Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 10/06/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Makers Disappointed Their Fees Going to Treasury
Oct 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical manufacturers are disappointed that the Environmental Protection Agency continues to deposit industry fees into the U.S. Treasury instead of a special fund to expedite approvals and risk evaluations under the amended chemicals law. -
Keep it Simple, Chemical Makers Tell EPA on Inventory Update
Oct 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The process the Environmental Protection Agency uses to update the inventory of chemicals in the U.S. must be uncomplicated, small and large chemical manufacturers say. -
Groups Seek To Sway EPA On TSCA Inventory Rule's Scope, CBI Claims
Oct 5, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Petroleum industry groups and environmentalists are seeking to sway the outcome of parts of EPA's pending rule to "reset" its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) inventory, with the American Petroleum Institute (API) calling for an inventory narrow in scope while advocates ask EPA to closely review companies' confidential data claims. -
(ACC Mentioned) Washington State Announces Candidates For High Concern List
Oct 6, 2016 | Chemical Wartch
By Kelly Franklin
Phthalates, flame retardants and perfluorinated chemicals are among the substances Washington state will be considering for addition to its Chemicals of High Concern to Children (CHCC) list. -
Controls of Chemicals Used to Make Explosives Under Review
Oct 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Regulatory and voluntary controls of chemical precursors of explosives will be studied by a new committee the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine is establishing. -
Commission Responds Tentatively To EDC Criteria Concerns
Oct 6, 2016 |
By Emma Chynoweth and Luke Buxton
The European Commission is facing serious concerns about its proposals for criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals in biocides and pesticides legislation. -
EU Commission Redrafting EDC Criteria Proposals
Oct 6, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Chynoweth
Discussions between the Commission and member states on the proposals took place on 21 September at two separate meetings:the biocides Competent Authorities; andthe Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (Scopaff). -
CMR Substances Not Automatically Banned In Cosmetics
Oct 6, 2016 | Chemcial Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
Carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic (CMR) substances are not automatically banned for their use in cosmetic products, if they have a mandatory classification as such under the CLP Regulation. -
Greens Say BLM Proposal Targets 'Keep It In The Ground'
Oct 5, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Scott Streater
The Bureau of Land Management in Colorado is proposing a set of rules that it says are designed to protect public safety, but some environmental groups contend they are a veiled attempt to silence growing protests at federal oil and natural gas lease sales. -
’Safe Hydraulic Fracturing’ And The World As It Is
Oct 5, 2016 | Bloomberg - Government
By Mark Drajem
Coal and climate made early cameos in the vice presidential debate last night, with Mike Pence making the case that Hillary Clinton would increase regulations and prosecute the war on coal. There was no specific discussion of energy issues, but Tim Kaine said a Clinton administration would develop “alliances to battle terrorism and climate change.”Fracking’s friends -
Fossil Fuel Methane Emission Underestimated
Oct 5, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
Fossil-fuel-related emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, have been miscalculated and may be twice as high as previously thought. Researchers say the emissions have been at this high level for the past three decades (Nature 2016, DOI: 10.1038/nature19797). -
PHMSA Issues Interim Final Rule on Emergency Orders
Oct 5, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) on Monday issued an interim final rule that will allow it to issue emergency orders on oil and natural gas pipelines, satisfying a requirement from a comprehensive pipeline safety bill enacted last summer. -
Corps Decision On Dakota Access Likely To Come Before Court's
Oct 5, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
The Obama administration will probably decide whether to further delay construction of the Dakota Access pipeline before a federal appeals court rules on whether to lift a temporary work stoppage around a disputed river crossing, a Justice Department lawyer said at a hearing today. -
Federal Court Reviews Tribe's Request To Halt Dakota Pipeline
Oct 5, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Federal judges on Wednesday reviewed a tribal request to halt construction on a controversial pipeline project in North Dakota. -
Obama Celebrates Paris Ratification
Oct 5, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
President Obama hailed the ratification today of the Paris climate agreement. The deal negotiated in December crossed the threshold for entry into force with the announcement that 72 countries, accounting for about 57 percent of the world's emissions, have now officially signed on. -
Paris Climate Treaty to Take Effect in November
Oct 5, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Bryon Tau and Amy Harder
A climate treaty negotiated by more than 200 countries to cap emissions and curb the global rise in temperatures will go into force in November after the United Nations announced Wednesday the pact had reached the threshold necessary to formally take effect. -
Early EU Action Puts Paris Climate Pact Over Finish Line
Oct 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The Paris climate agreement formally crossed the finish line Oct. 5 when the European Union fast-tracked ratification documents to the United Nations days earlier than expected, clearing the path for countries to begin writing rules to implement the deal when the next UN climate summit opens Nov. 7 in Morocco. -
US Aiming To Reach New Refrigerant Emissions Deal
Oct 5, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Officials hope to reach a deal next week to phase down the global use of a warming-causing refrigerant chemical.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Makers Disappointed Their Fees Going to Treasury
Oct 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical manufacturers are disappointed that the Environmental Protection Agency continues to deposit industry fees into the U.S. Treasury instead of a special fund to expedite approvals and risk evaluations under the amended chemicals law.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182), which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act as of June 22, authorized the EPA to collect a variety of fees from chemical manufacturers and processors. The EPA is to deposit those fees into a TSCA Service Fee Fund established by the act. The fund is to be used to help the agency offset expenditures it incurs overseeing chemical safety.
“The TSCA Service Fee Fund is a self-executing provision of the act, and requires no regulatory implementation. Therefore, as of June 22, 2016, all existing TSCA fees should be deposited in the fund,” Michael Walls, vice president for regulatory and technical affairs for the American Chemistry Council, told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 5.
According to the EPA, however, fees paid by chemical manufacturers since June 22 continue to be deposited into the Treasury where they are available for general federal expenditures.
Fees Expected to Increase
Under the original chemicals law, manufacturers pay $2,500 (or $100 if they are small businesses), when they submit premanufacture notices, or PMNs. Those notices provide the EPA basic information about a new chemical the companies would like to make or import into the U.S. The term “new chemical” means the molecule is not listed on the EPA inventory of chemicals that are or have been in U.S. commerce.
The PMN and other new chemical fees are expected to increase when the agency issues a new chemical fee rule for industry mandated under the Lautenberg Act.
“PMN fees received since June 22 have continued to go directly to the general fund of the Treasury and will continue to do so until the existing PMN Fee Rule is superseded by the new TSCA Fee Rule, which is expected to be proposed in December 2016 and finalized in June 2017,” the EPA said Oct. 4.
Dan Newton, senior manager for government relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, pointed out an irregularity in this aspect of the Lautenberg Act's implementation.
Since June 22, the EPA has been implementing the new chemicals provisions of the Lautenberg Act, he said. The agency has been reviewing new chemicals using new criteria and procedures in the act. For example, the agency requires chemical manufacturers to substantiate any confidential business information claims they make.
“It may have made more sense to have [the fund] established upon enactment,” Newton told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 5. SOCMA members are interested in expedited approvals because they often produce unique batches of chemicals that require timely PMNs.
Funding Bill Said to Show Support for Act
The EPA said it will collaborate with the White House Office of Management and Budget and U.S. Treasury to establish the TSCA Service Fee Fund prior to publishing the final fee rule. “Once the fee rule is finalized, the fees collected will go to this fund,” the agency said.
A continuing resolution (H.R. 5325), which will keep the federal government running through Dec. 9 and which President Barack Obama signed into law Sept. 29 (Pub. L. No. 114-223), gave the agency $3 million in fiscal year 2017 to kick-start its implementation of the Lautenberg Act.
That money will be “offset,” meaning paid back to the Treasury, through industry fees the agency will receive during fiscal year 2017, which will end Sept. 30, 2017, the resolution says.
Asked whether it is viable for the agency to receive $3 million in fiscal year 2017, the agency said it “expects to begin collecting fees in the last quarter of fiscal 2017, and the number of submissions received by EPA and activities initiated by EPA during that time period and associated fees will determine the total receipts.”
Charlie Auer, senior regulatory consultant at Bergeson & Campbell PC and a 32-year veteran of the agency, told Bloomberg BNA the continuing resolution gave EPA two messages.
First, the funding bill showed Congress wants the agency to be able to implement the amended chemicals law, he said. Second, Congress wants the agency to pay the $3 million back through the industry fees the law authorized it to collect, Auer said.
Even if the agency hasn't collected $3 million by Sept. 29, if it keeps to its Lautenberg Actimplementation plan, the EPA should by then have a sense of when it would be able to repay the money, he said.http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98295626&vname=dennotallissues&fn=98295626&jd=98295626
-
Keep it Simple, Chemical Makers Tell EPA on Inventory Update
Oct 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The process the Environmental Protection Agency uses to update the inventory of chemicals in the U.S. must be uncomplicated, small and large chemical manufacturers say.
“Our members want this to be as simple as possible,” Derek Swick, regulatory and scientific affairs manager for the American Petroleum Institute, told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 5. Among other ideas to keep the process simple, the institute proposes the agency use a real time online system during the inventory update.
Under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act on June 22, the EPA is required to update the single TSCA inventory by dividing it into two sections. The first will list chemicals that are active in commerce. The second will list chemicals that have been in commerce but currently are not.
Only chemicals that are on the active inventory can be made in, imported into or processed in the U.S.
The Lautenberg Act requires the EPA to release by June 2017 a final rule describing its inventory update process. Chemical manufacturers—and, if the agency chooses to include them, processors—will have 180 days to tell the agency what chemicals they have made, imported or processed over the last 10 years.
One year after the EPA updates the chemical inventory, it must publish a final rule describing its process to review all chemical manufacturers’ claims that the identity of the chemical they make be kept confidential. That final rule launches a process that could take up to 10 years during which the EPA will determine whether confidential business information (CBI) claims companies have asserted for chemical identities are warranted.
The confidential business information substantiation process EPA requires also should be kept simple, Swick said.
In a Sept. 16 letter, the Environmental Defense Fund said the EPA could increase the efficiency of its rulemaking responsibilities by combining into a single regulation both its inventory update rule and its CBI substantiation rule.
Focus on Update
Swick said the statute required the EPA to update the inventory so that it knows what chemicals are in commerce and which ones aren't. That mandate should remain the agency's focus, he said.
The EPA doesn't know how many chemicals are in commerce or which exact ones are, because once a chemical has been added to the TSCA inventory it remains there even if no one has made it in decades.
The TSCA inventory lists about 85,000 chemicals. That is a sharp contrast to the production volumes chemical manufacturers reported making in 2005 and 2011 respectively—7,080 and 7,690—the most recent years for which they submitted such data in accordance with the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule.
Chemical manufacturers have until Oct. 31 to report their production for 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015.
In an interview with Bloomberg BNA and in a Sept. 20 letter submitted to the EPA, Swick said the EPA should combine the information it will have received as of Oct. 31 with the information it received about 2011 production.
The information about what chemicals have been in commerce since 2011 is a good starting point for the agency to establish an online portal, Swick said.
The portal would list every chemical that the agency knows has been in commerce since 2011 and each of those chemicals automatically would be on the active inventory, he said.
Identifying Companies
Once a chemical is on that active list, no other chemical manufacturer or processor should also have to report its manufacture or use of the chemical, Swick said.
A policy that allows just one company's notification that it has made, imported or processed a chemical during the last 10 years would avoid using the inventory update for two purposes, he said. One would be finalizing the update and the other would be using the inventory update to create a list of companies the agency could target for industry fees, he said. The Lautenberg Act authorizes the EPA to collect industry fees for a wide variety of chemical oversight activities the agency engages in.
Dan Newton, senior manager for government relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, told Bloomberg BNA he was open to the idea that only one company would have to notify the agency that it made a chemical to ensure the substance was on the active TSCA inventory. The society represents chemical manufacturers that make small, custom batches of unique chemicals.
Like Swick, Newton said his trade association wants the inventory update process to be as simple as possible.
Challenge of Chemical Names
Both industry officials said the EPA should not use the inventory update process as a reason to challenge the ways chemicals are named on the inventory.
Determining how to name a chemical is a complicated process that can involve focusing on the atoms that make up the molecule and the ways they are connected or the source of the atoms—petroleum versus plant oils, for example. A chemical that is essentially the same chemical may have more than one name depending on the feedstocks from which it is derived.
Paul DeLeo of the American Cleaning Institute told Bloomberg BNA, “We don't want a source that was previously available to be unavailable. Markets can shift very quickly.”
Chemical processors could have problems if a chemical with a source-based name were to be taken off the inventory due to a nomenclature challenge, said DeLeo, associate vice president for environmental safety.
Chemical processors, companies that mix chemicals into new products such as soaps, paints and waxes without causing a chemical reaction, may have to quickly shift the source of the chemicals they use due to the price of petroleum, palm oil and other feedstocks, he said. Or a temporary problem in getting a particular feedstock could require them to change the source of a needed chemical, DeLeo said.
Processors’ Role
DeLeo encouraged the EPA to include processors in the inventory update from the time the agency launches that process. “It's easiest to give everyone the opportunity to participate,” he said.
The use of some chemicals, such as dyes and fragrances, can change over time to reflect consumer moods and preferences, he said. “Processors are going to want to know that materials they aren't using right now, but have used, will still be available in the future,” DeLeo said.
Swick, from the American Petroleum Institute, envisioned a two-step inventory process.
“Reporting by processors should not be required,” he told the EPA in the trade association's letter.
Mandating processor reporting is unnecessary and would impose a significant burden on these companies, because they would have to review 10 years of data about the chemicals they have purchased and used and could then conclude they don't need to report, Swick said.
Processors should, however, have the opportunity to review the active inventory of chemicals and add actively used chemicals if necessary, he said.
If EPA establishes the online list that the petroleum institute recommends, processors would have that opportunity, Swick said.
The Environmental Defense Fund urged the EPA to require chemical manufacturers and allow processors to notify the agency of each chemical they have made or used over the last 10 years.
Any processor that forgoes the opportunity to notify the agency that it has used a chemical should forgo its ability to request that a chemical be moved from the inactive inventory to the active inventory, the environmental health organization said.
The processor also should forgo “any existing CBI claim for protection of [its chemical's] identity,” it said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98295617&vname=dennotallissues&fn=98295617&jd=98295617
-
Groups Seek To Sway EPA On TSCA Inventory Rule's Scope, CBI Claims
Oct 5, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Petroleum industry groups and environmentalists are seeking to sway the outcome of parts of EPA's pending rule to "reset" its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) inventory, with the American Petroleum Institute (API) calling for an inventory narrow in scope while advocates ask EPA to closely review companies' confidential data claims.
Under the revised TSCA law, EPA must promulgate a rule to facilitate industry reporting of chemicals that have been manufactured or processed in the previous 10 years, with the goal of allowing the agency to designate active and inactive chemicals on the TSCA inventory of existing chemicals. EPA has said it plans to publish a proposed rule by mid-December, and the next administration would then finalize the rule by mid-June 2017.
EPA also must issue a rule by one year after the inventory list is published to establish a plan for reviewing confidential business information (CBI) claims for substances on the confidential portion of the list.
Although the agency has not created a formal regulatory docket for either rule, groups including the API and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) submitted written comments to EPA outlining how they believe the inventory rule should proceed.
EDF in its Sept. 16 comments urges the agency to combine the rulemakings, saying "while EPA clearly could promulgate two separate rules, we believe EPA should consider combining these into a single rulemaking for overall efficiency and because of the closely related nature of the issues that need to be addressed."
If EPA decides to pursue two rules separately, the agency should expedite issuance of the CBI rule so reviews can begin as quickly as possible, according to the group's comments.
In Sept. 20 comments, API says EPA should seek to limit the rule to collecting only information that is necessary for EPA to designate substances as active or inactive in commerce.
API suggests using EPA's chemical data reporting (CDR) rules as a starting point for active chemicals. "The purpose of the requirement is to designate active and inactive substances," API says. "In writing a proposed rule, EPA should think about how to accomplish this directly and should not venture into consideration of using the reporting for other purposes (e.g., gathering information beyond that required to designate active and inactive substances)."
Instead, API says, EPA should use data from its CDR 2012 and 2016 efforts and designate all data reported in one or both periods as active, excluding those substances from the TSCA inventory reset.
EPA announced on Sept. 16 that it has extended by a month -- from Sept. 30 to Oct. 31 -- the deadline for companies to submit data on their manufacture, production and importation of chemicals under the CDR, following chemical industry complaints about problems with the agency's web-based electronic reporting tool.
Voluntary Reporting
Meanwhile, API in its comments is also urging EPA to allow companies that process, but do not manufacture, chemicals to report voluntarily but not be mandated to report their active and inactive substances.
"Processor reporting should not be required because it is unnecessary and would impose significant unnecessary burden -- on companies required to report, on companies that gather and review 10 years of data and then conclude they do not need to report, and on EPA to process the reports," the comments say.
One industry source also says the rule "should be pretty straightforward, so the main concern will be clarity about who is required to report under the rule," as the TSCA law gives EPA discretion to include processors, so the agency should "be clear" about whether processors are expected to report along with manufacturers.
"If processors are included, EPA may choose to define the universe of processors subject to the rule more narrowly that the broad definition of 'process' under TSCA," the source says.
EPA should also clarify the statutory term "nonexempt" given that reporting is required for chemicals that are processed or manufactured for "nonexempt commercial purposes," the source adds.
In its separate comments, EDF notes that the reporting requirements under section 8(b)(4)(A)(i) of the revised TSCA are optional for processors. However, the group also says that the agency's upcoming rule should clarify that any chemical a processor does not report as being active will be designated as inactive if no other company designates it as active, and clarify that any CBI claim the company has made will not be assured.
CBI Claims
EDF is also asking EPA to use the inventory reset to clarify how existing CBI claims for chemicals on the inventory will be reviewed, including that ensuring that a company that had not previously asserted a CBI claim cannot then assert one under the inventory reset process, even for chemicals that are confidential on the inventory.
"The law expressly provides only for requests to 'maintain an existing claim,' not to assert a new one," the comments say. The group argues that EPA should clarify that any new CBI claim must be asserted and reviewed through the process outlined in section 14 of the new law, which deals with general CBI claims and requires an expedited review time frame compared to section 8.
Additionally, EDF is urging EPA to clarify whether it is necessary to determine the priority of a newly "active" chemical on the inventory, saying the rule should specify how these determinations will be made, including the process that will be used to conduct the reviews and the time frame required.
The group wants EPA to adopt the same process for newly active chemicals that the agency will use for existing chemicals under section 6 of the law, which governs chemicals already in the marketplace.
EPA is preparing a rule for establishing a process by which it will review chemicals and designate them as high- or low-priority under section 6, and plans to finalize that rule also by mid-June 2017.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/groups-seek-sway-epa-tsca-inventory-rules-scope-cbi-claims
-
(ACC Mentioned) Washington State Announces Candidates For High Concern List
Oct 6, 2016 | Chemical Wartch
By Kelly Franklin
Phthalates, flame retardants, PFOA among possible CHCC additions
Phthalates, flame retardants and perfluorinated chemicals are among the substances Washington state will be considering for addition to its Chemicals of High Concern to Children (CHCC) list.
The release of the candidate substances comes under the department's rulemaking process for updating reporting requirements that come under its Children's Safe Products Act (CSPA).
This requires manufacturers of children's items covered by the law to report the presence of CHCCs in products to the department annually
In a consultation that began in August, the Washington Toxics Coalition nominated several flame retardants, phthalates and perfluorinated compounds for possible addition to the list.
The NGO said these classes are widely used in consumer products. And, it said, information on their uses is needed to ensure progress when a chemical ban comes in, to understand what the use of substitutes that may be harmful, and to fill data gaps in the development of chemical action plans.
And the Toxic-Free Legacy Coalition, made up of six NGOs, echoed the call.
Washington's ecology department has indicated it intends to consider:the phthalates DNPP, DEMP, DIBP, DCHP and DIOP;the flame retardants DBDPE, dechlorane plus, BTBPE, TCP, TPP, TCPP, TBPH, TBB, IPTPP, SCPP, and V6; andthe perfluorinated compound PFOA, and its related substances.
A bill passed by the state legislature earlier this year mandated the consideration of six of these named flame retardants.
The law also imposes a ban on five current CHCC flame retardants – TDCPP, TCEP, decaBDE, HBCD and additive TBBPA – above de minimis thresholds. This will cover children's products and residential furniture from 1 July 2017.Possible delisting
As part of the review, the Department of Ecology also solicited feedback on substances that could be delisted.
It will be considering removing several parabens, as requested by the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC).
The PCPC says parabens were originally added to the CHCC largely because the EU designated them Category 1 endocrine disruptors. But, they say, this does not indicate 'final proof' the substances are EDCs, and fails to reflect the ongoing debate on the definition of EDCs.
The department will review the following parabens for potential delisting:methylparaben;ethylparaben;propylparaben;butylparaben; andthe metabolites para-hydroxybenzoic acid and 2-ethylhexyl-4-methoxycinnamate.
At the request of the UK-based International Molybdenum Association (IMOA), the department will consider delisting molybenum. It will also consider removing phthalic anhydride, following a request from the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
However, the department is not considering ACC requests to delist formaldehyde or octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4).
Another 18 possible additions have also been shelved for the current review.
The agency will convene a stakeholder workshop on 25 October. Comments will be accepted until 5 November.
Comments on the preliminary draft update to the CSPA reporting rule will also be considered during this period.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50128/washington-state-announces-candidates-for-high-concern-list
-
Controls of Chemicals Used to Make Explosives Under Review
Oct 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Regulatory and voluntary controls of chemical precursors of explosives will be studied by a new committee the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine is establishing.
The Department of Homeland Security asked the academies to convene a committee to review existing U.S. and international measures to control chemicals used to make improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, and vulnerabilities in those controls. Precursor chemicals include acetone, benzene, toluene and ammonium nitrate, according to government websites.
The committee will list precursor chemicals that appear to pose the greatest risks in terms of their potential for use in the manufacture of explosive devices, according to the academies’ announcement.
The panel will hold its first meeting Oct. 26.
The report the committee is expected to release in late 2017 will discuss voluntary or regulatory controls that could promote safety and security. It also will address tradeoffs the controls could raise with respect to economics, costs and other issues.
Interested parties have until Oct. 24 to comment on the provisionally selected committee members.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98295618&vname=dennotallissues&fn=98295618&jd=98295618
-
Commission Responds Tentatively To EDC Criteria Concerns
Oct 6, 2016 |
By Emma Chynoweth and Luke Buxton
Member states and Echa underscore main issues
The European Commission is facing serious concerns about its proposals for criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals in biocides and pesticides legislation.
While it continues to consult, most member states and Echa have already submitted their comments.
And reports from meetings in June and September provide early signs of how the Commission might respond.
The main concerns are:
Terms coherent with CLP
Use of the words "known to cause an adverse effect" instead of "may cause adverse effects", which appear in both the Regulations for biocidal products (BPR) and plant protection products (PPPR).
Gregory Moore of Sweden's Chemicals Agency (Kemi) addressed this at last week's Chemical Watch Copenhagen Chemicals Summit. He said using "known" effectively changes the scope of the EDC identification process. And this would be beyond the Commission's powers.
Another complication relates to CLP Regulation's use of "known". It refers to effects as: known, presumed and suspected.
"Under CLP we have the term 'presumed or known' to cause effects because we assume adverse effects shown in laboratory mammals are relevant for humans unless clear evidence says otherwise," Peter Lepper, Echa's senior scientific officer, told Chemical Watch.
Under the draft proposal the bar is "potentially too high", he said. It may not be possible to prove there are relevant adverse effects for humans.
Echa has asked for "known or presumed to cause adverse effects" to be included to ensure coherence with terminology used in frameworks – such as CLP – dealing with hazard identification.
Mr Moore said the Commission claimed the wording was "an unforeseen terminology mix-up from its side".
And Kemi understands the Commission is considering a better way of expressing its intention.
Risk-based approach
As the proposal considers results from adequate, higher tier studies and population models in the assessment of population relevance, a risk assessment-based element is introduced, according to Echa's comments.
The agency added risk assessment, and in particular risk management for EDCs can differ between regulatory frameworks, for example biocides, pesticides and industrial chemicals. This is because the protection objectives – and therefore the consideration and weighting of (eco)toxicological and socio-economic risks and benefits from different uses of the same substance – can differ.
For these reasons, risk-based considerations should not be part of EDC identification in order to ensure consistency across the different legal frameworks, Echa said.
“If we have a risk assessment aspect included in the identification of an EDC, for example for a population model we need to make assumptions about what the exposure is on the basis of the specific conditions of use, in order to see what effects we may get for population relevance. Exposure and hence population relevance of effects seen may however differ between uses of the same substance for instance as pesticide, biocide or industrial chemical, which consequently could lead to inconsistency in ED identification,” Mr Lepper said.
Definition
Some member states are concerned the Commission has not used the exact WHO definition of endocrine disruptors. This despite claiming it has.
The criteria document jumbles the WHO words, cutting and pasting bits from various paragraphs. As such the proposal gives a subtly different message. The Commission has been unclear if it will revisit this area, Mr Moore said.
Weight of evidence
There are also concerns about Commission's proposed the weight-of-evidence approach, given that the draft states evidence should "primarily" come from studies performed according to internationally-agreed protocols. Several member states and Echa say this would unduly discount data from scientific articles.
According to reports from the consultation meetings, the Commission has said all relevant data and alternative methods will apply and that it does not intend to give any ranking despite use of the word "primarily".
Category approaches
The criteria give no explicit reference to the possibility of using category approaches and Qsars. This is contrary to what was foreseen in the Commission's EDC roadmap.
Echa says the possibility of applying category approaches and read-across should be added to the list of information that may be used for the identification of EDCs. "Having these models and the possibility to read across means we do not need more animal testing on each individual substance," it says.
The agency has also suggested the Commission includes behaviour in the listing of adverse effects likely to be relevant at the population level.
Behaviour is something that can be important for population relevance, Mr Lepper said. "For example, during animal mating, behaviour could change – due to exposure to an EDC – to such an extent that animals would not recognise mating partners. This could have population relevance and reproduction could be impaired."
Environment criteria
There is also confusion over the lack of specific environmental criteria for endocrine disruptors. The Commission’s draft only mentions non-target organisms. This is relevant to the BPR.
According to reports from the September consultation meeting, the Commission had overlooked these criteria. It is now seeking advice
Separately, Echa has suggested changing the title of this section of the criteria from "with respect to non-target organisms" to "with respect to the environment".
Non active ingredients
Also for the BPR, the criteria only apply to active substances. Member states question how non-active substances in biocidal products will be dealt with as they fall under the Regulation.
There are also concerns that the Commission has overstepped its legal mandate with its proposals.
NGO reaction
Commenting specifically on Echa's input, CHEM Trust policy director Gwynne Lyons said: “Thank goodness Echa has the expertise to correct the Commission’s folly of only proposing to regulate ‘known’ EDs.”
HEAL says Echa’s comments are “very good” and acknowledges the point that risk management may differ between different frameworks.
“This is why the criteria must be as scientifically accurate as possible, and not merely ‘back calculated’ from the provisions of biocides and pesticides laws to find criteria that will catch an (politically-economically) acceptable number of pesticides and biocides,” HEAL’s Lisette van Vliet said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50120/commission-responds-tentatively-to-edc-criteria-concerns
-
EU Commission Redrafting EDC Criteria Proposals
Oct 6, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Chynoweth
Legality of draft questioned
The European Commission is understood to be redrafting key sections of its proposed criteria for determining endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in the context of biocides and pesticides legislation.
The work follows comments received from EU member states, the European Parliament, Echa and others.
Discussions between the Commission and member states on the proposals took place on 21 September at two separate meetings:the biocides Competent Authorities; andthe Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (Scopaff).
The meetings were the second round of communication. They follow on from meetings on 22 June.
Premature
The EU executive has told Chemical Watch a detailed discussion on the EDC criteria would be premature at this moment, as: “Member states' comments are still expected and the Commission has not yet finalised the reflections on a potential revision."
It added that the main objective of the 21 September meetings was to inform member states about the outcome of various consultation processes held over the summer. It was also to give countries that had not expressed their views an opportunity to do so.
The Commission is still waiting for comments from some member states. Chemical Watch understands these are:Cyprus;the Czech Republic;Greece;Lithuania;Malta; andSlovakia.
More meetings will be held soon, and a revised version will be presented to member states experts, the Commission added. Chemical Watch understands the EU executive told member states it would come up with a new draft 6-8 weeks after the September meetings.
Significant revisions needed
Commenting on the situation, Axel Singhofen, adviser on health and environment policy to the Greens and the European Free Alliance in the European Parliament, told Chemical Watch: "It is clear they will have to revise the draft significantly if they want to gain majority support by member states and avoid a veto by the European Parliament.
"However, whether they will go to what was foreseen in the [EDC] Roadmap and which is in line with CLP is an open question.
"They have gone so much out of their way in the last years to not do what they should have done. I would be very positively surprised if they came up with a proper revision".
Mr Singhofen is also concerned about the potential knock-on effect of a very narrow definition of EDCs for other regulations that deal with EDCs. These include REACH, water legislation and cosmetics. He also said that the newly-adopted medical devices Regulation refers to the BPR for its EDC criteria. This is an issue, he added, that has been "thoroughly disregarded by the Commission".
Critical issues
Speaking from the floor during Chemical Watch's Copenhagen Chemicals Summit last week, Gregory Moore, from the Swedish Chemicals Agency (Kemi), said the proposals – first published in June – had led to confusion and misunderstanding.
Comments submitted by member states and Echa show more than half a dozen critical issues. These range from the Commission's choice of terminology to its legal mandate.
Legal mandate
For the PPPR, the Commission has defended its rewriting of the derogation from the cut-off criteria using the words "negligible risk" instead of "negligible exposure", which appears in the Regulation.
Some member states are understood to support this amendment. Others say the new wording changes the legislative approach from hazard- to risk-based. They add that such a change is beyond the mandate of the Commission in the context of an implementing act.
On this last point, the Commission justifies its position in part by referring to opinions from the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) and the Scientific Committee for Consumer Safety (SCCS).
But Sweden has contended that the scope of the derogation was widely discussed during the legislative process and this would clearly be an essential element of the proposed PPPR Annex.
As this would be a matter of policy, Sweden argues the Commission would not be entitled to change it via an implementing act. This would be so, it says, even if there were scientific knowledge pointing in this direction, which it considers there is not.
The Chairman of the European Parliament's Envi Committee has written to Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, Vytenis Andriukaitis on this. And he raises serious legal concerns on behalf of the Envi coordinators. These are that the proposal to amend the derogation under the PPPR would modify essential elements of the law. As such it would be beyond the scope of the Commission's implementing powers. Both Council and the European Parliament have a veto right on both acts.
While the assessment of substantive matters may diverge between different member states, or different political groups, inter-institutional matters related to respecting the limits of institutional powers tend to be non-partisan.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50087/eu-commission-redrafting-edc-criteria-proposals
-
CMR Substances Not Automatically Banned In Cosmetics
Oct 6, 2016 | Chemcial Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
Carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic (CMR) substances are not automatically banned for their use in cosmetic products, if they have a mandatory classification as such under the CLP Regulation.
The European Commission confirmed this at September's meeting of its cosmetics working group.
The announcement clarifies a long-standing debate between some member states and the cosmetics industry on the reading of Article 15 of the cosmetic products Regulation.
This says in general, category 1 and 2 CMR substances are prohibited for use in cosmetics. However, there are exemptions. Category 2 CMRs can be used if deemed safe by the European Commission’s Scientific Committee for Consumer Safety (SCCS). Category 1 CMRs can be used if the SCCS decides it would be safe, and if three other criteria set out in the Article are also met.
Industry associations, led by Cosmetics Europe, argue that this allows industry to defend CMR ingredients based on the risk they ultimately expose consumers to. The CLP Regulation should not take precedence over the cosmetics law, they say.
But member states have usually viewed a substance as banned in cosmetics if it has a mandatory classification as a CMR under the CLP Regulation.
The Danish authorities, for example, have been considering enforcement actions against companies selling products with the CMR-substance polyaminopropyl biguanide (PHMB).
The Commission has now clarified that the banning of a CMR in cosmetics must be implemented by a specific act amending the relevant annexes of the cosmetics Regulation.
This means revising Annexes II and III to VI based on CLP classifications of substances included. This will be done through comitology with scrutiny and a public consultation in 2017, Chemical Watch understands.
The Commission's will publish its interpretation in the minutes to the cosmetics working group meeting.
Cosmetics Europe says the Commission's interpretation provides "welcomed clarity to the legal situation".
The Danish ministry said it does not share the new interpretation and it is "discussing different courses of action".
https://chemicalwatch.com/50071/cmr-substances-not-automatically-banned-in-cosmetics
-
Greens Say BLM Proposal Targets 'Keep It In The Ground'
Oct 5, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Scott Streater
The Bureau of Land Management in Colorado is proposing a set of rules that it says are designed to protect public safety, but some environmental groups contend they are a veiled attempt to silence growing protests at federal oil and natural gas lease sales.
At issue are broad supplementary public lands rules, published in today's Federal Register, which the agency says are designed to "modernize" policies governing the use of public lands as well as public conduct at BLM offices statewide.
The proposed rules are open for a 61-day public comment period running through Dec. 5. They address everything from target shooting to alcoholic beverages in motorized vehicles.
But they also address public demonstrations and "protests" at BLM Colorado offices, which in the past year have become a major issue across the West as the "keep it in the ground" movement has sparked large groups of protesters to attend BLM oil and gas lease sales. The environmental groups behind the movement have called on the Obama administration to end leasing on federal lands in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that help drive climate warming.
In the face of growing protests, BLM has postponed four lease sales since November in Salt Lake City; Washington, D.C.; Billings, Mont.; and Roswell, N.M.
The proposed rules would prohibit any actions on BLM lands or facilities that "impede, disrupt, or hinder BLM meetings or sessions conducted by public officials, BLM employees, volunteers, invitees, or agents by any act of intrusion or by any act designed to intimidate, coerce, or hinder." They would also forbid anyone from engaging "in actions or behaviors intended to prevent or disrupt any BLM meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action, verbal utterance, or any other means."
What's more, the rules would prohibit anyone from conducting or participating in "demonstrations outside of BLM designated demonstration areas" that would be denoted prior to a public meeting.
"These rules are unbelievable in the actions and speech they would prohibit," said Jeremy Nichols, the climate and energy director at WildEarth Guardians, one of the supporters of the keep it in the ground campaign.
"This is a clear and shameful attempt by the Bureau of Land Management to criminalize climate speech," Nichols added. "The breadth of actions outlawed here is downright dictatorial. Anything deemed to be disruptive is criminalized, [and] you can bet they would view keep it in the ground protests as disruptive."
Violators could be subject to fines and up to 12 months in prison, the rules state.
Taylor McKinnon, public lands campaigner in the Center for Biological Diversity's Denver office, said he too is concerned about the motives behind the proposed rules.
McKinnon noted that the proposed rules follow BLM's finalization in August of a new rule that allows the agency to hold online oil and gas lease sales, a move that also raised the ire of anti-leasing activists who have accused the agency of trying to bypass opposition (Greenwire, Aug. 30).
"This is another ham-handed attempt by the [BLM] to silence peaceful protests of its fossil fuel leasing program," McKinnon said. "But rule changes and online auctions won't fix the dangerous disconnect between U.S. public lands policies and climate goals. Until that happens, public opposition will grow."
BLM strongly denies that the intent of the proposed rules is to quell protests.
"The rules are not intended to stymie any of those types of activities," said Jayson Barangan, an agency spokesman in Lakewood, Colo., specifically referring to protests at BLM oil and gas lease sales.
Barangan noted the agency began developing the rules in 2013 — long before the keep it in the ground movement began.
But there have been some tense moments at keep it in the ground protests, including an incident last November when environmental groups accused a BLM-contracted auctioneer of striking a climate protester with his sport utility vehicle shortly after presiding over an oil and gas lease sale in Colorado.
The Lakewood Police Department told E&E News that the Nov. 12 incident appeared to have been "staged" by the groups and the protester pretended to have been struck by the SUV (Greenwire, Feb. 10).
"There definitely are some high emotions at these types of events," Barangan said. "But again these proposed rules are not designed to prevent people from exercising free speech. It's all geared toward ensuring public safety."Armed protests
BLM also denied the rules are in response to the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon earlier this year by Ammon Bundy and other ranchers and activists. The agency also was involved in a tense 2014 standoff with dozens of armed ranchers and militia members who prevented BLM and law enforcement officers from removing cattle owned by Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy that the government says are illegally grazing on federal land.
"They're definitely not in response to the Malheur situation, or any of those other situations," said Steven Hall, a BLM spokesman in Lakewood.
But BLM Director Neil Kornze told the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Interior at a hearing last March that security concerns raised by the armed confrontations with ranchers and militia groups prompted the agency to cancel a handful of lease sales (Greenwire, March 23).
Among other things, the proposed rules would prohibit anyone from denying "the public, public officials, BLM employees, volunteers, invitees or agents the right to gain access to, enter, use or leave a BLM facility."
The rules also state that it is a prohibited activity to "engage in a riot" or to "incite or urge a group of five or more persons to engage in a current or impending riot or give commands, instructions, or signals to a group of five or more persons in furtherance of a riot."
The proposed rules define "riot" as "a public disturbance involving an assemblage of three or more persons" that by "violent conduct ... creates grave danger of damage or injury to property or persons." But the definition also includes any public disturbance that "substantially obstructs the performance of any governmental function."
The "vagueness" of that language concerns McKinnon.
"There's tremendous room for abuse by the agency with these proposed rules," he said.
He added, "We will keep a careful eye on this rulemaking's First Amendment compliance."Other changes
Among other things, the rules add stipulations for target shooting on BLM lands, including prohibiting the use of exploding targets that can spark wildfires.
The Forest Service in 2013 banned exploding targets on national forests and grasslands in Colorado and four other states, citing 16 wildfires "associated with exploding targets" that cost millions of dollars to suppress and threatened "the safety and well-being of surrounding communities," according to today's Register notice.
"Our public lands are there for folks to recreate on, and target shooting is an activity enjoyed by a lot of people," Barangan said. "Five to 10 years ago, exploding targets were not available for purchase, and it has become a popular activity. But there are some detrimental impacts to natural resources and public safety. We are trying to promote responsible target shooting."
The proposed rule also addresses public behavior on public lands. For example, it would forbid operating a "mechanized vehicle" outside designated trails within a wilderness study area and prohibit having "an open alcoholic beverage container while in the passenger area of a motorized vehicle."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/10/05/stories/1060043905
-
’Safe Hydraulic Fracturing’ And The World As It Is
Oct 5, 2016 | Bloomberg - Government
By Mark Drajem
Today’s Agenda
Coal and climate made early cameos in the vice presidential debate last night, with Mike Pence making the case that Hillary Clinton would increase regulations and prosecute the war on coal. There was no specific discussion of energy issues, but Tim Kaine said a Clinton administration would develop “alliances to battle terrorism and climate change.”Fracking’s friends
Not much unites Donald Trump and President Obama, but over the last 36 hours each has lauded the benefits of the boom in domestic oil and natural gas production. In a meeting with executives in Colorado, Trump blamed federal regulations for holding back the industry — and said if Clinton is elected, “she will put you all out of business.”
Clinton has pledged to increase regulations on fracking and supports local bans on the practice. But Obama sat down with climate champions on the South Lawn Monday evening and explained why his administration has treated natural gas with kid gloves:
“Interestingly enough, one of the reasons why we’ve seen a significant reduction of coal usage in the United States is not because of our regulations. It’s been because natural gas got really cheap as a consequence of fracking. Now, there are a lot of environmentalists who absolutely object to fracking,” Obama said. “The fact that
we’re transitioning from coal to natural gas means less greenhouse gases.”“We’re going to have to straddle between the world as it is and the world as we want.”
The oil and gas industry faces real challenges, but, for all the media attention, the top of that list is not whether Trump supports local bans on fracking, or whether Clinton will try to ban the process nationwide. This may be a bigger issue: According to a Pew Research Centerpoll released yesterday, 89% of Americans support more solar panel farms, 83% support more wind turbines and 42% support more fracking. More Americans oppose fracking, 53%, than support it. The same is true for offshore drilling, nuclear plants and coal mining. That’s… surprising.
“While there are substantial party and ideological divides over increasing fossil fuel and nuclear energy sources, strong majorities of all political groups support more solar and wind production,” the Pew report concluded.
At the North American Gas Forum in Washington, executives said the industry must take a new approach if it’s going to capture public approval. The traditional divide was between two bumper stickers: “Drill, baby, drill,” and “Ban fracking now,” said Sarah Sandberg, the chief operating officer of the Colorado Oil & Gas Association. “We all fled to our corners,” she said. “That did the entire debate an insane disservice.”Trump and safe fracking
The Trump campaign has apparently been watching this polling on energy. In a statement after the meeting, it said Trump supports “safe hydraulic fracturing,” and “energy production on federal lands in appropriate areas.” The words “safe” and “appropriate” are doing a lot of work in these two phrases, and reflect a different tone than what Trump had offered to industry groups in North Dakota and Pennsylvania.Trump and local bans
Trump told a Denver television station in July that “if a municipality or state wants to ban fracking, I could understand that.” His meeting with executives in Colorado yesterday was meant to help assuage industry concerns provoked by that remark, Jennifer Dlouhy and Jennifer Jacobs reported. But, in the eight-minute public session of the forum yesterday, Trump didn’t discuss that issue.Nuclear bind
Exelon’s Three Mile Island and FirstEnergy’s Beaver Valley nuclear plants are just holding on and may not clear PJM’s 2017 capacity auction, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner Robert Powelson said at the Gas Forum. Powelson said the tough situation facing nuclear plants will make it harder for states to achieve their targets under the Clean Power Plan. “What has been missed in this whole conversation is the value proposition of nuclear,” he said.
“Nuclear plants like Beaver Valley, any of them that operate in the competitive marketplace, are facing pressures that make the future uncertain,” FirstEnergy spokeswoman Jennifer Young said, Naureen Malik reported. “We have markets right now that are not designed to address fuel diversity or environmental regulations.”More Pew
Just 48% of the American public thinks the Earth is warming “mostly due to human activity.” There’s a large political divide: 69% of Democrats say this is so, but only 23% of Republicans. Oddly, only 27% think “almost all” climate scientists agree on this statement. (Almost all do agree.)
https://about.bgov.com/blog/safe-hydraulic-fracturing-world/
-
Fossil Fuel Methane Emission Underestimated
Oct 5, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
Fossil-fuel-related emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, have been miscalculated and may be twice as high as previously thought. Researchers say the emissions have been at this high level for the past three decades (Nature 2016, DOI: 10.1038/nature19797).
However, the researchers find that total fossil fuel-related methane emissions, although previously underestimated, remained relatively stable between 1985 and 2013, despite an increase in oil and natural gas drilling and production activities.
The study provides another piece in a puzzle of global methane emission sources and emissions levels. Methane is the primary component of natural gas and a by-product of oil and coal production and use. It is also released through agricultural practices and decay of organic material. The hydrocarbon has a global warming potential 28 to36 times that of carbon dioxide over 100 years, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Researchers used a combination of atmospheric measurements and a detailed data set of long-term global methane emissions coupled with methane-carbon-isotope records. They found total fossil fuel methane emissions from industry and leakage from natural geological sources are 60 to 110% greater than past estimates and inventories.
Methane emissions from natural gas, oil, and coal production and use are 20-60% higher than previously thought, the study says. Seepage of the gas from geological formations was also higher than earlier calculations.
Leaked methane as a percentage of natural gas production shows an 8% decline from around 30 years ago to some 2% today, according to Stefan Schwietzke, the study’s lead author and research scientist with Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences in Colorado.
But, Schwietzke adds, methane emissions globally have increased by about 5% per year since 2007. Contribution from fossil fuels appears to remain flat, however.
“It helps to see absolute methane emissions from all sources as a pie,” explains Schwietzke. “Our study found that the fossil fuel slice of the pie is larger than previously thought and suggests that the individual slices were wrong. But we know the total pie size pretty well.”
The study says improvements in the natural gas industry production methods may have already helped cut methane emissions, but more needs to be done because of the increase in natural gas production. Schwietzke points out that reduction in methane, because of its high global warming potential, can have an immediate and substantial impact on climate change.
A related study published separately (Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 2016 DOI:10.1002/2016GB005406) also identifies the increase methane emissions in the last decade. It concludes that they may be driven by biological sources—swamps, cattle, or rice paddies—rather than fossil fuel emissions. That study notes that most of the emission increases have been from the hot, wet tropics.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i40/Fossil-fuel-methane-emission-underestimated.html
-
PHMSA Issues Interim Final Rule on Emergency Orders
Oct 5, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) on Monday issued an interim final rule that will allow it to issue emergency orders on oil and natural gas pipelines, satisfying a requirement from a comprehensive pipeline safety bill enacted last summer.
President Obama signed S 2276, also known as PIPES Act of 2016, into law on June 22 (see Daily GPI, June 22). The new law grants the Department of Transportation (DOT) secretary new powers to issue emergency orders in the event a pipeline poses an imminent hazard to public health, safety or the environment.
"Pipeline incidents can have devastating impacts on local communities and the environment," said DOT Secretary Anthony Foxx. "The new regulations carry out DOT's enhanced authority to compel industry to take immediate action to address problems that put people, property, or the environment at risk. We hope we never have to use it, but it is an important safety tool that will result in greater protection for the American public."
PHMSA Administrator Marie Therese Dominguez added that the new authority "gives PHMSA the ability to act quickly to address urgent safety concerns, and to protect people and the environment."
The interim final rule will become effective after it is published in the Federal Register. Comments must be received within 60 days of publication. PHMSA said Monday the rule was expected to be published within seven-10 days. PHMSA oversees 2.6 million miles of pipeline across the United States.
According to the 30-page rule, an emergency order is defined as "a written requirement imposing an emergency restriction, prohibition, or safety measure on owners and operators of gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facilities without prior notice or an opportunity for a hearing."
Before the PIPES Act was enacted into law, PHMSA was authorized to issue both corrective action orders (CAO) and notice of proposed safety orders (NOPSO). CAOs are issued to a single pipeline owner, operator or facility after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, while NOPSOs allow PHMSA to notify a single operator that a specific pipeline facility has one or more conditions that pose a threat to the public or the environment.
The DOT secretary was also given enhanced inspection authority for transporting hazardous materials under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety and Reauthorization Act of 2005.
"While CAOs are an effective tool for the prompt evaluation and correction of a particular operator's facilities or procedures and advisory bulletins provide recommendations -- but not enforceable requirements -- to a wider audience, no enforcement vehicle existed, prior to adoption of the PIPES Act, that would allow PHMSA to address immediate safety threats facing the wider industry," PHMSA said.
"This new enforcement tool will allow the administrator to issue an emergency order either prohibiting an unsafe condition or practice or imposing an affirmative requirement when an unsafe condition, practice, or other activity in the transportation of natural gas or hazardous liquids poses a threat to life or significant harm to property or the environment."
According to PHMSA, a variety of circumstances could warrant issuing an emergency rule, such as a natural disaster affecting pipelines in a specific geographic location; discovering a serious flaw in pipe, equipment manufacturing or supplier materials; and when an accident reveals a specific industry practice that is unsafe and needs an immediate or temporary fix.
There is not an "exhaustive list" of such conditions. "PHMSA will examine the specific facts in each situation to determine if an imminent hazard exists and will tailor each emergency order to address the specific imminent hazard under each circumstance presented, while observing the statutorily-mandated due process procedures," the agency said.
It was unclear if DOT missed a key deadline over the rule. The SAFE PIPES Act required the DOT secretary to issue temporary regulations within 60 days of the date of enactment, and final regulations within 270 days. Monday's date is 104 days after the date the law took effect.
House lawmakers have had PHMSA in their crosshairs for more than a year, taking the agency to task for failing to implement all sections of a 2011 pipeline safety law (see Daily GPI, July 14, 2015; Jan. 4, 2012). During a House subcommittee hearing last July, PHMSA interim Executive Director Stacy Cummings said the agency had made progress in completing 26 of 42 total mandates required by the 2011 law.
PHMSA also attracted the ire of the DOT's Office of Inspector General (IG), which said in 2014 that the agency has done a lackluster job to ensure state regulators enforced operators' compliance with federal pipeline safety regulations (see Daily GPI, May 9, 2014). The IG probe was prompted by the September 2010 natural gas transmission pipeline rupture and explosion in San Bruno, CA, which killed eight people and injured dozens more (see Daily GPI, Sept. 13, 2010).
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107991-phmsa-issues-interim-final-rule-on-emergency-orders
-
Corps Decision On Dakota Access Likely To Come Before Court's
Oct 5, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Elana Schor
The Obama administration will probably decide whether to further delay construction of the Dakota Access pipeline before a federal appeals court rules on whether to lift a temporary work stoppage around a disputed river crossing, a Justice Department lawyer said at a hearing today.
The Standing Rock Sioux last month persuaded the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to issue an emergency injunction to protect sacred sites near North Dakota's Lake Oahe, and a three-judge panel today heard oral arguments over whether to keep that order in place while a broader lawsuit plays out.
If the court lifts that injunction, Dakota Access lawyer Miguel Estrada suggested in court that the pipeline company would resume construction immediately rather than comply with an administration request to keep work on hold while the Army Corps of Engineers reevaluates its decision to let it cross the lake.
Administration lawyer James Maysonett said the Corps' decision on whether it needed to perform a new environmental review of the pipeline easement likely would come before the court decided on the injunction.
At the hearing, Sioux lawyer Jan Hasselman of Earthjustice acknowledged that an "undeniably a small portion" of pipeline is all that remains incomplete, and judges repeatedly pressed him to explain the scope of "indirect effects" from the pipeline that the Sioux want the administration to consider before letting the project cross the lake.
The court provided no details during the hearing as to the timing of its decision.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Federal Court Reviews Tribe's Request To Halt Dakota Pipeline
Oct 5, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Federal judges on Wednesday reviewed a tribal request to halt construction on a controversial pipeline project in North Dakota.
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has asked the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to block construction on a stretch of the Dakota Access Pipeline while its lawsuit against the project moves forward.
A three-judge panel on Wednesday probed both that request and the lengths to which the federal government worked to consult the tribe before approving the pipeline's route near its land.
The judges questioned whether the Army Corps of Engineers, which approved the project, allowed the tribe to influence the scope of their review, a critical step in the process for a pipeline project.
“The Corps invited the tribe to consult on the scope of this assessment,” federal lawyer James Maysonett said, defending the agency. “They obviously reached a fundamental disagreement quite quickly.”
Pipeline developers and federal regulators argue the tribe’s total opposition to the pipeline makes it hard to determine which areas along the route they should reassess.
The Army Corps this summer issued permits for the project to cross a lake in the region. But the Standing Rock Sioux say regulators should have extended their assessment to include land that includes historic or cultural artifacts important to the tribe.
That includes a stretch of land west of North Dakota’s Lake Oahe, the focal point in the legal fight over the pipeline. Jan Hasselman, the tribe’s lawyer, said they’re looking for a “very narrow injunction on an undeniably special place” to the tribe.
But judges questioned why the tribe didn’t participate in other early assessments of the project. They also questioned how much of the pipeline's path the tribe wants to reassess and whether they would need to issue a broader injunction to block construction all along it.
Wednesday’s hearing was the latest development in the fight over the $3.8 billion, 1,170-mile Dakota Access project.
A federal judge in September affirmed the government's approval process and blocked the tribe’s request to stop construction on the pipeline while the lawsuit moved forward.
But the same day, three federal agencies said they would hold off on issuing an easement to allow the pipeline to cross Lake Oahe while they reconsider whether their approval of the project properly considered environmental and treaty factors.
Construction on a small stretch of land around Lake Oahe has been paused pending the court’s decision. If the judges rule against the tribe’s injunction request, a Dakota Access lawyer said Wednesday, construction would restart, except for the area covered by the easement still held up by the federal agencies.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/299426-tribe-pushes-court-to-halt-nd-pipeline-construction
-
Obama Celebrates Paris Ratification
Oct 5, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
President Obama hailed the ratification today of the Paris climate agreement.
The deal negotiated in December crossed the threshold for entry into force with the announcement that 72 countries, accounting for about 57 percent of the world's emissions, have now officially signed on.
"This gives us the best possible shot to save the one planet we've got," Obama said in an address from the Rose Garden.
Obama called for progress on a broad range of climate commitments, such as limiting aviation emissions and phasing out chemicals used in refrigeration and air conditioning that have potent greenhouse gases.
"Even if we meet every target embodied in the agreement, we'll only get to part of where we need to go," Obama said. "But make no mistake, this agreement will help delay or avoid some of the worst consequences of climate change."
Environmental groups said the extraordinary speed with which nations have embraced the Paris accord — 10 months — underscores the global sense of urgency in the fight against climate change.
"We commend the wide array of leaders from heads of state to local elected officials to CEOs who are stepping up to hasten the transition from the dirty fossil fuels of the past to a resilient economy powered by clean energy," League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski said in a statement.
Republican critics in Congress argued the deal is nonbinding because it was not ratified by the Senate.
House Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) challenged some greens' conclusion that the deal binds the next president's hands (Greenwire, Oct. 5).
"The foreign policy of the United States is not bound to the empty promise coming out of Paris that will ultimately have little impact on global temperatures," he said. "This costly agreement that calls for different standards of transparency between countries will ultimately provide an unnecessary economic burden leading to significant job losses and a stagnant economy."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/10/05/stories/1060043903
-
Paris Climate Treaty to Take Effect in November
Oct 5, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
By Bryon Tau and Amy Harder
WASHINGTON—A climate treaty negotiated by more than 200 countries to cap emissions and curb the global rise in temperatures will go into force in November after the United Nations announced Wednesday the pact had reached the threshold necessary to formally take effect.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement the so-called Paris Agreementwould enter into force on Nov. 4.
The agreement aims to keep average global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels through individualized national limits on greenhouse gas emissions, though the deal doesn't itself achieve that level of emissions cuts. World leaders hope to make more aggressive cuts within the deal in the years to come through the national plans to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.
The deal doesn’t legally require countries to curb emissions or take other steps on climate change—in the U.S. that would have likely required ratification by the Senate, which President Barack Obama was unlikely to get—but it does require countries to release their targets and report emissions.
Seventy-three of 197 parties to the convention have ratified, including the U.S. and China, the two biggest greenhouse gas emitters. This week, a number of European countries voted to join the pact, and the European Union voted to move forward as well. Russia, Japan and Australia are among the countries that haven't.
Mr. Obama, whose administration helped negotiate the agreement and pressed for its ratification, said Wednesday the world had arrived at a “historic moment.
“If we follow through on the commitments that this Paris agreement embodies, history may well judge it as a turning point for our planet,” he said in the White House’s Rose Garden.
Mr. Obama hailed the pact as a key tool in the world’s attempts to mitigate the damage from man-made climate change.
“This gives us the best possible shot to save the one planet we’ve got.”
Though major parts of Mr. Obama’s energy agenda, such as a tax on oil and a cap-and-trade system, have been stymied by Congress, the president has made climate and energy issues major priorities in his final term in office, issuing environmental regulations to circumvent congressional inaction.
The core of the Obama administration’s commitment to the Paris deal, an Environmental Protection Agency rule cutting power-plant carbon emissions, is facing legal pushback and also an unusual temporary block from the Supreme Court until all litigation is over, which may not be until 2018.
Many Republican lawmakers have come out against the Paris agreement, questioning the administration’s ability to regulate emissions without authority from Congress and expressing concern about potential job losses, while also casting doubt on the role human activity plays in changing the climate. The overwhelming scientific consensus is greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to a rise in global temperatures over the past decades.
“The Paris climate deal would be disastrous for the American economy. It carelessly throws away the great gains that the United States has made over the past decade in energy development,” said House Speaker Paul Ryan in a statement. “The abundant, low-cost energy that we have unlocked will now be shut in the ground, eliminating the economic growth and jobs that come with development.”
Once the deal goes into force, a country must wait three years to pull out, and once it makes that decision, it must wait another year to actually do so.
The prospect of the U.S. pulling out has taken on new relevance because GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump has said he would “cancel” the agreement. Democratic nomineeHillary Clinton said she supports the Paris deal. Administration officials expressed surprise at the speed at which the deal was ratified.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-lauds-historic-moment-as-paris-climate-agreement-takes-effect-1475701489?mg=id-wsj
-
Early EU Action Puts Paris Climate Pact Over Finish Line
Oct 6, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The Paris climate agreement formally crossed the finish line Oct. 5 when the European Union fast-tracked ratification documents to the United Nations days earlier than expected, clearing the path for countries to begin writing rules to implement the deal when the next UN climate summit opens Nov. 7 in Morocco.
UN officials “expect the [Paris] Agreement to enter into force on 5 November,” UN spokesman Dan Shepard told Bloomberg BNA, less than 10 months after the deal was reached by nearly 200 nations in Paris.
President Barack Obama, who pushed for quick global adoption of the climate deal, said its formal adoption “gives us the best possible shot to save the one planet we've got,” in remarks from the White House Rose Garden.
“Today the world has officially crossed the threshold for the Paris Agreement to take effect,” Obama said, adding that he hopes it will be seen as the turning point for global progress on climate change. He also urged nations that have yet to ratify the pact—still well over half of the nearly 200 nations that signed on to deal in December—to do so, and as quickly as possible.
Crossing Both Key Thresholds
The EU action will ensure it is European countries—which have often led in the global push for climate action, but in this case essentially are last in a line of countries that included the U.S., China, India, Brazil and even many small island nations—will be remembered as the linchpin in making the deal operational.The EU's fast-track move means a total of 72 countries representing 56.75 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions have now deposited instruments of ratification or acceptance for the Paris document with the UN.
To go into effect, the pact needed ratification by at least 55 countries representing 55 percent of the world's emissions. The EU's move Oct. 5 effectively allowed the deal to go forward even though only seven of its 28 member nations—Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Malta, Portugal and Slovakia—ratified the Paris deal.
The Paris pact is meant to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) later this century compared to the pre-industrial era. Developed and developing nations in the run-up to the 2015 Paris talks put pledges on the table to address their greenhouse gas emissions, actions that are to be updated and strengthened over time.
Obama in his remarks also pushed for progress from separate international negotiations that are weighing whether to curb aviation-sector carbon dioxide emissions, as well as hydrofluorocarbons—extremely potent greenhouse gases commonly used in refrigeration. The talks toward capping aviation emissions began last week in Montreal under the UN's International Civil Aviation Organization; negotiations toward a global phasedown of HFCs are to be held Oct. 8–14 in Kigali, Rwanda, under the auspices of the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer.
Bragging Rights for Morocco?
Getting the deal officially in place so far in advance of the Nov. 7–18 UN summit in Marrakech could give Morocco bragging rights in hosting the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties to begin implementing the Paris Agreement, or CMA. Still unclear is how much progress can be made on greenhouse gas reporting, verification and other procedural rules, given that less than half the 200 nations that signed on to the deal have yet to ratify it and thus would not have official standing at the CMA.
Some ministers tried to assure those countries that they would not be on the outside looking in when the CMA talks begin. Earlier this year, Hakima El-Haite, Morocco's minister of environment, and French climate envoy Laurence Tubiana issued a “reflections note” that said all countries, whether they approved the deal or not, will have an equal voice in Morocco and beyond.
“No party should be disadvantaged or excluded from the collective development of the rulebook for the Paris Agreement simply because it is in the process of joining the agreement,” it read.
The Oct. 5 announcement was not welcomed by all; congressional Republicans for example remain largely opposed to the U.S. participation in the Paris deal. Obama's decision to use his executive authority to sign the U.S. on to the deal is still controversial among those Republicans, who argue the deal should have been submitted to the Senate for ratification.
Obama “acted unlawfully by signing an international treaty without Senate ratification, as required by the Constitution,” House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said in a prepared statement.
—With assistance from Eric J. Lyman in Rome and Stephen Gardner in Brussels.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=98295621&vname=dennotallissues&fn=98295621&jd=98295621
-
US Aiming To Reach New Refrigerant Emissions Deal
Oct 5, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Officials hope to reach a deal next week to phase down the global use of a warming-causing refrigerant chemical.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy said she and other negotiators are hoping to finalize a deal on hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) during an international meeting in Rwanda next week.
“We are incredibly well-positioned for success in Kigali,” where the meeting will be held, McCarthy told reporters Wednesday.
HFCs are used in air condition and refrigeration, and they have a potent impact on climate change. Officials estimate an international deal to reduce their use could prevent 0.5 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100, which McCarthy said would be the biggest impact negotiators could take toward the climate change goals enshrined in the Paris climate agreement.
Countries have been working toward an HFC amendment to the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to protect the ozone layer, since last year.
McCarthy said they made progress on the matter during a summer meeting in Vienna, and she noted a declaration from the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly last month calling for an HFC deal.
But she acknowledged more work needs to happen before an agreement is complete, with details to work out on both the speed with which to phase down the chemical and funding for developing countries looking to reduce it.
An agreement with India appears to be one of the major sticking points. Indian officials last week said they were committed to a later draw-down date than those pushed by the U.S.
“India is a significant player in the discussion, but if you remember, India and the U.S. were pretty far off on the Paris agreement and also on ratifying it and getting it into force,” McCarthy said.
“There is, right now, a sequence of success in working with India to address climate challenges in an aggressive way.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/299515-us-aiming-to-reach-new-refrigerant-emissions-deal
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested