Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 7/14/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Australia's Categorisation of Nanomaterials Slated by Cosmetics Sector
Jul 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The Australian government's plans to allocate nanomaterials to the highest hazard banding, which requires assessment, has drawn criticism from industry, particularly the cosmetics sector. -
Leading Scientists Develop Systematic Review Framework for EDCs
Jul 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
A group of 27 scientists, including some of the most prominent endocrine toxicologists, have developed a systematic review and analysis framework, designed to integrate a wide range of scientific evidence on endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs). -
US EPA Withdraws Three Snurs
Jul 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has withdrawn significant new use rules (Snurs) for three chemical substances, subject to premanufacture notices (PMNs). -
BoA Amends Contested Decision Itself
Jul 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Echa’s Board of Appeal (BoA) has, for the first time, amended a contested Decision directly rather than referring it back to the agency for reassessment. -
Texas Approach To Cr6 May Increase Pressure For EPA To Use Industry Data
Jul 14, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has released for public comment a draft assessment of the human health risks of hexavalent chromium (Cr6) when ingested that relies on industry consultants' publications to use non-linear cancer risk modeling in the assessment, which could increase pressure for EPA to take a similar approach in its pending analysis. -
Study Links BPA To Attention Disorder In Kids
Jul 14, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Lauren Gessner
Children with high levels of the chemical bisphenol A in their bodies were more likely to have Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder than those with lower levels of the chemical, according to a study published June 6 in the journal Environmental Research. -
Air Agency Group's Becker Discusses New Guidance For State Compliance
Jul 14, 2016 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
As many states move forward with Clean Power Plan compliance planning, the National Association of Clean Air Agencies this month released guidance for states that includes model plans and pathways for compliance. During today's OnPoint, William Becker, the group's executive director, explains how states can use NACAA's compliance recommendations to create effective frameworks for U.S. EPA approval, should the power plan be upheld by the courts. -
Enviros Score Procedural Win in Fracking Rule Battle
Jul 14, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmental groups notched a small victory this week when a federal court agreed to scrap the controversial court order that froze the Obama administration's hydraulic fracturing rule last fall. -
America is Ready for Clean Energy
Jul 14, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Wenonah Hauter
The 2016 campaign season is like no other in recent memory for a lot of reasons. One of them is that an environmental issue—fracking—has gained unexpected prominence on the campaign trail because of the large and vocal ban-fracking movement. -
Monsanto Questions Portland PCB Lawsuit
Jul 13, 2016 | Portland Tribune
By Jim Redden
Monsanto is pushing back against a lawsuit filed in federal court Tuesday to hold the company responsible for the local environmental damage caused by the PCBs it used to manufacture. -
Feds Seek New Rules to Mitigate Oil Train Derailments
Jul 14, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Federal regulators are proposing new rules aimed at mitigating the effects of derailments, spills and explosions of oil trains. -
Proposed Rule Would Prep for 'Worst-Case' Oil Train Disaster
Jul 14, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Department of Transportation is moving to close a loophole that impeded federal oversight of railroads' oil spill response plans. -
EPA Refinery Decree May Set Precedent On Expanded Flare Gas Recovery
Jul 14, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
A proposed legal settlement recently reached by EPA, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and refiner Marathon Petroleum could set a precedent for more extensive use of flare gas recovery systems (FGRSs) by industrial facilities, building on earlier settlements reached by the government and refineries, say DOJ and environmentalists. -
EPA Sends Cross-State Rule to White House for Review
Jul 14, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA has forwarded a final draft of its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) update to the White House Office of Management and Budget for interagency review.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
TSCA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Australia's Categorisation of Nanomaterials Slated by Cosmetics Sector
Jul 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The Australian government's plans to allocate nanomaterials to the highest hazard banding, which requires assessment, has drawn criticism from industry, particularly the cosmetics sector.
Accord, which represents Australia's cosmetics industry, says there is "no scientific evidence that simply meeting the definition of a nanomaterial is an indication of intrinsic hazard."
And the American Chemistry Council (ACC) says that more than ten years of safety research on nanomaterials has shown they cannot be assumed high risk. It says the European Commission does not consider nanomaterials to be substances of very high concern (SVHCs).
Bracketing nanomaterials as high risk will encourage negative public perception and could limit growth of the sector, it says. The ACC believes the framework should avoid "generalised assumptions". Instead it should use case-by-case risk assessments for nanomaterials. This would put them in line with the treatment of other chemicals.
But, in its third consultation paper, Australia's chemicals agency, Nicnas, justifies its position. It draws attention to the OECD recommendation that "member countries apply existing frameworks to manage the risks associated with manufactured nanomaterials". The recommendation says such systems may need to be adapted to take into account the specific properties of these substances.
The agency plans to exempt some nanomaterials from these requirements. However, these are only those that fall within the definition of 'contained import/export' (chemicals that remain within the packaging), or R&D.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48610/australias-categorisation-of-nanomaterials-slated-by-cosmetics-sector?q=%22American+Chemistry+Council%22
-
Leading Scientists Develop Systematic Review Framework for EDCs
Jul 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
A group of 27 scientists, including some of the most prominent endocrine toxicologists, have developed a systematic review and analysis framework, designed to integrate a wide range of scientific evidence on endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs).
Known as "Syrina" (systematic review and integrated assessment), the framework can be used to review and integrate evidence from epidemiology, wildlife, laboratory animals, in vitro and in silico studies, to draw conclusions about the strength of evidence linking EDCs to adverse health or environmental effects.
The authors of the paper, just published in the peer reviewed journal Environmental Health, believe it can increase confidence in risk management conclusions, by using “transparent and reproducible methods that acknowledge uncertainties”.
The paper sets out the seven stage framework, which begins with defining the scope and objective of the review and continues by following a written protocol, including a literature search strategy, screening methods and an evaluation process.
All relevant studies are identified and evaluated, before the various evidence streams – such as epidemiological studies or animal experiments – can each be summarised and assessed. This is done by considering the relationship between exposure and effect, and then exposure and evidence of endocrine activity – although the framework also works with other toxicological mechanisms.
Finally the evidence of exposure and effect, for all streams, is brought together and conclusions drawn on the strength of evidence, the uncertainties and the consequences of taking – or not taking – risk management measures.
Syrina is not the first systematic review framework. The US National Toxicology Program developed theOffice of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) system in 2012. The US EPA also tested a system, known as the navigation guide, in 2014.
However, lead author Laura Vandenberg from the University of Massachusetts says Syrina has the advantages: that it was built specifically to incorporate information from all evidence streams; and to address the question of whether a compound is an endocrine disruptor in the context of the WHO/IPCS definition.
Another author, Professor Christina Ruden of Stockholm University, adds that Syrina pulls the best out of several existing frameworks so is “more comprehensive and stronger as a whole”.
Professor Ruden also confirms that it will be put to the test shortly because funding has been obtained from the EDC-MixRisk project to conduct a case study. This will involve a well-investigated substance that has already been risk assessed, “such as bisphenol A and DEHP”, she says.
“Another very important aspect is the usability of the tool,” Professor Ruden notes. “It should not be too resource intensive but, at the same time, needs to be scientifically solid. I think we made a good compromise there.”
The authors also made an effort to harmonise EU and US ways of thinking. “It would of course be a huge strength if we had one really good system in both the US and the EU,” she concludes.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48543/leading-scientists-develop-systematic-review-framework-for-edcs
-
Jul 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has withdrawn significant new use rules (Snurs) for three chemical substances, subject to premanufacture notices (PMNs).
The EPA had published the Snurs under direct final rules, but received adverse comments on the substances. Therefore the agency is withdrawing the direct final rules for:
functionalised carbon nanotubes (generic), (PMN P-15-276);
diisocyanato hexane, homopolymer, alkanoic acid-polyalkylene glycol ether with substituted alkane (3:1) reaction products-blocked (generic), (PMN P-15-378); and
modified diphenylmethane diisocyanate prepolymer with polyol (generic), (PMN P-15-559).
The agency intends to publish proposed Snurs for each.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48605/us-epa-withdraws-three-snurs
-
BoA Amends Contested Decision Itself
Jul 14, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Echa’s Board of Appeal (BoA) has, for the first time, amended a contested Decision directly rather than referring it back to the agency for reassessment.
The case relates to an appeal by three registrants – brominated flame retardants producer Albermarle Europe, only representative CIRS and bromine producer ICL-IP Europe. They asked the BoA to annul Echa’s request for additional information to address the persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity (PBT) concerns regarding the substance EBP, or delay the deadline for it.
Deca-BDE replacement
EBP, also known as decabromodiphenyl ethane (DPDPE), is a flame retardant that has been on the market for more than 20 years. It can be used in lieu of another brominated flame retardant, deca-BDE, which faces an EU ban on its use in mixtures and products placed on the market.
In their appeal, the three firms said that Echa had failed to justify the statement that deca-BDE is an analogue substance to EBP, and that, to the contrary, the scientific differences between the substances are significant.
But the BoA ruled that for the purposes of establishing a concern under the substance evaluation process, the agency had given sufficient reasoning, and that the two substances are structurally similar.
It annulled “all elements” of the contested Decision that instruct, or imply, that the substance to be tested is “anything other than a representative sample of the substance as registered by the addressees ”.
Chemical Watch understands that the board did not want to send the case back to the start of the decision-making process because this could significantly delay the testing results Echa needed.
How to identify a ‘concern’
Another factor was that the concern being investigated was whether the substance is a PBT or one that is very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB), and thus whether it could be added to the candidate list. The BoA’s ruling is also another example of the test which it applies for the identification of a concern, and the necessity of the requested test.
It also confirms that complex problems sometimes need complex solutions and that the adaptation of test methods – sometimes substantially – is acceptable.
But the ruling also says that Echa should cooperate with companies, if requested, when they are doing complex testing to help ensure that the tests provide the information being sought.
The agency said the BoA had “mainly upheld and partially, for specific elements, annulled” its substance evaluation decision on EBP.
“The decision of the board confirms the correctness and legality of the core part of Echa’s Decision for a suspected PBT/vPvB substance,” it added, and “that substance evaluation was the right course of action in the case at hand”.
The BoA also decided that the information required by the contested Decision must be submitted by 19 January 2019, and ordered a refund of the appeal fee.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48608/boa-amends-contested-decision-itself
-
Texas Approach To Cr6 May Increase Pressure For EPA To Use Industry Data
Jul 14, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has released for public comment a draft assessment of the human health risks of hexavalent chromium (Cr6) when ingested that relies on industry consultants' publications to use non-linear cancer risk modeling in the assessment, which could increase pressure for EPA to take a similar approach in its pending analysis.
TCEQ's analysis suggests that EPA's 1991 drinking water standard for total chromium, of 100 parts per billion (ppb) is health protective. Environmentalists questioned the safety of that maximum contaminant level (MCL) after the National Toxicology Program published studies in 2008 suggesting that Cr6 was carcinogenic when ingested, as well as the results of tap water spot testing in locations across the country published by the Environmental Working Group in 2010.
TCEQ's draft assessment contrasts with the draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of Cr6 EPA released in 2010, which used linear modeling -- assuming that there is no safe level of exposure to an environmental contaminant -- to assess Cr6's oral cancer risk. The assessment concluded that Cr6 was mutagenic and proposed a strict oral cancer slope factor, or estimate of cancer potency, of 0.5 per milligram per kilogram bodyweight per day (mg/kg-day). The number prompted concerns that EPA would significantly strengthen its total chromium MCL.
California finalized in 2014 a drinking water standard based on an assessment similar to EPA's 2010 draft. The Golden State is currently in the process of implementing its new drinking water standard for that state of 10 ppb, set to be fully in effect by 2020.
But several members of the peer review panel who reviewed EPA's draft assessment in 2011 called on the agency to wait until the industry contractors completed their then-pending publications before finalizing the assessment. EPA management heeded their call -- though environmentalists protested the industry connections of two of the peer reviewers, leading to an agency re-write of policies for contractor-managed peer review panels.
EPA leaders decided to shelve the draft and re-do the assessment, combining it with an update to its existing analysis of human health risks via inhalation exposure.
Preliminary documents for a new Cr6 assessment were released and discussed in 2014, but a new public draft has yet to emerge. One industry source says that EPA staff hinted last spring that a public draft may be released in early 2017.
Growing Pressure
But EPA may be facing growing pressure to not only use the industry consultant's publications in their assessment but also to reach similar results as TCEQ and Canada's public health agency, Health Canada. Last year, Health Canada released a draft assessment citing the industry consultants' research and, like TCEQ, deciding to use a non-linear cancer risk model in the assessment.
"The MOA analysis supports hyperplasia as a key precursor event to tumour development and a threshold approach for the risk assessment for ingested Cr(VI)," Health Canada's draft 2015 assessment states. The draft assessment proposes loosening that country's 50 ppb guideline for chromium in drinking water to 100 ppb, the same level as EPA's existing MCL.
The industry consultants' research focused on the mode of action (MOA) for how ingested Cr6 could cause cancer -- a surprise finding in 2008 studies performed by the National Toxicology Program at the request of California. Findings from the studies led to concerns about the levels of Cr6 found in drinking water around the country. MOA is an important consideration in EPA risk analyses because the agency's 2005 Cancer Risk Assessment guidelines require EPA risk assessors to use the stricter linear cancer risk modeling to extrapolate from the high doses usually used in lab animal toxicology studies to lower doses people generally experience in the environment when the chemical's MOA is unknown or mutagenic.
In the event of a proven, non-mutagenic MOA, an argument can be made for using non-linear or threshold modeling which assumes that there is some level of exposure which does not cause harm. As a result, it is generally considered less conservative than the linear modeling.
The consultants set out to explore the MOA of ingested Cr6, concluding that they had good evidence of an alternate, non-mutagenic MOA: cytotoxicity-induced regenerative hyperplasia. Representatives of the American Chemistry Council -- which funded much of the consultant's Cr6 research -- met with IRIS staff in 2014 to discuss the research and why it suggested that Cr6 is non-mutagenic and a non-linear cancer modeling approach should be used.
"The current, significantly greater scientific understanding of these issues (especially considering the previous lack of sufficient relevant data and understanding just 5-6 years ago) is of paramount importance considering the substantial regulatory challenge of extrapolating high oral dose results from laboratory animal studies to environmentally-relevant human doses that are orders of magnitude lower in a meaningful, toxicologically-predictive manner," TCEQ's draft assessment states.
TCEQ Analysis
TCEQ released the document June 20 for public comment, with submissions due by Sept. 20. TCEQ goes on to explain that one of the doses used in NTP's 2008 study in mice "is about 74,000 times higher than the approximate human dose corresponding to the 35-city geometric mean drinking water concentration reported in" a 2010 single-sample testing study by the Environmental Working Group. The results of that report led to congressional interest, and then-Administrator Lisa Jackson promised a bipartisan group of concerned senators days after its publication that EPA would complete the Cr6 IRIS assessment within the year.
TCEQ goes on to explain that its staff evaluated the new MOA data, including publishing a trio of papers on the subject in peer-reviewed journals by the author of its draft assessment, TCEQ toxicologist Joseph Haney. One of the three papers "considers both the non-linear, non-threshold approach as well as the threshold (i.e., reference dose) approach prior to conducting a weight-of-evidence (WOE) analysis of available MOA data. The WOE indicates that cytotoxicity-induced regenerative hyperplasia is indubitably the most scientifically well-supported MOA," TCEQ's draft states.
TCEQ also notes that Health Canada reached a similar conclusion in its analysis published last year. "Health Canada (2015) concurs that confidence in a cytotoxic MOA is high (and evidence for a mutagenic MOA is weak)," TCEQ writes. "Consequently, the reference dose (RfD) approach is the most scientifically-defensible approach based on the WOE of available MOA information and analyses conducted for the most scientifically-supported MOA and should be adopted for assessing the potential intestinal carcinogenicity of oral exposure to [Cr6]."
One of the consultants' later publications undertook a risk assessment calculation, proposing like TCEQ a threshold-based reference dose, or the maximum amount of Cr6 they estimated could be ingested daily over a lifetime without experiencing a cancerous effect. Such calculations are usually reserved for non-cancer risk estimates, because non-cancerous effects are generally assumed to have a safe dose-response threshold. The consultants estimated an RfD of 0.006 milligrams per kilogram bodyweight per day (mg/kg-day), a number with which TCEQ compares its draft estimate of 0.0031 mg/kg-day.
"The TCEQ-derived RfD is somewhat more conservative than, but shows remarkable agreement with, a previously published RfD (0.006 mg CrVI/kg-day; Thompson et al. 2013b) as well as Health Canada's Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) of 0.0044 mg CrVI/kg-day; Health Canada 2015)," the assessment states. "It also happens to correspond to the approximate human dose at the federal MCL for Cr (e.g., 0.1 mg/L ? 2.5 L/day ? 1/80 kg = 0.0031 mg/kg-day), and is considered protective of both the potential carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects of oral CrVI exposure."
Comparing Values
Haney, in a July 8 interview with Inside EPA, says that he was comparing his RfD to different RfDs and different RfD-like values, "and then pointing out that my RfD just happens to correspond to the intake at the MCL."
This last finding, which Haney called a remarkable coincidence, "seems to indicate that given the conservativeness of the MCL that it is adequately protective [against] cancer and non-cancer" effects, he said.
Two of Haney's three publications describing his work on the recently released draft assessment were selected last spring by the Society of Toxicology as among the top 10 best peer-reviewed risk assessment research published in 2015, according to a statement that TCEQ released last April. The society is a professional group of toxicologists.
"Groundwater contamination from hexavalent chromium is a problem at various localized sites in Texas and the rest of the country," TCEQ's undated statement announcing Haney's award says. "The good news for Texans and the rest of the country is that Haney's work shows the federal drinking water standard for chromium protects health."
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/texas-approach-cr6-may-increase-pressure-epa-use-industry-data
-
Study Links BPA To Attention Disorder In Kids
Jul 14, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Lauren Gessner
Children with high levels of the chemical bisphenol A in their bodies were more likely to have Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder than those with lower levels of the chemical, according to a study published June 6 in the journal Environmental Research.
A research team led by Dr. Shruti Tewar of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center studied 460 children 8 to 15 years old. The scientists found that 11 percent of children with higher urinary BPA levels were diagnosed with ADHD, compared to the 2.9 percent of kids diagnosed who had lower BPA levels.
ADHD is a developmental disorder causing inattention, hyperactivity and impulsive behaviors that begin in childhood and may continue into adulthood.
The team’s findings add to the growing body of evidence that BPA exposure may be associated with altered brain development and function, potentially leading to inattention and hyperactive behavior in children. While the exact cause of ADHD is unknown, some professionals suggest it is a combination of genes, environmental and other non-genetic factors.
Roughly one in 10 children in the U.S. have been diagnosed with ADHD, and one in six have a developmental disability. Given the prevalence of learning and behavior disorders, the authors suggest additional studies to determine if reducing children’s BPA exposure could prevent them from developing ADHD.
BPA, a petrochemical derivative used to stiffen plastics, acts like estrogen in the body, according to numerous studies. It is a key component of epoxy coatings used to coat the insides of most of the food cans manufactured in the U.S. Can linings break down over time, as well as in the presence of heat or acidic foods, enabling BPA molecules to leach into the food or drink inside. EWG published a report that reveals more than 16,000 processed foods may be packaged in materials that contain BPA. People are also exposed to BPA by thermal cashier receipts.
To reduce your risk of BPA exposure:
Substitute fresh, frozen or dried food for canned food.
Purchase food in alternative packaging, such as glass.
If you can’t avoid BPA epoxy can linings, rinse canned beans, fruit and vegetables.
Never heat food in the can.
Choose canned foods from EWG’s Best Players or Better Players lists of brands and companies that claim to use BPA-free can linings.
Search EWG’s Food Scores to find specific products in BPA-free packaging.
Limit your contact with thermal receipts and wash your hands after handling them.
If you don’t know whether a product is contaminated with BPA, be sure to check out EWG’s BPA Food Scores database – a searchable list of nearly 16,000 processed foods and drinks.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/07/study-links-bpa-attention-disorder-kids
-
Air Agency Group's Becker Discusses New Guidance For State Compliance
Jul 14, 2016 | E&E TV
By OnPoint
As many states move forward with Clean Power Plan compliance planning, the National Association of Clean Air Agencies this month released guidance for states that includes model plans and pathways for compliance. During today's OnPoint, William Becker, the group's executive director, explains how states can use NACAA's compliance recommendations to create effective frameworks for U.S. EPA approval, should the power plan be upheld by the courts.
Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. Bill, thank you so much for coming back on the show.
William Becker: Thanks, Monica. It's great to be back.
Monica Trauzzi: Bill, your organization recently released a report that outlines model state plans to support Clean Power Plan implementation. Considering that the rule has been stayed by the Supreme Court pending litigation, why did you feel that now is an appropriate time to release this guidance for states?
William Becker: Well, it was an appropriate time for several reasons. The first is we have no idea what the courts are going to do, and while EPA can't move forward on the rule, states are not prohibited from working on their own. Secondly, what we are finding is that a number of industries are taking advantage of this law in -- during the stay and are actually coming into state regulatory offices and seeking input and also trying to convince the state regulatory agencies that there are economic opportunities for complying. And thirdly, even if the rule is overturned and the states are precluded from implementing the Clean Power Plan, there is enough meat on the bone in this report, there are enough options available for states who wish to use it totally separate and independent of the Clean Power Plan. So for all of those reasons, it was important to release it when we did.
Monica Trauzzi: So you think that despite the stay, states can take the recommendations made in this report to advance the individual discussions that are happening on the state levels on implementation.
William Becker: Absolutely, and the reason is as follows. We are not providing a mandate for the states. We are providing a model, and actually it's a series of models, it's a menu of models, and while there are some comprehensive model plans in Part 3 of the report, throughout the report there are over two dozen individual regulatory models that could be used as part of or separate from the Clean Power Plan, so there is literally regulatory language that a state or locality could incorporate into its strategy irrespective of the Clean Power Plan.
Monica Trauzzi: What assurances can you give states who may follow one of the pathways you provide in the report that it will be approved by EPA should the plan stay in place?
William Becker: So we can give no assurance that EPA has reviewed this because they haven't, but what we can assure the states is this was written by a very smart technical consultant who used to be an air pollution official from the state of Louisiana. Second, we had a group of 25 state and local members on a steering committee who reviewed this work. Third, many of the ideas were derived from discussions that we had with NASEO and NARUC, our partners in state regulatory development. And fourth, the members of our association are very, very smart, and they will determine very quickly the extent to which this should be approvable, and they'll work through the process as they do other plan submittals and try to seek approval from the regions and then from headquarters if necessary.
Monica Trauzzi: So you're in favor of states continuing to work on implementation.
William Becker: We're in favor of giving states the choice. We are totally understand and mindful of the fact that politically some states aren't able to continue during this stay period, but there are many states who are taking advantage of this opportunity and learning more and trying to be prepared in case the stay is overturned, and we think that the states will use this time very wisely and be prepared should the stay be overturned.
Monica Trauzzi: And do you think that those states who are working right now and potentially using the guidance that you're providing in this report, do they have an advantage over the states who have halted action on implementation?
William Becker: Well, they have an advantage in that if they seek to learn the details of the model during this stay, they will be better prepared at the time if the stay is overturned. There will be more catching up for those states that are putting pencils down and not doing anything. You know, unless a governor or a state legislature has tied the hands of a state, I can't see a scenario why a state wouldn't want to proceed, maybe at a slower pace, perhaps not advertise what it's doing, go to meetings, meet with stakeholders, but be smarter in the process so that if and when the stay is overturned or the state decides to go on its own in reducing greenhouse gases, it'll be that much smarter than it otherwise would have been.
Monica Trauzzi: Is your sense that even in the states where compliance discussions have been halted, at least publicly stated that they've been halted, that behind-the-scenes discussions are still happening?
William Becker: Absolutely. I've seen estimates that there have been, you know, three-quarters or more of the states who are still moving ahead, perhaps not full speed ahead, but they're moving ahead, and they're doing so, as I said, not just because they think it's important, but because other stakeholders want to take advantage of that. So I think that most of the states would love to move ahead, but for in a few states, the governor or the state legislature has forbade it.
Monica Trauzzi: Well, because they don't think it's in the best interest of their state.
William Becker: They don't.
Monica Trauzzi: All right. We'll end it right there. Thank you for coming on the show. Nice to see you.
William Becker: You also. Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2142/transcript
-
Enviros Score Procedural Win in Fracking Rule Battle
Jul 14, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmental groups notched a small victory this week when a federal court agreed to scrap the controversial court order that froze the Obama administration's hydraulic fracturing rule last fall.
The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday vacated the preliminary injunction order issued in September by the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming. Though the district court struck down the fracking rule last month -- rendering the injunction order inoperative -- environmentalists feared the order could set a bad precedent.
The Interior Department and environmental intervenors appealed the preliminary injunction last year, taking issue with Judge Scott Skavdahl's ruling that the fracking rule likely exceeded the agency's power and could cause irreparable harm to the states, industry groups and American Indian tribe challenging the regulation. That appeal was underway at the 10th Circuit when the lower court issued its final decision on the broader merits of the case.
Both Interior and its challengers agreed that the injunction appeal was moot in light of the broader decision. But environmental intervenors defending the fracking rule argued that Skavdahl's legal reasoning in the injunction order -- which raised some issues not further discussed in the final decision -- could be persuasive in other courts (EnergyWire, July 1).
"But the states and industry wanted to 'have their cake and eat it, too': They tried to retain benefits from the preliminary injunction order, while preventing us from appealing that ruling," Earthjustice attorney Michael Freeman said in an email.
A three-judge panel of the appeals court yesterday dismissed the injunction appeal but granted Freeman's request to vacate the injunction order.
"We're pleased with this ruling, which clears the way for an appeal of Judge Skavdahl's recent decision on the merits," he said.
Industry groups, the Ute Tribe and the four states challenging the rule opposed vacating the order, arguing in legal briefs that the "mootness" of the injunction appeal was Interior's and the environmental groups' own fault because they did not move forward with the appeal expeditiously. Plus, industry groups said, they are entitled to the protections from the injunction order if the case ends up remanded to the district court.
The 10th Circuit panel issued its decision in a customary short order, with no discussion of the various arguments. In an email, industry attorney Mark Barron expressed disappointment with the decision but shifted focus to the broader appeal of the merits decision that is set to move forward in the same court.
"The result, while unfortunate, is not unexpected given the mischaracterization of the district court's preliminary injunction ruling in the intervenors' moving papers," he said. "That said, today's order is meaningless to the outcome of the case on the merits. Our hope is that intervenors will now cease grandstanding and allow the parties to focus on the merits of the narrow questions of administrative law this case presents."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/07/14/stories/1060040229
-
America is Ready for Clean Energy
Jul 14, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Wenonah Hauter
The 2016 campaign season is like no other in recent memory for a lot of reasons. One of them is that an environmental issue—fracking—has gained unexpected prominence on the campaign trail because of the large and vocal ban-fracking movement. While in the past such topics were ignored, our dependence on fossil fuels and the fate of our climate are now top of mind for many voters, triggering local ballot initiatives in states like California and Colorado and heated exchanges from the leading presidential candidates.
Upon closer look, it’s not surprising that fracking has emerged as a key issue in 2016. Hydraulic fracturing now accounts for over 50% of the nation’s oil and natural gas output. At the same time, it risks the water we drink and the air we breathe. It endangers our health and communities, and worsens our climate crisis. At a time of great concern over economic inequality and corporate power, fracking pits Big Energy and Wall Street against local land owners and disadvantaged communities. This explains why, for the first time, more than half the country now opposes fracking.
Fracking came out of years of energy deregulation pursued by the industry: from the 1978 deregulation of natural gas pricing and pipeline oversight, to the 1989 repeal of all remaining gas pricing regulation, to the 1992 deregulation of the electricity market, to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which exempted fracking from basic protections provided by the Safe Drinking Water Act. Just this month, a judge cited the 2005 energy law as rationale for deeming any federal regulations on fracking on public lands to be unlawful. How could this have come to be?
Since at least the days of former Enron CEO Ken Lay, we’ve been told that natural gas is a “bridge fuel” to truly clean and renewable energy future. Lay’s rhetoric about the potential of electricity deregulation to spark a rapid transition to sustainable energy lured in big green groups like the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).
Even today, politics promoting fracking for natural gas have seeped into the federal agency tasked with protecting our environment. A year ago, the EPA issued a highly-anticipated draft report on hydraulic fracturing impacts to our drinking water. When the nearly thousand-page study came out, the agency grandly concluded that the “[a]ssessment shows hydraulic fracturing activities have not led to widespread, systemic impacts to drinking water resources.” Not surprisingly, the oil and gas industry hailed the report as a sign of settled science. But the study was full of gaps and caveats, including the blatant omission of high-profile water contamination cases in Pavillion, Wyoming, Parker County, Texas and Dimock, Pennsylvania.
However, the truth is coming out. The EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) has determined that the agency’s industry-friendly summary findings were in fact “not adequately supported,” “do not clearly, concisely, and accurately describe the findings,” and are “ambiguous and appear inconsistent” with “significant data limitations and uncertainties.” The EPA—which has hewed to the “all of the above” enthusiasm for fracking throughout the Obama administration—is now exposed for running with the misleading topline. More recently, an independent study called contamination in North Dakota “widespread,” providing a damning counterpoint to the EPA.
Here’s the thing: the false choice between coal and natural gas still leaves us reliant on fossil fuels and invested in the infrastructure for fracking. As long as we permit offshore drilling in California and the Gulf of Mexico, are content with weak methane regulations and weak targets under the Clean Power Plan, and allow big new pipelines, we are locking in more drilling and fracking for oil and gas and delaying clean energy revolution.
The progress we have made towards renewable energy has been the result of regulatory and legislative changes for which advocates have fought. Five years ago, banning fracking in New York seemed impossible, but it became a reality in 2014. Maryland has followed by passing a moratorium, along with dozens of other jurisdictions across the country. Meanwhile, the cost of renewables has dropped considerably and states like California and Texas have increasingly brought on new solar and wind energy sources. But we must fight harder to accelerate such progress.
We can start to put an end to fracking by banning it on our public lands, legislation that leading federal lawmakers have proposed. The fact that about 90 percent of federal lands today are available for oil and gas leasing—while only 10 percent are reserved for conservation, recreation, wildlife and cultural heritage—is appalling. This ban on public-land fracking is all the more critical in light of the recent court decision negating the federal government’s ability to regulate such activity in any form.
But we must go even farther if we are to achieve a true clean energy revolution. Thousands will march next month at the Democratic National Convention, calling for an outright national fracking ban, a full commitment to environmental justice everywhere, and a massive investment in renewable energy technology and jobs that will release us from all fossil fuels by 2035. Anything less could doom us to health and climate peril.
We already have the solutions we need. We just require commitment from our environmental and political leaders to stop rationalizing pollution and do away with the fearful politics of convenience—or, at least, what was convenient in the past.
Hauter is director of Food & Water Watch and author of a just-released book Frackopoly.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/287646-america-is-ready-for-clean-energy
-
Monsanto Questions Portland PCB Lawsuit
Jul 13, 2016 | Portland Tribune
By Jim Redden
Monsanto is pushing back against a lawsuit filed in federal court Tuesday to hold the company responsible for the local environmental damage caused by the PCBs it used to manufacture.
The City Council authorized the suit on March 16. It is one of five similar suits filed by other West Coast cities represented by the same two private law firms, Gomez Trial Lawyers and Baron & Budd. They all claim Monsanto, the exclusive manufacturer of polychlorinated biphenyls from 1935 to 1979, knew the product was hazardous and hid the risks from the public.
PCBs were widely used in electrical and other industrial processes, and have been shown to be highly persistent in the environment and a likely cause of cancer in humans and animals. They have been found in Portland waterways, including the harbor Superfund site that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency believes was polluted by city sewers, among other sources.
“Although Monsanto knew for decades that PCBs were toxic and knew that they were widely contaminating all natural resources and living organisms, Monsanto concealed these facts and continued producing PCBs until Congress enacted the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), which banned the manufacture and most uses of PCBs as of January 1, 1979,” says the suit, which seeks unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages, litigation costs and attorney’s fees.
But Scott S. Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president for global strategy, dismisses the suit as a money-making ploy by the two firms.
”This self-serving claim was instigated by trial lawyers in search of a windfall who aggressively shopped their services to Portland government officials. By joining this speculative legal scrum, city officials have signed on to an open ended commitment of Portland taxpayer resources that will drag on for years and, in the end, may only serve to uncover the fact that the city itself is responsible for discharging the PCBs,” says Partridge.
Partridge also denies Monsanto polluted Portland’s waterways with PCBs, saying, “There is no evidence that Monsanto discharged any PCBs into Portland harbors and any PCBs that may be present there were introduced by unidentified third parties.
“The contrived legal theory is grossly out of step with governing authorities, has been rejected by other courts around the country and should ultimately be rejected by the Portland court.”
And Partridge says the suit could delay the start of the Superfund cleanup. The EPA is trying to finalize the cleanup by the end of the year, before the next U.S. President takes office, which could put such agency actions on hold until a new administrator is chosen.
“This ill-advised action by the city will further delay any implementation of the EPA's plan to clean up the harbor and river, as it will spur numerous complex litigation claims.
“Monsanto takes seriously its own environmental responsibilities and believes that those who spilled, released or allowed PCBs into the harbor should be held accountable for cleaning it up."
The other cities who have filed similar suits are Seattle, San Diego, San Jose, Oakland, Spokane and Berkeley.
http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/314920-193935-monsanto-questions-portland-pcb-lawsuit
-
Feds Seek New Rules to Mitigate Oil Train Derailments
Jul 14, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Federal regulators are proposing new rules aimed at mitigating the effects of derailments, spills and explosions of oil trains.
The regulation from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) would strengthen the standards for railroads’ spill response plans, along with those for sharing information about oil train movements with state and tribal governments.
“Incidents involving crude oil can have devastating consequences to local communities and the environment. We've taken more than 30 actions in the last two years to continue to address risk, and we continue to push the industry to do more to prevent derailments from happening,” Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in a statement late Wednesday.
“This rule goes one step further to hold industry accountable to plan and prepare for the worst case scenario,” he said. “It would help to ensure that railroads have comprehensive plans to respond to derailments when they occur and better ensure the safety of communities living near railroads.”
It’s the latest step in a years-long effort by the Obama administration to dramatically improve the safety of oil movement by rail.
It follows a string of major oil train disasters, like a crash and explosion that killed 47 in Quebec in 2013, and an Oregon derailment and fire last month right next to the Columbia River.
The increase in disasters has come about due to growth in oil train traffic, spurred by a major increase oil production in both the United States and Canada.
Wednesday’s proposal would specific increase the types of trains carrying oil and other highly flammable substances that would have to prepare comprehensive spill plans, many of which currently only have to prepare basic plans.
It would also codify information sharing requirements with state and tribal governments, to comply with mandates Congress passed last year in Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act highway bill.
PHMSA is accepting comments from the public on the proposal for 60 days, at which point it will consider the comments before making the rule final.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/287703-feds-seek-new-rules-to-mitigate-oil-train-derailments
-
Proposed Rule Would Prep for 'Worst-Case' Oil Train Disaster
Jul 14, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Department of Transportation is moving to close a loophole that impeded federal oversight of railroads' oil spill response plans.
Under a draft rule issued yesterday, DOT's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is proposing tougher emergency planning requirements for operators of any train carrying 35 or more loaded tank cars of crude, or about 1 million gallons of oil. Any railroad stringing 20 or more tank cars in a row -- as opposed to 35 scattered throughout the train -- would also have to comply with the new regulations.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in a statement yesterday that the rule would "hold industry accountable to plan and prepare for the worst case scenario."
"It would help to ensure that railroads have comprehensive plans to respond to derailments when they occur and better ensure the safety of communities living near railroads," he said.
Under current guidelines, railroads are only expected to keep "comprehensive" response plans available for federal review when carrying 1,000 barrels of oil in a single tank car, something that rarely, if ever, occurred in practice (EnergyWire, Feb. 19, 2014). Normal tank cars each hold between 600 and 700 barrels of crude.
Last year, Foxx's agency finalized its most comprehensive rule on the subject to date, tightening tank car construction standards for crude, ethanol and other hazardous materials transported in bulk.
A string of oil train derailments and fires had raised tensions between rural towns and the railroads passing through them. Community leaders and some members of Congress called for more data from the freight rail industry, another goal of yesterday's proposal. The rule would make railroads share hazmat train routes, a description of the dangerous materials, and emergency contact info with local authorities on a monthly basis.
"First responders must be informed when trains carrying hazardous materials are going to travel through their communities," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). "[This] proposal moves toward greater transparency by requiring railroads to better notify emergency responders about large shipments of any flammable liquid, not just oil."
Oregon was shaken last month by a Union Pacific Corp. oil train crash near the small town of Mosier, which hurt no one but prompted evacuations (EnergyWire, June 6).
Yesterday, Oregon Democratic Sens. Wyden and Jeff Merkley unveiled their legislative response to recent oil train derailments (E&E Daily, July 14).
Environmental groups quickly welcomed the federal rule yesterday. The Sierra Club pointed out that the proposal arrived days after the three-year anniversary of a deadly oil train derailment and explosion in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, which killed 47 people.
"It is critical that all train companies carrying any amount of crude oil demonstrate that they have the capability to respond to a disaster, and that first responders at all levels have the resources to, as well," said Lena Moffitt, director of the group's Dirty Fuels campaign. The Sierra Club supports an outright ban on oil train traffic.
Ed Greenberg, spokesman for the Association of American Railroads, which represents major companies such as Union Pacific and BNSF Railway Co., said the group shares PHMSA's concern for safety and is "thoroughly reviewing" the 217-page proposed rule.
"Freight railroads have comprehensive emergency response plans in place as part of preparedness and training with local communities, and we will be taking a close look at what the agency has announced," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/07/14/stories/1060040268
-
EPA Refinery Decree May Set Precedent On Expanded Flare Gas Recovery
Jul 14, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
A proposed legal settlement recently reached by EPA, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and refiner Marathon Petroleum could set a precedent for more extensive use of flare gas recovery systems (FGRSs) by industrial facilities, building on earlier settlements reached by the government and refineries, say DOJ and environmentalists.
EPA and DOJ are taking comment through July 27 on the proposed decree under which Marathon will spend $319 million to install at refineries in five states "state-of-the-art" FGRS, which will capture and use as fuel gas that would otherwise be burned in flares, as part of a deal to settle alleged Clean Air Act violations.
The agreement modifies a 2012 consent decree reached with the company, which pioneered greater flare combustion efficiency and paved the way for EPA to issue a stricter national regulation for refinery flaring in 2015 -- though that rule did not address flare gas recovery.
Under the agreement, Marathon will install seven FGRSs at five refineries located in Canton, OH; Catlettsburg, KY; Detroit, MI; Garyville, LA; and Robinson, IL. "Marathon will be required to operate FGRSs at a higher percentage of time than EPA has ever secured in prior enforcement actions," DOJ says in its announcement.
"Marathon will also maintain two duplicates of a critical spare part to be delivered immediately to any of these refineries as necessary, to help make sure FGRSs have minimal downtime," DOJ says.
One environmentalist welcomes the "significant improvement" in flare gas recovery systems in the consent decree. "That should result in a net reduction of emissions, as the recycled refinery gas displaces natural gas that Marathon would presumably have to purchase for its heaters and boilers instead," the source says.
The source says that in terms of the toxic emissions avoided, it is not a one-for-one trade-off, as refinery gases have a much higher content of volatile organic compounds than natural gas, but there is "still a net reduction."
FGRSs also have a greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction benefit, as they avoid unnecessary flaring that can boost GHGs, as EPA noted when it introduced flare gas recovery as a requirement in enforcement actions in a 2012 settlement with oil company BP at the firm's Whiting, IN, refinery.
Under that deal, the Whiting plant was required to divert 90 percent of its waste gas away from flares and to an FRGS. EPA has further required flare gas recovery by Shell Oil and its affiliate, Shell Chemical, which operate a co-located refinery and chemical plant in Deer Park, TX.
In comparison, the modified Marathon settlement requires either 96 percent flare gas recovery or 98 percent, depending on the site.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-refinery-decree-may-set-precedent-expanded-flare-gas-recovery
-
EPA Sends Cross-State Rule to White House for Review
Jul 14, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA has forwarded a final draft of its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) update to the White House Office of Management and Budget for interagency review.
The proposal, unveiled seven months ago, would require power plants in 23 states as far west as Texas to cut releases of nitrogen oxides that contribute to downwind ozone problems (Greenwire, Nov. 17, 2015). It followed a ruling last summer by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that EPA had erred in setting 2014 ozone season NOx budgets in 11 states (Greenwire, July 28, 2015).
EPA hopes to release the final version by September.
In sunlight, nitrogen oxides react with volatile organic compounds to form ozone, a lung irritant that can help trigger asthma attacks and worsen emphysema symptoms. When combined with other steps to curb nitrogen oxides releases, the proposed CSAPR revisions are expected to cut ozone season NOx emissions by 150,000 tons in 2017 in comparison with a 2014 threshold, or a reduction of more than 30 percent.
The projected value of annual health benefits could be as high as $1.2 billion, or more than 10 times the estimated $93 million price tag for compliance, according to the agency.
The final draft was received by OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on Tuesday, according to the website Reginfo.gov. It adds to a backlog of EPA rulemakings under review by OMB that now totals 19, the highest for any agency within the federal government, the site indicates. Others include a proposed endangerment finding for aircraft-related greenhouse gas emissions, protective action guidance for radiological incidents, and control techniques guidelines for the oil and gas industry.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/07/14/stories/1060040289
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
TSCA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested