Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 9/26/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) ECOS To Debate TSCA Reform Law, Drinking Water At Upcoming Meeting
Sep 23, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), representing many state environmental agencies, is planning to debate implementation of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as well as new strategies to address drinking water contaminants as two of the most significant issues during its upcoming fall meeting. -
TSCA Reform: What Does It Mean For Worker Safety?
Sep 25, 2016 | Safety + Health Magazine
By Tom Musick
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act spans more than 50,000 words. Yet one phrase within the document could hold the power to improve protections for millions of workers in the United States: The legislation amends the Toxic Substances Control Act to create specific safeguards for “potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations … such as infants, children, pregnant women, workers, or the elderly.” -
(ACC Mentioned) Chromium-6 Contaminates Water of 218M Americans, Report Says
Sep 23, 2016 | Medscape
By Ken Terry
The drinking water of more than two thirds of Americans is contaminated by a carcinogenic chemical named chromium-6, according to a report released Tuesday by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit environmental organization. Chromium-6 was the focal point of the 2000 film Erin Brockovich, which concerned the real-life poisoning of tap water in a California town. -
US Agency Sets Toxicology Profile Priorities
Sep 26, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has announced the substances it intends to evaluate under its 30th set of toxicological profiles. -
NTP Seeks Information On Antimony Trioxide
Sep 26, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) Office of the Report on Carcinogens (ORoC) has requested information on antimony trioxide. Review of the substance is being considered for future editions of the Report on Carcinogens (RoC). -
Trade Secret, Other Concerns Spur EPA to Extend Comment Time
Sep 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency is giving chemical manufacturers and processors one more month to comment on confidentiality and other provisions of a proposed rule that would revise regulations governing significant new uses of chemicals. -
$157M Children's Study May Add Data to EPA Chemical Reviews
Sep 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The National Institutes of Health has announced a $157 million, seven-year research initiative to study how early life exposures to chemicals, air pollution and other environmental stressors influence the later health of children and adolescents. -
Global Effort Aims To Reduce Children’s Exposure To Toxic Chemicals
Sep 23, 2016 | Environmental Working Group.
By Sonya Lunder
A new report for the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Childcontends that protection from toxic pollution should be considered a basic human right. -
EPA’s Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Pose Challenges for Industry, Particularly Importers
Sep 23, 2016 | The National Law Review
By Mark N. Duvall, Lauren A. Hopkins, Jacob P. Duginski and Meghan A. Quinn
Importers, retailers, and others that sell goods containing plywood or other composite wood products face significant compliance challenges from EPA’s new Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products (the Standards). -
EU Chemicals Agency Panels Back Chromium Trioxide Continued Use
Sep 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Chemicals Agency said Sept. 23 that its Risk Assessment and Socio-Economic Analysis committees adopted opinions that would authorize the continued use of chromium trioxide under the European Union's REACH regulation. -
Commission Amends Skin Sensitisation Testing Provisions
Sep 26, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has amended Annex VII of the REACH Regulation with regards to skin sensitisation. This requires in vivo studies to be carried out. -
EU 'Cancer Risk Law' Causes Uproar As 140,000 People Try To Halt Killer Chemical Policy
Sep 26, 2016 | Express
By Siobhan Mcfadyen
The European Commission is attempting to rubber stamp new laws that campaigners say will directly affect the health of humans, wildlife and the environment. -
Looming Barriers Concerns Mount For Europe’s Agchem Regime
Sep 23, 2016 | Agrow
By Robert Birkett
European agchem event delegates fear mass blocking of ais under excessive caution of endocrine hazard and delays for products under complex renewal arrangements, -
Obama Climate Plan, Now in Court, May Hinge on Error in 1990 Law
Sep 25, 2016 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
The pitched battle over President Obama’s signature climate change policy, which is moving to the courts this week, carries considerable political, economic and historical stakes. Yet its legal fate, widely expected to be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, could rest on a clerical error in an obscure provision of a 26-year-old law. -
Legal Battle At Hand For EPA's Clean Power Plan
Sep 26, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro,
Tomorrow is the long-awaited oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on the legality of U.S. EPA's sweeping rule to control carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector. -
Pivotal Week For Spending Fight, Clean Power Plan
Sep 26, 2016 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
A partisan fight over Flint, Mich., aid is the major issue holding up stopgap spending legislation that Congress must pass by the end of the week to avoid a politically treacherous government shutdown. -
Foes Find Surprise Weapon In Calif. Compliance Plan
Sep 23, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
State opponents of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan have found an unlikely new weapon: California's proposed plan to comply with the rule. -
Democratic Senators Raise LNG Export Concerns
Sep 26, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
A quartet of U.S. senators has written U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Ernest Moniz expressing concern over "an alarming rate" of approvals of applications to export liquefied natural gas (LNG). The Center for Liquefied Natural Gas (CLNG) said the concerns raised have been addressed before. -
Dems Express Interest In Permitting Reform, Export Scrutiny
Sep 26, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
Activists and angry landowners have been advised in the past to take their complaints about the spread of natural gas pipelines, compressor stations and export terminals to the halls of Congress. -
Ex-EPA Official: Gas, Renewable Trends Don't Hinge on Election
Sep 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Broad regulatory and investment trends that favor natural gas and renewable energy and are driving down U.S. carbon emissions are likely to endure—no matter who is elected the next president Nov. 8, a former acting head of the Environmental Protection Agency said Sept. 23. -
Agencies Invite Tribes To Formal Consultations
Sep 23, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
The departments of the Interior, Justice and the Army today invited tribal leaders to participate in formal government-to-government consultations over infrastructure projects like the Dakota Access oil pipeline. -
Congressional Democrats Sympathetic to Dakota Access Pipe Opponents
Sep 26, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
In a Capitol Hill forum sponsored by a handful of Congressional Democrats on Thursday, lawmakers and Native American tribal leaders called for a halt to the $3.8 billion, nearly 1,200-mile Dakota Access oil pipeline now under construction in four states. -
(ACC Mentioned) SI Group Recognized For Health, Safety; Orangeburg Facility Earns Palmetto Star VPP Certification
Sep 23, 2016 | T&D
SI Group’s Orangeburg location has been recognized for its safety and health management systems with South Carolina Palmetto Star VPP certification. -
(ACC Mentioned) Report Shows MRF Equipment Can Be Used Effectively To Sort Flexible Packaging
Sep 23, 2016 | Plastics Today
By Kari Embree
The Materials Recovery for the Future (MRFF; Washington, DC) collaborative released yesterday findings of a research program proving that automated sorting technologies currently in use can be adjusted to capture flexible plastic packaging—potentially creating a new stream of recovered materials while improving the quality of other recycling streams. -
The World Is Watching As California Steps Up — Again — On Climate Change
Sep 25, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Editorial Board
ALMOST NO ONE is talking about it, but California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed a hugely consequential bill this month. The law, SB 32, drastically ramps up the state’s landmark climate change law in the world’s sixth-largest economy. -
EPA ‘Failed Miserably’ in Civil Rights Efforts: Commission
Sep 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Environmental Protection Agency is failing when it comes to protecting low-income and minority communities from pollution, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights said in a scathing report released Sept. 23.
Congressional Hearings - There are no Hearing to report at this time.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) ECOS To Debate TSCA Reform Law, Drinking Water At Upcoming Meeting
Sep 23, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), representing many state environmental agencies, is planning to debate implementation of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as well as new strategies to address drinking water contaminants as two of the most significant issues during its upcoming fall meeting.
ECOS is slated to meet Sept. 26-28 in Wheeling, WV, and the agenda for the event signals that state regulators will also discuss other issues including produced water from oil and gas drilling, implementation of a memorandum of understanding ECOS officials signed with EPA at the group's spring meeting earlier this year, and "innovative" methods of enforcing the Clean Air Act.
On TSCA reform, a planned Sept. 27 panel will focus on how to prioritize chemicals slated for future assessment, while also complying with the law's short-term implementation deadlines. EPA toxics chief Jim Jones will be among the speakers, along with the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute's Rachel Massey, the American Chemistry Council's Michael Walls and Andy Ingrejas of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
ECOS has previously wrestled with how states can advance their own restrictions on toxic chemicals under the reform law's complicated preemption system, even publishing a flowchart on July 22 to guide regulators. The new law suspends state policies based on EPA action, but only under certain circumstances and for a limited time.
The new regime is likely to complicate states' decisions on which chemicals to prioritize for review and regulation, since future rules could be preempted if EPA decides to address the same substance a state has regulated.
For example, California's pending proposal to regulate two flame retardant chemicals as "priority chemicals" under the state's green chemistry program could serve as an early test of TSCA preemption since EPA is already assessing the risks of several flame retardants.
The drinking water panel, also scheduled for Sept. 27, deals with emerging and existing contaminants -- including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and the similar contaminant perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), for which EPA recently issued a new drinking water advisory that significantly tightened its previous advisory level.
PFOA, a persistent, toxic non-stick chemical, was used in a slew of consumer and industrial applications, and has been linked to adverse health effects, including kidney and testicular cancers.
State and local authorities in New York and elsewhere have lately been grappling with PFOA contamination in drinking water supplies, leading to an increased focus on dealing with the chemicals and EPA's stricter advisory -- which regulators will consider in setting enforceable limits.
However, New Jersey, the first state to consider such a limit, is already considering breaking with EPA's guidance. An advisory panel there is weighing a first-in-the-nation enforceable drinking water standard that would be much stricter than the federal advisory level.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/ecos-debate-tsca-reform-law-drinking-water-upcoming-meeting
-
TSCA Reform: What Does It Mean For Worker Safety?
Sep 25, 2016 | Safety + Health Magazine
By Tom Musick
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act spans more than 50,000 words. Yet one phrase within the document could hold the power to improve protections for millions of workers in the United States: The legislation amends the Toxic Substances Control Act to create specific safeguards for “potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations … such as infants, children, pregnant women, workers, or the elderly.”
It might be easy to overlook “workers” among the listed at-risk groups. However, stakeholders who have spent years fighting for TSCA reform say the wording is no small feat. The revised law gives the Environmental Protection Agency the power to restrict chemicals based on health risks.
“That’s a big add,” said Lynn Bergeson, who specializes in TSCA reform as managing partner at Washington law firm Bergeson & Campbell PC. “EPA heretofore has often worked with OSHA on worker exposure issues, particularly in the context of new chemical review, but with this new definition – ‘a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation’ – workers as a demographic are now a more important, defined group that could drive risk assessment.”History
Employers in industries such as manufacturing and construction work with chemicals every day. Some workers use respiratory protection to guard against the hazards from paint thinners, ammonia, bleach and other hazardous substances. Others work in buildings that contain asbestos, which may cause deadly lung diseases such as cancer. Still others use degreasers, spray adhesives and other cleaning products that contain 1-Bromopropane, or 1-BP, which has been linked to cancer and reproductive disorders. (For more on 1-Bromopropane, see EPA review committee issues report on 1-Bromopropane risk assessment draft.)
The intent of TSCA when it was enacted in 1976 was to protect the public and the environment from danger, but it did not grant EPA the authority to regulate the more than 62,000 chemicals in use at the time. EPA could review and regulate only new chemicals introduced after the law went into effect.
As a result of this and other red tape, only five chemicals were banned.
“Forty years after TSCA was enacted, there are still tens of thousands of chemicals on the market that have never been evaluated for safety, because TSCA didn’t require it,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy wrote in a June 22 blog post on the agency’s website. “And the original law set analytical requirements that were nearly impossible to meet, leaving EPA’s hands tied – even when the science demanded action on certain chemicals.”
Advocates clamored for many years for Congress to solve the problem. One member listened.
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) spent five terms in the Senate and devoted much of that time to improving chemical safety before his death in 2013. On June 22 of this year, President Barack Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century into law.
That signature granted EPA the authority to provide better protections from toxic chemicals for the public and the environment. Its directive to protect workers as a vulnerable population aligns with the work of OSHA, which has lamented outdated permissible exposure limits for chemical hazards and a lack of funding to protect workers as effectively as possible.Common mission
OSHA has stated that it is eager to partner with EPA, especially as the agency faces a possible 3.3 percent budget cut.
“OSHA is reviewing the new law and looks forward to working with EPA as it develops an implementation strategy,” OSHA spokesperson Kimberly Darby told Safety+Health. “We believe the changes will help workers by providing improved safety, health and exposure information for chemicals currently in the marketplace.”
Chemical safety experts agree a collaborative approach to protecting workers makes sense. OSHA regulates worker exposure to chemicals in large part through its Hazard Communication Standard (1910.1200), which calls for employers to clearly inform workers about chemical and toxic substance hazards in the workplace, as well as effective ways to protect themselves from those hazards. Employers need to ensure chemical safety labels and Safety Data Sheets on chemical hazards are available, and workers should be trained on appropriate handling of those chemicals.
With the update of TSCA, EPA now has the muscle to force action and restrict harmful chemicals. In addition, Section 9(e) of the new legislation, “Exposure Information,” specifies that the administrator should inform “the relevant Federal agency or office of the Environmental Protection Agency” if he or she discovers chemical exposures that may be prevented or reduced under another federal law.
“In other words, in our view, the law as revised will almost inevitably force EPA to be more engaged with and involved in the referral of worker exposure issues to OSHA,” Bergeson said. “The fact that there is this new subsection means that the EPA will be working with other federal agencies, and this has OSHA written all over it.
“As much as we would like to believe that all employers are faithfully adhering to all PPE requirements and so on and so forth, to the extent that is not happening, workers can be disproportionately exposed. The chemical law here reflects the fact that Congress wishes workers to be a part of that demographic that is protected because they may be disproportionately and uniquely susceptible.”Moving forward
The next step for EPA is to determine how and where to achieve the greatest impact.
The agency has released its first-year implementation plan, which includes an outline for EPA to conduct risk assessments and define high-priority chemicals. EPA said it plans to publish a list of 10 Work Plan chemicals and start a formal risk evaluation on them in mid-December, when the agency also plans to publish a proposed rule establishing its process for evaluating the risk level of high-priority chemicals.
Many organizations, including the Environmental Defense Fund, a New York-based advocacy group, have participated in meetings conducted by EPA to discuss the risk evaluation process and how to establish fees under TSCA.
“This is a major reform of America’s badly broken chemical safety system,” Keith Gaby, spokesperson for EDF, told S+H. “It’s going to help workers because EPA now has the authority to restrict chemicals that cause cancer and other health problems – and that will mean reduced exposure for those who make the products that used them.”
Bergeson said the law could revolutionize chemical management in the United States. She encourages employers to seek as much information on the law as possible and to be active participants in EPA’s risk evaluation process.
“Number one: Read the law,” Bergeson said. “Number two: Be mindful of the implications in your value chain. If you are a manufacturer, you may not be aware of the fact that there might be closer coordination with OSHA or with the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Number three: There are many ongoing rulemakings that will have a very significant impact. They’re in play right now. So participate, be aware of, comment on and work with your trade association or your VP of EHS to make sure you know how these rules are going to impact you.
“What I urge our people to do is know your chemicals. If a very important chemical component in your manufacturing line is thought to pose risks that are uniquely impactful of sensitive subpopulations of workers or others, it could be deselected. There are no surprises here. The federal government has a very difficult time operating in secret. So understand it, participate, and be prepared.”
http://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/14642-tsca-reform-what-does-it-mean-for-worker-safety
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chromium-6 Contaminates Water of 218M Americans, Report Says
Sep 23, 2016 | Medscape
By Ken Terry
The drinking water of more than two thirds of Americans is contaminated by a carcinogenic chemical named chromium-6, according to a report released Tuesday by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit environmental organization. Chromium-6 was the focal point of the 2000 film Erin Brockovich, which concerned the real-life poisoning of tap water in a California town.
From its analysis of the results of more than 60,000 tap water tests conducted nationwide, EWG estimates that chromium-6 is in the drinking water of at least 218 million people. The tests were performed by the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) following a 2010 EWG investigation that found the chemical in the tap water of 31 cities. That report sparked a Senate hearing and demands for action.
The EPA has still not set a maximum limit for chromium-6 in drinking water, although the agency does have a limit for all types of chromium. The only state that currently has an enforceable legal limit for chromium-6 in drinking water is California. That cap is 10 parts per billion (ppb), which EWG considers too high. On the basis of scientific studies, California set its public health goal at 0.02 ppb but established the legal limit 500 times higher.
EWG's new report found that only one public water system had total chromium levels that exceeded EPA standards; but 2% of the water systems had chromium-6 levels exceeding California's standard of 10 ppb. According to EWG, more than 7 million Americans are served tap water from supplies in which chromium-6 was detected at levels higher than California's limit.
"Because the EPA tests covered only a fraction of the small systems and private wells that supply water to more than a third of Americans, it is highly likely that chromium-6 contamination is even more widespread," the report says.
The tests found chromium-6 in almost 90% of the water systems sampled. The highest average statewide levels were found in Oklahoma, Arizona, and California. Among major cities, Phoenix had the highest level; St. Louis and Houston also had comparatively high levels, EWG said.
Cancer Risk
California's public health goal represents the concentration of chromium-6 that would pose less than a one-in-a-million risk for cancer for people who drink water with that amount in it for 70 years, the report notes. By contrast, it notes that the state's legal limit represents a lifetime cancer risk of 500 per million.
Extrapolating from the difference between California's public health goal and the amounts of chromium-6 that turned up in the EPA tests, EWG estimates that, if left untreated, chromium-6 in tap water will cause more than 12,000 excess cases of cancer by the end of this century.
In 2008, the report notes, a 2-year study conducted by the National Toxicology Program found that drinking water containing chromium-6 caused cancer in laboratory rats and mice. On the basis of this and other animal studies, in 2010, scientists at the California Office of Environmental Health Affairs concluded that the ingestion of tiny amounts of chromium-6 can cause cancer in people. It was these scientists who recommended the public health goal of 0.02 ppb. But in 2014, after aggressive lobbying by industry and water utilities, EWG said, state regulators adopted the higher legal limit.
Scientists in New Jersey and North Carolina also calculated safe limits for chromium-6 in drinking water similar to California's public health goal, but regulators in both states blocked moves to cap exposure to the chemical, EWG said.
According to the report, the chemical can also cause liver damage, reproductive problems, and developmental harm, putting infants and children, people who take antacids, and people with poorly functioning livers at greatest risk.
Nothing New Here?
The EPA's test results in major cities closely matched those of EWG, the report says, except that chromium-6 levels detected by the EPA were higher in Phoenix and Albuquerque. Years before those tests were conducted, the study says, the EPA had completed a draft risk assessment but did not release it. The chemical industry argued successfully that the EPA should wait for the conclusions of industry-funded studies before taking that step, EWG notes.
At this point, the EPA predicts that the risk assessment will be released for public comment sometime in 2017, according to the report. Even if it is released, however, the federal agency may choose to do nothing. Of the 81 contaminants that EPA has investigated pursuant to the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, it has moved forward on setting a regulation for just one.
Queried about the EWG's report, Bryan Goodman, a spokesman for the Washington, DC–based American Chemistry Council (ACC), a lobbying group, told Medscape Medical News that the report "does not provide any new information about hexavalent chromium [ie, chromium-6] in the water supply."
Goodman continued, "EPA's data show that when hexavalent chromium is found in the ground water, it's present at low levels that are well below the national drinking water standard set by EPA. EPA and the US Geological Survey attribute these low levels to geologic formations, such as rocks."
Because of the limited scientific data available, ACC supports a new large-scale study of chromium-6 in water supplies, Goodman said, before EPA makes any regulatory decisions.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/869197
-
US Agency Sets Toxicology Profile Priorities
Sep 26, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has announced the substances it intends to evaluate under its 30th set of toxicological profiles.
Cercla Set 30 will include updated profiles of:1,1-dichloroethene;1,2-dichloropropane;DDT, DDD, DDE;di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP); andpyrethrins and pyrethroids.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Cercla) requires the ATSDR and the EPA to maintain the Substance Priority List (SPL). Toxicological profiles are developed from this priority list of 275 substances.
Substances on the SPL are those commonly found at facilities on the National Priorities List (NPL) and "which are determined to pose the most significant potential threat to human health, due to their known or suspected toxicity and potential for human exposure".
Their ranking is based on frequency of occurrence at NPL sites, toxicity and potential for human exposure.
Cercla Set 28 and 29 remain under development.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49864/us-agency-sets-toxicology-profile-priorities
-
NTP Seeks Information On Antimony Trioxide
Sep 26, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) Office of the Report on Carcinogens (ORoC) has requested information on antimony trioxide. Review of the substance is being considered for future editions of the Report on Carcinogens (RoC).
The agency is specifically seeking information on:current production;use patterns; andhuman exposure estimates.
The RoC is a congressionally mandated report on substances that pose a cancer hazard to Americans. The most recent version of the biennial report was released on 2 October 2014
The 14th RoC is currently under development. Information on antimony trioxide may be submitted until 11 October.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49863/ntp-seeks-information-on-antimony-trioxide
-
Trade Secret, Other Concerns Spur EPA to Extend Comment Time
Sep 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency is giving chemical manufacturers and processors one more month to comment on confidentiality and other provisions of a proposed rule that would revise regulations governing significant new uses of chemicals.
Comments on the proposed rule, which the EPA released July 28 (RIN: 2070-AB27), are now due Oct. 26, the agency said in a Sept. 22 e-mail.
The agency granted the extension following a request by Bergeson & Campbell Consortia Management LLC, which said companies needed more time to consider the ramifications of changes the agency proposed that would affect confidential business information.
The provisions of the EPA's rule mentioned by the consortia were among many revisions the agency described as minor in a rule that proposed to align the agency's new use regulations with revisions to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Hazard Communications Standard (81 Fed. Reg. 49,598).
There may be sound reasons for some of EPA's proposed changes, but others raise significant and complex issues, the firm said in a commentary it published July 29.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=97751335&vname=dennotallissues&fn=97751335&jd=97751335
-
$157M Children's Study May Add Data to EPA Chemical Reviews
Sep 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The National Institutes of Health has announced a $157 million, seven-year research initiative to study how early life exposures to chemicals, air pollution and other environmental stressors influence the later health of children and adolescents.
Data generated by the research centers the NIH will fund may be useful to the Environmental Protection Agency because of a mandate to consider childrens’ susceptibilities and chemical exposures under the recently amended Toxic Substances Control Act.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 114-182), which amended TSCA on June 22, requires the EPA to consider risks not only to children but workers and the elderly.
Jim Jones, assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, was not immediately available Sept. 23, but his office told Bloomberg BNA it welcomed the institute's initiative. The new life-stage specific data that it could generate would add to currently available evidence and improve assessments for specific subpopulations, the EPA said by e-mail.
The initiative, called Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO), shares the same goals as did a previous National Children's study, Renate Myles, an NIH spokeswoman told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 23.
Congress authorized the National Children's Study in 2000 (Pub. L. No. 106-310; Sec. 1004). The study was envisioned to follow 100,000 children from the womb through age 21. Pilot research efforts were mounted. However fully-funding the study, combined with the study's logistical challenges, prompted NIH Director Francis Collins to terminate the study in 2014 after advisers concluded that it would not be feasible.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=97751326&vname=dennotallissues&fn=97751326&jd=97751326
-
Global Effort Aims To Reduce Children’s Exposure To Toxic Chemicals
Sep 23, 2016 | Environmental Working Group.
By Sonya Lunder
A new report for the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Childcontends that protection from toxic pollution should be considered a basic human right.
Baskut Tuncak, a chemist and senior attorney with the Center for International Environmental Law in Washington and the U.N. Special Rapporteur to the U.N. Human Rights Council, cited a World Health Organization estimate that more than 1.5 million children under five years old die yearly from exposure to toxic pollutants.
“In one country, childhood cancer rates have increased nearly 20 percent over a 20-year span,” he said. “Types of diabetes are now seen in children that were previously only observed in adults. Rates of asthma, early puberty and birth defects have also increased dramatically. Most of these and other increases cannot be explained by lifestyle choices or genetics alone, and have come during periods of rapid industrialization.”
EWG has worked for decades to highlight risks posed by toxic chemicals in the United States, and to ensure stronger health protection for children and other vulnerable groups.
U.S. air is generally cleaner than that in many other countries, and people enjoy restrictions on lead, mercury and the most damaging pesticides. However, children are still exposed to dozens of harmful chemicals daily, with many measured inumbilical cord blood samples, breast milk and in children’s bodies directly.
EWG advocates stronger protections for children from numerous pollutants, including lead in paint, arsenic and chromium in drinking water, and asbestos in schools.
But increasingly, our attention turns to chemicals intentionally added to consumer products to make them stain-resistant, antibacterial, flame resistant or more durable. Many of these additives pose safety hazards to children, and are widely detected in dust samples collected from American homes.
American preferences for conveniences such as grease-proof food wrappers and stain-resistant carpets spread persistent contaminants to distant places, while electronic waste is shipped to countries with few restrictions on child labor and waste disposal.
While EWG works to strengthen the health of American children, we join the U.N. Rapporteur in his call for stronger protections for children around the globe. The U.S. has signed but has not ratified the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which would compel governments to identify and protect children from chemical hazards at home and at work.
We intend to reverse the burden of proof so that the victims of toxic chemical exposures are not responsible for proving harm. Instead, we want to shift the burden onto companies who profit from the production and sale of toxic substances. The High Commissioner of the U.N. Human Rights Council has an website where people can learn more and submit complaints about situations that should be investigated.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/09/global-effort-aims-reduce-children-s-exposure-toxic-chemicals
-
Sep 23, 2016 | The National Law Review
By Mark N. Duvall, Lauren A. Hopkins, Jacob P. Duginski and Meghan A. Quinn
Importers, retailers, and others that sell goods containing plywood or other composite wood products face significant compliance challenges from EPA’s new Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products (the Standards). The final rule adopting the standards was signed on July 27, 2016. The Standards implement Title VI of the Toxic Substances Control Act. They are based on the formaldehyde emission limits of the Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products (ATCM) of the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The Standards differ from the ATCM in several ways. But compliance with the ATCM will help substantially as companies work to meet their obligations under the Standards.
The Standards affect entities throughout the composite wood product supply chain, including panel producers, importers, fabricators, distributors, and retailers. The Standards include formaldehyde emissions limits as well as requirements for testing, third-party certification, recordkeeping, reporting, and labeling, with varied compliance deadlines. Those requirements will place particular burdens on importers, who must ensure that their foreign supply chains comply with the Standards.1. Background
In 2007, CARB approved its ATCM for formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, thin medium density fiberboard and furniture and other finished products made with composite wood products. The ATCM’s “Phase 1” emission limits took effect on January 1, 2009, with stricter “Phase 2” emission limits following thereafter.[1] The ATCM requires manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with these limits through “small scale” quality control tests and quarterly tests conducted under the supervision of a third-party certifier.[2] All compliant products under the ATCM are required to belabeled as such.[3] The ATCM includes special provisions for manufacturers of hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium density fiberboard who use no-added formaldehyde based resins or ultra-low-emitting formaldehyde resins and meet certain emissions requirements.[4]
In 2010, Congress passed the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, which added Title VI to the Toxic Substances Control Act.[5] Title VI essentially required EPA to promulgate federal regulations implementing the ATCM “Phase 2” emission standards nationally by January 1, 2013, as well as to address related issues.[6]
EPA did not meet its deadline for adoption of the final Standards, as it did not publish proposed Standards until June 2013. More than three and a half years after the statutory deadline, the EPA Administrator signed the final rule adopting the Standards on July 27, 2016.[7] As of the date of this alert, the final rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register. This alert will be updated once it is published, since the implementation dates are keyed to the date of publication in the Federal Register. Once published, the final Standards will appear in 40 C.F.R. Part 770.2. What Products Are Covered by the Standards?
The Standards apply to nearly all composite wood products. These are defined to include hardwood plywood made with a veneer or composite core, medium-density fiberboard, and particleboard. The Standards do not apply to certain kinds of composite wood products, such as second-hand goods, new boats, rail cars, windows that contain less than five percent by volume of composite wood products, among other similarly narrow exceptions.[8]
The Standards apply to panels (thin, flat, usually rectangular pieces of particleboard, medium-density fiberboard, or hardwood plywood); component parts (objects other than a panel that contain one or more composite wood products and are used in the construction or assembly of finished goods); and to finished goods (goods or products other than a panel that contain hardwood plywood, particleboard, or medium-density fiberboard).[9]
There is no de minimis exemption for finished goods containing only small amounts of composite wood products, other than with respect to labeling.[10]3. Who Must Comply With the Standards?
The Standards include provisions applicable to panel producers, fabricators of finished goods from composite wood, laminators, and distributors, importers, and retailers of composite wood products or products containing them.
The Standards also establish a third-party certification program that requires the use of laboratory accreditation bodies and product accreditation bodies, which have the responsibility for accrediting third-party certifiers. These third-party certifiers are then tasked with certifying that composite wood products comply with the Standards (i.e., are Title VI compliant).
The Standards will affect some 990,000 entities, including 922,000 small entities.[11] They include an estimated:4 accreditation bodiesAll four currently accredit third-party certifiers under the CARB ATCM.11 third-party certifiersAll 11 currently certify stock panel mills under the CARB ATCM.Note: CARB claims that it has approved 40 third-party certifiers.[12]54 U.S. panel producers, operating 90 millsForeign panel producers will also need to comply in order to be able to export to the U.S.EPA estimates that 79 U.S. mills have been certified by CARB for at least one product, but 16 mills make at least one product that is not CARB-certified.7,000 - 14,000 laminators66,000 - 73,000 U.S. fabricators other than laminatorsEPA estimates that 32,000 in these two groups are subject to CARB ATCM requirements.86,000 U.S. distributors, of which 24,000 are importersEPA estimates that 32,000 distributors are subject to CARB ATCM requirements, of which 9,000 are importers.759,000 U.S. retailersEPA estimates that 195,000 retailers are subject to CARB ATCM requirements.[13]66,000 foreign firms[14]4. Emission Limits
The Standards’ primary aim is to set forth formaldehyde emission limits applicable to four categories of composite wood product panels: (1) hardwood plywood, (2) medium-density fiberboard, (3) thin medium density fiberboard, and (4) particleboard (collectively referred to as panels) sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured in the United States. The emissions limits vary based on the type of panel: [15] 0.05 ppm for hardwood plywood made with a veneer core or a composite core0.11 ppm for medium-density fiberboard0.13 ppm for thin medium-density fiberboard0.09 ppm for particleboard
The emissions limits apply regardless of whether the composite wood product is in the form of a panel, component part, or incorporated into a finished good.
Compliance with the emission limits is required by one year after publication in the Federal Register, for all composite wood products.[16]
Fortunately, most composite wood products now on the market meet these emission limits, which are the same as those of the CARB ATCM. EPA estimates that 98% to 100% of U.S. production currently is certified as meeting CARB emission limits. It did not provide an estimate of compliance for imported products.[17]5. Stockpiling
Composite wood products produced prior to one year after publication in the Federal Register are not subject to the Standards. Title VI directed EPA to prohibit stockpiling of inventory to evade application of the Standards. The Standards define “stockpiling” as the manufacture or purchase of composite wood products (panels, component parts, or finished goods) between July 7, 2010 and six months after publication in the Federal Register at an average rate at least 20% greater than the average rate of manufacture or purchase during 2009 for the purpose of evading application of the Standards.[18] Stockpiled inventory must be sold by one year after publication in the Federal Register.[19]
The 2009 baseline may be unusually low, since the economy at the time was in recession. Affected companies may be able to convince EPA that their production at a rate greater than 20% of the 2009 baseline was for reasons other than attempted evasion of the Standards. Acceptable explanations may include an immediate increase in customer demand or sales, or a planned business expansion.[20]6. Certifying Compliance With the Emission Limits
Beginning one year after publication in the Federal Register, only certified composite wood products, whether in panels or incorporated into component parts or finished goods, may be sold in the United States, unless the product is subject to an exemption. Certified wood products must be produced or fabricated in accordance with the requirements of the Standards.[21]
No one in the supply chain may certify that composite wood products comply with the Standards. Instead, the panel producer must obtain a certification for its panels from a Title VI-accredited third-party certifier.
Until two years after publication in the Federal Register, a CARB-approved third-party certifier may certify compliance with the Standards if it applies for and receives EPA recognition during that time. Thereafter it must be accredited by an EPA-approved accrediting body.[22] Currently, there are 11 CARB-approved third-party certifiers.[23]
If a product has already been certified by a CARB-approved TPC, it will also be considered to be certified under the Standards until two years after publication in the Federal Register, after which time the third-party certifier must receive recognition from EPA as a Title VI third-party certifier in order for the product to remain certified.[24]
To obtain certification by a third-party certifier, the panel producer must submit certain information to the third-party certifier:Its name, address, telephone number, and other contact informationA copy of its quality control manualThe name and contact information for its quality control manager[25]The identity of the specific products for which certification is requested, and the resin system used in panel productionThe results of at least five emissions tests conducted under the supervision of a third-party certifierThe results of at least five quality control testsA linear regression equation and correlation dataThe results of an initial, on-site inspection by the third-party certifier[26]
The third-party certifier will grant Title VI certification for a product where the panel producer has demonstrated:That the product complies with the applicable emissions standard;An adequate correlation or equivalence between the methods used to test the candidate product and the method used to develop the emissions standard; andCompliance with the Standards’ quality control requirements.[27]
Once a product is certified, the panel producer will be required to conduct quality control testing and submit to quarterly testing and inspections by its third-party certifier to maintain certification.[28] The frequency of quality control testing is determined by product type, and for hardwood plywood panels, the rate of production.[29]
The Standards do not explicitly state that foreign panel producers must have their products certified by a Title VI third-party certifier or a CARB-approved third-party certifier prior to export to the U.S. However, that is the clear implication from the requirement that importers obtain from their suppliers a written statement that the composite wood products being supplied are Title VI compliant. The CARB ATCM requires products from foreign producers to be CARB-certified. CARB reports that most of the CARB-approved third-party certifiers provide international services.[30]7. When Certified Products Do Not Meet the Emission Limits
The Standards contemplate that a product certified by a third-party certifier may sometimes fail a quarterly emissions test. In that case, certification for any product types represented by the sample is suspended until a compliant quarterly report is obtained.[31] Non-complying lots, meaning lots represented by failed quarterly or quality control tests,[32] must be isolated from certified lots and either disposed of or retested and certified using the same test method following a means to reduce formaldehyde emissions, such as use of a scavenger or aging.[33] The panel producer must also notify its third-party certifier of the test failure.[34]
If the product was shipped to a customer prior to receipt of the test result, the panel producer must ensure that the customer does not distribute the product further. The panel producer must notify its customer within 72 hours of learning of the test failure and indicate the steps that the panel producer intends to take. Those steps are either to recall the products belonging to the lot or to treat and retest the products and certify the lot (this may be done at the customer’s location).[35]
Fabricators, importers, distributors, or retailers who are notified of a test failure and who have already further distributed the composite wood products must similarly notify their customers.[36]8. Requirements for Laminated Product Producers
The Standards define “laminated product” in part to mean “a product in which a wood or woody grass veneer is affixed to a particleboard core or platform, a medium-density fiberboard core or platform, or a veneer core or platform. A laminated product is a component part used in the construction or assembly of a finished good.”[37] Bamboo is an example of a woody grass.
Like the CARB ATCM, the Standards consider laminated product producers to be fabricators, i.e., entities which incorporate composite wood products into component parts or into finished goods. Thus, they must meet the requirements applicable to fabricators, described below, beginning one year after publication in the Federal Register.[38]
In addition, unless exempt, laminated products will be classified as hardwood plywood, beginning seven years after publication in the Federal Register.[39] This is a departure from the CARB ATCM. At that time, laminated product producers will become subject to all the requirements applicable to producers of hardwood plywood panels. Those requirements include emissions limits, emissions testing, and third-party certification, among others.
Laminated products are exempt from classification as hardwood plywood if the wood or woody grass veneer is attached using a phenol-formaldehyde or no-added formaldehyde resin, to a Title VI-compliant platform that is: (1) certified as compliant with the Standards, (2) manufactured with a no-added formaldehyde resin, or (3) manufactured with an ultra-low-emitting formaldehyde-based resin. The Standards require that producers of exempt laminated product maintain records establishing their eligibility for the exemption.[40]9. Requirements for Retailers, Distributors, and Fabricators
Beginning one year after publication in the Federal Register, retailers, distributors, and fabricators are required to take “reasonable precautions” to ensure that the composite wood products, component parts, and finished goods that they sell, supply, offer for sale, or hold for sale are Title VI compliant. To do so, they must obtain and maintain invoices, bills of lading, or other comparable documents that contain a statement from the supplier that its products are Title VI compliant, or that the composite wood products were produced before one year after publication in the Federal Register.[41] Records must be retained for three years.[42]
Compliance with this obligation will be facilitated if all panel producers, fabricators, distributors, importers, and retailers put that information on their invoices or bills of lading, although the Standards do not require this.[43] Instead, the Standards require this information to appear on labels, as discussed below.
Where the suppliers do not send documents indicating that the products being supplied are Title VI compliant, fabricators, distributors, and retailers will have to work with their suppliers to obtain those documents. However, they may well want to work proactively with their suppliers during the one-year phase-in period to ensure that they will receive those documents in a timely manner.[44]10. Requirements for Importers
Importers must meet the same recordkeeping requirements as retailers, distributors, and fabricators.[45] For importers, these are very challenging requirements. Since Title VI does not apply to foreign suppliers, importers have the responsibility to ensure that entities in their foreign supply chain supply them only with products that are Title VI compliant and documents with that assurance.[46]
Importers of composite wood products, finished goods, and component parts must also permit EPA to have access to and inspect records identifying the panel producer, the date of production, date of purchase, and identity of the supplier if different from the panel producer. Importers will have 30 days from receipt of an EPA request to provide this information.[47]
This requirement poses another challenge for importers. Often, importers deal directly with a supplier who is a distributor of products made by others in an extended supply chain. Importers may not know the identity of the panel producer or when the panel was produced. Further, such information may be confidential. EPA apparently will allow an entity in the foreign supply chain to submit this information directly to EPA, bypassing the importer, so as to maintain confidentiality.[48] Nevertheless, importers are required to endeavor to make this information available to EPA upon request, directly or indirectly.
EPA has not indicated what level of effort by importers will be sufficient if the foreign supply chain is unwilling to provide the information. It has said that it plans to issue guidance for importers.[49]11. Import Certification Requirements
In addition, importers of articles that are regulated as composite wood products or articles that contain such composite wood products must also comply with TSCA’s import certification provisions by two years after date of publication in the Federal Register.[50] This will be a significant new requirement for product importers, as previously EPA had not required import certification for shipments of articles such as composite wood products. The requirement applies even to imported products covered by the labeling exemption for de minimis amounts of composite wood.
Every composite wood product (or product containing it) being imported would likely be considered an article, defined as “a manufactured item which (1) is formed to a specific shape or design during manufacture, (2) has end-use functions dependent in whole or in part upon its shape or design during end use, and (3) has either no change of chemical composition during its end use or only those changes of composition which have no commercial purpose separate from that of the article,” and that results from a chemical reaction that occurs upon end use of other chemical substances, mixtures, or articles.[51] TSCA’s import certification provisions apply only to those articles containing a chemical substance if so required by EPA in a rulemaking,[52] which it has done in the Standards.
Thus, beginning in two years, importers of composite wood products or products containing them will have to ensure that a positive import certification is filed with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) for each shipment of composite wood products or products containing them. The positive certification reads:
I certify that all chemical substances in this shipment comply with all applicable rules or orders under TSCA and that I am not offering a chemical substance for entry in violation of TSCA or any applicable rule or order thereunder.[53]
In this context, that means certification that the products comply with the Standards.
The importer or its broker must be filed with the director of the port of entry before release of the shipment on either an appropriate entry document or commercial invoice or an attachment thereto, unless part of a blanket certification covering multiple shipments of the same articles.[54]
CBP has proposed to amend its TSCA import certification requirements to eliminate the option for blanket certifications and to allow importers to certify electronically using the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system.[55]12. Product Labeling
Composite wood products and products containing them must be labeled, beginning one year after publication in the Federal Register, unless exempt.
To be sold in the United States, all panels must either be certified as made with no-added formaldehyde or ultra-low-emitting formaldehyde, or certified as compliant with Title VI. There are different label statements for a panel depending upon the resin used to produce the product, and whether it is intended to be sold in the United States. All panels or bundles of panels that are sold, supplied, or offered for sale in the United States must be labeled with information which identifies: (1) the panel producer (by name or, where the name is confidential, by panel producer number); (2) the Title VI third-party certifier; (3) the lot from which the panels came; and (4) a statement that the panels are Title VI certified.[56]Panels transported through or imported to the United States for quality control or quarterly testing must be labeled “For TSCA Title VI testing only, not for sale in the United States.” Once tested, these panels may then be relabeled if they satisfy applicable emissions standards.[57]Panels or finished goods made with no-added formaldehyde or ultra-low-emitting formaldehyde resins may be labeled as such if the panels meet the requirements for reduced testing or a certification exemption as applicable to the use of those resins.[58]
Presumably, the responsibility falls on panel producers to label their panels, although that is not specified. Importers of composite wood products must ensure that the products they import are properly labeled by their foreign supply chains.
Panel producers, importers, distributors, fabricators, or retailers must have a system in place to identify the supplier of panels which are not individually labeled and provide identifying information to customers upon request.[59]
A fabricator of finished goods incorporating composite wood products must label the finished goods, or box or bundle of finished goods. The label must identify the fabricator and date of production and state that the goods are Title VI compliant. If the finished goods are not individually labeled, the importer, distributor, fabricator, or retailer must retain a copy of the label, be able to identify the products associated with it and provide identifying information to a consumer upon request. [60]
Importers, distributors, and retailers must leave intact labels on finished goods.[61]
EPA adopted a de minimis exemption from the labeling requirement. To qualify for the exemption, the surface area of the product must not incorporate more than 144 square inches of regulated composite wood products based on the largest face of the product. This exemption is inapplicable to finished goods and component parts designed to be used with other wood composite products to create larger surfaces, finished goods, or components parts, such as flooring.[62]
The Standards prohibit labeling composite wood products as Title VI compliant if manufactured before the applicable “manufactured-by” date.[63] For importers, the “manufactured-by” date would be the date of import. For composite wood products other than laminated products, the “manufactured-by” date is one year after the date of publication in the Federal Register. Composite wood products and laminated products manufactured before the applicable manufactured-by date can be incorporated into finished goods at any time, so long as they are not stockpiled.[64]13. Next Steps and Implications
Entities doing business in California will have a significant advantage in complying with the Standards, given their similarity to the CARB ATCM, which has similar recordkeeping and reasonable precaution requirements.
Importers are likely to be the most heavily impacted by the Standards, given that imported composite wood products will now be subject to TSCA import certification, and the difficulties that importers may experience when seeking information required by the reasonable precaution provisions from their supply chains.
Panel producers responsible for obtaining certification should carefully monitor the status of their third-party certifiers in the lead-up to the effective date of the Standards’ emissions limits and certification provisions.
Under the Standards, third-party certifiers currently authorized for testing by CARB have two years to obtain Title VI accreditation. Should the third-party certifier fail to obtain accreditation under the Standards, products certified by that third-party certifier will be impacted at the expiration of a short grace period.
All entities in the supply chain should carefully monitor their supply chains and the dates on which the products they produce or purchase are manufactured.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-s-formaldehyde-standards-composite-wood-products-pose-challenges-industry
-
EU Chemicals Agency Panels Back Chromium Trioxide Continued Use
Sep 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Chemicals Agency said Sept. 23 that its Risk Assessment and Socio-Economic Analysis committees adopted opinions that would authorize the continued use of chromium trioxide under the European Union's REACH regulation.
ECHA said the authorizations backed in principle by the Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) and Socio-Economic Analysis Committee (SEAC) included an authorization application from a consortium of importers that would cover “practically all uses of chromium trioxide as a treatment applied to the surface of products.”
Chromium trioxide is one of 31 hazardous substances that are subject to phaseout decisions in the EU under REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals), meaning they can no longer be used in the bloc unless companies can prove that their risks can be managed and that there are no alternatives.
But identifying chromium trioxide as a substance that should be phased out caused concern in the aerospace, automotive and other sectors, where it is widely used in chrome plating.
‘Milestone Opinion.'
ECHA Executive Director Geert Dancet said the RAC and SEAC backing for this authorization for chromium trioxide was a “milestone opinion.”
The authorization application was made “on behalf of a vast number of downstream users who will ultimately need to individually notify that they are covered by this authorization,” ECHA said.
The RAC and SEAC opinion “covers a broad range of industry sectors, such as car manufacturing, aerospace, aeronautics but also the manufacture of metals and construction equipment,” the chemicals agency added.
Workplace Safety Check
During meetings this month, RAC and SEAC concluded 25 final opinions that related mainly to applications from companies for continued use of chromium trioxide, ECHA said.
RAC and SEAC opinions on authorizations of hazardous substances are passed to the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, for final decisions.
ECHA said it will recommend to the commission that “the levels claimed by the applicants” for workplace exposure to chromium trioxide be “validated with further exposure measurements.”
Adrian Harris, director general of the Orgalime federation, which represents the engineering industry, told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 23 that authorizations for chromium trioxide would be welcome because “there's no alternative at the moment for many applications.”
Without REACH authorizations for chromium trioxide, companies faced the possibility that they would have to send components out of the EU for chrome plating and then re-import them, leading to higher prices, Harris said.
ECHA added that the commission has made final decisions so far on REACH authorizations for 31 uses of hazardous substances that will otherwise be prohibited in the EU.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=97751322&vname=dennotallissues&fn=97751322&jd=97751322
-
Commission Amends Skin Sensitisation Testing Provisions
Sep 26, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has amended Annex VII of the REACH Regulation with regards to skin sensitisation. This requires in vivo studies to be carried out.
However the amendment notes recent years have seen "significant scientific progress" in the development of alternatives tests.
Therefore the changes seek to avoid animal testing and the repetition of already performed tests.
The amendments focus on point 8.3 of the annex, and stipulate skin sensitisation studies do not need to be carried out if the substance is:classified as skin corrosion (category 1); ora strong acid (pH ≤ 2,0) or base (pH ≥ 11,5); orspontaneously flammable in air or in contact with water or moisture at room temperature.
In vitro/in chemico tests are not needed if:an in vivo study is available; oravailable in vitro/in chemico test methods are not applicable or adequate for the substance.
It also says the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) is the first-choice method for in vivo testing. And only in exceptional circumstances should another test be used. In such a case justification is needed.
The amendment adds that existing in vivo skin sensitisation studies performed according to valid OECD test guidelines, or EU test methods, and in compliance with good laboratory practice should be considered valid.
Echa and member states are charged with developing guidance documents.
The Regulation enters into force 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
https://chemicalwatch.com/49862/commission-amends-skin-sensitisation-testing-provisions
-
EU 'Cancer Risk Law' Causes Uproar As 140,000 People Try To Halt Killer Chemical Policy
Sep 26, 2016 | Express
By Siobhan Mcfadyen
BRUSSELS bureaucrats have been warned their plans to allow killer chemicals to enter the food chain will cause "years of harm" for millions of EU citizens.
The European Commission is attempting to rubber stamp new laws that campaigners say will directly affect the health of humans, wildlife and the environment.
Now 140,000 people have signed a petition, to be sent to Brussels chief Jean-Claude Junker, in a bid to prevent eurocrats from forcing through the controversial policy.
The row centres over the use of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and potential EDCs, which are mostly man-made, and which scientists say can cause cancer and other serious health problems.
Currently the chemicals are found in millions of every day products like pesticides, metals, additives or contaminants in food, and personal care products.
The EU has promised to clamp down on their use but has been accused of proposing weak measures which overlook scientific data proving they are a major threat to human health and the environment.
Furious campaigners claim big business loving Brussels is bending the rules after being lobbied by rich and powerful chemical giants.
This week the Commission published a complex paper which set out how they identify EDCs, following a three-year delay in their investigation.
But furious campaigners say the policy fails to protect the public from hormonal cancers and other endocrine-related health conditions, such as diabetes and infertility.
The World Health Organisation has done many studies on endocrine disruptors which they say cause cancerous tumors, birth defects, and other serious developmental disorders.
But the EU in its new policy is refusing to ban certain chemicals, which experts say is leaving the EU public at serious risk.
The European Commission’s draft rules have caused uproar across the continent, with Sweden even suing the Commission over them and winning its case.
Public interest group EDC-Free Europe has been campaigning for years to fight the influence of the chemical industry at every turn.
Government representatives from Sweden, Denmark and France are joinging them in fighting the EU's proposals.
But other EU Member States are being blasted for not being involved in the "non-transparent Brussels meetings".
Dr Lisette van Vliet from EDC-Free Europe told Parliament magazine: "What the Commission has proposed will not prevent diseases related to endocrine disrupting chemicals.
"The requirements are so strict, the burden of proof so high that we'll have years of harm to health before we can remove them.
"This is not what the legislation requires, which is, that EDCs may cause adverse effects are banned."
She added: "We call on member states and MEPs to block these criteria until and unless they are significantly improved - or vote to reject them.
"The criteria must include the World Health Organisation definition of potential endocrine disruptors and the modification to the pesticides derogation on negligible exposure must be eliminated."
However, Mr Juncker defended his proposals, arguing: "Endocrine disruptors can have serious health and environmental impacts and even if many substances containing them are already banned as a result of existing legislation on pesticides and biocides, we have to remain vigilant."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/713684/EU-cancer-risk-law-causes-uproar-as-140-000-people-try-to-halt-killer-chemical-policy
-
Looming Barriers Concerns Mount For Europe’s Agchem Regime
Sep 23, 2016 | Agrow
By Robert Birkett
European agchem event delegates fear mass blocking of ais under excessive caution of endocrine hazard and delays for products under complex renewal arrangements, Robert Birkett reports.
Bayer CropScience’s Andy Adams contested the European Commission’s proposed criteria for assessing endocrine disrupting (ED) properties in agrochemicals at the AgBio Summit earlier this month. He said that the proposed criteria would not improve safety...
Subscription required, for full article: https://www.agra-net.com/agra/agrow/interviews-features/looming-barriers-concerns-mount-for-europes-agchem-regime-527717.htm
-
Obama Climate Plan, Now in Court, May Hinge on Error in 1990 Law
Sep 25, 2016 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
WASHINGTON — The pitched battle over President Obama’s signatureclimate change policy, which is moving to the courts this week, carries considerable political, economic and historical stakes. Yet its legal fate, widely expected to be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, could rest on a clerical error in an obscure provision of a 26-year-old law.
That error, which left conflicting amendments on power plant regulation in the Clean Air Act, will be a major focus of oral arguments by opponents of Mr. Obama’s initiative when the case is heard on Tuesday in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The initiative, known as the Clean Power Plan, which Mr. Obama sees as at the heart of his climate change legacy, gave the United States critical leverage to broker the landmark 2015 Paris climate change accord. If the plan is struck down, the United States, the world’s largest carbon polluter over the centuries, will lose its main tool to cut greenhouse gas emissions. If it is upheld, it will transform the nation’s electricity system, closing hundreds of coal-fired power plants and setting in motion a wholesale shift to wind, solar and nuclear power, as well as to improved electric transmission systems.
Twenty-eight states and more than 100 companies and labor and industry groups are fighting to overturn the plan. Defending it are 18 states and dozens of environmental and public health groups that have joined forces with the Obama administration. Nearly 20 lawyers will take turns arguing the case before 10 judges — much larger than the typical three-member panel. The judges have allocated four hours to hear the arguments, rather than the usual one or two. The chief judge of the court, Merrick B. Garland, who is also Mr. Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, has recused himself.
Adding to the drama will be the presence of Mr. Obama’s mentor at Harvard Law School, Laurence H. Tribe, who will argue against the climate plan on behalf of the nation’s largest coal company, Peabody Energy.
The long-forgotten clerical error at issue in the case — State of West Virginia, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency — involves an update to the Clean Air Act passed by Congress in 1990.
The Clean Air Act of 1970 is the legal foundation of the Clean Power Plan. An obscure provision in the law — Section 111(d) — gave the E.P.A. broad authority to regulate unknown future pollutants. At the time, carbon dioxide, the nontoxic but heat-trapping gas that is the chief cause of global warming, was not considered a pollutant.Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGE‘Aviation’s Paris Moment’ as Nations Near Emissions Deal SEPT. 25, 2016Obama on Climate Change: The Trends Are ‘Terrifying’ SEPT. 8, 2016Rare Harmony as China and U.S. Commit to Climate Deal SEPT. 3, 2016Climate Change High on Agenda as Obama and Trudeau Meet for Summit JUNE 27, 2016Obama and President Xi of China Vow to Sign Paris Climate Accord PromptlyMARCH 31, 2016
In 1990, when Congress passed the update to the Clean Air Act, it amended Section 111(d). A version of the amendment passed by the House said that if the E.P.A. was already regulating power plant pollution under a separate section of the law, it could not use Section 111(d) to create new regulations on the same plants. A version of the amendment passed by the Senate, however, did allow such overlapping regulation.
When the two bills were merged, lawmakers forgot to strike out one of the conflicting amendments in the bleary-eyed rush to push the bill through. So it was signed into law by President George Bush with both amendments.
Opponents of the Clean Power Plan will argue on Tuesday that a strict interpretation of the House amendment would render the plan illegal.
Last year, when the E.P.A. issued the Clean Power Plan, it used Section 111(d) to justify placing new regulations on carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. The agency has also long regulated toxic power plant pollutants, such as mercury, under a different section, 112, of the Clean Air Act.
“In 1990, Congress dramatically expanded the Clean Air Act, and when they did that, they said an industry cannot be double-regulated,” said Jeff Holmstead, a lawyer representing many of the groups suing the administration.
Sean Donahue, a lawyer for the Environmental Defense Fund who will argue this portion of the case before the court, called that legal interpretation “preposterous.”
“It’s very interesting that there was this legislative glitch,” he said. Environmentalists and the administration will argue that because the two types of pollutants are so different, the E.P.A. is justified in using two sections of the law to regulate them.
“This bizarre proposition is like exempting restaurants from food handling requirements because they are subject to the fire code,” Mr. Donahue said.
Opponents of the plan will also focus on two other main points, arguing that Mr. Obama has exceeded his executive authority.
While environmental regulations under the Clean Air Act often require states to cut pollution by using specific technology, such as affixing “scrubbers” to smokestacks, the Clean Power Plan goes further: It asks states to reduce pollution by making changes to their entire electricity systems — shutting down coal plants, and building wind and solar plants. The plan also encourages states to reduce emissions by putting in place “cap-and-trade” systems, which would create state or regional caps on emissions and allow companies to buy and sell credits to pollute.
In his first term, Mr. Obama tried but failed to push a cap-and-trade bill through Congress. Now, his opponents say, he is using regulation to force the system through.
“The E.P.A. is going beyond what it’s authorized to do by Congress and essentially creating new law,” said Ken Paxton, the attorney general of Texas, a leader in coordinating the legal opposition to the plan.
David Doniger, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which worked closely with the Obama administration to draft the plan, dismissed that objection, noting that the E.P.A. already uses a cap-and-trade system to regulate other sources of pollution.
Given the high stakes, the two sides have gone to unusual lengths in their preparation, including what longtime activists say is an unprecedented level of counterintelligence work. Consultants have been gathering once-confidential details about how their opponents are organizing their side of the fight, in an attempt to find embarrassing tidbits that might undermine their arguments, at least in the public’s eye.
Both sides have spent months filing Freedom of Information requests and related lawsuits to obtain email correspondence and other records from their opponents.
Environmental groups sought emails between the state attorneys general who are challenging the Clean Power Plan and executives from the coal and electric utility industries.
Lawyers and consultants paid by the energy industry have sought records showing that environmentalists have worked closely with liberal politicians who support the plan.
“Transparency is a good thing, so having more of these documents serves the public,” said Kert Davies, the executive director of a group called theClimate Investigations Center, which has helped gather counterintelligence information on opponents of the Clean Power Plan. “But it is certainly an escalating war, back and forth. The intensity has peaked.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/us/politics/obama-court-clean-power-plan.html
-
Legal Battle At Hand For EPA's Clean Power Plan
Sep 26, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro,
Tomorrow is the long-awaited oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on the legality of U.S. EPA's sweeping rule to control carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector.
Starting at 9:30 a.m., 10 judges are scheduled to hear a minimum 218 minutes of arguments on the legality of the Clean Power Plan, which is on hold since the Supreme Court stayed the rule in February.
About 400 seats will be available for spectators in the courtroom and two overflow rooms. There will be no video or audio feed.
E&E will have a team of journalists following the action, led by Robin Bravender, Ellen M. Gilmer and Amanda Reilly.
Events surrounding the Clean Power Plan abound this week.
Today, the Michigan Agency for Energy and the state's Public Service Commission are holding a media call to showcase the latest modeling on the state's ability to comply with the federal carbon rule. Valerie Brader, executive director of the MAE, will highlight the completion of the latest round of computer modeling that was conducted to look at Michigan's ability to meet the requirements of the Clean Power Plan. Sally Talberg, chairman of the Michigan PSC, will cover the electric reliability challenges Michigan could face as early as 2018.
Also today, the group Americans for Climate Action will hold a briefing in Washington to highlight the impact of climate change on communities in the United States. A coalition of clergy, union, medical and retired military representatives will release more than 360,000 petitions in support of the Clean Power Plan.
Later today, the Texas Public Policy Foundation will host a discussion in Washington, D.C., on the key legal arguments to be addressed before the D.C. Circuit court tomorrow. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) and West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) will talk about their view that the EPA rule is a usurpation of state powers to regulate the use of in-state natural resources and an attempt to rewrite the Clean Air Act.
On Wednesday in Washington, the Georgetown Climate Center will host a session to deconstruct tomorrow's oral arguments, looking at what the judges' questions and back and forth with attorneys on both sides mean for the EPA rule. This event will include West Virginia Solicitor General Elbert Lin; Thomas Lorenzen, an attorney for industry petitioners; Sean Donahue, a lawyer for intervenors supporting EPA; New York Assistant Attorney General Morgan Costello; and EPA Associate General Counsel Lorie Schmidt.
In case you missed it:
· State opponents of the Clean Power Plan have found an unlikely new weapon: California's proposed plan to comply with the rule (E&ENews PM, Sept. 23).
· More than a dozen lawyers have spent the better part of this year preparing for their turn in presenting tomorrow's oral arguments to the D.C. Circuit Court. Several of those attorneys spoke with EnergyWire about how they prepare for the big day (EnergyWire, Sept. 22).
· Judges on the D.C. Circuit Court will "struggle" most over the issue of whether the Clean Air Act allows EPA to regulate beyond the fence line, said Ann Carlson, a professor of environmental law at UCLA (E&ENews PM, Sept. 21).
· An event at the University of Houston underscored how divisive the EPA rule remains (EnergyWire, Sept. 21).
· North Dakota has one of the toughest goals in the country under the Clean Power Plan. And that challenge is especially tough for electric cooperatives, which are bringing on cleaner natural gas and wind power but still lag behind the national average and are far from the level the federal government wants (ClimateWire, Sep. 19).
http://www.eenews.net/interactive/clean_power_plan/column_posts/1060043375
-
Pivotal Week For Spending Fight, Clean Power Plan
Sep 26, 2016 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
A partisan fight over Flint, Mich., aid is the major issue holding up stopgap spending legislation that Congress must pass by the end of the week to avoid a politically treacherous government shutdown.
The disagreement is keeping lawmakers in town for several more days, when they would rather be out campaigning in races that could change the congressional balance of power.
The House will also take up water projects legislation that could factor into negotiations over the continuing resolution to keep the government open and help Flint recover from its tainted water problems.
A Senate version of the Water Resources Development Act already contains assistance for the lead-stricken city, but it's not clear whether the House will go along.
While lawmakers prepare their exit plan, which will keep them away from Washington, D.C., until after the elections, attorneys are preparing for appeals court oral arguments on U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. Democrats have blocked GOP attempts to kill the rule.
Frustrated over slow-going CR talks, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) introduced a GOP stopgap proposal late last week that will face a procedural vote tomorrow.
"There have been broad requests for a clean continuing resolution. So that's what I've just offered. It's the result of many, many hours of bipartisan work across the aisle," McConnell said.
Democrats, however, are opposing the plan because it does not provide any assistance to Flint, while providing $500 million in emergency money for Louisiana and other states hit by recent flooding. They say there should be aid for both.
"We have to help people who are in dire need in this country and not pick and choose which American families we're going to help," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Senate Republicans say they already dealt with Flint in their version of WRDA by providing $220 million for infrastructure repairs.
Aside from the Flint fight, both parties do support a 10-week CR that would run through Dec. 9 to allow lawmakers to negotiate a final fiscal 2017 spending measure in a postelection lame-duck session. There's also broad support for $1.1 billion in the CR to combat the Zika virus.
Negotiators have also dropped several controversial riders, including a provision to allow the Export-Import Bank to resume full operations.
The bill would address a number of routine spending requests, including providing dollars to begin implementing the overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act and cover a shortfall in drilling fees at the Bureau of Land Management.
The House is expected to take up whatever CR the Senate can pass. No lawmaker is interested in shutting down the government with the general election only about six weeks away.WRDA dealing
House Republican leaders' decision to take up a $5 billion WRDA bill this week could prove pivotal in CR negotiations. Even though it doesn't include Flint aid, leaders could decide to add an amendment before final passage.
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) suggested last week that any aid for Flint should come through WRDA, not the CR. "That is a water resources bill; that's where that belongs, that conversation," he said.
Some Republicans have also suggested lawmakers could add the money during House-Senate talks to come up with a compromise WRDA.
But Democrats have dismissed that idea as too uncertain. They have also downplayed suggestions that the aid could become part of the long-term fiscal 2017 spending package.
The water projects bill has a tradition of bipartisan support in the House. Its proposed waterway infrastructure projects often affect dozens of congressional districts.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), however, said Democrats might oppose WRDA because it does not contain a proposal related to the federal Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
The provision would aim to make sure the money goes toward harbor maintenance work by shifting it from a discretionary spending account to a mandatory one over the next decade (see related story).
"We had kind of come to a place where we would support WRDA, even though it didn't have Flint in it because the Senate bill had Flint in it. And then they took out the Harbor Trust Fund. And so now we're not going to be voting for that bill," Pelosi said.
House Republican leaders say they took out the trust fund provision so the measure would meet budget scoring requirements.Opening arguments
Judges with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will likely offer indications of how they view the legal challenge to the administration's Clean Power Plan this week.
Twenty-seven states and dozens of industry and labor groups are challenging the CPP. EPA's allies include 18 other states, cities, greens and industry associations. All the arguments will be boiled down to 218 minutes tomorrow.
EPA's foes have raised a host of legal challenges to the CPP, which requires states to develop and put in place plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants.
The appeals court is particularly important given the unknowns in the Supreme Court, including when the Senate will agree to fill its vacancy.
The court's decision is likely to come after the November elections, but the timing is still up in the air. Judges could issue a ruling in the winter. Once a decision comes out, parties will likely ask for Supreme Court review.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/09/26/stories/1060043380
-
Foes Find Surprise Weapon In Calif. Compliance Plan
Sep 23, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
State opponents of U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan have found an unlikely new weapon: California's proposed plan to comply with the rule.
The proposal bears out concerns that California and other overachieving states may "refuse entirely" to link emissions trading regimes with traditional coal states, the foes said in a lettertoday to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Led by Texas and West Virginia, the 27 states that are challenging the Clean Power Plan submitted the letter. On Tuesday, 10 judges of the D.C. Circuit will hear more than 3 ½ hours of oral arguments in the case (Greenwire, Sept. 20).
Under the Clean Power Plan, states must develop and put in place plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. The program accommodates interstate trading of emissions allowances and rates.
Although the Supreme Court put the rule on hold in February pending the results of litigation, California last month became the first state to issue a proposed compliance plan.
The plan drafted by the California Air Resources Board would rely on extending the state's landmark cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions. The board proposed a plan solely for California and said it would consider linking the trading program only with other states that have adopted greenhouse gas reduction requirements that are "equivalent to or stricter" than California's (EnergyWire, Aug. 3).
The state challengers today told the D.C. Circuit that California's plan boosts their legal argument that EPA can't rely on trading to justify performance rates that not all states can alone achieve.
"California's actions illustrate the states' further point that states who can over-comply with EPA's performance rates can and may very well refuse entirely to trade with states like Montana, Kentucky, North Dakota and West Virginia," the letter to the court said.
On the other hand, overachieving states may force coal states "to adopt more stringent regimes than the rule provides" as a sort of admission price into their trading systems, the letter said.
The rule opponents also say California's plan shows that interstate trading won't emerge as EPA envisions.
"EPA's claim that a sufficient interstate program will emerge to enable nationwide compliance is an impermissible 'crystal ball' prediction," the state opponents said.
Neither EPA nor California's office of attorney general, which is supporting the agency in the litigation, provided a comment.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/09/23/stories/1060043366
-
Democratic Senators Raise LNG Export Concerns
Sep 26, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
A quartet of U.S. senators has written U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Ernest Moniz expressing concern over "an alarming rate" of approvals of applications to export liquefied natural gas (LNG). The Center for Liquefied Natural Gas (CLNG) said the concerns raised have been addressed before.
"As of August 2016, the DOE has approved 18 export applications to non-free trade agreement (non-FTA) countries totaling 14.44 Bcf/d, or nearly 20% of 2015 domestic dry natural gas production," wrote Sens. Al Franken (D-MN), Ed Markey (D-MA), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Angus King Jr. (I-ME). "The DOE has also conditionally approved another 0.8 Bcf/d for non-FTA countries. Including applications that have been approved for export to FTA countries...authorized LNG exports total 49.19 Bcf/d, or more than 60% of 2015 production."
The senators said domestic industries and U.S. families could be harmed by this level of LNG exports as it will increase their costs for energy. They also said exports could contribute to climate change.
"The DOE has already conducted multiple macroeconomic analyses that address the concerns raised by the senators," CLNG said. "In fact, the currently approved export volume of 14.44 Bcf/d that the senators cited is well within the export scenarios of 12 to 20 Bcf/d analyzed by DOE in a macroeconomic report released in December 2015 (see Daily GPI, Dec. 29, 2015).
"That report examined whether it is 'ultimately economically advantageous' for the U.S. to export LNG, and it found that expanded export scenarios would deliver between $7 billion and $20 billion annually to the U.S. economy. The report also found that the economic benefits associated with LNG exports are highest under the largest export scenarios..."
CLNG noted the Senate's energy bill, which would expedite LNG export approvals (see Shale Daily, Feb. 2) and said there is bipartisan support for LNG exports.
"Additionally, it is encouraging that the conference committee is making progress towards an energy bill that includes the LNG provision and will be supported in both chambers of Congress," CLNG said. "Passing this bill will improve regulatory certainty and allow the U.S. to enjoy the substantial economic benefits that will come with higher levels of LNG exports."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107868-democratic-senators-raise-lng-export-concerns
-
Dems Express Interest In Permitting Reform, Export Scrutiny
Sep 26, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Northey
Activists and angry landowners have been advised in the past to take their complaints about the spread of natural gas pipelines, compressor stations and export terminals to the halls of Congress.
Last week, more than 180 environmental groups followed that advice, and their call for oversight hearings appears to be gaining traction, at least among House Democrats. And in the Senate, a dozen lawmakers questioned whether regulators are being too quick in approving exports of domestic natural gas.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats signaled interest in taking a closer look at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's handling of project proposals under the Natural Gas Act following a letter from Maya van Rossum, the Delaware riverkeeper, and more than 150 groups outraged by what they call the agency's "bias and abuse."
Most of Congress' efforts have been focused on streamlining the siting process for pipelines and liquefied natural gas export terminals "for the benefit of the industry with little regard for the rights of private property owners, communities' concerns, or the views of state and local officials," said a spokesman for E&C Committee Democrats.
"At a minimum, it is time for us to take a serious and comprehensive look at this 1930s statute to see whether it is truly serving the public interest in its current form," the spokesman said.
FERC recently drew the ire of landowners by changing its public input process by collecting comments in private rooms. The agency said doing so would ensure everyone's voice is heard, but landowners and community members said it denies people a chance to be heard on stage (EnergyWire, Aug. 18).
Separately, 11 Democrats and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), in a letter to Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz on Wednesday, questioned whether the agency was moving too quickly in approving exports of LNG to foreign countries, noting DOE has already approved 18 export applications.
The senators questioned whether the administration considers climate change in export reviews and how sending natural gas abroad is affecting domestic industries and energy bills.
"The DOE has approved a substantial volume of LNG exports and continues to do so at an alarming rate," the senators wrote.
Sens. Gary Peters and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Al Franken of Minnesota, Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Barbara Boxer of California, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Sheldon Whitehouse and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire signed the letter.
Democrats have for years been stuck in a tricky balancing act, torn between calls for more natural gas exports and risking the shale boom's domestic benefits (E&E Daily, Jan. 15, 2014).
Adding to their complex dance is a growing, national anti-fossil-fuel movement that has claimed success with the Obama administration freezing construction on a portion of the Dakota Access pipeline.
And as projects spread across the country, so too does the pressure from national environmental groups and landowners for regulators, Congress and lawmakers to step in.
Many of those concerns have cropped up on a regional basis along pipelines routes, compressor stations and other projects.
New York Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, for example, recently sent letters to FERC with concerns about an underground gas storage facility in the town of Reading.
Nationally, activists pressured Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to clarify her position on Dakota Access. They pushed her running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), to clarify his position on the Atlantic Coast pipeline.
Groups that signed onto the van Rossum letter called for reforms at FERC and asked the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to take a closer look at the agency's operation under the Natural Gas Act.
The law, the groups argue, gives too much power to the agency and too little power to landowners in the path of new gas infrastructure developers with eminent domain on their side.
"The number of frack gas pipelines is exploding and the feds are not only not applying appropriate oversight, but are in fact also enabling the trampling of people's property rights, public health standards, and environmental protection," David Pringle, Clean Water Action's New Jersey campaign director, said in a statement.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/09/26/stories/1060043383
-
Ex-EPA Official: Gas, Renewable Trends Don't Hinge on Election
Sep 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Broad regulatory and investment trends that favor natural gas and renewable energy and are driving down U.S. carbon emissions are likely to endure—no matter who is elected the next president Nov. 8, a former acting head of the Environmental Protection Agency said Sept. 23.
“First, the price of natural gas is not going to go up under any administration, and it will continue to displace coal generation in the United States,” Bob Perciasepe, the former acting administrator, said at the Society of Environmental Journalists conference in Sacramento. “That trend will continue no matter who is president, and that downward trend or pressure on emissions from the power sector [also] will continue” unabated, he said.
Congress essentially has locked in production and investment tax credits for renewable energy—for four or six more years, depending on whether it is a solar or wind project—"and that's not going to go way unless Congress overturns itself” by rolling back the incentives it put in place in a December 2015 funding extension, said Perciasepe, now president of the Center for Climate & Energy Solutions.
“But those trends are going to continue to stimulate renewable energy regardless” of whether Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton or Republican nominee Donald Trump wins on Nov. 8, he said. “If a new president does nothing, those trends are going to be out there,” Perciasepe said.
Coal Still Has Role
James Connaughton, who chaired the White House Council on Environmental Quality for President George W. Bush, cautioned that the declining use of coal in the U.S. won't necessarily translate into reduced use of coal in developing nations, which could cancel out any progress in cutting global greenhouse emissions.
In the U.S., coal accounted for only one-third of U.S. electricity production in 2015, which is now even with the portion generated by natural gas, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
“More energy including coal being used around the world is poverty eradication,” said Connaughton, now president and chief executive officer for Nautilus Data Technologies. Coal should be mined “in an appropriately regulated way” and should be used “in a way that meets our emission objectives” in the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, he said.
“However, it's a largely symbolic” decline in coal use “when it comes to tackling climate change” around the world, Connaughton said, because countries such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa ultimately may need more coal-fired power plants to meet rising electricity demand.
“We shouldn't be constraining the flow of coal to poor people who might take advantage of it while” richer developed nations take the lead in cutting their emissions, he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=97751345&vname=dennotallissues&fn=97751345&jd=97751345
-
Agencies Invite Tribes To Formal Consultations
Sep 23, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
The departments of the Interior, Justice and the Army today invited tribal leaders to participate in formal government-to-government consultations over infrastructure projects like the Dakota Access oil pipeline.
The agencies asked representatives from all 567 federally recognized tribes to attend listening sessions and consultations on how the federal government can facilitate "timely and meaningful tribal input" on infrastructure decisions.
Kicking off with a listening session on Oct. 11 in Phoenix, agency officials will travel to five other states for tribal consultations from Oct. 25 through Nov. 21.
"We recognize this is an aggressive consultation schedule," the invitation said. "But we believe it is appropriate given the importance and urgency of the issues."
The agencies plan to explore whether proposing new legislation to Congress could be helpful to promote tribal input and protect tribal lands, resources and treaty rights.
"We understand that Tribal Nations' voices must be heard, in a timely and meaningful way, with regard to Federal decisions that could affect their treaties, homelands, environment, cultural properties, and sacred sites," the letter said.
Yesterday, tribal leaders traveled to Washington, D.C., to speak to lawmakers on the Dakota Access pipeline. Dave Archambault II, chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, told Democrats on the House Natural Resources Committee that his tribe had not been "meaningfully" consulted about the pipeline's construction (E&E Daily, Sept. 23).
"Sometimes things are legal, but they're just wrong," Archambault said.
The pipeline would carry 570,000 barrels of crude oil daily from North Dakota to Illinois. It would also run under Lake Oahe, which has sparked protests from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and environmental groups.
This invitation will likely be discussed at Monday's Tribal Nations Conference at the White House.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/09/23/stories/1060043361
-
Congressional Democrats Sympathetic to Dakota Access Pipe Opponents
Sep 26, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
In a Capitol Hill forum sponsored by a handful of Congressional Democrats on Thursday, lawmakers and Native American tribal leaders called for a halt to the $3.8 billion, nearly 1,200-mile Dakota Access oil pipeline now under construction in four states.
Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Chairman Dave Archambault II led a packed house of Native American tribal leaders in urging Congress to halt the project, whose backers argue is a necessary U.S. energy infrastructure project that has met all of the needed environmental and cultural heritage safeguards as part of state and federal processes that began two years ago.
Separately, the Standing Rock Sioux gained the support of what its leaders called 1,200 archaeologists and museums across the nation, all of which are calling for the federal government to stop the alleged desecration of Standing Rock sacred sites.
"The federal government has failed in its trust responsibility to the Standing Rock Sioux," said Archambault in announcing the national support. He called the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) "a federal trustee responsible for upholding our treaty rights," and alleged that the Corps failed to hold "meaningful consultation" with the tribe before approving the water crossing pipeline construction. USACE is currently re-evaluating its past approval.
The Native American pleas gained a sympathetic ear from a half-dozen Democratic Congressional members who attended the informal gathering. They agreed with Archambault that the Sioux' concerns were ignored for the most part by USACE and state officials in a permitting process that authorized a unit of Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners to begin construction earlier this year.
In response to a question from Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Archambault acknowledged that the part of the pipeline route nearest the reservation is located in a natural gas pipeline right-of-way that has existed since the 1980s, and further, the project met "minimal" required clearance (500 feet) of the reservation.
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) said he supported the stand taken by the Native American tribes and he admired the tribes "dignity and moral clarity" in standing up to "Big Oil," which he described as having "way too much power and influence."
Huffman made it clear he thinks Congress' and the federal government's job is to reverse the Dakota Access decision, and make sure "the government gets this thing right."
Industry analysts have noted that USACE could decide to reopen the environmental review of the lake crossing, and other federal reviews could be revisited under the Clean Water Act, the Rivers/Harbors Act, or the National Historic Preservation Act. Any of those courses would likely delay the USACE easement being issued (see Daily GPI, Sept. 19).
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107864-congressional-democrats-sympathetic-to-dakota-access-opponents
-
Sep 23, 2016 | T&D
SI Group’s Orangeburg location has been recognized for its safety and health management systems with South Carolina Palmetto Star VPP certification.
The certification is provided to worksites that have achieved injury and illness rates at or below the national average within the manufacturing industry.
“This certification reflects a collective effort and deep commitment to protecting our employees, communities and the environment in which we all live,” said Jeff Prickett, senior director, southeast operations for SI Group.
“We’re honored to partner with local agencies and other stakeholders in our continued efforts toward environmental health and safety,” Prickett said.
With this designation, the site becomes the largest certified chemical facility in South Carolina, and will be one of only about 2,200 sites recognized nationally.
In recognition of this achievement, the site held a flag-raising ceremony Friday.
“We are proud of the hard work and commitment we’ve seen from SI Group and its employees as they worked together to become a VPP Star site in South Carolina,” said Emily H. Farr, interim director of the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation.
“SI Group has proven to be a leader in workplace safety, as only a very small number of employers achieve the Star site designation. They know that safety must be top priority in the workplace,” Farr said.
SI Group’s sites in Tennessee and Texas are also VPP Star certified.
The Voluntary Protection Programs recognize employers and workers in private industry and federal agencies who have implemented effective safety and health management systems and maintain injury and illness rates below national Bureau of Labor Statistics averages for their respective industries.
In VPP, management, labor and OSHA work cooperatively to prevent fatalities, injuries and illnesses through a system focused on: hazard prevention and control; worksite analysis; training; and management commitment and worker involvement.
VPP participants are re-evaluated every three to five years to remain in the programs.
In May, the company received the Responsible Care Facility Safety Award from the American Chemistry Council.
The Responsible Care Facility Safety Award is presented to companies with exemplary performance in employee health and safety. This is the company’s 25th year as a Responsible Care company.
In April, SI Group received a silver award for corporate social responsibility from EcoVadis, an international organization that provides sustainability ratings for global supply chains. SI Group was ranked among the top 13 percent of more than 25,000 worldwide companies assessed by EcoVadis.
SI Group purchased the former Albemarle plant on Cannon Bridge Road in 2014.
The company is a family-owned manufacturer of chemical intermediates, specialty resins and solutions. It operates 20 manufacturing facilities on
http://thetandd.com/news/local/si-group-recognized-for-health-safety-orangeburg-facility-earns-palmetto/article_36c1003f-3f47-56bd-9d05-273fb7aa448e.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Report Shows MRF Equipment Can Be Used Effectively To Sort Flexible Packaging
Sep 23, 2016 | Plastics Today
By Kari Embree
The Materials Recovery for the Future (MRFF; Washington, DC) collaborative released yesterday findings of a research program proving that automated sorting technologies currently in use can be adjusted to capture flexible plastic packaging—potentially creating a new stream of recovered materials while improving the quality of other recycling streams.
The research, documented in the Resource Recycling Systems report, "Flexible Packaging Sortation at Materials Recovery Facilities," reveals that with adequate screening and optical sorting capacity, flexible plastic packaging can be efficiently captured in a single-stream materials recovery facility (MRF).
"Flexible packaging has many positive attributes—highly efficient, great product protection, and low environmental impact. However, recovery has been one of its weak points," said Brad Rodgers, Foods Packaging Research and Development Director for Discovery and Sustainability at PepsiCo. "This study is shedding light on pathways that can be deployed to improve flexible packaging end-of-life options. PepsiCo is proud to be actively engaged in this industry collaboration."
"Lifecycle assessment provides compelling data regarding the potential benefits films can offer," shares Stephen Sikra, P&G Technology Manager for Materials Science. "This research provides a valuable foundation for helping advance new solutions for flexible film recovery, and we are proud to be part of it." Common forms of flexible plastic packaging include re-sealable food bags, pouches for laundry detergent pods, pet food bags, and snack bags.
"We now know how flexibles flow through a material recovery facility and that the technology already exists for separating flexibles out of the materials streams," said Larry Baner, Senior Packaging Research Scientist, Global Packaging and Design for Nestlé Purina Petcare. "Although there is still a lot of work to be done to define the best way to separate flexibles from single-stream recyclables, this research moves us closer to solutions."
This first phase of the research program sponsored by the MRFF collaborative consisted of baseline testing, equipment testing, and a series of recovery facility trials to test existing sortation technologies commonly used in MRFs, such as screens and optical scanners.
In addition to announcing its initial research findings, MRFF welcomed three new members to the collaborative: Target, LyondellBasell and Plum Organics. The MRFF project brings together brand owners, manufacturers, and packaging industry organizations that are committed to enhancing recovery solutions for flexible plastic packaging.
MRFF members include Amcor, The Dow Chemical Company, LyondellBasell, Nestlé Purina PetCare and Nestlé USA, PepsiCo, Plum Organics, The Procter & Gamble Company, SC Johnson, Sealed Air, and Target as well as the Association for Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers, the Flexible Packaging Association, SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association and the American Chemistry Council.
http://www.plasticstoday.com/packaging/report-shows-mrf-equipment-can-be-used-effectively-sort-flexible-packaging/172393085725248
-
The World Is Watching As California Steps Up — Again — On Climate Change
Sep 25, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Editorial Board
ALMOST NO ONE is talking about it, but California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed a hugely consequential bill this month. The law, SB 32, drastically ramps up the state’s landmark climate change law in the world’s sixth-largest economy. The world is watching closely: If California’s policy appears to be working, it will be copied in states and countries across the globe. Which makes it all the more important for state leaders to get it right.
California is well on its way to meeting its first emissions goal, set a decade ago, to cut the state’s carbon footprint to 1990 levels by 2020. That transition has been driven in part by traditional, command-and-control environmental regulations and in part by a statewide cap-and-trade system, which makes polluters pay for the emissions they produce. Despite some early doomsaying, this hybrid policy has not smashed the California economy. In fact, the state’s economy has grown faster than the rest of the country’s in recent years, as have wages. So far, the state’s experience appears to show that a major economy can transition off carbon dioxide without destroying its economic prospects.
The state’s new target, however, is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, which is dramatically more ambitious. The state is doing relatively easy things now. Experts warn that the deeper the cuts go, the harder and more expensive they become. Which means it is all the more important that the flaws in the policy be ironed out in coming years.
Though California’s approach is multifaceted, it really only requires one major element — the cap-and-trade system. This policy puts a hard ceiling on statewide carbon dioxide emissions and requires polluters to buy permits to emit greenhouse gases under that cap. The effect is to create a market for pollution credits and a price on carbon dioxide emissions. The price signal nudges companies and consumers to cut waste, invest in cleaner infrastructure, buy products that are friendlier to the environment and develop green technologies. Environmental considerations are now baked into the price of goods and services, which means that market forces, not regulators, determine how to green the economy. The policy is cheaper and more flexible than direct regulation.
Other supposedly complementary state policies, such as mandates regarding renewable energy or transportation fuels, are, in fact, superfluous. The cap-and-trade program already sets a statewide emissions limit; additional regulations requiring that the state meet its carbon goals in particular ways are likely to raise costs for little additional benefit. As the state ramps up its ambition, it should rely more on its carbon market than on its carbon mandates.
Other states, meanwhile, should do the same. If President Obama’s Clean Power Plan clears the courts, each state will have to create an emissions-reduction program of some kind. The Obama administration’s plan would allow states to band together and create cross-state carbon markets, which would be by far the most efficient approach. The larger the market, the cheaper the policy.
California has already merged its carbon trading system with Quebec’s. That market should get larger, and soon.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-world-is-watching-as-california-steps-up--again--on-climate-change/2016/09/25/f5cae480-76d0-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html?utm_term=.46424a09bc9d
-
EPA ‘Failed Miserably’ in Civil Rights Efforts: Commission
Sep 26, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
The Environmental Protection Agency is failing when it comes to protecting low-income and minority communities from pollution, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights said in a scathing report released Sept. 23.
The agency isn't harnessing the Civil Rights Act or infusing its environmental justice efforts into its programs, resulting in a lack of urgently needed protections for vulnerable communities, the report said. In fact, the commission recommended that EPA immediately reverse course on its final coal ash rule and its proposed civil rights rule, among other needed actions.
“I'm not certain if the Environmental Protection Agency is incompetent or indifferent when it comes to requiring environmental justice from polluters of minority communities, but whatever the case, the result is the same,” Martin Castro, chairman of the commission, said in a statement in the report. “The EPA has failed miserably in its mandate to protect communities of color from environmental hazards.”
Mustafa Ali, senior adviser to Administrator McCarthy for Environmental Justice, said in an e-mailed statement that EPA's justice program is “robust” and “successful” and has made significant progress, but the EPA will review the report and seek to improve. But Justice advocates told Bloomberg BNA the report validates what they have been saying for years: that the EPA isn't focused on protecting the nation's most vulnerable populations.
Several studies have found that environmental hazards such as toxic waste sites are often located and concentrated in areas with largely minority populations, low-income populations, or indigenous peoples.
Title VI Staffing, Accountability
The report looked at the agency's enforcement of Title VI under the Civil Rights Act of 1964—a part of the law that prohibits discrimination due to race, color or national origin by federal funding recipients—and its implementation of an executive order on environmental justice (E.O. 12898).
The commission, which issued a similarly critical report in 2003 on the EPA's Title VI efforts, reaffirmed that the EPA isn't adequately executing on civil rights challenges. While the EPA has accepted complaints for investigation under Title VI since 1993, the agency still consistently doesn't meet regulatory processing deadlines, rejects for review the vast majority of complaints, doesn't adequately review funding recipients, and doesn't effectively coordinate with complainants, it said.
The office has never made a formal finding of discrimination or denied or withdrawn financial assistance, it said. The commission acknowledged the office has made some progress, such as its work on a five-year strategic plan; however, the commission said long-lasting issues such as inadequate staffing levels and lack of tools to hold other parts of the agency accountable ultimately hurt vulnerable groups.
Meanwhile, the report's review of the EPA's efforts related to coal ash, a toxic waste created as power plants’ burn coal, was similarly negative.
Coal Ash, Executive Order
For example, the commission found that the EPA disregarded a minority community's concerns when it approved the disposal of coal ash in Uniontown, Ala., at odds with the executive order on environmental justice. It also inappropriately said that because certain environmental legal obligations were met, that justice concerns were as well, the report said.
In addition, the commission found that the EPA's final rule classifying coal ash as a non-hazardous waste substance doesn't adequately protect low-income and minority communities because those communities would be unlikely to have the resources to sue to ensure environmental protection. The rule didn't adequately consider the financial burden the rule would have on the communities, it said.
The commission also found that across issues it assessed the EPA failed to act proactively, instead responding to forcing moves such as litigation. It added “when they do act, they make easy choices and outsource any environmental justice responsibilities onto others.”
The commission offered a number of recommendations, including for the EPA to backtrack on its currently proposed civil rights rule that would eliminate regulatory deadlines for processing Title VI complaints and for the EPA to classify coal ash as a “special waste.” The EPA also should empower its civil rights office to hold all of EPA accountable to its mission, it said.
EPA's Response
EPA's Ali said the agency has taken a number of actions to move forward on environmental justice and continue to try to address pressing issues through actions such as its EJ2020 environmental justice strategy.
“Despite conveying this progress to the Commission previously, it is largely absent in their report,” Ali said. “We will review the report in detail, and as in the past, seek to work collaboratively with the Commission on our ongoing and shared commitment to civil rights and to promote environmental justice.”
Civil rights advocates hailed the report. It “repeats what has been publicly known and available for years,” and even reiterates justice advocates’ and communities’ recommendations to the agency, Brent Newell, legal director at the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, said. “It amplifies our voices,” Newell said.
““The commission went right for the core and said the agency essentially needs the political will to enforce civil rights,” Marianne Engelman Lado, a senior staff attorney with Earthjustice, told Bloomberg BNA,
What may come next at this point is unclear, advocates say. Engelman Lado said many of the recommendations would be easy for the EPA to execute, and Newell said he is in talks with allies about what to do, but said he hopes President Barack Obama addresses the issue as this has been occurring under his watch.
At the end of the day, Engelman Lado said the report could build on existing momentum to prompt action for these communities: “In 2016, in the wake of Black Lives Matter, there is a greater understanding that is still salient. And after Flint, there is an understanding that when communities speak up, we need to listen to them. The report will help to create momentum for change.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=97751347&vname=dennotallissues&fn=97751347&jd=97751347
Congressional Hearings - There are no Hearing to report at this time.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested