Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 5/27/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Increased Imports Force PP Prices Down
May 27, 2016 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Plastics News is reporting an additional 2-cent decrease on North American polypropylene resin prices to reflect price erosion that took place between March and May. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Regulation Reform Delayed Yet Again
May 27, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
As the US is on the verge of reforming its outdated 40-year-old chemical regulations, one senator is blocking its progress. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) earlier this week and the Senate... -
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Chem Reform Bill Hits Senate Roadblock
May 27, 2016 | ICIS
By Christie Moffat
A bipartisan bill aimed at overhauling existing US chemical safety regulations continued to be held up in the Senate on Friday, following objections raised by Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Receives Conflicting Comments on Review of Controversial Solvent
May 27, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA is receiving conflicting comments on its draft risk review of certain exposures to the solvent 1-bromopropane (1-BP) with environmentalists and some states urging EPA to consider additional risks and exposures, while the chemical industry is arguing the review... -
(ACC Mentioned) Shopping Bag Fee Isn't the Best Way to Ensure Lead Remedy
May 27, 2016 | Burlington County Times
By Editorial Board
Legislation is being considered in Trenton that would require retail customers provided with paper or plastic shopping bags to fork over 5 cents per bag. -
Bipartisan Chemical Bill Runs into a Senate Roadblock: Rand Paul
May 27, 2016 | Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin
A bipartisan measure that would overhaul the nation’s chemical safety laws seemed destined for the president’s desk this week — until Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) put a hold on it Thursday. -
Why Environmental and Health Groups are so Torn About Toxic Chemical Reform
May 27, 2016 | Co.Exist
By Jessica Leber
In 1976, the U.S. passed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a landmark law to regulate chemicals around us to protect public health and the environment. But it has fallen far short of its aims. Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) doesn’t have... -
Commentary: Update of Toxic Substances Control Act a Worthy Step that's Long Overdue
May 27, 2016 | Center for Public Integrity
By Jim Morris
In a groundbreaking report six years ago, a National Cancer Institute panel warned that it was time to pay closer attention to environmental causes of a disease that takes more than a half-million American lives each year. -
Seven Deadly Poisons – And a Law That Won't Protect You Fast Enough
May 27, 2016 | The Guardian
By Ken Cook
The US is set for the first legislation to regulate toxic industrial chemicals in 40 years. You might think this would be cause for celebration. However, the bill updating the Toxic Substances Control Act continues to put the industry’s interests above those of the public. -
Federal Toxic-Chemical Bill Sets off Volatile Reaction in Minnesota
May 27, 2016 | Minnesota Post
By Sam Brodey
Federal policy on toxic chemicals — things like asbestos, chlorofluorocarbons, formaldehyde — has been mostly unchanged since 1976. -
The Story Behind the E.P.A’s Contaminated Water Revelation
May 27, 2016 | New York Times
By Nathaniel Rich
Last week 5.2 million Americans learned that their drinking water is contaminated with man-made chemicals linked to cancer. -
EPA Proposes to Add Flame Retardant HBCD to Toxics Release Inventory
May 27, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA is proposing to add the flame retardant chemical hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) to its list of chemicals whose releases must be reported to the agency annually under its Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), and is seeking to add the chemical to a “list of chemicals of special concern”... -
Health Sector Adopts Chemicals Management Resolution
May 27, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The World Health Assembly – the high level meeting of the World Health Organisation (WHO) – has adopted a resolution on the role of the health sector in the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm) towards the 2020 goal and beyond. -
US Interagency Collaboration Advances Nanotechnology Product Stewardship
May 27, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sylvia Palmer
Three reports released recently by the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) highlight the US government' investments and initiatives in nanotechnology. -
ChemSec Developing Online Marketplace for Safer Alternatives
May 27, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sylvia Palmer
The international chemical secretariat ChemSec is developing a portal for safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals. The NGO has described it as an "Ebay for chemicals", where buyers and sellers can interact. -
Trump's First 100 Days: Scrap Carbon and Clean Water Rules
May 27, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jennifer Yachnin
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump yesterday unveiled a "100-day action plan" in the first major energy policy speech of his campaign, pledging to scrap Obama administration rules on carbon emissions and clean water... -
Donald Trump Just Made an Extremely Important Promise. It’s One of His Worst Yet.
May 27, 2016 | Washington Post
By Greg Sargent
Believe it or not, Donald Trump has now made a very important policy statement. Introducing what he billed as an “energy plan,” Trump promised to “cancel the Paris Climate Plan.” -
Okla. AG Says No New Legal Attack on EPA in the Works
May 27, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball
Oklahoma's attorney general said yesterday it's unlikely that opponents of U.S. EPA's rule to curb power plant emissions will take a separate legal action challenging the agency's continued work on the rule. -
Pacific Fracking Poses No Significant Threat -- Obama Admin
May 27, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen Gilmer
Hydraulic fracturing in the Pacific Ocean won't have a significant environmental impact, federal regulators announced today. -
Bay Area Energy Meeting is Where Climate Protection Gets Real
May 27, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Hal Harvey
The Paris Agreement on climate change, agreed to last December, set the world on track to avoid catastrophe. Or did it? More than 180 nations have committed to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but now we need to see whether these commitments are real. -
Pipeline Construction Runs into Anti-Fossil-Fuel Movement
May 26, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
For decades, natural gas flowed into New England through a pipeline owned by Houston-based Spectra Energy with little notice from anyone. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Green Building Council Introduces Risk Assessment Leed Credit
May 27, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US Green Building Council (USGBC) has introduced a new pilot credit for Leed v4 that encourages the assessment of human health exposure scenarios for products during their installation and use phases. -
(ACC Mentioned) New LEED Pilot Spotlights Impact of Building Materials
May 27, 2016 | Proud Green Building
The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has announced a new LEED pilot credit—building material human hazard and exposure assessment – which encourages project teams and manufacturers to assess human health related exposure scenarios for products... -
The Clean Water Rule: One Year Later
May 27, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Gene Karpinski
A year ago today, at a spot overlooking the Anacostia River, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthyand Army Corps of Engineers Assistant Secretary Jo-Ellen Darcy clinked water glasses after finalizing the Clean Water Rule. -
Groups Protest New EPA Enforcement Policy
May 27, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Several dozen environmental groups are sounding alarms about a change in U.S. EPA enforcement policy they say has lessened attention to dangerous short-term bursts of toxic air pollution.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Increased Imports Force PP Prices Down
May 27, 2016 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Plastics News is reporting an additional 2-cent decrease on North American polypropylene resin prices to reflect price erosion that took place between March and May.
The PN resin pricing chart previously showed a 3-cent PP price drop for April. Conversations with resin buyers and other market watchers have indicated that the total price drop for the March-April-May time period was 5 cents, with buyers seeing the decreases in varying amounts at various times over that period.
The 5-cent decline has canceled out price gains from earlier in the year, leaving regional PP prices down a net of 1 cent per pound since Jan. 1, according to the PN chart.
PP makers ExxonMobil Chemical Co. of Houston and Formosa Plastics Corp. USA of Livingston, N.J., already have announced price decreases for June. The ExxonMobil decrease ranges from 3 to 5 cents per pound, while the Formosa downward move is 5 cents.
Domestic PP suppliers are facing competition from material imported from several regions. Import material has found a home in North America as the region’s PP production has struggled to keep up with demand. Operating rates for PP plants in North America are in the high 90s.
PP pricing in North America has become more complicated as producers and buyers have moved away from pricing systems based on the price of propylene monomer feedstock. As a result, “everybody’s price isn’t moving the same amount at the same time,” according to Scott Newell, a PP market analyst with Resin Technology Inc. in Fort Worth, Texas.
Through April, North American PP sales were up almost 1 percent vs. the year-ago period, according to the American Chemistry Council in Washington. Domestic growth of 2.3 percent was curbed by a 44 percent drop in export sales.
Domestic PP market growth was led by the sheet end market, where four-month sales grew 10.5 percent, and by rigid packaging, which saw a 6.3 percent sales increase. The PP rigid packaging sales total includes cups, containers, caps and closures.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20160527/NEWS/160529853/increased-imports-force-pp-prices-down
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Regulation Reform Delayed Yet Again
May 27, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
As the US is on the verge of reforming its outdated 40-year-old chemical regulations, one senator is blocking its progress. The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) earlier this week and the Senate was expected to take up the bill yesterday and pass it with limited discussion. However, Republican Senator Rand Paul, a former presidential hopeful, has slammed on the brakes.
The chemical industry and a good part of the environmental lobby supported the bipartisan legislation, andthe White House said President Obama would sign the measure into law. But Paul took to the Senate floor yesterday and blocked the vote, saying that he needs more time to review the lengthy bill. He expressed concerns over the way that the new regulation would override any chemical regulations individual states have in place.
‘This bill came here on Tuesday, it is 180 pages long, it involves new criminalisation, new crimes that will be created at the federal level,’ Paul stated. He said the bill includes a ‘new federal regime’ that would supercede chemical regulations, or lack of regulations, at the state level. ‘I think it deserves to be read, to be understood, and to be debated,’ the senator added. ‘I object to just rushing this through.’
Paul made it clear that he will continue to object to the TSCA modernisation bill until he has had time to vet it thoroughly. Unless he reverses course, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell will not have the unanimous consent needed to fast-track the legislation.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) said it is ‘sincerely disappointed’ by Paul’s decision to ‘stand in the way’ of efforts that would provide greater certainty and clarity to industry, and also enforce greater accountability and transparency at the Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2016/05/us-chemical-regulation-reform-delayed-yet-again
-
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Chem Reform Bill Hits Senate Roadblock
May 27, 2016 | ICIS
By Christie Moffat
A bipartisan bill aimed at overhauling existing US chemical safety regulations continued to be held up in the Senate on Friday, following objections raised by Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul.
Addressing the Senate floor on Thursday, Paul raised concerns as to whether the bill had been subject to enough scrutiny, and said that he wanted more time to review it.
Titled "The Frank R Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act", the bill seeks to overhaul the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a 40-year-old regulatory structure for ensuring the safety of chemicals in commerce.
In a rare show of consensus between Republicans and Democrats, the House of Representatives voted 403-12 in favour of the bill on Tuesday, following months of negotiations to reconcile two separate bills that passed each of the chambers last year.
Paul said he was particularly concerned about provisions in the bill that would givegreater authority to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate chemicals, preventing individual states from implementing their own laws.
In addition, he voiced concern about stronger penalties for safety violations, which would involve “new crimes that will be created at the federal level”, Paul said.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) expressed disappointment at the delay.
"We are sincerely disappointed that Senator Paul has decided to stand in the way of efforts to provide greater certainty and clarity to industry while holding EPA to strict accountability and transparency requirements,” the ACC said in a statement.
“Senator Paul's decision to block final passage of legislation to bring chemical regulation into the 21st century is putting the brakes on common-sense policy that will have far-reaching benefits for America's economy and public health. We hope Senator Paul will quickly reconsider his position."
Lawmakers had originally hoped that the bill would pass a Senate vote this week, to arrive on President Barack Obama’s desk by Friday afternoon and signed into law before a scheduled break for the Memorial Day long weekend.
However, due to the delay, the bill is likely to be scheduled for a Senate vote in June.
http://www.icis.com/resources/news/2016/05/27/10002667/tsca-chem-reform-bill-hits-senate-roadblock/
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Receives Conflicting Comments on Review of Controversial Solvent
May 27, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA is receiving conflicting comments on its draft risk review of certain exposures to the solvent 1-bromopropane (1-BP) with environmentalists and some states urging EPA to consider additional risks and exposures, while the chemical industry is arguing the review is a screening level assessment that should not be the basis of regulation.
EPA took comment through May 9 on its draft risk review finding certain uses of 1-BP, also known as n-propyl bromide, pose risks to pregnant women and workers. The review under the agency's Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is one of several recent federal reviews addressing the solvent that has seen increased use in recent years.
The agency conducted the 1-BP assessment under its TSCA "workplan" program that is targeting uses of dozens of existing chemicals for review and possible regulation. The agency launched the workplan review program in 2012 to better regulate 'existing chemicals' that were already on the market when TSCA was enacted in 1976 and over which the agency has less authority than newer chemicals.
In comments on the TSCA review, two states and environmental and labor groups, in separate comments, urge EPA to bolster the review to consider additional exposures, while also calling for the agency to quickly move toward a final review and action to limit exposures.
Environmental and labor groups, including Earthjustice, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the BlueGreen Alliance, in joint comments, argue that EPA's review should also consider exposures to 1-BP through ambient air to residents and bystanders near facilities where 1-BP is used, as well as through dermal exposures and cumulative exposures to multiple carcinogenic solvents.
"Failure to include the full scope of exposures to 1-BP in the risk assessment will result in an underestimation of risk," the advocates say. "[W]e urge EPA to include the risks from human exposures to 1-BP via all pathways in the final risk assessment, as TSCA requires."
Two state environment agencies, including the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(NYDEC), which has petitioned EPA to list 1-BP as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP), also says EPA should consider a broader array of exposures. The state agencies focus on exposures from use of 1-BP in dry cleaning, and NYDEC says the findings of the draft review support that state's HAP petition and justify ending or limiting use of 1-BP in dry cleaning, at least in certain buildings.
Worst-Case Exposures
Industry groups, including the chemical manufacturers' association American Chemistry Council (ACC), contend that EPA has mis-characterized exposures to 1-BP. Additionally, ACC says the draft review is merely a screening level assessment that considers worst-case exposures. While such a review may indicate need for further assessment, ACC says it should not form the basis of regulation.
ACC says EPA should conduct a systematic review of the quality of studies considered and update its outdated exposure assessment that fails to adequately reflect current occupational or consumer exposures.
EPA's TSCA workplan assessment is one of several reviews federal agencies are conducting of 1-BP in light of increased use over the past decade. Federal regulators and others say 1-BP poses neurological and reproductive risk, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has classified 1-BP as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen."
Among the federal reviews is EPA's Chemical Safety Advisory Committee (CSAC) peer review of the TSCA workplan review of 1-BP that took place May 24-25. ACC had urged EPA to postpone the peer review, arguing that most panel nominees lack the necessary expertise.
EPA's air office is reviewing a 2010 petition from the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance and a 2011 petition from the state of New York to add the chemical to the Clean Air Act's HAPs list, subject to strict air toxics rules.
Also, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in a recent assessment has said that production of 1-BP "has increased over the last 10 years due to its use as a replacement for other more harmful substances. "
And the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), part of HHS, took comment through April 29 on a draft review setting a recommended exposure limit for the substance. A major producer of the chemical has argued the NIOSH review overstates potential workplace exposures since use of the solvent has not increased as much as once anticipated.
In comments on the TSCA review, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control says EPA's toxics office and its Office of Air Quality and Planning & Standards should work together on a holistic human health characterization of 1-BP exposure.
The state agency also argues that EPA's workplan review fails to account for exposures to people living in buildings that contain dry cleaners.
Environmentalists' Concerns
Meanwhile, the coalition of environmental and labor groups argues that EPA oversight of 1-BP is lagging behind agency policies that are driving increased use of the solvent as an alternative for other chemicals.
The groups say EPA's listing of 1-BP as an acceptable substitute for ozone-depleting substances under the Significant New Alternatives Policy and oversight of the solvent perchloroethylene in dry cleaning are driving 1-BP use.
The advocates are urging EPA to broaden the draft review to consider risks to residents near facilities where 1-BP is used and to consider that many of those affected are likely low-income members of minority groups. The groups also say that a urinary metabolite indicative of 1-BP exposure is widely found in the general population.
"It is critically important for EPA to complete its assessment of 1-BP as soon as possible, and to restrict all uses that pose unreasonable risks to workers, consumer-users, and exposed communities," the advocates say.
But ACC says EPA should work with industry to further refine the draft risk review, arguing that the current document fails to use best available scientific methods and overestimates exposures.
In May 9 comments, ACC says EPA's review fails to properly reflect current occupational and consumer uses, and does not adequately explain its scientific decision making in regard to reproductive and developmental toxicity data sets.
"EPA has used very conservative benchmark dose modeling response levels without describing the rationale for the choices made," ACC says. "EPA indicates that it followed its own guidance, yet a review of the two documents cited reveals important differences between the recommendations contained in EPA's guidance and what EPA actually did in the 1-bromopropane risk assessment," ACC says.
In May 9 comments, the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) argues EPA inappropriately references consumers' uses and urges the agency to clarify that 1-BP products are manufactured and marketed for industrial and commercial, rather than consumer uses.
"We are concerned that there are numerous references throughout the document to 'consumer uses' that are unsubstantiated," CSPA says. CSPA asks that "EPA update the information in the final risk assessment to accurately reflect existing 1-BP uses to minimize the expenditure of agency resources and to clarify existing uses to better inform the risk assessment and any future rulemakings based on the risk assessment."
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-receives-conflicting-comments-review-controversial-solvent
-
(ACC Mentioned) Shopping Bag Fee Isn't the Best Way to Ensure Lead Remedy
May 27, 2016 | Burlington County Times
By Editorial Board
Legislation is being considered in Trenton that would require retail customers provided with paper or plastic shopping bags to fork over 5 cents per bag.
Stores would keep a penny of the fee, and the state portion would be used to fund lead abatement in schools and homes.
At least, that’s the intent.
Lead poisoning causes brain damage and memory loss, and results in learning disabilities in young children. It’s a serious problem in the state.
According to several New Jersey community advocacy groups, 11 cities and two counties have a higher percentage of children with elevated lead levels than Flint, Michigan.
And it’s not just in the water. Though lead use has been severely restricted since the 1970s, thousands of New Jersey children continue to ingest lead from paint on walls, windows and doors in older homes.
Those same advocacy groups have called on Gov. Chris Christie to reinstate the $10 million in annual funding for the Lead Control Assistance Fund, which is supposed to be dedicated from the additional fees on the sale of lead paint. Since the program was established in 2004, governors have diverted the revenue to support the state budget.
There’s no guarantee that revenue from the bag fees won’t meet the same fate and be rerouted to the general fund. Lead? What lead?
The added cost also will likely push more shoppers to use reusable carryout bags, and they can be, quite frankly, gross.
Only about 3 percent of reusable-bag users wash them — ever — according to researchers at Loma Linda University and the University of Arizona. To be fair, the study was funded by the American Chemical Council, a trade association of plastic bag manufacturers. But the researchers found that bacteria thrive and multiply on reusable bags, and spread germs through grocery stores. Bacteria were found on 99 percent of the bags tested; more than half were contaminated with coliform and about 10 percent with E. coli. Like we said, gross.
Clearly, there’s a health and environmental benefit to eliminating plastic bags from the ecosystem and removing lead from our buildings and water supplies. That has to happen. But disposable bags proliferate for a reason. From plastic syringes and tubing to paper cups, we create tons of nonbiodegradable waste in the name of germ containment. Promoting the transfer of pathogens from homes to stores and back again, with no guarantee the state's lead problems will be addressed or children helped, is not the best alternative.
http://www.burlingtoncountytimes.com/opinion/editorial/shopping-bag-fee-isn-t-the-best-way-to-ensure/article_8d7a5ebc-cc17-50f4-87fc-171232ffb7f7.html
-
Bipartisan Chemical Bill Runs into a Senate Roadblock: Rand Paul
May 27, 2016 | Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin
A bipartisan measure that would overhaul the nation’s chemical safety laws seemed destined for the president’s desk this week — until Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) put a hold on it Thursday.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which passed the House easily Tuesday and was slated for a vote Thursday in the Senate, had been hailed as a rare example of Republicans and Democrats reaching consensus on a critical public policy question. Both industry officials and public health activists say the 40-year-old law governing the regulation of thousands of chemicals, the Toxic Substances Control Act, does not work.
But Paul said the measure, which will provide the industry with greater certainty while giving the Environmental Protection Agency the right to obtain more information about a chemical before approving its commercial use, had not been subject to enough scrutiny. The legislation is a compromise between House and Senate measures, and reflects additional changes that were made in negotiations this month.
Speaking on the Senate floor, Paul said the bill was 180 pages long and needed more review. “I told people, everybody involved in this, I just want to read the bill,” he said.
Paul said he was concerns about provisions that would prevent states from acting unilaterally on chemical regulation, and higher fines or imprisonment for anyone who “places an individual in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.”
As a result of that provision and another one increasing fines for knowingly violating the law, Paul said, “it involves new criminalization, new crimes that will be created at the federal level.”
In an interview Wednesday one of the bill’s authors, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), spoke as if he had a sneaking suspicion something was going to go wrong.
“It’s been like we’ve been running a marathon and we can see the tape at the end of the block,” Merkley said, less than 24 hours before Paul raised his objection. “We want to get across the finish line before something untoward happens.”
Advocates of the reform — including Donelle Harder, spokeswoman for Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) — could barely contain their frustration. The bill passed the House 403 to 12, and in an email to reporters, Harder observed that Paul tacitly approved the measure when it passed unanimously in December.
“All that to say, I couldn’t help but realize today that I have personally carried and birthed a child in the same amount of time in which Rand Paul could have raised objections to the few lines in this bill that he is now calling ‘rushed,'” Harder wrote.
Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund was equally critical. “Well, it looks like American families will have to wait a bit longer for better protection from toxic chemicals” given Rand’s decision, Denison wrote in a blog post.
The bill is likely to come up for a Senate vote in June, after the Memorial Day recess.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/05/27/bipartisan-chemical-bill-runs-into-a-senate-roadblock-rand-paul/
-
Why Environmental and Health Groups are so Torn About Toxic Chemical Reform
May 27, 2016 | Co.Exist
By Jessica Leber
In 1976, the U.S. passed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a landmark law to regulate chemicals around us to protect public health and the environment. But it has fallen far short of its aims. Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) doesn’t have enough time and authority to test the 700 new chemicals on the market every year, and, when the law passed, 62,000 chemicals already for sale were grandfathered in. In 40 years, the agency has only tested 200 older chemicals and regulated five (these include PCBs, dioxin, and some limited uses of asbestos).
Now a landmark reform of the law is expected to pass Congress and be signed by the White House. It would be the first major environmental legislation since the 1990s, and even more remarkably, a bipartisan effort. It received near unanimoussupport in a House vote on May 24, and a Senate vote is expected soon. With clear deadlines and new authorities for evaluating risky chemicals, the new law would make it easier for EPA to regulate many chemicals it couldn’t before, such as bisphenol-A (or BPA) found in plastics and food cans and flame retardants found in furniture. It also strengthens the agency's ability to require companies to do safety testing and harder for them to claim "trade secrets" to avoid disclosing information.
It would seem that environmental and health advocates would be celebrating. As evidence of a link between chronic disease and toxic chemicals has grown over the years, they have spent the last two decades lobbying to make the flawed legislation much stronger. But only a few are celebrating; others’ support for the bill ranges from tepid to ambivalent.
For example, Andy Igrejas, executive director of the coalition Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, has endorsed the final version of the bill, but late last week, before several last-minute changes were negotiated, he was not even sure about doing that. A week earlier, he told Co.Exist: "We’re not for it, now. We’re urging them to fix certain things. And if they fix these things—we might be able to be okay, kind of reluctantly okay." And Kathy Attar, toxics program manager for Physicians for Social Responsibility: "I don’t know if it takes us backwards. A lot of this is going to have to be a wait-and-see process."
If this bill is a landmark environmental law, why the hesitance from these groups? It points to the compromises that are made on the slow path forward to advancing public health and passing laws and the strong influence of the chemical industry on that process.
In the advocacy community, the rancor dates to 2013, when the Environmental Defense Fund—a large national environmental nonprofit known for being more willing to work with industry than other organizations in the space—broke away from from the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition, which includes groups such as NRDC, the Consumers Union, the National Medical Association, and the Breast Cancer Fund. Both sides are fighting for the same thing. But unlike the coalition and its members’ tepid endorsement, EDF views the TSCA reform bill as an important bipartisan success that is the culmination of years of work. JESSICA LEBER 05.27.16 9:30 AM
In 1976, the U.S. passed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a landmark law to regulate chemicals around us to protect public health and the environment. But it has fallen far short of its aims. Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) doesn’t have enough time and authority to test the 700 new chemicals on the market every year, and, when the law passed, 62,000 chemicals already for sale were grandfathered in. In 40 years, the agency has only tested 200 older chemicals and regulated five (these include PCBs, dioxin, and some limited uses of asbestos).
Now a landmark reform of the law is expected to pass Congress and be signed by the White House. It would be the first major environmental legislation since the 1990s, and even more remarkably, a bipartisan effort. It received near unanimoussupport in a House vote on May 24, and a Senate vote is expected soon. With clear deadlines and new authorities for evaluating risky chemicals, the new law would make it easier for EPA to regulate many chemicals it couldn’t before, such as bisphenol-A (or BPA) found in plastics and food cans and flame retardants found in furniture. It also strengthens the agency's ability to require companies to do safety testing and harder for them to claim "trade secrets" to avoid disclosing information.
It would seem that environmental and health advocates would be celebrating. As evidence of a link between chronic disease and toxic chemicals has grown over the years, they have spent the last two decades lobbying to make the flawed legislation much stronger. But only a few are celebrating; others’ support for the bill ranges from tepid to ambivalent.
For example, Andy Igrejas, executive director of the coalition Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, has endorsed the final version of the bill, but late last week, before several last-minute changes were negotiated, he was not even sure about doing that. A week earlier, he told Co.Exist: "We’re not for it, now. We’re urging them to fix certain things. And if they fix these things—we might be able to be okay, kind of reluctantly okay." And Kathy Attar, toxics program manager for Physicians for Social Responsibility: "I don’t know if it takes us backwards. A lot of this is going to have to be a wait-and-see process."
If this bill is a landmark environmental law, why the hesitance from these groups? It points to the compromises that are made on the slow path forward to advancing public health and passing laws and the strong influence of the chemical industry on that process.
In the advocacy community, the rancor dates to 2013, when the Environmental Defense Fund—a large national environmental nonprofit known for being more willing to work with industry than other organizations in the space—broke away from from the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition, which includes groups such as NRDC, the Consumers Union, the National Medical Association, and the Breast Cancer Fund. Both sides are fighting for the same thing. But unlike the coalition and its members’ tepid endorsement, EDF views the TSCA reform bill as an important bipartisan success that is the culmination of years of work.
"In our view, this is a very solid bill," says Richard Denison, a senior scientist with EDF. "It's an improvement over the status quo on every major count. If we had the pen, we and other in our community would have written a different bill—in fact, we did write a different bill, but that never went anywhere ... this is the best and only opportunity that we have had to get the reforms made.
An update to TSCA has been under discussion since the 1990s, but was opposed by powerful chemical and manufacturing interests. But two things started to happen that increased momentum for reform. First, more and more states began passing their own laws to ban individual chemicals, often in individual products, such as the plastic additive BPA, resulting in headaches for companies trying to comply with differing requirements. Another was that consumers, as they became more educated about toxics and sought out products that were free from known dangerous ingredients, started to lose trust in companies' ability to regulate themselves.
This was an opening to make some progress and, in 2013, the Environmental Defense Fund took it. It left the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition that had been lobbying for reform since 2009 and backed a compromise, bipartisan overhaul of the law, written by late New Jersey Democrat Sen. Frank Lautenberg and Republican Louisiana Senator David Vitter, who was in close conversations with the chemical industry’s lobbying arm.
EDF’s former partners in the coalition ended up calling that 2013 bill as a "complete disaster." Not only did that proposed legislation not make positive reforms, says Igrejas, of the Safer Chemicals coalition, but it was a "seek and destroy mission" for any part of the existing law worth saving. That bill scaled back safety standards from previous proposals, including provisions to protect vulnerable populations, and didn’t have hard deadlines for EPA to take action on evaluating chemicals, leaving too much discretion to agency officials. The groups in the coalition felt it would leave the public with even less protection, because it also blocked states from taking their own actions.
That bill never moved forward in the previous Congress because it didn't attract enough support from the left and because of Senator Lautenberg’s death, but it set the ground floor for negotiating bills in the Senate and House this time around. Today’s legislation is much stronger because it has firm deadlines for EPA and considers vulnerable populations, but the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition still views it as weak progress. It still will lead to slow evaluation of high-risk chemicals—as long as seven years, while partially limiting states that want to advance their own chemical regulations in the meantime. It also makes it easier for importers of products to avoid EPA’s scrutiny, loosening requirements that they must notify the agency when they use a new chemical.
An even bigger missed opportunity could be that it nixed funding, discussed in previous bills, for R&D for greener chemicals, says David Levine, CEO of the American Sustainable Business Council. He leads a different group, the Companies for Safer Chemicals, a coalition of toxic-free brands like Seventh Generation, that also hoped to see a stronger law passed. The bill that will reach the President's desk, he says, is a "missed opportunity" to drive innovation.
Negotiations up until the last minute over last weekend rolled back some of the limits on state authorities, but it will still hurt in states like Washington, which proactively banned chemicals like BPA and, just this year, a number of flame retardants. "We know that states are able to act more quickly and we have a robust process here," says Randi Abrams-Caras, a senior campaigner with the Washington Toxics Coalition. "It will make the work that we do in the states more difficult." The flame retardants law, passed in March, should still stay in effect, but other states may not be able to act while EPA evaluates these chemicals.
In a way this is a case study in the fraught nature of compromise. Lawmakers agree that EDF’s support is what got the reform legislation passed because it brought Democrats on board and that it is a step forward. "Anytime you have the Chamber of Commerce and you have the manufacturers and the Environmental Defense Fund all together," Republican Senator James Inhofe told the New York Times, "that gets people’s attention." And Jennifer Talhelm, a spokesperson for Senator Tom Udall, the Democratic co-author of the bill, told Co.Exist: "Frankly, if EDF had not been at the table, we would still have a broken law, and we might still be decades away from reform."
But the Safer Chemicals coalition sees EDF’s bargaining a different way: "You look pretty quickly and see that they are the outliers on this. They are entitled to their opinion. The bill is in a much better place than it was—but that [2013] deal dialed it back so far that it has taken all this work to get it to this now ambivalent place—rather than a complete catastrophe," Igrejas says.
EDF's Denison says it’s quite unfair to argue that his group set anything back. It’s decision to support the legislation in 2013 was tactical, born after many years of no progress at all in achieving Republican support.
"The reason we lent support to this in 2013 was because it was a huge opening to try to advance legislation on a bipartisan basis, which was the only way we were going to get this passed. Had nobody stepped up and said this is a bill from which we could work—had nobody done that—it never would have gotten started," says Richard Denison at EDF. "I’m not saying that we didn’t take a risk in doing that. But there was no way that bill in 2013 was going to pass."
He adds: "Our view was that if we simply oppose, oppose, oppose there is no reason for anyone to try to get invested in moving this forward."
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3060183/why-environmental-and-health-groups-are-so-torn-about-toxic-chemical-reform
-
Commentary: Update of Toxic Substances Control Act a Worthy Step that's Long Overdue
May 27, 2016 | Center for Public Integrity
By Jim Morris
In a groundbreaking report six years ago, a National Cancer Institute panel warned that it was time to pay closer attention to environmental causes of a disease that takes more than a half-million American lives each year.
“[T]he true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated,” the panelists wrote in their transmittal letter to President Obama in April 2010. “With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the United States, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or understudied and largely unregulated, exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread.”
The report’s authors said the federal law aimed at controlling such hazards, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, “may be the most egregious example of ineffective regulation of environmental contaminants.” Since the act’s passage, they noted, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had required testing of less than 1 percent of the chemicals in commerce and had banned or restricted only five. The law takes an innocent-until-proven-guilty approach – good for the criminal-justice system, not so good for industrial poisons. Chemical manufacturers have largely avoided disclosure of health and safety data on their products by hiding behind confidentiality provisions.
This makes recent events all the more remarkable. On Tuesday, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed legislation making the first substantive reforms to the 40-year-old act, known as TSCA. The bill was expected to clear the Senate, and the White House has signaled its support.
Among other things, the measure would force the EPA to pick up its laggard pace of chemical reviews, assigning the highest priority to the substances that pose the greatest risks, such as asbestos. The EPA’s inability to ban the mineral despite its role in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans has been held up as a prime example of TSCA’s feebleness. The Center for Public Integrity has published dozens of stories exposing flaws in the regulatory system.
The reform legislation, a product of negotiations that began in 2013, has been praised by groups like the Environmental Defense Fund, but is far from perfect. It would prohibit states like California, which have adopted standards stricter than federal ones, from putting restrictions on chemicals while they were under EPA review (though state rules already in place before April 22 of this year would stand). In fact, industry frustration with inconsistencies in those rules helped lawmakers forge the compromise that led to the bill.
The accelerated testing by the EPA would be funded by $25 million a year in fees from the chemical industry. The Environmental Working Group, a research and advocacy organization, calls that figure inadequate, saying, “Even the best law will be meaningless if [the] EPA doesn’t have the resources needed to review the hundreds of dangerous chemicals already on the market.”
One public-health advocate who has lived and breathed TSCA reform over the past few years is Linda Reinstein, president and co-founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization. Reinstein, who lives near Los Angeles and has been a fixture on Capitol Hill, lost her husband, Alan, in 2006 to mesothelioma, a rare and aggressive cancer almost always connected to asbestos exposure.
In an email to the Center, Reinstein pointed out that asbestos continues to kill 15,000 Americans each year. “While this bill does not immediately prohibitasbestos imports,” she wrote, “it does represent a landmark step forward.”
The need for a stronger law is beyond dispute. The acute and chronic effects of the paint-stripping solvent methylene chloride, found at any Home Depot or Lowe’s, for example, have been known for decades. A Center analysis last year found that at least 56 accidental deaths had been linked to the chemical in the United States since 1980. On top of that, methylene chloride can cause cancer. The EPA is finally getting around to doing something about it; options for a proposed rule range from clearer warning labels to an outright ban. The agency first pondered such actions 30 years ago.
“People have died, it poses this cancer threat … and everybody knows it’s a bad chemical, and yet nobody does anything,” said Katy Wolf, director of the nonprofit Institute for Research and Technical Assistance in California. “It’s appalling and irresponsible.”
The author of the reform bill, Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said in a written statement that TSCA “has been broken from the very beginning. We're exposed to hundreds of chemicals in our daily lives in countless ways – from flame retardants in the dust from your sofas to formaldehyde in non-iron shirts, and from the non-stick coating on your frying pans to volatile organic compounds given off from laser printers. Some of these chemicals are known to cause cancer or serious health problems, yet there has never been a cop on the beat keeping us safe.”
Now the EPA will be that cop. The quality of its policing remains to be seen.
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/05/27/19735/commentary-update-toxic-substances-control-act-worthy-step-thats-long-overdue
-
Seven Deadly Poisons – And a Law That Won't Protect You Fast Enough
May 27, 2016 | The Guardian
By Ken Cook
The US is set for the first legislation to regulate toxic industrial chemicals in 40 years.
You might think this would be cause for celebration. However, the bill updating the Toxic Substances Control Act continues to put the industry’s interests above those of the public. It does make some improvements, such as requiring new chemicals to be safe before being sold and giving the Environmental Protection Agency the power to demand safety data. But on balance, it does too little to protect Americans from chemicals that cause cancer and nervous system disorders, impaired fertility, immune system dysfunction and a host of other health problems.
In the first year under the new law, the EPA will be required to review just 10 of the tens of thousands of chemicals used in commerce that have never been tested for safety. The law fails to give the agency adequate resources and clear legal authority to take timely action. Companies could further delay things by taking the EPA to court. In short, people will still be routinely exposed to hazardous chemicals, including the following dangerous substances.
Asbestos
Most people think asbestos was banned decades ago, but it’s still legal and still lethal. We believe asbestos-caused lung cancer and other diseases kill up to 15,000 Americans a year. Banned in more than 50 countries, asbestos is still sold in some brake pads, auto clutches, roofing materials and vinyl tiles – it has even been found in some children’s crayons.
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde, which occurs naturally in the body, is nevertheless a carcinogen at the unnaturally high concentrations found in some household cleaning products, carpets, wood flooring, paints and varnishes. Formaldehyde can damage DNA, and inhaling low concentrations over time increases the risk of cancer.
PFCs
Perfluorinated chemicals have been linked at very low doses to cancer, thyroid disease and other conditions. They were used for decades in hundreds of products and are still being produced. These are the nonstick, waterproof and grease-resistant chemicals. Think food packaging, outdoor weather clothing and gear, cookware, etc. In this family of chemicals, PFOA and PFOS (so called C8s, after the number of carbon atoms) are no longer produced in the United States. Their chemical cousins, C6s, are still being used.
Fire retardants
Chlorinated fire retardants, linked to cancer and hormone disruption, are commonly added to couches and other upholstered furniture, even though fire-retardant foams are not reported to offer a significantly greater level of open flame safety, according to consumer product safety commission analysis. Researchers have also found them in children’s products, such as changing tables, car seats and nap mats.
Vinyl chloride
A carcinogen, vinyl chloride is used to make PVC plastics and many household products. Studies show that in the air, vinyl chloride can also affect the nervous system, and long-term exposure on the job can cause liver damage.
Phthalates
Phthalates, which make plastics more flexible, are used in PVC plastics, solvents, vinyl flooring, adhesives and detergents. They are endocrine disrupters and have been linked to diabetes, obesity and both reproductive and thyroid problems.
Bisphenol A
This hormone-disrupting chemical is common in plastic products, including food and beverage containers. It also turns up in people, including babies in the womb, as EWG’s own biomonitoring research has shown. Last year the state of California listed BPA as a female reproductive toxicant.
Chemical companies long ago lost Americans’ trust, and this law will only fuel that mistrust. Because it does too little to address the problem of chemical exposure, consumers will do their best to protect themselves by rejecting products made with unsafe chemicals. Manufacturers and retailers who listen to consumers will reformulate or quit making those products. More unsafe chemicals may be “regulated by retail” – faster and more stringently – than through this legislation.
But in the long run, consumers’ can’t shop their way out of all toxic exposures – there are simply too many hazardous chemicals in too many products on the market. What we really need is a law that gives federal government the power to immediately stop the use of chemicals suspected of causing birth defects, nervous system disorders and other problems. It’s a commonsense goal, but one we seem to be as far away from as ever.
Ken Cook is the president and cofounder of Environmental Working Group, an environmental health research and advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. whose mission is to empower people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/27/poison-chemical-health-law-toxic-regulation-harmful-substances
-
Federal Toxic-Chemical Bill Sets off Volatile Reaction in Minnesota
May 27, 2016 | Minnesota Post
By Sam Brodey
Federal policy on toxic chemicals — things like asbestos, chlorofluorocarbons, formaldehyde — has been mostly unchanged since 1976.
In the intervening 40 years, thousands more new chemicals have been developed and marketed but federal law was unable to keep up, both in terms of testing to find out which ones were unsafe, and creating regulations to protect people from them.
That’s why everyone from environmentalists to big business is welcoming Congress’ efforts to update the law, which passed both chambers this week and awaits President Obama’s signature.
But the reaction has been a little more tepid in Minnesota: during the 40-year period of inadequate federal regulation, the state has been a national leader in approving laws to control chemicals.
Advocates in Minnesota say there are things to like about the new law, but they’re stuck on one problem: it would, in most instances, prohibit states from making their own laws governing protection from dangerous chemicals.
Federal law on chemicals outdated, inadequate
Since the initial passage of the 1976 law, called the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Environmental Protection Agency has mandated the testing of 200 chemicals — a tiny fraction of the approximately 80,000 chemicals on the market in the U.S. — everything from industrial pesticides used in agriculture to cleaning products you buy at the grocery store.
Out of all these chemicals, the EPA has restrictions placed on nine, including asbestos, PCBs, and hexavalent chromium — the toxin made famous by the advocacy of Erin Brockovich.
Elected officials in both parties have acknowledged the shortcomings of existing law, which fails to give slow-moving federal regulators the authority and the resources to keep up with the growing body of chemicals used in the market.
According to the Government Accountability Office, EPA rules can take three to five years to finalize, and up to two and a half years for private entities to implement. It could be a decade from the time a rule is considered before its effectiveness can comprehensively be assessed.
Beyond that, the EPA has failed to implement effective rules even on the highest-profile chemicals known to be harmful to people. In 1989, an EPA rule banning most products containing asbestos was overturned, and government regulation of that substance, though it exists, continues to lag due to financial restraints built into existing law.
Since the 1970s, states fill the void
In the face of slow action — or outright inaction — from Washington, states have stepped up to fill the regulatory void. Thirty-four states have passed some type of law regulating chemicals, but a handful of states have taken the lead in implementing the most assertive policies.
For example, in 1986, California voters approved Proposition 65, a ballot initiative that requires citizens to be informed of exposure to toxic substances. Californians have since grown accustomed to ubiquitous “Prop 65” warnings placed, for example, at gas stations, or on the labels of some housewares.
Minnesota has also been in the vanguard of states — which also includes Washington, Vermont, and Massachusetts — that have successfully gotten robust chemical-regulation policy onto the books.
According to Kathleen Schuler, who heads up the Healthy Kids and Families Program at Conservation Minnesota, Minnesota has passed ten bills regulating toxic chemicals in the last decade.
That includes the 2009 effort to ban bisphenol-A, or BPA, a chemical once widely used in many plastics that was found to have potentially serious health effects. (The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has since banned BPA in many consumer products.)
In 2014, Minnesota banned products containing triclosan, a chemical used in many consumer items marketed as “anti-bacterial.” The EPA has yet to take broad action on triclosan, which the FDA says is safe, though studies in animals have shown the chemical may have the hormone-disrupting properties of BPA.
Last year, Minnesota also approved a ban on HBCD, a flame retardant found in upholstered furniture and some kids’ products, along with three other flame retardants in a hard-fought battle in the legislature.
Schuler says Minnesota was the first state to pass a ban on HBCD, which the stategovernment believes has a concerning potential to affect reproductive health and the thyroid in humans.
“We’ve definitely been one of the lead states,” Schuler says, noting that chemical regulation policy has received support from Republicans and Democrats alike in St. Paul.
New law could block strong state action
When the ink dries on the new law, however, Minnesota would no longer have the power to pass a HCBD ban or a triclosan ban.
That’s because the central idea behind the policy overhaul is to eliminate the patchwork of different laws that exist in states across the U.S. In return for the EPA getting greater authority to issue new regulations on chemicals, states will lose most authority to pass chemical control laws when they see fit.
States will retain room to act in some scenarios. After the law is signed, the EPA will undergo a review process of the ten most pervasive toxic chemicals, a list that will likely include substances found in common things like cleaning products, and flame retardants. Minnesota could take whatever action state legislators approve with respect to controlling those substances.
It also doesn’t void laws retroactively: state and local laws passed prior to this April can stand, so Minnesota’s ban on HBCD, for example, will remain law.
Advocates say that’s a start, but they worry what will happen when the EPA moves on from its first ten chemicals, and begins evaluating 20 chemicals at a time, which is the process mandated by the new law.
States will be blocked from taking action on those chemicals under EPA review. “That will stymie state protections for chemicals in consumer products, such as carcinogenic flame retardants that expose firefighters on the job, and hormone-disrupting phthalates that are found in home flooring and children’s personal care products,” Schuler said.
“The pace of chemical reviews can be very slow. If the EPA picks ten chemicals, they’ll be working on them for a number of years. Considering there’s 80,000 chemicals in process, it’s kind of a drop in the bucket.”
However, thanks to a late compromise brokered in Congress, if the EPA takes too long to evaluate a chemical — three and a half years is the max — states can begin taking action themselves.
Still, given that researchers continue to find adverse public health problems from widely used chemicals, Minnesota advocates are worried that whenever the next BPA is found, their hands will be tied in a space where they once could act swiftly.
It’s that piece of it that most concerns John Linc Stine, who heads the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and has been a vocal critic of the TSCA update. He has called the authority granted to EPA in the new law “too meager.”
“The main thing I see as challenging about the legislation,” Stine says, “is where the understanding of health risks is emerging, in the time period where you’re trying to evaluate health risk, states have moved forward to be protective of health and the environment. What concerns us about the bill is that it preempts state regulation of that sort.”
Beyond that, there is concern that a provision in the new law will put consumers in the dark about chemicals in imported products, like children’s toys.
Previously, Schuler said, the EPA required notice if a problematic chemical is present in an imported item before that item can be sold in the U.S. The new law contains a higher bar for regulators to ask for that notification, she says.
“We rely on the EPA to be the watchdog on these issues and this bill will make it harder for them to protect the public.”
Some update better than no update?
Still, even those who are critical of the new chemical control bill concede that it’s not all bad, suggesting that a less-than-ideal update is better than no update at all.
According to Stine, “the updating of the act is long overdue, and there are provisions of the original act that are no longer effective, but this is a significant step forward.”
Schuler says it finally gives feds much-needed authority to go after asbestos more aggressively. Beyond that, the law requires federal regulators to pay special attention to vulnerable populations — industry workers, communities located near chemical facilities, children — in reviewing the effects of chemicals and issuing new rules.
https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2016/05/federal-toxic-chemical-bill-sets-volatile-reaction-minnesota
Stine adds that “the new language of TSCA will be a positive step forward for the protection of women, children, and pregnant women.”
The TSCA update has been under construction since President Obama’s first term, and in that time, the policy has moved further in line to what many environmentally-oriented policymakers wanted.
The push has even been supported by the chemical industry, which would concede stronger national regulatory standards if it meant that states were limited in passing their own specific laws, which industry does not like.
Opposition in Congress exists, but the bill seems likely to make it through unscathed. On Tuesday, it passed the House of Representatives by a margin of 403 to 12 — with all Minnesota representatives voting in the affirmative.
It is likely to pass the Senate, though on Thursday, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul blocked it for two weeks, saying he needed more time to read through the 180-page bill.
Looking ahead, the issue for Minnesotans — and for state-level officials nationwide — becomes figuring out how best to work with federal regulators to define the law as it’s implemented.
https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2016/05/federal-toxic-chemical-bill-sets-volatile-reaction-minnesota
-
The Story Behind the E.P.A’s Contaminated Water Revelation
May 27, 2016 | New York Times
By Nathaniel Rich
Last week 5.2 million Americans learned that their drinking water is contaminated with man-made chemicals linked to cancer. The Environmental Protection Agency issued a health advisory for two compounds: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which is used in the manufacture of Teflon and other nonstick substances, and the related perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). An E.P.A. health advisory is not a regulation; it is nonbinding and nonenforceable. It does, however, require a public water system to notify its customers of the presence of the chemical and the dangers it poses. As a result, the E.P.A.’s announcement had immediate effects. Within hours, public wells were shut down in Horsham, Pa., and Maricopa County, Ariz. West Virginia’s Bureau for Public Health ordered a “do not drink” advisory for the water in three communities: Parkersburg, the site of a Teflon factory that until recently was operated by DuPont; the adjacent town of Vienna; and Martinsburg, four hours east, near the Maryland border. The West Virginia National Guard sent convoys of tankers containing drinking water to Vienna.
Rob Bilott, a lawyer at the Cincinnati firm of Taft, Stettinius and Hollister, has demanded that the E.P.A. take action on PFOA since 2001. (See “The Lawyer Who Became DuPont’s Worst Nightmare.”) By that point, Bilott had read more than 110,000 pages of internal corporate documents related to PFOA. He had learned that DuPont, despite knowledge that the chemical was linked to increased rates of cancer and other horrific health conditions in animals and human beings, had dumped mountains of the stuff into the local water supply for decades. It was even known in 2001 that perfluorinated chemicals had been detected nationwide in nearly every sample tested at blood banks. At least once a year since then, Bilott has written to the E.P.A. to renew his request.
Anyone who wants to understand how seriously the United States government considers its duty to protect the health of its citizens need only review the history of the correspondence between Bilott and the agency. It is a one-sided correspondence. In his annual letters, Bilott attaches previous correspondence, new scientific findings about the dangers of PFOA and disclosures from the legal cases he has waged continuously against DuPont since 1998. The E.P.A.’s responses are curt, usually less than a single page. In recent years the E.P.A. has claimed to be close to issuing a health advisory. But it did not do so until last Thursday.
Who has been drinking this poisoned water? More than five million American citizens, according to the Environmental Working Group, which analyzes data released publicly by the E.P.A. It has been found in dangerous concentrations in 52 public water systems across 19 states and two Pacific island territories. But Bilott said that the new E.P.A. advisory — warning against long-term exposure to drinking water with a concentration of PFOA or PFOS higher than 0.07 parts per billion — is too conservative. “It needs to be much, much lower,” he told me this week. “Even at the lowest detectable levels, it still builds up in the blood over time.” The Environmental Working Group has proposed a limit of 0.001 parts per billion, though Bilott suspects that anything above zero may be dangerous, because of PFOA’s extraordinary “bio-persistence” in the blood. Once it enters your body, it stays there.
It is relatively easy to remove perfluorinated chemicals from drinking water. All that is required is the installation of a carbon-filtration system, not a particularly expensive endeavor. For more than 10 years Bilott has asked DuPont to install a filtration system in Parkersburg without success. After Vienna tested positive for high concentrations of PFOA last year, Bilott requested that Chemours, the DuPont spinoff company that now runs the local factory, provide a filtration system for that community. Chemours declined. But on Sunday it announced that it would install one.
The company’s supporters tried to allay public anxiety. The Parkersburg News and Sentinel, which for the last 10 years has largely managed to avoid covering the class-action lawsuit facing the city’s main employer — a suit in which a high percentage of its readers are plaintiffs — published an editorial in response to the E.P.A. advisory titled “Don’t Panic.” It accused the E.P.A. of changing its mind about PFOA “overnight.” The editors noted that water in the area had tested at these levels for “decades,” as if this was cause for reassurance.
The Parkersburg News and Sentinel accused the E.P.A. of succumbing to “political pressure.” This point has some merit. In the last four and a half months, the E.P.A. has received letters demanding action on PFOA from Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and from the three governors and six senators of New York, Vermont and New Hampshire, all states dealing with their own PFOA crises. Chris Gibson, a Republican congressmen from upstate New York, requested a congressional investigation after high levels of PFOA were found in the drinking water of Hoosick Falls, N.Y.
“It’s frustrating to see that it takes this kind of effort to get the agency to move on a chemical like this,” Bilott told me. “It shouldn’t take the public having to force the issue. It says a lot about our current regulatory system.”
Bilott learned of the E.P.A. news through a Google alert. The agency did not bother to notify him directly. “There’s frankly no reason why this couldn’t have been done over a decade ago,” he says. “People should not have been drinking this for the last 15 years.”
In the last week Bilott said he has received phone calls from frightened residents in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, Colorado and California. Most of the callers had never heard of PFOA until Thursday, when they were told it was in their water. They wanted information. They wanted to protect their health and the health of their families. They wanted help. Nobody seemed to be offering it, so they called Bilott.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/magazine/the-story-behind-the-epas-contaminated-water-revelation.html?_r=0
-
EPA Proposes to Add Flame Retardant HBCD to Toxics Release Inventory
May 27, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA is proposing to add the flame retardant chemical hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) to its list of chemicals whose releases must be reported to the agency annually under its Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), and is seeking to add the chemical to a “list of chemicals of special concern” that imposes stricter reporting requirements.
EPA released May 26 a pre-publication copy of a Federal Register notice proposing the rule, which would add HBCD to the TRI, created under its Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) section 313 authority. When published in the Register, the announcement will trigger a 60-day public comment period.
The TRI tracks various industries' management of toxic chemicals that may pose a threat to human health and the environment, requiring annual reports on the volumes of substances that facilities manage or release.
HBCD is a flame retardant chemical used in multiple applications, including polystyrene insulation foams, electrical appliances, upholstered furniture, draperies and other textiles.
Most chemicals on the TRI list are subject to a 10,000-pound per year reporting threshold, meaning that they do not have to report if they produce or import less than that amount in a given year. However, EPA indicates that it is proposing to place HBCD in a “special concern” category with a lower reporting threshold, because of its persistent, bioaccumulative -- meaning it accumulates in the body faster than can be excreted or metabolized -- and toxic (PBT) properties.
EPA explains in its notice that there are “several chemicals and chemical categories” on the TRI list of special concern because of their PBT properties.
Heightened Scrutiny
The notice cites a October 1999 Register notice in which the agency established criteria for chemicals to be added to this category receiving heightened scrutiny.
“For purposes of EPCRA section 313 reporting, EPA established persistence half-life criteria for PBT chemicals of 2 months in water/sediment and soil and 2 days in air, and established bioaccumulation criteria for PBT chemicals as a bioconcentration factor (BCF) or bioaccumulation factor (BAF) of 1,000 or higher. Chemicals meeting the PBT criteria were assigned 100-pound reporting thresholds. With regards to setting the EPCRA section 313 reporting thresholds, EPA set lower reporting thresholds (10 pounds) for those PBT chemicals with persistence half-lives of 6 months or more in water/sediment or soil and with BCF or BAF values of 5,000 or higher, these chemicals were considered highly PBT chemicals,” according to the 1999 notice.
The notice adds that HBCD data “support classifying the HBCD category as a PBT chemical category with a 100-pound reporting threshold.”
HBCD is the latest addition EPA has sought to make to the TRI list. The agency's Action Initiation List indicated that EPA started work on two other TRI rulemakings last December, proposing to add natural gas processing facilities and the chemical group nonylphenol ethoxylates to TRI.
HBCD Review
In addition to the proposed TRI listing, EPA has taken a number of steps to review the risks of HBCD. For example, the agency's voluntary Design for the Environment program undertook a review of alternatives to the chemical some years ago, resulting in a document that environmentalists panned because it looked only at other chemical alternatives that they viewed as little better than HBCD in toxicity and persistence, urging EPA to considerengineering alternatives instead.
EPA's toxics office is conducting a risk assessment of the chemical as part of its review of a cluster of various flame retardant chemicals. The agency released draft problem formulation and initial assessment documents last August for three groups of flame retardant chemicals, including a group comprised of cyclic aliphatic bromides/HBCD. These documents indicated that the agency will assess the chemicals' risks to workers, consumers, general population and wildlife. In comments last December, the chemical industry protested that the documents were so vague as to make it “quite difficult, if not impossible,” to comment upon the HBCD documents.
The agency has yet to release draft assessments for these clusters. The agency also finalized last year a significant new use rule (SNUR) on uses of HBCD in consumer products other than vehicles, after determining that the only remaining use of the chemical was in automobiles. A SNUR is one of the limited tools that EPA has to control existing industrial chemicals -- those chemicals that were on the market when the Toxic Substances Control Act took effect in 1976. Generally, only new uses of a chemical can be restricted with a SNUR, not those uses that predate a SNUR.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-proposes-add-flame-retardant-hbcd-toxics-release-inventory
-
Health Sector Adopts Chemicals Management Resolution
May 27, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The World Health Assembly – the high level meeting of the World Health Organisation (WHO) – has adopted a resolution on the role of the health sector in the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm) towards the 2020 goal and beyond.
The resolution was proposed by Argentina, Canada, Monaco, Panama, Thailand, the US, Uruguay, and EU member states. It will see a roadmap prepared over the next year outlining key activities where the health sector can contribute towards achieving the 2020 goal of minimising the negative impacts of chemicals on human health and the environment, and to the relevant targets of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development.
According to Carolyn Vickers, team leader for Chemical Safety at the WHO: “The resolution underscores the importance given to the sound management of chemicals and wastes by WHO member states. The WHO secretariat is looking forward to implementing the resolution, including consulting with stakeholders in the development of the roadmap on chemicals.”
https://chemicalwatch.com/47715/health-sector-adopts-chemicals-management-resolution
-
US Interagency Collaboration Advances Nanotechnology Product Stewardship
May 27, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sylvia Palmer
Three reports released recently by the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) highlight the US government' investments and initiatives in nanotechnology. They also detail current progress and the need for further understanding of exposure to nanomaterials in consumer products –and how companies can protect their nanotechnology workforce.
NNI's Quantifying exposure to engineered nanomaterials (QEEN) from manufactured products: addressing environmental, health, and safety implications notes significant progress has been made in the ability to quantify nanomaterial exposures. However, it says greater understanding of exposure risks in "real-world" scenarios is needed. Alternative testing models and high-throughput methods for rapidly estimating exposures will be further explored, it adds.
The report summarises the proceedings of a workshop sponsored by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The workshop's goal was to assess the progress made in the development of tools and methods for measuring nanomaterial exposure across product lifecycles. The need for new research to advance such exposure assessment was also identified.
Recognising these needs, the President’'s 2017 Budget request for CPSC includes funds for a new nanotechnology centre to be led by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). This will develop test methods to measure and characterise the presence, release, and mechanisms of consumer exposure to nanomaterials in consumer products.
This interagency collaboration is intended to enable the CPSC (through NIEHS) to collect data necessary to inform the safety of nanotechnology in consumer products. It will also allow the CPSC to benefit from NIEHS's scientific network and experience.
Finally, the NNI Supplement to the President’s 2017 Budget describes various agencies' individual and coordinated activities that support the responsible development of nanotechnology. It includes a focus on increasing education and outreach efforts to the nanotechnology community.
The report serves as the annual report for the NNI. It highlights the programmes and coordinated activities taking place across departments, independent agencies and commissions participating in the NNI.
NNI
The NNI is a US government research and development initiative involving 20 departments and independent agencies. They work toward the shared vision of "a future in which the ability to understand and control matter at the nanoscale leads to a revolution in technology and industry that benefits society".
It brings together experts who can advance the field and helps each participating federal agency leverage the resources of all participating agencies.
The NNI sponsors a wide range of meetings and workshops to inform and educate the public about emerging nanomaterial technology, and to assess the research progress that is being made in environmental, health, and safety (EHS).
https://chemicalwatch.com/47711/us-interagency-collaboration-advances-nanotechnology-product-stewardship
-
ChemSec Developing Online Marketplace for Safer Alternatives
May 27, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sylvia Palmer
The international chemical secretariat ChemSec is developing a portal for safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals. The NGO has described it as an "Ebay for chemicals", where buyers and sellers can interact. It is intended to be used by both chemical manufacturers and article producers.
With the portal's development still in its early stages, the NGO is conducting a survey of interested companies to learn what they would want from such a site and and how it should best operate. It hopes to use this information to create a marketplace that is "truly useful for product development and substitution."
"The idea has been considered for quite some time," Anna Lenquist, toxicologist at ChemSec, told Chemical Watch. She said that over the years several companies have approached the NGO expressing a desire for more direct connections when seeking and making hazardous chemical substitutions.
According to Dr Lenquist, companies have asked, "'Why can't there be a place where alternatives producers just present everything they have, where we can choose and pick, and perhaps make substitutions we at first hand did not even plan? Somewhere we do not have to formulate a question to find an answer?'"
Alternatives producers
Producers of alternatives have expressed a similar desire, the NGO says. They can also find it difficult to reach new and potential users with their innovations.
"There seems to be a void between these users and chemical producers, and that's where our platform comes in," said Dr Lenquist. "We want to enable these two to meet – you can look at it also as a 'dating site'."
Dr Lenquist said that a website detailing chemical alternatives is nothing new. ChemSec's existing site, SUBSPORT, provides information on chemical alternatives as well as guidance for substance evaluations and substitution management.
The difference between SUBSPORT and the new platform being considered, Dr Lenquist said, is that ChemSec wants the new marketplace to be "truly interactive". Companies themselves will provide the main information.
"Companies will provide enough [information] for [other] companies looking for alternatives to know if this is an interesting enough alternative," said Dr Lenquist. This would include, for example, details on the substance's function and its hazard profile. Companies can then elect to connect and engage in further discussion outside of the platform.
Dr Lenquist said the NGO hopes the information generated through the platform can be useful in the REACH authorisation process.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47706/chemsec-developing-online-marketplace-for-safer-alternatives
-
Trump's First 100 Days: Scrap Carbon and Clean Water Rules
May 27, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jennifer Yachnin
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump yesterday unveiled a "100-day action plan" in the first major energy policy speech of his campaign, pledging to scrap Obama administration rules on carbon emissions and clean water that he said have crippled the fossil fuel industry.
Trump -- who informally clinched the Republican nomination yesterday when North Dakota delegates committed to his candidacy and pushed him beyond the 1,237-delegate threshold needed to win the GOP nod outright -- outlined his vision in a speech on the final day of the Williston Basin Petroleum Conference here.
Echoing recommendations made by Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Trump called for the dismantling of numerous environmental regulations, including the Clean Power Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule, which would redefine which streams, rivers and wetlands receive automatic protection under the Clean Water Act.
"Here's my 100-day action plan: We're going to rescind all the job-destroying Obama executive actions," Trump said to applause from a friendly crowd that generally greeted to his proposals with cheers throughout the 50-minute speech.
Trump's proposals would heavily favor the fossil fuel industry, and he reiterated vows he has made on the campaign trail about reinvigorating the coal industry, including lifting a moratorium on new coal leases on federal lands.
During a news conference ahead of his speech, Trump said he expected a low price on coal would help boost the industry but did not say how he would address other challenges such as competition from inexpensive natural gas and falling international demand.
"The market forces are going to be whatever they are, all I can do is free up the coal, which I'm going to totally do to get the companies back to work," Trump said. "Market forces, that's something I don't want to get involved with. To me a market force is a beautiful force."
The businessman and former reality TV star also lambasted Democratic presidential primary contenders Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders for their public rejection of hydraulic fracturing and indicated he would curtail "policies that impose unwarranted restrictions on new drilling technologies."
Trump was likely referring to BLM's hydraulic fracturing rule, which would regulate well construction, wastewater management and chemical disclosure for fracking on public and tribal lands.
Trump likewise restated his promise to pursue the stalled Keystone XL pipeline, which the Obama administration rejected in November 2015 -- including his assertion that the United States should receive a portion of profits from the project.
"I'm going to ask TransCanada to renew its permit application," Trump told the crowd.
During his news conference, Trump also endorsed pipeline projects generally.
"I would tell you my basic bias would be to approve," Trump said.
In addition, Trump expanded on his vow to renegotiate the Paris climate agreement, this time asserting he would "cancel" U.S. participation in the international deal, as well as cut off any funds for United Nations' efforts to address global warming.
"President Obama entered the United States into the Paris climate alliance unilaterally and without the permission of Congress; this agreement gives foreign bureaucrats control over our energy and how much we use right here in America. ... No way," Trump said.
Trump went on to assert that if he is elected to the White House in November, his administration would measure new regulations based on a strict evaluation process.
"Any future regulation will go through a simple test. Is this regulation good for the American worker? If it doesn't pass this test, this rule will not be under any circumstances approved. Policy decisions will be public and very, very transparent," Trump said.
He likewise said his administration would undo any rules that prove to be "outdated, unnecessary, bad for workers or contrary to the national interest," although much like his new two-part test, Trump did not provide any specifics about how those rules will be judged.
Cramer, who spent a decade as a public service commissioner in North Dakota before winning election to the House, and other North Dakota officials had urged Trump to address federal regulations that affect the state's fossil fuel production.
In addition to the Clean Power Plan, Cramer told E&E Daily that he should address the clean water rule, as well as implement a states-first regulatory regime (E&E Daily, May 24).
This story also appears in E&E Daily.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/05/27/stories/1060037982
-
Donald Trump Just Made an Extremely Important Promise. It’s One of His Worst Yet.
May 27, 2016 | Washington Post
By Greg Sargent
Believe it or not, Donald Trump has now made a very important policy statement. Introducing what he billed as an “energy plan,” Trump promised to “cancel the Paris Climate Plan.” Unlike so much of what comes from Trump on policy, this is a genuinely clarifying moment, with potentially enormous long-term implications.
The near-term political consequences of this will — or should — be that there is now no chance whatsoever that Bernie Sanders will do anything at all on his way out that could imperil party unity in a way that makes a Trump victory more likely. I don’t believe Sanders has any intention to do that, by the way, but this should theoretically render it an impossibility in his mind, because it dramatically increases the stakes for a relatively smooth resolution of the Democratic primaries. Indeed, I believe it’s likely Sanders will see it this way, too.
To get all the details on Trump’s full energy plan, read Brad Plumer’s piece. Trump would pursue a mostly standard-issue GOP agenda of “fewer regulations and more fossil fuel production.” More important, with some reporters wondering what Trump’s actual views are on global climate change, he clarified them: He is utterly indifferent to its existence and would roll back the main things we’re currently putting in place to deal with it.
Trump said that the current environmental challenges that the Obama administration is trying to tackle are “phony.” He added that he would “rescind” the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which would curb carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal-fired power plants, and is key to the U.S.’s ability to meet its commitments as part of the global climate deal. He would withdraw the U.S. from participation in that global accord.
As I’ve reported before, there are complexities that could make it harder than expected for a Republican president — even one as masterfully competent and strong as Trump — to roll back the Clean Power Plan and/or withdraw from the Paris climate deal. But it’s possible that Trump could accomplish one or both of these, which would be a tremendous setback.
This deepens the contrast between Trump and Hillary Clinton. While Clinton would not be as ambitious as Sanders in tackling the climate challenge, the unalterable fact of the matter is that Clinton would preserve and implement the Clean Power Plan and the global climate accord, and Trump would seek to reverse them both.
Sanders has repeatedly described the climate challenge as the single greatest long-term threat we face:
Climate change is the single greatest threat facing our planet.
It’s true that Sanders has criticized the global climate deal as insufficient. But Sanders surely knows that continuing to implement it — and the Clean Power Plan — are infinitely preferable to rolling them back, which could lay the groundwork for catastrophe. Sanders knows that the Paris accord may end up being our best near term hope for building an international effort to tackle the climate problem. Implementing it could allow us to get to the point where dramatic innovations in energy technology begin to make solving the problem a realistic possibility. What’s more, even if the Paris accord is currently not enough, it can be built upon later. The accord is not guaranteed to succeed, but trying to implement and build upon it makes success more likely. Obviously, if our participation in it is canceled, building upon it is no longer possible.
It is often said that Sanders may not help to unify the party because he has “nothing to lose” from a Democratic loss. I think that is wrong — I believe Sanders when he says a Trump presidency is unthinkable. And at any rate, the incentives, if anything, favor Sanders helping to unify the party, in order to maximize his and his movement’s influence going forward. Trump has now clarified beyond any doubt just how much, by Sanders’ own lights, we all have to lose from a Trump presidency. My bet is Sanders will seize on this to make the case to his supporters that the stakes in this election require a full commitment to Trump’s defeat, even if that means supporting a flawed alternative.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/05/27/donald-trump-just-made-an-extremely-important-promise-its-one-of-his-worst-yet/
-
Okla. AG Says No New Legal Attack on EPA in the Works
May 27, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball
Oklahoma's attorney general said yesterday it's unlikely that opponents of U.S. EPA's rule to curb power plant emissions will take a separate legal action challenging the agency's continued work on the rule.
Since the Supreme Court's decision to stay the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan in February, there has been a charged debate over EPA's continued assistance to states that support the rule on the more technical elements of the climate regulation.
But in comments to ClimateWire after a congressional hearing, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) said it's unlikely that states suing EPA to stop the rule will go as far as legally challenging the agency over the actions it has taken after the stay.
"I don't think there's any need, based upon the current circumstances, for a separate action," Pruitt said. But, he added, "if at some point, if you see EPA seeking to enforce those compliance dates, there will be some sort of action that will be taken before the U.S. Supreme Court to give flesh and meaning to what they intended."
Top EPA officials maintain that while the agency is not enforcing the Clean Power Plan under the stay, it can still help states by moving forward with work on compliance mechanisms such as the Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP) and model rules for carbon trading. A group of 14 states in April asked the agency for help with these mechanisms.
But EPA's actions are under scrutiny by Clean Power Plan opponents, who contend the agency is not respecting the spirit of the court's action. This week, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) sent a letter to EPA objecting to its continued work on the rule.
"Consistent with the stay, EPA should decline the invitation from the state environmental agency officials to continue to spend federal taxpayer dollars to help with 'planning for compliance with the Clean Power Plan,'" the letter stated. "Any effort to force States to take actions on the CEIP or the carbon trading rules -- for example, by setting deadlines for state action while the stay is in place -- would clearly violate the Supreme Court's order."
In a separate interview with ClimateWire earlier this week, Morrisey stopped short of calling EPA's continued work with states illegal, saying that although he is "concerned" about the activity, "we recognize that there are different views of what the stay means" (ClimateWire, May 24).
Pruitt noted some states, including Oklahoma, have barred their environment agencies from working on the Clean Power Plan until its legality is determined.
"In that instance it's clearly more of a state-driven response, and if the agencies are acting inconsistent with that, there would be some sort of writ or some kind of process to enforce it," Pruitt said.
Continued disagreement on timeline
During yesterday's hearing by the House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Environment, Republican lawmakers also objected to EPA's work on the Clean Power Plan after the stay.
"Despite the Supreme Court's stay of the rule, and despite the fact that this plan is in litigation, the EPA has been moving forward with a regulatory structure to implement the Clean Power Plan," subcommittee Chairman Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.) said in his opening remarks. "This is outrageous and wrong, and I find these actions by EPA unacceptable."
Brianne Gorod, chief counsel with the Constitutional Accountability Center, testified that she disagreed.
"The Supreme Court issued a stay and not an injunction, and that may seem like technical legal jargon, but it's actually quite important from a legal perspective," Gorod said, noting that EPA is not taking action to implement or enforce the rule.
"An injunction is a binding restriction of the conduct of an agency; a stay is much less powerful, focusing only on the enforceability of the rule," she said.
After the hearing, Pruitt said he disagreed with this interpretation and reiterated his belief that the compliance dates for the rule will shift if it is upheld by the Supreme Court.
"I think that the compliance dates clearly are impacted," Pruitt said, adding, "For the EPA to be taking steps now to say that those dates are going to go unchanged, it really would render the stay of no force and effect, and I don't think that's what the U.S. Supreme Court intended by virtue of their order."
Other than telling states that the initial Clean Power Plan compliance plan deadline in September no longer applies, EPA has not commented on whether the compliance dates for the Clean Power Plan will be changed. Acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe has called it "premature" to speculate on this topic, noting that the court system may ultimately decide on this issue (ClimateWire, March 18).
Additionally, Pruitt said he wasn't expecting a decision this month by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to bypass a three-judge panel scheduled to hear arguments over the Clean Power Plan in June, instead putting the case before the full court in September (ClimateWire, May 17).
"It was a little bit surprising that they went en banc," Pruitt said.
But unlike some Clean Power Plan opponents who saw the decision as evidence that the courts are skeptical of the rule's legality, Pruitt said he doesn't view the move to the full court as particularly meaningful.
"Even if the three-judge panel had ruled for or against the plaintiffs in the case, there would have automatically been a request to go before the full court en banc," Pruitt said. "I think it may have been more about efficiency -- judicial efficiency -- than anything else."
Reporter Ellen M. Gilmer contributed.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/05/27/stories/1060038011
-
Pacific Fracking Poses No Significant Threat -- Obama Admin
May 27, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen Gilmer
Hydraulic fracturing in the Pacific Ocean won't have a significant environmental impact, federal regulators announced today.
After freezing permitting for fracking off California earlier this year, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement are set to greenlight permitting for the oil and gas production technique again -- finalizing an environmental assessment and a "finding of no significant impact" for fracking and "acidizing" the ocean.
The final assessment will be published in the Federal Register on Tuesday.
Environmentalists criticized a draft version of the study in February, calling it a "cursory" review that doesn't meet National Environmental Policy Act standards (EnergyWire, Feb. 23).
The review comes as part of a federal settlement with two environmental groups -- the Environmental Defense Center and the Center for Biological Diversity -- which filed separate lawsuits in 2014 and 2015 challenging the Interior Department agency's routine permitting of offshore fracking. The agency agreed to freeze permitting while it conducted the study.
The assessment, which was prepared by Argonne National Laboratory, considers the effects of offshore fracking on air quality, water quality, and marine and coastal wildlife, and analyzes the likelihood of accidents during well stimulation and fluid handling.
The report notes the option would have no noticeable air quality impacts, a "negligible" effect on greenhouse gas emissions, "slight" reductions in local water quality at the site of discharges, a low potential for earthquakes and "subtle toxic effects" on some animals within the discharge zone.
"The Obama administration is once again putting California's beautiful coast in the oil industry's crosshairs," said Miyoko Sakashita, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's oceans program, in a statement. "Our beaches and wildlife face a renewed threat from fracking chemicals and oil spills. New legal action may be the only way to get federal officials to do their jobs and protect our ocean from offshore fracking."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/27/stories/1060038028
-
Bay Area Energy Meeting is Where Climate Protection Gets Real
May 27, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Hal Harvey
The Paris Agreement on climate change, agreed to last December, set the world on track to avoid catastrophe. Or did it? More than 180 nations have committed to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but now we need to see whether these commitments are real. On June 1-2 in San Francisco, energy ministers from the world’s 24 largest-emitting nations—including China, India, the U.S., the EU, among others—will report on their progress and plans.
Climate science offers up horrifying prospects if we do not promptly cut emissions. Ice melt has accelerated beyond scientific estimates, and sea level rise is now projected at nearly double previous projections, putting hundreds of millions of people at risk by 2100. No coastal country has the resources to cope with this. A decade ago, New Orleans suffered one terrible storm, Katrina, which left the city with only about 75 percent of the population it once had. The Bay Area is threatened by the same fate – San Francisco’s Public Utilities Commission projects regional water levels could rise 8 feet over current high tide by the end of this century.
The world is warming up: the first four months of 2016 have already made this year the hottest to date, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations haven’t reached their current levels in 23 million years.
So how are we doing on reversing this climate trajectory? Back to Paris: If all the national plans presented are met, we can achieve carbon reductions that get us halfway toward a reasonable future, which would be a big step. But let's not forget the "if".
Every county that filed a plan in Paris now must put it into action. Reducing climate threats only become real when we swap coal plants with wind and solar, when we double fuel efficiency of cars and trucks, powering them over time with electricity, and when we start constructing zero-energy buildings.
The technologies for this transformation are available and finally cheap. A few weeks ago, a large solar plant was installed in Dubai at 3 cents a kilowatt-hour—a fraction of the cost U.S. households pay for electricity—for a brand new solar plant. Of course, these are wholesale prices, and our readers pay retail, but the point is simply that it is wholly affordable to transform the electric grid into a zero-carbon machine.
The technology is here, or near, and the economics of a clean energy transition are favorable, but the question remains: Will countries perform these new low-carbon plans?
Once a year, energy ministers from the world’s largest economies convene to tighten the nuts and bolts of energy policy. This year, it will be chaired by U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, a steadfast advocate for climate action and a knowledgeable visionary about the potential for new technology to deliver a cleaner world. Secretary Moniz will be joined on stage by the Chinese Minister of Science and Technology, Dr. Wan Gang, a former Audi engineer who built his own fuel cell car. He is working harder than anyone on the planet—possibly excepting Elon Musk—to electrify transportation.
It's no coincidence this ministerial meeting is being held in California – it has led the world’s energy transformation. Within a few years, the Golden State will get a third of its electricity from renewable energy sources, and by 2030, more than half. California is America’s leader in solar energy installations, and second for wind energy. It has the nation’s best building code, and its only comprehensive carbon cap program.
Silicon Valley in particular is at the vanguard of charge: Substantial overlap exists between energy technologies and the region’s software and hardware skills of Silicon Valley. Solar cells are essentially vast sheets of microelectronics, and their cost reduction has followed—no, exceeded—Moore’s Law as prices have fallen more than 80 percent in the last five years, largely driven by Silicon Valley innovation. San Francisco and San Jose consistently rank as America’s top clean tech metro areas. Companies based in these areas, like Nest and Enlightened, are using tiny sensors and big data to slash energy consumption in buildings by as much as 25 percent.
The planet’s future will look decidedly better if we accelerate technology development through the strategies being presented at the Clean Energy Ministerial this June. Innovation must be accompanied by energy policy to transform electric utilities, buildings, transportation, and industry. Building codes can drive us to zero net energy buildings. Advanced transportation policy can double fleet efficiency, and make vehicle electrification commonplace. We can decarbonize our grid through solar, wind, and other technologies within two or three decades. The right policies, designed and implemented correctly, are the elements to make that happen.
Closely watching the Clean Energy Ministerial will show if the ministers are serious about innovation and implementation. It is not hyperbole to say that their actions, taken together, can help determine our common future.
Harvey is CEO of Energy Innovation.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/281498-bay-area-energy-meeting-is-where-climate-protection
-
Pipeline Construction Runs into Anti-Fossil-Fuel Movement
May 26, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
For decades, natural gas flowed into New England through a pipeline owned by Houston-based Spectra Energy with little notice from anyone.
Then, three years ago, Spectra announced an almost $1 billion expansion of its Algonquin line to accommodate increased demand for the cheap gas from shale fields in Pennsylvania and Ohio. The pipeline soon become a target of protests and Web campaigns urging residents to call their congressmen, and attorneys working to block the project in government agencies and the courts.
Dozens of infrastructure projects are facing similar challenges as efforts to move the glut of natural gas to new markets here and abroad run up against an environmentalist movement that has seized on pipelines and LNG export terminals as the next frontier in their battle to shift the world away from fossil fuels.
And they're gaining traction with politicians. Last month, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo rejected a 124-mile pipeline to transport gas through his state from western Pennsylvania to New England. Kinder Morgan, another Houston pipeline company, pulled out of its plans to build a pipeline across Massachusetts and southern New Hampshire after a swell of opposition that included U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, a New Hampshire Republican in a tough re-election campaign.
"I call it Keystonization," said Marty Durbin, executive director for market development at the American Petroleum Institute, the industry trade group. "In New England, it's gotten to the point they want to stop every pipeline project up there."
A new environment
While far away from Texas, where oil and gas projects largely get built without so much as a raised eyebrow, growing opposition in other states poses a long-term threat to one of Texas' major industries. From Kinder Morgan to Plains All American, most of the biggest companies that build pipelines, storage and other energy infrastructure either call Houston home or house major operations there. Pipeline companies alone employ more than 10,000 workers in the metropolitan area, according to the Greater Houston Partnership.
For years, environmentalists have fought to stop oil and gas drilling on the grounds the greenhouse gases it produced were causing the earth's climate to warm. Last year, the movement scored a historic victory when President Barack Obama rejected the Keystone pipeline on the grounds it would undercut America's position as a leader in the fight against climate change.
Now, environmental attorneys are in federal court arguing that any pipeline project must be considered in that same vein, challenging earlier decisions by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
"The Sierra Club's view is we need to be transitioning off natural gas as quickly as possible. Whether FERC and Department of Energy agrees or not, (federal law) requires all agencies to look at the environmental impact of their decisions," said Nathan Matthews, a staff attorney at the environmental group. "That requires them not just to look at the direct impacts of their decisions but the indirect effects as well."
Decisions on some of those cases are expected from federal appellate judges any day, lawyers said.
Industry lawyers said the courts are unlikely to break with long-established protocol that projects are judged on their local environmental impact, not whether they are contributing to climate change. But the sheer volume of challenges from environmental groups, both in court and at FERC, has increased the average the time it takes to permit a project and start construction from three to four years, said Don Santa, president of the pipeline trade group Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.
"Historically, pipelines have dealt with affected landowners and communities that are acutely affected by a pipeline, but now you have these anti-fossil-fuel groups jumping in," he said.
How to meet demand?
The holdups come as natural gas drillers are desperate to find new markets for their product. With the advent of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, the United States continues to produce more and more gas - 27 trillion cubic feet last year, about 50 percent more than in 2005.
As a result, natural gas is trading at historic lows and almost everyone wants to use it. Petrochemical facilities are opening in and around Houston. In the frigid Northeast, homeowners and businesses are switching heating systems from fuel oil to natural gas. And as coal and nuclear power plants shutter, new gas-fired generators take their place.
Growing overseas demand, meanwhile, is creating opportunities for U.S. exports to places like Europe and Southeast Asia, where gas has historically sold at a premium.
The challenge for industry, however, is getting it from shale fields in Texas, Pennsylvania and other states to domestic and international markets. Last year, FERC approved the construction of 47 new pipelines, enough to move close to 16 million cubic feet of gas a day - three times what the agency approved in 2012. And plants to liquefy natural gas for export are starting to come online, including Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass terminal on Louisiana's Gulf Coast earlier this year.
But many of those projects are in court. The Sierra Club has sued to block further construction at Sabine Pass as well the Freeport LNG terminal scheduled to open in 2018 abut 50 miles south of Houston.
Customers are worried about delays to the projects. In the Northeast, for example, grid officials are trying to avoid a repeat of the winter of 2013-14, when a shortage of natural gas caused average wholesale power prices to spike to almost twice their normal rate.
What's the alternative?
Many natural gas advocates, such as U.S. Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land, said they don't understand environmentalists' opposition. Natural gas produces only half as much carbon dioxide as coal and has played a major role in reducing greenhouse gases releases, they said.
For example, the shift from coal to natural gas power plants has contributed to a 10 percent decline the the U.S. energy sector's carbon emissions - a drop of more than 650 million tons between 2007 and 2014, according to the Energy Department. A bill passed by the House last year, which still awaits a vote in the Senate, would give FERC more authority to get pipelines and other energy infrastructure built.
"Groups like the Sierra Club have taken a leading role in shutting down coal plants. If they also block pipelines needed to move natural gas to market, they are cutting off one of the few remaining affordable forms of (reliable) power," Olson said. "Wind and solar are great and important in Texas, but they are not ready to power the entire grid."
But for a growing numbers of environmentalists, there is no compromise. The latest studies by international scientists say that if current warming trends continue, oceans could rise up to six feet by 2100, inundating coastlines around the world.
Those within the pipeline sector, however, worry that if environmentalists continue to gain momentum, their projects will become too difficult to build.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Pipeline-construction-runs-into-anti-fossil-fuel-7948485.php
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Green Building Council Introduces Risk Assessment Leed Credit
May 27, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US Green Building Council (USGBC) has introduced a new pilot credit for Leed v4 that encourages the assessment of human health exposure scenarios for products during their installation and use phases.
The pilot credit – Building material human hazard and exposure assessment – awards a point under the latest version of the Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (Leed v4) for "selecting products that are assessed using accepted risk assessment methodologies".
According to Scot Horst, chief product officer, USGBC, Leed has focused on transparency and optimisation in the past, but "understanding how a material impacts human health requires a full understanding of hazard and exposure".
"The new pilot credit is a first step toward evaluating exposure by encouraging product inventories in order to prioritise decision making," says Mr Horst.
To qualify for the credit, at least five permanently installed products from at least two manufacturers must undergo a validated hazard and exposure assessment for each substance present in concentrations over 1,000ppm.Endpoints
Hazard assessment endpoints named in the credit are:
· carcinogenicity;
· mutagenicity/genotoxicity;
· reproductive and developmental toxicity;
· acute toxicity;
· eye and skin irritation;
· aspiration hazard;
· chronic toxicity;
· skin and respiratory sensitisation;
· specific target organ toxicity (single exposure); and
· specific target organ toxicity (repeated exposure).
If no substances are flagged according to stipulated GHS hazard criteria in the hazard assessment phase, exposure assessment is not required. The credit also allows for an integrated hazard and exposure (risk) assessment.
The pilot credit was developed by the USGBC in conjunction with the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Debra M Phillips, a vice president at the ACC, says the trade group "welcomes the new pilot credit, which rewards products that have undergone rigorous and scientific hazard and exposure assessments."
But Tom Lent, policy director at NGO Healthy Building Network, says the new credit is a "disaster for efforts to move toward inherently safer products [and represents] perhaps the most audacious effort to date by the ACC to neutralise Leed's leadership in improving material health in building products."
According to Mr Lent, the credit:
· ignores substances of high concern, such as neurotoxicants, EDCs and PBTs;
· allows manufacturers "to make up their own proprietary risk assessment protocol[s]"; and
· does not require public disclosure of product contents.
"With no standard behind it and no public scrutiny of contents or analysis allowed, the credit is an invitation to greenwash products rather than to improve them", says Mr Lent. Its introduction "will only confuse the market and undermine the harmonisation work that the USGBC has supported".
https://chemicalwatch.com/47709/us-green-building-council-introduces-risk-assessment-leed-credit
-
(ACC Mentioned) New LEED Pilot Spotlights Impact of Building Materials
May 27, 2016 | Proud Green Building
The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has announced a new LEED pilot credit—building material human hazard and exposure assessment – which encourages project teams and manufacturers to assess human health related exposure scenarios for products during their installation and use phases.
“LEED v4, the latest version of the LEED green building system, has begun a shift in how we think about health and building materials,” said Scot Horst, chief product officer for the USGBC. “We have a focus on transparency and optimization so specifiers can know what they are using and can reward innovation. But understanding how a material impacts human health requires a full understanding of hazard and exposure. The new pilot credit is a first step toward evaluating exposure by encouraging product inventories in order to prioritize decision making.”
The pilot credit, according to the USGBC, seeks to reward manufacturers who perform hazard and exposure assessments that can serve as a basis for developing products designed to minimize human health impacts during installation and use of the products. The assessments can, in turn, be an important consideration for alternative assessment of building materials.
By requiring exposure to be considered during product development, the pilot begins to make linkages between the product’s ingredient inventory and hazard assessment required by the existing materials ingredients credit and performance testing required by LEED’s low-emitting materials credits.
The hazard and exposure pilot credit continues USGBC’s work to advance LEED users’ knowledge and understanding of the materials used to build and operate buildings, the organization said. USGBC’s ultimate aim is that project teams have a full and complete picture of building materials and products—all in one place—which will help enable transparent, informed decisions around important attributes of materials and products used in our offices, homes, schools and other structures.
The pilot credit was developed by USGBC in conjunction with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and its members, as part of the partnership announced in 2014. The partnership was established to expand collaboration between suppliers and specifiers, leverage scientific expertise and make LEED a more effective tool to deliver positive economic, environmental and social outcomes.
All USGBC members are eligible to submit pilot credits for consideration; pilot credits are evaluated based on applicability to the goals of LEED, relative impact compared to other LEED credits or pilot credits, technical rigor and achievability.
To fulfill the credit requirements, LEED projects must submit product documentation from manufacturers, including calculations and assumptions, to GBCI, the third-party verification body for LEED. This information will be combined with data from other ongoing pilots and credits and synthesized by USGBC and GBCI to inform technical development of this pilot and other materials-related LEED credits.
The LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) green building certification system is the world’s most widely used program for the design, construction, maintenance and operations of green buildings. Today, there are nearly 75,000 commercial projects participating in LEED across the globe, with 1.85 million square feet of building space becoming LEED-certified every day.
http://www.proudgreenbuilding.com/news/new-leed-pilot-spotlights-impact-of-building-materials/
-
The Clean Water Rule: One Year Later
May 27, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Gene Karpinski
A year ago today, at a spot overlooking the Anacostia River, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthyand Army Corps of Engineers Assistant Secretary Jo-Ellen Darcy clinked water glasses after finalizing the Clean Water Rule. It was certainly a moment to celebrate, as this rule fixed confusion that left more than half our nation’s streams and 20 million acres of wetlands vulnerable to pollution. Because of the rule, these important streams and wetlands were now better protected, thus safeguarding the waterways that feed into and filter the drinking water of 1 in 3 Americans.
The Clean Water Rule was years in the making. During the process, the EPA and Army Corps held more than 400 stakeholder meetings and collected over 1 million public comments—sportsmen, small businesses, environmentalists, farmers and ranchers, public health groups, religious organizations, and state and local elected officials all weighed in with their thoughts and concerns. This well-vetted process resulted in a scientifically sound rule that would protect the sources of our drinking water from pollution. Furthermore, the rule is extremely popular—a League of Conservation Voters (LCV) poll found that 80 percent of Americans supported the rule.
Unfortunately, after getting this much-needed and long-awaited clarity, challenges to the rule were filed in several courts, and the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has halted nationwide implementation of the Clean Water Rule while the courts decide if the EPA and Army Corps have followed the directions laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court. So, for the time being, the small waterways that filter into our drinking water sources remain vulnerable to pollution.
In the meantime, water has made headlines. Across the country, we are painfully aware of the water crisis in Flint, Mich. that left 8,000 of the city’s children with lead poisoning.
This tragedy originated in the city’s water source: the Flint River. After 40 years of sourcing water from Lake Huron, a state-appointed emergency manager authorized switching Flint’s water source to the Flint River, a river suffering a legacy of pollution. This switch meant Flint’s water now needed additional treatments to fight higher levels of pollution in the river water, and tragically, the decision was made not to use these controls and the polluted water then corroded the city’s lead pipes. Between antiquated lead infrastructure, polluted source water, and gross incompetence, the people of Flint are suffering from an environmental disaster that could have been prevented.
Drinking water hardship is not unique to Flint. Across the United States, half a million children are dealing with unsafe lead exposure, and analysis of EPA data reveals that nearly 20 percent of our water systems have failed lead tests over the last four years. When President Obama visited Flint in May he told our country, “It’s not too much for all Americans to expect that their water will be safe.” He couldn’t be more right.
We need a robust strategy for safe drinking water, one that ensures our water sources are clean and our water delivery systems are dependable. The Clean Water Rule helps remedy the source portion of this dilemma: it is an indispensable tool for keeping our water clean before it enters our pipes.
In fact, in Maryland, the Clean Water Rule would protect the drinking water sources of 2 in every 3 residents. And the benefits extend beyond drinking water—by restoring protections to 2,210 miles of Maryland streams and thousands of acres of wetlands, Marylanders will enjoy enhanced flood protection, recharged groundwater supplies, and enhanced wildlife habitat, which supports the state’s outdoor recreation, especially hunting and fishing.
But with the Clean Water Rule stayed in the courts and attacked over and over again in Congress, our wetlands and streams remain susceptible to pollution. On the anniversary of this critical rule, we should be clinking glasses to a year of better protected drinking water. Instead, we are left idling, watching a nation cope with unsafe drinking water, while we await access to one of our most crucial clean water tools.
To fight our country’s water crisis, we need to go to the source—that is what the Clean Water Rule does.
Sen. Cardin is a senior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Gene Karpinski is President of the League of Conservation Voters (LCV).
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/281481-the-clean-water-rule-one-year-later
-
Groups Protest New EPA Enforcement Policy
May 27, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Several dozen environmental groups are sounding alarms about a change in U.S. EPA enforcement policy they say has lessened attention to dangerous short-term bursts of toxic air pollution.
Under the change, quietly signaled in August 2014, violations have to persist for at least seven days to be considered "a high priority for enforcement action," the coalition, led by the Environmental Integrity Project, said in a letter this week to EPA Inspector General Arthur Elkins.
Groups say the policy excludes emission spikes that threaten neighborhood air quality "simply because they do not last more than a week" and asked Elkins' office to scrutinize the impact of the change.
Last August, for example, a Shell Chemicals Co. refinery in Houston emitted more than 300,000 pounds of 1,3-butadiene, a known human carcinogen, in less than an hour. While that amount exceeded the combined butadiene releases reported by Texas refineries in all of 2014, it has not been deemed a high-priority violation, the groups said.
The groups' bid for Elkins' intervention comes after a similar letter sent last October to Cynthia Giles, head of EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, went unanswered, they said.
The new request has been forwarded to senior leadership in the inspector general's office for consideration, an Elkins spokesman said in an email this morning.
At EPA, spokesman Nick Conger said the new policy was put in place after consultation with state environmental regulators to more effectively guide enforcement efforts.
"There is no indication in this policy that any violation that poses a risk to public health or the environment is a 'low priority,'" Conger wrote in an email, adding that EPA had discussed the issues with the Environmental Integrity Project in response to the October letter.
In an interview this morning, the group's executive director, Eric Schaeffer, a former top EPA enforcement official, called that assertion "completely false," saying that the only discussions had pertained to the process of replying to the October letter, not the substance of the issues raised.
Given that seven months have now passed, Schaeffer said, "we don't really know what else to do at this point."
Also signing this week's letter to the inspector general, which was publicly released yesterday, were an array of national, state and local environmental groups, including Earthjustice, Air Alliance Houston and California Communities Against Toxics.
They are specifically asking Elkins' office to look into EPA's rationale for assigning "a low priority" to releases of large amounts of pollutants that last less than a week, and what impact the change will have on agency efforts to close loopholes for emissions caused by equipment breakdowns and other short-term events.
They also ask whether the change, which the letter says may disproportionately affect minority neighborhoods downwind from refineries, squares with the environmental justice criteria posted on the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance's website.
High-priority violations are those deemed serious enough to warrant added scrutiny from state and local regulators and, if needed, access to federal assistance, according to the 2014 memo from Phillip Brooks, head of the EPA air enforcement division, outlining the new policy.
The revision, the first in 16 years, was intended in part to sharpen the focus on the violations "most likely to be significant for human health and the environment or for maintenance of strong [Clean Air Act] programs," Brooks told state regulators and regional EPA officials in thememo.
At the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, a spokeswoman could not immediately say this morning whether the agency had taken any action against Shell stemming from last August's butadiene release.
Under a proposed settlement now out for public comment, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality would fine Shell Chemicals $25,000 for last August's butadiene release, with half of that going to a "supplemental environmental project," according to a spokeswoman.
In this week's letter, the Environmental Integrity Project and other signers also decry the state's "lack of any real enforcement response" even to industrial polluters designated high-priority violators.
They single out a West Texas gas plant that released more than 27,000 tons of sulfur dioxide between 2009 and 2014. The state's response, the letter said, was limited to a $9,118 fine, "or about 34 cents for every ton of illegal emissions released by this facility."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/27/stories/1060038043
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested