Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 6/30
-
(ACC Mentioned) Third Parties Can Give EPA Draft Chemical Risk Evaluations
Jun 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical manufacturers, consultants and other parties can submit draft risk evaluations of chemicals to the Environmental Protection Agency under the newly amended chemicals law, industry attorneys say. -
Chemical Sector Sees Early Concerns With EPA TSCA New Chemicals Plan
Jun 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Chemical sector officials are raising early concerns on EPA's plan to implement regulatory revisions for addressing new chemicals in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform law in situations where a new substance has already been submitted for review under the old TSCA, though some in industry say the new law provides long-term certainty. -
Chemical Formulators Prepare to Provide EPA Data
Jun 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Companies making detergents, polishes and other chemical-intensive products expect to give the Environmental Protection Agency more data under the newly amended chemicals law, according to industry representatives. -
EPA Floats First-Year Plan For Implementing Landmark TSCA Reform Law
Jun 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA is floating a first-year plan for implementing its broad new authorities to regulate chemicals under the landmark Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform law, including immediately adopting provisions on how to review new chemicals and longer-term actions such as a rule on how the agency will substantiate claims of proprietary information. -
EPA Issues First-Year Plan to Implement New Chemicals Law
Jun 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency issued today its first-year planto implement the newly amended U.S. chemicals law. -
EPA Outlines Plan to Implement New Chemical Safety Rules
Jun 30, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
President Obama last week signed into law an overhaul to the Toxic Substances Control Act, requiring new testing and regulation of thousands of chemicals used in everything from cleaning products to paint thinners and clothing. -
Obama Signs Law to Minimize Animal Testing - Chemical Toxicity to be Tested by Alternate Methods, Mandates New Law
Jun 29, 2016 | Inquisitr
By Alap Naik Desai
President Barack Obama signed a new chemical safety law that aims to reduce and eventually phase out the testing of chemicals on animals. -
Our Views: A Coup on Chemicals for Vitter
Jun 29, 2016 | The Advocate
All the trappings of legislative success: a formal signing at the White House, praise for bipartisan problem-solving, a picture in The New York Times. -
(ACC Mentioned) Olden Resigns After Four-Year Effort to Fix EPA Risk Program
Jun 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Kenneth Olden, who was brought into the Environmental Protection Agency in 2012 to overhaul an agencywide chemical evaluation program, said June 29 he is retiring. -
(ACC Mentioned) Eric Byer: US Adds Stumbling Blocks for Small Businesses
Jun 30, 2016 | Charleston Gazette-Mail
By Eric Byer
Despite accounting for nearly 50 percent of total employment in the United States and a similar percentage of GDP, small- and medium-size businesses face a huge stumbling block in the form of a regulatory system that fails them. -
(ACC Mentioned) San Francisco Will Ban Styrofoam Products from City
Jun 29, 2016 | Popular Science
By Meaghan Lee Callaghan
The city of San Francisco's Board of Supervisors unanimously passed an ordinance banning the sale of polystyrene foam (aka Styrofoam) this week. -
Slippery Customers
Jun 29, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Mark Peplow
Fluorinated compounds are everywhere. A bouquet of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), prized for their ability to repel both water and oils, have been used in diverse applications from non-stick frying pans to firefighting foams for decades. -
Lumber Liquidators: Agreement Reached on Formaldehyde Emissions
Jun 30, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
US flooring retailer Lumber Liquidators has reached a 'recall to test' agreement with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). -
EPA Enforcement Too Heavy-Handed, Senators Say
Jun 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Renee Schoof
Environmental enforcement during the Obama administration has been heavy-handed, a Republican senator said at a hearing June 29 that expanded on past criticism of the Environmental Protection Agency. -
Trouble Seen for Interior's Fracking Case Appeal
Jun 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
The Interior Department is appealing the district court decision that overturned the department's regulations for hydraulic fracturing, but the odds appear to be against the department, in the views of two environmental attorneys (Wyoming v. Jewell, 10th Cir., No. 16-8068, 6/27/16.) -
EPA Sends Final Oil & Gas VOC Guidelines To OMB
Jun 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent for White House pre-publication review its final guidelines for how the oil and gas sector can reduce emissions of ozone-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from existing drilling operations, although industry officials doubt the need for the guidance given the agency's plan to eventually cap methane from the operations, which is expected to curb all emissions. -
White House Reviewing Oil and Gas Emission Guidelines
Jun 30, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA has sent the final version of proposed guidelines to aid local air pollution regulators in overseeing the oil and gas industry to the White House Office of Management and Budget. -
Exxon Touts Carbon Tax to Oil Industry
Jun 30, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder and Bradley Olson
Exxon Mobil Corp. is ramping up its lobbying of other energy companies to support a carbon tax, marking a shift in the oil giant’s approach to climate change as the industry faces growing pressure to address the politically charged issue. -
Chemical Safety Investigators Head to Miss. Gas Plant
Jun 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Federal investigators are arriving at the scene of a Mississippi gas processing plant that caught fire this week. -
The Latest: DOT Head Urges Haste in Rail Safety Upgrades
Jun 29, 2016 | AP (In San Francisco Gate)
Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx is urging the railroad industry "to move as fast" as it possibly can to put new safety technology called positive train control systems into operation. -
Schumer Adds Voice to Call for Crude Oil Safety Boost
Jun 29, 2016 | Albany Times Union
By Brian Nearing
U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer was among nine Democratic senators on Wednesday who urged federal officials to use emergency powers to limit potential flammability of crude oil transported nationwide every day by massive tanker trains. -
Schumer Calls for Oil Train Operators to Reduce Volatility
Jun 30, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Scott Waldman
Sen. Chuck Schumer wants oil train operators to reduce the volatility of the crude oil they transport to help prevent explosive accidents. -
Four States Get Options on Cross-State Rule Compliance
Jun 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Continued voluntary participation in the Environmental Protection Agency's interstate emissions trading program for power plants would allow four states to meet federal air quality standards for particulate matter and regional haze, the agency said in a memo to regional air directors. -
Senate Panel Approves $500M for International Climate Fund
Jun 29, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday adopted a $500 million spending package for the Green Climate Fund, an international climate change adaptation program.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Third Parties Can Give EPA Draft Chemical Risk Evaluations
Jun 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical manufacturers, consultants and other parties can submit draft risk evaluations of chemicals to the Environmental Protection Agency under the newly amended chemicals law, industry attorneys say.
The EPA must develop guidance for the third-party developed risk evaluations within one year of the Toxic Substances Control Act amendments' enactment, Mike Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council , said June 28 during an American Bar Association luncheon.
He referred to Section 17 of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which amends Section 26 of TSCA. President Barack Obama signed the chemical reform bill, which amended TSCA, into law on June 22.
What's in the Law?
Under the amended Section 26: “the administrator shall develop guidance to assist interested persons in developing and submitting draft risk evaluations which shall be considered by the administrator.
“The guidance shall, at a minimum, address the quality of the information submitted and the process to be followed in developing draft risk evaluations for consideration by the administrator.”
After his presentation, Walls told Bloomberg BNA the guidance will be important to all stakeholders, but particularly for manufacturers with substances that the agency is evaluating.
Under the amended law, the agency must revaluate the risks of chemicals it designates to be high priorities due to their persistence, toxicity or other characteristics.
Chemical manufacturers and trade associations also can request the agency to evaluate chemicals if they pay for some or all of the agency's costs.
Assessments' Usefulness
“The draft risk assessments can help consolidate and integrate hazard, exposure and risk information, and ultimately help EPA make efficient decisions on the substances under review,” Walls told Bloomberg BNA by e-mail.
“In that way, the draft risk assessments can help accelerate the ‘throughput' in the system and help augment the resources that the agency would otherwise have to commit,” he said.
Walls said any interested person may submit a draft risk evaluation to the agency for it to consider as part of its work on a particular chemical.
“I think that's a potentially very powerful tool for any stakeholder,” Walls said at the ABA meeting. “You can bring information that could influence the EPA's decision on a substance.”
Evaluations Could Flag Risks
Judah Prero, a former American Chemistry Council attorney who now works with Sidley Austin LLP in Washington, told Bloomberg BNA the agency's guidance will enable interested parties to know, with a degree of certainty, what the EPA is looking for and what the agency will require in a risk evaluation.
At a minimum, he said, that gives interested parties the “power of the pen.”
A chemical manufacturer, for example, “can make sure that all relevant information is included and conduct its own literature reviews or searches for relevant studies,” Prero said by e-mail.
“While EPA will use whatever information it has, and can order testing, at the end of the day, EPA only has what it has. It is possible for a study or some information not to make its way to EPA,” he said.
A third party can conduct an exhaustive search, weigh and incorporate all information and characterize the results, Prero said.
Can Provide Comfort, Warning to Company
“That can either provide comfort to a company, knowing that all seems to be in order, or it can give a company advance warning that issues exist, and the company then has time to deal with the issue prior to EPA taking regulatory action,” Prero said.
Paying for a risk evaluation is a significant investment, he said.
“If done well, it can only help—as it will serve as solid evidence of safety, or provide knowledge of issues that need to be addressed,” Prero said.
“While keeping one's head in the sand might help to allow that entity to think nothing is wrong, I personally believe that a company is better served when it tackles an issue when it surfaces as a result of their own due diligence, and not due to a discovery by a regulator,” Prero continued.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92870173&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=495484000&searchid=27909707&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
Chemical Sector Sees Early Concerns With EPA TSCA New Chemicals Plan
Jun 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Chemical sector officials are raising early concerns on EPA's plan to implement regulatory revisions for addressing new chemicals in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform law in situations where a new substance has already been submitted for review under the old TSCA, though some in industry say the new law provides long-term certainty.
EPA in a first-year implementation plan for the law says that it will attempt to complete reviews for new chemicals in which notice has already been submitted to the agency without incurring significant delays. But the agency cautions that the new law “effectively resets” the 90-day review period, prompting concern from some industry officials.
They fear that the new law could affect the status of chemicals nearing the end of the review period. This is significant because under the old law, EPA was not mandated to complete reviews of new chemicals, though it had the authority to do so, and chemicals that were not reviewed could enter the marketplace once the 90 days expired.
“The lack of transparency is troubling,” says one industry source who argues the agency's path forward for new chemicals already subjected for review under section 5 of the original TSCA is unclear.
Under the previous section 5 of TSCA, after the 90 days, a company may begin manufacturing and sales barring an EPA finding that the chemical "may present an unreasonable risk," but the agency is not required to make an affirmative finding of safety for a substance to enter the marketplace.
Companies submit premanufacture notices (PMNs) to EPA, and almost 90 percent of them do not lead to limits on the chemical, EPA says on its website. Regulatory options include a consent order with testing mandates, limits on some releases, or other provisions. Another option is a significant new use rule (SNUR) to “require notice to EPA before chemical substances and mixtures are used in new ways that might create concerns,” EPA says.
Under the old TSCA law the PMNs were subject to a 90-day EPA review period before manufacturing could begin. The TSCA overhaul will require EPA to review all new chemicals and make an affirmative finding that the substance is not likely to present a significant risk, or to issue an order or rule to bar a chemical from entering the market to impose restrictions if it finds there is insufficient information to make a safety determination. Chemicals found to be likely to present an unreasonable risk will not be permitted to be manufactured and sold.
But observers say there are questions that Congress and EPA have not addressed, including how currently pending new chemicals' notices would be managed under the law.
New Chemicals
The agency says in a list of frequently asked questions on the law posted to its website last week that the “most immediate effects” of the new law will be on the review process for new chemicals.
EPA's implementation plan further clarifies how it plans to address chemicals for which manufacturers submitted PMNs prior to the law's enactment. “The agency will make every effort to complete its review and make a determination within the remaining time under the original deadline,” for chemicals in which the PMN was already submitted.
“For companies that submitted PMNs prior to enactment and are currently undergoing review, EPA will make every effort to complete its review and make a determination within the remaining time under the original deadline,” the plan says. “However, as a legal matter, the new law effectively resets the 90-day review period.”
The industry source counters, “We do not agree EPA must 'reset' the 90 day clock for pending notifications and believe EPA has discretion in Section 26 to process these notifications under old TSCA.”
Section 26 of the new law governs administration of TSCA and expands EPA's ability to collect user fees form industry to implement the law. “We are aware of other changes EPA has made and has not publicly announced them,” such as re-reviewing under new and unclear criteria already-filed PMNs, the source claims.
The law firm Bergeson & Campbell in a June 22 analysis of the new law says that the amended section 26(p) of TSCA “arguably afford EPA broad discretion to establish procedures for disposing of any Section 5 cases that are pending before EPA (including those under voluntary suspensions) at the time of enactment.”
The firm says the language in Section 26 is somewhat ambiguous as the revisions also establish a new process for risk evaluations under TSCA Section 6, which covers risk management rules for existing chemicals.
However, the language can be “reasonably construed” to include those risk evaluations that EPA currently prepares in response to notices under Section 5, the analysis says. “Although this provision does not include any reference to the orders that are one potential outcome of Section 5 notices under the current system, it otherwise appears to afford EPA the discretion to close out pending and suspended cases using the current procedures for up to two years after enactment . . .,” according to the firm, though it does not require EPA to close out those cases.
But a second industry source says that the 90-day reset should not “cost more than a couple of months” and could ultimately provide manufacturers with more certainty on the status of those chemicals under the new law. “I'd think they'd prefer to have a modest delay,” given that it would negate fears of potential restriction of that chemical under the section 6 provisions on existing chemicals under the new law, the source adds.
Lawmakers' Statements
In separate GOP and Democratic statements of legislative intent submitted to the June 7 Congressional Record, lawmakers on both side discussed the changes in the new chemicals program. Republicans sought to downplay the impact of the provisions and Democrats called the provisions a key part of the pact.
In the GOP analysis, Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) and panel member David Vitter (R-LA) transcribed a conversation in which they asked each other detailed questions about the TSCA bill and the intent behind various provisions.
Vitter said the "amendments to this section were intended to conform closely with EPA's current practice and maintain the Agency's timely reviews that allow substances to market within the statutory deadlines."
Vitter said the bill is "very clear" that EPA should not slow or halt its review of new chemicals while it develops any needed new policies, procedures or guidance for implementing the changes to section 5. Vitter originally introduced the Senate's version of TSCA reform along with Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM).
But the Democrats, who have touted the bill's changes to the way EPA manages new chemicals as a key tenet of the bill, say in their analysis that the bill would make "significant changes to this passive approach under current law."
For the first time, they say, EPA would be required to review all new chemicals and significant new uses and make an affirmative finding of safety prior to manufacture, as opposed to current law, which allows such safety reviews but does not mandate them. "Only chemicals and significant new uses that EPA finds are not likely to present an unreasonable risk can enter production without restriction," the Democrats say.
The Democrats' analysis is signed by Udall, EPW ranking member Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and fellow Senate Democrats Edward Markey (MA) and Jeff Merkley (OR).
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/chemical-sector-sees-early-concerns-epa-tsca-new-chemicals-plan
-
Chemical Formulators Prepare to Provide EPA Data
Jun 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Companies making detergents, polishes and other chemical-intensive products expect to give the Environmental Protection Agency more data under the newly amended chemicals law, according to industry representatives.
“EPA can now require a lot more data. We'll be hit for toxicity and exposure data,” Ernie Rosenberg, president and chief executive officer for the American Cleaning Institute, told Bloomberg BNA.
Steve Bennett, senior director of scientific affairs and sustainability at the Consumer Specialty Products Association, said that trade association already is working with its members to identify what chemicals they use in their products.
Providing EPA with use, exposure and toxicity data will be essential for the agency's risk evaluations, Bennett told Bloomberg BNA.
The data also may give EPA confidence that a chemical is a low priority, meaning no risk assessment would be needed, he said.
Phil Klein, the association's executive vice president for legislative and public affairs, said: “The whole goal of CSPA being involved in TSCA reform was to build confidence in the U.S. chemical program.”
Rosenberg, Bennett and Klein were among the cleaning institute and specialty products association officials that spoke with Bloomberg BNA shortly before and after President Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act into law June 22. The act amends TSCA by giving the EPA more authority to obtain toxicity, exposure and other data from chemical manufacturers and, for the first time, requires the agency to assess the risks of chemicals in commerce.
Drivers of Change
Procter & Gamble spokeswoman Mary Ralles told Bloomberg BNA by e-mail that “the modernization of TSCA will enable the US chemical management system to keep pace with scientific advancements that have occurred in the 40 years since TSCA originally became law.”
The amended law's framework for chemical oversight “will provide companies like P&G a clear, consistent, science-based regulatory system that will allow us to continue developing innovative products that improve the lives of the world's consumers,” Ralles said.
The American Cleaning Institute, Consumer Specialty Products Association and their member companies worked for years to update TSCA, which had not had its core provisions changed since 1976.
Both trade associations represent formulators, companies that mix chemicals into products institutions and consumers purchase. Both associations represent companies with common household names, such as Procter & Gamble and S.C. Johnson & Son Inc.
Rosenberg said retailer policies on chemicals, along with state laws and regulations, helped drive the need for TSCA reform.
Large retailers such as CVS Health and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. issued de facto regulations that banned products with certain chemicals from their shelves.
When an important customer “says jump; you ask how high,” Rosenberg said.
State laws and regulations also banned chemicals, which could require a company to reformulate its product for the entire U.S. market, he said.
Providing Predictability
The amended TSCA should provide a predictable process through which chemical health and environmental risks will be evaluated and cleaning and other companies can point to that process if a retailer or state focuses on a particular chemical, he said.
Instead of telling the retailer or state a chemical isn't a problem, formulators can say “the federal government just amended the law and made it substantially stronger; give it a chance to work,” Rosenberg said.
Further, if a retailer were to want to restrict a chemical that the EPA has designated as low priority, formulators using that chemical will have a basis to argue against the restriction, Rosenberg said.
State restrictions of a chemical largely would be preempted during the time the EPA conducts its risk evaluation, under the amended TSCA. Final EPA decisions would preempt state regulations addressing the same risks and uses of a chemical that the EPA already evaluated.
Chemical, Supply Network Reviews
Most of the chemicals found in common household products won't have the persistence, toxicity or other hazardous characteristics that would make them high priorities for the EPA's review, Klein said.
“Where we do, we'll be sure the EPA knows what those chemicals are,” Klein said.
The association is working with companies in each of seven divisions—aerosol, air care, antimicrobial, cleaning, floor care, pest management and industrial and automotive—to determine whether any of them use the approximately 90 chemicals the EPA already has selected for risk evaluations, Klein said. “We will have a very good picture what is used in our industry.”
Formulators and their suppliers already have a lot of toxicity and exposure data about their chemicals, Rosenberg said.
The American Cleaning Institute will work with its members to help them identify their entire supply network so that they know the range of companies from which they may get existing data and those with whom they may need to develop data, he said.
Jessica Bartlow, director of the Consumer Specialty Products Association's Research and Regulatory Management Council, said if more data is needed for a particular chemical, or to better understand exposures that could result from certain uses of chemical formulations, the Consumer Specialty Products Association is prepared to form groups of companies to generate such data.
Formed 20 years ago, the council has formed consortia to generate data for the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, she said. The council will extend its experience forming coalitions to TSCA now, she said.
“It makes a lot more sense to share costs and send EPA one batch of data,” Bartlow said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92870162&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92870162&jd=92870162
-
EPA Floats First-Year Plan For Implementing Landmark TSCA Reform Law
Jun 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA is floating a first-year plan for implementing its broad new authorities to regulate chemicals under the landmark Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform law, including immediately adopting provisions on how to review new chemicals and longer-term actions such as a rule on how the agency will substantiate claims of proprietary information.
“This document is intended to be a roadmap of major activities EPA will focus on during the initial year of implementation,” and will be added to over time, the agency says in its plan released June 29. “This is a living document, and will be further developed over time. It is NOT intended to be a comprehensive listing of all requirements in the new law,” EPA says.
President Obama signed the TSCA law June 22, shifting focus to how the agency will implement its various new powers to address the safety of existing and new chemicals in commerce.
EPA in its first-year implementation plan acknowledges the extensive work ahead, saying, “The new law imposes a number of new responsibilities on EPA, with comparatively short deadlines to carry out these actions. The Agency takes these responsibilities and deadlines seriously. For implementation to be successful, EPA believes it is important to engage partners and stakeholders early in the process, and to be as transparent as possible.”
The plan could quell some questions raised by stakeholders on the timing of the myriad rulemakings EPA must being working on to implement the various mandates in the new law.
For example, one industry source says that timing is a major question on implementation. EPA has to conduct multiple rulemakings to set processes in place under the new law, the source says, adding that “I don't think we see a big, big rulemaking this year” from EPA.
A second industry source says many stakeholders want a specific time frame for when EPA will conduct a rule on how it plans to collect fees from the chemical industry, which the new law gives it authority to do through rulemaking. EPA has to decide in the rule “exactly where the financial burden falls and on what parties,” that source says.
In the plan, EPA says “There is no deadline in the bill, but authority to require fees will be needed ASAP,” saying the agency plans to begin consulting with stakeholders potentially subject to the fees and issue a proposal by mid-December of this year, and is eyeing June 2017 for a final rule.
The fees are expected to help pay for implementation of the TSCA law, given that Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) -- a co-sponsor of the Senate's version of TSCA reform and ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Committee panel that oversees EPA's budget -- doubts Congress will give the agency extra funds to implement it.
First-Year Plan
The first-year plan lists time frames for both immediate actions, including for confidential business information (CBI),new chemicals, and rules to manage risks from chemicals under section 6 that addresses existing chemicals.
The plan also lists procedural rules to guide longer term actions, such as publishing its list of 10 chemicals from its 2014 TSCA Work Plan that will be the first substances assessed under the new law. EPA plans to publish the list and formally initiate risk evaluations by mid-December, and publish the scope of each review by mid-June 2017.
The agency also lists time frames for rules to establish processes for prioritization; risk evaluations; user fees; a TSCA inventory; and establishing a science advisory committee on chemicals. At least six of the regulatory actions in the new law must be completed within the first year of implementation, or by mid-June 2017 and at least five actions must be completed within a few years of the law's effective date.
The rules EPA must complete within a year include an annual plan for risk evaluations; the scope of the first 10 assessments; additions to the mercury export ban; an inventory of the mercury supply; use and trade in the United States, revisions to the adequacy of definitions for identifying small business; and a report to Congress on the implementation efforts, including resource needs.
Rules that EPA must complete within a few years of implementation include a mercury use rule; a policy for substantiating CBI claims; CBI guidance on generic names of substances whose names are protected as proprietary, a strategy for alternative testing methods to animal tests; and a negotiated rule on byproducts reporting.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-floats-first-year-plan-implementing-landmark-tsca-reform-law
-
EPA Issues First-Year Plan to Implement New Chemicals Law
Jun 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency issued today its first-year planto implement the newly amended U.S. chemicals law.
The plan describes changes the agency already has made to comply with the Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016, which President Barack Obama signed into law June 22.
It also lists chemical regulations the EPA plans to propose before the end of this year and final rules the agency is required to issue in 2017.
The EPA organized its plan based on timelines the newly amended law gives to implement its requirements.
For example, the agency already is requiring chemical manufacturers and processors to substantiate claims they assert that would require the agency to keep the specific chemical identities of new chemicals confidential.
Jim Jones, EPA's assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, mentioned that and other immediate changes the TSCA amendments caused when he spoke at a June 28 American Bar Association luncheon.
By mid-July the EPA intends to develop an approach to routinely review new confidential business information (CBI) claims made for other types of information, EPA's plan said.
Four Rules Implementing TSCA Amendments Coming
The plan lists four other rules the EPA plans to propose before the end of December. The agency intends to propose:
• the approach it would use to reset the TSCA inventory of chemicals that are or have been in U.S. commerce;
• the criteria and process it would use to identify chemicals as high priorities for risk evaluation or low priorities not needing immediate review;
• the procedures it would use to evaluate the risks of high priority chemicals; and
• the fees it would set to help defray the costs of implementing certain provisions of the TSCA amendments.
The procedures EPA will establish to evaluate the risks of high priority chemicals will be important not only to the agency but also to chemical manufacturers and other third parties that may submit draft risk evaluations to the agency.
Three Risk Management Rules Coming
Rules that would restrict the use of three solvents—trichloroethylene (TCE), methylene chloride and n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP)—will be proposed by the end of 2016, according to the implementation plan.
The TSCA amendments allowed the agency to continue with chemical rulemakings that were already under way.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92870167&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92870167&jd=92870167
-
EPA Outlines Plan to Implement New Chemical Safety Rules
Jun 30, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
President Obama last week signed into law an overhaul to the Toxic Substances Control Act, requiring new testing and regulation of thousands of chemicals used in everything from cleaning products to paint thinners and clothing.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act includes:Mandatory requirement for the EPA to evaluate existing chemicals with clear and enforceable deadlines;New risk-based safety standard;Increased public transparency for chemical information; and Consistent source of funding for the EPA to carry out the responsibilities under the new law.
The new law imposes a number of new responsibilities on the EPA — as well as on manufacturers and potentially any company that uses chemicals in its products — with relatively short deadlines to carry out these actions.
Today the EPA posted an Implementation Plan that outlines the agency’s first-year plans to implement the new chemical safety rules. It gives chemical companies and others a better idea of what, and when, they can expect in terms of EPA rulemaking and enforcement activities.
Also, the EPA will host a webinar tomorrow, June 20, at 2-3pm EST to provide an overview of the new amendments, tailored to those unfamiliar with the new provisions. The agency is planning additional opportunities for stakeholder engagement in the coming weeks.
https://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/06/29/epa-outlines-plan-to-implement-new-chemical-safety-rules/
-
Jun 29, 2016 | Inquisitr
By Alap Naik Desai
President Barack Obama signed a new chemical safety law that aims to reduce and eventually phase out the testing of chemicals on animals.
Obama on Wednesday signed into law a bill that aims to overhaul the decades-old system which was used to test chemical substances for their toxicity. The Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA) includes a groundbreaking condemnation of animal testing and mandates agencies to seek out and follow alternative testing methods that do not require animals.
The new act updates the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which hasn’t been revised for more than 20 years. Moreover, the new law will also bring radical changes to the way chemical substances are regulated in the U.S. Such a groundbreaking change has never happened in the last 40 years.
The Toxic Substances Control Act was signed in 1976, and it essentially mandates testing of chemical substances for their toxicity. Moreover, it allows testing the chemicals on animals and rate their toxicity based on the reactions.
How will the reform work? The LCSA essentially includes a provision discouraging the use of chemical testing on vertebrate animals and requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to create and promote a database of alternative testing methods, reported the Huffington Post. The law aims to drastically reduce and eventually phase out animal-based tests with human-relevant methods to assess the toxicity of chemicals.
Unfortunately, the new law only deals with regulations governed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and not than the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), reported Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society. However, similar to the user fee agreements that the FDA levies, the TSCA reform allows EPA to collect up to $25 million in fees each year.
Funds accumulated through the fee agreements will help pay for the costs of chemical regulation. These funds will also be used to monitor the implementation of the law and ensure congressional appropriations wherever necessary. Additionally, the funds should also help in devising newer testing methodologies that keep animals out of the loop, and speed-up safety assessments.
The reform has given the EPA two years to create and implement a plan promoting the development of alternative testing methods. In other words, the EPA will now have to start cataloging toxicity testing methods that do not depend on animals as their “guinea pigs,” shared Crystal Schaeffer, the outreach director for the American Anti-Vivisection Society.
“TSCA reform will not only spare hundreds of thousands of animals from enormous suffering, but will also encourage the continued modernization of chemical testing and the development of alternatives.”
A few of the most common testing methods that do not involve animals are the in vitro method as well as the computer model simulation. Essentially, the in vitro testing methods tests isolated human cells against chemicals. The computer modeling method tests the chemicals’ effects in a digital environment using an ever-growing database to identify and catalogue chemicals according to their toxicity.
The new law signed by Obama was designed by 89-year-old New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg who spearheaded the efforts to overhaul the “deeply-flawed” 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. Unfortunately he passed away in 2013, before he could see his work being signed into a law. Lautenberg’s work was carried forward by vegan senator Cory Booker who was elected to take his place on the Senate that year. She continued with Lautenberg’s work, and included a number of other senators to bring the act before President Obama to be signed into law, reported VegNews.
Millions of animals are killed in U.S. lab tests and experiments each year. The most common species to suffer are mice, rats, birds, rabbits, and fish. While the law doesn’t outlaw animal testing completely, animal welfare groups say it sets an important precedent that is a reflection of both changing public attitudes and a slow, ongoing movement away from animal testing by some industries and research agencies, reported the Washington Post.http://www.inquisitr.com/3257184/animal-testing-obama-chemical-toxicity/#zOUTQ3GqPSD63TgQ.99
-
Our Views: A Coup on Chemicals for Vitter
Jun 29, 2016 | The Advocate
All the trappings of legislative success: a formal signing at the White House, praise for bipartisan problem-solving, a picture in The New York Times. And we can only imagine how U.S. Sen. David Vitter felt when the Times applauded the bipartisan success story, led by U.S. Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico.
Tom Udall? Vitter was in the photo, in the back, but the Louisiana Republican really deserved at least a mention, because the new bill that requires safety reviews of all chemicals in active commerce was signed into law after years of Vitter’s work.
The measure was rightly applauded by President Barack Obama and such influence leaders as the Times, but the retiring senator from Louisiana deserves a great deal of credit.
Vitter worked for years with the late U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, of New Jersey, a liberal Democrat, to find common ground on the vexing issues raised by the nation’s law regulating chemicals. Lautenberg died before the bill became law, and it is named for him; Udall stepped into his place to make the numerous compromises and work with industries and environmentalists on the measure.
The new law is the first major overhaul in many years of chemical regulation, which is concerned with the vast array of plastics and household cleaners and mattress fillings — you name it, the scope of this measure is enormous.
That also magnifies the issues for every kind of industry represented on Capitol Hill, from chemical manufacturers such as those on the ground in Vitter’s Louisiana to makers of all sorts of plastic products, retailers and wholesalers. Add to that the legitimate concern of environmentalists in an effective regulatory scheme, and one can see the complexity of the bill.
Safety testing of chemicals will use a health-based standard rather than the existing “cost-benefit safety standard,” which had kept the EPA from banning asbestos, a known carcinogen. While making it more difficult for industry to keep chemical information secret, the measure also clarifies a patchwork of state rules that have grown up over 40 years leading to vastly different regulatory standards across the nation.
“For the first time in our history, we’ll actually be able to regulate chemicals effectively. And we’re doing it in the same, overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion,” the president said.
The vast scope of the bill hints at the complexity of the legislative task accomplished by Vitter in this last year of two Senate terms. He should be congratulated.
http://theadvocate.com/news/opinion/16254026-32/our-views-a-coup-on-chemicals-for-vitter
-
(ACC Mentioned) Olden Resigns After Four-Year Effort to Fix EPA Risk Program
Jun 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Kenneth Olden, who was brought into the Environmental Protection Agency in 2012 to overhaul an agencywide chemical evaluation program, said June 29 he is retiring.
Olden, who previously headed the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, has overseen reforms to an agency program that provides a compendium of chemical hazard values. His resignation as director of EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment, which runs the chemical evaluation program, is effective the end of July.
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS, program continues to be criticized for the slow pace at which it evaluates chemicals, Olden said during an IRIS Public Science Meeting where he announced his retirement.
But, he said, over the last four years the 49 full time employees at IRIS have been fully committed to creating the culture, infrastructure and transparency critical for success.
Trade-Off Was Needed
“It takes resources. It takes people and money and time,” Olden said.
Holding more public meetings, imbuing those meetings with scientific exchanges instead of “bickering” and working with agency programs and regions to craft a multiyear plan to guide future IRIS assessments took staff away from doing assessments, he said.
“What we've done has affected our productivity,” Olden said. “But I think you can't have quality without the things that we've done. It's a trade off, and I accept full responsibility for the trade off.”
Other accomplishments Olden recounted included the IRIS program's:
• establishment of a management council that meets weekly to oversee the program's operations;
• creation of an executive committee that reviews all chemical assessments before and after they have been peer reviewed; and
• development of a draft handbook describing standard operating procedures for the program's systematic reviews and other analytic procedures.
Olden Made Improvements
Nancy Beck, senior director of regulatory science policy at the American Chemistry Council , told Bloomberg BNA the council “is greatly appreciative of all the efforts Dr. Olden has made to improve the quality, infrastructure and culture within the IRIS program.”
IRIS serves a critical role within the agency by providing objective assessments of the hazards of chemicals, so that risk managers have a sound foundation for their decisions, Beck said by e-mail.
In a 2013 form the ACC submitted to the Internal Revenue Service to comply with its 501(c)(6) tax exempt status, the council listed improving IRIS as one of its accomplishments.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92870183&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=495483500&searchid=27909707&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
(ACC Mentioned) Eric Byer: US Adds Stumbling Blocks for Small Businesses
Jun 30, 2016 | Charleston Gazette-Mail
By Eric Byer
Despite accounting for nearly 50 percent of total employment in the United States and a similar percentage of GDP, small- and medium-size businesses face a huge stumbling block in the form of a regulatory system that fails them.
The regulatory system fails these business owners for one or more of the following reasons:
It is overly burdensome.
The system’s structure isn’t being followed by the very government that put it in place.
It is overly focused on enforcement rather than assistance for those seeking to comply.
This is a scenario that is experienced firsthand by the nation’s network of chemical distributors. While chemical distribution is often thought of as “big business,” most members of the National Association of Chemical Distributors are small businesses, typically averaging 26 employees.
These very businesses have proven to be the backbone of our economy, but they disproportionately bear the largest effects of regulations.
According to the U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, it costs small firms 364 percent more than large firms to comply with federal environmental regulations. Small businesses simply do not have the dedicated resources to monitor and plan for unclear, rapidly and unexpectedly changing regulations.
However, even large companies will join the chorus of small ones attesting that the system as we know it is overly burdensome.
Since 2005, the number of economically significant regulations — those carrying a price tag of $100 million or more — has increased by more than 60 percent. The 2015 Federal Register contained more than 3,300 final rules and 2,300 proposed rules. These eye-popping figures are on top of the guidances and memos — not included in the Federal Register but released by the agencies — that have a material impact on the way we and other industries do business.
To be sure, small businesses across the country seek to comply with the regulations, however burdensome. Even when acting in good faith, though, they often face a scenario where the goalposts are constantly being moved.
For example, in June 2015, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration substantially expanded the universe of chemical manufacturers and distributors subject to the Process Safety Management standard through an enforcement memorandum, rather than follow the normal course of inviting public comment and conducting cost-benefit analyses through the formal rule-making process.
In doing so, the agency imposed new, immediate PSM requirements on companies without the benefit of input from stakeholders.
In addition to the burdens placed on them and the fact that they’re facing a constantly evolving system, small businesses are now facing a problem with agencies that focus their resources almost solely on enforcing regulations rather than helping companies comply.
In recent years, several agencies have shifted resources from compliance assistance to hard enforcement and have increased penalties against industry. The number of new regulatory initiatives combined with the intensity of the agency efforts to find and fine has created a regulatory tsunami for chemical distributors.
Fortunately, many industries have forged ahead to help their members comply through programs like the National Association of Chemical Distributors’ Responsible Distribution or the American Chemistry Council’s Responsible Care program.
For example, Responsible Distribution, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year, mandates third-party-verified environmental, health, safety and security audits that demonstrate members’ commitment to continuous performance improvement in every phase of chemical storage, handling, transportation and disposal.
These are important programs that support industry education and compliance. But to truly spur growth and innovation, we must ensure that policy changes to longstanding regulations are made with input from stakeholders via the rule-making process and that agency actions on the regulated community serve to foster growth.
Only with this sort of regulatory certainty can small- and medium-size businesses continue to thrive and provide good-paying, locally focused jobs while remaining committed to operating in a safe and responsible manner.
Eric Byer is president of the National Association of Chemical Distributors.
http://www.wvgazettemail.com/daily-mail-commentary/20160630/eric-byer-us-adds-stumbling-blocks-for-small-businesses-daily-mail#sthash.i62YfoNN.dpuf
-
(ACC Mentioned) San Francisco Will Ban Styrofoam Products from City
Jun 29, 2016 | Popular Science
By Meaghan Lee Callaghan
The city of San Francisco's Board of Supervisors unanimously passed an ordinance banning the sale of polystyrene foam (aka Styrofoam) this week. The restriction is an extension of a 2007 ordinance that banned take-out food containers made of the foam.
Set to start next year, this ordinance will be the strongest restriction of polystyrene foam in the United States.
While it can be recycled in some places, most polystyrene foam pollutes our public spaces, especially our water, where many animals ingest small, broken fragments. Made from petroleum, polystyrene only breaks down in the ocean, not in landfills, and can be toxic, especially when burned with other trash. Few polystyrene foam products are actually recycled, as the polystyrene needs to be clean and intact to start the process.
There are some critics who say that the ban goes too far and will only create new and different types of garbage to deal with instead. The American Chemistry Council, a trade group of polystyrene manufacturers, says there will be more carbon emissions, as different packaging materials will weigh down trucks and other forms of transportation.
http://www.popsci.com/san-francisco-bans-all-styrofoam-products-from-city
-
Jun 29, 2016 | Chemistry World
By Mark Peplow
Fluorinated compounds are everywhere. A bouquet of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), prized for their ability to repel both water and oils, have been used in diverse applications from non-stick frying pans to firefighting foams for decades. Yet they resist degradation, making them almost ubiquitous in the environment; and they tend to bioaccumulate in living creatures, raising health worries.
For example, long-chain PFASs such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) promote various types of cancer in rodents, and some human studies have linked them to a spectrum of conditions including thyroid disease and high cholesterol.
PFOA and PFOS are often found in drinking water, albeit in trace amounts. So how much is too much? In May, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offered long-awaited advice, concluding that long-term consumption of drinking water with a combined PFOA and PFOS concentration of 70ng/l or more should raise a red flag.
Even though it took many years of work for the EPA to arrive at this number, the limit is a guideline for local authorities rather than an enforceable regulation. This situation stems from the country’s fraught and fragmented approach to regulating chemicals. Under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the EPA can investigate the risks of new chemicals in consumer products. But the Act gave the EPA little power to tackle pollutants already on the market, or to extract safety data from industry, and it required the agency to factor in economic downsides before limiting the use of a particular chemical.
There has been growing pressure for TSCA reform from both environmental campaigners and the chemical industry itself. On 7 June, the US Congress finally passed a bill that dramatically overhauls that regulation. The history of PFASs demonstrates that this reform is vital. But it also illustrates how much more difficult the EPA’s task has just become.Patchwork approach
PFASs have been produced since the 1940s, and by the 1970s DuPont had started to find PFOA in workers’ blood samples and drinking water. After academic researchers found widespread PFAS contamination in the environment, the EPA investigated and in 2005 classed PFOA as a ‘likely’ carcinogen in humans.
3M stopped producing PFOA and PFOS more than a decade ago, and other companies eventually began to phase out long-chain perfluorinated chemicals from their inventories, switching to shorter-chain alternatives that are less bioaccumulative. However, these compounds are still persistent, and relatively little is known about their toxicology. Hundreds of scientists have signed the Madrid Statement calling for PFASs to be limited to only ‘essential’ uses.
Meanwhile, PFAS contamination hotspots are still being found at manufacturing sites, oil refineries and landfills. The latest EPA data estimate that more than 50 drinking water systems across the country exceed 70ng/l of PFOA and PFOS, around 1% of those tested.
That advisory limit now gives US states and local authorities the information they need to act. New Hampshire, for example, has used it as the basis for an emergency rule, requiring water companies to reduce concentrations by blending less-contaminated water and using filtration systems.
But the guidelines also led one water authority in Alabama, where PFOA and PFOS levels topped 110ng/l, to tell 100,000 of its customers that their tap water was ‘unsafe’, and that they should not drink or cook with it. Inevitably, Alabama citizens rushed to stockpile bottled water, leaving authorities scrambling to bring in extra supplies. One county official criticised the move for causing ‘reckless panic’.
This shows how the old TSCA regime created a patchwork of different risk assessments across the country; and judging by the reaction from disgruntled Alabamians, it has also damaged trust in the EPA’s advice.
The new chemicals legislation will enable the EPA to investigate chemicals more rigorously, and ensures that public health measures cannot be derailed by economic considerations. The agency will also be able to override new decisions on chemical regulation taken by states, which should harmonise protections across the country. Meanwhile, the legislation requires specific protection for vulnerable groups such as pregnant women, children, and workers facing occupational exposure – the very groups thought most likely to be at risk from PFAS exposure.The price of safety
Scrutiny is expensive, though. The agency has already identified 90 chemicals that it wants to investigate urgently, including bisphenol-A and styrene, and the act sets out an ambitious timetable for achieving the first wave of evaluations. Yet the EPA’s budget currently looks set to fall in the coming fiscal year, and its staffing levels are unlikely to rise. Without sufficient resources, there may even be a risk that the agency’s screening could slow the introduction of greener alternatives to PFASs.
The agency’s risk assessments must also consider how specific chemicals are used. For example, if PFASs offer the best way to extinguish an aeroplane fire in minutes, they should continue to be used. But it is right to ask whether having oil-repelling pizza boxes is really worth the risk of environmental contamination at landfill sites.
The EPA faces a difficult path through the post-TSCA landscape, especially with a tightened budget. Industry and government must help the agency to make the most of its newfound clout, while still ensuring that safe and innovative chemicals can reach the market.
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2016/06/perfluorinated-chemicals-us-regulations-reform
-
Lumber Liquidators: Agreement Reached on Formaldehyde Emissions
Jun 30, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
US flooring retailer Lumber Liquidators has reached a 'recall to test' agreement with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). This follows concerns over formaldehyde emissions from the company's laminate flooring sourced from China.
The firm voluntarily suspended the sale of Chinese-made laminate flooring in March 2015. Their action came after a 60 Minutes TV report alleged some of its materials did not meet California Air Resources Board (CARB) standards for formaldehyde emissions. The CPSC launched an immediate investigation.
Under the agreement, Lumber Liquidators will continue to voluntarily test Chinese-made laminate flooring sold between 2011 and May 2015. This will affect about 614,000 customers. The company will give the required remediation for flooring products emitting elevated levels of formaldehyde, says the CPSC.
It has also agreed not to sell approximately 22m board feet of inventory of Chinese-made laminate flooring. "Any future sale, disposal or transfer of the inventory can only take place with CPSC's approval", the agency says.
Company CEO, John Presley, says: "our agreement with the CPSC validates the actions we voluntarily took over the last year and puts another legacy regulatory issue behind us.
"Over the last year, we have resolved all outstanding issues with health and safety regulatory officials, taken specific steps to strengthen our compliance process, appointed new leadership and refocused all our efforts on delivering quality products to our customers."CPSC investigation
At the CPSC's request, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) conducted modelling to determine indoor formaldehyde levels that may be present in typical homes with this laminate flooring, using "near worst-case conditions".
They found that exposure to formaldehyde in the CPSC-tested laminate flooring sold at Lumber Liquidators could cause irritation and breathing problems. A slight increased cancer risk was also identified.
The announcement of the recall to test agreement represents "the culmination of our investigative work and scientific analysis" on the issue, says CPSC chairman Elliot Kaye.Remediation efforts
To date, Lumber Liquidators has tested the air quality in more than 17,000 households and has retained third-party certified laboratories to conduct formaldehyde emissions tests for about 1,300 of those consumers' floors.
None of these, says the CPSC, has tested above the remediation guideline. It has encouraged affected customers to request testing kits from the company.
A spokesperson for Lumber Liquidators says it is following World Health Organization guidelines for sensory irritation and long-term health effects from formaldehyde. There is no national standard for recommended home air concentrations in the US.
The company has agreed to conduct additional testing for consumers found to have elevated levels of formaldehyde in their homes. Should any of these need remediation, it will "work with consumers to reduce the formaldehyde emissions levels and improve the indoor air quality of the home".
If these efforts fail, the company will pay for an industrial hygienist to examine the home and propose additional remedies. This could involve replacement of the flooring, or repairs to the home.
In California, the company reached a $2.5m settlement with CARB in April. This came after agency testing confirmed that Lumber Liquidators had sold or offered for sale composite wood products in excess of state limits.
Lumber Liquidators also developed, and agreed to implement, audit and testing research programmes in California. These require the company to conduct regular audits of existing and new suppliers and to randomly test composite core samples in accordance with CARB's standard operating procedure for preparing finished goods samples for testing.
The US EPA is seeking to finalise a rule for formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, based on California's rule, later this year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48346/lumber-liquidators-agreement-reached-on-formaldehyde-emissions
-
EPA Enforcement Too Heavy-Handed, Senators Say
Jun 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Renee Schoof
Environmental enforcement during the Obama administration has been heavy-handed, a Republican senator said at a hearing June 29 that expanded on past criticism of the Environmental Protection Agency.
“Instead of assisting with compliance, the EPA chooses to simply impose aggressive and at times unreasonable penalties using questionable enforcement methods,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee in charge of regulatory oversight, said at the hearing.
Congressional Republican criticism of the EPA generally has focused on how the agency develops regulations, rather than how it enforces them. The hearing marked the first time that Cynthia Giles, the EPA assistant administrator for enforcement and compliance assurance, had been called to testify before the committee since 2009.
Giles defended her division's work, saying “a strong enforcement and compliance program” had helped make it possible for the agency to make the progress it has achieved in its four-decade history.
Stock Pond, Gold Mine Cases
Rounds and Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), however, cited several examples of what they said were threatening actions by EPA enforcement officials.
Rounds, chairman of the Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight, cited the case of a Wyoming rancher who built a stock pond that the EPA said violated the Clean Water Act. Rounds said the rancher, Andy Johnson, faced $16 million in fines. Johnson sued the agency, and in a consent decree in May, he settled with the agency by agreeing to plant willow trees around the pond.
Sullivan criticized what he said was a raid by armed EPA enforcement agents on a gold mine near Chicken, Alaska, in 2013. Giles responded that the investigation was conducted courteously.
Sullivan earlier used the Chicken, Alaska, case to propose legislation to disarm EPA criminal investigators, but his bill did not advance. “I believe in an armed citizenry, but I don't believe in an armed bureaucracy,” he told Giles at the hearing.
Information Requests ‘Burdensome.'
Rounds also said the EPA increasingly was issuing letters seeking information under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act. He said the letters increasingly were sent to companies that were not the target of an enforcement action but may have information the agency wanted.
“These information requests are extremely burdensome, can cost companies hundreds of thousands of dollars,” he said, adding that recipients of the letters face civil and criminal penalties if they do not provide the information.
Giles said the letters were a means the agency had under the law to look for information about violations and said she was not aware of an increasing use of them. Rounds said he would send her a letter asking for the number of Section 114 letters sent in the past 10 years.
OECA Budget Shrinks
Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), said the EPA's enforcement actions had resulted in “increased corporate compliance and environmental cleanup and mitigation projects,” but it could not keep up the pace because of a shrinking budget. The EPA's enforcement budget has declined by 9 percent in the past six years, and the workforce of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance has declined by 17 percent, Markey said.
Asked by Markey how her office has managed with the cuts, Giles said they “struggled with declining budgets along with the rest of the agency.” She said her office has tried to be innovative and focus on the most serious cases.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92870184&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92870184&jd=92870184
-
Trouble Seen for Interior's Fracking Case Appeal
Jun 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
The Interior Department is appealing the district court decision that overturned the department's regulations for hydraulic fracturing, but the odds appear to be against the department, in the views of two environmental attorneys (Wyoming v. Jewell, 10th Cir., No. 16-8068, 6/27/16.)
The regulations from the Bureau of Land Management, Interior's manager of federal and Indian lands, were struck down in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming when Judge Scott Skavdahl ruled June 21 that Congress never gave Interior authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing.
Interior filed a notice of appeal June 27 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The appellate court will give the dispute a fresh look with no deference owed to the district court, but Skavdahl wrote a solid opinion that could carry weight, said Matthew Douglas, a Denver-based partner in the law firm Arnold & Porter LLP.
“I thought the judge wrote a very persuasive opinion that is well-grounded,” Douglas told Bloomberg BNA. His practice has included handling environmental matters such as enforcement and permitting for oil and gas companies.
Energy Policy Act at Issue
One of the things working against the federal appellants is that the BLM never previously tried to regulate the hydraulic fracturing process, Douglas said. What the BLM did in the past in relation to fracking was largely a reporting requirement, not process management, he said.
Another problem for the federal government is that Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 chose to give the Environmental Protection Agency—not Interior—very limited authority to regulate fracking under the Safe Drinking Water Act, Douglas said.
The BLM has included environmental considerations in its approval of permits for oil and gas companies, but those are requirements for specific actions in specific locations, not broad regulations of fracking, Douglas said.
Scott Janoe, a Houston-based partner in the law firm Baker Botts LLP, agreed there may be a gray area between land planning and environmental protection, but he said he wasn't sure that consideration was crucial to the case.
EPA, Not Interior, Given Role
The central factor was that Congress spoke to the issue when it passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to allow limited regulation of fracking by the EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act, not by the BLM, Janoe told Bloomberg BNA.
The essence of the ruling by Skavdahl was to leave environmental regulation to environmental regulators, not the BLM, Janoe said.
“I think the judge got it right,” Janoe said. He too has an environmental practice that has included working with oil and gas company clients.
Skavdahl ruled narrowly on the issue of regulatory authority, leaving aside the other arguments raised by industry plaintiffs concerning the practicality of the BLM rule.
Court May Affirm Ruling
Janoe said it probably would be easiest and most sensible for the appellate court to do the same thing—affirm the ruling because “Congress has spoken” and avoid wading into the other arguments unnecessarily.
The appellate court will have the option of ruling on those other arguments. It also will have the option of overturning the Skavdahl decision but remanding the case for a ruling in the district court on the other arguments.
Another option for the appellate court would be to review the case en banc instead of using a three-judge panel, Douglas said.
And whichever way it goes, it's the type of case—with broad geographic effects and a policy issue—that the Supreme Court might be willing to review, Douglas said.
Janoe agreed, saying the case could interest the Supreme Court, because the case is concerned with such matters as how to define agency jurisdiction and the boundaries of the deference that courts can owe to agencies.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92870186&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92870186&jd=92870186
-
EPA Sends Final Oil & Gas VOC Guidelines To OMB
Jun 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent for White House pre-publication review its final guidelines for how the oil and gas sector can reduce emissions of ozone-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from existing drilling operations, although industry officials doubt the need for the guidance given the agency's plan to eventually cap methane from the operations, which is expected to curb all emissions.
EPA sent the control techniques guidelines (CTGs) for White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) review June 28, and OMB review typically takes 90 days or more.
Once adopted, the final CTGs will apply to oil and gas equipment in certain areas out of attainment with the agency's ozone national ambient air quality standards, as well as the Ozone Transport Region of Mid-Atlantic and Northeast states that have historically struggled with high ozone levels.
The CTGs would not directly impose binding regulations for VOC sources, instead providing recommendations for states to consider in determining reasonable available control technology (RACT) to cut VOC emissions from certain existing sources. States would be allowed to use different technologies or approaches than are outlined in the CTGs, but RACT requirements are subject to EPA approval and a state must show its approach will achieve the required pollution cuts.
However, oil and gas industry officials have questioned the need for the CTGs as a strategy for cutting ozone from existing emissions sources in the sector, saying the agency's apparent plan to eventually regulate methane from existing sector sources negates the need for the guide given that cutting methane can also reduce ozone.
"What I find most troubling is why EPA would continue with the CTGs now that it is moving on a nationwide existing source rule," one industry source recently told Inside EPA, referring to the agency's June 3 Federal Register notice seeking comment on a draft information collection request on methane emissions from existing oil and gas operations that is expected to inform an existing source methane rule.
Meanwhile, the agency on June 22 sent for OMB review a federal implementation plan (FIP) emissions strategy for oil and natural gas production facilities on Utah's Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation.
EPA says the FIP -- a Clean Air Act tool through which it directly writes emissions control requirements for a specific area -- will fill a “regulatory gap” on controlling VOCs on the reservation to ensure that air quality protections from oil and gas emissions are the same on that land as elsewhere in Utah.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/epa-sends-final-oil-gas-voc-guidelines-omb
-
White House Reviewing Oil and Gas Emission Guidelines
Jun 30, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA has sent the final version of proposed guidelines to aid local air pollution regulators in overseeing the oil and gas industry to the White House Office of Management and Budget.
In a draft of the "control technique guidelines" released in September, EPA officials said they were seeking to furnish state, local and tribal air agencies with information for determining the reasonably available control technology (RACT) for limiting emissions of volatile organic compounds from existing industry sources.
By EPA's definition, such technology represents "the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting" by means that are "reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility."
The draft proposal received about 100 comments; OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs received the final version for interagency review yesterday, according to the website RegInfo.gov.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/06/29/stories/1060039629
-
Exxon Touts Carbon Tax to Oil Industry
Jun 30, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder and Bradley Olson
Exxon Mobil Corp. is ramping up its lobbying of other energy companies to support a carbon tax, marking a shift in the oil giant’s approach to climate change as the industry faces growing pressure to address the politically charged issue.
Exxon’s official position has long been the same—a carbon tax is the best way to address the risks of warming temperatures—but it has done little to actively advocate for that goal in recent years. Lately, Exxon has been making the case with its U.S. counterparts to support a carbon tax, arguing that the industry must not oppose all climate policies, according to people familiar with Exxon’s thinking.
Top Exxon officials have been more vocal about their support for a carbon tax and have met with Capitol Hill offices about related legislation, according to the company’s recent lobby disclosure forms.
For the past six months, Exxon has been asserting its position more in meetings within trade associations, including the American Petroleum Institute and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, according to multiple reports from people who have attended meetings with Exxon officials.
“Of the policy options being considered by governments, we believe a revenue-neutral carbon tax is the best,” Suzanne McCarron, the company’s vice president of public and government affairs, wrote in May in the Dallas Morning News.
A straightforward carbon tax that is revenue-neutral—meaning other taxes should be lowered to offset the impact—is far preferable to the patchwork of current and potential regulations on the state, federal and international levels, according to Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers.
Mr. Jeffers said Exxon’s position hasn’t changed and pointed to a recent House vote on a resolution condemning a carbon tax and the global climate deal in Paris agreed to last December as reasons for the increased debate within the industry.
A carbon tax would put a price on each ton of carbon emitted. Where in the production and consumption process the tax would be levied depends on individual proposals.
“Previously Exxon’s positioning on a carbon tax had been passive—‘Hey, we’re not loving it, but we’re not going to get in the way of it,’ ” said Michael McKenna, president of the energy lobbying firm MWR Strategies, whose clients include oil and refining companies, but not Exxon. “In just the last six months, there’s been an uptick in how they are asserting themselves in meetings about how to address this issue.”
Exxon, the world’s largest publicly owned oil company, arguably faces more pressure than other firms to show concern about climate change. At least two Democratic state attorneys general are investigating whether the oil giant has conspired to cover up what it knows about the impact of global warming.
The U.S. Virgin Islands attorney general agreed to withdraw its subpoena, according to a legal filing Wednesday. Exxon is challenging these investigations and has described them as politically motivated attacks that violate its constitutional rights.
In actively pushing for a carbon tax behind the scenes, Exxon becomes the first major American energy company to move closer to the positions of European energy firms, including Royal Dutch Shell PLC andBP PLC, which have publicly advocated for a price on carbon.
Congress has made it clear it is unlikely to consider a carbon tax soon, especially under Republican control. But some in the energy industry believe a serious debate on additional climate measures isn’t far off, especially if Democrat Hillary Clintonwins the White House in November.
The House vote in early June to condemn a carbon tax accentuated a widening rift within the industry over how, or whether, to engage on climate policy. The split is pitting smaller companies, especially domestic refiners, against multinational and European firms.
One senior U.S. oil executive said Exxon, like some other oil and gas companies, could also have a financial motive for supporting a carbon tax. Such a tax would make coal more expensive compared with natural gas. Exxon, beyond its oil business, is the U.S.’s largest natural-gas producer.
Mr. Jeffers, the Exxon spokesman, said his company has invested in gas in anticipation of climate policies that make coal more expensive.
Few, if any, U.S. companies other than Exxon have called for a carbon tax, and many oppose any plan designed to cut emissions. Chevron Corp. CEO John Watson, for example, is one of several outspoken opponents of a carbon tax.
Exxon’s shift is unfolding against the backdrop of a landmark deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions struck by roughly 200 nations last December in Paris. Energy companies are also facing increasing pressure from federal regulators, and their own shareholders, to disclose potential business risks from the global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Exxon shareholders in May narrowly voted down a resolution calling for a stress test to determine the risk that efforts to curb climate change pose to its business.
Exxon first publicly supported a carbon tax in 2009, presenting it as preferable to cap-and-trade, a market-based system for controlling carbon emissions that the Democratic-controlled Congress then appeared ready to enact. Cap-and-trade died in the Senate, the Republicans later captured Congress, and President Barack Obama has since pursued regulations to cut carbon emissions instead.
Some advocates of strong climate policy are skeptical Exxon’s shift signals a deeper change. “We’ve seen so little movement out of any of their lobbying front groups,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.), who introduced a bill last summer to impose a carbon tax. The measure hasn’t advanced in the Senate.
Mr. Whitehouse’s staff recently met with Exxon lobbyists, but the senator said, “The meeting was more just an exploratory feeler to see about further conversations.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/exxon-touts-carbon-tax-to-oil-industry-1467279004?mg=id-wsj
-
Chemical Safety Investigators Head to Miss. Gas Plant
Jun 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Federal investigators are arriving at the scene of a Mississippi gas processing plant that caught fire this week.
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board said June 28 it would send an investigative team to the site of an explosion and fire at Enterprise Product Partners LP, natural gas processing plant in Pascagoula, Miss. The investigators were scheduled to reach the plant June 29. It was not clear whether CSB's deployment would lead to a formal investigation.
The gas processing plant caught fire around 11:30 p.m. June 27, and firefighters subdued the blaze by the morning of June 28, the Biloxi Sun Herald reported.
In a statement issued June 28, Houston-based Enterprise Product Partners said it was seeking to determine the cause of the fire. No workers were injured and the fire was contained within the facility, the company said.
The CSB said Board Member Kristen Kulinowski will travel to the plant with the investigative team.
The deployment was the second since CSB Chairperson Vanessa Allen Sutherland was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 2015. The CSB sent a team to the Delaware City Refining Company in Delaware City, Del., on Dec. 3, 2015.
That deployment did not lead to a formal investigation. The CSB has not launched a new investigation since it began a probe of a February 2015 explosion at an Exxon Mobil Corp. oil refinery in Torrance, Calif., that month.
Enterprise Product Partners assumed full ownership of the plant when it purchased shares held by BP PLC in the first quarter of 2016.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92870163&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92870163&jd=92870163
-
The Latest: DOT Head Urges Haste in Rail Safety Upgrades
Jun 29, 2016 | AP (In San Francisco Gate)
Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx is urging the railroad industry "to move as fast" as it possibly can to put new safety technology called positive train control systems into operation.
His comments Wednesday came a day after two BNSF Railway freight trains collided head-on when their crews found themselves on the same track in the Texas Panhandle. Two crew members were killed, another is missing and presumed dead, and another was injured in the crash.
Positive train control, or PTC, relies on GPS, wireless radio and computers to monitor train positions and automatically slow or stop trains that are in danger of colliding, derailing due to excessive speed or about to enter track where crews are working or that is otherwise off limits. BNSF has pledged to meet a 2018 federal deadline to adopt the technology, but least three freight railroads have said they'll need an extension to 2020.
Foxx told reporters in Washington said any collision is "a terrible event" and "ones that technology could have helped us avoid remind us how critical it is to get this technology in place."
The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the crash.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/texas/article/The-Latest-Remains-of-2-crew-members-found-1-8332693.php
-
Schumer Adds Voice to Call for Crude Oil Safety Boost
Jun 29, 2016 | Albany Times Union
By Brian Nearing
U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer was among nine Democratic senators on Wednesday who urged federal officials to use emergency powers to limit potential flammability of crude oil transported nationwide every day by massive tanker trains.
The group wrote U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx urging he reduce limits on acceptable crude oil vapor pressure, which indicates how easily oil can ignite during a train derailment.
Train derailments of tankers carrying crude oil from the Bakken fields of North Dakota have caused several explosions in the U.S., including one this month in Oregon. "The oil companies are making tons of profits, they can afford this. Safety has to come first," Schumer said during a call with reporters.
Also signing the letter to Foxx were Sens. Bernie Sanders, who is campaigning for the Democratic nomination for president; Patrick Leahy, also of Vermont; Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, both of Washington state;Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin; Jeff Merkley and Ronald Wyden, both of Oregon; and Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both of California.
The letter urged Foxx not to wait for studies on crude oil volatility being done by the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the Department of Energy. "Due to the fact that these studies are years from completion, we remain gravely concerned about the safety of our communities along rail lines carrying this volatile crude oil," the letter stated.
Vapor pressure of crude oil — and the risk of accidental fire — can be reduced through a process called conditioning, in which the most volatile gases are stripped out prior to shipment. Conditioning is used for some crude oil produced in Texas and North Dakota, which in 2014 adopted a new pressure limit of 13.7 pounds per square inch. The federal safety standard is 14.7 psi.
Vapor pressure indicates how easily crude oil can vaporize. The presence of vapor mixed with oxygen is what causes petroleum to ignite, burn and explode. The higher the psi, the more volatile — and potentially more flammable and explosive — the petroleum.
Last December, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman petitioned the PHMSA to require that crude oil shipped in rail tanker cars have a vapor pressure of 9 psi or less, which is the federal standard for oil shipped in pipelines.
Earlier that year, federal officials announced rules that would gradually phase out the most vulnerable rail oil tankers, but made no changes to the current vapor safety standard.
The North Dakota standard for Bakken crude would not affect about 80 percent of the oil shipped from that state. The standard also is well above the pressure of 9 to 9.3 psi found in Bakken crude by Canadian safety officials after a July 2013 oil train explosion and fire killed 47 people and caused $1 billion in Lac-Megantic, Quebec.
In a report after the tragedy, the Canadian Transportation Safety Board found the Bakken crude involved was as volatile as gasoline. The volatility, combined with "large quantities of spilled crude oil, the rapid rate of release, and the oil's ... low viscosity were likely the major contributors to the large post-derailment fireball and pool fire," the board found.
According to the North Dakota Petroleum Council, the average Bakken crude has a psi of between 11.5 and 11.8 psi. By comparison, crude oil pumped from beneath the Gulf of Mexico is 3 psi. In Texas, crude oil produced in the Eagle Ford shale formation has a psi of 8.
According to The Associated Press, there have been at least 26 oil trains involved in major fires or derailments during the last decade in the U.S. and Canada. At least 12 of the oil trains were carrying Bakken crude, and of those, eight caught fire.
http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-business/article/Schumer-adds-voice-to-call-for-crude-oil-safety-8333039.php
-
Schumer Calls for Oil Train Operators to Reduce Volatility
Jun 30, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Scott Waldman
Sen. Chuck Schumer wants oil train operators to reduce the volatility of the crude oil they transport to help prevent explosive accidents.
On Wednesday, he called for the Department of Transportation to issue an emergency order that would set a new federal standard for crude oil volatility. Schumer has previously called for making oil train cars stronger, but said Wednesday that it is essential to address the issue of explosive crude at the same time.
“The damage that volatile, highly dangerous crude can cause in New York communities is tremendous, but there are important steps we can take to significantly lower the risk of a damaging explosion, like making crude oil less volatile before it’s transported through our backyards,” Schumer said in a statement.
Some of the crude oil now being shipped through New York is up to four times more volatile than other types of crude produced in the U.S. Oil producers can reduce the oil’s volatility after it is pumped out of the ground and before it is sent in the cars. Some states, including North Dakota, have been grappling with establishing levels of volatility for years.
There is a wide variation in the allowable vapor pressures within the energy industry. North Dakota, from which much of the crude shipped through New York emanates, has set a vapor pressure of 13.7 pounds per square. Meanwhile, the New York Mercantile Exchange limits the volatility of crude oil contracts traded on its exchange to 9.5 psi, according to Schumer’s office, while some pipeline operators have a recommended level between 9 and 10 psi.
The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the U.S. Department of Energy are now studying the issue, but could take years to issue a recommendation, Schumer said. A federal volatility level must be set before then, he said.
Schumer sent a letter to U.S. transportation secretary Anthony Foxx requesting the interim standard.
“While standards for tank cars improve, derailments, fires and explosions continue to occur,” he wrote. “It is clear that the shipment of crude without a national standard regulating volatility poses an imminent hazard.”
Schumer’s call comes weeks after an oil train derailed in Oregon, sending 16 cars off the tracks where four caught fire. The fire, which occurred near a school, led to evacuations and the spill of more than 40,000 gallons of crude.
This news first appeared on POLITICO Pro New York on June 29, 2016.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/06/schumer-calls-for-oil-train-operators-to-reduce-volatility-122762
-
Four States Get Options on Cross-State Rule Compliance
Jun 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Continued voluntary participation in the Environmental Protection Agency's interstate emissions trading program for power plants would allow four states to meet federal air quality standards for particulate matter and regional haze, the agency said in a memo to regional air directors.
The June 27 memorandum outlined options to address sulfur dioxide emissions budgets for Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina and Texas in response to a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that found the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule had required some states to control power plant emissions more than was necessary to prevent those emissions from degrading air quality in downwind states.
The memorandum gives those four states the option of submitting state implementation plans to participate voluntarily in the second phase of the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which limits sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions from power plants in 23 states.
Doing so would ensure those states also are compliant with the national ambient air quality standards for fine particulate matter issued in 1997 and 2006 as well as their obligations to address regional haze, the EPA said.
If the states choose not to participate in the cross-state rule, the EPA said it would withdraw by this fall the federal plans implementing the sulfur dioxide reduction requirements. The states would then be required to ensure their state plans are sufficient to comply with the air quality standards and regional haze requirements.
Deadline Looming for Emissions Allowances
July 1 is the deadline for the EPA to allocate nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide emissions allowances for 2017 and 2018. The agency said it would continue to set aside allowances for the states that indicate they plan to voluntarily continue their participation in the cross-state rule.
The Supreme Court in 2014 upheld the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which is intended to prevent emissions from power plants from interfering with downwind states' ability to meet federal air quality standards.
As part of that decision, the Supreme Court held that the agency couldn't require states to control emissions by more than is necessary to prevent interference with downwind air quality (EPA v. EME Homer City Generation LP, 134 S. Ct. 1584, 78 ERC 1225, 2014 BL 118432 (2015)).
The EPA has said its proposed second phase of the cross-state rule (RIN:2060-AS05) would address the Supreme Court's ruling with respect to the ozone season nitrogen oxides trading program for nine states.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92870170&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92870170&jd=92870170
-
Senate Panel Approves $500M for International Climate Fund
Jun 29, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday adopted a $500 million spending package for the Green Climate Fund, an international climate change adaptation program.
Members approved the funding, via an amendment from Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Mark Kirk(R-Ill.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and others, on a voice vote, despite strong Republican opposition to the measure.
The amendment removes language from the committee-approved State Department and Foreign Operations funding bill preventing the State Department from providing money for the fund, a program designed to support poor countries that are impacted by climate change.
Republicans have opposed the fund for a host of reasons and fought hard to block funding for it during last year’s appropriations process. At the time, they said the funding shouldn't go forward unless the Senate got to vote on the international climate change agreement reached in December.
A year-end spending deal didn’t fund the U.S.’s contribution to the climate program, but the State Department was able to find $500 million within its budget for it anyway. The Obama administration has promised $3 billion for the program by 2020.
Merkley’s amendment not only removed the prohibition in the underlying bill, but it also provided $500 million in 2017 for the fund.
Several Republicans appeared to oppose the amendment, but the committee didn’t hold a roll call vote and approved the amendment on a voice vote. Only Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) spoke against it, noting the need for more funding for her state to deal with climate change.
“We know we can’t take on this challenge by ourselves, so it's part of the partnership in global leadership to address this significant — this global issue,” Merkley said.
“This is a real effort in bipartisan cooperation to present this amendment before the committee."
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/286023-senate-panel-approves-500m-for-international-climate-fund
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested