Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 6/16/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Report: Hundreds of Carcinogens Detected in US Population
Jun 16, 2016 | Chem Info
By Andy Szal
The U.S. population shows traces of more than 400 potential carcinogens, according to a newly released report by the Environmental Working Group. -
EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program More Scientifically Sound Than Other Approaches
Jun 16, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Christopher J. Borgert, PhD and Ellen Mihaich, Ph.D.
Congress just passed a bill likely to become the global standard for ensuring the safe use of chemicals in commerce. This bipartisan effort to reform the 40-year old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) builds on decades of work by scientists from government, academia, and industry to use more advanced science to test and regulate chemicals. -
BREAKING: EC’s Overreaching Decision Fails to Protect Public Health
Jun 16, 2016 | Endocrine News
The Endocrine Society expressed disappointment and concern today that the European Commission’s regulatory criteria are too strict to effectively protect the public from endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). -
Worse Than Expected: Commission Criteria for Endocrine Disruptors Won't Protect Human Health
Jun 16, 2016 | Corporate Europe Observatory
By EFSA
Yesterday's European Commission proposal on scientific criteria defining endocrine disruptors (EDCs) is the latest dangerous outgrowth of a highly toxic debate. -
California’s Prop 65 Controversy
Jun 16, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
November will mark thirty years since Proposition 65 became law in California after residents overwhelmingly approved it through a ballot initiative as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. -
EPA Implementation of TSCA to be ‘Enormous Undertaking’
Jun 16, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA will be faced with an “enormous undertaking” in implementing TSCA reform, once it is signed into law, says Steve Owens, a principal at the law firm Squire Patton Boggs and a former Assistant Administrator of the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention. -
Sweeping Chemical Regulation Bill Before President Barack Obama
Jun 16, 2016 | The New Orleans Advocate
By Mark Ballard
Sweeping federal legislation awaiting the president’s signature would address the smells emanating from chemical plants that have scared generations of south Louisiana residents. -
Businesses and Advocacy Groups Hail Passage of Capito's Chemical Safety Bill
Jun 16, 2016 | West Virginia Record
By Bruce Haring
A diverse selection of stakeholders has praised the U.S. Senate’s passage of Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, co-sponsored by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va), which updates regulations on the use of toxic substances that are now governed under a hodgepodge of federal and state laws. -
California Agency Appoints New Members to Science Panel
Jun 16, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has appointed three new members to its Green Ribbon Science Panel (GRSP). -
Echa Round-Up
Jun 16, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Echa has added four substances to its public activities coordination tool (PACT) for risk management option analysis (RMOA) or hazard assessment. -
EPA Proposes Rule to Prod States for Early Climate Rule Action
Jun 16, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA today released its proposed Clean Energy Incentive Program, part of the implementation scheme for the Clean Power Plan. -
California Counties Push for All-Out Fracking Ban
Jun 16, 2016 | Politico Pro
By Sydney Greene
California is known for some of the strictest fracking regulations in the country, but some activist groups now seek an all-out ban. -
Oil and Gas Remains Excluded from OSHA Rule
Jun 16, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
The oil and gas industry will keep its low-hazard classification under a new Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulation. -
The Arctic is Essential to Interior’s Oil and Gas Program
Jun 16, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Kara Moriarty
In recent years, Alaska’s role in the emerging Arctic has taken center stage, and for good reason: It is a place of boundless beauty and tremendous opportunity. -
Watchdog Warns of Cyberattacks on Agency
Jun 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
The U.S. EPA inspector general today said the agency needs to reinforce its computer security to ward off future cyberattacks. -
Wyo. Town's Residents Absorbing Drilling Toxins -- Report
Jun 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Colby Bermel
Toxic chemicals have been detected in residents of a Wyoming town where natural gas is produced by hydraulic fracturing, according to a study released today by environmental groups. -
Concern Over California Crops Irrigated With Oil And Gas Wastewater
Jun 16, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Bill Allayaud and Tasha Stoiber
Would you eat food grown with wastewater from oil and gas drilling? You could be already: farms in California's Central Valley, which produces 40 percent of the nation's fruits and vegetables, are allowed to use oil and gas wastewater to irrigate crops. -
Portland, Ore., Leaders Want Oil by Rail Banned
Jun 16, 2016 | E&E Energywire
Portland and Multnomah County, Ore., leaders are calling on Oregon and Washington state governors to pressure Congress into banning all oil by rail in the wake of a June 3 derailment along the Columbia River. -
Battle Lines Emerging in Fight to Extend Carbon Caps
Jun 16, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
Lawmakers working to extend California's landmark carbon cap have some hard decisions before them. -
Divided Panel Approves Rider-Filled Interior-EPA Bill
Jun 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly, Scott Streater and Amanda Reilly
The Senate Appropriations Committee today approved 16-14 a spending bill for the Interior Department, U.S. EPA and the Forest Service after adding money for wildfire fighting and rejecting a Democratic attempt to strike a dozen policy riders. -
6th Circuit Sets Briefing Schedule In CWA Rule Suit
Jun 16, 2016 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has set a briefing schedule for motions concerning the administrative record and for merits arguments in Murray Energy, et al., v. EPA, et al., which consolidates a host of suits filed by industry groups, states and others over EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Report: Hundreds of Carcinogens Detected in US Population
Jun 16, 2016 | Chem Info
By Andy Szal
The U.S. population shows traces of more than 400 potential carcinogens, according to a newly released report by the Environmental Working Group.
The advocacy group said that its study, nearly one year in the making, reviewed more than 1,000 biomonitoring studies and other government and scientific research in the first comprehensive chemical inventory of its kind.
The report said that up to 420 known or suspected human carcinogens were detected in blood, urine, hair and other samples, and that people can "harbor dozens or hundreds" at any given time.
Officials added that although cancer studies often focus on tobacco, alcohol and sun exposure, health authorities and scientists estimate that nearly 1 in 5 cases are caused by chemicals and environmental exposure. Some of the chemicals are also naturally occuring.
“Many of the carcinogens this study documents in people find their way into our bodies through food, air, water and consumer products every day," said EWG President Ken Cook.
EWG also said that research should focus on prevention in addition to treatment, and that scientists are increasingly focused on which combinations of carcinogenic chemicals could increase cancer risks.
Officials said that the report should prompt public demands for more action and pointed out issues with recent chemical oversight reform and the Obama administration's cancer “Moonshot Initiative."
However, the report stressed that the presence of a carcinogenic chemical in a person's body does not necessarily mean that they will get cancer. It also noted the difficulty in measuring the concentration of a chemical and then predicting the liklihood of getting cancer.
“The presence of a toxic chemical in our bodies does not necessarily mean it will cause harm, but this report details the astounding number of carcinogens we are exposed to in almost every part of life that are building up in our systems,” said EWG senior scientist and report author Curt DellaValle.
He added that the researchers found nine carcinogens, including arsenic and benzene were present at levels that would pose a "non-trivial" cancer risk.
The American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers, indicated that it had not reviewed the report but said that "biomonitoring data is limited in the information it provides."
http://www.chem.info/news/2016/06/report-hundreds-carcinogens-detected-us-population
-
EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program More Scientifically Sound Than Other Approaches
Jun 16, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Christopher J. Borgert, PhD and Ellen Mihaich, Ph.D.
Congress just passed a bill likely to become the global standard for ensuring the safe use of chemicals in commerce. This bipartisan effort to reform the 40-year old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) builds on decades of work by scientists from government, academia, and industry to use more advanced science to test and regulate chemicals. Those advancements are best exemplified by the U.S. EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), designed to improve our ability to predict which chemicals might be capable of harming humans or wildlife by interfering with the body’s system of hormones, known as the endocrine system.
The EPA has used standardized test methods in regulation since the early 1970s to detect potential adverse effects of chemicals, including endocrine disruptive effects. The launch of the EDSP in the late 1990s marked a new direction for how EPA would assess certain chemicals for safety. Rather than first attempting to identify all adverse effects of chemicals in 2-year or multi-generation tests in rodents, the EDSP first uses shorter, more sensitive and specific tests to identify chemicals with potential endocrine activity. Chemicals with endocrine activity strong enough to possibly disrupt the endocrine system are then tested in those longer studies to obtain a more definitive answer about adverse health effects. This type of step-wise process is aimed at improving sensitivity and increasing the efficiency of EPA’s chemical testing programs, and is exactly the type of process Congress has told EPA to apply across the board.
The EDSP is more advanced than older approaches not only because it proceeds in stepwise fashion, but it also recognizes that although many chemicals can interact with the endocrine system, there is a wide spectrum of possible effects. Most chemicals interact so weakly with the endocrine system that they could never affect the health or well-being of a person or animal; in other words, their effect would be neutral. Caffeine, vitamin D, and water are examples of “neutral” endocrine-active chemicals. A much smaller number of more potent chemicals could be truly “endocrine disruptive,” causing serious health problems such as infertility or birth defects. Still other chemicals are “endocrine active,” but with likely beneficial effects, such as essential oils and some natural components of vegetables, nuts and herbs.
Although the World Health Organization (WHO) recognized in 2002, through its now well-accepted definitions, that the alarming term ‘endocrine disruptor’ should not be a catch-all for the much larger category of endocrine active chemicals, the U.S. EPA has long lead the way in developing a screening strategy capable of scientifically discerning endocrine active from endocrine disruptive chemicals. As one EPA official commented earlier this year:
The US EPA has been at the forefront of employing sound science for screening and testing of chemicals for endocrine-disrupting potential… These efforts started with the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 that included a legislative mandate for the creation of the EPA Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). Also in 1996, an amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) required screening of drinking water contaminants for possible endocrine effects.
The EPA official went on to say:
The EPA developed a two-tiered approach to endocrine disruption screening and testing, in the years following the passage of these amendments, and in 2015 completed screening of 52 chemicals for potential endocrine bioactivity.
This isn’t the end of the story, however. A multi-agency effort called Toxicology in the 21st Century (Tox21) is aimed at developing new technology that will further speed chemical screening for all types of activity, increase accuracy of the results, and reduce the use of laboratory animals. In 2015, 1,800 chemicals were screened for estrogenic activity, with plans to screen up to 3,000 more chemicals in an expanded suite of assays. Again, the tiered approach is the key: first screen for activity, then, recognizing that activity alone doesn’t portend health hazards, subject the chemicals with potent activity to definitive tests.
The U.S. is leading the way to modernize toxicity testing and make global chemical regulation more efficient, and is sharing it’s approach and expertise with other member countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to achieve a global harmonization of tests and methods. Nonetheless, the road ahead may seem challenging at times.
The EU, for example, has just taken a step backwards with the release of criteria that pave the way to regulating all endocrine active chemicals as if they were endocrine disruptors. Because of its bent for regulating chemicals based on hazard alone, rather than on actual risk, and defining any activity – no matter how weak – as a hazard, the EU is now poised to regulate chemicals first, and gather the data necessary for accurate decisions later, after chemicals have been banned, restricted, or stigmatized in global markets. While such a decision will put European regulatory policy on unscientific footing, it will enhance EPA’s leadership status in setting credible, science-based regulatory standards that ensure safe and rational use of chemicals, providing EPA stays the course.
Under the modernized TSCA, EPA should be given the tools to do just that.
Christopher J. Borgert, PhD is president and principal scientist at Applied Pharmacology & Toxicology, Inc. in Gainesville, FL. Ellen Mihaich, Ph.D., DABT is the president of Environmental and Regulatory Resources, LLC, an environmental consulting company in Durham, NC.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/283593-epas-endocrine-disruptor-screening-program-more
-
BREAKING: EC’s Overreaching Decision Fails to Protect Public Health
Jun 16, 2016 | Endocrine News
The Endocrine Society expressed disappointment and concern today that the European Commission’s regulatory criteria are too strict to effectively protect the public from endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs).
“The European Commission has set the bar so high that it will be challenging for chemicals to meet the standard, even when there is scientific evidence of harm,” said Society President Henry M. Kronenberg, MD. “To protect pregnant women, children and future generations from chemicals of concern, we need science-based regulation that reflects the growing body of evidence documenting this public health threat.”
The Society is the oldest and largest global membership organization representing scientists and physicians who are experts on the body’s system of glands and hormones. EDCs can mimic, block, or interfere with hormones that regulate key biological functions, including brain development, reproduction, metabolism, and growth.
More than 1,300 studies have tied EDC exposure to health problems such as infertility, diabetes, obesity, hormone-related cancers, and neurological disorders, according to the Endocrine Society’s 2015 Scientific Statement. Because the health effects of exposure can take years or even generations to become apparent, scientists have used a variety of animal and epidemiological studies to document the effects of EDCs.
The European Commission’s overly strict criteria would result in very few EDCs being identified and regulated, at a high cost to the public’s health. Recent studies have found that adverse health effects from EDC exposure cost the European Union more than €163 billion each year in healthcare expenses and lost productivity. Bisphenol A and other EDCs can be found in common products, including food containers, plastics, cosmetics and pesticides.
The European Commission selected a more restrictive version of option 2. The Endocrine Society supported option 3, which would have ranked EDCs in multiple categories based on available scientific evidence. This option allowed for new data to be incorporated as more studies are published.
The European Parliament and member countries still need to approve the regulatory criteria before they take effect. The Society will continue to advocate for changes to ensure the criteria are grounded in scientific evidence.
“The Society is disappointed that the Commission disregarded scientific evidence in its decision, but our member experts are prepared to advise policymakers on what criteria are needed to effectively identify endocrine-disrupting chemicals,” Kronenberg said. “We want to work together to ensure the final result of the regulatory process will protect the public’s health.”
http://endocrinenews.endocrine.org/european-commissions-overreaching-decision-fails-to-protect-public-health/#sthash.LnZxwuIa.dpuf
-
Worse Than Expected: Commission Criteria for Endocrine Disruptors Won't Protect Human Health
Jun 16, 2016 | Corporate Europe Observatory
By EFSA
Yesterday's European Commission proposal on scientific criteria defining endocrine disruptors (EDCs) is the latest dangerous outgrowth of a highly toxic debate. The chemical lobby, supported by certain Commission factions (notably DG SANTE and the Secretary-General) and some member states (UK and Germany), has put significant obstacles in the way of effective public health and environment regulation.
Up until the last, fierce debate in the European Parliament, the biggest concern had been a proposal of a 'potency criterion', which could have exempted a significant number of pesticide products from being banned. But as became clear yesterday, the Commission has found another – perhaps even more effective – way to pander to the chemical industry's interests.
The criteria presented by Health and Food Safety Commissioner Andriukaitis stipulate an impossibly high burden of proof prior to any potential ban of chemicals acting as endocrine disruptors. The Commission proposal requires a demonstration of causality between an adverse effect in humans and an endocrine mode of action.
As stated by the Greens in the European Parliament, this goes against standard classification practice for similar substances, such as those with adverse effects on reproduction. Should the current criteria be upheld, many, if not all, suspected EDCs will escape a ban.
According to the WHO, the scientific literature cannot yet offer strong evidence of the type of causal link aimed for by the European Commission. However, its latest assessment of the state of science on endocrine disruptors underlines that there is “sufficient evidence to conclude that adverse endocrine-mediated effects have occurred in some wildlife species”, even if evidence of such adverse effects on human health is weak.
It will likely take scientists a very long time to move from this weak evidence base to a proof of causality. In the meantime, many suspected EDCs could be allowed onto the market and, by default, into the people's bodies.
On this, Leonardo Trasande, Associate Professor at the NYU School of Medicine's Department of Population Health, says:
“The implications of waiting for perfect evidence for causation include disease, disability and loss of life in future generations of Europeans. The cost of these ongoing policy failures will reverberate long after [...]”.
Both the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) and Pesticide Action Network have likewise emphasised this threat to human health posed by an impossibly high burden of proof.
It should also not be forgotten that DG Environment had already analysed the most recent body of literature of toxicological and epidemiological studies relevant to EDCs in 2013, and was ready to release scientific criteria for their definition. At the time, DG SANTE (then called SANCO) fought hard alongside the chemical industry lobby to undermine DG Environment's work on this, and was rewarded for that by President Juncker by being put in charge of the work on EDC regulation. As we now know for sure, DG SANTE has effectively crushed a key piece of environmental and health legislation.
It is now up to the European Parliament and EU member states to reject the current proposal and strongly back the public interest in this regulatory tug of war.
http://corporateeurope.org/efsa/2016/06/worse-expected-commission-criteria-endocrine-disruptors-wont-protect-human-health
-
California’s Prop 65 Controversy
Jun 16, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
November will mark thirty years since Proposition 65 became law in California after residents overwhelmingly approved it through a ballot initiative as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. But now even the law’s supporters acknowledge that it needs to be reined in. Many argue that what began as a public health statute to inform residents about their chemical exposures has morphed into a fraudulent payday for plaintiff’s attorneys.
Prop 65 directed California to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, and it also required businesses to notify consumers about significant amounts of these chemicals in the products they manufacture, sell or distribute in the state. There are now around 900 substances on this Prop 65 list, and the law has become increasingly controversial.
Holding companies to account
Proponents of Prop 65 say it has forced manufacturers and retailers to be more accountable for the potentially harmful chemicals inside their products. They say the law has led companies to reformulate their goods in order to minimise levels of key chemicals of concern. Some common examples cited involve removing lead from Mexican candy, getting lead and cadmium out of tableware and jewellery, reducing the suspected carcinogen acrylamide from potato chips, and ridding soda of 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI), a by-product of the production of caramel food colouring which was shown to increase cancer incidence in rodents.
‘In most, if not all, of those cases there was Prop 65 litigation or enforcement action involved,’ says Sam Delson, a spokesperson for California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which administers Prop 65. ‘By providing more information about chemical exposures, we believe that Prop 65 is a valuable vehicle for informed choices, and a tool to protect public health and the environment.’ He says the law has led to safer products and to greater public awareness of chemicals and chemical exposures.
The non-profit Center for Environmental Health (CEH) says data from the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) illustrates the positive impact of Prop 65. Under the TRI, companies must report annually on the toxic chemicals they release into the environment.
The CEH examined the yearly information that California businesses reported to the EPA about their releases of the top three chemicals not covered by Prop 65 – copper compounds, nitrates, and ammonia, and compared it with data on the top three Prop 65 chemicals – lead compounds, asbestos, and toluene. The organisation found that releases of Prop 65 chemicals declined to lower levels more quickly and more consistently than did releases of chemicals not covered by the law.
Payday for lawyers
But even Delson, and other Prop 65 proponents, agree that change is needed. In 2014, California Governor Jerry Brown called for the law to be reformed. Now, OEHHA is working to improve Prop 65 and ensure that the warnings it mandates provide more meaningful information. The current warnings don’t specify the particular chemical or chemicals of concern in a product, Delson notes. OEHHA has proposed that future warnings would have to name the specific chemicals, and refer consumers the new OEHHA web site that contains fact sheets with information about the health effects of ‘Prop 65’ chemicals, and ways to reduce exposure.
One of the main reasons why Governor Brown pursued regulatory changes to Prop 65 was to stop the surge of frivolous lawsuits that arisen from the law.
‘Anyone just has to walk into a store and see a product that you think contains one of these chemicals, find out that it does, and you can sue the company if it doesn’t have a warning,’ explains Joseph Perrone, chief scientific officer at the Center for Accountability and Science in Washington, DC. The whole crop of lawyers who make a living on such litigation has been dubbed ‘bounty hunters.’
Opponents of Prop 65 argue that its warning requirement imposes unnecessary and costly mandates on businesses, rather than serving the public health. After 30 years, recent data issued by California’s Attorney General suggest that more than 70% of the money exchanged under Prop 65 in court settlements goes to law firms.
‘Prop 65 has become a litigation playground for plaintiff’s attorneys,’ states Anthony Samson from the California Chamber of Commerce. In fact, Kevin Ott from the Flexible Vinyl Alliance in Washington, DC says the average settlement from retailers, manufacturers, and distributors is $65,000 per notice. This means that businesses sued under Prop 65 could end up having to pay $65,000 in fines three separate times per lawsuit.
Health and hazards
Another concern is that warnings on chemicals are useless if they aren’t put in context useful. ‘Simply containing a chemical is not tantamount to being exposed to a hazardous chemical,’ Ott says. He criticises Prop 65 for using a ‘hazard based approach’ with no reference point to actual exposure, and says it hasn’t improved the health of Californians.
In fact, California Polytechnic State University economist Michael Marlow has found that public health has not demonstrably improved because of Prop 65. Marlow looked at state health statistics and concluded that the law hasn’t had any impact on California's cancer rates. He says no empirical study has ever shown it to have had any public health benefits.
‘I don’t believe that Prop 65 is going to be overturned anytime soon, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t improve it,’ Marlow states. He would like to see reforms that shift the burden of proof so that plaintiffs bear the cost of proving chemical exposures. This would decrease the number of low merit lawsuits, which have little to nothing to do with improving public health, he says.
Indeed, OEHHA is reworking the Prop 65 warning requirements to fulfil Governor Brown’s request. The new regulation will be finalised by November. Once adopted, they won’t go into effect for two years to provide a transition period for companies to make the required changes.
The implications of this state law go way beyond California, which is considered the world’s 8th biggest economy. Samson has put together a coalition to push for Prop 65 reforms, which more than 250 organisations have joined, and many are national groups whose members include international companies. ‘It is a big market to sell your products, and Prop 65 applies to any and all products sold in California, no matter their location of manufacture,’ Samson explains. This has made Prop 65 a global issue, and the effects of any changes will undoubtedly be felt far and wide.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2016/06/california-prop-65-controversy-harmful-chemicals
-
EPA Implementation of TSCA to be ‘Enormous Undertaking’
Jun 16, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA will be faced with an “enormous undertaking” in implementing TSCA reform, once it is signed into law, says Steve Owens, a principal at the law firm Squire Patton Boggs and a former Assistant Administrator of the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention.
Last week, Congress passed the Frank R Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. With the bill officially on the president’s desk as of 14 June, only his signature separates the measure from law.
The Lautenberg Act sets out “very aggressive deadlines” that will “not be easy to meet”, agreed Jim Aidala – a former Assistant Administrator for the EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) and senior government consultant at Bergeson & Campbell – during a Chemical Watch webinar on TSCA reform this week.
Year one
Within a year of the law’s enactment, the EPA will be required to:
establish a rule for an “inventory reset”, to be used to determine active substances in commerce;
establish a rule for substance prioritisation;
establish a rule for the risk evaluation (RE) process;
issue guidance for assisting individuals in developing REs; and
set up a Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals.
One year, Mr Owens told Chemical Watch, is “not a lot of time” to draft and propose a rule, collect and respond to public comments, complete requisite Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews and issue a final rule.
And the rulemakings that the agency will be required to complete, in its first year, are “pretty major” – and will be developed alongside other policies, procedures and guidance documents that are prescribed by the Act.
The agency, he said, “will need to work very closely with stakeholders, from the beginning, to ensure that the rules developed in the first year are workable for both industry and the environmental community.”
Outside these rules, the EPA will also be required, within six months of enactment, to be working on risk evaluations of at least ten chemicals. During this period, it must also provide a report to Congress on its capacity for implementing the law’s mandates, and conduct a review of reporting and record keeping requirements on small businesses.
A variety of additional deadlines and requirements await through 2021.
Judah Prero, an attorney with Sidley Austin, points out that the EPA has got a head start on some of this work. The way in which the agency identifies priority substances, for example, has already been explored via the Work Plan chemicals process.
“It’s manageable,” added Mr Owens, “but it’s going to be very, very challenging.”
Additional hurdles
With November elections looming, the upcoming change in EPA administration is something else that Mr Owens says must be factored in.
The EPA, he said, “will have to do as much as they can over the next six to seven months – essentially, between when the law is enacted and 20 January – to build up some momentum and get a lot of the basic concepts and provisions hammered out, so that when the new administration comes in, they can pick up the ball and run with it.”
Mr Aidala said that there’s a lot of flexibility in the legislation. Discretion is helpful for regulators, he said, especially if the law isn’t revised for another 40 years. But flexibility also “invites challenges, about who is interpreting it and what [are] appropriate definitions”.
Another challenge, points out Mr Owens, is that because the bill was not negotiated through a formal conference committee, there is no conference committee report to accompany the final measure.
And while some provisions in the final bill are similar to those expounded upon in the House and Senate Committee reports for the bills that passed each chamber last year, others are new to the final bill. This means that “EPA will have to make its own way as it tries to interpret many of the specific requirements,” he said.
The EPA could not be reached for comment by press time.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48061/epa-implementation-of-tsca-to-be-enormous-undertaking
-
Sweeping Chemical Regulation Bill Before President Barack Obama
Jun 16, 2016 | The New Orleans Advocate
By Mark Ballard
Sweeping federal legislation awaiting the president’s signature would address the smells emanating from chemical plants that have scared generations of south Louisiana residents.
“Now, if I smell something, it’s got to be bad,” said Gregory Bowser, executive vice president of the Louisiana Chemical Association, which represents companies that make Louisiana the nation’s second largest chemical manufacturing state.
Suspicions lead to complaints, sometimes protests.
But the new measure pushed through Congress largely by U.S. David Vitter will help, Bowser said, adding that now “the regulators will have some science at their disposal that can tell them whether it’s a health hazard or whether it just smelled bad,”
The legislation would require safety reviews for all chemicals in active commerce — from household cleaners to computer screens — that had not been tested before. The evaluation would use a health-based standard rather than the existing “cost-benefit safety standard,” which had kept the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from banning asbestos, a known carcinogen. While making it more difficult for industry to keep chemical information secret, the measure also clarifies a hodgepodge of state rules that have grown up over 40 years leading to an array of regulations from the very strict in states like California to far looser requirements in states like Louisiana. The measure also sets deadlines for EPA decisions that can be enforced in court.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Actwas officially sent to the White House on Tuesday.
“We believe that this is a rare moment of bipartisanship in Congress, and we are pleased to see that the Environmental Protection Agency has been given additional authority to ensure that we can keep our families safe…The President will sign it,” Josh Earnest, White House press secretary said during a press conference aboard Air Force Once while in route to New York.
President Barack Obama has 10 days to sign the bill into law.
Lautenberg is a New Jersey Democrat who, before his death in 2013, had been working with Vitter to update the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, the last of the major environmental laws passed in the 1970s. The federal law, however, only regulated a handful of the 60,000 chemicals on sale at the time and that list, since, has grown exponentially.
The negotiations and hearings from the 2013 effort led to Vitter and Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, to introduce the bill that now sits on the president’s desk.
“We come into contact with chemicals every single day, whether it’s cars, computers, fertilizer, or even Mardi Gras beads. That’s why passing my chemical safety reform bill is so important, especially for Louisiana,” Vitter said in a prepared statement. “The benefits of my bill are two-fold in that it modernizes the current system, and it protects our families and communities.”
Vitter said by making the regulatory environment easier to navigate, Louisiana chemical and manufacturing companies will be able to focus more of their resources on long-term growth, research and development and innovation, which would create new jobs.
Louisiana’s chemical industry supports 150,000 direct and indirect jobs. Incoming shipments to Louisiana are valued at $14 billion annually, he said.
Some opponents say the legislation fails to adequately protect consumers from chemicals that have been linked to serious health problems, like cancer. And the Associated Press quoted Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., as calling it a “sweeping federal takeover of chemical regulation.”
But overall, the bill had wide support with 60 Congressional cosponsors and backers from groups usually at odds, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, a nonprofit advocacy group, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, an association of some of the nation’s largest manufacturers.
“The Lautenberg Act fixes the biggest problems with our current law — by requiring safety reviews for chemicals in use today, mandating greater scrutiny of new chemicals before they can be sold, removing the barriers that prevented EPA from banning asbestos and other harmful chemicals, enhancing transparency, and much more. While not perfect, this bill will be a dramatic improvement over current law,” said Richard Denison, the lead senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, in a press release.
http://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/news/16125376-172/sweeping-chemical-regulation-bill-before-president-barack-obama
-
Businesses and Advocacy Groups Hail Passage of Capito's Chemical Safety Bill
Jun 16, 2016 | West Virginia Record
By Bruce Haring
A diverse selection of stakeholders has praised the U.S. Senate’s passage of Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, co-sponsored by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va), which updates regulations on the use of toxic substances that are now governed under a hodgepodge of federal and state laws.
Supporters ranging from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to Dow Chemical Company hailed the bill, which passed the Senate by a voice vote and now heads to President Obama to be signed into law.
“Incidents like the Freedom Industries spill in Charleston demonstrate the need to ensure that the chemicals we use in our everyday live are properly regulated,” Capito said in a statement issued by her office. Its passage is “good news for the economy, our communities and the environment.”
The Lautenberg Act amends and revises the previous Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which governed the regulation of chemicals for the last 40 years. The new bill sets standards that aim to ensure that unreasonable risks to the health of individuals or the environment are not created by exposure to chemicals that are being used in a variety of commercial and industrial ways.
The original TSCA bill was enacted in 1976, a vanguard decade for environmental laws. But scientific advances since that date required adjustments to the regulations. The Lautenberg Act is also anticipated to help regulators adapt further controls as new science advances come on line.
Among the Lautenberg Act’s key provisions are rules that will help reduce and replace the use of animals in product testing.
Jessica Sandler, the vice president for regulatory testing at PETA, told theWest Virginia Record that modernizing requirements for the way chemicals are tested in the U.S. reflects the changes that have already been taking place in the last 20 years, which have derived from greater understanding of how biological processes work.
“This understanding has allowed for the development of testing methods that can look directly at what happens in humans, rather than using the crude and unreliable results that come from poisoning animals,” Sandler said.
Dow Chemical spokeswoman Rachelle Schikorra told the West Virginia Record that outdated federal regulations had long been in need of reform.
“A lack of confidence in dated federal chemical safety regulations resulted in individual states creating their own chemicals management laws and some retailers pulling products from their shelves…," she said. "As a result, the regulatory landscape and marketplace became fractured and contradictory in some cases.”
The Dow Chemical Company also issued a statement from Chairman/CEO Andrew N. Liveris, praising the bill’s passage, saying that it created “regulatory certainty” that will help drive investment in future projects.
The federal Environmental Protection Agency will require chemical manufacturers to pay fees to defray costs associated with additional regulations, and has established a fund to receive the fees.
President Obama is also expected to establish an interagency Sustainable Chemistry Program, which will coordinate federal sustainable chemistry research and use training.
http://wvrecord.com/stories/510810239-businesses-and-advocacy-groups-hail-passage-of-capito-s-chemical-safety-bill
-
California Agency Appoints New Members to Science Panel
Jun 16, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has appointed three new members to its Green Ribbon Science Panel (GRSP).
The GRSP was formed after passage of California’s green chemistry law in 2008. It is tasked with providing scientific guidance and advice to the DTSC in its implementation of the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) Regulation.
It also provides technical expertise and recommendations on green chemistry and chemicals policy.
The new panelists are:
Dr Elaine Cohen Hubal, deputy national programme director (NPD) for the US EPA’s Chemical Safety for Sustainability (CSS) programme;
Dr Jack Linard, leader of Unilever’s personal care regulatory affairs team for North America; and
Dr Mark Nicas, emeritus adjunct professor in the environmental health sciences division, University of California, Berkeley, school of public health.
The panel will continue to be chaired by Dr Art Fong, Apple Inc, and Dr Kelly Moran, TDC Environmental.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48079/california-agency-appoints-new-members-to-science-panel
-
Jun 16, 2016 | Chemical Watch
New PACT substances
Echa has added four substances to its public activities coordination tool (PACT) for risk management option analysis (RMOA) or hazard assessment:
2-(4-tert-butylbenzyl)propionaldehyde;
perchloric acid and its salts;
skin sensitising substances in textile articles; and
tris(2-methoxyethoxy)vinylsilane.
Sweden assessed 2-(4-tert-butylbenzyl)propionaldehyde. It has judged it not to have persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT), or very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) properties, based on the currently available information.
Perchloric acid and its salts, and skin sensitising substances in textile articles have RMOAs under development.
And in the case of tris(2-methoxyethoxy)vinylsilane, Echa has proposed setting a harmonised classification as a category 1B reprotoxicant.
Alternative testing considerations
Companies proposing to test on vertebrate animals to complete their REACH registration must show they have considered alternative methods first, says the agency.
With the launch of the new version of REACH-IT on 21 June, such considerations must be documented in the registration dossier. And they will be subject to a completeness check, it says.
The move comes after a decision of the EU Ombudsman of 11 September 2015.
From 21 June Iuclid 6 – used to create a dossier – will contain a specific form to assist in documenting the considerations.
Echa advises that companies: "Keep in mind that the details you provide have to be meaningful and comprehensive."
All considerations for alternatives submitted in the registration dossier will be published under the Information on Chemicals section of the agency's website. Therefore companies are advised not to include any confidential information.
Echa call to downstream users
Echa has called upon downstream users of chemicals to make sure they have registered substances critical to their business by the 31 May 2018 deadline.
Executive director, Geert Dancet, says downstream users play an essential role under REACH and should "request assurance from their suppliers that all necessary substances will be registered in time. This helps to avoid interruptions in supply".
Under REACH, downstream users have the right to make their specific use known to their supplier.
"When registrants base their assessment on use information from downstream users, this helps to ensure that the advice downstream users receive is directly applicable and that safety data sheets and exposure scenarios of the different uses are becoming easier to read and implement" Mr Dancet says
The 31 May 2018 deadline concerns substances manufactured or imported in low volumes (between 1-100 tonnes per year).
E-news for downstream users
This week the agency released a special e-news directed at downstream users. It included sections on:
information in the supply chain;
the REACH 2018 registration deadline;
available support; and
downstream users and chemicals of concern; and social media.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48078/echa-round-up
-
EPA Proposes Rule to Prod States for Early Climate Rule Action
Jun 16, 2016 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA today released its proposed Clean Energy Incentive Program, part of the implementation scheme for the Clean Power Plan.
Republicans have slammed the agency’s work on the incentive program, as well as other implementation regulations, amid the Supreme Court’s stay of the Clean Power Plan. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito this morning offered but withdrew an amendment that would block EPA’s work on the CEIP and similar CPP implementation rules.
The CEIP is a voluntary program under which states can secure extra credit for power from renewables generated in 2020 and 2021, the two years before the first compliance deadline, though the agency notes there may be changes to those dates given the stay.
The proposal expands the previous eligibility list for technologies from just solar and wind to include geothermal and hydropower. The rule also provides double credit for low-income communities that deploy demand-side efficiency programs or solar projects. States will be able to adopt several definitions to identify which communities qualify as low-income.
The proposal also includes details for how 300 million short tons of carbon dioxide emissions savings will be translated into allowances for states that go with mass-based plans and emission-rate credits for states that choose rate-based plans.
The agency will take public comment for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, and will hold a public hearing on Aug. 3 in Chicago.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
California Counties Push for All-Out Fracking Ban
Jun 16, 2016 | Politico Pro
By Sydney Greene
California is known for some of the strictest fracking regulations in the country, but some activist groups now seek an all-out ban.
Those groups had a victory this week in Butte County, where a ballot ban on fracking passed with more than 70 percent of the vote.
“It’s been really a community organizing triumph as much as anything else,” Ken Fleming said, an organizer with Frack-Free Butte County. “The message was pretty clear: Do you wanna trust the oil companies, or do you wanna make sure to continue to have clean water? I think that question was a pretty clear result.”
This November, Monterey County, one of the state’s top 10 oil-producing counties, will consider a similar ballot initiative to end fracking.
Protect Monterey County, an anti-fracking group, wants oil wells in the county to be permanently sealed, and it is optimistic after the Butte County vote. Monterey County has even received attention from presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who traveled there recently to speak against fracking.
Mary Hsia-Coron is an organizer with Protect Monterey County, a group behind the no-frack initiative. She is concerned about the contamination of water not only in her county, but in surrounding counties, as well.
“The aquifers are at risk in Monterey County,” Hsia-Coron said. “There are 35 wastewater injection wells that are illegally injecting waste from the oil industry in Monterey County to protected aquifers. That’s a big problem right now.”
Still, not all residents in Monterey County are thrilled with the campaign to eliminate fracking. Monterey County for Energy Independence released a statement in response to anti-fracking rhetoric pushed by activist groups like the one Hsia-Coron belongs to.
“The so-called fracking ban initiative is a deceitful ploy that would bring an end to all oil production in Monterey County within five years,” said Karen Hanretty, a representative of Monterey County for Energy Independence.
“The intent of anti-oil activists is to bring an end to nearly 70 years of safe oil production in Monterey County, endanger thousands of local jobs and dry up millions of dollars in local tax revenue that pays for schools and public safety,” she said.
In his speech there last month, Sanders called fracking “a danger to the air we breathe.”
“California is in a midst of a five-year drought. Cities and towns around the state have been required to reduce their consumption of water by 25 percent,” Sanders said. “In my view, it makes zero sense to talk about the urgent need to conserve water on one hand and then give big gas companies a green light to use huge amounts of water through hydraulic fracking on the other hand.”
“I hope very much that Monterey County continue[s] the momentum and makes it clear that fracking is not safe and not what we need for our people,” Sanders said.
California has a rich history of oil and gas extraction dating to the late 1800s. Although oil extraction declined in the 1980s, new techniques like fracking came to light in the past decade, making unrecoverable oil easier to extract. Since then, new regulations were established in 2015, but some residents in California simply want to eliminate fracking.
Monterey County isn’t the only county in California with a movement to ban fracking. Butte County, California, has had a two-year battle with its anti-fracking ballot initiative, which was supposed to be on the 2014 ballot, but was moved to the June 7 ballot.
Fleming of Frack-Free Butte County said that although the county isn’t terribly friendly to fracking, geologically speaking, there are areas that have the potential to be sought out by certain oil and gas companies.
“We looked around and realized we had over 200-plus orphaned or abandoned wells in Butte County,” Fleming said. “These were the type of wells that were identified as the best wells for fracking. And they all reside in the heart of our agricultural activity.”
Fleming said the ban on fracking could be overturned if there is proof that the practice doesn’t harm the people and their resources.
“It can be changed later on by the people if, in fact, the oil companies can prove, without a doubt that there are no dangers involved in the process being used here,” Fleming said.
Butte County public information officer Casey Hatcher said the passing of the initiative would be a victory for some, but seeing the true implications of the ban on fracking might not happen right away.
“Things like this, I think, can take a little bit of time to understand the true implications,” Hatcher said. “It might not be that significant because geologically, that activity — we don’t have the geology for it.”
Dave Quast, a spokesman for Energy in Depth said the ballot initiatives in counties like Monterey and Butte are “symbolic measures at best,” and said the state already has fracking regulations stemming from SB4, which was formally adopted in 2015 as a new set of fracking rules in California.
“Hydraulic fracturing [fracking] has been always regulated at state level,” Quast said. “They [the regulations] were generated specifically out of concern that the activist group raised.” It’s gone further “than any other state has gone.”
So what is next for these counties? In Butte County, Fleming said some rest after the long fight is needed, then decisions for future initiatives in other counties will be made.
“We’re probably going to give ourselves a couple weeks off and then come together and look at the issue,” Fleming said. “Certainly, the counties around us need to look at this issue, but it has to come from within them, I think.”
Hsia-Coron said the campaign has been a big commitment, but she hopes other counties will step up on their own and listen to the issues that impact the environment.
“I think what people do in their local communities inspires other communities,” she said.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/california-counties-push-for-all-out-fracking-ban-224386
-
Oil and Gas Remains Excluded from OSHA Rule
Jun 16, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
The oil and gas industry will keep its low-hazard classification under a new Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulation.
OSHA's new rule for tracking injuries and illnesses subjects employers with 250 or more workers or smaller employers in "high-hazard" industries to more stringent reporting requirements.
Oil and gas workplaces tend to be small, which would exempt them from the first criterion. And a "culture" of underreporting on-the-job injuries could be excluding the industry from OSHA's high-hazard list, the agency acknowledged last month (EnergyWire, May 17).
But changing the list to include oil and gas would require a new rulemaking process, OSHA Chief David Michaels told EnergyWire yesterday.
"There will be no change to the regulation," he said.
Whether or not the rule applies to oil and gas, it is an important step toward improving injury and illness record keeping overall, said National Council for Occupational Safety and Health consultant Peter Dooley.
"Unfortunately, many OSHA processes are too slow to respond to the real problems that are out there in the real world for workers," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/16/stories/1060038900
-
The Arctic is Essential to Interior’s Oil and Gas Program
Jun 16, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Kara Moriarty
In recent years, Alaska’s role in the emerging Arctic has taken center stage, and for good reason: It is a place of boundless beauty and tremendous opportunity. For those that appreciate the challenges of what makes our Alaskan homes comfortable and secure, one need to look no further than the great energy developments that have powered Alaska’s economy and America’s energy security for almost a half century. Unfortunately, that energy security is at risk if we forgo the foresight that past leaders envisioned for the great expanse of America’s largest state.
Currently, our nation is realizing the benefits that come from the bountiful supplies born from domestic oil and gas production. We often realize this value when we fill our cars with fuel and heat our homes through the winter. What may be less obvious are the geopolitical implications of our domestic energy production, or what made our current energy situation possible. America now has the flexibility to not import energy from countries which do not share our values on environmental protection or our belief in democracy.
Moving forward, Alaska is the most significant and important resource in creating a safer and more secure nation. How? By unleashing the vast energy resources found in our immense state. Alaska’s energy potential is absolutely staggering. The size of just the oil and gas resources alone is hard even to fathom: a full one-third of the United States’ oil and gas reserves sit off Alaska’s northern coast in a basin that can only be described as an elephant field.
To illustrate its size, think of the 17 billion barrels of oil that have moved down the Trans Alaska Pipeline from Alaska’s North Slope to Valdez in its almost forty years of operation. Now, compare that with the 27 billion barrels estimated in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Add the 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and anyone can see why Alaska’s mammoth energy reserves are a strategic asset to the United States.
Despite this monumental opportunity, this strategic asset is at risk. Why? The Department of the Interior is today closing its public consultation on in its next offshore oil and gas leasing program and there is discussion in Washington D.C. about removing Alaska. It absolutely boggles the mind to think that the United States, which is considered an Arctic nation only because of Alaska, would voluntarily reduce its options for safe and responsible domestic resource development in a state that has been producing oil safely for decades.
While it is true that interest in Arctic Offshore leases has paused during this unprecedented period of low prices and increasing federal regulation, any oil and gas field as promising as Alaska’s Arctic Offshore will eventually attract development; the resource is just too big to be overlooked. We have already seen countries like China and Russia seizing the moment and making bold moves to develop the Arctic. The thought of the U.S. taking steps to actively reduce its position in this emerging part of the globe while countries with less than stellar environmental or civil rights records are ramping up is imprudent and shortsighted. Indeed, shelving this strategic asset during a temporary industry slump is both foolish and irresponsible.
Let there be no confusion what Alaskans, the people who live here and arguably have the greatest interest in protecting the environment and our unique way of life, think about offshore oil and gas development. The truth is the overwhelming majority of Alaskans, including the Alaska Native communities that live and work within the Arctic, strongly support future resource development of our outer continental shelf. Much like the great discoveries in Alaska’s onshore Prudhoe Bay fields, offshore development can play an important role in ensuring America’s future energy security. The industry’s historical commitment to safe operations in the sensitive Arctic environment where it operates, coupled with the huge economic benefits oil production has provided for all Alaskans, are the drivers of this unequivocal, deeply felt support for development among residents.
The first step in making Alaska’s offshore energy a reality is to include Arctic OCS lease sales in the next round of the Department of Interior’s Five-Year Plan. It gives us the option to consider these areas in the future, and to assess the value of these resources when energy needs and economic realities come into play. Disregarding this flexibility is to ignore the energy realities that make our homes in Alaska and across the country, safe and warm. Indeed, including the OCS Arctic region in the new leasing Plan lays a strong foundation for America’s energy future.
Kara Moriarty is the president and CEO of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, or AOGA. AOGA is a professional trade association whose mission is to foster the long-term viability of the oil and gas industry in Alaska for the benefit of all Alaskans. Its members include Alaska oil and gas producers, explorers, refiners, and transporters.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/283313-the-arctic-is-essential-to-interiors-oil-and-gas
-
Watchdog Warns of Cyberattacks on Agency
Jun 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
The U.S. EPA inspector general today said the agency needs to reinforce its computer security to ward off future cyberattacks.
In a report laying out "management challenges" for the agency during fiscal 2016, the IG said security for EPA's information technology systems must improve in order "to combat cyber threats."
"Cyber threats have become increasingly sophisticated, which continues to underscore the need to proactively manage and bolster the agency's cybersecurity capabilities," said the report, warning of dire consequences if the agency's systems are hacked.
"Cyber attacks could have a devastating impact on the EPA's computer systems and network, thereby potentially disrupting agency operations, as well as the lives and operations of employees and businesses who entrust the agency with their most sensitive personal or confidential business information."
EPA's cybersecurity faces "long-standing program weaknesses, lack of corrective actions by management, lack of follow-up on remediation actions taken, and emerging challenges in managing contractors," according to the report.
Despite agency management taking action to bolster IT security, there is still work that needs to be done, it added.
"Our audit work from the past five years continues to highlight actions that remain for the EPA to address cybersecurity challenges," said the report, which was signed by IG Arthur Elkins.
Last year, EPA was one of several agencies that found the personal information of its employees had been compromised in a massive data breach at the Office of Personnel Management (Greenwire, June 5, 2015).
The IG also raised other challenges for EPA management in its report, including better oversight of state, U.S. territory and tribal environmental programs as well as improved personnel management to fight waste, fraud and abuse.
The IG found lingering problems with work time and attendance sheets, EPA's management of its own property and employee travel.
"Issues recently identified demonstrate continued deficiencies in the commitment by personnel to management policies and internal control," said the report.
EPA, however, has made progress. The IG removed two management challenges that were on last year's report: the safe reuse of contaminated sites and better care of chemical risks.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/16/stories/1060038946
-
Wyo. Town's Residents Absorbing Drilling Toxins -- Report
Jun 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Colby Bermel
Toxic chemicals have been detected in residents of a Wyoming town where natural gas is produced by hydraulic fracturing, according to a study released today by environmental groups.
The Coming Clean coalition said emissions from an Encana Corp. drilling site in the town of Pavillion spewed volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the air that were absorbed by residents. VOCs have been linked to cancer, respiratory problems, and reproductive and developmental disorders, among other ailments.
Pavillion's VOC levels exceed federal and state standards, the coalition says.
The Coming Clean report comes days after the release of another analysis by environmentalists on carcinogens in people's bodies (Greenwire, June 14).
"The people who live and work in these areas are so close to the sites [and] are being exposed on an ongoing basis, and it was not of their choosing," Wilma Subra, an author of the Coming Clean report, said in an interview. "They were there first, and the production came in, and it wasn't required to be as clean as it should've been to protect their health."
The American Petroleum Institute, a top advocate for oil and gas, was sent a copy of Coming Clean's report but was unable to comment in time for publication.
Pavillion's environmental health struggles are well-documented. In March, a former U.S. EPA investigator linked fracking to the town's tainted drinking water (Greenwire, March 29).
But energy companies scored a victory last year when the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality concluded it was "unlikely" that frack fluids reached drinking water wells.
Some see the town as symptomatic of a larger trend. A Coming Clean report in October 2014 observed that hydrogen sulfide levels in Wyoming overall registered 660 times higher than federal limits. Carcinogens like benzene and formaldehyde were also noted at higher-than-allowed levels.
Using both air monitoring and biomonitoring -- a combination that had not been used in previous studies -- Coming Clean spent a week testing Pavillion residents for a VOC set called BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene). Participants were asked not to fill their vehicles with gasoline or diesel and not to use cleaning agents, in order to remove the possibility of other exposure as the study was taking place.
What was the discovery? The BTEX set was "present in the bodies of the Pavillion area residents who participated in this study," the authors wrote. "The results from both human and air monitoring indicate that study participants during the week of monitoring were intermittently exposed to complex mixtures of chemical substances associated with oil and gas production."
Katie Huffling, director of the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, is sympathetic to oil and gas companies as economic drivers in their communities, but she wants people to widen their perspective.
"As we're looking at energy sources -- and I totally get right now that natural gas is super cheap, and a lot of communities are looking to that as an energy source -- you have to look at the cost of health impacts," she said in an interview. "Is it worth those trade-offs: increased asthma attacks among your kids, when they're getting those health care costs when they're sick and not able to go to school? Is it worth that trade-off?"
Other health problems in exposed people, in addition to cancer and various disorders, include rashes, nosebleeds, headaches and depression.
Subra, president of an environmental consulting firm, sees a regulatory apparatus unable to keep up with new developments by energy companies.
"When you're dealing with the fracking situation, the technology is growing much faster than the agencies are able to adopt rules and regulations," she said. "The state regulatory agencies don't have the ability to develop the rules and enforce them."
Industry lobbyists have a powerful presence in state capitals, Subra noted, and differing jurisdictions make it difficult to sort which regulator has oversight over what activity. EPA regulates air pollution through the Clean Air Act, but Wyoming's Department of Environmental Quality also plays a role. And a separate state Oil and Gas Conservation Commission deals with drilling operations.
EPA last month adopted rules limiting methane and VOC emissions from new and modified sources -- essentially curbing discharges from sites like wells and rigs that were freshly or recently built (E&E Daily, May 12). There are currently no rules regarding existing oil and gas sources -- older sites -- but that could change with the implementation of a proposed rule.
Clean energy?
But the rules come too late for Pavillion, Huffling said.
"For the people that are in Pavillion, the new EPA rule doesn't really impact them because it's not going to be looking at what they're exposed to right now," she said of the existing fracking sites.
EPA has put out a request for information for its proposed existing-sources rule, which is the first in a two-part process. The entire review will most likely finish next year after President Obama leaves the White House.
Many predict presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton would continue Obama's agenda, including on the environment. The unknown at this point is presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump, whose policy positions are unclear at best, but he has decried federal regulation of the energy industry.
Industry groups tout natural gas as a clean energy source. But Subra disagrees.
"You have to look at the whole life cycle, and the pollution, and the contamination that occurs from the whole life cycle. It is a much larger greenhouse gas producer than carbon monoxide," she said. "Natural gas is not necessarily a better solution."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/16/stories/1060038948
-
Concern Over California Crops Irrigated With Oil And Gas Wastewater
Jun 16, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Bill Allayaud and Tasha Stoiber
Would you eat food grown with wastewater from oil and gas drilling? You could be already: farms in California's Central Valley, which produces 40 percent of the nation's fruits and vegetables, are allowed to use oil and gas wastewater to irrigate crops.
The State’s water quality agency insists that no studies have shown that irrigating food crops with oil and gas wastewater poses a threat to public health. No one should stop eating California produce, but the state has appointed an expert food safety panel to spend a year investigating numerous unanswered questions. The most crucial: whether any hazardous chemicals in the wastewater are taken up by the edible parts of the crops.
Earlier this month, EWG joined 10 other environmental organizations to urge the state to stop allowing irrigation of food crops with oil and gas wastewater and conduct a comprehensive long-term study to determine the health, environmental and occupational impacts. In a letter to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, the groups wrote:
There is no evidence to assure that long-term consumption of foods irrigated with produced water is safe. Providing such assurance would be a long-term and continuous endeavor for multiple reasons, including lack of full information regarding the chemicals used, lack of full information about the interactions of the chemicals used, and the need for long term study.
For these reasons, the existing projects must be immediately shut down and the Board should not approve any additional projects.
Oil companies have quietly sold wastewater for irrigation in California for decades. In the past, only a handful of pollutants were regularly tested to satisfy permit requirements for use on agriculture. From limited testing, no egregious levels of pollutants that have drinking water standards have been found. But there may be additives used in drilling that aren’t tested.
Although the food irrigated with this recycled water is a small percentage of what’s produced in the Central Valley, once the produce is at the grocery store, there’s no way to know if it was grown with oil and gas wastewater. And there are no state standards for what farmers can use to water crops.
The lightly treated wastewater is blended with fresh water and then applied to almonds, pistachios and citrus trees along with grapes, carrots, beans, tomatoes and potatoes grown in the Cawelo, North Kern, Jasmin and Kern-Tulare Water Districts in Kern and Tulare Counties. One of the permits allows the water to be used as drinking water for livestock and apparently for farmed fish.
In a fact sheet, the State’s water quality agency claimed that no water is used for irrigation from hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” operations. However, many of the same chemicals found in fracking fluids are used in other oil and gas operations. And unlike wells that have been fracked, there are no state requirements to publicly disclose the type and amount of chemicals used in these non-fracked wells. While some operators have disclosed chemical additives, many claim “trade secrets” and the actual composition remains unknown.
Only two limited and flawed studies have been conducted to date: one by aconsultant for a water district near Bakersfield and another by a consultant hired by one of the oil companies selling the water.
The first study draws conclusions based only on four water samples collected on one day. Laboratories analyzed two samples each of grapes, pistachios and almonds. No root vegetables, which are especially susceptible to absorbing pollutants from soil, were tested.
The second study assessed exposure to those chemicals that have drinking water standards through eating the crops but not from working in the fields. No soil samples were analyzed to verify the numerous assumptions used to model and calculate health risks.
Recycled water in drought-stricken areas can be a substantial benefit to farmers: The water board says there is "significant interest" in expanding the use of recycled oil and gas wastewater. But given the source, there are too many unanswered questions. The only way to know if the water is safe for consumers, agriculture workers and the environment is to properly study it.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/06/concern-over-california-crops-irrigated-oil-and-gas-wastewater
-
Portland, Ore., Leaders Want Oil by Rail Banned
Jun 16, 2016 | E&E Energywire
Portland and Multnomah County, Ore., leaders are calling on Oregon and Washington state governors to pressure Congress into banning all oil by rail in the wake of a June 3 derailment along the Columbia River.
Health and government officials including Portland Mayor Charlie Hales and Multnomah County Chairwoman Deborah Kafoury called on the governors Tuesday to push a federal ban.
"No transportation system is ever 100 percent safe," Hales said. "That's why it's a fundamentally wrong idea to be moving explosive fossil fuels by rail."
The leaders also want to block oil-related permits and projects like the Tesoro-Savage oil terminal in Vancouver, Wash., which would bring millions more gallons across the rails.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) expressed concern over the Tesoro terminal but said federal rules to enhance rail safety are either in litigation or unfinished.
"I will continue to push the U.S. Department of Transportation and other federal authorities to take action that puts fewer Oregonians at risk of a dangerous crash in their backyards," she said.
Tara Lee, spokeswoman for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), said the governor spoke with rail companies last week and "made the push for the same three things we've been pushing the federal government on: Trains need to slow down; electronic brakes; quicker phase-out of older cars."
Union Pacific spokesman Justin Jacobs said in a statement that the company is legally obligated to transport crude to buyers as long as rail cars meet minimum federal standards.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/16/stories/1060038878
-
Battle Lines Emerging in Fight to Extend Carbon Caps
Jun 16, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
Lawmakers working to extend California's landmark carbon cap have some hard decisions before them.
Proponents of cementing the state's carbon targets into law through 2030 may have to concede parts of their program to opponents or leave their plans open to legal challenge, thanks to a combination of restrictive tax laws and problems with the market.
Backers of S.B. 32, the bill that would reauthorize California's carbon programs, have not resolved whether the extension of cap and trade -- the programs' centerpiece and backstop authority -- would run afoul of a state constitutional amendment. That measure, called Proposition 26, requires a two-thirds vote to raise taxes or fees.
The question supporters face is how much they would have to give up in order to attain the supermajority.
"Two-thirds is the gold standard from a litigation risk standpoint," said Alex Jackson, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's California climate program. "But if you're going to have to be giving major giveaways to get there, that cautions against that being the end-all, be-all."
Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D) didn't address the issue in remarks on the state budget yesterday but vowed to keep working with Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and members of the Assembly to pass the bill.
"It has to happen," he said. "There's no other choice. We want a healthy market to exist."
The risk of litigation without a supermajority is a real one. The cap-and-trade program is currently before the state Court of Appeals on a challenge from industry groups that it violates Proposition 13, another, older constitutional amendment that requires a two-thirds vote for just taxes (ClimateWire, May 25).
The original 2006 climate law, A.B. 32, predated Prop 26, but a successor law would not.
A spokeswoman for Brown declined to answer whether he thought a two-thirds vote was required but vowed support for extending the overall cap, as well as cap and trade.
"We will not meet our world-leading clean air and emission reduction targets unless we solidify and redouble our commitment to the state's cap-and-trade program and climate goals beyond 2020, and we will work hard to get that done," said Deborah Hoffman. "An extension will not only provide market certainty but will ensure ongoing funding for clean energy programs, especially in vulnerable communities."
Supporters say time is of the essence
The current program extends through 2020, so lawmakers have time. They postponed consideration of the bill last year after it failed to get a majority in the Assembly (ClimateWire, Sept. 11, 2015).
They face pressure, though, from carbon market participants clamoring for assurance that the market will persist beyond 2020.
Demand for carbon allowances has recently collapsed, partly due to uncertainty about whether the copious supplies of credits currently available will be in demand after 2020. Along with that collapse has come a steep reduction in the revenue that Brown has come to depend on to fund his high-speed rail project and other causes. The state missed out on $550 million in revenue from unsold allowances in last month's auction (ClimateWire, May 27).
"If nothing is passed in the Legislature, you've got an opinion from legislative counsel saying the program ends in 2020," said Andre Templeman, of the consulting firm Alpha Inception. "If the government wants any auctions to clear anytime between now and next year, they need to pass something now."
The sponsor of S.B. 32 agreed.
"It is critically important, sooner rather than later, to extend our climate targets and put them into statute," state Sen. Fran Pavley (D) said in a statement Monday.
"Businesses have told me time and again that they need market certainty and predictability in order to plan and innovate and succeed," she said. "That's what SB 32 brings -- certainty and predictability that California will build the clean energy economy that finally moves us away from our dependence on dangerous resources like fossil fuels."
A companion bill by Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia (D), A.B. 197, as currently written would require the California Air Resources Board to rank its emission-reduction regulations both by cost-effectiveness and by the reductions in greenhouse gases, criteria pollutants and toxic air pollution they would cause.
Room to compromise on fuel standards?
Environmentalists fear that one of the concessions on the table could be the state's low-carbon fuel standard, which aims to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels 10 percent by 2020.
They point to a meeting last month by the nonprofit Fueling California, which includes oil companies in its membership and has sought to change the fuel standard in the past. The meeting included representatives from Chevron Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp., Valero Energy Corp., Tesoro Corp. and the oil industry's main trade group, the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA).
"I am quite clear on WSPA's strategy, with the sudden re-emergence of one of its front groups [Fueling CA], and what we know is a policy it loathes," said Susan Frank, director of the California Business Alliance for a Clean Economy, a group of more than 1,000 businesses and trade groups.
CalSTART, a group of clean transportation interests, issued a letter Monday from local transit agencies and alternative fuel companies pledging support for the fuel standard.
The head of Fueling California gave little indication of what the oil companies might want, though. He said he thought the current standard has been working well.
"It's already been functioning for many years, and it seems to be doing a remarkable job of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and encouraging the use of alternative fuels in California," said group Chairman Bob Sturtz, a former managing director of petroleum for United Airlines and the current vice president of business development for fuel distributor World Fuel Services.
"From my perspective, it's actually doing what it originally was set out to do," he said.
Tweaks to the policy could include more support for aviation biofuels and fuel from municipal solid waste, he said. "We had some oil companies there who felt this wasn't on the right track," he said. "For the most part, I think people voiced their support."
The state Air Resources Board, which is in charge of writing regulations to reach the emissions targets, has been proceeding under the authority of an executive order Brown signed last year setting a target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Republican state senators commissioned a legal opinion finding that they may need legislative authority beyond Brown's order (ClimateWire, April 25). While ARB disagrees with the opinion, they "welcome legislative input," ARB spokesman Dave Clegern said.
One idea that has been floated as a solution to both the legislative and market debates would be to tinker with the mechanics of the cap-and-trade market to tighten up supplies, either now or after 2020. ARB could simply reduce the number of allowances sold at future auctions, but regulators could also create an exchange rate between cap and trade and low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) credits, which would increase supplies in the LCFS market and reduce them in the oversupplied cap-and-trade market.
"I actually see our suggestion as a way to get to a compromise," Alpha Inception's Templeman said. "We brought it up to WSPA, and we're trying to get some feedback from them, but we have not gotten feedback. If the oil guys understood how beneficial that proposal is, they would hopefully see that as a way to get a grand compromise in place."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/06/16/stories/1060038921
-
Divided Panel Approves Rider-Filled Interior-EPA Bill
Jun 16, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly, Scott Streater and Amanda Reilly
The Senate Appropriations Committee today approved 16-14 a spending bill for the Interior Department, U.S. EPA and the Forest Service after adding money for wildfire fighting and rejecting a Democratic attempt to strike a dozen policy riders.
The party-line vote sends the $32.7 billion fiscal 2017 measure to the full Senate. But Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) predicted that the riders -- touching on everything from water regulations to the Endangered Species Act -- will likely keep the bill from clearing the 60-vote procedural hurdle needed to take it up on the floor.
Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) in a statement said the bill makes "responsible recommendations" on taxpayer spending for federal lands programs and "improves environmental policy by emphasizing infrastructure improvements over new EPA regulations."
As of publication time, the committee had still not released the text of the bill. But according to summaries previously released by Republicans and Democrats on the panel, it would slightly trim next year's budgets for EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.
FWS would get $1.49 billion, a drop of about $12 million from this year. OSM would see almost $236 million, down approximately $4 million.
The National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management would receive modest increases. NPS would receive $2.9 billion, up $63 million from this year, while BLM would receive $1.24 billion, an increase of $6 million.
But while EPA would get about $8.1 billion, or close to this year's level, the measure would cut EPA's core air and water programs by 10 percent, according to ranking member Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), who cited those proposed reductions and the riders as reasons for opposing the bill.
The legislation had originally included $3.79 billion for a wildland fire management program run by Interior and the Forest Service. But on a bipartisan voice vote, the committee agreed to an amendment by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) to add $661 million in emergency funding, which the senator said would fully meet the Obama administration's request.
On a 14-16 party-line vote, the panel rejected another Udall amendment to strike 12 riders, including one that would block the administration's Waters of the United States rule and another that would allow construction of a hotly debated gravel road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairwoman of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, added the rider to the bill in an attempt to overturn Interior Secretary Sally Jewell's December 2013 decision rejecting the nearly 11-mile road though the Izembek refuge.
Murkowski has argued for years that the single-lane, noncommercial 11-mile gravel road is needed to provide the residents of King Cove with reliable access to medical care via an all-weather airport in Cold Bay.
Currently, residents there must either ride an airplane or take a boat across a choppy bay to reach the Cold Bay airport that can transport them to Anchorage.
The proposed road through congressionally designated wilderness within the wildlife refuge is strongly opposed by conservation groups, who argue it would have disastrous environmental impacts on an internationally recognized region. Greens also worry that running the road through a national wildlife refuge will set a bad precedent that could lead to other infrastructure in refuges nationwide.
Murkowski disagrees, arguing that in this case public safety trumps environmental protection.
"I will not stop fighting for the safety and security of the people that I represent and would suggest we are not talking about anything that is precedent setting," she said at today's markup. "We are trying to establish a level of safety for all Americans."
The bill also includes a provision that would remove Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in Wyoming and the Great Lakes -- a move that drew opposition from Udall, who labeled it one of 12 "poison pill" riders.
FWS delisted wolves in the Great Lakes in 2011 and Wyoming in 2012, but a pair of federal district court rulings invalidated both rules. FWS has appealed both decisions.
The provision in the appropriations bill would reinstall those delisting decisions, something Murkowski claimed during the markup has bipartisan support.
But Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe said this week that the provision sets a bad precedent under the ESA and that riders attached to spending bills are the wrong place to deal with listing decisions (Greenwire, June 14).
The news wasn't all bad for Interior.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) withdrew an amendment that would have blocked the department from updating its air regulations for offshore oil and gas operations until after it has completed all air quality studies and analysis justifying the changes proposed in March.
The proposal by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management would reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide and particulate matter, as well as allow officials to more accurately account for these emissions (E&ENews PM, March 17).
The House Appropriations Committee approved a similar amendment yesterday during its Interior-EPA spending bill markup.
Cassidy's amendment contends BOEM has not yet completed studies to show that offshore oil and gas emissions have a significant impact on onshore air quality.
Cassidy withdrew the amendment after apparently realizing he did not have the support of the Senate panel to pass it.
The Senate bill, unlike its House counterpart, would not block U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. The rule requires states to develop plans to lower the carbon dioxide emissions of power plants, but the Supreme Court froze the program in February pending resolution of complex litigation.
Republican critics of the program have complained that EPA is going ahead with some implementation activities while the stay is in place, including moving ahead with related rules. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) today said she had drafted an amendment to halt EPA from spending any resources on the program while the stay is in place.
"The EPA should not be able to spend taxpayer dollars to advance a rule and associated programs," Capito said, "if the Supreme Court of the United States has indicated it is on legally vulnerable ground."
But Capito withdrew the amendment, which had the support of six Republican senators including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), at today's markup, saying she was satisfied that the bill would limit funding in specific EPA accounts related to the Clean Power Plan. The legislation rejects a White House proposal to provide $25 million in grants to states to implement the program.
Other riders decried by Democrats included:
A provision blocking the Fish and Wildlife Service from reassessing the status of the lesser prairie chicken in the wake of a court ruling last year that overturned FWS's decision to add the bird to the list of threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.
Language blocking FWS rules that prohibit certain aggressive hunting practices on predator species, such as bears and wolves, on national wildlife refuges in Alaska.
Others addressed issues including sage grouse protections, carbon emissions from forest biomass, hardrock mining financial assurance requirements, a funding prohibition on lead ammunition and tackle, an environmental analysis for certain forest management activities and a Tongass National Forest Plan amendment, according to Udall.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/16/stories/1060038950
-
6th Circuit Sets Briefing Schedule In CWA Rule Suit
Jun 16, 2016 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has set a briefing schedule for motions concerning the administrative record and for merits arguments in Murray Energy, et al., v. EPA, et al., which consolidates a host of suits filed by industry groups, states and others over EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule.
A three-judge panel for the 6th Circuit in a June 14 order established a deadline of July 8 for all motions regarding composition of the administrative record integral to judicial review, with a July 22 response deadline and a July 29 target for any subsequent replies.
The court had previously issued a May 9 order asking for suggested briefing schedules in the suit, which challenges the CWA rule that EPA jointly crafted with the Army Corps of Engineers.
The upcoming motions are likely to involve a push by industry and state petitioners in the case urging the court to admit into the record a set of internal Corps memos submitted to EPA ahead of the final rule critical of ambiguities and other flaws in drafts of the rule before it was finalized.
Critics of the rule have urged courts to admit the documents for the case, saying they show the rule is unlawful. But Justice Department attorneys have countered that the memos concern earlier drafts of the rule and therefore are not relevant.
On the merits briefing, the court set a Sept. 30 deadline for opening briefs to be filed by the state, business, and association petitioners, and a Nov. 30 deadline for opening briefs to be field by DOJ on behalf of EPA and the Corps.
The petitioners and DOJ would have until Dec. 14 and Jan. 20, 2017, respectively, to file reply briefs, with final briefs due before Feb. 17, 2017.
http://insideepa.com/the-inside-story
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested