Preview Newsletter
acc dry run - 30/6
-
(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
The regulatory system fails these business owners for one or more of the following reasons: -
(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. -
EPA releases implementation roadmap for reformed TSCA
Jun 30, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sylvia Palmer
The US EPA has released a “roadmap” of major activities and important deadlines it will focus on, during the initial year of implementing the recently reformed TSCA. -
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 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. -
Toxic Substances Control Act Revised for 21st Century
Jun 30, 2016 | The National Law Review
By Jane E. Montgomery and Patrick F. Veasy and Amy Antoniolli
On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act into law. The Act is the first significant change to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act in 40 years and amends the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) methods for reviewing chemical substances before they are marketed and allowed to be used in consumer products. -
President Obama Signs Major Overhaul Of TSCA Changing The Way The EPA Regulates Toxic Substances In Commerce
Jun 29, 2016 | Mondaq
By Whitney Jones Roy and Liana Sulaiman
President Obama just signed a bill amending the Toxic Substances Control Act ("TSCA"), changing the way the EPA regulates chemicals. For the last 25 years, the EPA has regarded TSCA's principal control provision as unworkable and refused to rely on it after an adverse ruling in response to the EPA's effort to regulate asbestos. -
EPA Outlines Plan to Implement New Chemical Safety Rules
Jun 29, 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. -
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. -
TSCA Reform: EPA Publishes First Year Implementation Plan
Jun 30, 2016 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson
On June 29, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) posted an Implementation Plan that outlines EPA's plans for early activities and actions under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, legislation that significantly amends many of the provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) -
Obama Signs Law To Minimize Animal Testing-Chemical Toxicity to be Tested By Alternative methods, Mandates New Law
Jun 29, 2016 | Inquistr
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) San Francisco Just Banned All Polystyrene Products in The City
Jun 30, 2016 | Science Alert
By Fiona Macdonald
San Francisco has just unanimously voted to ban the sale of polystyrene products - also commonly called styrofoam - by 2017. -
(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 anordinance 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. -
(ACC Mentioned) Linde LLC receives Responsible Care Certification For Hydrogen Plant in Washington, US
Jun 30, 2016 | Gas World
By Rhea Healy
Linde LLC’s high-purity hydrogen (H2) plant in Anacortes, Washington, has been bestowed with a Responsible Care® Certification from the American Chemistry Council. -
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). -
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. -
Clean Energy Incentive Program Comments Due Aug. 29
Jun 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Public comments on the design details of the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Energy Incentive Program (RIN:2060-AS84) are due on Aug. 29, according to a notice to be published in the Federal Register June 30. -
Southern California Risks Gas Curtailments on 16 Days
Jun 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Southern California electric generators will face “significant risk” of gas curtailments on as many 16 days this summer without access to supplies stored at the Aliso Canyon underground storage facility, a new report said. -
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.) -
Fracking Dealt a Straight Flush; Louisiana’s About Face on CPP
Jun 29, 2016 | Bloomberg Government
By Mark Drajem
Activists trying to bring an end to fracking have gone from the streets outside of FERC commissioners’ homes to the platform committee of the Democratic Party. -
Pennsylvania Lawmakers Again Advance Oil/Gas Royalties Protection Bill
Jun 30, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
A bill that would shield Pennsylvania landowners from post-production costs by requiring a minimum royalty payment of 12.5%, or one-eighth of the value of oil and gas produced, has again passed the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee. -
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. -
POLITICO Pro New York: Schumer Calls For Oil Train Operators to Reduce Volatility
Jun 30, 2016 | Politico Pro
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. -
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. -
White House Reviewing Oil and Gas Emission Guidelines
Jun 29, 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.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(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=27909876&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
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.
www.wvgazettemail.com/daily-mail-commentary/20160630/eric-byer-us-adds-stumbling-blocks-for-small-businesses-daily-mail#sthash.89K4STmr.dpuf
-
(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=27909876&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
EPA releases implementation roadmap for reformed TSCA
Jun 30, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sylvia Palmer
The US EPA has released a “roadmap” of major activities and important deadlines it will focus on, during the initial year of implementing the recently reformed TSCA.
The agency’s plan comes following the enactment of the Frank R Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which updated the US’s chemicals management law for the first time in 40 years.
Former EPA officials have said it is faced with an “enormous undertaking” in implementing the new law.
The plan addresses several new responsibilities that the EPA must undertake, with the agency's anticipated goals to meet them. In order to be successful, it says it “believes it is important to engage partners and stakeholders early in the process, and to be as transparent as possible.”Immediate actions
Certain requirements come into effect immediately under the new law, with regard to new chemicals, confidential business information (CBI) and ongoing rulemakings under section 6.
The agency says it will review and make affirmative determinations on all premanufacture notices (PMNs) and significant new use notices (Snuns) within 90 days. Although the new law has reset this review period on submissions made previous to enactment, the agency says it will “make every effort” to do this within the time remaining under the original deadline.
Under the new law, the EPA is required to review and make determinations on all new CBI claims for chemicals that have been offered for commerce within 90 days, and for at least 25% of new confidentiality claims for “other types of information”. The agency says it plans to meet the 90-day goal for incoming CBI claims, and to set forth plans and approaches for completing these routine reviews by the middle of July.
By the same time, it also aims to provide stakeholders with additional information on the “required statement and certification” that CBI claimants must submit under the new law.
The EPA plans to move ahead with ongoing risk assessments. It says it plans to publish section 6 rulemaking proposals to address identified risks from trichloroethylene (TCE), methylene chloride (MC) and n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP), under the following anticipated deadlines:TCE use in spot cleaning and aerosol degreasing – proposed by October 2016, final in October 2017;TCE use in vapour degreasing – proposed by December 2016, final in December 2017; and MC and NMP use in paint removers – proposed by December 2016, final in December 2017.
The agency has not attempted to regulate a substance under section 6, since the court overturned its attempt to ban most uses of asbestos in 1991. Possible regulatory actions the agency could take, under the provision, include labelling requirements, substance restrictions in products and bans.Mandatory actions
The law sets out "very aggressive deadlines”, according to a former EPA official. These include mandates for the agency to establish, within one year, rules for:an “inventory reset”, to be used to determine active substances in commerce;substance prioritisation; andthe risk evaluation (RE) process.
These are among the agency’s “framework actions”, that is, processes that will provide longer term guidance. According to the plan, the agency will publish rule proposals for each by December.
The first deadline in the new law requires the agency, within 90 days, to publish a list of mercury compounds banned from export in the Federal Register.
Additional mandates, in the first six months to year of implementation, require the agency to:initiate risk evaluations of a published list of ten workplan chemicals;conduct a review of the adequacy of its standards for what qualifies as a small business;provide a report to Congress on resources and capacity for implementing the law’s mandates;publish the scope of the initial risk evaluation of the first ten chemicals;establish a science advisory committee;develop an annual risk evaluation plan for chemicals; andpublish an inventory of mercury in commerce in the US.
Although the law does not specify a deadline, the EPA also plans to publish rulemaking for fees required during implementation, within the first year.
Later mandatory actions, to be completed within the “first few years of implementation”, include a final reporting rule for mercury, and a final CBI review and substantiation rule. The latter would take effect, one year after the publication of the inventory reset of active chemicals.
A variety of additional deadlines and requirements are anticipated by 2019.
The plan, the agency says, is “not intended to be a comprehensive listing” of all requirements in the new law. And it will further develop it over time.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48353/epa-releases-implementation-roadmap-for-reformed-tsca
-
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
-
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
-
Toxic Substances Control Act Revised for 21st Century
Jun 30, 2016 | The National Law Review
By Jane E. Montgomery and Patrick F. Veasy and Amy Antoniolli
On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act into law. The Act is the first significant change to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act in 40 years and amends the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) methods for reviewing chemical substances before they are marketed and allowed to be used in consumer products.
The Act has several new key features:
EPA’s safety reviews for all chemicals currently in commerce will depend solely on risks to human health and the environment (including those “grandfathered” under the current federal law). EPA’s safety reviews will also be performed for new chemicals that are proposed for entry into the market prior to manufacture. Additionally, “high priority” chemicals will be reviewed first.
When evaluating chemical substances, EPA must consider the “best” science to determine impacts to human health and the environment.
New restrictions on industries that conduct animal testing and a requirement for EPA to track “scientifically reliable alternatives” to animal testing.
A health-based safety standard replaces the TSCA cost-benefit safety standard (also known as the “least burdensome” requirement).
Express language that the Act does not preclude private rights of action for personal injury, wrongful death, property damage, or other injury based on negligence, strict liability, products liability, failure to warn, or any other legal theory of liability. Nor can EPA’s safety reviews be used as “dispositive” evidence in such a case.
Authorization for EPA to promulgate rules to manage the risk in cases where “unreasonable risk” is determined for a chemical substance.
A mechanism to ensure industry fees paid to the EPA for its safety reviews are used for the specific purpose for which they were given.
A preemption of state law until EPA makes a final decision on a chemical but grandfathering certain existing state law decisions and allowing states certain “emergency” decisions.
New limitations on and continued protection of confidential business information.
15 deadlines for EPA action, including a three-year limit for the completion of chemical risk assessments and a 90-day window after risk evaluations are completed for the EPA to promulgate risk management rules. Once EPA’s actions are completed, it is expected that EPA’s review process will be more efficient and transparent under the Act.
The new imposition of strict liability on chemical importers.
A new requirement to share confidential business information with states, units of local government, health providers or emergency responders dealing with potential injury involving or exposure to a chemical.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/toxic-substances-control-act-revised-21st-century
-
Jun 29, 2016 | Mondaq
By Whitney Jones Roy and Liana Sulaiman
President Obama just signed a bill amending the Toxic Substances Control Act ("TSCA"), changing the way the EPA regulates chemicals. For the last 25 years, the EPA has regarded TSCA's principal control provision as unworkable and refused to rely on it after an adverse ruling in response to the EPA's effort to regulate asbestos. The amended TSCA makes it easier for the EPA to test, evaluate, and regulate chemicals. Furthermore, the EPA will now be required to review the safety of every chemical in commerce. In a nutshell, the new law makes the following changes:
1) The TSCA inventory contained more than 84,000 chemicals, but only a fraction of them are in use today. The new law introduces an inventory reset provision, requiring identification of chemicals that are now, or were recently, in commerce, so that the EPA can focus its attention on these active chemicals. As a result, the EPA may require that manufacturers and processors report the chemicals they have manufactured and/or processed in the last 10 years as active substances.
2) The EPA may now issue orders requiring manufacturers and processors to conduct testing for toxicity or environmental fate. This permits the EPA to bypass the previously protracted process of imposing testing by rulemaking.
3) Rather than presume that every chemical is safe, the EPA is required to develop a screening process for existing chemicals to evaluate any risks. The EPA must identify high priority substances for testing, and evaluate them based on the health and environmental risks they pose, without regard to costs and other non-risk factors. The EPA must also publish the scope of the risk assessment that it will undertake.
4) The new law changes the risk management standards, giving the EPA broader authority to impose regulations on chemicals. The amended TSCA replaced the previous "least burdensome requirements" standard with an "unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment" guideline. This change is due to the court's decision in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1991) invalidating EPA's ban on asbestos, concluding that EPA failed to satisfy the "least burdensome requirement" with its asbestos ban.
5) If a high priority chemical is deemed unsafe under the conditions of use, the EPA may subject that chemical to use restrictions, or may ban it altogether.
6) New chemicals cannot enter commerce until the EPA makes a public determination of their safety in accordance with the TSCA standards.
7) The EPA is now authorized to collect higher fees. Fees will be assessed on manufacturers and processors who are subject to a testing requirement, who submit notices of their chemicals, or that manufacture or process a chemical that is subject to a risk evaluation. These fees defray up to 25 percent of the costs of implementing the new chemical notification, risk evaluation, and confidential information review program. However, when a manufacturer requests an EPA review of its chemical, depending on the chemical, the manufacturer could pay as much as 100% of the EPA's costs for conducting the review.
8) The amended TSCA preempts state laws from regulating toxic substances that are regulated or evaluated by the EPA. The new law further places a pause on state regulation of high priority substances that are currently undergoing testing. However, the bill provides an exception to preemption if, for instance, a state has received a waiver, or if the state regulatory law was passed before April 2016.
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/504988/Environmental+Law/President+Obama+Signs+Major+Overhaul+Of+TSCA+Changing+The+Way+The+EPA+Regulates+Toxic+Substances+In+Commerce
-
EPA Outlines Plan to Implement New Chemical Safety Rules
Jun 29, 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; andConsistent 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 | 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
-
TSCA Reform: EPA Publishes First Year Implementation Plan
Jun 30, 2016 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson
On June 29, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) posted an Implementation Plan that outlines EPA's plans for early activities and actions under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, legislation that significantly amends many of the provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The amended TSCA has been identified as Public Law Number (Pub. L. No.) 114-182, and copies are expected to be available from the U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO) next week. EPA notes that the new law imposes new responsibilities on EPA, while providing "comparatively short" deadlines to implement them. EPA "takes these responsibilities and deadlines seriously," and intends for the Implementation Plan to be a roadmap of the major activities on which EPA will focus during the initial year of implementation. EPA organizes the Implementation Plan by the statutory timeframes during which the activities must be completed, rather than by what is of importance to EPA. EPA states that the Implementation Plan is a living document, and EPA will further develop it over time. EPA cautions that the Implementation Plan "is NOT intended to be a comprehensive listing of all requirements in the new law."
EPA's Implementation Plan is reproduced below:SUMMARY OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ACTIONS
The Implementation Plan lists the following actions:Immediate Actions (Beginning on Day One)New Chemicals
Requirement: Review and make an affirmative determination on all premanufacture notices (PMN) and significant new use notices (SNUN) before manufacturing can commence.
Goal: Meet the applicable deadlines. 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. EPA states that as a legal matter, however, "the new law effectively resets the 90-day review period."Confidential Business Information (CBI)
Requirement: Routine review of and determination on (within 90 days) all new confidentiality claims for chemical identity of chemicals that have been offered for commercial distribution and, where claim is upheld, apply a unique identifier to the chemical and any associated information.
Goal: Meet the 90-day deadline for incoming CBI claims and create a plan to link associated information in 30 days -- mid-July 2016.
Requirement: Routine review of and determination on (within 90 days) at least 25 percent of new confidentiality claims for other types of information.
Goal: Develop approach for routine review in 30 days -- mid-July 2016.
Requirement: Claimants to submit required statement and certification for all asserted CBI claims. (This requirement and the following goal are listed in the PDF of the Implementation Plan, although they are omitted on EPA’s web page.)
Goal: Provide stakeholders with additional information on statement and certification by mid-July 2016.Ongoing Section 6 Rulemakings
Description: For chemicals with risk assessments completed prior to the date of enactment, Section 26(l)(4) allows EPA to publish proposed and final rules consistent with the scope of those risk assessments, even if they do not cover all conditions of use.
Goal: Continue work to address identified risks from trichloroethylene (TCE), methylene chloride (MC), and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP):
Proposed rule for TCE use in spot cleaning and aerosol degreasing by early October 2016; final rule anticipated early October 2017;
Proposed rule for TCE use in vapor degreasing by early December 2016; final rule anticipated early December 2017; and
Proposed rule for MC and NMP use in paint removers by early December 2016; final rule anticipated early December 2017.
Description: Procedural rule to establish EPA's process and criteria for identifying high priority chemicals for risk evaluation and low priority chemicals.
Deadline: Final rule one year after enactment -- mid-June 2017.
Interim Milestone: Publish proposed rule -- mid-December 2016.Risk Evaluation Process Rule
Description: Procedural rule to establish EPA's process for evaluating the risk of high priority chemicals.
Deadline: Final rule one year after enactment -- mid-June 2017.
Interim Milestone: Publish proposed rule mid-December 2016.Fees Rule
Description: EPA is authorized to collect fees to help defray the cost of implementing certain provisions and to fully defray the cost of industry-requested risk evaluations, but must put a rule in place to require fees. There is no deadline in the bill, but authority to require fees will be needed as soon as possible.
Goal: Final rule one year after enactment -- mid-June 2017.
Interim Milestones: Consult and meet with parties potentially subject to the fees; and publish proposed rule -- mid-December 2016.Inventory Rule
Description: Rule to require industry reporting of chemicals manufactured/processed in the previous ten years. Results will be used to designate active and inactive chemicals on the TSCA Inventory of existing chemicals.
Deadline: Final rule one year after enactment -- mid-June 2017.
Interim Milestones: Publish proposed rule mid-December 2016.Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC)
Description: EPA must establish a committee to provide independent advice and expert consultation with respect to the scientific and technical aspects of issues related to implementation of the statute.
Deadline: Committee established one year after enactment.
Goal: Committee established six months after enactment -- mid-December 2016.
Interim Milestones: Federal Register notice published early September 2016; and public comment period ending early November 2016.Early Mandatory Actions (To Be Completed During the First Year of Implementation)Scope of Initial Risk Evaluations
Description: EPA must publish the scope of the evaluation of the first ten chemicals.
Deadline: Publish six months after initiation -- mid-June 2017.Annual Plan for Risk Evaluations
Description: Plan must identify chemicals for which evaluations are expected to be initiated or completed that year and the resources needed, status of other chemicals under evaluation, and updated schedules as appropriate.
Deadline: The beginning of each calendar year after enactment -- first plan due early January 2017.Additions to Mercury Export Ban
Description: Mercury compounds are now banned from export, in addition to elemental mercury which was previously banned under the Mercury Export Ban Act; and
Deadline: Publish initial list of mercury compounds prohibited from export within 90 days of enactment -- mid-September 2016.Mercury Inventory
Description: EPA must publish an inventory of mercury supply, use, and trade in the U.S., and update it every three years.
Deadline: Publish first inventory April 1, 2017.Small Business Definitions
Description: EPA must review the adequacy of standards for identifying small manufacturers and processors, and revise as warranted.
Deadline: Determine whether revision is warranted within 180 days of enactment.
Goal: Plan and schedule for revisions published with the determination.Report to Congress
Description: EPA must report to Congress on its capacity, and the resources needed, to conduct risk evaluations and to issue rules to address unreasonable risks. EPA must also report on capacity to conduct industry-requested risk evaluations, the likely demand for such requests, and the anticipated schedule for accommodating the demand.
Deadline: First report must be submitted 180 days after enactment -- mid-December 2016 -- and every five years thereafter.Later Mandatory Actions (To Be Completed Within the First Few Years of Implementation)Mercury Use/Product Reporting Rule
Deadline: Final rule two years after enactment -- mid-June 2018.CBI Review/Substantiation Rule
Deadline: Final rule one year after publication of TSCA Inventory reset of active chemicals (not later than 1.5 years after enactment).Generic Names for CBI Chemicals
Deadline: Guidance two years after enactment -- mid-June 2018.Negotiated Rulemaking on Byproducts Reporting for Chemical Data Reporting (CDR)
Deadline: Proposed rule (if produced by negotiating process) three years from enactment -- mid-June 2019.Alternative Testing Methods Strategy
Deadline: Publish strategy two years after enactment -- mid-June 2018.COMMENTARY
It is pleasing that EPA is making strong early efforts to communicate and engage with stakeholders about its early implementation of the new TSCA and its thinking regarding specific provisions. Completing the items listed in the Implementation Plan represents a prodigious amount of work for EPA over the coming months and years. Stakeholders will need to be prepared to respond thoughtfully to rules, lists, and process descriptions as they appear in the Federal Register, or as they are posted.
EPA statement regarding new chemicals which claims, "as a legal matter, [that] the new law effectively resets the 90-day review period" is of concern. Presumably this EPA statement applies only to new chemical cases which have not reached day 90 (this includes notices still within the initial period or those that that have been voluntarily suspended). While we do not have the benefit of seeing EPA's legal analysis, we disagree with EPA's legal view that, based on the text of the act, the review clock resets (effectively or otherwise) for such cases, presumably with day one being the date of enactment of the law. Companies whose notifications are caught up in this EPA decision need to think carefully about their options, and take any needed steps to protect their legal rights.
We welcome the fact that EPA will work to get the SACC up and running within six months, especially when the statutory deadline is one year. We believe there will be numerous topics on which EPA will want to consult with the SACC. We agree that having this Committee available in December 2016, rather than June 2017, will help all stakeholders while ensuring that EPA has more timely access to the sound scientific thinking that the SACC should provide.
Our last comment is to note a disagreement with the way that EPA has characterized an item near the end of the list. This concerns the Negotiated Rulemaking on Byproducts Reporting for Chemical Data Reporting (CDR; emphasis added). While we agree that this rulemaking will affect CDR reporting, by our reading, the provision at play is broader than CDR. Section 8(a)(6)(A), the relevant subsection, states that the rule to be developed limits "the reporting requirements, under this subsection, for manufacturers of any inorganic byproducts" (emphasis added). Thus, it needs to be understood as affecting all rules under Section 8(a).
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/tsca-reform-epa-publishes-first-year-implementation-plan
-
Jun 29, 2016 | Inquistr
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/
-
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) San Francisco Just Banned All Polystyrene Products in The City
Jun 30, 2016 | Science Alert
By Fiona Macdonald
San Francisco has just unanimously voted to ban the sale of polystyrene products - also commonly called styrofoam - by 2017.
Polystyrene is the petroleum-based plastic foam that's used to make coffee cups, packaging peanuts, and a whole range of other disposable items. And though cities have begun cracking down on its use, this is the most extensive ban placed on the material in the US to date.
Although polystyrene is often better known to many people as styrofoam, that's actually just a trademarked brand name that only refers to the polystyrene foam used for thermal insulation and craft applications - not the polystyrene we use on a daily basis.
And to be clear, styrofoam insulation products won't be covered by these new rules, but they will ban the sale of all polystyrene food packaging, packing peanuts, take-away containers, coffee cups, foam dock floatings, mooring buoys, and pool toys as of 1 January 2017.
By 1 July 2017, it'll also be illegal to sell polystyrene fish and meat trays - like the ones you currently see in supermarkets. So it's a legitimate step towards San Francisco's goal of being a waste-free city by 2020.
It's been a long time coming, too. San Francisco first banned polystyrene take-away containers in 2007, due to environmental concerns. The plastic foam one of the most commonly used packing products, and 25 billion polystyrene cups are thrown out each year in the US alone.
Although the material is fairly soft, it's incredibly slow to break down in landfill, which means it'll be sitting there, leaching potentially harmful chemicals into waterways, for millennia to come. And there are also concerns that the material could impact human health by containing hormone-disrupting chemicals.
When polystyrene winds up in the ocean - which often happens to the 86 percent of disposable plastic that isn't recycled - it breaks down too quickly, and becomes microplastic that gets distributed through the water column, where it can be ingested by marine organisms, and concentrate toxins up the food chain.
Since San Francisco's initial 2007 ruling, more than 100 cities, includingWashington DC, have similar rules banning polystyrene take-away containers in effect. But this new ordinance, which was unanimously voted in on 28 June, is by far the most extreme legislation in the country so far.
New York temporarily banned polystyrene products last year, but quickly overturned the ruling in favour of a plan to see the products recycled instead, after the ban was called "neither environmentally effective or economically feasible".
But not everyone thinks San Francisco's decision is a good one. The American Chemistry Council, which is a trade group for chemical makers, has spoken out, claiming that polystyrene is actually more environmentally friendly than some biodegradable options, seeing as its light weight produces less carbon emissions during transportation.
"All packaging leaves an environmental footprint," Tim Shestek, the council's senior director, said in a statement, as Mother Jones reports.
"Compostables are not the silver bullet," said Samantha Sommer, a project manager with Clean Water Action California, adding that single-use products in any form need to be banned. Even biodegradables "come from resources; it takes resources to produce, it produces energy and water emissions throughout its life cycle, and then becomes difficult to manage".
But polystyrene is one of the most prevalent and long-lasting of all the materials we use today, and banning it from one major city is still a huge step forward.
And while we're waiting for other cities and countries to do the same, researchers have found worms that eat polystyrene. We're pretty excited about the prospect of cleaning up our planet.
http://www.sciencealert.com/san-francisco-just-banned-all-styrofoam-products-in-the-city
-
(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 anordinance 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.
-
Jun 30, 2016 | Gas World
By Rhea Healy
Linde LLC’s high-purity hydrogen (H2) plant in Anacortes, Washington, has been bestowed with a Responsible Care® Certification from the American Chemistry Council.
The US unit of Tier One industrial gas giant, The Linde Group, described this accolade as a “true testament of the commitment to excellence at the Linde Anacortes location.”
The Responsible Care programme is a globally recognised management system aimed to help companies improve performance in safety, health, environment and security areas.
No less than 25 Linde plants in North America have been officially certified under the programme since 2008.
Tom Caperon, Anacortes Plant Manager, signified, “To be in operation for such a short time and walk through the certification process with no minor or major findings speaks volumes to the dedication of the Anacortes team. It shows that not only are we committed to our own safety, but we are committed to the safety of our neighbours and community as well.”
http://www.gasworld.com/linde-receives-responsible-care-accolade-for-us-h2-plant/2010659.article
-
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 its approximately 22million board feet 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
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
-
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
-
Clean Energy Incentive Program Comments Due Aug. 29
Jun 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Public comments on the design details of the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Energy Incentive Program (RIN:2060-AS84) are due on Aug. 29, according to a notice to be published in the Federal Register June 30.
The voluntary program provides additional emissions allowances or emission rate credits to states for eligible clean energy projects to assist in meeting emissions targets as part of the Clean Power Plan (RIN:2060-AR33), which limits carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector in each state.
The EPA also will hold a hearing on Aug. 3 in Chicago to solicit public comments on the program.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92870181&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92870181&jd=92870181
-
Southern California Risks Gas Curtailments on 16 Days
Jun 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Southern California electric generators will face “significant risk” of gas curtailments on as many 16 days this summer without access to supplies stored at the Aliso Canyon underground storage facility, a new report said.
Released June 29, the technical report is largely consistent with an earlier assessment by state agencies and utilities indicating possible power outages on 14 days this summer due to the potential shortfall in gas supplies.
To reduce the risks of curtailments and power interruptions, gas stored at Southern California Gas Co.'s Aliso Canyon storage field should be used as needed, the latest report said. While implementing conservation efforts will help, they “do not eliminate” risk of curtailments and outages, the report said.
As a result, the California Public Utilities Commission has ordered SoCalGas to submit a plan by July 1 to increase gas production capacity.
Closed to new injections and withdrawals following a nearly four-month-long leak, the field has 15 billion cubic feet of working gas in storage, the report prepared by the CPUC, the California Independent System Operator, the California Energy Commission, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and SoCalGas said. Some of the gas can be tapped to avoid interruptions, but some must be reserved to maintain the integrity of the storage facility.
Safety Review Process Slowed
The safety review process required to allow new withdrawals from the 114 wells at the field has been slow. As of June 20, only four have been fully tested and are available, the report said.
Another 17 wells have completed the first phase of testing, and a couple be tapped if needed for reliability. Even with withdrawals from these wells, the gas supplies could fall short of what is needed, the report said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=92870189&vname=dennotallissues&fn=92870189&jd=92870189
-
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
-
Fracking Dealt a Straight Flush; Louisiana’s About Face on CPP
Jun 29, 2016 | Bloomberg Government
By Mark Drajem
Today’s AgendaActivists trying to bring an end to fracking have gone from the streets outside of FERC commissioners’ homes to the platform committee of the Democratic Party. So far their attempts to stop the practice have been as successful as a canoeist trying to paddle up the length of the Mississippi.
The D.C. Circuit upheld FERC environmental reviews of the Freeport and Sabine LNG export facilities, saying the commission wasn’t required to consider the “induced natural gas production” that would result from more exports. Because a Department of Energy approval was necessary to export the LNG, FERC wasn’t required to consider the environmental impact of those exports, the court ruled. This court decision is the second in as many weeks helping the industry. A federal judge in Wyoming tossed BLM’s rules governing fracking on public lands last week.
And then there was a bid by Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org, to get the Democratic Platform to include a call for a ban on fracking and to put a moratorium on fossil-fuel production on federal lands. McKibben, who was hand-picked by Bernie Sanders to participate in drafting the platform, proposed both. Petitions signed by thousands of people supported a ban, but the drafting committee narrowly voted those proposals down. With the platform still a draft, this fight could crop back up at next month’s convention.
In Virginia, Gov. Terry McAuliffe issued an executive order directing a working group to come up with how that state can reduce carbon emissions from power plants under existing laws. The group would circumvent a move by the legislature to prevent the state from complying with the Clean Power Plan, the Washington Post reported. But, it’s getting panned by some environmental groups, who want the governor to come out against natural gas pipelines planned to run through the state. Just as in the Freeport case, they say the pipelines will lead to more fracking, the paper said.
We knew about fracking in the Marcellus, and offshore of California, but the Center for Biological Diversity released information saying that there have been 1,200 fracked wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Oil companies were also allowed to dump more than 76 billion gallons of waste fluid into Gulf waters in 2014, it said. The group got the documents as part of a legal settlement with the Interior Department.
The momentum for fracking in the U.S. contrasts with Europe. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is set to ban fracking Friday, according to a draft of the bill obtained by Bloomberg. Conventional fracking that doesn’t involve extraction from shale may be continued to be practiced under strict rules, the draft shows. The lawmakers moved quickly after a report that companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and Wintershall AG, which sought licenses for exploration, were preparing to tap that nation’s shale. (Which, of course, raises the question: What energy source do the Germans actually plan to use?)
Separately this week, federal energy legislation is facing its own hurdle with Sen. Charles Schumer saying he doesn’t want to conference on S. 2012. Also, Sen. Bob Menendez’s protest of legislation to aid Puerto Rico prevented Sen. James Inhofe from coming to the Senate floor to press for a vote on the WRDA bill. And a Senate panel approved a State Department appropriations bill; it would bar any funds from being spent on the Green Climate Fund. The full Appropriations panel will consider it today, Anthony Adragna reports.
Also today, cheap gasoline saved drivers $20 billion, natural gas is flirting with $3 as the East Coast heats up, the White House releases more details of the “Three Amigos” environmental pledges, Gov. Jerry Brown proposes an overhaul of the California electricity regulator — and wind energy producers buff up their lobbying might.
oal prices have slipped slightly from $2.39 per MMbtu in 2011 to $2.14 this year, but that fall is nothing compared to what’s happened with natural gas prices. The drop in its prices from more than $9 in 2008 to $2.58 so far this year shows why gas is increasingly replacing coal as the go-to fuel; and coal is just being used when power demand spikes. How bad are things for coal? Blake & Wilcox announced it’s cutting 200 jobs “in response to projections that coal utilization, particularly in the U.S., will decline faster than previously forecast,” the company said in a statement. “We have reduced the size of our organization that supports the coal market by roughly 20% and restructured how we support this market,” said E. James Ferland, the CEO.
http://about.bgov.com/blog/fracking-dealt-straight-flush-louisianas-face-cpp/
-
Pennsylvania Lawmakers Again Advance Oil/Gas Royalties Protection Bill
Jun 30, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
A bill that would shield Pennsylvania landowners from post-production costs by requiring a minimum royalty payment of 12.5%, or one-eighth of the value of oil and gas produced, has again passed the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee.
HB 1391 cleared the committee by a vote of 20-7. Similar legislation unanimously passed the committee two years ago but languished after it faced strong opposition from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle (see Shale Daily, June 20, 2014). In June 2015, the bill was reintroduced and referred to the energy committee where it sat until Monday before the vote (see Shale Daily, June 26, 2015).
"There has been a great deal of work done with legislative colleagues and stakeholders on this issue for some time, and HB 1391 represents a more simplified effort to provide fairness for natural gas drilling lease holders," said the bill's author, Republican Rep. Garth Everett of Lycoming and Union counties, where Marcellus Shale development has been robust. "The approval by the committee signals that this is a good bill worthy of open debate on the House floor...We have continued to push this effort for the protection of the shale gas well lease holders."
Everett was joined last year in sponsoring the legislation by four other Republican lawmakers from Northeast Pennsylvania. The legislation would clarify the state's Guaranteed Minimum Royalty Act of 1979, which sets forth the minimum 12.5% payment to landowners with oil and gas leases. The statute, however, does not address marketing costs and how they should be factored into royalty payments. HB 1391 would require the state minimum.
The bill is not likely to be considered by the full House until later this year. The predecessor bill was also delayed and never received a full floor vote. Everett said floor debate could also include an amendment process.
The legislation was prompted by an outcry from landowners concerning producers that have deducted post-production costs to cover expenses such as compression, dehydration and transmission. After more than a year-long investigation, the state attorney general's (AG) office filed a lawsuit in December against Chesapeake Energy Corp. and affiliates for allegedly deceptive business practices related to post-production expenses (see Shale Daily, Dec. 9, 2015). Anadarko Petroleum Corp. was later added to the lawsuit (see Shale Daily, June 2).
Similar lawsuits have been filed by landowners against other producers in the state and across the nation, particularly in Texas where Chesapeake has drawn particular ire (see Shale Daily, May 23;April 27; July 20, 2015). The AG's office has said at least 4,000 Pennsylvania landowners could be involved in the state’s Chesapeake case.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106924-pennsylvania-lawmakers-again-advance-oilgas-royalties-protection-bill
-
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
-
POLITICO Pro New York: Schumer Calls For Oil Train Operators to Reduce Volatility
Jun 30, 2016 | Politico Pro
By Scott Waldman
ALBANY — 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
-
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
-
White House Reviewing Oil and Gas Emission Guidelines
Jun 29, 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.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested