Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 6/30/2016
-
(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. -
(ACC Mentioned) Linde Hydrogen Plant Receives Certification
Jun 30, 2016 | Hydrocarbon Engineering
By Francesca Brindle
Linde LLC has received certification of its Anacortes, Washington, high purity hydrogen plant under the American Chemistry Council's Responsible Care® programme. -
(ACC Mentioned) Senator Seeks Prioritisation of PFOA Under Reformed TSCA
Jun 30, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sylvia Palmer
US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) has urged the EPA to prioritise regulatory assessment of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), under the recently reformed TSCA, to determine whether it should be restricted or banned from use, at the federal level. -
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. -
Toxic Substances Control Act Revised for 21st Century
Jun 29, 2016 | National Law Review
By Jane E. Montgomery, 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. -
TSCA Reform Bill Signed Into Law: Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act
Jun 30, 2016 | National Law Review
By L. Marissa Grace
On June 22, 2016 President Obama signed into law the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, more commonly known as the “Toxic Substances Control Act Reform” bill. -
TSCA Reform: EPA Publishes First Year Implementation Plan
Jun 30, 2016 | 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). -
EPA Issues First-Year Plan to Implement New Chemicals Law
Jun 30, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency issued its first-year planJune 29 to implement the newly amended U.S. chemicals law. -
United States: Federal Toxics Law Grows Up: Congress Strengthens The Toxic Substances Control Act
Jun 30, 2016 | Mondaq
By Robert L. Falk and Peter Hsiao
President Obama has signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for the first time since it was enacted in 1976. The compromise bill passed by Congress is a major accomplishment at the end of President's Obama's administration. -
(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. -
Study Links BPA to Attention Deficit in Children
Jun 30, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
A team of US researchers from the Cincinnati Children’s Medical Centre say they have demonstrated that bisphenol A (BPA) exposure is associated with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children. -
This is What it Looks Like When Government Just Works
Jun 30, 2016 | Huffington Post
Both sides of the Brexit debate would contend that our system of government is deeply damaged, and that especially the bond of trust between government and citizens has become imperilled...Look no further than the dispute about microbeads... -
Echa Proposes Reinforcing Obligation to Update Registration Dossiers
Jun 30, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Most of 2010 and 2013's REACH registration documents have never been updated, according to Echa. And, the agency says, it's time to consider clarifying the circumstances in which registrants must carry out updates, or face possible enforcement action for non-compliance. -
7 Questions About the 'Three Amigos' Energy Deal
Jun 30, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick and Emily Holden
North America's energy politics got a little more intertwined yesterday as President Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto agreed to green the continent's power and petroleum sectors and present a joint front across a range of international negotiations. -
North American Methane Pledge Equal to Shutting 1,000 Coal Plants
Jun 30, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
The United States, Canada and Mexico could make a "down payment" on climate change action with their unified methane target, environmental groups said. -
BLM Greenlights 5,750 Wells in Utah
Jun 30, 2016 | E&E Energywire
The Bureau of Land Management will allow major energy producer Newfield Exploration Co. to drill all 5,750 of its proposed new wells in Utah, only denying Newfield wider rights of way. -
In Symbolic Gesture, Mayors Back Local Control of Fracking
Jun 30, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
More than 30 mayors have signed a statement urging the federal government and state legislatures to support local control of hydraulic fracturing (fracking). -
Enterprise Plant Blast Curbs Gulf of Mexico Oil, Gas Supply
Jun 30, 2016 | Chicago Tribune
By Jim Polson and Harry R. Weber
Enterprise Products Partners's natural gas processing plant in Mississippi will be shut for at least "a few days" after an explosion and fire that also closed a key gas pipeline and curbed oil output from the Gulf of Mexico. -
Watchdog Plagued by 'Investigative Gap,' Low Morale -- Audit
Jun 30, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Colby Bermel
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board investigated one out of the 27 fatal accidents in the last fiscal year, part of a four-year slide that saw the agency fail to probe more than 90 percent of workplace fatalities, U.S. EPA's inspector general said in a report released yesterday. -
Schumer Calls for Emergency Crude-by-Rail Order
Jun 30, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Blake Sobczak
New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer is renewing calls for a federal requirement to "stabilize" crude oil before shipping it in tank cars as a way to reduce the risk of a fiery derailment. -
A Bright Spot Amid Brexit? Growing Momentum for Global Climate Action.
Jun 29, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Nat Keohane
Last week’s vote by the British to leave the European Union has triggered a crisis in political leadership, thrown financial markets into turmoil and prompted eulogies for the European project – even as the ultimate consequences of the vote remain uncertain. -
EPA Adopting Toxics Policy Ideas from Advisory Panel -- Official
Jun 30, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA is pursuing the bulk of an advisory panel's recommendations for strengthening the agency's air toxics program, a senior official said yesterday. -
EPA Extends Time For Input On Haze Air Rule Revisions
Jun 30, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA is extending from July 5 to Aug. 10 the deadline for states, environmentalists, industry groups and others to weigh in on its proposed rule that would revise state air quality planning requirements for the agency's regional haze emissions program, after Southern states and an energy group asked for more time to review the proposal.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
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.”
Plant facts
The Anacortes facility was commissioned in 2013 and produces H2 at 99.9% purity in a steam methane reformer (SMR). The total output of the plant, which is approximately 10,000 Nm3/h, is delivered by pipeline to the Shell Oil Puget Sound refinery in Washington.
http://www.gasworld.com/linde-receives-responsible-care-accolade-for-us-h2-plant/2010659.article
-
(ACC Mentioned) Linde Hydrogen Plant Receives Certification
Jun 30, 2016 | Hydrocarbon Engineering
By Francesca Brindle
Linde LLC has received certification of its Anacortes, Washington, high purity hydrogen plant under the American Chemistry Council's Responsible Care® programme.
"The Responsible Care Certification is a true testament of the commitment to excellence at the Linde Anacortes location,” said Tom Caperon, Anacortes Plant Manager. "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."
The plant, commissioned in 2013, produces 99.9% purity hydrogen using steam and natural gas in a steam methane reformer (SMR). Total output of the plant is delivered by pipeline to the Shell Oil Puget Sound refinery.
"I congratulate my colleagues at the Anacortes hydrogen plant for this achievement, which is aligned with our organisation's commitment to reaching excellence by safely and effectively serving our customers and providing outstanding customer experience every day," said Holly Jerdi, Head of Health, Safety and Environment-Linde Americas.
Responsible Care is a globally recognised management system aimed at helping companies improve performance in areas such as safety, health, environment and security. Certification is mandatory for all ACC member companies, which must undergo headquarter and facility audits by an independent, accredited auditor to verify that they have a structure and system in place that manages and measures performance. Lloyd's Register Quality Assurance (LRQA) is Linde's independent auditor. Since 2008, 25 Linde plants in North America have been certified under the programme.
http://www.energyglobal.com/downstream/gas-processing/30062016/Linde-Washington-high-purity-hydrogen-plant-Responsible-Care-certification-3615/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Senator Seeks Prioritisation of PFOA Under Reformed TSCA
Jun 30, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Sylvia Palmer
US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) has urged the EPA to prioritise regulatory assessment of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), under the recently reformed TSCA, to determine whether it should be restricted or banned from use, at the federal level.
In a recent letter sent to EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, Ms Gillibrand urged the agency to do so “as soon as possible”, given “very serious concerns that PFOA is potentially linked to tragic health effects, including various types of cancer”.
Ms Gillibrand’s action comes in response to incidents that she says have exposed New Yorkers to PFOA in drinking water, and amid concerns about its effects on public health. According to her letter, blood testing results showed some residents with blood levels of PFOA at 50 or 100 times above national averages.
“A TSCA analysis will help to improve upon the science” and provide constituents “a better understanding of the long-term effects of PFOA exposure”, she said. It will also “ensure that communities are better protected against this chemical”.
PFOA phase down
There have been dramatic reductions in perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and PFOA use as a result of a voluntary industry commitment to phase-out the substances, by the end of 2015. The EPA proposed a significant new use rule (Snur) for PFOA and PFOA-related chemicals, including as part of articles, to codify the phase-out.
The US National Toxicology Program (NTP) recently prepared a draft monograph on immunotoxicity associated with exposure to PFOA and PFOS, which is out for consultation. A Federal Register notice announcing the draft says that despite the phase-out, their persistence and bioaccumulation has resulted in detectable levels in the US population, making them of “of potential human health relevance”.
In May, the EPA established health advisories on PFOA and PFOS, based on the agency’s assessment of the latest peer-reviewed science of the chemicals. This will provide drinking water system operators and overseers with current information on related health risks, and help states and local officials take appropriate protective measures for the public.
The agency has said it will “continue to evaluate new evidence as science on health effects of these chemicals evolves”.
PFOA is on a recently developed list of chemicals of mutual concern (CMC), agreed by the US and Canada. It is currently undergoing evaluation by California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) to determine whether it should be listed under Proposition 65.
TSCA risk evaluation
The EPA's newly released one-year implementation plan for a reformed TSCA indicates that, as mandated by the new law, the agency will initiate risk evaluations of a published list of ten workplan chemicals, within the next six months. The agency has yet to disclose what those ten chemicals are.
Liz Bowman, director of issue and advocacy communications at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), said that, under the new law, “EPA will establish a transparent, risk-based prioritisation process to identify high and low priority chemicals that considers a chemical’s inherent hazards; uses; typical exposure to people, including vulnerable groups, and the environment; proximity to drinking water sources and other relevant information.”
“A thorough risk evaluation will be conducted by the agency on any chemical designated as 'high-priority',” Ms Bowman added.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48369/senator-seeks-prioritisation-of-pfoa-under-reformed-tsca
-
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; and
the 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; and
publish 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
-
Toxic Substances Control Act Revised for 21st Century
Jun 29, 2016 | National Law Review
By Jane E. Montgomery, 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
-
TSCA Reform Bill Signed Into Law: Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act
Jun 30, 2016 | National Law Review
By L. Marissa Grace
On June 22, 2016 President Obama signed into law the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, more commonly known as the “Toxic Substances Control Act Reform” bill. The bill strengthens what environmental commentators considered to be one of the weakest environmental protection laws on the books. The bill revamps the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (“TSCA”) by allowing the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to regulate existing chemicals while also allowing EPA to propose regulations that would regulate the introduction of new chemicals.
TSCA reform has been contemplated since the current administration arrived in Washington. In 2009, the EPA announced core principles for reform of chemical review and management. Highlights from these principles included:
Reviewing chemicals against risk-based safety standards based on sound science;
Providing EPA with the authority to take risk-management actions when chemicals fail to meet the established standards, with flexibility to take into account sensitive subpopulations, costs, social benefits, equity and other relevant considerations;
Provisions in legislation to encourage transparency in the process and provide for public access to information; and
Providing EPA with a sustained source of funding for implementation of new regulatory schemes.
This bill accomplishes many of EPA’s previously stated goals.
The TSCA reform bill incorporates the following changes to the 1976 Act:
EPA will have the authority to regulate chemicals that are already on the market. Under the 1976 Act, EPA was prevented from regulating existing chemicals.
Chemical review is expedited, as EPA will be required to identify, at a minimum, ten chemicals considered “high priority” within 180 days of enactment.
Existing State regulations will remain intact. Should EPA designate a chemical as “high priority,” states would be precluded from establishing new restrictions on the chemical regulated by EPA.
Toxicity testing may be required through administrative orders as opposed to formal rulemaking.
Notice must be provided to EPA prior to the production of new chemicals. EPA has 90 days to review such notice.
Chemical manufacturers and other companies will be required to pay fees for EPA risk reviews of chemicals.
EPA is mandated to update its inventory of existing chemicals within 180 days of enactment, and to create a new risk-based screening process for all chemicals within one year of enactment. The amendments regarding EPA’s new authority to regulate existing chemicals are effective immediately. Companies can now nominate a chemical for EPA to review, and EPA must do so if the company pays for the cost of the review.
Companies should review their operations to determine what chemicals are currently in use, and what chemicals are planned for future use, in beginning to prepare for implementation of this bill. Companies within all industry sectors are likely to be impacted by this bill, as EPA is prepared to implement new regulations for both existing and new chemicals.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/tsca-reform-bill-signed-law-frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act
-
TSCA Reform: EPA Publishes First Year Implementation Plan
Jun 30, 2016 | 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.
Framework Actions (Processes to Guide Longer Term Program)
Initial Risk Evaluations
Description: Publish list of ten Work Plan chemicals and formally initiate risk evaluation on those chemicals.
Deadlines: Publish list of chemicals within 180 days after enactment -- mid-December 2016; and publish scope of each assessment within six months -- mid-June 2017.
Prioritization Process Rule
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
-
EPA Issues First-Year Plan to Implement New Chemicals Law
Jun 30, 2016 | Bloomberg BNA
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency issued its first-year planJune 29 to 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 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 Coming
The plan lists four 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.
Risk Management Rules
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 underway.
http://www.bna.com/epa-issues-firstyear-n57982076329/
-
United States: Federal Toxics Law Grows Up: Congress Strengthens The Toxic Substances Control Act
Jun 30, 2016 | Mondaq
By Robert L. Falk and Peter Hsiao
OVERVIEW
President Obama has signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for the first time since it was enacted in 1976. The compromise bill passed by Congress is a major accomplishment at the end of President's Obama's administration.
The amendment will add new teeth to TSCA, a federal statute regulating the manufacture and sale of chemicals. The law has long been considered as ineffectual due in part to a requirement that EPA implement the "least burdensome" regulations. By removing that language and giving new regulatory powers to EPA, the Lautenberg Act will significantly change the regulatory landscape for chemical manufacturers, processors, and importers.
IMPLICATIONS FOR CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS, PROCESSORS, AND IMPORTERS
The amendment will affect regulatory compliance programs and global supply chains for chemical manufacturers, suppliers, and importers.EPA will have broader regulatory authority over new and existing chemicals, including the power to order chemical testing and charge fees.Compliance with state requirements will continue to be necessary in some circumstances, depending on the type of state requirements and when they were put in place. The amended TSCA will not preempt lawsuits for civil damages.The amendment will create new hurdles to the protection of propriety information and trade secrets.The law imposes new reporting requirements, requiring immediate planning by chemical companies as some notification deadlines may occur as soon as a year and a half after the law is enacted.Separate compliance efforts will likely be necessary for the European Union's chemical regulations (REACH) and the new TSCA requirements.
EXPANDED REGULATION OF NEW CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL USES
Under the TSCA amendment, EPA will have increased obligations to review and regulate new chemicals and chemical uses. As with the original version of TSCA, companies must provide a notice to EPA of new chemicals and chemical uses. However, before a company can manufacture or process a new chemical or use an existing chemical for a new purpose, EPA must make an affirmative determination that the chemical does not present "an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment."
If EPA determines the chemical presents such an unreasonable risk, the agency must regulate the chemical or chemical use. In one significant change, the amendment will prevent EPA from considering costs or other "non risk factors," and require consideration of risks to potentially exposed or susceptible populations. Following the agency's determination, EPA will then have to publish an order or statement explaining its decision.
REVITALIZED REGULATION OF EXISTING CHEMICALS AND CHEMICAL USES
The TSCA amendment also introduces new risk evaluation, regulation, and prioritization processes for existing chemicals. EPA's weak regulatory powers to regulate these chemicals is a shortcoming of the original law. The amendment bolsters EPA's regulatory power by removing the "least burdensome" requirements language in the original law and—similar to the process for new chemicals—prohibiting consideration of costs and requiring consideration of risks to potentially exposed or susceptible populations. The new law also lays out a process for EPA to prioritize the risk evaluation and regulation of existing chemicals. Statutory deadlines will require the agency to publish risk evaluations and regulatory actions on a fairly rigid time frame. After deciding to regulate an existing chemical, EPA will have to consider a range of statutory factors in developing the applicable compliance requirements, including cost-benefit analysis.
UPDATED REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Chemical manufacturers, processors, and importers may be subject to new reporting requirements as soon as a year and half after the amendment is enacted as part of a TSCA Inventory "reset" process. The new law will require EPA to issue a rule requiring chemical manufacturers and some processors to notify the agency of all chemicals that the company has manufactured or processed for a commercial purpose in the last 10 years. EPA will use that information to designate chemicals as active or inactive. Only active chemicals will undergo the prioritization and risk evaluation processes for existing chemicals.
EPA'S NEW CHEMICAL TESTING POWERS
The amendment also gives EPA more authority to develop chemical toxicity and exposure information through testing. Under the new law, EPA will be able to require testing through rules, orders, and consent agreements. EPA may require testing to develop information for multiple purposes, including the review of new chemical or chemical use notices, the prioritization of existing chemical risk evaluations, and the chemical risk evaluations themselves.
CHANGES TO THE DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
The new law will change TSCA's requirements regarding disclosure of confidential information. Information not protected from disclosure will include certain types of "general information" such as manufacturing volumes and general descriptions of chemicals. In order to assert a confidentiality claim to protect information from disclosure, companies will have to substantiate the claim according to statutory requirements and regulatory guidance. Some information will generally be exempt from substantiation requirements, including marketing and sales information.
PARTIAL PREEMPTION OF STATE CHEMICAL REQUIREMENTS
The preemption provisions of the amended TSCA are particularly complicated. Rather than preclude all state requirements addressing chemical risks, the new law will only partially preempt state laws and regulations. State actions to restrict or prohibit chemicals taken before April 22, 2016 and actions taken pursuant to any state law in effect on August 31, 2003 (including future actions under such laws) will be exempt from federal preemption.
Aside from those grandfathering provisions, the amended TSCA will preempt state laws and regulations that (1) regulate a chemical already regulated under TSCA or currently under EPA review, (2) require information similar to what TSCA requires, or (3) regulate a chemical that EPA has determined does not present an "unreasonable risk." However, there are some significant considerations and exemptions regarding those general preemption provisions. Notably, the amended TSCA will not preempt any state requirements regarding information reporting and monitoring that are not already required under TSCA. Nor will the new law preempt lawsuits for civil damages. The amended TSCA will also include a process for states to apply to EPA for preemption waivers.
We are carefully studying the impact of these provisions on state regulations including California's Proposition 65 and California's Safer Consumer Product regulations (AB 1879 and SB 509) and plan to issue a more detailed follow-up alert with that analysis.
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/505062/Chemicals/Federal+Toxics+Law+Grows+Up+Congress+Strengthens+The+Toxic+Substances+Control+Act
-
(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
-
Study Links BPA to Attention Deficit in Children
Jun 30, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
A team of US researchers from the Cincinnati Children’s Medical Centre say they have demonstrated that bisphenol A (BPA) exposure is associated with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children.
The study is published in the peer-reviewed journalEnvironmental Research. The authors used data from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (Nhanes) on levels of the plastics intermediate BPA in urine.
Over 450 samples were taken from a cross section of the population in the years 2003 and 2004, aged eight-15 years. These were linked with outcomes of a diagnostic interview indicating the presence of ADHD at the time the tests were taken.
There were 7.1% of participants that met ADHD criteria. But of children with BPA levels above the median, 11.2% had ADHD. Only 1.9% of those with below median BPA levels had it. The odds ratio of having the condition, for higher BPA levels, was 5.68.
Analysing the sexes separately, the link was much stronger for boys, with an odds ratio of 10.9 versus 2.8 for girls. This is consistent with the higher levels of ADHD among males.
The authors conclude that with the growing evidence of neurobehavioral effects of BPA in children, further studies are needed to determine whether reducing exposure may represent an important avenue for ADHD prevention.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48310/study-links-bpa-to-attention-deficit-in-children
-
This is What it Looks Like When Government Just Works
Jun 30, 2016 | Huffington Post
Both sides of the Brexit debate would contend that our system of government is deeply damaged, and that especially the bond of trust between government and citizens has become imperilled.
But what does it look like when government works the way it’s supposed to? Quick to act, practical in its thinking, momentous in its impact?
Look no further than the dispute about microbeads, the tiny bits of plastic making headlines all over the world for killing fish. The beads are used as abrasives and exfoliants in hundreds of toothpastes, face scrubs and body washes, and each use can send tens of thousands down the pipes and out into the sea.
In the US alone, some 11billion microbeads are pumped into the nation’s waters every day. Although not toxic in themselves, they absorb harmful chemicals before being swallowed by fish, bringing the toxins into the food chain.
A ban was first proposed in Europe in 2013 and has been supported by the governments of half a dozen EU countries, including the Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Italy and - as of last week - the UK, so far to no avail. The wrangling continues as some countries and industry groups lobby instead for the ban to be voluntary.
Meanwhile, an American ban has sailed unopposed through the notoriously partisan House of Representatives, been signed by Barack Obama and comes into force next year. Initially proposed by a Democrat, it went through the Republican-controlled House under ‘suspension of the rules’ - a set of measures for non-controversial legislation, and passed the Senate a week later by unanimous consent.
How was it possible?
1. The bill’s proponent kept it out of partisan politics
Although the ban was conceived by the environmental staff of Democrat Frank Pallone and was proposed by him, it was carried through in collaboration with the Republican Fred Upton, both of them acting on the concerns of their immediate constituents. Pallone is from a coastal district in New Jersey and made his name campaigning for environmental protection, while Upton’s district is in Michigan, where the Great Lakes had become the most prominent site for reports on microbead pollution.Highly publicised studies by the State University of New York found up to a million microbeads per square mile of the Lakes, and debate on the topic was focussed there.
Moreover, Pallone and Upton were in a position to make sure their bipartisan bill got traction: it fell under the remit of the Energy and Commerce Committee, of which Upton is the chair and Pallone is the most senior Democrat.
2. They got the influencers on side
The team won the unlikely support of both the environmental and industry lobbies. While the environmental groups were natural allies, the main industry group, the Personal Care Products Council, backed the ban in the name of stability. That was because the alternative was an unmanageable hodgepodge of legislation at the state and county levels, each with its own definition of which microbeads were to be banned and its own timeline for removing them.Illinois - another Great Lakes state - passed a ban just as the federal ban was first proposed, and more than half the other states were considering them. So industry groups were happy to collaborate on and support a single federal ban that would be strong enough to satisfy the environmental concerns while giving them time to remove the microbeads from their production lines.
3. The public conversation worked the way it’s supposed to
By the time Pallone first proposed the bill, the momentum for a ban on what would otherwise be an obscure industrial ingredient had already been built. NGOs around the world had been campaigning against them for several years, and in 2013 the United Nations Environment Program had been convinced to support an international smartphone app that let shoppers scan the products on supermarket shelves for whether they contained microbeads.That meant that by the time the ban was proposed, all the major companies had announced initiatives to phase them out. It also meant that the scientific evidence for a ban had already been collected. The studies carried out in the Great Lakes came to the attention to the public servants in Pallone’s office through reports on NPR and other outlets, and they then contacted the academics cited in them.
Overall, the microbead ban demonstrates how smoothly the democratic system can work. Reports on its passage have been few, because there is often little to say when nothing goes wrong. As the old dictum has it, ‘Happiness writes white.’ Nonetheless, the ban should and has motivated governments in Europe, Canada and elsewhere to hurry up their progress towards bans of their own. Although microbeads are only a small part of the 8million tonnes of plastic that are pumped into the world’s oceans each year, the US ban shows that the much-maligned machinery of government is not only the only body capable of solving problems like this, but is already doing so.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/apolitical/this-is-what-it-looks-lik_b_10752224.html
-
Echa Proposes Reinforcing Obligation to Update Registration Dossiers
Jun 30, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Most of 2010 and 2013's REACH registration documents have never been updated, according to Echa. And, the agency says, it's time to consider clarifying the circumstances in which registrants must carry out updates, or face possible enforcement action for non-compliance.
Jukka Malm, Echa's deputy executive director, has told Chemical Watch that two thirds of the dossiers have never been updated. And, he said, many of those that have been were done reactively after receiving a Decision or a letter.
"The European Commission could consider making an implementing Act – something which doesn't set new obligations, but clarifies existing ones. This would be useful to clarify further a situation where an update might be relevant – and give a clear basis for authorities to act if a company was not acting on this obligation," he said.
"We want industry to take more active ownership of dossiers, including improving and updating information on uses and exposures. This would serve many purposes and help improve our screening of the chemicals database to decide what measures to take.”
Stronger incentives
Echa’s recent report on the operation of REACH and CLP said: "Stronger incentives are needed for companies to stimulate updates of registration dossiers, especially on the use, exposure and tonnage information. An implementing regulation could be considered to ensure mandatory reporting of use and exposure information on a regular basis. In this context clarification of the criteria triggering an update, including a binding timeframe for regular updates should be discussed.
"All in all, companies must live up to the REACH expectation to consider their registration dossier as a living document, and regularly update it for new and improved information."
REACH Article 22 says following registration, registrants must on their own initiative add any relevant new information into their dossier "without undue delay" and submit it to the agency. But it doesn't define "without undue delay" or set specific deadlines.
Asked if an implementing Act would set out the circumstances under which a dossier would have to be updated; clarify what aspects of a dossier would need to be updated; or set a timetable for when updates would have to occur, Mr Malm said it "could be any, or all, of these things. We are especially interested in use and exposure information and here a regular update could be a good thing to consider. But we don't want to be too specific at this point. It's for the Commission to consider."
Cefic's REACH director, Erwin Annys, says the chemical industry believes updates should be done when relevant changes take place, but it is "difficult to relate that to a specific timing". On the other hand, he says, "we see in many meetings industry claiming that they have new information that is not in the registration dossier yet and hence can't be considered."
Echa is also trying to "activate industry through incentives by helping companies see a good quality dossier as a business asset rather than a regulatory burden," said Mr Malm. For example, there have been cases where a substance was considered for possible inclusion in the authorisation list, only to be dropped when the registrant replaced the very broad use description in the dossier with a more accurate, narrower one. Another advantage, he said, is that "customers could start appreciating good quality dossiers".
https://chemicalwatch.com/48347/echa-proposes-reinforcing-obligation-to-update-registration-dossiers
-
7 Questions About the 'Three Amigos' Energy Deal
Jun 30, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick and Emily Holden
North America's energy politics got a little more intertwined yesterday as President Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto agreed to green the continent's power and petroleum sectors and present a joint front across a range of international negotiations.
Environmental activists, many of whom are still grappling with the climate impacts of Britain's exit from the European Union, hailed the air of cooperation at the North American Leaders' Summit.
"As Europe is disintegrating, North America is integrating, and it's integrating in a way that I think provides real and substantive and tangible benefits to the citizens of the three countries," said Drew Nelson, senior manager for natural gas at the Environmental Defense Fund, in an interview from Ottawa, Ontario, where the gathering took place.
Andrew Light, a senior fellow at the World Resources Institute who previously served in the State Department, said yesterday's deal is by far the most comprehensive joint agreement on climate and energy policy in which the Obama administration has been involved. It reads like a regional policy integration plan, he said.
"It just includes everything," he said. "It's the first time we've seen this level of sophistication of coordination among countries outside the E.U."
The deal starts with a pledge by the United States, Mexico and Canada to draw 50 percent of North America's power from no-carbon sources by 2025. It goes on to include detailed joint commitments on oil-and-gas-sector methane and pledges to collaborate in multilateral negotiations ranging from heat-trapping hydrofluorocarbons to commercial aviation emissions.
North America's "Three Amigos" promised to synchronize their work on heavy-duty diesel vehicle regulations, transmission infrastructure, and government renewable energy and efficiency procurement activities. They pledged to join last year's Paris climate deal this year and to work together to formulate long-term emissions reduction pathways that will build on its ambition.
But many of the details of the agreement remained unclear, including how it would be implemented and whether it would survive if GOP presumptive presidential nominee Donald Trump follows President Obama to the White House. Here are seven key unanswered questions about the deal.
1. What is each country promising to do?
The deal centers around the tri-country pledge to "strive to achieve a goal for North America" of deriving half its power from non-emitting sources by 2025. The broad numbers were leaked to the public Monday, and some observers were mildly surprised when the details unveiled yesterday included such conditional language.
It is unclear why the language allows so much wiggle room, but some noted that Canada is currently in the process of formulating a national climate framework with substantial input from the provinces. Trudeau's government may be anxious not to step on that.
"It didn't strike me as incredibly worrisome, though, just because the number is very impressive," said Light.
The 50 percent clean power pledge is roughly consistent with what the International Energy Agency says the Western Hemisphere's four Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development members -- the three North American countries plus Chile -- must do to help the world avert the worst impacts of warming. And it requires more action than is currently in the pipeline, even including U.S. EPA's embattled Clean Power Plan.
Like many recent climate agreements -- most prominently last year's Paris Agreement -- the North American deal is binding only politically, not legally. But observers said it provides for much stronger coordination between participants than the global agreement does, and the political consequences of breaking promises to close neighbors and allies are more direr than those of breaking promises made in the context of a 196-party agreement.
"The smaller the club, the more pressure there is," said Light.
Erin Flanagan, director of Canada's Pembina Institute, said the vague language wouldn't give countries cover to renege on their commitments.
"I think it's fair to say that peer pressure is part of the negotiating tactic," Flanagan said. North America will now have credibility to press other countries to take some of the same steps it has taken in this agreement, she said.
2. So what happens if Donald Trump is elected president?
Yesterday's deal depends on all three countries doing more than they are right now, but in the case of the United States, that seems particularly risky in light of November's presidential election.
While EPA has begun looking at methane restrictions for existing gas wells, those rules are not expected to be in place when Obama leaves office. And the Supreme Court's decision to halt the Clean Power Plan early this year casts some doubt on the United States' ability to do its part to decarbonize the power grid.
While greens dispute that a President Trump could derail Obama-era policies, industry advocates say another political agreement is unlikely to spur new investment.
"In some cases, investments may already be in motion, but in reality, those investments will likely go forward anyway," said Frank Maisano, who represents clients from a variety of sectors at Bracewell LLP. "This creates more forward momentum but is also a lot of window dressing."
Other analysts say that because the goal is spread across three countries and doesn't have the force of law, it's unclear what it might mean for clean energy growth in the United States.
Timothy Fox, a vice president at ClearView Energy Partners, noted that "there isn't a clear market driver present in this commitment."
Fox said it doesn't appear that the federal government can mandate the goal, and the plan does nothing to motivate states to generate cleaner power.
"At the end of the day, this is a nonbinding agreement," Fox said. "The important generation market drivers are the state renewable energy portfolio standards."
He said Obama is agenda-setting, more than spurring a shift toward cleaner power.
"We think this is more of an effort by President Obama to articulate Democratic principles, particularly during this election year," Fox said.
3. What happens if nuclear plants go offline? What counts as renewable power?
The 50 percent goal for the three countries includes power from "renewable, nuclear, and carbon capture and storage technologies."
In the United States, large nuclear plants represent about 20 percent of carbon-free generation. But nuclear units are at risk of shutting down because of competition from cheaper natural gas and renewable power.
Fox said achieving the goal "relies heavily on the existing nuclear fleet," yet the plan does nothing to pressure policymakers to keep nuclear power online.
If nuclear plants retire, it's possible natural gas units will help replace them, making the target harder to reach.
The White House also did not specify what might count as "renewable" energy.
Proponents of biomass energy -- electricity generated from wood or other plant materials -- insist that their industry should get credit under the ambitious North American clean energy target.
Plants absorb carbon dioxide when they grow, so biomass energy advocates say the net effect of burning biomass is good for the climate.
But environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council disagree, arguing that some forms of biomass use can exacerbate climate change because it takes too long for plants to reabsorb the carbon dioxide produced by burning the fuel.
Whether biomass is counted could be a political sticking point in implementing the plan.
4. How do energy efficiency and carbon capture and storage fit into the goal?
The announcement also does not explain how power savings from energy efficiency could help achieve the 50 percent goal.
Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, named two possible ways energy efficiency's contribution could be calculated.
One method would be to look at the total amount of power produced in 2025 from various sources, determine how much energy efficiency is helping to reduce the amount of total power used, and factor that into the 50 percent figure.
Or the countries could determine a set increase in energy efficiency and include that in the target. "But then you have to define what the start year is," Nadel said.
Fossil fuel plants that use carbon capture and storage (CCS) could also count, under the terms of the goal.
But the coal lobby and energy experts quickly threw cold water on that idea, arguing that CCS won't be ready to scale in the near term.
"There are no scalable plants anywhere in the world with CCS, and none will ever be built in this country thanks to regulations promulgated by this administration," said Laura Sheehan, senior vice president of communications for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.
5. What does it mean to 'phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies'?
The plan also includes a provision to "phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by 2025," in keeping with a commitment that Group of 20 nations made in 2009.
So what exactly is an "inefficient" fossil fuel subsidy? The definition depends on the country, according to Joseph Aldy, an associate professor of public policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
G-20 countries likely decided on the term because they wanted to allow room for some fossil fuel technologies they might want to support -- including those that could help reduce greenhouse gas emissions -- said Aldy.
But they never came to an agreement about what constitutes an "inefficient" subsidy. So Saudi Arabia, for example, has claimed it does not have any inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, although estimates have shown the government provides incentives of one kind or another amounting to tens of billions of dollars, Aldy said.
The U.S. government has focused mainly on about 10 core tax expenditures, amounting to $50 billion over 10 years, Aldy said.
President Obama has proposed eliminating them from the federal budget each year, but Congress has denied his requests.
Aldy said it's difficult to cut the subsidies in stand-alone legislation, but it might be more feasible as part of a broader tax reform package that lowers corporate tax rates.
For sure, the fossil fuel industry would lobby hard against any changes to favorable tax treatment, although the American Petroleum Institute maintains the oil and gas sector does not receive subsidies.
"Industry doesn't get subsidies so I'm at a loss at where your information is coming from and how to respond," said API spokeswoman Sabrina Fang, pointing to API's explanation of industry tax treatment.
Alex Doukas, a senior campaigner for a group that lobbies to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, Oil Change International, said that even if Obama or his successor couldn't eliminate favorable tax treatment with the help of Congress, the White House could take steps unilaterally.
For example, the executive branch could initiate a review of oil and gas leasing on federal lands. Obama has started a similar review for the coal leasing program.
And the president could "stop sending money to support fossil fuel production abroad," Doukas said.
6. How will this new shipping emissions agreement work?
Also yesterday, leaders vowed to work together through the U.N. shipping agency, the International Maritime Organization, to curb greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping.
It remains unclear, however, how they'll do that and to what degree the United States is willing to shift from a previous lukewarm position.
International shipping contributes around 2 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Earlier this year, a group of countries led by the Marshall Islands called for the body to define shipping's contribution to global emissions reduction targets and start working on a sectorwide plan.
The goal was to align the U.N. agency's approach with those of the countries signing onto the Paris deal. The United States sided against the proposal, however, and punted further discussion to the fall.
The United States instead pushed forward the first part of a multi-step plan to collect, monitor and ultimately reduce emissions from shipping. The White House announcement yesterday included a nod to that effort but also had separate language touting measures to address greenhouse gas emissions from shipping.
"Now that data collection has been finalized, we could see greater U.S. support for the push to establish sectoral targets, as well," said Dan Rutherford, who works on maritime and aviation issues for the International Council on Clean Transportation. "It sort of signals that they are viewing that data collection as a step towards additional measures, especially existing ships."
7. How can North America collaborate on its long-term Paris goals?
Yesterday also saw Mexico join the United States and Canada in pledging to submit a 2050 strategy for deep emissions cuts under the Paris Agreement later this year. It is one of the first developing nations to make that pledge.
The three countries also committed to a "trilateral dialogue" while formulating those strategies.
But it is unclear what that document will look like or how the countries will jointly chart a course for a low-carbon economy 35 years into the future.
Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists said it is politically significant that Mexico volunteered to put forward its document early and that the three countries plan to work together.
"Given the integration of the energy and transportation markets on the North American continent, it makes sense to look at doing things together in a coordination way," he said. "If you're talking about infrastructure investments, if you're talking about policy considerations, if you're talking about avoiding leakage of carbon-intensive development -- the more you can do it at a continental scale, the better."
White House Deputy Director for Climate Policy Richard Duke is heading the interagency effort at the White House that will produce the long-term strategy, and some within the administration have described it as a white paper rather than a detailed projection of future policies and regulations. But activists have said they expect the world's largest historic greenhouse gas emitter to give at least some details of how it plans to put its economy on track to help limit post-industrial warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius -- the long-term goal of Paris.
Meyer said he expects the product to be more of a road map than a laundry list of policy items.
"It's a little more blue-sky thinking," he said.
The three governments share economic and technological assumptions after yesterday's accord, he said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/06/30/stories/1060039657
-
North American Methane Pledge Equal to Shutting 1,000 Coal Plants
Jun 30, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
The United States, Canada and Mexico could make a "down payment" on climate change action with their unified methane target, environmental groups said.
Yesterday, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto announced that his country would join the United States and Canada's pledge to cut methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 40 to 45 percent by 2025.
The agreement came as one part of the new North American Climate, Clean Energy and Environment Partnership among the three nations, and environmental groups are calling it a first step toward the continent's taking a leadership role in global methane reduction.
"It's certainly something we are very excited to to see and what we'd hoped for after Canada had made its commitment in March," said Mark Brownstein, vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund's Climate and Energy Program.
Under the new partnership, the North American nations agreed to create federal regulations for both new and existing methane sources in the oil and gas industry. In addition to addressing methane from oil and gas, they agreed to support voluntary measures to reduce food waste on the continent and to reduce methane emissions from landfills.
The United States finalized regulations for new and modified sources of methane earlier this year and is collecting information to begin regulating existing sources. Canada plans to publish proposed methane regulations for both new and existing sources in the beginning of next year and to finalize the rules by the end of 2017.
Mexico had indicated its interest in developing methane regulations late last year when it included the potent greenhouse gas in its national commitments for the Paris climate talks.
The country has already begun developing methane regulations for oil and gas, but until yesterday's announcement, it was hard to gauge its level of ambition, said Conrad Schneider, advocacy director at the Clean Air Task Force.
While the specifics of how Mexico will structure its regulations aren't clear, having the United States and Canada sharing practices and experiences with Mexico through the partnership will be a "terrific idea," Brownstein said.
Sweeping emissions savings
Environmental groups praised the three North American nations for presenting a unified front on methane, a gas that until recently had not received as much attention for its climate impacts as carbon dioxide. Over a 20-year time scale, the short-lived pollutant is more than 80 times more potent at trapping heat than CO2.
"In terms of getting biggest bang for your buck, reducing methane is one of the smartest ways to go," said Tom Damassa, senior policy adviser on climate change for Oxfam America.
If all three nations are able to follow through on their commitments, the environmental impact would be significant, as North America is responsible for about a quarter of global methane emissions. Achieving a 45 percent methane emissions reduction from oil and gas in North America would result in nearly a 10 percent drop in methane pollution worldwide.
That is the equivalent environmental benefit, over 20 years, of shutting down 1,000 coal-fired power plants, according to an ICF International policy brief commissioned by EDF earlier this month.
"It's a down payment on what is ultimately a global issue," said Brownstein.
"A 40 percent reduction is not only achievable; it is achievable at very low cost with technology that is well-known and well-established," he said.
Brownstein added that if every country were to adopt the same 40 to 45 percent methane emissions reduction, it would have the same effect over 20 years as closing a third of the world's coal-fired plants.
'Trying to put the rules of the game in place'
Drew Nelson, senior manager for natural gas at EDF, said yesterday's announcement could lead to a pan-North American standard for oil and natural gas development that would benefit business, and not just the environment.
"By having similar standards and comparable goals across all three countries, you're able to integrate the oil and gas markets in a way that would have been harder otherwise," Nelson toldClimateWire in a phone interview from Ottawa, Ontario.
The petroleum industry across all three countries is becoming increasingly integrated, he said, and yesterday's agreement will ensure that producers don't face drastically different regulatory environments as they cross national boundaries.
The deal may also do for methane emissions what the 2009 North American Leaders' Summit did for hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Nelson said. The gathering committed the three North American countries to collaborate on an amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer that would phase down the use of climate superpollutants in cooling and air conditioning. Advocates hope to see it bear fruit when parties to the ozone treaty meet in Rwanda in October.
Mexico's decision to join the United States and Canada's methane target comes as the country opens up to foreign oil company investment.
"I think they are trying to put the rules of the game into place so that companies coming in will know what they face," Schneider said.
Industry says voluntary measures are working
In response to three nations' announcement, the oil and gas industry as well as Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) highlighted the sector's ability to effectively self-regulate methane emissions.
"Our oil and gas sector has already been leading the way in improving their extraction processes and reducing associated emissions. Mexico is welcome to follow the U.S. industry's lead, and it would be great if [U.S.] EPA would, too," Inhofe said.
American Petroleum Institute spokeswoman Sabrina Fang noted that carbon emissions are at 20-year lows as the United States is leading in oil and gas production.
The "Three Amigos," as many outlets dubbed President Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Peña Nieto, invited other countries to join them in limiting oil-and-gas-sector methane.
"I'm optimistic that methane can be the next frontier of that international climate cooperation, and the three countries can follow the HFC example and catalyze global action to reduce yet another potent, short-lived forcer," Nelson said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/06/30/stories/1060039655
-
BLM Greenlights 5,750 Wells in Utah
Jun 30, 2016 | E&E Energywire
The Bureau of Land Management will allow major energy producer Newfield Exploration Co. to drill all 5,750 of its proposed new wells in Utah, only denying Newfield wider rights of way.
After a six-year environmental analysis and intense scrutiny over a draft environmental impact statement (EIS), BLM's new "preferred alternative" plan for Newfield encourages directional drilling and production on an already-affected 119,000-acre field. That way, BLM reasons, Newfield can mitigate its project footprint.
The preferred alternative in the revised EIS allows for 10,122 acres of additional surface disturbance, including 226 miles of new roads and pipelines. It also includes 21 new and three expanded compressor stations, a new gas processing plant, 13 water treatment and injections sites, 12 gas and oil separation plants, and six water pump stations.
This is a significant reduction from the land disturbance under Newfield's requested right-of-way expansion, though, which would have disturbed a total 16,000 acres.
The project is expected to produce 7 trillion cubic feet of gas from deep gas development and 540,669 million cubic feet of natural gas from the Green River formation through 2035, according to the EIS. The statement also shows an expected 335 million barrels of oil from the Green River formation.
The new EIS is open to public comment through Aug. 8.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/30/stories/1060039621
-
In Symbolic Gesture, Mayors Back Local Control of Fracking
Jun 30, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
More than 30 mayors have signed a statement urging the federal government and state legislatures to support local control of hydraulic fracturing (fracking). But the move was mostly a symbolic gesture because fracking isn't performed in most of the cities and towns that the signatories represent.
According to Environment America, an anti-fracking group, 33 mayors signed a statement supporting local control of fracking laws following the annual U.S. Conference of Mayors in Indianapolis, which concluded on Monday.
"It is no surprise that a growing number of communities are moving to halt or regulate fracking within their borders," the letter said. "The notion that our communities have the right to govern on issues and activities that threaten public health or the quality of life of their residents has a long tradition in law. This principle is the basis of public health ordinances and local land use rules, including zoning, which often involve tradeoffs with property rights and other interests.
"In light of the foregoing, we believe that all communities should have the right to decide whether, where, and how industrial fracking operations -- including not only well pads, but waste disposal facilities and all related infrastructure -- happen within their borders."
The mayors of the two largest cities on the list were Charlotte, NC’s Jennifer Roberts and Portland, OR’s Charlie Hales. Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto also signed the letter, but he was the only mayor in Pennsylvania to do so. Only nine of the remaining 30 mayors to sign the letter represented cities or towns with populations of 100,000 or more.
Corinne Platt, mayor of Ophir, CO, represented the smallest town on the list of signatories. The town, which had a population of 164 in 2013, is in San Miguel County.
Other signatories of note included Longmont, CO’s Dennis Coombs and San Bruno, CA’s Jim Ruane. Last May, the Colorado Supreme Court struck down bans and moratoria on fracking in Longmont and Fort Collins, CO (see Shale Daily, May 3). Fracking opponents in Colorado are currently trying to get restrictions to fracking put on the November ballot (see Shale Daily, June 7).
A natural gas pipeline rupture and explosion in San Bruno killed eight people in 2010 (see Daily GPI,Sept. 15, 2010).
Eight mayors from California and seven from Florida signed the letter. Colorado and North Carolina each had two mayors sign, followed by Massachusetts and Oregon with two apiece. One mayor from Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania (Peduto) and Wisconsin also signed.
State lawmakers in Oklahoma and Texas both enacted legislation last year affirming the state's regulatory primacy over oil and natural gas activities (see Shale Daily, June 1, 2015; May 18, 2015). Meanwhile, lawmakers in North Carolina also lifted a moratorium on fracking last year (see Shale Daily, March 17, 2015).
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106928-in-symbolic-gesture-mayors-back-local-control-of-fracking
-
Enterprise Plant Blast Curbs Gulf of Mexico Oil, Gas Supply
Jun 30, 2016 | Chicago Tribune
By Jim Polson and Harry R. Weber
Enterprise Products Partners's natural gas processing plant in Mississippi will be shut for at least "a few days" after an explosion and fire that also closed a key gas pipeline and curbed oil output from the Gulf of Mexico.
Enterprise's fuel processing facility will be down for at least several days, spokesman Rick Rainey said, without providing a more detailed timeline. At least two oil and natural gas platforms in the Gulf halted production after the June 27 blast and the Destin pipeline, a joint venture of BP and Enbridge that sends gas to the plant from platforms in the Gulf, said it was forced to halt service.
The blast threatens to raise oil and gas prices by curbing supplies from the Gulf just as demand for the power-plant fuel increases as summer heat expands across the United States. The Gulf last year accounted for 16 percent of the nation's crude output and almost 5 percent of gas based on U.S. government data.
"It's obviously not going to be the next few days," Rainey said by phone from Houston. "It's going to be longer than that. I don't have a good estimate about when we are going to be back in service."
Meanwhile, federal investigators were set to arrive at the facility Wednesday as Enterprise officials met at the site to discuss when operations may resume. The fire overnight Monday was finally put out around 5 p.m. local time Tuesday.
Evan as the Gulf's share of America's energy supply fell amid the shale boom, the government forecasts record offshore oil output this year and next as new production comes online. Total Gulf of Mexico dry gas production is down 15 percent, or 540 million cubic feet a day, since the fire was reported, according to Het Shah, a New York-based analyst for Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
Enterprise gained 1.9 percent to $28.94 at 11:39 a.m. in New York.
LLOG Exploration shut its Delta House platform, while Murphy Oil Corp. closed Thunder Hawk. Spokesmen for other operators, including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., said output hasn't been affected. Duke Energy has "not had to curtail any power production" at their plants, spokesman Thomas Williams said.
The pipeline disruption has the potential to "significantly" curtail Gulf of Mexico crude supply should offshore platforms fail to find another place to send their gas, Dominic Haywood, an analyst at Energy Aspects Ltd., said in a note Tuesday. The 10 platforms produced a combined 270,000 barrels a day in February, he said. BP's Na Kika and Thunder Horse platforms are particularly at risk because they lack alternatives for gas.
Thunder Horse crude's discount to West Texas Intermediate, the U.S. benchmark, narrowed 35 cents to $1.20 a barrel Tuesday, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Gas futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange fell as much as 1.4 percent Wednesday after rising 7.4 percent Tuesday.
Destin Pipeline said in an emailed notice Tuesday that it was seeking an alternative route for shippers starting in the later half of Wednesday. The workaround may only last two to five days, the company said.
The Enterprise plant in Pascagoula, which can process 1.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day, was averaging about 400 million before the blast, Enterprise said in a statement. Recent production was based on customer demand, Rainey said.
Officials received reports of two explosions at the plant, Earl Etheridge, director of emergency services for Jackson County, Mississippi, said Tuesday by phone. Officials were still trying to determine a cause and where the explosion originated as investigators from the U.S. Chemical Safety Board were expected to arrive at the site Wednesday, according to Rainey.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-gas-blast-9b6a2e72-3e1a-11e6-9e16-4cf01a41decb-20160629-story.html
-
Watchdog Plagued by 'Investigative Gap,' Low Morale -- Audit
Jun 30, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Colby Bermel
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board investigated one out of the 27 fatal accidents in the last fiscal year, part of a four-year slide that saw the agency fail to probe more than 90 percent of workplace fatalities, U.S. EPA's inspector general said in a report released yesterday.
Saying CSB was in the throes of an "investigative gap," the report addresses management problems and low employee morale in the wake of Rafael Moure-Eraso's toxic tenure as CSB chairman from June 2010 to March 2015 (Greenwire, July 21, 2015).
From Oct. 1, 2014, to Sept. 30, 2015, there were 27 chemical accidents with 32 fatalities with a single CSB investigation, the report says.
The agency currently has six open investigations: two from fiscal 2015, one from fiscal 2016 and three from previous fiscal years.
For example, the report says, the CSB investigation of the November 2014 DuPont chemical release in La Porte, Texas, has been open for 19 months. And the probe of the February 2015 blast at the Exxon Mobil Corp. refinery in Torrance, Calif., has been open for 16 months.
The most recent investigation -- of an accident at a Delaware City Refining Co. alkylation unit that inflicted second-degree burns on an operator -- has been open for six months.
The longest-running CSB investigation of the June 2013 explosion and fire at the Williams Olefins plant in Geismar, La., is three years old.
Two of the six open investigations involve fatalities -- two deaths in Geismar and four in La Porte.
CSB argues that it's following its mandate in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, saying it lacks the resources to probe every fatality.
Moreover, the agency justified its position by citing the Supreme Court's landmark 1984 ruling in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., which set a legal test for assessing whether courts should defer to agencies' interpretations of a law in the absence of congressional guidance.
But the inspector general disagreed, saying the "shall ... investigate" line in the Clean Air Act Amendments still requires investigations for every accident.
The report recommends that CSB finalize Board Order 040, which would implement investigative management controls. CSB has promised the inspector general it will do that by the end of this year.
The report warns that investigations cannot be done by an agency with low morale. It cites a June 2014 report from the House Government and Oversight Committee faulting then-CSB Chairman Moure-Eraso for retaliating against employees and using personal emails to conduct official business.
The former chairman created a "dysfunctional and toxic work environment," the IG report says. Moure-Eraso is not mentioned by name in the document, which refers instead to "the former Chairperson."
The oversight committee requested that President Obama ask Moure-Eraso to resign in March 2015. The president did just that, and Moure-Eraso stepped down eight days after the panel's request.
Vanessa Allen Sutherland has been CSB chairwoman since August 2015. She has vowed to listen and learn from past controversies (Greenwire, Sept. 4, 2015).
But more remains to be done, the inspector general said.
"CSB needs to continue efforts to restore open communication between management and staff," the report says. "Opening communication via a newsletter, regular meetings and other means can give employees a better sense of organizational purpose, encourage ownership, and keep them informed."
The report also urges CSB to establish a chemical reporting regulation, which is required by the Clean Air Act Amendments. The agency published a proposal for the regulation in 2009, but it hasn't posted a final rule.
"Attention to CSB management challenges," the IG said, "could result in stronger results and protection for the public, and increased confidence in management integrity and accountability."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/30/stories/1060039680
-
Schumer Calls for Emergency Crude-by-Rail Order
Jun 30, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Blake Sobczak
New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer is renewing calls for a federal requirement to "stabilize" crude oil before shipping it in tank cars as a way to reduce the risk of a fiery derailment.
"The damage that volatile, highly dangerous crude can cause in New York communities is tremendous," Schumer said in a statement released yesterday. "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 is urging regulators at the Department of Transportation to use their emergency authority to curb vapor pressure levels of crude before it gets clearance to move by rail.
Vapor pressure is one way to measure oil's explosive potential, although the energy industry claims there is not enough evidence to show that capping vapor pressure levels would really lessen the consequences of a derailment.
Earlier this month, 16 cars on a mile-long Union Pacific Railroad oil train jumped the tracks near Mosier, Ore., sparking a fire and leaking nearly a thousand barrels of highly flammable Bakken crude oil.
The accident, which investigators blamed on poor track maintenance, brought lawmakers' attention back to the volatility issue and crude-by-rail safety in general.
For years, congressional Democrats have criticized DOT for failing to limit the volatility of crude shipped by rail as a series of U.S. train crashes brought fires and evacuations. DOT and the Department of Energy are still studying the vapor pressure issue to determine whether a rule is needed.
In a June 15 letter to Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, a group of 10 senators, including Schumer, claimed the study had gone on long enough.
"It is clear that the shipment of crude without a national standard regulating volatility poses an imminent hazard," said the letter, which was also signed by independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer of California, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell of Washington, and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/30/stories/1060039676
-
A Bright Spot Amid Brexit? Growing Momentum for Global Climate Action.
Jun 29, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Nat Keohane
Last week’s vote by the British to leave the European Union has triggered a crisis in political leadership, thrown financial markets into turmoil and prompted eulogies for the European project – even as the ultimate consequences of the vote remain uncertain.
Against that backdrop, a bit of good news may be welcome. And it comes from an unlikely quarter: climate action.
That may sound surprising at first since climate change was hardly a high-profile issue in the Brexit campaign. Voting on the referendum reflected concerns about inequality, immigration, globalization, multiculturalism and an out-of-touch political elite.
Even so, the prospect of the United Kingdom’s departure has raised concerns about impacts on climate and energy policy, including possible delays in finalizing the EU’s 2030 emissions target.
But whatever the implications may be for Britain and the EU, one thing is clear: Brexit can’t derail the overwhelming global momentum on climate action that produced the Paris Agreement.
The Paris Agreement: Strength in numbers
A British exit from the EU would not have any effect on the formal architecture of the agreement, which was approved last December by more than 190 countries and has beensigned by 177 – including each of the EU member states.
Given that overwhelming support, the agreement may very well enter into force this year – something that will happen once at least 55 countries representing 55 percent of global emissions formally join the agreement.
To date, 50 countries representing more than 53 percent of global emissions have formally joined or committed to join the agreement this year — closing in on the threshold of 55 countries and 55 percent of emissions needed for the agreement to enter into force. As a result, the agreement may well enter into force as soon as this year, even without the EU (which was not expected to join the agreement this year in any case).
This signals a remarkable shift. A decade ago, Europe was the world’s indispensable leader on climate action – and even temporary uncertainty about the pace of progress in the EU would have had repercussions around the globe.
The Paris Agreement, however, was the culmination of aparadigm shift away from a model of “top-down” climate action concentrated in a handful of countries, and toward more a more decentralized and inclusive approach.
As climate action has become much more broad-based, it has also become more resilient.
Climate leadership beyond the EU
That is not to say that leadership on climate from both the U.K. and the EU is not vital; it is, and will continue to be. Taken as a whole, Europe is still the world’s third-largest emitter. It remains a powerful and valuable voice for ambition.
Fortunately, political support for climate action in the region remains high, with 60 percent of Europeans saying global warming is already harming people around the world.
But we are long past the days when climate progress depended on one bloc of countries. Just consider this:
The leaders of the three North American countries met today to announce greater cooperation on climate change – including major new commitments on clean energy and on methane emissions from oil and gas.
Under the leadership of President Obama, the United States is now a global leader on climate action, with U.S. emissions in 2014 at 9 percent below their 2005 level, and an ambitious target of reducing emissions between 26 and 28 percent by 2025, relative to 2005.
President Xi Jinping of China has made tackling climate change a priority, with a commitment to ratify the Paris Agreement this year, a pledge to peak China’s emissions by 2030, if not before; and a plan to institute a nationwide emission trading program as early as next year.
The unprecedented bilateral cooperation between the U.S. and China, culminating in the joint announcements on climate change made by Presidents Xi and Obama in November 2014 and again in September 2015, were a crucial step in laying the foundation for success in Paris.
Brazil – although currently engulfed in political turmoil of its own – has reduced emissions over the past decade more than any other country, thanks to the enormous success of its Amazon states in curbing tropical deforestation.
India, where the moral imperative of poverty alleviation remains paramount, is committing to renewable energy and experimenting with new models of low-carbon development.
Other factors driving momentum
Underlying these country-level shifts are more fundamentaldrivers. The impacts of climate change are becoming increasingly more visible, in record temperatures and extreme weather events.
A clean energy revolution is underway: Wind power is competitive with coal in much of the world even without subsidies, the cost of solar panels has dropped 75 percent in less than a decade and new technologies for how we use and store energy more efficiently are transforming markets.
Meanwhile, leading companies are stepping up by reducing their carbon footprints, greening their supply chains and calling for policies such as a price on carbon.
In short, leaders around the world have come to the realization that the path to shared global prosperity is a low-carbon path.
That makes the politics of climate action more resilient now than they ever have been before. And that is good news to keep in mind in these uncertain days.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2016/06/29/bright-spot-amid-brexit-growing-momentum-global-climate-action
-
EPA Adopting Toxics Policy Ideas from Advisory Panel -- Official
Jun 30, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA is pursuing the bulk of an advisory panel's recommendations for strengthening the agency's air toxics program, a senior official said yesterday.
"We have been doing a lot of thinking, and we have been walking through a lot of our existing programs," Bill Harnett told the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee at a meeting in the Washington, D.C., area. Out of a slate of some 25 recommendations turned in by the group in January, EPA is working on 17, Harnett said.
Harnett, associate director in EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, said that among them are plugging gaps in emissions data, working with other federal agencies to phase out older diesel-powered vehicles and bolstering air quality monitoring efforts.
Other recommendations, such as issuing an executive order requiring "clean diesel" technology in all federally funded public works projects, would require action by the president or Congress, he said. With President Obama's second term set to end in January, EPA also wants to be careful about setting "something new in motion" without the next administration's participation, Harnett suggested.
With about 40 members drawn from industry, government and other sectors, the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee is charged with advising EPA on issues related to implementation of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. It is chaired by acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe.
As a rule, the agency defines air toxics as pollutants known or suspected to cause cancer and other serious health problems. The committee's recommendations followed a 2014 EPA reportto Congress that lauded major strides in cutting overall emissions since 1990, while acknowledging that "there remain many areas around the country with elevated levels of risks from air toxics."
The committee generally meets twice a year. This week's two-day gathering overlapped with the announcement of a tentative settlement to the Volkswagen AG emissions cheating scandal that would create a $2.7 billion remediation fund for states to split on projects to reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions.
The goal would be to offset the excess NOx releases that resulted from VW's use of illegal software in almost 500,000 2.0-liter diesel-powered vehicles. Under the proposed settlement, which still requires a federal judge's approval, each state will get at least $7.5 million, with California in line for the maximum of $381 million (Greenwire, June 28).
A trustee would oversee the fund. In applying for money, states would have to provide an estimate of the NOx reductions expected to result from a proposed project, along with a detailed budget and timetable.
The $2.7 billion total is equal to one-third of EPA's entire budget for this year. Competition for the money is likely to be fierce.
"I guarantee you that I'm probably going to get approached very soon from different entities saying, 'We'd like to fund this project,'" Myra Reece, acting director of environmental affairs at the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, said at yesterday's committee meeting.
But while Reece urged creation of a mechanism to prioritize projects in line with their anticipated public health benefits, McCabe said the trustee will make the funding choices based on the checklist of requirements in the proposed settlement.
"With something this big, you have to have really clear and simple rules," McCabe said, "and not have EPA involved in it."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/30/stories/1060039677
-
EPA Extends Time For Input On Haze Air Rule Revisions
Jun 30, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA is extending from July 5 to Aug. 10 the deadline for states, environmentalists, industry groups and others to weigh in on its proposed rule that would revise state air quality planning requirements for the agency's regional haze emissions program, after Southern states and an energy group asked for more time to review the proposal.
The agency announced the extension in a notice slated for publication in the July 1 Federal Register, noting that it received several requests for it. According to the rulemaking docket for the proposal, groups that sought more time include the Southeastern States Air Resource Managers (SESARM) that represents air agencies in 10 states, and the North Dakota-based Lignite Energy Council that promotes the use of lignite coal as an energy source.
The proposal, signed April 25 by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and published in the May 4 Federal Register, would revise requirements for state implementation plans (SIPs) -- air quality blueprints that states must craft outlining how they intend to cut haze-forming emissions from sources such as power plants.
The haze program requires that states restore visibility in “Class I” areas -- national parks and wilderness areas -- to natural conditions by 2064, but some states have said the rule's complicated requirements have delayed their ability to craft SIPs. EPA in the rule proposes to extend the SIP submittal deadlines for the next planning period from July 31, 2018, to July 31, 2021. The agency says this will allow states to integrate planning for other federal rules affecting the power sector into their haze planning, including EPA's utility sector air toxics rule.
In a fact sheet on the proposal, the agency also says it will adjust deadlines for submission of interim progress reports, due mid-way through the existing 10-year planning periods, so that second and subsequent progress reports would be due by January 31, 2025, July 31, 2033, and every 10 years thereafter.
EPA would also “remove the requirement for progress reports to take the form of SIP revisions. States would be required to consult with Federal Land Managers and obtain public comment on their progress reports before submission to the EPA,” according to the fact sheet.
Environmentalists are urging EPA to tighten the proposal, saying at a May 19 agency hearing that while the proposal is an improvement over the existing program, it includes provisions that advocates warn would delay important state haze reduction plans and weaken EPA and public oversight.
Advocates, industry groups and others are expected to elaborate on their concerns about the proposal in their eventual full written comments that are now due Aug. 10 under the extension.
SESARM and the Lignite Energy Council in their requests for more time both noted that EPA is poised to issue accompanying guidance on the haze program, and that they need adequate time to review both the guide and proposal. SESARM -- which represents Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia -- in a June 22 letter to EPA asked for a 60-day extension, while the Lignite Energy Council in a June 23 letter to the agency sought an extra 90 days.
http://insideepa.com/the-inside-story
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested