Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 8/30/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) PP, Solid PS Prices Rise; PET Bottle Resin Drops
Aug 30, 2016 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
After an uneventful July, North American resin markets became active again in August, with prices for polypropylene and solid polystyrene climbing while prices for PET bottle resin fell. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Urged To Clarify Plan For Prioritizing Chemical Reviews Under TSCA
Aug 30, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Chemical industry groups are urging EPA to clarify its plans for implementing a mandate under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for designating substances as either high or low priority for review, including how it will apply to new chemicals and what the agency will do when there is inadequate safety data for a substance. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industries, Advocates Query EPA's Plan For TSCA Review Rule Definitions
Aug 30, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Groups representing major industrial sectors and environmentalists are querying how EPA plans to define key terms for its pending rule under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to prioritize chemicals for risk assessment, including “susceptible subpopulations” and how to satisfy a statutory mandate for scientific integrity. -
The New Toxic Substances Control Act: What You Need to Know
Aug 30, 2016 | Lexology
By Hogan Lovells
On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Act) into law, thereby amending, for the first time in its 40 year history, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The Lautenberg Act gives TSCA a shot in the arm, promising sweeping change to chemical regulation in the United States. -
Mercury Compound Ban Marks Next Step in TSCA Update
Aug 30, 2016 | Chemical Watch
As required under the recently reformed TSCA, the US EPA has published a list of mercury compounds prohibited from export. -
Asbestos May Become One of Ten Chemicals Reviewed Under the New TSCA This Year
Aug 30, 2016 | Just Means
Since the reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was passed by the Senate and signed into law two months ago, the EPA has received mounting pressure to deliver on promised regulatory improvements and demonstrate their commitment to the spirit of the new law. -
California to Consider Prop 65 Listing for Nitrites
Aug 30, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) is consulting on hazard identification materials of nitrite in combination with amines or amides. -
US Agencies Release Research Protocol for Crumb Rubber
Aug 30, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Three US agencies have released a research protocol for evaluating the safety of recycled tyre crumb rubber, used in synthetic turf fields and playgrounds. -
Some See Chemical Manufacturing Rising in Coal's Wake
Aug 30, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Erika Bolstad
Put us to work in the energy industry, West Virginians pleaded yesterday, calling on state and federal leaders to help rescue their coal-dependent economy from its free fall by helping boost other energy sectors powered by natural gas. -
Court Allows Greens, Power Companies to Back EPA Rule
Aug 30, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today allowed several environmental groups and power companies to defend U.S. EPA in the latest legal challenge to its climate rule for new power plants. -
N.D., Texas Tee Up Arguments Against Methane Rule
Aug 30, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
North Dakota and Texas are preparing legal arguments against U.S. EPA's hot-button methane rule for the oil and gas industry. -
The Golden Age of Natural Gas
Aug 30, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Dr. J. Winston Porter
U.S. carbon emissions from power plants have fallen to 25-year lows. No country is reducing its emissions faster. Remarkably, we are doing this while still growing our economy. In fact, wholesale electricity prices have fallen 40 percent over the past five years. -
Final Defense of EPA’s New Plant Carbon Rule Falls to Next President
Aug 30, 2016 | Polotico Pro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
The final legal defense of EPA's carbon rule for new power plants will be left to the next president. -
EPA Can Revise Provisions of Ozone Rule — Court
Aug 30, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A federal appellate court has given U.S. EPA a do-over on parts of a rule setting requirements for states to meet the 2008 air quality standard for ozone. -
EPA Poised To Propose De Minimis GHG Threshold For Permitting Limits
Aug 30, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA appears poised to issue a proposed de minimis threshold for greenhouse gases to trigger major source permitting requirements, a level the agency was required to craft following a 2014 Supreme Court ruling that curtailed its GHG permitting program.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) PP, Solid PS Prices Rise; PET Bottle Resin Drops
Aug 30, 2016 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
After an uneventful July, North American resin markets became active again in August, with prices for polypropylene and solid polystyrene climbing while prices for PET bottle resin fell.
The North American PP resin market was able to end its pricing slide in August, with average selling prices moving up an average of 3.5 cents per pound.
That matches a similar price increase for propylene monomer feedstock. Market sources said propylene supply issues played a role in the resin hike, as did a moderate decline in the amount of imported PP available in North America. Prior to the August increase, regional PP prices had declined for 5 consecutive months, with those decreases totaling 10 cents per pound.
North American PP demand grew only 0.5 percent in the first 7 months of 2016, according to the American Chemistry Council. Domestic sales were flat, but the overall market was lifted by a 24 percent jump in export sales.
Regional selling prices for solid PS resin also increased in August, bouncing up an average of 2 cents per pound. That increase was tied to a jump in prices of benzene feedstock, which is used to make styrene monomer. Benzene prices for August were up 17 cents to $2.29 per gallon, a hike of 8 percent vs. the prior month.
The August increase basically cancels out a 2-cent drop that hit the PS market in June. Prices for the material had been flat in July.
Regional prices for PET bottle resin went in a different direction than PP and PS in August. Prices for the material fell by an average of 1 cent per pound, due in part to a drop in prices for paraxylene feedstock.
The PET price drop ends a run of three straight months in which prices for the material were flat. Regional PET prices hadn’t moved since climbing 2 cents per pound in April.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20160830/NEWS/160839986/pp-solid-ps-prices-rise-pet-bottle-resin-drops
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Urged To Clarify Plan For Prioritizing Chemical Reviews Under TSCA
Aug 30, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Chemical industry groups are urging EPA to clarify its plans for implementing a mandate under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for designating substances as either high or low priority for review, including how it will apply to new chemicals and what the agency will do when there is inadequate safety data for a substance.
In contrast, environmentalists are suggesting EPA set general guidelines outlining the procedural steps it would take in making a prioritization decision rather than crafting a rigid process that applies to every chemical.
Section 6 of the new TSCA law signed June 22 directs EPA to categorize existing chemicals -- those already on the market -- as high or low priority, and then perform risk evaluations of the high priority chemicals.
Under the revised statute, the agency has until June 2017 to develop criteria and a final implementing rule outlining how agency staff will prioritize as high priority those chemicals that “may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment,” and as low priority those that do not meet that standard.
The rule is separate from a related regulation that EPA is developing that will outline the process through which the agency assesses chemicals to determine the risk that they pose to humans or the environment.
Earlier this month EPA held public meetings in Washington, D.C. to seek input on implementation of the new law, including the risk rule, how to establish its fee program and the prioritization process. The agency also took written comment through Aug. 24 on the two issues in order to inform its rules.
Consulting firm Gradient in Aug. 24 comments on the prioritization issue says the agency should clarify how it intends to prioritize new chemicals under section 5 of the law. While section 6 outlines EPA's authority to regulate existing chemicals, section 5 details the requirements for new chemicals entering the market.
The new law requires that EPA must issue an affirmative safety finding for new chemicals through review of pre-manufacture notices (PMN) that industry submits under section 5, but Gradient asks in its comments, “Will chemicals that meet the safety standard through the PMN process be automatically designated 'low-priority?'”
During EPA's Aug. 10 meeting on the prioritization rule, Tony Schatz of Ashland, Inc., said "EPA should consider how to deal with those chemicals that do not currently fall into high priority or low priority," adding that a “tiered approach or some medium level priority” may need to be considered for a number of chemicals.
Similarly, Gradient says in its written comments that the “issue of 'prioritization for prioritization,' perhaps better termed 'ranking-for-designation,' must be addressed. As defined in the statute, there is no middle ground for prioritization -- a substance is designated only as 'high' or 'low' priority.”
Consequently, Gradient says, procedures for selecting substances to enter the prioritization process should define how this first "ranking-for-designation" step is conducted, including the criteria used for decisions and the way in which the ranking and substances will be disclosed to the public.
Evaluation Criteria
Gradient also says in its comments that if EPA plans on designating chemicals for which it approves PMNs as “low priority,” it should ensure that the evaluation criteria for PMNs and priority designations are sufficiently similar to justify that designation.
The comments say, “If new chemicals that meet the PMN safety standard are not designated low-priority, EPA should clarify how and why the criteria differ, to avoid the appearance of inconsistency if a chemical designated 'safe' through the PMN process is later assigned a high priority for further risk evaluation.”
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) says in its Aug. 25 comments notes that EPA can employ power under section 4 of the law to require industry testing of chemicals before or after it initiates the prioritization process where it determines more information is necessary to establish priority. However, ACC adds, the agency is still required under the law to issue a designation after 90 days from receiving the information.
However, ACC says that nothing in the law prevents EPA from removing a substance from the prioritization process once it has initiated that process.
“If EPA employs its Section 4 authority for a specific substance after it initiates the prioritization process, ACC believes the Agency has discretion to remove the specific substance from the prioritization process pending receipt of the information developed under Section 4,” the group says.
Similarly, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers says in Aug. 24 comments that “EPA should appropriately characterize the high-priority designation as indicating that more study is needed to fully understand the safety of that chemical.”
Without such an appropriate characterization, companies may incur adverse effects through retailers targeting the chemical through market restriction, even though a full chemical analysis and risk determination have not been completed, it says.
Meanwhile, the Auto Alliance in Aug. 24 comments adds, “Listing a chemical as a 'high priority' does not signify that the chemical is unsafe,” and the prioritization rule should clearly articulate that a high priority listing is not an affirmative finding that the chemical is unsafe.
Agency Guidelines
Meanwhile, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is urging EPA to avoid explicitly defining the specific protocol that will be used for prioritization decisions such as “a two-step process involving a numerical scoring system.” Instead, the group says EPA should set guidelines for the procedural steps that will be taken when prioritizing chemicals and use future guidance documents to establish specific methodologies and tools for prioritization.
NRDC says in its Aug. 24 comments that EPA should adopt a screening method that is broad and ensures most chemical substances or categories of chemical substances are ultimately deemed high priority and slated for eventual risk evaluation.
The group says EPA should draw from multiple data streams, give highest weight to positive evidence of hazard, exposure, or persistent and bioaccumulative characteristics, and classify data gaps at a level of high concern. “The potential pool of high priority chemical substances and categories of chemical substances will likely be very large (although the Agency need not propose them as high priority all at once).”
For example, classification of chemicals deemed “low” toxicity or “low” exposure should be based on a preponderance of data -- which EPA can now more easily obtain under the new law because of expanded EPA test auhtority and other revisions, NRDC says.
“The default assumption for missing data should be the most protective of public health and the environment -- i.e., the highest possible score of harm in the missing data category,” the comments say.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-urged-clarify-plan-prioritizing-chemical-reviews-under-tsca
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industries, Advocates Query EPA's Plan For TSCA Review Rule Definitions
Aug 30, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Groups representing major industrial sectors and environmentalists are querying how EPA plans to define key terms for its pending rule under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to prioritize chemicals for risk assessment, including “susceptible subpopulations” and how to satisfy a statutory mandate for scientific integrity.
The new law, which took effect June 22, requires EPA to categorize existing chemicals -- those already on the market -- as high or low priority, and then perform risk evaluations of the high priority chemicals. Stakeholders are already making competing arguments for how EPA should prioritize substances.
EPA has until June 2017 to develop criteria and its implementing rule outlining how agency staff will prioritize as high priority those chemicals that "may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment," including susceptible subpopulations, and as low priority those that do not meet that standard.
The statute says that “susceptible subpopulations are a “group of individuals within the general population identified by the Administrator who, due to either greater susceptibility or greater exposure, may be at greater risk than the general population of adverse health effects from exposure to a chemical substance or mixture, such as infants, children, pregnant women, workers, or the elderly.”
The agency held three public meetings in Washington, D.C., earlier this month to get input on the prioritization process, its risk evaluation rule, and how to craft a TSCA fee program. The agency also created regulatory dockets for all three rulemaking efforts, taking comment through Aug. 24.
Industry groups in their written comments are urging EPA to quickly define “susceptible subpopulations, whereas environmentalists are urging the agency to clarify its authority to make prioritization decisions based on potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations not expressly listed in the law.
“The text of the legislation does not clearly define subpopulations, which leaves the definition open to EPA,” says SPI -- the Society of the Plastics Industry -- says in Aug. 24 comments. SPI says that the agency should therefore establish a strict definition in the rulemaking.
The group says the statute partly defined the “subpopulation” groups by the qualifiers “exposure” and “susceptibility,” and EPA should therefore use a “parts per million or other firmly grounded scientific calculation” to define those terms. “Susceptibility is more difficult and EPA must make that definition clear before those subpopulations are defined for specific chemicals,” SPI says.
Potential Definitions
The Auto Alliance filed Aug. 24 comments outlining similar arguments, saying “EPA needs to be clear as to which subpopulations which will be considered in the prioritization process,” and adding that the statutory “definition is open-ended regarding exactly which subpopulations should be considered.”
The group says EPA should in the rulemaking seek to identify all potential subpopulations that could be considered “(e.g., children, pregnant women, elderly, those with preexisting cancer or other medical conditions, etc.) under any given scenario” and outline methods that will be used to determine the location of susceptible subpopulations and whether these subpopulations have a risk of exposure.
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), however, says in Aug. 24 comments that EPA should clarify that the statutory language is “not exhaustive.”
EDF recommends “that the prioritization rule clearly articulate EPA’s authority to make prioritization decisions based on potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations not explicitly listed in the law.”
Other examples of such subpopulations that EPA should consider include environmental justice “fence line” communities; indigenous populations who may be more highly exposed due to dietary sources and habits, or other factors; and individuals who may have greater susceptibility due to preexisting disease or genetic factors. “This list, too, is not exhaustive,” EDF says. “Rather, EPA must identify and address the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation(s) affected by a given chemical on a case-by-case basis, considering the entire lifecycle of the chemical.”
Meanwhile, the American Chemistry Council says in its Aug. 24 comments that EPA must incorporate guidelines in section 26 of the reform law outlining scientific requirements for methodology and studies underpinnings TSCA decisions into the prioritization rule.
“ACC believes that the Section 26 requirements for best available science and weight of the scientific evidence presume that these requirements would be 'fit for purpose' -- i.e., the purpose of the initial screening of chemicals into high and low priority bins for the risk evaluation stage,” the comments say.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/industries-advocates-query-epas-plan-tsca-review-rule-definitions
-
The New Toxic Substances Control Act: What You Need to Know
Aug 30, 2016 | Lexology
By Hogan Lovells
On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Act) into law, thereby amending, for the first time in its 40 year history, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The Lautenberg Act gives TSCA a shot in the arm, promising sweeping change to chemical regulation in the United States.
Background
Enacted in 1976, TSCA regulates the manufacture, import, and processing of chemical substances and mixtures. Historically, EPA’s implementation of TSCA has been hindered by the lack of a clear mandate to EPA to evaluate and regulate the tens of thousands of chemicals which already existed in 1976, and which thus fall beyond the scope of EPA’s pre-manufacture health and safety review program. Moreover, as public interest in open government has increased—particularly concerning decisions related to the safety of consumer products and their ingredients—TSCA’s inability to address concerns about chemical safety has eroded public confidence in the statute itself. The Lautenberg Act addresses these perceived deficiencies by:Requiring that EPA evaluate the safety of existing chemicals in commerce using a prioritization process to begin with those chemicals most likely to cause risks;
Mandating the use of a new risk-based safety standard that includes explicit considerations for “vulnerable” populations;
Empowering EPA to require the development of chemical information to support these evaluations;
Establishing aggressive, enforceable deadlines that ensure timely review of prioritized chemicals and timely action on identified risks;
Limiting confidentiality claims and allowing for the sharing of confidential information with States, tribes, and health and environmental professionals; and
Providing a source of funding for EPA to carry out these new responsibilities.
Practical Considerations for Industry
New Risk-Based Safety Standard
TSCA’s original language requiring EPA to regulate substances “to the extent necessary to protect adequately against such risk using the least burdensome requirements” constrained EPA’s ability to regulate existing and new chemicals. The Lautenberg Act eliminates this “least burdensome” limitation and so strengthens EPA’s ability to determine that a risk exists. The Lautenberg Act directs EPA to evaluate chemicals purely on the basis of the health risks they pose—without consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors and considering risks to vulnerable groups, like children, pregnant women, and the elderly—and then take steps to eliminate any unreasonable risks identified.
Confidential Business Information
The Lautenberg Act makes it more difficult for companies to assert that chemical ingredients are confidential. Claimants must substantiate their confidentiality claims cogently and clearly because unsupported references to trade secrets, competitive disadvantage, or non-descriptive chemical monikers will no longer suffice. For example, companies must provide a “structurally descriptive” generic name of the substance claimed confidential (that EPA then will provide to the public). The Lautenberg Act also limits the confidentiality protection period to ten years, at which time a company may request a ten-year extension by substantiating the need for a renewal. Companies may seek an unlimited number of extensions. In addition, EPA may require that companies re-substantiate their claims whenever a chemical substance is designated as “high-priority” or “active” (i.e. used in commerce in the United States) or whenever EPA determines that disclosure of protected information would be important in conducting risk evaluations or promulgating rules. The Act also contains exceptions to protection from disclosure, including, but not limited to, requirements to disclose information to health or environmental professionals employed by federal, state, or tribal entities in certain non-emergency situations and to treating physicians, nurses, or other first responders in an emergency. Thus, companies must know the status of their confidentiality claims and be prepared to strengthen and support the same in order to maintain those claims successfully. In fact, if companies do not catalog current confidentiality claims, and so fail to re-assert those claims when EPA designates active substances under the Lautenberg Act, the substances for which claims have not been re-asserted will be moved automatically to the non-confidential portion of the TSCA inventory of existing chemical substances (the TSCA Inventory).
Product Recalls, Deselection, and Innovation
The Lautenberg Act has the potential to broadly impact a wide range of industries. If EPA’s more robust health and safety reviews identify significant health and safety risks, products could not only be recalled, but consumers may flock to products perceived to be “safer.” Thus, companies must know the chemical constituents that comprise their popular products and understand the consequences if EPA determines—or consumers believe—that such constituents pose a risk to human health or the environment or otherwise require testing to better assess their risk. In short, companies that closely follow EPA’s progress in implementing the Lautenberg Act and can adapt to changing market conditions will be poised to benefit under the new TSCA regime.
Participation in Upcoming Rulemakings
Implementation of the Lautenberg Act will require that EPA undertake various rulemakings to effectuate new or additional requirements. Based on EPA’s first-year implementation plan, by mid-June 2017, EPA intends to finalize:A procedural rule to establish the process and criteria for identifying high-priority chemicals for risk evaluation and low-priority chemicals;
Another procedural rule to establish the process for evaluating the risk of high-priority chemicals; and
A rule to require industry reporting of chemicals manufactured/processed in the previous ten years (this rule will designate active and inactive chemicals on the TSCA Inventory).
For these latter two rules, EPA anticipates publishing rules for public comment by December 2016. This is an extremely ambitious timeline for one, let alone multiple, rules. In addition, EPA plans, within the next two to three years, to propose and finalize regulations concerning the review and substantiation of confidential business information claims, as well as guidance related to generic names for chemicals claimed confidential.
Participation by industry in these rulemakings is critical if EPA is to produce regulations that pragmatically address issues faced by stakeholders and that benefit from their input. Hogan Lovells has extensive experience in advising clients on engaging EPA and other stakeholders during the rulemaking process, and we have experienced lawyers available to work with clients to help them understand and comply with the Lautenberg Act’s new requirements.http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5e974e51-9f9d-4af0-bd4d-8c71b32bd1dc
-
Mercury Compound Ban Marks Next Step in TSCA Update
Aug 30, 2016 | Chemical Watch
As required under the recently reformed TSCA, the US EPA has published a list of mercury compounds prohibited from export.
The agency was required to publish the list within 90 days of the passage of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA). This is just one of many short deadlines that the agency faces in implementing the law.
Law firm Keller and Heckman has posted in a blog that the agency's ability to meet the mercury deadline after only 65 days – together with a separate notice establishing the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals – "demonstrate a high degree of preparedness on the agency's part to implement the short-term deadlines of the Lautenberg Act."
But, the blog said, these may also serve "as potential examples of the type of brevity we might expect from the agency in fulfilling its mandates."
As prescribed by the statute, the Federal Register notice on mercury says that from 1 January 2020, the export of the following will be prohibited:
mercury (I) chloride or calomel;
mercury (II) oxide;
mercury (II) sulfate;
mercury (II) nitrate; and
cinnabar or mercury sulphide.
The prohibition does not extend to those mercury compounds exported to member countries of the OECD for environmentally sound disposal, provided the substances are not to be recovered, recycled, or reclaimed for use, or directly reused, after such export.
The EPA says that the covered compounds are generally manufactured or imported in small quantities, used in laboratory chemistry and electrochemistry, or occur in industrial waste or byproducts.
The agency is not looking for comments on this notice.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49309/mercury-compound-ban-marks-next-step-in-tsca-update
-
Asbestos May Become One of Ten Chemicals Reviewed Under the New TSCA This Year
Aug 30, 2016 | Just Means
Since the reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was passed by the Senate and signed into law two months ago, the EPA has received mounting pressure to deliver on promised regulatory improvements and demonstrate their commitment to the spirit of the new law. Industry stakeholders should ensure they are informed about the results of chemical evaluations under the new TSCA law, especially since chemicals that failed to be regulated previously could now become banned. Asbestos, a proven carcinogen, may be one of the first on that list as growing public awareness and civic pressure push the EPA to take action.
In a letter written to the EPA last week, Senator Barbara Boxer of California is pushing for asbestos to be one of the substances flagged for evaluation under the new TSCA, and is also pushing for the EPA to evaluate all forms of asbestos. In her letter, Boxer cites, “according to the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), the estimated annual number of asbestos-related disease deaths is nearly 15,000 in the U.S., including nearly 11,000 deaths from lung cancer.”
The EPA is scheduled to review 10 chemicals by Dec 22, and is obligated to prioritize known carcinogens. Under the previous TSCA, asbestos was added to the EPA work plan in 2012 but no regulatory action has been taken.
For TSCA reform proponents, asbestos has become a poster child of the flaws of TSCA and the necessity of reform. “The system was so complex, it was so burdensome that our country hasn’t even been able to uphold a ban on asbestos,” remarked President Obama during a TSCA reform signing ceremony. Several government agencies in the US have had sufficient evidence regarding the health hazards of asbestos for years. In 1989, the EPA passed a rule that would ban and phase out asbestos, but it was overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. OSHA has stated that “there is no ‘safe’ level of asbestos exposure for any type of asbestos fiber.” During congressional sessions for the new TSCA, asbestos was also regularly used as an example of the barriers to regulation the new TSCA must remove. Senator Boxer did not initially provide support for the new TSCA due to concerns about federal pre-emption of state laws.
The use of asbestos in the US continues despite the lack of asbestos manufacturing in the US, evidenced by ports receiving more than 8.2 million pounds of raw asbestos from 2006-2014, according to an Environmental Working Group study. 56 nations, including Japan and Africa, have already followed the World Health Organization’s call for countries to ban asbestos.
Linda Reinstein of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization expressed to Bloomberg that “although TSCA reform was signed into law, it doesn’t mean that any of the sponsors or co-sponsors are going to walk away and ignore implementation.”
Many stakeholders are providing the EPA with input on which ten chemicals should be reviewed by the end of this year. Industry groups have previously asked the EPA to select these chemicals from the existing TSCA work plan list. The EPA is accepting feedback from all stakeholders on the implementation of the new law.
As chemical designations change under the new TSCA, companies will need to ensure that their products continue to comply by surveying their supply chain. A comprehensive software solution can help you easily survey your supply chain to identify if restricted chemicals are in your products. To learn more, click here.
http://www.justmeans.com/article/asbestos-may-become-one-of-ten-chemicals-reviewed-under-the-new-tsca-this-year
-
California to Consider Prop 65 Listing for Nitrites
Aug 30, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) is consulting on hazard identification materials of nitrite in combination with amines or amides.
This will inform the Carcinogen Identification Committee's (CIC) consideration of the substance for listing as a carcinogen under Proposition 65, when it meets on 15 November.
It will also consider whether a subset of chemicals in this class meet the criteria for a cancer listing.
Nitrite may occur in combination with amines or amides in occupational settings, such as those associated with azo dye production. It also may appear in cured or processed meats.
Oehha proposed to add the substance group to Prop 65 via the authoritative bodies listing mechanism in 2014. But in May 2015 it determined that the regulatory criteria were not met for the broad class of chemicals, and referred the substances to the CIC for consideration.
The committee serves as the state's qualified experts for determining whether a chemical has been clearly shown – through scientifically valid testing – to cause cancer.
Comments on the hazard identification document will be accepted until 10 October.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49304/california-to-consider-prop-65-listing-for-nitrites
-
US Agencies Release Research Protocol for Crumb Rubber
Aug 30, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Three US agencies have released a research protocol for evaluating the safety of recycled tyre crumb rubber, used in synthetic turf fields and playgrounds.
The protocol was released by the US EPA and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) / Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in collaboration with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). It follows a joint action plan, announced by the agencies earlier this year, to evaluate exposure to chemicals released by the recycled infill material.
The participating agencies intend to release, before the end of 2016, a draft status report summarising its progress on the following focus areas:
identifying substances of concern in recycled tire crumb;
assessing exposure to potential harmful substances;
conducting an initial evaluation of the cancer and non-cancer toxicity of these substances; and
planning follow-up activities to provide additional insights into possible risks.
The government’s investigation comes amid consumer concern over exposure to heavy metals, carbon black, benzothiazole, and other substances of potential concern that have been found in the material.
The European Commission called on Echa to evaluate similar risks earlier this summer. California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has been studying possible chemical exposures from crumb rubber, since last year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49327/us-agencies-release-research-protocol-for-crumb-rubber
-
Some See Chemical Manufacturing Rising in Coal's Wake
Aug 30, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Erika Bolstad
Put us to work in the energy industry, West Virginians pleaded yesterday, calling on state and federal leaders to help rescue their coal-dependent economy from its free fall by helping boost other energy sectors powered by natural gas.
"We want to live here, and we want to stay in West Virginia," Chad Earl, director of business development at the family-owned Orders Construction Co., told a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee field hearing yesterday.
People in West Virginia are "intelligent, hardworking and very passionate about their communities," said Earl, whose company builds major projects like bridges and chemical plants.
"We want to stay home. And we want the opportunity for our children to stay home and stay here if they choose to do so. In order for this to happen, we need to create an economic environment that allows for growth."
The hearing in a courtroom at the Monongalia County Justice Center was attended by the state's U.S. senators: Republican Shelley Moore Capito and Democrat Joe Manchin. It was aimed at highlighting West Virginia's energy infrastructure needs.
Panelists represented traditional energy and energy-related construction sectors in the state, with many calling for West Virginia to consider ways to exploit the natural gas boom by building new pipelines and expanding the capacity for chemical manufacturing.
Of special interest: the ethane cracker plant that Shell Chemical Appalachia LLC announced it would build near Pittsburgh. The multibillion-dollar project will take ethane from shale gas producers in the Marcellus and Utica basins to produce polyethylene, which is used in plastics manufacturing.
John Deskins, the director of the West Virginia University Bureau of Business and Economic Research, rattled off grim statistics for the state's coal-dependent regions. Six counties, all in the southern coal fields, are in an economic depression. In Boone County, 55 percent of jobs are tied directly to coal, a challenging prospect for a community dependent on one industry for employment and severance tax revenue.
Deskins said he frequently calls for a diversified industrial mix but conceded yesterday that it can't happen fast enough. The quickest path forward is to take advantage of the industrial uses of natural gas for chemical and other manufacturing within the state, he said.
"A more viable path in the short run is through strengthening our energy sector. This is desperately needed for our economy," he said.
Capito is promoting legislation that accelerates federal approvals of natural gas pipelines and a study for ethane storage. Both are in a Senate energy bill currently in a conference committee. The storage potential is critical for future chemical manufacturing, Capito said yesterday.
"We have to have something like this, otherwise all we're going to do is build pipelines and send it to someone else," she said. "It could bear real fruit for the state of West Virginia."
She and Manchin both support proposals to increase investment in carbon capture, utilization and storage, a technology whose proponents hope will offset carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants.
The Obama administration last week announced $38.8 million in grants as part of a new round of $65.8 million in funding this year to help Appalachian communities adapt their workforces and economies to a world where coal is no longer the dominant energy source.
Manchin said that while the grants are helpful, the Obama administration has had "no plan" for coal communities that have been "absolutely economically destroyed" by the Clean Power Plan and other regulations and market forces shifting the nation's energy mix away from coal.
When asked whether they thought the next administration would have a better plan for West Virginia's future, neither senator offered a ringing endorsement of their respective party's presidential nominee.
"Both of the people who are running today are saying, 'Hey, we're not going to leave you behind,'" Manchin said. "So we're going to make sure there's a plan in place."
Although Capito said at the GOP convention this summer that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would "double down on the war on coal" and said Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump would "create jobs, not regulate jobs out of existence," she was more subdued yesterday.
"I don't want to get in a political discussion because that's not the point of what we're here for," Capito said. "I have more confidence in the Republican side of the aisle. I'm just going to leave it at that."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/08/30/stories/1060042178
-
Court Allows Greens, Power Companies to Back EPA Rule
Aug 30, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today allowed several environmental groups and power companies to defend U.S. EPA in the latest legal challenge to its climate rule for new power plants.
At issue is EPA's denial earlier this year of five petitions asking the agency to take another look at its rule, which is meant to limit carbon dioxide emissions from new coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants. A coalition of states, industries and interest groups had filed the petitions.
Those parties, some of which were already suing EPA over the rule's legality, launched a new round of litigation over those denials (E&ENews PM, May 24). The D.C. Circuit has combined both the challenges to the rule itself and the petitions into one massive lawsuit.
A coalition of environmental and public health groups, including the American Lung Association, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club, asked the court to defend EPA against the new challenges related to the petitions.
The groups have an "interest in defending the Performance Standards against all attempts to weaken, delay or overturn those standards," the environmentalists said in their motion to intervene.
Along with granting environmentalists' request, the D.C. Circuit today also allowed the Sacramento Municipal Utility District; the New York Power Authority; Pacific Gas and Electric Co.; Calpine Corp.; National Grid Generation LLC; and the cities of Seattle, Los Angeles and Austin, Texas, to defend EPA's rejection of the petitions.
The power companies say they have "significant interests that may be harmed" if the court overturns EPA's denial of the reconsideration petitions.
The environmental groups and companies are also defending EPA in the litigation over the underlying rule.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/08/30/stories/1060042199
-
N.D., Texas Tee Up Arguments Against Methane Rule
Aug 30, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
North Dakota and Texas are preparing legal arguments against U.S. EPA's hot-button methane rule for the oil and gas industry.
The states plan to argue EPA violated the Clean Air Act by not finding that methane emissions from the industry endanger public health and welfare before it decided to issue regulations.
They also plan to raise administrative and procedural challenges to the rule.
EPA in June published its Clean Air Act New Source Performance Standards requiring new and modified oil and gas operations to check for and repair methane leaks. North Dakota and Texas filed lawsuits against the rule, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit combined with a separate challenge by 14 states led by West Virginia (E&ENews PM, Aug. 2).
North Dakota and Texas previewed the arguments they plan to make in court documents filed over the past week.
Both states plan to argue that EPA should have issued what's known as an "endangerment finding" as a precursor to the regulations. They will likely argue that the finding is required under Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act, which governs New Source Performance Standards.
"The EPA failed to properly evaluate the scientific evidence concerning the effect of greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas source category," Texas said in a statement of issues filed yesterday.
According to the filing, Texas will also likely challenge EPA's analysis of the costs and benefits of the rule. The agency failed to consider the costs for Texas regulators and the state's oil and gas industry, Texas says in the court filing.
North Dakota plans to also raise concerns about the "white paper" process EPA used to shape the rule, according to a statement of issues filed last week.
EPA issued a series of five technical white papers in 2014 covering compressors, emissions from well completions, leaks, liquids unloading, and controllers and pumps. EPA used the papers and comments from peer reviewers and the public to determine the best way to go about reducing methane emissions from the industry.
North Dakota said it also plans to argue that EPA's final rule is not supported by the administrative record and that its regulation of hydraulically fractured oil wells is an abuse of authority.
Several states and environmental groups have asked the D.C. Circuit for permission to intervene in the suit on behalf of EPA. Supporters of the rule say it's necessary to address an important contributor to climate change. Methane is more than 25 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/08/30/stories/1060042175
-
Aug 30, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Dr. J. Winston Porter
U.S. carbon emissions from power plants have fallen to 25-year lows. No country is reducing its emissions faster. Remarkably, we are doing this while still growing our economy. In fact, wholesale electricity prices have fallen 40 percent over the past five years.
This remarkable achievement is not the product of a “green revolution.” Yes, we are subsidizing and building wind and solar power. But despite billions in taxpayer funds, these two power sources still generate less than 7 percent of our electricity. Rather, it's natural gas which leads the charge in our emissions and cost reduction efforts.
The word that makes some environmentalists cringe – “fracking” - is doing more to decarbonize our electricity sector than any EPA mandate or Silicon Valley solar startip. Rig hands and petroleum engineers have delivered a clean-energy solution that is taking over much of the electricity marketplace.
Once short on natural gas, the combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling has turned the U.S. into the world's largest natural gas producer. Inexpensive, abundant, and clean, natural gas is cleaning coal's clock in the electricity marketplace. Just 10 years ago coal was used to generate more than half of U.S. electricity. Today, it's less than a third.
About 350 coal plants have been shut down in the past five years, and there's not a single new coal plant planned in the U.S. At the same time, use of natural gas has grown dramatically. Utilities are converting older coal plants to burn natural gas and are using their existing natural gas plants at higher rates than ever.
Why has this shift from coal to natural gas reduced emissions? It’s simple - natural gas produces just half the carbon emissions of coal.
One would think there would be near-universal praise for the progress enabled with natural gas. But that’s not so. Environmentalists on the far left refuse to embrace our golden age of gas. They are fighting greater production, transportation and use of natural gas at every turn.While environmentalists pound the climate change drum, they seem more interested in promoting wind and solar power than finding cost-effective solutions to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Basically, these same environmentalists want an all-renewable energy future. But greater use of natural gas isn't an impediment to renewables, it's actually helping integrate them onto the electrical grid.
New research from scientists in the U.S., Italy and France shows that adding more natural gas to the electric grid is actually an "enabling factor" for adoption of wind and solar power, since fast-acting back-up power is needed when the wind is not blowing nor the sun shining.
Natural gas power plants provide this back-up faster than any other energy source. So, gas is also the perfect complement to renewables.
Actually, greater use of natural gas is proving critically important to our climate goals. It's helping us reduce emissions while lowering energy costs. And natural gas is also helping us integrate more wind and solar onto the grid.Now all we have to do is more fully accept natural gas, and perhaps cut back on taxpayer subsidies for renewables.
Dr. J. Winston Porter is an energy and environmental consultant, based in Savannah GA. Earlier, he was an EPA assistant administrator in Washington DC.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/293749-the-golden-age-of-natural-gas
-
Final Defense of EPA’s New Plant Carbon Rule Falls to Next President
Aug 30, 2016 | Polotico Pro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
The final legal defense of EPA's carbon rule for new power plants will be left to the next president.
A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today ordered a briefing schedule that begins with the challengers on Oct. 13 and has EPA's initial defense due Dec. 14. And that schedule won't wrap up until after the next president is sworn in, with final briefs due on Feb. 6. That places oral arguments in the spring.
Click here for the full schedule. The order was issued by Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee, and Sri Srinivasan and Robert L. Wilkins, both named to the bench by Barack Obama.
The D.C. Circuit's full bench will hear the challenges to EPA's Clean Power Plan on Sept. 27, and may well have issued its ruling on that before briefing in this case wraps up. The CPP was placed on a fast track for judicial review.
The new plant rule, written under Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act, is on somewhat more solid legal footing than the CPP, which EPA's foes argue is broadly unlawful because of the statute’s language. The CAA is more straightforward about EPA’s authority to write a rule limiting carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants.
Still, the challengers say EPA’s 111(b) rule is seriously flawed, particularly because of unworkable requirements that new coal plants use partial carbon capture. EPA says the requirements are achievable.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
EPA Can Revise Provisions of Ozone Rule — Court
Aug 30, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A federal appellate court has given U.S. EPA a do-over on parts of a rule setting requirements for states to meet the 2008 air quality standard for ozone.
The rule, put in place early last year, is being challenged by the Sierra Club and other environmental groups in part on the grounds that it gives states too much leeway in meeting the 2008 limit (Greenwire, May 13, 2015). In an order yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted EPA's unopposed motion to revise several "anti-backsliding" provisions related to both the 2008 ozone standard and the previous benchmark set in 1997.
In seeking to make changes, EPA attorneys cited the agency's failure to adequately respond to public feedback during the rulemaking and to spell out the rationale for its decision in proceeding with various aspects of the provisions in question, according to the motion. Their filing cites a previous D.C. Circuit ruling that it is preferable to "allow agencies to cure their own mistakes rather than wasting the courts' and the parties' resources reviewing a record that both sides acknowledge to be incorrect or incomplete."
The environmental groups' suit has been consolidated with a separate legal challenge by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which covers much of the Los Angeles area. Final briefs in the case are due Dec. 1.
The 2008 ozone standard is 75 parts per billion; in October, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy lowered the threshold to 70 ppb.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/08/30/stories/1060042201
-
EPA Poised To Propose De Minimis GHG Threshold For Permitting Limits
Aug 30, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA appears poised to issue a proposed de minimis threshold for greenhouse gases to trigger major source permitting requirements, a level the agency was required to craft following a 2014 Supreme Court ruling that curtailed its GHG permitting program.
The White House Office Of Management & Budget (OMB) completed inter-agency review of EPA's draft proposed rule Aug. 26, signaling that the agency could release the proposal in the coming days. OMB had been reviewing the measure since March 30.
The proposal would set an emissions threshold below which best available control technology (BACT) reviews would not be required for GHG emissions under EPA's prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting program.
Sources have told Inside EPA that the agency will base the new threshold on past permits that included GHG limits, suggesting it would be similar to the current level of 75,000 tons per year (tpy) of carbon dioxide equivalent that the agency has been using in the interim.
EPA told its Science Advisory Board in March that it was reviewing past PSD permitting activity to determine how to set a proposed significant emissions rate (SER) for GHGs.
“The EPA is mainly basing our proposed GHG SER on a review of past permitting activity to determine the types and sizes of GHG emission units that are likely to be part of PSD permits that could be issued for 'anyway sources' in the future,” the agency said in a March 8 memo to its science advisers.
EPA is setting the threshold after the Supreme Court in its 2014 ruling in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA rejected portions of EPA's tailoring rule.
The rule had generally sought to craft GHG thresholds above which new and modified stationary sources would be subject to PSD permits, which regulate major sources in areas that meet federal air quality standards.
It did this by tailoring statutory thresholds of 100 or 250 tpy for conventional pollutants to GHGs to prevent regulation of office buildings and small shops. Step 1 of the rule set a 75,000 tpy permit limit.
But the high court's decision narrowed the rule's reach after finding that the agency lacked authority to require major source permits for facilities' GHGs alone. The justices also said EPA should set a de minimis threshold for when GHGs trigger BACT reviews for “anyway” sources that would be subject to PSD permits for their emissions of conventional pollutants.
The high court in UARG gave no direction on how to craft the threshold and remanded litigation over the permitting program back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which then heard additional briefing on how to proceed. The D.C. Circuit ultimately sided with EPA by scaling back the permitting rule to comply withUARG and remanding it to the agency to craft the new threshold.
Critics, led by the Energy-Intensive Manufacturers Working Group, unsuccessfully petitioned the high court to bar EPA from including GHGs in any permit until it completed the SER rule, including any judicial review of the rule. But the court denied that request, leaving the agency free to move forward with permits as it crafts the rule.
In the interim, EPA has been using a threshold of 75,000 tpy -- the level it set in Step 1 of its tailoring rule.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-poised-propose-de-minimis-ghg-threshold-permitting-limits
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested