away at an overhaul of the nation’s toxic chemical laws, the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) in 2013 finally found a partner: Sen. David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana.
Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), a centrist Democrat, saw an opportunity to put the two senators together, as they both had proposals regarding chemical safety, said Manchin spokesman Jonathan Kott.
“Somehow, just weeks before Frank passed away, Sen. Joe Manchin used his magic and got Sen. Vitter to be a co-sponsor on this bill,” said Lautenberg’s wife, Bonnie.
Vitter said he felt compelled to get involved because the “patchwork” of chemical rules at the state level had become a nightmare for businesses and because he agreed with Lautenberg’s call for stronger enforcement at the federal level.
Once the chemical reform push had bipartisan backing, lobbyists say, the entire atmosphere around the issue changed.
“I was in the room when it happened, and it was really wild,” said Ross Eisenberg, the vice president of energy and resources policy for the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), on the release of the Lautenberg-Vitter bill.
“There was a sense that it was going to be different than all these other environmental issues that we had been fighting over.”
Lautenberg’s death forced supporters of the legislation to regroup. The negotiations subsequently bogged down in the fine details of how to modernize a law — the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) — that had been left virtually untouched since its passage in 1976.
But now Congress is on the verge of passing a reform bill bearing Lautenberg’s name, with a compromise ironed out over the weekend securing the support of top senators and House Democratic leaders.
Should the bill be signed into law, it would be the culmination of roughly a decade of work and countless hours of lobbying by business and consumers groups that have sought to shape the final product.
More than 230 companies and groups have listed lobbying on the TSCA on federal disclosure documents since 2010, including the NAM, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Retail Federation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a coalition of more than 450 groups, labor unions and individuals.
Advocates for an overhaul say an update is long overdue.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has only been able to ban five chemicals under the 1976 law. Asbestos, known to cause deadly illnesses like lung cancer, isn’t prohibited, something health advocates frequently mention when making the case for an update.
The law also does little in terms of testing new chemicals in a time when roughly 700 new ones are coming on the market each year, according to Jack Pratt, the chemicals campaign director at the Environmental Defense Fund.
“This has been a roller coaster ride. There has been a lot of highs and lows the past 48 hours, let alone the last couple years,” Cal Dooley, the president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council and a former Democratic congressman, told The Hill after the a deal was announced on Friday.
“When you have the breadth of support [this legislation had], and when you have [Administrator]Gina McCarthy and her team at the EPA that saw this as a unique opportunity to modernize the statute, everyone wasn’t going to allow this unique opportunity to slip away,” he said.
If the deal presented Friday and updated on Monday is signed by President Obama, the EPA would be granted broad new powers to regulate, test and ban chemicals, with new user fees paying the costs. The plan would also restrict the ability of states to regulate chemicals, though it would preserve some of their authority.
Sponsors expect the bill to reach the floor of the House and Senate this week in hopes that it could pass before the Memorial Day recess.
One prominent supporter is Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who fought early versions of the bill and led the fight against efforts to pre-empt state authority. She only recently endorsed the legislation after rounds of negotiations with Republicans to strengthen state power.
“I stopped this bill dead for years, because this bill didn’t do what I thought it should have done carrying Frank’s name,” Boxer told reporters Thursday.
“We came from a place where the bill was worse than current law. I couldn’t go near it. It took years of fighting and struggling,” she said.
Talks on a final deal ran over the weekend and late into Monday morning as negotiators attempted to get additional changes that would add support without alienating Democrats — including Boxer, Democratic House leaders Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Steny Hoyer (Md.), and House Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone Jr. (N.J.).
Final changes came after midnight, according to one advocate close to the bill, and two lobbyists referred to the changes as relatively minor.
Most of the Democrats that advocates of the bill were hoping to court, with the exception of Rep. Paul Tonko (N.Y.), threw their weight behind the deal on Monday.
“I am not convinced that the program that will be put into place by this bill justifies the unprecedented, new limitation of states’ authorities,” Tonko said in a statement.
Pre-emption was the main concern of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition throughout the negotiations, said Andy Igrejas, the group’s director.
But last-minute talks over the weekend “substantially softened” the negative effects of the pre-emption provisions, Igrejas said, though he remains concerned about how provisions in the law related to the testing and importation of products will be implemented.
Advocates who have worked for years on reform say it’s gratifying to be near the finish line.
“Every week, when we were talking about it, it was kind of like Groundhog Day,” said a Democratic lobbyist who has been working on the TSCA for industry groups. “Every step of the way, it would crumble, but then people would ultimately come together because they wanted to get it done.”
The process, many lobbyists agreed, recalled a bygone era of greater cooperation and compromise in Washington.
“We haven’t done this in a long time. We’ve kind of forgotten what true compromise is, [getting a product] where nobody is truly happy,” the lobbyist said. “But I think it’s good. We needed this. It wasn’t easy keeping everybody on board as we moved through this.”
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/280985-how-congress-got-to-yes-on-toxic-chemical-reform

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) The Most Significant Changes in TSCA Reform

May 23, 2016 | Chem.Info

By Meagan Parrish

Lawmakers on nearing the finish line on a major reform bill that will replace the decades-old Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA).
Despite several key Democrats pulling their support for the bill last week, negotiators announced Friday that a deal had been reach that reconciled the House and Senate versions of reform. After traveling through committee, final votes on the bill are expected in both Chambers in time to send it to President Obama by Memorial Day.
What are the most significant changes in U.S. chemical safety regulations?Additional Safety Reporting
According to Judah Prero, a current environmental lawyer with Sidley Austin and former assistant general counsel for the American Chemistry Council, the biggest shift involves chemical safety assessments for the Environmental Protection Agency.
Under the new law, the EPA will be mandated to prioritize which chemicals it wants reviewed. Then it will be up to manufacturers to provide detailed safety assessments for these chemicals. And the new reporting won’t just be about toxicology — manufacturers will also have to give the EPA information about how the chemicals are used and which populations will be in contact with them.
“It’s a game-changer for manufacturing,” Prero explains.
Prero says the best way to prepare for these changes is to make sure you have this information ready to submit. Be prepared to not only know the most up-to-date public health concerns related to that chemical, but also know who you’re customers are. If that chemical is used downstream by another company and mixed with another chemical, Prero says the EPA will want to know.Highly Toxic Chemicals Could Get Phased Out
Another major change is that the EPA can no longer use cost-benefit analysis when decided how to classify the safety of any chemical during its review. Now the EPA will make a safety pronouncement about a certain chemical based solely on scientific information. After that, it reports on what the safety considerations are so that there are guidelines for using that chemical. But by then, the damage could be done.
Once the EPA has released information and brought public attention to how dangerous the chemical is, Prero says manufacturers may say “forget it” and choose to look for an alternative.States’ Rights
Several politicians and environmental groups have criticized the new bill for superseding states’ rights. And indeed, Prero says that if the EPA is reviewing the safety of a chemical, states will not be allowed to regulate that chemical. But if the EPA is doing its job well, states shouldn’t have to place any bans on specific chemicals.
Strong federal rules will also give manufacturers more certainty in the marketplace, so that they aren’t dealing with a patchwork of state laws.Animal Rights
As we reported last week, the Senate version included language that encourages the use of computer models and other testing methods instead of using mice and rats to assess chemical safety. These provisions survived negotiations and made it into the compromised bill.
http://www.chem.info/news/2016/05/most-significant-changes-tsca-reform

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) House Bill Strengthening Regulation of Chemicals Nears Passage

May 23, 2016 | SF Gate

By Carolyn Lochhead

The House is expected to pass landmark environmental legislation Tuesday that for the first time since Gerald Ford was president would toughen regulation of thousands of industrial chemicals in everyday use, many of which currently receive little federal scrutiny.
The Toxic Substances Control Act would be the biggest change to a major environmental law since the Clean Air Act was amended in 1990. It has overwhelming bipartisan support — rare for any bill nowadays, but almost unheard of for a major environmental law in a Republican-controlled Congress — and is expected to pass the Senate by the end of the week before being sent to President Obama to sign into law.
The bill rewrites a 1976 toxic chemicals law that has left the Environmental Protection Agency with so little authority that the agency was unable to ban even asbestos, a highly carcinogenic substance that has caused thousands of deaths and is still used in many imported products.
As a result, California and other states have imposed their own regulations. As state rules proliferated, along with public doubts about the safety of chemicals commonly used in everyday household products, the chemical industry joined with environmental groups to seek a rewrite of the law.
The new law would mandate safety reviews by the EPA for all chemicals currently in active commerce and require new chemicals to be deemed safe before they are allowed on the market. It also would make more information about chemicals available to the public, much of which has been kept confidential — even from health professionals — by companies claiming trade secrets.
Boxer’s legacy
More than a decade in the making, the legislation promises to be among the signature legacies of retiring Sen. Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who blocked a version three years ago and fought ferociously through last weekend to ensure that federal law preserves California’s tougher regulatory laws.
As part of her push, Boxer in 2012 brought San Francisco firefighters to testify in Washington about their exposures during fires to toxic flame retardants used in couches and other furniture that left them with rare forms of cancer.
If it becomes law, the bill gives states an 18-month window to regulate chemicals on their own. It also grandfathers in California’s three-decade-old Proposition 65, a law that requires the state to update and publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm.
If the EPA fails to regulate a hazardous chemical within 31/2 years, states would be allowed to move ahead on their own to regulate the chemical. The bill also assigns a priority for the EPA to review toxic chemicals that are known to persist in the environment and accumulate in the food chain, including in the human body.
The bill’s passage in the House was ensured when Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, gave her support after a weekend of negotiations that gave states additional latitude to regulate hazardous chemicals. One of the changes will allow California to proceed with pending regulation of chlorinated Tris, a flame retardant commonly used in furniture upholstery.
‘Better than current law’
At a news conference last week announcing a tentative agreement, Boxer said the compromise is weaker than she would have liked, “but where it is right now is in my view better than current law, and I certainly could not say that for a very long time.”
“I stopped this bill dead for years,” Boxer said.
At the news conference, she and other Democrats from the party’s most ardent environmental wing stood side by side with Republicans who have been their chief antagonists, including Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, home to much of the nation’s chemical industry.
Environmental and public health groups are divided over whether the bill is tough enough. Andy Igrejas, national campaign director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a coalition of 450 environmental and health groups, is neither endorsing nor opposing the legislation. An estimated 30,000 or so hazardous chemicals that were grandfathered in the original 1976 legislation, he said, remain on the market, and the EPA will be required to review about 20 of the worst ones within three years.
“The pace is slow,” Igrejas said. “We’re not going to be leading the world in chemical regulation.”
But even if a small number of the most hazardous chemicals is regulated, the exposure to them could be reduced for “millions and millions of people,” he said.
Richard Denison, the lead senior scientist at Environmental Defense Fund who was deeply involved in negotiating the bill, agreed that reviewing the chemicals will be a slow process.
Nonetheless, Denison said the bill “gives EPA new tools, authority and a mandate to actually review and establish the safety of all new chemicals and all existing chemicals.”
“That’s a big paradigm shift, away from a passive system where unless EPA finds a problem, basically the chemical can stay on the market or come onto the market,” he said.
Difficult task
Denison noted that the federal government does not even know how many industrial chemicals are in use, much less whether they are safe, but that the new legislation will begin to correct that.
Those analyses promise to be a mammoth undertaking. The bill assesses industry user fees to defray some of the cost, but sustained attacks by Republicans on the agency’s budget could slow the process further.
Scott Faber, head of government affairs for Environmental Working Group, which opposes the legislation, said the bill marks an improvement, in that companies would no longer be allowed to introduce a new chemical into commerce unless EPA says it is safe. “But that says more to how broken the current law is than anything else,” Faber said.
He worries that the bill calls for half the money that’s needed to assess all the chemicals and may not be strong enough to survive court challenges. Other groups criticized what they viewed as a weakening of EPA authority over imported products.
Cal Dooley, a former House Democrat representing Fresno, now chief executive of the American Chemistry Council, representing the industry, said the industry has been “concerned with the decline in public confidence” in chemical safety and praised the breadth of support for the new legislation as “almost unprecedented.”
“The fact that we have ... Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Boxer supporting this legislation as well as support from industry,” Dooley said, “is a testament that we’ve struck that appropriate balance.”
http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/House-bill-strengthening-regulation-of-chemicals-7941080.php

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Found in Water Bottles Linked to Child Obesity

May 23, 2016 | The New York Post

By Carl Campanile

The exposure of pregnant women to an industrial chemical used extensively in food cans and plastic water bottles has been linked to obesity in their offspring, according to a new study.
Columbia University researchers studying environmental hazards in low-income areas of the Big Apple tracked the presence of Bisphenol A (BPA) in 369 Dominican and black children in northern Manhattan and the South Bronx from the third trimester to age 7.
The kids exposed to higher levels of BPA in the womb had a higher percentage of body fat, the researchers found.
“We’re seeing an association between prenatal exposure to BPA and measures of obesity at age 7,” said Lori Hoepner, an investigator at Columbia’s Center for Children’s Environmental Health and co-author of the study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
BPA is used in plastics and to prevent cans from corroding. In the human body, it blocks hormones, altering fat-cell development, the researchers said.
The American Chemistry Council slammed the study as alarmist — and wrong.
“The limited and inconsistent findings of this small-scale study do not show that prenatal exposure to BPA puts children ‘on a course to obesity,’ as the headline in the press release claims. Statistical associations are not the same as causation, in spite of cleverly worded headlines designed to imply otherwise,” said the ACC’s Steven G. Hentges.
“Human exposure to BPA has been well studied . . . The U.S. Food and Drug Administration clearly answers the question ‘Is BPA safe?’ with a single word: ‘Yes.,’” Hentges said.
http://nypost.com/2016/05/23/chemical-found-in-water-bottles-linked-to-child-obesity/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Advisers to Review Risks of Widely Used Solvent

May 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

An Environmental Protection Agency advisory committee will critique May 24-25 a draft assessment that found a widely used solvent may increase the health risks posed to workers and consumers of cancer or other problems.
The solvent, 1-bromopropane (CAS 106-94-5), is a high production volume chemical that was made in or imported into the U.S. in volumes of more than 15 million pounds in 2011, the most recent year for which the EPA has national production data.
Consumer products that may contain 1-bromopropane (1-BP) include degreasers, spray adhesives, spot removers, coin cleaners, automotive refrigerant flushes and lubricants.
Potential occupational exposures to 1-BP have been increasing, because it has been considered a safer alternative to perchloroethylene, a drycleaning solvent, and is an acceptable substitute for ozone-depleting substances under the EPA's Significant New Alternatives Program.
Yet the EPA is considering adding 1-BP to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and an industry group as well as the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation have petitioned the EPA to list 1-BP as a hazardous air pollutants (HAP) under section 112(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act. Decisions on both issues are pending, the EPA said in the draft risk assessment, which the EPA's new Chemical Safety Advisory Committee will peer review.
Five companies reported making or importing 1-BP in 2011: The Albemarle Corp., Dow Chemical Co., ICL-IP America Inc., Special Materials Co. and a company that claimed its name and all production and importation information as confidential, meaning the EPA has that information but is legally bound to keep it secret.
Draft Assessment: Consumers, Workers Face Risks
The EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, which manages industrial chemicals, released the draft risk assessment in March as part of that offices increased focus on chemicals in commerce (81 Fed. Reg. 12,098). The agency also announced the May 24-25 peer review in March (51 DEN A-11, 3/16/16).
The draft assessment concluded women of child-bearing age that use products containing 1-BP could experience harmful reproductive effects or harm the development of their unborn children due to acute—high concentration, one-day—exposure to the solvent.
The draft assessment concluded workers exposed directly to 1-BP as well as employees that could be indirectly exposed faced potential developmental problems to their unborn children, reproductive problems and neurological problems due to acute and chronic exposures.
Workers and indirectly exposed employees also face an increased risk of cancer, the EPA's draft assessment found. Concluding there could be more than 1 increased case of cancer for every 1,000 people exposed to the solvent.
Objections to EPA's Conclusions, Advisory Panel
In comments filed before the Chemical Safety Advisory Committee's meeting Albemarle and the Department of Defense disputed the scientific basis of the agency's draft conclusions.
For example, Albemarle said the agency's cancer finding is based on a type of tumor that has limited relevance to humans.
The agency likely overestimated the number and extent of workplace exposures because it failed to consider the efforts manufacturers and their customers have been making to reduce occupational exposures, Albemarle said.
The Department of Defense said the agency's draft conclusion that 1-BP causes cancer by mutating DNA is not born out by human exposure data or by several experimental animal studies.
The American Chemistry Council said the members of the Chemical Safety Advisory Committee do not have the necessary scientific qualifications to peer review the 1-BP assessments.
The council also objected to the procedures the EPA used to establish the committee, which it said should—but does not—include an industry scientist.
New York, Earthjustice Commend Assessment
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation largely praised the EPA's draft assessment, but raised one concern.
The EPA may have failed to recognize the exposures of people living or working in buildings with drycleaners, the state agency said.
Nevertheless, the assessment “adequately describes the need for EPA to pursue risk reduction,” and it supports the need to list 1-BP as a hazardous air pollutant, the department said.
Earthjustice said EPA's draft assessments shows that 1-BP has significant toxicity and many divergent uses.
The EPA should complete the assessment as soon as possible and “restrict all uses that pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumer-users and exposed communities,” Earthjustice said.
“The fact that EPA's actions have spurred new uses of 1-BP makes it all the more important for EPA to ensure that it does not harm human health or the environment,” Earthjustice said. The environmental organization referred to the EPA's approval of the solvent as an ozone-depleter substitute and the agency's efforts to limit perchloroethylene's use by dry cleaners.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90279145&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=496312500&searchid=27657050&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Dems Win More Changes on State Pre-Emption, EPA Authority

May 23, 2016 | E&E News PM

By Sam Pearson

Congressional Democrats secured changes over the weekend to pending chemicals legislation that address several thorny issues, which was enough to bring three key lawmakers on board.
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the ranking member on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said today he now supports the final legislation.
Pallone was joined by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) (Greenwire, May 23).
"Democrats remain concerned by Republicans' provisions limiting states' ability to act aggressively on toxic substances," the lawmakers said. "However, the bill grants EPA with significant new authority to protect the public from unsafe toxic chemicals. House Democrats succeeded in empowering the EPA to unilaterally demand testing on chemicals it suspects are unsafe for people or harmful to the environment. Recent changes Democrats made will reduce the harm of the state preemption provisions in the bill."
The House Rules Committee is scheduled to clear the way tonight for a vote on the final version, which is expected later this week.
Andy Igrejas, the director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, said in an email that changes include a tweak to how the bill handles chemicals already targeted for review under U.S. EPA's Work Plan Chemicals program.
The Rules Committee posted a copy of the new changes, which are to be offered as a manager's amendment by Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.).
The program, started in 2012, is the agency's attempt to make the most of its current authorities under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. Most of the worst known chemicals are already listed there for future review. However, under previous language, because of how the bill counted the beginning of an EPA action, states would have been barred from acting against these chemicals because EPA has already published documents for these substances.
"Because those chemicals are basically the 90 most contested chemicals out there in the world, it softens the blow of the early pre-emption significantly," Igrejas said.
A source involved in the negotiations said last week the issue was of particular concern to states, including Massachusetts, that were seeking changes (E&E Daily, May 19).
Igrejas also said lawmakers agreed to change language setting standards on how EPA can issue orders to manufacturers for more information on a chemical. The final version cut language in the original Senate bill that limited the circumstances under which EPA could request this information, Igrejas said.
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, remains opposed to the bill, spokesman Sean Magers said today. Presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also came out against the plan last week (E&ENews PM, May 20).
Industry should be able to comply with the new provisions, said Judah Prero, an attorney at Sidley Austin LLP and a former assistant general counsel at the American Chemistry Council.
"I don't see it having an enormous impact on industry," Prero said. "They were already on notice that these were chemicals that were highlighted by EPA for action, so they were well aware that something might be happening with these in the near future."
Prero said he viewed the issue of state pre-emption as driven by political considerations. It would be impractical for many states to launch new regulatory systems to examine chemical substances, Prero said, though states that have already started efforts are loath to give up their authority.
"The practical considerations, at the end of the day, in regard to pre-emption is what won out in those discussions," Prero said.
Some public health advocates who have declined to support the bill have fretted over what they call ambiguous legal standards. The language means the true test of the law's effectiveness will come later, when it is reviewed and interpreted by federal judges.
"The bill will give EPA a clear and enforceable mandate to review chemicals, and will require EPA to evaluate chemicals based on their impact on human health," Natural Resources Defense Council President Rhea Suh said in a statement. "But it also contains loopholes and rollbacks sought by the chemical industry, including restricting the authority of states and limiting the EPA from monitoring chemicals in imported products that may be a threat to public health. It will be some years before we know for sure how successful the bill will be at protecting the public."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/stories/1060037726/search?keyword=American+Chemistry+Council

Return to headline | Return to top
Historic Deal on TSCA Reform Reached, Setting Stage for a New Law After 40 Years of Waiting

May 23, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Richard Denison

House and Senate negotiators have reached agreement on a final reconciled bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), our nation’s badly broken chemical safety law. The final text of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act was posted today, and is set to be voted on by the full House tomorrow, with Senate consideration expected to follow later this week.
Negotiations to reconcile the two chambers’ quite different reform bills, both passed last year, reached a feverish pace in the last few weeks, leading to today’s historic breakthrough.
The result is a final bill that, while a compromise, is a substantial improvement over current law. The bill adopts the comprehensive approach taken by the Senate bill, while sticking closer to the structure of current TSCA, as did the House bill. Negotiators adopted the House bill’s construct of risk evaluations over the Senate’s safety assessments and determinations, while largely adopting the Senate approach to reforming TSCA’s new chemicals program, establishing a prioritization process applicable to all chemicals, and updating the inventory of chemicals active in commerce. The bill’s chemical testing provision is more of an amalgam of the two bills and negotiators agreed to leave several sections of TSCA (e.g., exports and imports) largely untouched, as the House bill had done.
Overall, the new bill makes significant improvements to all of TSCA’s core provisions. Among its main features, the bill:Mandates safety reviews for chemicals in active commerce.Requires a safety finding before new chemicals are allowed on the market.Replaces TSCA’s burdensome safety standard – which prevented EPA even from banning asbestos – with a pure, health-based standard.Explicitly requires protection of vulnerable populations, like children and pregnant women.Enhances EPA’s authority to require testing of both new and existing chemicals.Sets aggressive, judicially enforceable deadlines for EPA decisions and compliance with restrictions.Makes more information about chemicals available, by limiting companies’ ability to claim information as confidential, and by giving states and health and environmental professionals access to confidential information they need to do their jobs.Requires EPA to reduce and replace animal testing where scientifically reliable alternatives exist that would generate equivalent or better information.Requires EPA to prioritize chemicals that are persistent and bioaccumulative, and that are known human carcinogens and have high toxicity.Preserves a significant role for states in assuring chemical safety.
The bill is the fruit of several years of negotiations, initially in the Senate, that started with the introduction in 2013 of the first bipartisan reform proposal by the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg and Sen. David Vitter. Extensive negotiations led by Sen. Tom Udall and Sen. Vitter resulted in a significantly revised bill introduced a year ago, named in honor of Sen. Lautenberg. Further negotiated changes attracted significant bipartisan support in committee, and additional revisions were sufficient to attract 60 co-sponsors by the time of its passage in December by unanimous voice vote. Sens. Jim Inhofe, Barbara Boxer, Tom Carper, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Cory Booker, Ed Markey and Dick Durbin each played significant roles in improving the bill keeping up momentum toward its passage.
The House process was much quicker but equally bipartisan, with a bill introduced in May and passed in June of last year, by the remarkable margin of 398-1. Representatives Fred Upton, Frank Pallone, John Shimkus, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Diana DeGette and Gene Green shepherded and supported moving the bill through the House and the bicameral negotiations.
This bill gives no one everything they wanted – neither Republicans nor Democrats swept the table. For EDF’s part, there are certainly provisions we don’t like that are aspects of the final compromise that was struck to secure passage. But we are very pleased that we can say that each major section of the final bill offers real improvements, and taken together, the final bill is a major improvement over current law. At long last, EPA will have stronger tools to protect Americans from toxic chemicals that impact the health of millions of Americans.
The bill has significant support in the health, environmental, animal welfare and labor communities, endorsed by these groups that represent 26 million Americans:Environmental Defense FundThe Humane Society of the United StatesInternational Association of Machinists and Aerospace WorkersMarch of DimesMoms Clean Air ForceNational Wildlife FederationNorth America's Building Trades UnionsPhysicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2016/05/23/historic-deal-on-tsca-reform-reached-setting-stage-for-a-new-law-after-40-years-of-waiting/

Return to headline | Return to top
White House-Backed Overhaul Heads to House Vote

May 24, 2016 | E&E Daily

By Sam Pearson

The House will vote on compromise legislation to overhaul the nation's chemical safety rules as soon as this afternoon.
The Rules Committee last night voted by voice vote to send the latest version of H.R. 2576, which includes language from months of negotiations, to the floor. The Senate has promised to take up the same language soon.
The White House released a statement of administration policy saying it "strongly supports" the emerging bill, which would replace the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
"The bill is a clear improvement over the current TSCA and represents a historic advancement for both chemical safety and environmental law," said the administration.
The White House acknowledged that the bill was "not perfect" but said it would address the biggest shortfalls of the existing law.
The policy statement praised the legislation's stronger standards for how EPA evaluates chemicals. The White House also welcomed EPA's getting new authority to require testing of chemicals, deadlines for agency action, limits on manufacturer efforts to keep some information confidential and new industry fees.
"If the federal government is to restore public confidence in the safety of chemicals, which are used in commerce and are an integral part of the nation's economy, it is essential that the Congress provide EPA with the necessary tools and authorities to effectively assess chemicals and regulate risks," the administration said.
"This legislation provides a solid foundation for advancing these goals and improving public health and environmental protection," it said.
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said the negotiations around the plan were "like balancing basketballs."
Rules Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) credited lawmakers for their perseverance. "It's a big issue that got resolved rather than kicking the can down the road," Sessions said.
Earlier yesterday, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee, said changes had prompted him to support the bill (E&ENews PM, May 23).
"We've made significant progress on dealing with this pre-emption issue," Pallone told the Rules Committee. However, he said the deal was "not going to be something that satisfies everyone."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/05/24/stories/1060037748

Return to headline | Return to top
Obama 'Strongly Supports' Chemical Overhaul Bill

May 23, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

The Obama administration said it “strongly supports” the bipartisan compromise chemical safety bill rolled out Monday and wants Congress to quickly pass it.
The backing from the administration came Monday from the White House, but it was no surprise, as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had long supported congressional efforts to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The White House said the bill that was amended Monday, the Frank L. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, aligns with the priorities the administration outlined in 2012 for TSCA, including giving the EPA the power and resources to review new chemicals, provide appropriate deadlines and increase public transparency about substances.
“While not perfect, the bill meets the high goals set by the administration for meaningful reform and we commend the House and Senate for taking this historic step,” the White House said Monday in its statement of administration policy.
“If the federal government is to restore public confidence in the safety of chemicals, which are used in commerce and are an integral part of the nation's economy, it is essential that the Congress provide EPA with the necessary tools and authorities to effectively assess chemicals and regulate risks,” it said. “This legislation provides a solid foundation for advancing these goals and improving public health and environmental protection.”
The full House and Senate are expecting to vote on the legislation this week after years of debate and negotiations. It has widespread support in Congress and among industry and environmental groups, though some environmental and health advocates are cautious about it.
The last major lawmaker holdouts, House Democratic leadership, backed the bill Monday after the latest tweaks to make it easier for states to, in certain cases, regulate chemicals on their own, independent of the federal EPA.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/280963-obama-strongly-supports-chemical-overhaul-bill

Return to headline | Return to top
White House 'Strongly Supports' TSCA Deal

May 23, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

By Darren Goode

The White House "strongly supports" legislation overhauling the 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act, according to a Statement of Administration Policy issued today.
"The bill is a clear improvement over the current TSCA and represents a historic advancement for both chemical safety and environmental law," the SAP said. "While not perfect, the bill meets the high goals set by the Administration for meaningful reform and we commend the House and Senate for taking this historic step."
The deal would fix "flaws in current law that have limited the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ability to protect public health and the environment from chemical risks," the SAP said. That includes requiring EPA to evaluate new and existing chemicals using a new risk-based safety standard, setting up special protection for vulnerable populations, creating "clear and enforceable deadlines" for chemical reviews and subsequent action and increasing transparency of chemical information, the SAP said.
"If the Federal government is to restore public confidence in the safety of chemicals, which are used in commerce and are an integral part of the Nation's economy, it is essential that the Congress provide EPA with the necessary tools and authorities to effectively assess chemicals and regulate risks," it said. "This legislation provides a solid foundation for advancing these goals and improving public health and environmental protection. The Administration encourages quick action on this landmark reform."
The House will take up the bill Tuesday, with the Senate likely to follow later this week.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard#

Return to headline | Return to top
House Dems Win TSCA Concessions

May 23, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

By Darren Goode

House Democrats managed to scale back language in a chemical safety bill that requires states to wait for EPA to review dangerous chemicals before they can take their own action.
A manager's amendment filed today to the bill overhauling the Toxic Substances Control Act would now allow states to continue acting on the first 10 high-priority chemicals EPA must begin reviewing within the first six months of the bill becoming law. A previous version of the bill would have applied what’s known as a “pause preemption” on state actions during those first 10 reviews, as well as to a fixed list of more than a dozen chemicals industry may seek action on that were also seen as priorities for EPA to review. House Democrats were also able to insert changes allowing states to continue their own studies on chemicals during those industry-requested reviews as well.
The changes do not affect a pause on state action for chemicals EPA will decide to review on its own outside of those first 10 the agency is required to start looking at soon after the bill becomes law. The changes also don't affect the preemption of state toxic laws if EPA takes final action on a chemical.
House Democratic leaders touted the revisions in a joint statement today as justification for backing the bill. The House will take it up Tuesday and the Senate will try to quickly follow this week. The manager's amendment also includes technical and other fixes sought by Republicans.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard#

Return to headline | Return to top
Overnight Energy: House Dem Leaders Back Chemical Safety Overhaul

May 23, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama and Devin Henry

HOUSE DEMS ON THE REFORM TRAIN: Leading House Democrats joined their colleagues Monday in endorsing a bipartisan, bicameral proposal to overhaul the nation's chemical safety standards.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) and Rep. Frank Pallone (N.J.), top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said that they secured a manager's amendment that made the bill more palpable to Democrats.
Getting the House Democratic leaders on board increases the chances that their caucus will vote this week in favor of the legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and it will pass.
"Democrats remain concerned by Republicans' provisions limiting states' ability to act aggressively on toxic substances. However, the bill grants EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] with significant new authority to protect the public from unsafe toxic chemicals," the three said in a joint statement.
"House Democrats succeeded in empowering the EPA to unilaterally demand testing on chemicals it suspects are unsafe for people or harmful to the environment," they said in a statement. "Recent changes Democrats made will reduce the harm of the state preemption provisions in the bill."
President Obama also endorsed the bill on Monday.
Read more about the House Democrats here, and President Obama here.
Tomorrow in The Hill: The chemical safety reform effort may never have gotten to this point if it weren't for a 2013 decision by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) to join in the effort that was mainly Democratic at the time. Read more about that and other twists and turns in the years-long fight over TSCA tomorrow in The Hill.
BUSY WEEK FOR ENERGY BILLS: The chemical bill is just one of a host of energy and environment-related bills on Congress' schedule this week.
The House is expected to consider its $37.4 billion energy and water spending package for 2017 this week. The legislation is a tad smaller than the package the Senate passed earlier this month, but it contains a host of environmental policy riders likely to turn off many Democrats.
House appropriators are set to release their 2017 spending bill for Interior and environment programs this week as well. It has been several years since the House approved an Interior and environment appropriations bill: last year's was full of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policy changes but likely would have passed the House, had a controversy over the display of the Confederate flag not blown it up at the last minute.
The House will also take the procedural steps necessary to go to a conference committee with the Senate on an energy reform bill. If negotiators hatch a deal this year, it will be the first energy policy overhaul in nearly a decade.
Finally, House lawmakers are set to introduce their water infrastructure improvement bill this week. The Senate's package came out in April.
Read more here.
WEST VIRGINA AG: BLOCK POWER PLANT RULE TO SAVE COAL JOBS: The state attorney general leading the legal charge against President Obama's climate rule for power plants says stopping the regulation will end up helping the declining American coal industry.
"I think that it would lead to more coal jobs, but it's difficult to predict what that number would be," West Virginia's Patrick Morrisey said at a National Press Club event on Monday.
"We all know the cause of coal's decline is multifaceted, but the regulatory regime, certainly from my perspective, has played a very important role. If you can reverse some of the regulatory carnage we have seen, then there is an opportunity to at least come back."
Morrisey and others have said the power plant rule -- over which he is suing -- is hampering coal producers because it encourages utilities to move away from coal-fired power and its associated carbon emissions.
Ending the rule, which his lawsuit seeks to do, could help bring coal part of the way back from the energy industry's ongoing move away from the fuel, he said.
The power plant rule's fate, he said, is likely tied up in this fall's presidential election.
"Obviously the presidential election may end up playing a very important role in what happens with the CPP," Morrisey said.
"I am optimistic that, with the Republican nominee [Donald Trump], there might an opportunity to withdraw these EPA regulations, and once again, that might give coal a little bit of the boost it really needs."
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/overnights/280964-overnight-energy-pelosi-hoyer-back-chemical-overhaul

Return to headline | Return to top
Top House Democrats Announce Support For TSCA Reform

May 23, 2016 | Inside EPA

Several top House Democrats on May 23 announced their support for final compromise legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) -- including House Energy & Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) who had previously opposed the bill -- ahead of a House floor vote later this week.
The TSCA bill introduced May 20 “is not the bill Democrats would have written on our own, but it is a long-overdue step forward to protect families and communities from toxic substances,” says a joint statement from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Pallone.
“Our federal chemical safety laws have been broken for a long time. Most of all, they are inadequate to protect the health and safety of our families and our planet,” the lawmakers said.
The legislation would overhaul the 1976 TSCA that is widely seen as giving EPA inadequate powers to address the safety of new and existing chemicals. The bill would give a major boost to EPA's authority to regulate chemicals, including mandating reviews of whether existing substances are safe; setting deadlines for restricting chemicals deemed unsafe; and requiring safety findings before new substances enter the marketplace.
Pallone and other Democrats had previously raised concerns about language in the bill that they feared would too broadly preempt states' chemicals programs.
Senate Environment & Public Works Committee ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-CA) had blocked previous TSCA reform bills over concerns about preemption. But at a May 19 press conference she offered support for the final compromise and vowed to make further fixes to the bill to win over House Democrats who opposed it.
The statement from Pelosi, Hoyer and Pallone indicates that fixes to the measure have addressed their concerns about preemption to the extent that they will now support the bill.
“Democrats remain concerned by Republicans’ provisions limiting states’ ability to act aggressively on toxic substances. However, the bill grants EPA with significant new authority to protect the public from unsafe toxic chemicals. House Democrats succeeded in empowering the EPA to unilaterally demand testing on chemicals it suspects are unsafe for people or harmful to the environment. Recent changes Democrats made will reduce the harm of the state preemption provisions in the bill,” the statement says.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/top-house-democrats-announce-support-tsca-reform

Return to headline | Return to top
Why a Safer, Healthier World is at Hand

May 23, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Diane Regas

My eldest son Matt is a brand new dad. Holding his 11-month-old daughter, Cora, I feel a surge of hope for this new child and for the generations after her. They have the chance to grow up in a safer, healthier world.
This week Congress is poised vote on achemical safety reform bill that has been decades in the making. It’s an incredibly important moment for all American families wanting better protection from the potentially toxic chemicals that surround us.
It’s also a moment that tracks a professional and personal journey for me and my own children.
While Matt was growing up I learned to worry about whether I could protect him from chemicals that surround us – here is that story, and why I feel so hopeful for his daughter Cora, and for future generations.
In 1987, the year Matt was born, I started working at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Freshly graduated in environmental science and law, I was thrilled. At the EPA we were working to clean up toxic waste sites – and I got to help make sure that hazardous wastes were no longer dumped willy-nilly.
The EPA acted under its relatively new toxics law to ban asbestos – protecting kids like Matt from this cancer-causing substance. That law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, held promise. It seemed like a turning point.
Matt’s brother Sam was born in 1990. I went back to work, and a few months later a federal court threw out the ban on asbestos – marking the end of real efforts to use TSCA to ensure that the chemicals around us are safe. At the EPA, it became clear that we couldn’t protect Matt and Sam from carcinogens in products.
No way to contain dangerous chemicals
A few years later Matt and Sam welcomed (mostly!) their new brother Robin. By this time I learned that all three of my kids – like all American babies – were born with industrial chemicals in their blood because of my own exposures.
I also began learning more about endocrine disruptors – chemicals that mimic and interfere with our hormones, and can result in abnormal development or disease.
With no effective law to get the most dangerous chemicals off the shelves, I worked to make the Clean Water Act better at keeping chemicals out of the water. But I found that with tens of thousands of chemicals in commerce – most of which have never been evaluated for safety – we did not have a way to keep the most dangerous chemicalscontained.
As the kids grew I was eager to do more. I got the chance to work in the White House and helped put together an executive order designed to help protect kids from chemicals – but the order could not go beyond the existing law, so the larger problem still persisted.
When the kids left for college, I left the EPA for the Environmental Defense Fund. Here I began learning more about unknown and dangerous aspects of chemical exposure from my colleague (and neighbor), Richard Denison.
I also learned that leading scientists were documenting epigenetic effects of chemical exposure – meaning chemicals I had been exposed to might even affect my grandchildren.
My first grandchild Cora was born last year – with no more legal protection from chemicals than Matt had when he was born almost 30 years ago. Happily, hard work has been going on to change that.
A safer way forward
The bipartisan legislation before Congress this week – known as the Lautenberg Act in honor of the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg – will for the first time begin a systematic review of all chemicals in use today for safety. It will also require that all new chemicals pass a safety review before they can be put on the market.
The EPA will have new authority to require chemicals to be tested and to restrict those found to present risks. The bill explicitly requires protection for those most at risk from toxic chemicals – including kids and pregnant women – and limits the overuse of “confidential business information” claims to hide information from the public.
Finally, the Lautenberg Act keeps all prior state actions on chemicals in place, which means that if your state has already restricted a chemical – banned it for a certain use, for instance – that this rule remains in force.
The bill allows many types of state actions on chemicals, supplants state authority to restrict a chemical only when the EPA takes up that same chemical for a full safety review of the same uses and risks, and provides for states to get waivers to act both during and after EPA review.
After two decades of working for reform, environmental activists, state policymakers, and all of those who made this happen should celebrate. Congress didn’t get it done in time for my kids, but I am deeply grateful that my grandchildren will grow up in a safer, healthier world.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2016/05/23/why-safer-healthier-world-hand

Return to headline | Return to top
Initial Analyses of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act

May 23, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Richard Denison

Based on the text of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act posted today, I have prepared the following analyses of the bill:a description of: (a) How the Lautenberg Act amends the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 and (b) changes made since House and Senate bill passage to reconcile the bills; anda description of what is and is not preempted under the Lautenberg Act.
I hope these analyses are useful to those interested in understanding this complex piece of legislation.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2016/05/23/initial-analyses-of-the-frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-for-the-21st-century-act/

Return to headline | Return to top
Flame Retardant Exposure Poses A Significant Health Risk to Women

May 24, 2016 | Earth Island Journal

By Elizabeth Grossman

Exposure to flame retardant chemicals has become nearly ubiquitous in the United States thanks to fire safety standards that, until recently, could rarely be met without their use. This has meant that furniture foams, mattress and carpet padding, and numerous other consumer products and building materials are loaded up with flame retardants. Now a new study published in the journalEnvironmental Health suggests that exposure to one of the most widely used class of flame retardants, called polybrominated diphenyl ethers or PBDEs, may increase the risk of thyroid hormone problems for women, especially post-menopausal women.
PBDEs are among the most widely used flame retardants that are known to migrate out of products. They have been found in household dust, food, in animals and nearly everywhere else scientists have looked. PBDEs have previously raised health concerns because of their environmental persistence, their ability to build up in fat tissue and because some have been linked to cancer in animal studies. Additional studies have shown PBDEs to interfere with endocrine hormones, including thyroid hormones.
While many studies have looked at the effects of early life exposure to PBDEs, this new study, led by researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, is the first to look at how these chemicals affect people who are exposed to it later in life.
And the researchers’ findings have potentially significant public health implications given that more women than men suffer from thyroid disorders, and because rates of thyroid cancer — which disproportionately afflict older women — are also on the rise.
“Fifty percent of post-menopausal women will have thyroid disease at some point,” explained study author R. Thomas Zoeller, a biology professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “I think it’s a mistake if we ignore this data.”
The researchers measured levels of four different PBDEs in blood samples from about 2,500 people across the United States, gathered as part of the US Centers for Disease Control’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. They then compared those results to responses to questions about thyroid problems in the same survey. After accounting for potentially confounding factors that might skew these associations, the researchers found a clear link between higher PBDE levels in women and reported thyroid problems. Specifically, they found that women who were among the top 25 percent of people with the highest PBDE levels in their blood had the highest odds of having thyroid problems.
“Women with higher blood concentrations of PBDEs also had higher odds of having a thyroid problem. And the effect was much stronger when we looked at post-menopausal women,” explained Joseph Allen, assistant professor of exposure assessment science at Harvard University’s TH Chan School of Public Health, who led the study.
This association is extremely plausible since PBDEs can bind with, or attach themselves to, estrogen compounds and are known to interfere with thyroid hormone function, Allen explained. “We know this from earlier lab work,” he said. “Structurally PBDEs are very similar to endogenous hormones [the ones the body produces]. And to our bodies these compounds all look alike.”. This means that once in the body, PBDEs can easily disrupt normal hormone function, setting in motion adverse impacts that can result in diseases and other health disorders. In addition, links between PBDE exposure and thyroid problems have already been observed in animals in the wild, includingbirds, fish and polar bears.
Because of the changes in estrogen levels that occur during menopause, “post-menopausal women are more vulnerable to endocrine disrupting chemicals,” said Heather Stapleton, associate professor at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment. And given the rise in thyroid disease, medical professionals who specialize in endocrinology are calling for more thyroid screening, she said. “It’s important to realize that and to pay attention to the role of the environment in these conditions, especially given the significant medical care costs.”
But do we know if PBDE exposure is causing thyroid problems? Not quite yet. The study is “very careful to stress that this is very much a cross-sectional study so we can’t see causations,” said Linda Brinbaum, director of US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program director, another co- author of the study.
The next step in the research, she explained, would be to follow people over time and ask the same questions.
Given what we do know about PBDEs, these new findings merit serious attention. “These things have an incredibly long life in the environment,” Birnbaum said. While the PBDEs measured in this study stopped being made in the US in 2004, the products in which these flame retardants were used – upholstered furniture and carpet padding, for example – are designed for long use. The chemicals themselves “have an incredibly long life in the environment,” Birnbaum said. This means both these products and the PBDEs will be in our homes, our offices and the environment for a long time.
They “have been voluntarily removed from the market but we have the legacy issue to deal with,” Birnbaum said.
So what can we do?
Since swapping out a sofa or carpeting is such an expensive undertaking, many people may not be able to get rid of products made with PBDEs. But there are other ways to reduce exposure. “Wash your hands,” recommended both Birnbaum and Stapleton. “Keeping dust residues low,” is a good way to reduce PBDE exposure given their tendency to accumulate in indoor dust, added Stapleton.
Birnbaum cautioned that food is also a source of PBDEs, given these chemicals’ ability to accumulate in plant and animal tissue and thus make their way up the food web. She also pointed out PBDEs chemical similarity to PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), another toxic and persistent group of chemicals that were used as insulation fluids in the US. PCBs were banned in the 1970s, but they are still being found in the environment. “We still have 70 percent of those [PCBs] that were ever made out there in the environment,” she said. “You wish that chemicals were adequately tested before they went onto the marketplace.”
This study, adds to what we know about “downstream effects” – how exposure may be related to disease, added Allen, “We’ve worked out an understanding of where PBDEs are in products, how they migrate out their air and dust, and how we absorb them,” he said. “The biggest contribution of this study is that it looks at a vulnerable population,” he said, one that is known to be affected by thyroid disease and is growing, since we have an aging population.
http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/flame_retardant_exposure_poses_a_significant_health_risk_to_women/

Return to headline | Return to top
Global Health Officials to Consider Role in Improving Chemical Safety

May 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch

By Emma Chynoweth

This week’s World Health Assembly (WHA) will consider a resolution on the health sector’s role in the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm).
Argentina, Canada, Monaco, Panama, Thailand, the US, Uruguay and EU member states have submitted a draft resolution to the meeting in Geneva. It includes health sector activities to support the Saicm goal of minimising the risk of adverse impacts of chemicals by 2020 and participate in work to plan activities beyond 2020.
Senior health officials from the World Health Organization’s 194 members attend the WHA annually to review work and set new goals and tasks.
The draft resolution, which is expected to be discussed on Thursday, urges WHO members – and where they exist regional bodies – to take nine steps to support Saicm and chemicals and wastes management beyond 2020.Roadmap
Specifically, the draft resolution also requests the WHO director-general to develop a roadmap with relevant stakeholders. This should outline how the health sector can contribute towards achieving the 2020 goal and to the relevant targets of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development.
It should take account of the overall orientation and guidance document adopted at the fourth meeting of the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM4), the process for developing Saicm beyond 2020, and build on the WHO’s existing work and Saicm’s health sector strategy.
By next year’s WHA, the draft resolution wants to see a roadmap outlining concrete actions. Speaking from the meeting, Carolyn Vickers, WHO team leader for chemical safety, said: "The timeframe will be compact, but we will be building upon earlier work. In particular, in 2015 WHO updated the Saicm health sector priorities through a survey of health sector stakeholders, and these were presented to ICCM4."
A document prepared for the meeting by the WHO secretariat notes that globally about 25% of human disease is linked to environmental factors, including chemical exposures. It says there is growing evidence that exposures before birth, and even in previous generations, may lead to disease later in life.
In addition, the WHO has published The public health impact of chemicals; knowns and unknowns. This estimates that 1.3m lives and 43m disability-adjusted life-years were lost in 2012 due to exposures to selected chemicals.Burden of disease
Based on data collected for the recently-published report Preventing Disease through Healthy Environments, Ms Vickers said: "Data are only available for a small number of chemical exposures and people are exposed to many more chemicals every day." The report notes that the real burden of disease – and the associated demands on health systems – is unknown, but likely to be much greater than estimated.
It suggests effective interventions to prevent death and disease caused by chemicals, and the economic benefits to be gained. For example:most of the estimated 193,000 deaths/year from unintentional poisonings are preventable, but only 47% of countries have a poisons centre;lead exposure is estimated to account for 143,000 deaths/year worldwide, with the highest burden in developing regions. Addressing lead exposure would prevent 9.8% of intellectual disability, 4% of ischaemic heart disease and 4.6% of stroke in the population, yet many countries do not regulate lead paint; andworkers' exposure to carcinogens is estimated to cause between 2%-8% of all cancers. In the general population 14% of lung cancer is attributable to ambient air pollution.
The report also illustrates how children and the elderly are particularly vulnerable to chemical exposure.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47584/global-health-officials-to-consider-role-in-improving-chemical-safety

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

Rules Committee to Vote on Energy Bill Additions

May 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Ari Natter

More than three dozen energy and natural resources bills, including California drought legislation opposed by Democrats, would be added to broad House energy legislation headed to conference with the Senate under an amendment to be considered by the House Rules Committee May 24.
The 806-page amendment adds portions of several House-passed bills, as the chamber prepares for a procedural vote needed to set up a conference committee to work out differences between the House energy bill with the Senate's (S. 2012), which passed April 20.
In addition to language from legislation (H.R. 4084) that would require the Energy Department to prioritize the development of advanced nuclear reactors and other non-controversial measures, such as bill (H.R. 4583) that would create an energy jobs program within the Energy Department, the House bill also includes several bills or portions of several bills that have drawn White House opposition, according to a summary.
Mining Bill Included
Among them is a House-passed bill (H.R. 1806) that would slash Energy Department research funds for clean energy, while increasing money for nuclear energy and fossil fuel research and a bill (H.R. 1937) that would streamline the permitting process for mines, which the White House said would undermine environmental safeguards and would inappropriately limit judicial review. The mine permitting bill is supported by the National Mining Association, which represents companies such as Alpha Natural Resources and Arch Coal (205 DEN A-18, 10/23/15).
Other bills in the amendment include the Native American Energy Act (H.R. 538), which would give Indian tribes more authority over development of energy and other natural resources on their lands, and is also opposed by the White House.
The California drought bill (H.R. 2898), which passed the House in July, received a veto threat from the White House, which said if enacted it would “impede an effective and timely response to the continuing drought while providing no additional water to hard hit communities.”
The underlying House energy bill, which was passed by a vote of 249-174 in December amidst a veto threat and opposition from Democrats, would expedite the Energy Department's consideration of licenses to export liquefied natural gas, increase security of the nation's electric grid and speed up the review time for federal permitting of natural gas pipelines (233 DEN A-4, 12/4/15).

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90279164&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90279164&jd=90279164

Return to headline | Return to top
En Banc Review of Clean Power Plan Boosts Opponents' Hopes

May 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Andrew Childers

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's decision to skip straight to an en banc hearing for the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan buoys opponents' hopes that the carbon dioxide standards will be overturned.
The court's unexpected decision to bypass the typical hearing before a panel of three judges may indicate the court has concerns with the Clean Power Plan's legality.
“We were a little bit surprised this matter was bumped up to the full panel. I think we're pleased with that,” West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey told reporters May 23 at a National Press Club newsmakers event. “This just underscores the absolute unprecedented nature of this regulation. And that is ultimately why we still feel we have a very good chance of prevailing on the merits whenever that may be.”
The Clean Power Plan (RIN:2060-AR33) sets carbon dioxide emissions limits on the power sector in each state that would be implemented by state regulators. Opponents say that it usurps state authority to regulate the power sector, turning the EPA into a de facto central energy regulator.
Jeffrey Holmstead, a partner at Bracewell LLP representing the American Coalition of Clean Coal Electricity, said the EPA's reading of “best available emission reduction” under Section 111(d) that it used to justify the Clean Power Plan would effectively allow it to regulate any sector of the economy.
“Regardless of what you may think about climate change and how important an issue it is, if you really care about the rule of law, you should be very troubled about the Clean Power Plan,” Holmstead said.
Though the rule has not yet been argued before an appellate court, the U.S. Supreme Court has already stayed its implementation. The full D.C. Circuit is scheduled to hear argument on the rule Sept. 27 (West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1363, 5/16/16; 95 DEN A-12, 5/17/16).
The Supreme Court's stay combined with the D.C. Circuit's decision to hear the argument en banc indicates both courts view the Clean Power Plan as a unique regulation worthy of additional scrutiny, Morrisey said.
“It demonstrates that the judges know this is an absolutely unprecedented action by the EPA,” he said. “It's always difficult to predict what the final outcome will be and how an individual judge may vote, but we welcome the opportunity to get before nine members of the panel and make our best arguments. There was a very real chance this case may have gone up to the full panel as well before this decision. It underscores just how significant and unprecedented what the EPA is trying to do is.”
Morrisey billed the lawsuit as part of a broader effort to protect coal jobs in West Virginia, calling the Clean Power Plan part of the “regulatory carnage” that has contributed to the industry's decline.
Americans United for Change dismissed Morrisey's remarks prior to the press conference as talking points from the coal industry.
“It's a safe bet the only thing he's brought with him to this speech are the talking points and paycheck stubs he's gotten from the polluters funding him and his lawsuit against the Clean Power Plan,” Blake Williams, spokesman for Americans United for Change, said in a statement.
Opponents Want Work Stopped on Rule
Morrisey and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton also warned the EPA against providing any aid to states that still intend to pursue early carbon dioxide emissions reductions for the Clean Power Plan until the rule can be litigated.
Though 14 states have asked the EPA for assistance with the Clean Energy Incentive Program (RIN:2060-AS84), which rewards early efforts to comply with the Clean Power Plan, the EPA should stop all work and deny those states' request for aid, the two leading opponents of the regulation told Janet McCabe, the EPA's acting assistant administrator for air and radiation, in a letter released May 23.
“Because the CEIP and the carbon trading rules have no legal significance without a legally effective Power Plan, efforts to push these programs forward at this time can only be understood as an attempt to make the Power Plan a fait accompli and to undermine the Supreme Court's order,” Morrisey and Paxton said.
The EPA's Clean Energy Incentive Program is a voluntary program designed to provide incentives for early investments in renewables and energy efficiency programs in low-income communities. The program is currently under review by the White House Office of Management and Budget. Though the Clean Power Plan has been stayed, 14 states have asked the EPA for assistance with preparing for the rule (83 DEN A-1, 4/29/16).

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90279165&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90279165&jd=90279165

Return to headline | Return to top
White House Threatens to Veto Energy and Water Bill

May 24, 2016 | E&E Daily

By George Cahlink

The White House is threatening to veto the House's fiscal 2017 energy and water spending bill over contentious environmental riders, which Democrats vow to fight when the bill hits the floor today.
The $37.4 billion spending bill, H.R. 5055, will move to the floor this evening under an open rule that allows any member to offer a germane amendment. The chamber is likely to complete work on the bill late tomorrow evening or Thursday.
The legislation provides funding for the Energy Department, federal nuclear programs and research, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Lawmakers would need to merge it with a $37.5 billion Senate bill, H.R. 2028, that passed about two weeks ago.
House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) said yesterday the measure offers balanced funding to protect both the nation's nuclear stockpile and invest in national infrastructure.
Simpson said the bill would provide an overall $259 million increase over current spending and rejects proposals to make cuts in fossil fuel research.
But the administration made clear in a statement yesterday evening that the bill falls short of its expectations. Without changes, the White House said, advisers would "recommend" the president veto it.
"While the bill increases certain energy research and development activities, it underfunds critical energy research and development activities overall. The bill does not put the nation on a sufficiently ambitious path toward doubling clean energy research and development by [fiscal] 2021," the administration statement said.
The White House also said the legislation includes "highly problematic ideological provisions to undermine our ability to protect a resource that is essential to America's health: clean water."
Subcommittee ranking member Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) said yesterday it would be "natural" for Democrats to offer proposals to strip out some of the more contentious policy riders, including a limit on the administration's new Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule.
GOP language in the bill related to the California drought is also generating Democratic discontent. The administration said provisions would undermine the Endangered Species Act and pre-empt California state law.
Kaptur said Democrats would try to boost spending for the Energy Department's Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. The administration warned that the bill's $1.8 billion was not enough to help make the U.S. energy independent.
Kaptur also did not rule out an amendment to address the Flint, Mich., water crisis but said she was unaware of one being planned. Democrats failed to attach hundreds of billions of dollars in aid at the committee level.
Democrats will likely offer an amendment related to LGBT issues. An amendment last week on protections for federal contractors nearly derailed a military construction spending bill in the House. It's not yet clear what form the amendment would take on the energy and water legislation.
Republicans, meanwhile, are likely to reprise a proposal related to the Iranian nuclear deal that stalled the Senate energy bill for almost three weeks. It would bar the United States from buying heavy water, a component used in nuclear reactors, from Iran.
Simpson said he does not expect a potential Iran amendment to stall the bill in the House given the chamber's solid GOP majority. The Senate Iran-related amendment faltered because Republicans lacked the 60 votes needed to overcome a Democratic filibuster.
Kaptur said members would also be offering "very district-specific amendments" to address environmental challenges and other projects in their districts.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/05/24/stories/1060037739

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

Chemical Board Needs Better Budgeting Guide: OIG

May 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Stephen Lee

The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board must write internal guidance for its operating budget process, the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Inspector General found in a May 23 report.
Without formal guidance, the CSB “increases its risk of mismanaging its $11 million annual operating budget,” the OIG concluded. Under former chair Rafael Moure-Eraso, CSB put in place a yearly budget process that centralized authority over funds, but that process has never been documented, the OIG said.
The report also found that the roles of the CSB's chief financial officer and other financial staff aren't clearly defined.
In response, the CSB said the agency would work to develop internal guidance on its budget process and define staff roles by Sept. 30.
The CSB also said that its members did vote on an annual operating budget for fiscal year 2016 and “has clearly worked to improve board oversight of financial operations” during the OIG's audit period.
Broadly, the OIG determined that “CSB has made an effort to improve its governance activities,” a nod to the reform efforts of new CSB Chairperson Vanessa Sutherland, who began her tenure Aug. 24, 2015.
Summaries and Web Postings
The OIG further called on the CSB to prepare summaries of its quorum sessions within the five business days required by law, and to develop guidance for posting transcripts and other documents to its website.
In fiscal 2014, under Moure-Eraso's tenure, the CSB held 16 quorum sessions, but only two summaries were prepared within the required five days, the OIG found. The other 14 were prepared as much as 234 days later. Twelve of them came out on the same day.
According to the report, the staffer assigned to attend and prepare the written summaries wasn't aware of the five-day rule.
In her response, Sutherland said the CSB plans to develop internal guidance on preparing written quorum session summaries and posting transcripts to its website, the latter within 30 to 60 days from the date of the hearing or meeting. The changes are expected by Sept. 30, the CSB said.
Credit Cards and Office Space
The OIG also said the CSB must document its decision to pay legal retainers with government credit cards while it was in the process of writing contracts for the same legal services between 2012 and 2015, which the report found was not transparent and “could circumvent federal controls that are in place for contracts.” The CSB agreed to document its decisions by Sept. 30.
The fourth and final OIG recommendation called on the CSB to better document its government buildings search and stay within the space benchmarks laid out by the General Services Administration of 190 usable square feet per person. The agency's new leased space in Washington, D.C., has 338 square feet per person, based on the CSB's projection of 34 staff, according to the report. The CSB said it would consult with the GSA on future Washington lease needs and review space adjustments.
But Sutherland, in her response letter, also noted that the CSB is cutting its Washington lease payments by $526,000 in fiscal 2016, a 47 percent reduction.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90279172&vname=dennotallissues&fn=90279172&jd=90279172

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) Consults for Cooling Water Intakes Debated in Briefs

May 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Amena H. Saiyid

Environmental and industry groups disagree over the extent to which the Environmental Protection Agency should consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the NOAA Fisheries over the impact of the cooling water intake rule on threatened or endangered species (Cooling Water Intake Structure Coal. v. EPA, 2d Cir., 14-04645, opening briefs 5/20/16).
Neither the Clean Water Act nor the Endangered Species Act requires the EPA to seek technical assistance from the FWS and NOAA Fisheries—collectively known as the services—to establish controls for cooling water intake systems at power plants and factories, groups representing electric utilities, oil and gas companies, and others said in a joint brief.
In contrast, environmental advocates contended in their joint brief that the services didn't go far enough in complying with the Endangered Species Act when the EPA consulted them on the impact the cooling water intake rule would have on the 266 endangered or threatened species and their habitat.
The environmental advocates—led by Sierra Club and the Riverkeeper—said the services punted on their consultation duty by not issuing a comprehensive biological opinion that would analyze the impacts of implementing the rule, preferring instead permit-specific reviews by state and federal agencies. They said the act doesn't allow “this incremental-step approach to consultation” because the ensuing biological opinion on the impacts to aquatic life must coincide with the agency action.
At issue is whether the EPA met its legal obligation under the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act in seeking the advice of the services in issuing a final cooling water intake rule (RIN: 2040–AE95) under Section 316(b) of the water act.
Both sides filed their briefs May 20 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which also had ordered the three federal agencies to release a list of previously undisclosed documents used to support their determination that the cooling water intake rule wouldn't jeopardize endangered or threatened species (42 DEN A-1, 3/3/16).
The August 2014 rule requires National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits setting the best technology available for about 1,065 power plants and industrial and manufacturing facilities that employ cooling water intake systems. These systems, including towers, are used to dissipate waste heat generated during manufacturing and power generation processes (79 Fed. Reg. 48,300; 158 DEN A-2, 8/15/14)).
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires the EPA to consult with the services to insure that the rule is not likely to jeopardize any listed species or its critical habitat. The services, the environmental groups claim, were required to prepare a comprehensive biological opinion that considers all phases and all ramifications of the final rule and its implementation. Instead, they issued a “no jeopardy” opinion for the 266 affected threatened or endangered species, “concluding that a nonbinding ‘technical assistance process' for state-issued permits and permit-specific section 7 consultations for EPA-issued permits would prevent jeopardy.”
‘New and Unlawful Role' for Agencies
In their joint opening brief, the Utility Water Act Group, the American Petroleum Institute, Entergy Corp., and the Cooling Water Intake Structure Coalition asked the Second Circuit to vacate provisions of the rule that require the EPA and state agencies to consult with the services on the rule's impacts in what they termed was a “new and unlawful role.”
The Utility Water Act Group represents individual power companies and national trade groups for rural electric cooperatives, public power and investor-owned utilities. The Cooling Water Intake Coalition describes itself as an ad hoc organization that includes the American Chemistry Council , American Forest & Paper Association, American Iron and Steel Association, Corn Refiners Association, and Council of Industrial Boiler Owners.
The groups claim the EPA included a number of changes sought by the services that require information well beyond just where the intake structure would be located. They also said the rule effectively gives “the Services special rights and opportunities to dictate intake structure requirements (and, perhaps, requirements that extend beyond the intake structure) based on the Services’ judgment about what is necessary to protect listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat.”
Specifically, the industry groups cited the new provision requiring both state and federal permitting agencies to transmit NPDES permit applications to the services, wait 60 days for their response before issuing any draft permit. They said this provision also requires permit writers to send to the services notice of any draft permit, along with “any specific information the Director has about threatened or endangered species and critical habitat that are or may be present in the action area” and proposed control measures or other requirements for such species and habitat.
‘Unprecedented' Reach
“This latter requirement is unprecedented, giving the Services a seat at the drafting table that EPA has not even claimed for itself,” the groups wrote, adding that the EPA in interagency communications has “effectively committed itself to veto State-issued NPDES permits that do not include control measures recommended by the Services.”
This is despite the fact that “Section 316(b), by its plain language, requires EPA to ensure that the technology-based standards it adopts for NPDES-permitted facilities reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact,” but gives the agency no authority to set standards for anything except these four designated cooling water intake structure attributes—location, design, construction, and capacity.
The industry groups said nothing in the Endangered Species Act allows the EPA to expand its authority under the Clean Water Act, or under Section 316(b) specifically.
The ESA consultation provision “focuses squarely” on ensuring that the federal action in question—the EPA's promulgation of technology standards under Section 316(b)—will not make matters worse for a threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat.
“It provides no authority for the Services to oversee State-issued NPDES permits or to induce States to impose beyond-Best Technology Available control measures. But that is exactly what the provisions at issue here contemplate the Services, with EPA's help, will do,” the industry groups contended.
The EPA identified seven technologies in the rule for reducing impingement or mortality of aquatic organisms and one technology for entrainment. But to the chagrin of the environmental groups, the agency left it up to state and federal the permit writers to decide which technology would best fit the plant in question, and whether it would adversely affect aquatic organisms.
Use of Antiquated Equipment
More than 1,000 power plants and factories rely on antiquated intake systems to withdraw 75 trillion gallons of water annually for cooling. According to the environmental groups, the equipment they use “kills hundreds of billions of aquatic organisms annually,” including some that are endangered or threatened.
The environmental groups said the services are not requiring program-by-program biological opinions (BiOp) from state agencies, but instead are making Section 7 consultations for NPDES permits “a voluntary process that is neither binding nor required to occur.”
“No court has ever approved a BiOp that defers the Services’ analysis to a later review that is not a section 7 consultation. And consultation on EPA-issued permits will not involve the comprehensive assessment of the overall Rule that section 7 requires. Thus, the mandatory section 7 consultation on the effects of the Rule will not occur,” the environmental groups said.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90279158&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=496314500&searchid=27657050&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Groups Spar Over Waste Recycling Rule Off-Ramps

May 24, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Brian Dabbs

The American Petroleum Institute and industry allies contested Earthjustice and a set of environmental advocates in May 19 reply briefs challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's definition of solid waste regulation (American Petroleum Inst. v. EPA,, D.C. Cir., No. 09-1038, briefs filed5/19/16).
Both sides railed against the verified recycler exclusion, a critical portion of the final rule (RIN:2050-AG62) that allows generators to recycle hazardous waste materials without having a hazardous waste designation. The environmental groups, in their brief, called that language “unlawful and arbitrary,” while the industry groups urged the court to restore the exclusion language that predates the final rule.
The verified recycler exclusion provision replaces a transfer-based exclusion, which excluded from hazardous waste regulations materials generated by one firm and then transferred to another company.
The EPA finalized the solid waste regulation in January 2015 under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the rule took effect six months later.
Final briefs in the litigation are due June 20, and oral arguments have not yet been scheduled.
Legitimacy Factors
In order to use the exclusion, companies must demonstrate, among a list of five other criterion, the recycling is legitimate .
The industry challengers, in their brief, railed against the four legitimacy criteria in the final rule. That criteria requires recycled materials to make a useful contribution to the recycling process, produce a valuable product, be managed by a valuable commodity and compare to a legitimate product.
Those factors go beyond defining a recycled material in comparison to the EPA's discarded definition, the industry groups said.
“The 2015 rule dramatically expanded EPA's RCRA jurisdiction by making the ‘legitimacy' factors mandatory for all in-process, recycled or reused ‘hazardous secondary materials,'” the industry groups said. “For industry, the new legitimacy factors have the look, feel, and effect of substantive regulations They restrict how industry may handle in-process materials and dictate acceptable chemical composition.”
Meanwhile, the environmental groups argued transfer of secondary hazardous materials to recyclers often involves waste discard because generators pay to get rid of the waste.
“Environmental petitioners do not contend that materials are discarded just because someone must pay to have them ‘transferred' or ‘transporte[d],' but because ‘companies cannot use or sell [them] and … must ‘pay’ other companies to accept' them,” the environmental advocates said.
Led by Earthjustice, the environmental advocates include California Communities Against Toxics, Clean Air Council, Coalition For A Safe Environment, Louisiana Environmental Action Network and the Sierra Club.
On top of the American Petroleum Institute, the industry litigants include the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, Freeport-McMoran Inc., the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Chemistry Council .

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=90279170&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=496313000&searchid=27657050&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0

Return to headline | Return to top
API Challenges EPA Cooling Water Rule's 'New Unit' Technology Mandates

May 23, 2016 | InsideEPA

By David LaRoss

The American Petroleum Institute (API) is asking a federal appeals court to scrap a portion of EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) rule for permitting cooling water intake structures that applies to “new units” at many classes of facilities, arguing the term is defined so vaguely that it was impossible for stakeholders to adequately comment on it.
API's May 20 brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in Cooling Water Intake Structure Coalition (CWISC), et al., v. EPA, et al., says that while the agency's proposed version of the rule issued in 2011 gave a clear definition of “new units” at power plants that are subject to separate requirements from existing units, it was extremely vague on what intake structures at manufacturing facilities, refineries and other non-utilities would qualify.
“New units” in the rule include “newly built units added to increase capacity at the facility,” but API's brief notes that “EPA provided no definition of 'capacity,' meaning the term could refer to the flow of the intake structure, capacity of the facility to produce a specific product, or some other, unknown quality. EPA’s subsequent use of the term to encompass 'generation capacity' seems to imply that 'capacity' refers to power generating capacity, but, in that case, it is unclear how the term would apply to manufacturing facilities.”
Without a clear definition of that term, API continues, it and other non-utility groups that use cooling water intakes were unable to meaningfully comment on how it would affect them. That violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) mandate that agencies offer a chance for meaningful comment on rule proposals, it argues.
API adds that without input from industry, EPA settled in the final rule issued in May 2014 on an erroneous estimate of compliance costs for non-utility facilities, based on “its own arbitrary observations and assumptions.”
The CWA rule generally seeks to limit harms from cooling water intake systems at existing power plants and other facilities by setting technology standards for preventing fish from being trapped, or entrained, while taking in water.
API and other industry groups are jointly challenging the rule's species protection measures, but the petroleum association has filed its separate brief over provisions that say “new units” must either adopt a closed-cycle cooling system or demonstrate that their control technology will achieve at least 90 percent of the benefits of that system.
EPA in the rule estimates that the mandate will have negligible costs on facilities that open new units, on the grounds that adding such technology will be no more expensive than less-protective safeguards, and any needed retrofits will not reduce a facility's output. But API says those estimates are little more than unfounded assumptions.
“EPA cannot defend (or it would have provided appropriate support) its mere speculation that retrofitting the cooling water system at an existing facility to accommodate the needs of a new unit would be easier than retrofitting an existing facility that has not installed a new unit,” the brief says.
API is asking the court to vacate the technology mandates for “new units” and force EPA to take comment on a new proposal, and to craft a new cost estimate for how the rule will affect manufacturing and other sectors.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/api-challenges-epa-cooling-water-rules-new-unit-technology-mandates

Return to headline | Return to top
Cramer to Trump: 'Tackle the Clean Water Act'

May 24, 2016 | E&E Daily

By Tiffany Stecker

Rep. Kevin Cramer will be advising GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump on another hot-button issue -- the Obama administration's Waters of the U.S. rule.
The North Dakota Republican, an energy adviser to Trump, told E&E Daily yesterday that he "fully intends" to discuss the U.S. EPA-Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act jurisdictional rule in more detail with the presumptive White House nominee.
Cramer said he first discussed the rule -- which would redefine which streams, rivers and wetlands receive automatic protection under the Clean Water Act -- with Trump at a town hall meeting in Iowa.
If he were to advise Trump as president, Cramer said, he would suggest that he "tackle the Clean Water Act itself" rather than simply address the question of which waters fall under the scope of the law.
"[Let's] bring more clarity and specificity, more prescription to [the Clean Water Act], as well as the Clean Air Act and other broad authorities that have provided this opportunity for this type of mischief by administrations, be they Republican or be they Democrat," he said.
EPA and the Army Corps began the rulemaking process in 2014 to standardize which waters were protected as "waters of the United States."
Two Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 muddled the definition. As a result, determinations of which waters fell under federal jurisdiction were made on a case-by-case basis, leaving certain water bodies vulnerable to unregulated pollution.
The rulemaking was fiercely criticized by developers and agricultural organizations, which viewed the regulation as an expansion of federal control over private landowners. Dozens of lawsuits were filed after the rule was finalized last year. The regulation is currently stayed in federal court pending the outcome of the litigation.
It's likely that the courts won't decide the rule's fate until after President Obama leaves office.
Cramer said he would expect the statutes to be rolled back in the first 100 days of a Trump administration, or over the two-year course of a Republican-held Congress.
The lawmaker also floated House Agriculture Chairman Mike Conaway (R-Texas) as a possible agriculture adviser for Trump. Conaway recently endorsed Trump, and told E&E Daily last week that he has offered his help in crafting an agriculture agenda (E&E Daily, May 20).
Other possibilities include former House Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) and leaders in the private sector, Cramer said.
With Continental Resources Inc. CEO Harold Hamm -- a fellow Okie -- putting his support behind Trump, Lucas could be a "go-to guy, as well," Cramer said.
Beyond the Waters of the U.S. rule, Cramer suggested House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) as a possible expert on water infrastructure issues. Shuster was one of the first committee chairmen to endorse Trump after his narrow victory in Pennsylvania's April primary.
One piece of advice Cramer would give The Donald: Keep the regular sequence of Water Resources Development Acts, the biennial authorization bills for locks, dams, flood control projects, storm barriers and other major water infrastructure efforts.
Congress did not pass a WRDA bill between 2007 and 2014, as the 2010 earmark ban removed a key mechanism for getting the bills passed.
"Clearly, the long lapse of the last few years created a real challenge that could be much more routine if we don't do this regularly," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/05/24/stories/1060037749

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested