Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 12/8/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals Industry Stock Outlook - Dec 2016
Dec 7, 2016 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)
The chemical industry is in the process of gradual healing after being badly shaken by the Great Recession. Notwithstanding a flurry of challenges, the industry put up a decent performance in the first three quarters of 2016, benefiting from healthy demand across automotive and housing sectors -- two major end-use markets for chemicals. -
Trump's Pick of EPA Foe to Lead Agency May Spark Senate Fight
Dec 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy and Catherine Traywick
President-elect Donald Trump's selection of a chief opponent of the Obama administration's climate agenda and a staunch oil industry ally to lead the Environmental Protection Agency prompted vows to battle the nomination. -
Dems 'Ready To Go' Against Trump EPA Pick
Dec 8, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
President-elect Donald Trump's reported pick of Scott Pruitt for U.S. EPA administrator has galvanized Senate Democrats. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Creates Centre To Assist With TSCA Implementation
Dec 8, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has created a new centre to assist with the creation, support and management of consortia around the implementation of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA). -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Plans to Assist Companies With Chemical Law Implementation
Dec 7, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
A chemical industry group recently unveiled a hub for companies operating under the nation's new chemical oversight law. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Sees TSCA Implementation, Toxics Treaty Ratification As 2017 Goals
Dec 7, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) says that two of its major goals for 2017 are ensuring ongoing smooth implementation by EPA of the revised Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA), and seeking Senate ratification of the international Stockholm Convention treaty that aims to reduce the use of persistent and toxic chemicals. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Wants To Ban Dry Cleaning Chemical, Set To Review 9 Other Widely-Used Substances
Dec 7, 2016 | RT
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has suggested blocking a substance commonly used for dry cleaning due to its health risks. It is the first of 10 chemicals used in processes such as food production and construction that the agency may prohibit. -
EPA Moves To Ban Uses Of Trichloroethylene
Dec 7, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
Trichloroethylene (TCE) would no longer be permitted in aerosol degreasers and stain removers, which are used by dry-cleaning facilities, under a regulation proposed Dec. 7 by EPA. -
Risk Limits Under New Toxics Law May Continue Past Practice
Dec 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven Gibb
When the Environmental Protection Agency writes new chemical regulations under the amended toxics law it will need to apply conventional agency risk assessment norms or have to explain why it's not doing so, former EPA officials said. -
Baby Teether Study Finds Many Contain Potentially Harmful Chemicals
Dec 7, 2016 | CBS News
By Mary Brophy Marcus
Lots of parents make it a point to buy baby teethers labeled “non-toxic” or “BPA-free,” but a new study suggests they might not be 100-percent free of troubling chemicals. -
Baby Teethers Soothe, But Many Contain Low Levels Of BPA
Dec 7, 2016 | American Chemical Society (In Science Daily)
Bisphenol-A (BPA), parabens and antimicrobials are widely used in personal care products and plastics. -
EU Chemicals Agency to Establish Online Nanosubstances Repository
Dec 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Chemicals Agency will set up an online repository of information on nanosubstances and products containing nanosubstances available on the EU market, the European Commission said Dec. 7. -
ECHA Begins Work On Nanomaterials Observatory
Dec 8, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Echa has signed an agreement with the European Commission to begin work on the EU nanomaterials observatory, which the agency will host. -
Ryan Pulls Plug On Energy Bill
Dec 7, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Nick Juliano
House Speaker Paul Ryan officially pulled the plug on the energy bill Wednesday, apparently choosing to start fresh next year when he will have a Republican in the White House rather than move a narrow, consensus bill that could earn President Barack Obama’s signature. -
Speaker’s Office: No Energy Bill This Year
Dec 7, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Speaker Paul Ryan’s office said Wednesday that Congress will not pass an energy reform bill this session, scrapping two years of work lawmakers had hoped would yield the first major energy package in a decade. -
Ebell Offers Energy And Environment Agenda To Next Congress
Dec 8, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Hannah Hess
Senate leaders would schedule a ratification vote on the Paris climate agreement to set the stage for withdrawal from the deal if they follow an agenda released today by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. -
Energy Department Leading Federal Grid Cyberattack Strategy
Dec 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Energy Department will take a lead role in ordering actions in response to grid security emergencies, like cyber and physical attacks on the electric grid, according to a proposed rule from the agency. -
Trump Names Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma Attorney General Suing EPA On Climate Change, To Head The EPA
Dec 8, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Chris Mooney, Brady Dennis and Steven Mufson
President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday nominated Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of the oil and gas-intensive state of Oklahoma, to head the Environmental Protection Agency, a move signaling an assault on President Obama’s climate change and environmental legacy. -
Trump's Pick Of Pruitt For EPA Chief Signals Dismantling Of Climate Rules
Dec 7, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
President-elect Donald Trump's imminent announcement that he plans to nominate Oklahoma Attorney General (AG) Scott Pruitt (R) to head EPA is signaling the agency will work to swiftly dismantle the Obama administration's climate and other rules, prompting an outcry from environmentalists and Capitol Hill Democrats but praise from Republicans and industry. -
Senate Bill Would Bar Social Cost Of Carbon In Rules
Dec 7, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) yesterday introduced a bill to target the federal government's estimate of the social cost of greenhouse gases. -
Obama's Climate Rules Are Safer Than They Seem
Dec 8, 2016 | Bloomberg View
By Cass R. Sunstein
Those who support aggressive action to reduce greenhouse gases fear that the Donald Trump administration will undo all or most of President Barack Obama’s climate change initiatives. But those fears are probably unwarranted.
Industry and Association News
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) Chemicals Industry Stock Outlook - Dec 2016
Dec 7, 2016 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)
Chemical Industry Stays on Course Amid a Few Worries
The chemical industry is in the process of gradual healing after being badly shaken by the Great Recession. Notwithstanding a flurry of challenges, the industry put up a decent performance in the first three quarters of 2016, benefiting from healthy demand across automotive and housing sectors -- two major end-use markets for chemicals.
Amid a still-difficult global economic backdrop, chemical makers are increasingly looking for cost synergy opportunities and enhanced operational scale through consolidations, exhibited by a wide swath of deals in the recent past. These companies are also increasingly switching their focus on high-growth markets in a bid to whittle down their exposure to businesses that are struggling with depressed demand. Strategic actions including cost management and productivity improvement remain the prime focus of these companies.
However, the highly cyclical industry is still besieged by a host of headwinds. Chemical makers are still feeling the pinch of depressed demand across agriculture and energy markets. A strong dollar is also hurting U.S. chemical exports, reducing their attractiveness in overseas markets. The Eurozone's tepid recovery and concerns over China's future growth also remain sources of near-term uncertainties for the chemical industry.
Nagging weakness in China -- a key market for chemicals -- is expected to remain as overhang on the chemical industry in the short haul. Persistent overcapacity, weak private investment and high levels of corporate debt are hurting the world's second-largest economy. In addition, the European chemical industry remains in limbo, trammeled by lower prices, shrinking production and weak R&D investments.
The outlook for the fertilizer and agricultural chemicals space also remains cloudy due to continued weakness in crop commodity prices and sluggish economic conditions in certain developing markets, particularly Brazil.
Despite these challenges, the industry's recovery is expected to continue heading into 2017, supported by continued strength in the light vehicles market, positive trends in the construction space and significant shale-linked capital investment.
U.S. Outlook Users Hope
The U.S. chemical industry remains on course for growth this year and the next despite several challenges including a strong dollar and a low oil price environment. According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry trade group, U.S. chemical production will rise 1.6% in 2016 and 3.7% in 2017. Barring production of the pharmaceuticals segment, output is expected to go up 2.7% this year and 4.1% in 2017.
In particular, the trade group expects basic chemicals production to expand 3.1% in 2016 and 4.9% in 2017. Chemical production is also expected to increase across all regions of the country this year.
The ACC envisions the U.S. chemical industry to continue to gather momentum over the next several years on the heels of new capital investments, capacity additions and feedstock cost advantage, and even transcend the nation's overall economic growth in the long term.
The shale gas bounty and abundant supply of natural gas liquids has been a huge driving force behind chemical investment on plants and equipment in the U.S. and have provided domestic petrochemicals producers a compelling cost advantage over their global counterparts. The ACC expects this competitiveness to drive export demand and new capital investment in the country.
The shale revolution has made the U.S. an attractive investment hotspot. Chemical makers including Dow Chemical (DOW), BASF (BASFY), LyondellBasell Industries (LYB), Eastman Chemical (EMN), Celanese (CE) and Westlake Chemical (WLK) are investing heavily on shale gas-linked projects to take advantage of abundant natural gas supplies which is expected to boost capacity and export over the next several years. The ACC expects domestic chemical industry capital spending to increase 10.4% in 2016 and 7.8% in 2017.
EU Still Limping Along
The outlook for the European chemical industry, on the other hand, looks lackluster given sustained sluggishness in the region. The Eurozone economy remains stuck in an insipid recovery, manifested by a tepid growth of 0.3% in the third quarter of 2016. Eurozone's growth prospects, in the short run, are likely to be stymied by Brexit-induced political and economic uncertainties.
Moreover, concerns about the impact of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's economic policies could hurt sentiment in the region. The European Central Bank has warned that potential protectionist policies under Trump administration could trigger financial instability and hurt EU's trade with the U.S. as well as global growth.
Chemical makers in the European Union remain affected by lower prices and a challenging regulatory landscape. According to the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), chemical output in the European Union contracted 0.3% year over year in the first eight months of 2016 with chemical prices falling 4.8% for the period. Lower pricing and output also hurt chemical sales which slipped 4.4% during this period.
CEFIC expects a modest growth of roughly 1% in chemical output in both 2016 and 2017. Healthy domestic demand coupled with tailwinds from a strong construction end-use market are expected to be offset by sluggish demand for European chemical exports due to a challenging global environment.
Zacks Industry Rank
Within the Zacks Industry classification, the chemical industry falls under the broader Basic Materials sector (one of 16 Zacks sectors) which is expected to have a 2.4% share of total earnings for the S&P 500 in 2016. We rank all of the more than 260 industries in the 16 Zacks sectors based on the earnings outlook for the constituent companies in each industry.
The way to look at the complete list of 260+ industries is that the outlook for the top one-third of the list (Zacks Industry Rank of #88 and lower) is positive, the middle 1/3rd or industries with Zacks Industry Rank between #89 and #176 is neutral while the outlook for the bottom one-third (Zacks Industry Rank #177 and higher) is negative. (To learn more visit: About Zacks Industry Rank .)
We have three chemicals related industries: Chemical Diversified, Chemical Plastics and Chemical Specialty, all of which lie in the middle one-third of all Zacks industries with a Zacks Industry Rank #97, #101 and #168, respectively.
Looking at the exact location of these industries, one could say that the general outlook for the chemical industry is Neutral.
Sector Level Earnings Trends
Looking at the overall results of the Basic Materials sector, earnings for the sector participants on the S&P 500 index for third-quarter 2016 rose 4.7% from the same period last year. The sector racked up a decent beat ratio (percentage of companies coming out with positive surprises) of 65% for earnings in the quarter. However, total revenues for these companies were down 3% in the third quarter.
For fourth-quarter 2016, earnings are expected to show a measly 0.3% increase. Revenues are forecast to fall 3.2% in the quarter. For first-quarter 2017, earnings are expected to accelerate to a 10.2% rise while revenues are forecast to dip 2.3%.
For more details about the earnings of this sector and others, please read our ' Earnings Trends ' report.
The Road Ahead
The chemical industry is still hamstrung by a number of challenges including a weak agriculture market, depressed demand in the energy space, slowd
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/chemicals-industry-stock-outlook-dec-2016-cm718441
-
Trump's Pick of EPA Foe to Lead Agency May Spark Senate Fight
Dec 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy and Catherine Traywick
President-elect Donald Trump's selection of a chief opponent of the Obama administration's climate agenda and a staunch oil industry ally to lead the Environmental Protection Agency prompted vows to battle the nomination.
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt—who sued the EPA to overturn some of President Barack Obama's signature initiatives—is Trump's pick to lead the agency, according to people familiar with the decision.
It is a major victory for oil, gas and coal companies that have complained about a heavy hand at the agency. Pruitt relishes his role as its chief antagonist; an official bio on the 48-year-old Republican's website proclaims him “a leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda.”
“I greatly appreciate the leadership Attorney General Pruitt has shown in suing to stop the EPA's Clean Power Plan and look forward to watching him dismantle it piece by piece as EPA administrator,” said Sen. Steve Daines, a Republican from Montana.
The EPA has played a pivotal rule in carrying out key parts of Obama's agenda, especially fighting climate change. Pruitt has pushed back, battling a suite of the agency's rules in court, including a regulation slashing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, a water pollution measure and the agency's conclusion that carbon dioxide is a pollutant endangering public health and welfare.
Confirmation Hearings
Environmental groups were already laying the groundwork for the confirmation hearings on Wednesday, urging their supporters to lobby the Senate to reject Pruitt.
“That's a tough fight. We know that,” said Seth Gladstone, a spokesman for the Washington-based Food & Water Watch. “We will appeal to senators’ sense of moral obligation to protect the earth and human health.”
Sen. Brian Schatz, a Hawaii Democrat, signaled Pruitt faces a tough battle.
“We are totally mobilizing on this one,” Schatz told reporters in Washington, adding that he expects “it will be extremely difficult” for Pruitt to be confirmed.
Messages left with Pruitt's office weren't returned.
If confirmed, Pruitt will be able to rework or rescind scores of environmental regulations officially—or simply ease off on their enforcement.
“This is about the worst thing he could be doing for the environment and the American people,” said billionaire hedge-fund manager and climate activist Tom Steyer in an interview at Bloomberg headquarters in New York. Trump “continues to appoint people who are seriously unfit and unprepared for the jobs they need to do.“
The fate of Obama's carbon rules was already uncertain under the Trump administration. The U.S. Supreme Court already halted the Clean Power Plan that aims to slash greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, pending a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on the rule's legality. Trump frequently criticized the rule on the campaign trail, promising to rip it and other “job-killing” regulations up once in office.
Clean Power
Pruitt joined 26 other attorneys general in suing to block the Clean Power Plan. Pruitt has characterized that measure, the hallmark of Obama's climate agenda, as an affront to states’ rights and violation of the Constitution.
“The Clean Power Plan is an unlawful attempt to expand federal bureaucrats’ authority over states’ energy economies in order to shutter coal-fired power plants and eventually other sources of fossil-fuel generated electricity,” Pruitt said in a statement last year.
In 2015, Pruitt also secured an injunction blocking EPA's “Waters of the U.S.” rule, which expands the scope of the Clean Water Act. Oklahoma is one of 18 states challenging that regulation in court. He also signed on to a case trying to overturn the EPA's endangerment finding, which provided the legal underpinning for later regulation of carbon dioxide. And he has been critical of U.S. biofuel mandates, describing current policy as “unworkable.“
It's not unprecedented for an EPA administrator to have tangled with the same agency prior to leading it. For instance, Gina McCarthy, the current administrator, previously sued the EPA as a Massachusetts state official.
Congressional Allies
Pruitt's allies in Congress, including Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe (R), lauded Trump's decision.
“Scott has been there on every issue that we've had. He's filed lawsuits that are necessary; he knows all the issues,” said Inhofe, who described Pruitt is a close friend. Inhofe, who will step down as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee next Congress but remain a senior member of the panel, predicted that Pruitt will “perform well” during his confirmation process.
That view was shared by Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, who called Pruitt “smart on the law.“
“He's obviously argued all the way to the Supreme Court on some of the overreach of the EPA,” Lankford said. “He's very knowledgeable of what can and can't be done by the EPA under the law.“
Industry Reaction
Automakers, oil-industry leaders and electric utilities praised Pruitt's selection as marking a change in EPA's regulatory approach.
Mitch Bainwol, president of the Auto Alliance, which has tangled with Obama's EPA over greenhouse gas emissions rules, called Pruitt “a terrific public servant, a great listener and a principled leader.“
Chad Warmington, president of the Oklahoma Oil and Gas Association, said “We are not just excited about having an Oklahoman in a prominent role of a Trump administration, but we also look forward to a more measured regulatory approach at the EPA that will give a voice to all.“
Pruitt has served as Oklahoma's attorney general since 2010. In that office, he created a state “federalism unit” tasked with fighting what his website calls “unwarranted regulation and overreach by the federal government.“
Keystone Filing
In May, he joined five other states in filing an amicus brief supporting TransCanada Corp.’s federal lawsuit alleging that Obama exceeded his authority in turning down a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.
As attorney general, Pruitt has faced scrutiny over his close ties to the energy industry. In 2014, the New York Times reportedthat energy lobbyists had drafted letters for Pruitt to send to the EPA and other agencies challenging environmental rules that could affect the industry.
More recently, Pruitt joined Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange in criticizing other state attorney generals who are investigating whether Exxon Mobil Corp. misled investors about the business risks associated with climate change.
“Reasonable minds can disagree about the science behind global warming, and disagree they do,” Pruitt and Strange said in a statement released in March. “This scientific and political debate is healthy, and it should be encouraged.“
Before he was elected attorney general, Pruitt spent eight years in the state senate. In 2001, he made an unsuccessful bid to succeed Republican Steve Largent in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 2006, he sought the Republican nomination for Lieutenant Governor of Oklahoma but lost.
With assistance from Christopher Martin, Ari Natter, Jonathan N. Crawford, Jim Polson and Tim Loh.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101492717&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101492717&jd=101492717
-
Dems 'Ready To Go' Against Trump EPA Pick
Dec 8, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
President-elect Donald Trump's reported pick of Scott Pruitt for U.S. EPA administrator has galvanized Senate Democrats.
As soon as reports emerged yesterday that the Oklahoma attorney general was Trump's man to lead the agency, several Democrats made loud and clear that they planned to oppose the nomination.
Critics said he was too close to the fossil fuel industry, had questioned climate change science and worked to undermine EPA through litigation, including over the Clean Power Plan.
"We've been talking about mobilizing because we knew Pruitt was on the short list, and we're ready to go," Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) told reporters yesterday.
Schatz said he anticipates that Pruitt's confirmation process will be "extremely difficult." Schatz and his Democratic colleagues also believe the Oklahoman will attract Republican opposition.
"What we expect and hope is that the Republicans that have been on the right side of climate, and they are more than a handful over the last four years, show up," Schatz said.
Schatz added: "This is not a close call. This is not your run-of-the-mill Republican administrator. This is a person who denies the basic science, who denies that this is a real problem at all."
Other climate hawks in the Democratic caucus also sounded off on Trump's reported EPA pick, saying they too would push back against Pruitt's nomination.
They alluded to a December 2014 New York Times story that found Pruitt's office had almost copied word for word oil and gas company Devon Energy Corp.'s letter against EPA and sent it to the agency on official letterhead.
In a statement yesterday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Pruitt was "someone who has worked closely with the fossil fuel industry to make this country more dependent, not less, on fossil fuels."
"I will vigorously oppose this nomination," Sanders said.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said Pruitt was "unsuitable" for the EPA job. Markey also said he would "vigorously oppose" the nomination.
"He has dedicated years of his career to rolling back the bedrock laws and rules that protect our water and our air," Markey said.
Other Democrats were more cautious.
"I have serious reservations, but I'm going to spend a little time taking a look at the record for everybody who's being nominated and will be making statements after we've had an opportunity to do that," Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) said in an interview with E&E News.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), incoming Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member, said in a statement that he was "troubled" by Pruitt's "aggressive stance" against EPA.
"I'm not interested in attacking the clean water or clean air standards meant to protect public health or in denying the science of climate change. Any individual charged with leading the EPA who wants to ignore science or look out for special interests at the expense of public health can expect a fight with me," Carper said.
In a statement, incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Pruitt's climate skepticism made him "out of touch." Schumer said Pruitt has "a troubling history" of advocating for the oil industry.
At Trump Tower yesterday evening, Kellyanne Conway, Trump's campaign manager, dismissed the criticism of Pruitt.
"We're very accustomed to the naysayers and the critics," Conway said, according to press pool reports.
"Attorney General Pruitt has great qualifications and a good record as AG of Oklahoma and there were a number of qualified candidates for that particular position that the president-elect interviewed. We look forward to the confirmation hearings."Republicans cheer
On the other side of the aisle, Republican senators cheered news of Trump choosing Pruitt to head an agency they have grown accustomed to disliking.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who will lead the EPW panel next year, said Pruitt has done "a very good job" in Oklahoma.
"He's testified at EPW, he's very thoughtful, he's done a very good job in Oklahoma; if he is the nominee, I look forward to working through the process, because EPW is the one that confirms that," Barrasso said.
The senator added: "I want to get an administrator on the ground quickly to be at EPA to focus on things that are important to make sure the environment stays clean but the economy is not hurt."
Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said he has known Pruitt for years and had discussions with Trump's transition team about the pick. Lankford called him "a tremendous choice" for the agency and "a great guy."
Lankford said Pruitt has "been someone that has been very active in trying to push back some of the novel interpretations of the EPA."
"So he's argued all the way to the Supreme Court on some of these issues, not to try to negate the law but just to say the administration has to follow the law," Lankford said.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), the outgoing EPW chairman, called Pruitt a close friend and was overjoyed at the news. "The guy is good, and he will perform well," Inhofe said.
Some lawmakers were blunt in their support of Pruitt. Montana Republican Sen. Steve Daines'office sent out a press release titled: "Pruitt Will Support Coal Jobs."
"I greatly appreciate the leadership Attorney General Pruitt has shown in suing to stop the EPA's Clean Power Plan and look forward to watching him dismantle it piece by piece as EPA Administrator," Daines said in a statement.
Other GOP senators, however, said they didn't know the Oklahoma attorney general.
"Never heard of him. I'm sure he's a nice guy," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. "I have no idea who he is, so I will rely on you all to give me great factual information."
Reporters Geof Koss and Camille von Kaenel contributed.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/12/08/stories/1060046847
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Creates Centre To Assist With TSCA Implementation
Dec 8, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has created a new centre to assist with the creation, support and management of consortia around the implementation of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA).
The Center for Chemical Safety Act Implementation will be managed by the ACC's Chemical Product and Technology Division. It aims to be a resource for interested organisations to learn about the implementation of the new TSCA.
It will also serve as a starting point for affected manufacturers to collaborate on how best to meet future requirements.
"We wanted to create a one-stop shop that provided both ACC members and non-members with whatever they needed to navigate the new law," David Fischer, ACC senior director, told Chemical Watch.
"While the rule-making process is still going on, the ACC was very involved during the various aspects of the law's creation and have a good understanding of how the rules are intended to work."
While not an 'apples to apples' comparison, Mr Fischer said the ACC believes similar trends will emerge from LCSA implementation as did with REACH in the EU.
"With REACH, there were consortia that saw the benefit of working together with a shared interest and shared demands," Mr Fischer said. "During REACH, we worked with a lot of groups and trade associations to learn how they helped members navigate the new regulations. We hopefully can bring some of those learnings into the centre."
Along with facilitating consortia, the centre has a number of stated goals to:
manage generation of chemical information pursuant to the US EPA's new authorities under TSCA Section 4;
develop chemical-specific use and exposure data;
coordinate the review and comment on the EPA's draft chemical risk evaluations and proposed risk management actions;
engage with the EPA and other regulatory agencies, including the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Ms Fischer said two areas of focus will be the implementation of sections 4 and 6 of TSCA.
Section 4 includes new testing requirements requiring manufacturers or processors to test chemical substances and mixtures.
Section 6 gives the EPA expanded authority to restrict existing chemicals that present unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.
"For Section 6, we want companies to be proactive and understand what they might want to focus on," regarding future substance restrictions, Mr Fischer said.
"Based on what we know, manufacturers do not need to wait for specific [risk management] rules to be made before thinking about what changes will potentially come. We can help with that."
https://chemicalwatch.com/51522/acc-creates-centre-to-assist-with-tsca-implementation
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Plans to Assist Companies With Chemical Law Implementation
Dec 7, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
A chemical industry group recently unveiled a hub for companies operating under the nation's new chemical oversight law.
The Center for Chemical Safety Act Implementation, announced last week by the American Chemistry Council, aims to serve as a scientific, technical and advocacy clearinghouse for the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act.
The bill, which revised the nation's chemical laws for the first time in some 40 years, passed with bipartisan support earlier this year. In part, the law creates new processes for the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate chemicals currently used in commerce as well as new materials.
The center will help organize companies into consortia that can present comments or data to the EPA as it crafts rules to implement the law.
The consortia, ACC officials said, would allow companies to reduce individual costs and make the process more efficient. The CCSAI will also provide input on chemical prioritization and risk evaluation and management.
Other services provided by the center include strategy guidance, data compensation agreements and information regarding chemical use and exposure.
“Because of our constructive role in the enactment of the LCSA, ACC is well versed in the new law, and we are already actively engaged with EPA on implementation,” ACC President and CEO Cal Dooley said in a statement. “Through the Center for Chemical Safety Act Implementation, we offer a centralized approach that will help companies and EPA fulfill the law’s requirements.”
The program will be managed by the group's Chemical Product & Technology Division and is open to both ACC members and non-members alike.
http://www.chem.info/news/2016/12/acc-plans-assist-companies-chemical-law-implementation
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Sees TSCA Implementation, Toxics Treaty Ratification As 2017 Goals
Dec 7, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) says that two of its major goals for 2017 are ensuring ongoing smooth implementation by EPA of the revised Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA), and seeking Senate ratification of the international Stockholm Convention treaty that aims to reduce the use of persistent and toxic chemicals.
"There are a number of issues that we'll be pursuing in 2017; at the top of that list is implementation" of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act that overhauled TSCA, said ACC's Mike Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs, in a Dec. 2 conference call with reporters. The law, enacted June 22, sets deadlines for a host of agency rulemakings to address the potential risks of existing and new chemicals.
"Congress put in place a process to help assure the public chemicals are manufactured and processed safely. That implementation effort requires a number of regulatory proposals be made, some by this administration and some next year, including important guidance," Walls said.
EPA has already sent a handful of proposed rules for White House pre-publication review that would implement various provisions of the update to the 1976 TSCA.
Walls said he is not concerned about efforts to block or stall implementation of the widely supported bipartisan TSCA reform effort, but vowed close oversight of EPA's rules. He noted there is "considerable uncertainty as to how EPA will be structured, who will be managing the organization" at President-elect Trump's EPA.
Still, he said, "Congress was very clear in what it was trying to do. . . . It needs to proceed apace with the stringent deadlines Congress established. . . . We expect to work with EPA in the Trump administration [to see] those deadlines will be met" -- echoing statements from agency officials and others that the deadlines for rulemaking in the law will bind the Trump administration to continuing its implementation.
It is possible that Senate Democrats might try to block or slow the nomination process for Trump's eventual EPA administrator and toxics office chief, or that Republicans might succeed next year in reducing the agency's budget significantly. But Walls said he does not believe that either situation would hamper TSCA's implementation.
"[The] Lautenberg [law] is very clear in expectations for the agency. I'm absolutely confident without confirmed nominees for every [slot] we have [staff and] acting management . . . to ensure these deadlines can be met," he said.
Regarding funding, he pointed to ACC's support of EPA's new ability in the revised TSCA to assess fees on industry to help fund an enlarged toxics program. He also noted that language in the act requires that Congress set the toxics program's budget "at or above the fiscal year 2014 level for TSCA implementation" in order for EPA to levy fees to help pay for the law's implementation.
Meanwhile, Walls said another ACC priority for 2017 is winning Senate ratification of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). The international treaty, signed in 2001, was ratified by a sufficient number of countries -- not including the United States -- and took effect in 2004. It is designed to reduce or eliminate the use of POPs over concerns about their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.
"In recent years the convention's work is changing, and is focused on industrial chemicals," Walls said. "Some of the nominations" for the treaty's list of POPs "didn't seem to fit within the POPs convention's established process. From our view at ACC, it is critical that our government is able to lead."
While President George W. Bush signed the POPs treaty, Congress was never able to ratify it or pass implementing legislation amending TSCA and other domestic laws due to policy disputes that arose. For example, Democrats and environmentalists charged the administration's legislative proposal sought to add a new cost-benefit criteria to TSCA before new substances barred by the convention could be restricted domestically.
This leaves the United States without a vote on any decisions made by the countries that convene to consider adding chemicals to the convention's list of POPs.
"The U.S. government is an observer delegation," Walls said. "We think the U.S. has played an important leadership position . . . we think the government ought to be playing in that globally as well."
He noted that the chemical industry is global, with many large companies operating in multiple countries. "To the extent Stockholm restrictions are implemented around the world, it has a direct impact," he said. "Having the U.S. participate fully would ensure appropriate, science-based, risk-based" listing decisions.
Asked why he thought the ratification issue might see success in the coming year, Walls said that "the overwhelming support of Congress to pass [the] Lautenberg [law] suggests there is an interest in Congress in ensuring appropriate regulation. . . . The chemical industry is going to be looking for an opportunity to pursue this."
But some stakeholders, such as Lynn Goldman -- EPA toxics chief during the Clinton administration -- argued last year that ratification should be addressed as part of the TSCA reform effort.
Goldman urged Congress to do so in testimony last year before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. But it was not addressed. Nor was the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent (PIC), another international treaty, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1998, which Goldman also urged Congress to include in TSCA reform.
Ratifying the treaties has been a bipartisan goal for some years, with a wide coalition of supporters. EPA toxics chief Jim Jones identified ratification of the treaties as a key goal of the Obama administration at a congressional hearing five years ago, but efforts to pass the necessary implementing language in TSCA failed to move in part because of a disagreement between activists and administration officials over whether the changes should be addressed in standalone legislation prioritized to move quickly or included in a broad overhaul of TSCA.
Bush's White House regulatory chief, John Graham, outlined at a 2015 industry conference why he failed to get the Stockholm Convention ratified, noting the multiple complex changes needed to both TSCA and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act to do so. He recommended that listeners lower their expectations. "Congress is not an easy body to get focused, particularly on pretty technical and detailed types of issues where the devil is in the detail of getting these things right," he said.
Walls said on the call that the convention's ratification was not addressed in the larger TSCA reform bill because a "focus on Stockholm would distract from key provisions of TSCA."
In addition, Walls in his remarks to reporters touted another international effort: EPA's pilot partnership with Canada's regulatory agencies to jointly evaluate five chemicals.
The effort "has the potential to identify efficiencies in how the U.S. and Canada share information," Walls said, though he stressed that both countries retain their sovereign rights in making final decisions on how chemicals would be regulated. He also pointed to similarities between Canada's regulatory program for industrial chemicals and that of new TSCA.
"If we can leverage we can get to quicker and better decisions," Walls said. "To the extent we can accelerate the process of getting to the decision [about a chemical's safety] and use information considered by other governments," that would be welcome, he added.
Walls declined to comment on whether new TSCA would allow EPA to accept a Canadian or other outside risk evaluation as the basis for action, saying the question required a legal conclusion he couldn't make.
Walls also touted ACC's recent announcement of its launch of a new center, called the Center for Chemical Safety Act Implementation. "Our goal is to provide our members with a scientific, policy and advocacy hub," Walls said. The center will be important because there will be "multiple opportunities for industry, the consortium to provide comment to EPA."
Walls outlined some of the activities the center may undertake, noting there "may be an opportunity to promote efficiency and share some costs to comment or produce data for EPA's use. Some efforts might support data generation . . . certainly advocacy and innovation on the risk assessment process as well."
https://insideepa.com/inside-epa/acc-sees-tsca-implementation-toxics-treaty-ratification-2017-goals
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Wants To Ban Dry Cleaning Chemical, Set To Review 9 Other Widely-Used Substances
Dec 7, 2016 | RT
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has suggested blocking a substance commonly used for dry cleaning due to its health risks. It is the first of 10 chemicals used in processes such as food production and construction that the agency may prohibit.
EPA is proposing to ban “certain uses of the toxic chemical trichloroethylene (TCE) due to health risks when used as a degreaser and a spot removal agent in dry cleaning.” Trichloroethylene is a known carcinogen and one of 10 chemicals the agency has said it will review for human and environmental safety to comply with a federal chemical-reform law passed earlier this year.
“For the first time in a generation, we are able to restrict chemicals already in commerce that pose risks to public health and the environment,” Jim Jones, assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said in a statement. “Once finalized, today’s action will help protect consumers and workers from cancer and other serious health risks when they are exposed to aerosol degreasing, and when dry cleaners use spotting agents.”
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act was passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama in June. The law requires the EPA to review existing chemicals for toxicity and to assess whether they “present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment,” a mandate the agency was not previously afforded unless it had strong proof that a risk existed.
The bipartisan bill is a reform of the chemical safety law known as the Toxic Substances Control Act, adopted in 1976. That bill has been criticized for relying on a cost-benefit safety standard that effectively allowed the ongoing use of cancer-causing substances like asbestos.
“Only if EPA could muster the information to make a very strong case for regulating those chemicals, could they be touched,” Richard Denison, atop scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, told the Scientific American of the pre-reform law. “But under the old law, there was no mandate for EPA to review those chemicals—that’s part of why this reform was so important.”
Without strong independent evidence that a chemical posed a risk, the EPA could not require additional testing and had to rely on data supplied by the company responsible for a chemical. Thus, the EPA has thoroughly reviewed very few of the tens of thousands of chemicals used in the US and has restricted only a handful of new substances that have arrived on the market since the 1970s.
“The burden was on the EPA,” Denison added. “And the agency was forced to let chemicals on the market in the absence of information.” The reform law will offer the EPA new authority to test new and existing chemicals without considering the cost of regulating a substance.
Asbestos, best known for its use in building construction products, is one of the 10 initial chemicals or substances up for review by the EPA over the next three years. While asbestos is a known carcinogen to humans and is highly toxic, it is banned in only a few uses, including in corrugated and commercial paper. Its use in a variety of products related to building construction and automobile parts remain legal, though these uses have reduced significantly in recent decades.
The other eight chemicals listed by th EPA — many of which are probable human carcinogens and all of which are toxic in one way or another — are found in a variety of consumer products and are commonly released into groundwater, soil, ambient air, and sources of drinking water. They include tetrachloroethylene, another dry-cleaning agent; 1,4-dioxane, which is used in shampoos and bubble baths; 1-bromopropane, a commercial and industrial solvent; carbon tetrachloride, a chemical with industrial uses after being banned as a pesticide and cleaning fluid; cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster, a flame retardant; methylene chloride, a paint remover; N-methylpyrrolidone, a cleaning agent; and pigment violet 29, a dye used in plastics.
These substances were chosen by the EPA out of a list of 90 chemicals selected for their potential to be hazardous to humans, common use, and regularly release into the environment. The EPA has three years to assess each chemical on the list. If the agency determines an undefined “unreasonable risk to humans and the environment,” it must “mitigate that risk within two years,” the agency said.
The EPA’s further assessment of additional chemicals will be required by the terms of the reform law, demanding that the agency have at least 20 new or existing substances undergoing review at any given time by the end of 2019.
The reform law passed in both houses of Congress by wide margins and had industry support, including from the American Chemistry Council. Yet some critics of the reform law worry the update could undercut efforts by states such as California and Vermont that seek heightened restrictions on chemicals. Furthermore, the law’s implementation in the coming years will not move fast enough for some reform advocates.
“The timetables the new law puts in place mean that EPA action will be disappointingly slow when it comes to evaluating the safety of thousands of chemicals now in commercial use,”saidMichael Belliveau, executive director of the Environmental Health Strategy Center in Maine, which supports states’ rights in taking action against hazardous chemicals if the federal government will not.
“It is important to note that states still can restrict chemical uses that EPA can’t touch or won’t address soon,” Belliveau added in a June news release. “States must continue to act.”
https://www.rt.com/usa/369544-epa-chemicals-review-toxicity/
-
EPA Moves To Ban Uses Of Trichloroethylene
Dec 7, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
Trichloroethylene (TCE) would no longer be permitted in aerosol degreasers and stain removers, which are used by dry-cleaning facilities, under a regulation proposed Dec. 7 by EPA.
The action marks the first time in more than 20 years that EPA has tried to use its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to restrict the use of a hazardous chemical.
EPA concluded in 2014 that TCE in spot cleaning agents and aerosol spray degreasers could pose health risks to workers and consumers. TCE is a known human carcinogen, and studies have associated the chemical with neurological, developmental, and immunological toxicity.
The agency’s 2014 assessment also found risks associated with the use of TCE in commercial vapor degreasing, but EPA is working on a separate regulation to address those risks. The chemical industry is strongly opposed to restricting that particular use.
TCE is one of the first 10 chemicals that EPA will evaluate for risk under the revised TSCA, which was enacted in June. The agency plans to use its new authorities to assess all remaining uses of the chemical.
“For the first time in a generation, we are able to restrict chemicals already in commerce that pose risks to public health and the environment,” says Jim Jones, EPA assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention. “I am confident that the new authority Congress has given us is exactly what we need to finally address these important issues,” he says.
The last time EPA tried to restrict the use of a toxic chemical under TSCA was in 1989 when it banned asbestos. A federal appeals court, however, overturned that ban two years later.
EPA expects to have an easier time under the revised law because it no longer has to show that restriction of each use is the least burdensome way to reduce the risk. The new law allows EPA to restrict a chemical “to the extent necessary” to reduce the risk.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/web/2016/12/EPA-moves-ban-uses-trichloroethylene.html
-
Risk Limits Under New Toxics Law May Continue Past Practice
Dec 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven Gibb
When the Environmental Protection Agency writes new chemical regulations under the amended toxics law it will need to apply conventional agency risk assessment norms or have to explain why it's not doing so, former EPA officials said.
Under the law, the EPA must define what “unreasonable risk” means for chemicals as it crafts a risk evaluation rule to be finalized in June 2017.
Definitions set under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182), which amended the 1976 Toxic Chemicals Control Act, are critical to protecting the public, workers, children and the elderly from overexposure to toxic chemicals. They also are expected to affect the commercial viability of some compounds by controlling their uses.
Typically, the agency takes action on chemicals whose risks range between 1 in 10,000 excess cancer cases to 1 in 1 million excess cases. “They'd have to explain why they're moving out of that range if they did anything different,” former EPA toxics chief Jim Aidala told Bloomberg BNA.
Other former EPA officials agree, saying that outside, expert input would be required for the EPA to adopt any alternative risk range for chemicals.
“I would not expect any dramatic changes at this point without the blessing of EPA science advisers or the National Academy of Sciences,” said former EPA risk assessor Oscar Hernandez, who, with Aidala is based in Washington D.C. with Bergeson and Campbell PC.
But other EPA veterans say the agency to date has been taking sensitive life stages into account.
Former EPA research official William Farland, with Colorado State University in Ft. Collins, said he did not expect much of a change.
“My thought is that they would continue with previous approaches [to risk assessment],” he said. “These standards have always been set to protect sensitive life stages or populations.”
Ensuring that the authority to set acceptable risk assessment standards remains with the EPA was a major recommendation of the Society for Toxicology during congressional negotiations on the legislation, which Farland participated in as a member of the society.
Science policy analysts say setting risk standards combines science and social values about what “acceptable risk” is for uniquely exposed groups and the general public. The EPA has been encouraged by its Science Advisory Board to add more social scientists to its ranks to help uncover social values surveys and other data to support acceptable risk determinations.
Risk Evaluation Rule
EPA toxics officials plan to propose a risk evaluation rule by the end of December and finalize it by June 2017.
The agency told Bloomberg BNA, “‘unreasonable risk’ under the new law is now a purely risk-based standard that will be profoundly more protective of human health and the environment. . . Further, in making an ‘unreasonable risk’ determination, EPA must now explicitly consider risks to vulnerable subpopulations who, due to either greater susceptibility or greater exposure, may be at greater risk from the chemicals.”
Unions and advocates for children and the elderly plan to pressure the agency for stricter risk limits to account for the susceptibility, vulnerability and unique exposures they focus on as the EPA crafts its risk evaluation rule for chemicals under the new law.
Nsedu Witherspoon, executive director of the Children's Environmental Health Network, said she will urge the EPA to prioritize limits on chemicals that impact the developing brain and nervous system.
“To help reduce the unacceptably high prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders in our children, we must eliminate or significantly reduce exposures to chemicals that contribute to these conditions,” she told Bloomberg BNA Nov. 10. These conditions include autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, intellectual deficits, and other learning and behavioral disabilities.
Risk Provisions in the Details
Partly to account for these new challenges, the EPA's toxics office has recruited Brenda Foos from the EPA Office of Children's Health Protection to do a four-month detail in the chemicals program to support policymaking involving the amended toxics law.
Whether this means the EPA will trigger regulation at the 1 in 1 million excess cancer risk level for workers and children, or use a safety factor approach as applied under pesticide law, remains to be seen.
“EPA's upcoming rules will address. . . health impacts in a meaningful way,” an agency spokeswoman said.
Environmental consultants, meanwhile, are playing down the impact of the EPA's new authority to reduce chemical risks compared with the benefits of focusing on the public's lifestyle choices—with the possible exception of workplace chemical exposures.
Dennis Paustenbach, president of the Cardno/Chemrisk consultancy in San Francisco, said “I have some level of uncertainty about the benefits of continuing the ‘the less chemicals the better’ approach to how EPA regulates industrial chemicals. For years, this use of the precautionary principle was considered to always yield a safer environment. I want to believe that the scientific community accepts that there are safe doses of chemicals and that lower doses don't necessarily improve public health.”Lifestyle Contributes to Risk
Paustenbach takes a broad view of risks facing the public.
“I have come to believe that the risks associated with a less-than-ideal diet, exercise, and use of pharmaceuticals—over the counter and prescription—play a much bigger part in our healthfulness than industrial chemicals in our environment, but of course there are exceptions,” he said.
Paustenbach pointed to the progress made over the past 50 years with respect to cleaning up air, water, soil and foods.
His company also supports industry clients where workplace chemical exposures are an issue that may be addressed by future TSCA rules.“It is true that we are allowing exposures in the workplace, for some chemicals, that deserve to be addressed in the next few years,” Paustenbach said. “I believe it is likely that the new toxicology and epidemiology information that will be collected in the coming years will have a ‘trickle down’ effect on occupational exposure limits.”
Paustenbach said that he sometimes recommends stricter occupational exposure limits for chemicals than government standards to his client companies after reviewing their worker data.
Costs Are Paid by Someone
When asked about the increases in costs on industry for chemical rules that employ stricter risk standards due to susceptible subpopulations, Tracey Woodruff with the University of California, San Francisco said “the costs of not regulating are borne by the public.”
Woodruff directs the UCSF Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment and is advocating for stricter controls of chemicals that may affect vulnerable subpopulations such as children and pregnant mothers. The center addresses both individual chemicals and EPA science policies. It is closely tracking EPA's approach to “unreasonable risk” under the amended toxics law to see how EPA accounts for these subpopulations in its risk evaluation and chemical control rules.
Woodruff recently answered some questions about this subject posed by Bloomberg BNA. The questions and answers were edited for length and clarity.
BBNA: Do you have more impact focusing on individual chemicals or on EPA science policy?
Woodruff: We're surrounded by toxic environmental chemicals from the moment of conception, through infancy, childhood, and up to our deaths, and yet we have devoted only a small fraction of our national resources and effort to identify and prevent harmful exposures.
To address our goal of improving health by reducing toxic chemical exposures we start with the question “what are the chemicals we need to focus on from a health and policy perspective and where do we have data gaps?”
We also think about what the most efficient ways are to address exposures. It turns out that identifying and preventing exposures during pregnancy is highly efficient because if we protect that developmental period, the whole population, and future generations, benefit.
So one of our earliest studies was to document exposure to toxic chemicals among pregnant women in the U.S. by leveraging biomonitoring data collected by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This research resulted in one of our well-cited findings that at least 43 chemicals are found in 99-100 percent of moms across the US. So that's the data/science piece.
Then we ask—what does the science say about EPA's methods of chemical hazard and risk assessment?
For example, it is quite common to conduct risk assessments for one chemical at a time—but does this make scientific sense? Let's think about phthalates, a group of chemicals, many of which are a health concern, but which have not been addressed in combination. If you only consider exposures to phthalates one at a time without taking into account that people are simultaneously exposed to phthalates and many other chemicals, then the science shows that you are systematically underestimating risk.
That is essentially what the National Academy of Sciences said in 2008 in their report Phthalates and Cumulative Risk Assessment: The Task Ahead. This matters a lot as these risk estimates inform policy decisions, and the EPA will have to state whether they considered aggregate exposures for all conditions of use for a chemical under the amended toxics law.
Another broad challenge that undermines science policy is that “no information” has often been likened to “no risk.” Historically this false equation has been the default approach in environmental decision-making.
But absence of information is not absence of risk—it just means we don't know. We need to make decisions based on the available information in a timely way. Under our current approach—people continue to be exposed until or even after there is strong evidence that a chemical is harmful, a policy that does not address potential health effects and is not health protective.
What's our goal? To improve health by preventing harmful environmental chemical exposures. Then you ask what do we know and where are we lacking information? So this is where a review of the evidence comes in and where we have been pioneering “systematic review” methods—a systematic and transparent approach for identifying, evaluating and synthesizing the available evidence. It also identifies where we have and do not have data. The beauty of systematic review methods is that we can learn from the clinical sciences that have been developing systematic review methods for over 20 years. Systematic review methods are receiving a lot of attention as there is a great need to improve our evidence synthesis methods to make judgments about protecting public health in a more timely manner.
BBNA: What one change in EPA science policy would you make if you could?
Woodruff: There is more than one change needed. But an important one would be EPA's default assumption that there is a “safe” level of exposure to chemicals that can have health effects other than cancer.
This does not mean EPA would ban or remove all chemicals; it simply means that EPA should fairly evaluate the scientific evidence and recognize that people vary in their susceptibility, due to age, genetics and disease status and that they are exposed to multiple chemicals at the same time.
The EPA needs to evaluate the hazards and risks of environmental chemicals for the entire spectrum of exposures and vulnerabilities and to value those risks in its cost-benefit analyses.
This need to throw out the assumption of “safe levels” of environmental chemicals agrees with what the National Academy of Sciences said in its report “Science and Decisions.” This would then provide a more scientific basis for decision-making.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101492711&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101492711&jd=101492711
-
Baby Teether Study Finds Many Contain Potentially Harmful Chemicals
Dec 7, 2016 | CBS News
By Mary Brophy Marcus
Lots of parents make it a point to buy baby teethers labeled “non-toxic” or “BPA-free,” but a new study suggests they might not be 100-percent free of troubling chemicals.
U.S. regulators have banned or restricted the use of the plastics chemical Bisphenol-A (BPA), parabens and antimicrobials in some products babies and children use daily — including bottles and cups — because, at certain levels, they’re thought to cause hormone changes that can lead to health issues. Baby teethers — gummed by infants to soothe teething pain — aren’t subject to the same regulations.
Study author Kurunthachalam Kannan told CBS News that he and colleagues wanted to learn more about the chemical make-up of teethers since many babies use them off and on all day. They tested 59 teethers — including solid, gel-filled and water-filled models — for 26 potential endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that can interfere with the body’s hormonal balance and could potentially lead to developmental, reproductive, neurological and immune system and other health issues.
“We wanted to look at chemicals in baby teethers as one of the sources of exposure because now they come in different forms. The gel and water-filled teethers have some preservatives in them such as paraben, which can affect the endocrine system,” said Kannan, a research scientist at New York State Department of Health and the School of Public Health at the State University of New York at Albany.
To simulate the toy in the mouth of a baby, the scientists placed the teethers in water for an hour and found that BPA, plus a range of different parabens and antimicrobials — including triclosan and triclocarban — leached out into the water from most of the teethers.
The research, published in the American Chemical Society’s journal Environmental Science and Technology, found that BPA and other chemicals even leached out of brands labeled “BPA-free” or “non-toxic.”
“Almost 90 percent of the teethers we bought were labeled as BPA-free, but we found BPA in almost every product and most were labeled as non-toxic. We were finding more than 15 to 20 toxic chemicals in all of the them,” said Kannan.
The levels measured were lower than current regulatory limits for other products, Kannan noted. But he said those limits are not set specifically for babies and don’t take into account the accumulation of chemicals a baby might be exposed to over time and from multiple products.
The scientists believe this is the first study to examine the “occurrence and migration” of a wide range of endocrine disruptors from the surfaces of baby teethers.
As a scientist and a parent, Kannan said the findings are disturbing. Unlike toys that expose a baby’s skin to the products, he said, “this product goes in the mouth of babies and that’s why exposure is a matter of serious concern.”
Over the last few decades, more attention has been given to the possible negative health effects of endocrine disruptors in humans and animals. They’ve been linked with developmental problems, reproductive interference, increased cancer risk and disturbances in the immune and nervous system, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. But more research is needed to better understand their impact on humans.
“Early life stage exposure is serious. Exposure to toxic chemicals during infancy can have detrimental affects and alter stages in life. That’s the theory that’s out there,” Kannan said.
CBS News medical contributor Dr. Tara Narula said possible health risks of early childhood exposure to endocrine disruptors could include asthma, diabetes, neurodevelopment disorders, obesity, and reproductive abnormalities.
“The FDA reviewed 300 studies in 2014 and they say that BPA in our current supply, that we get from our food packaging, is safe,” Narula said on “CBS This Morning.” But the jury is still out on how exposure to the chemicals might impact the long-term health of babies, children and teens.
Kannan hopes the findings will help regulators develop stricter regulatory guidelines to protect babies from exposure to potentially toxic chemicals in teethers and other baby products.
“As a consumer myself with babies, I would love to buy products that are considered safe, without toxic chemicals,” Kannan said.
In the meantime, Narula suggested that concerned parents can use frozen bagels, a frozen washcloth or a frozen carrot for teething babies to chew on.
“There are some teethers made of wood or natural organic cotton that can be used as well,” she said.
Kannan recommended a frozen waffle. The only downside, he noted, is that they’re not re-usable.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/baby-teether-study-bpa-endocrine-disruptors-chemicals/
-
Baby Teethers Soothe, But Many Contain Low Levels Of BPA
Dec 7, 2016 | American Chemical Society (In Science Daily)
Bisphenol-A (BPA), parabens and antimicrobials are widely used in personal care products and plastics. The U.S. and other governments have banned or restricted some of these compounds' use in certain products for babies and kids. But the compounds' presence in and leaching from teethers hasn't been thoroughly investigated. Now a study in the ACS journal Environmental Science & Technology reports that all tested plastic teethers contained BPA and other endocrine-disruptors that leached at low levels.
Studies have shown that in animals, endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs) -- which include BPA, parabens and antimicrobials -- can potentially interfere with hormones and have harmful developmental, reproductive and neurological effects. As a result, the European Commission in 2011 restricted the use of BPA in baby bottles. The U.S. followed suit a year later, banning it from baby bottles, and also from children's drinking cups. Some manufacturers say they have started reducing BPA and other EDCs in additional products, even those not made for children. But very few if any studies have investigated whether the compounds are used to make teethers and if the compounds leach out of these products, which are designed to soothe babies' gums when their teeth come in. Kurunthachalam Kannan and colleagues wanted to see if the products contained EDCs and if the compounds could migrate out.
The researchers analyzed 59 solid, gel-filled or water-filled teethers purchased online in the U.S. for 26 potential endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Although most of the products were labeled BPA-free or non-toxic, all of them contained BPA. In addition, the researchers detected a range of different parabens and the antimicrobials triclosan and triclocarban in most of the teethers. The study also showed that the compounds leached out of the products' surfaces into water. Based on estimates of average use time and the body weight of a 12-month-old baby, calculations suggest that exposure to BPA and other regulated EDCs in teethers would be lower than the European standards for temporary tolerable daily intake levels. However, these thresholds are set for individual compounds. Current regulations do not account for the accumulation of multiple EDCs, note the researchers. Additionally, not all chemicals measured in the study are regulated. The researchers say the findings could be used to develop appropriate policies to protect infants from exposure to potentially toxic chemicals found in teethers.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161207092920.htm
-
EU Chemicals Agency to Establish Online Nanosubstances Repository
Dec 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Chemicals Agency will set up an online repository of information on nanosubstances and products containing nanosubstances available on the EU market, the European Commission said Dec. 7.
The EU Observatory for Nanomaterials (EU-ON) will be established during 2017 and bring together data on nanosubstances that have been collected as a result of information requirements placed on companies by European Union laws, along with data from member states’ inventories of nanosubstances and from research studies, the commission said.
The commission, the EU's executive arm, said creating an observatory was “preferable to setting up new legislation, which would require companies to register nanomaterials and products containing nanomaterials.”
Chemical companies are already required to provide information on nanosubstances under several EU laws and will “proactively collaborate with ECHA and other interested parties in setting up the observatory,” the European Chemical Industry Council said.
Substances at the nanoscale are used in products including cosmetics, electronics, paints, plastics and sporting goods.
Long-Lasting Discussion
There have been EU-level discussions for a number of years on how the emerging field of nanotechnology, and the possible health and environmental risks of nanomaterials, should best be monitored.
In 2012, the commission said an EU-wide nanomaterials inventory was not necessary. Some member states came out in favor of inventories, however, and Belgium, Denmark and France went ahead with national laws that require companies to register nanomaterials and products that contain them.
Authorities from nearly half the EU countries said in response to a 2013 commission consultation that they would be in favor of some form of coordinated EU-level monitoring of nanomaterials.
The EU's REACH law (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals) does not require registration or notification of substances at nanoscale separately from the same substances at normal scale, but does require companies to provide safe handling information for substances, which could be specific to the risks posed by nanomaterials.
ECHA said, however, that it has received little specific information in REACH registration dossiers on nanomaterials. Amendments to the REACH annexes to specify more clearly information requirements for nanomaterials are in the pipeline.
The commission said nanomaterials have much “innovation potential,” but also carry risks and, for example, “may pass through body membranes, and enter cells and organs of living organisms.”
’Trustworthy Source’
Alongside REACH, companies provide data on nanomaterials in relation to EU laws on biocides, cosmetics, food, medical devices and worker safety.
ECHA Executive Director Geert Dancet said information on nanomaterials was available, but “the challenge has been to navigate and find information that is easily understandable and relevant.”
EU-ON will be “a trustworthy source of information that contributes to a well-balanced public debate on nanomaterials,” Dancet said.
ECHA said EU-ON will be available by next summer.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101492701&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101492701&jd=101492701
-
ECHA Begins Work On Nanomaterials Observatory
Dec 8, 2016 | Chemical Watch
Echa has signed an agreement with the European Commission to begin work on the EU nanomaterials observatory, which the agency will host.
The first phase of three should go live next summer. This will involve collecting information that is already available.
"There is already a lot of information on nanomaterials [but] the challenge has been to navigate and find information that is easily understandable and relevant for a wider audience," says Geert Dancet, Echa's executive director.
Following several years of discussion and analysis, the Commission decided the observatory was the best tool for increasing transparency on nanomaterials on the EU market. An EU-wide registry would have made it mandatory for industry to notify their use of nanomaterials, but the Commission said it would be too costly.
Echa's management board has previously raised concerns about the nano observatory. It says changes are needed to REACH dossier information rules to make it a success. And Echa and the Commission say they welcome dialogue with industry stakeholders and 'frustrated' NGOs.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51518/echa-begins-work-on-nanomaterials-observatory
-
Ryan Pulls Plug On Energy Bill
Dec 7, 2016 | PoliticoPro
By Nick Juliano
House Speaker Paul Ryan officially pulled the plug on the energy bill Wednesday, apparently choosing to start fresh next year when he will have a Republican in the White House rather than move a narrow, consensus bill that could earn President Barack Obama’s signature.
The decision marks the latest setback for a years-long push to bolster energy efficiency, shore up the electric grid and expedite liquefied natural gas exports, as well as to tackle numerous long-standing natural resources issues, including wildfire fighting, access to public lands and improving national parks. It could be quite some time until lawmakers get this close to passing an energy bill, given the dozens of nominations that will be crowding the Senate calendar early next year.
"The conferees were not able to come to agreement on various outstanding issues in time for the House to consider a conference report," AshLee Strong, Ryan's press secretary, wrote in an email to POLITICO on Wednesday. She did not provide additional details.
Down to the wire, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), committee ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) had been the most active participants in the conference committee negotiations, which also included Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.).
The talks appear to have collapsed over an inability to agree on enough conservation-related tradeoffs for Senate Democrats in exchange for the LNG export provisions desired by House Republicans, as well as disagreement over how to ensure adequate funding to fight wildfires without forcing the Forest Service to borrow from other accounts.
“We were just down to a last few issues, positioning on how to make things as important as fire be the end conclusion that everybody at the White House and House and everything wanted,” Cantwell said Tuesday. “So here we are today just trying to dot the i’s and cross the t’s on that, and we are at this point now where people would just rather go home than finish the work.”
As the bill’s prospects diminished this week, Murkowski expressed frustration at suggestions from some House Republicans that they would be able to get a better deal next year, saying the deals they had struck would be difficult to replicate. Democrats picked up two Senate seats in the November election and would be able to filibuster any future energy bill.
“Those [deals] are very hard to replicate,” Murkowski said Wednesday. “Even if you think you’re going to come back in January, the Senate schedule is a very long process to get back to where we are today. So why would you be saying to people, we’ll delay a fire solution or a cybersecurity solution … all things that have taken a lot of years to craft, why would you delay that?”
LNG exports were included in the Senate bill that passed 85-12 earlier this year, but that package also included a permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund — a high priority for Democrats that Bishop declared unacceptable. Bishop told reporters Wednesday night that he, Cantwell and Murkowski had been able to agree on including smaller lands packages in exchange for LNG exports “but I don’t know if that’s viable to leadership.” Upton had previously pointed to LNG opposition among House Democrats as complicating a deal, suggesting that the goal was a consensus package that would be able to sail through the lower chamber.
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, a member of the energy bill conference committee, said LNG exports were a high priority for his state. He said the Senate sent over a package late Tuesday night aiming to keep the provision in the bill, although he was unsure what tradeoffs were requested.
“You know, for everything one person wants somebody else wants something to agree to it. So I can’t give you the play-by-play on that, but yeah, there was a package that we thought we could get out of the Senate,” Cornyn told POLITICO on Wednesday. “But if the House doesn’t have time to take it up, it sounds like it’s, we’ll have to try again next year.”
The bill’s collapse has been looming all week, although negotiators were waiting on an official call from Ryan, who acknowledged Wednesday that the talks had “not gone as well” as on other year-end issues. The House is aiming to wrap up its work for the year by Thursday with passage of a continuing resolution and the Water Resources Development Act.
Murkowski vowed Wednesday that without a path forward for the energy bill she would withhold support from WRDA, which is struggling in the Senate amid objections to provisions on the California drought and a longstanding water fight between Alabama and Georgia. But other WRDA supporters were optimistic the bill would make it across the finish line, even if the Senate had to stay in session through the weekend to clear procedural hurdles.
The negotiations have been “frustrating,” Murkowski said, blaming the House for removing LNG exports from its earlier energy bill offers then objecting that the bill was too narrow.
“What we’re asking the House side to do, is if you don’t like this, don’t just say game over pulling the plug. Tell us what it is that you think needs to be done to tweak this,” Murkowski told reporters Wednesday. “But when you just say, well there’s no more time, when you fritter away the time by not being responsive to some of this, then there’s some answering that has to be done there.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2016/12/ryan-pulls-plug-on-energy-bill-139891
-
Speaker’s Office: No Energy Bill This Year
Dec 7, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Lawmakers negotiating an energy reform package have run out of time to come to a deal.
Speaker Paul Ryan’s office said Wednesday that Congress will not pass an energy reform bill this session, scrapping two years of work lawmakers had hoped would yield the first major energy package in a decade.
The announcement, coming days ahead of Congress's expected holiday adjournment, means the end for behind-the-scenes negotiations aimed at combining the energy bills passed separately by the House and Senate this year.
“The conferees were not able to come to agreement on various outstanding issues in time for the House to consider a conference report,” Ryan press secretary AshLee Strong said in an email on Wednesday.
Spokespeople for chief Senate negotiators Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) didn’t immediately comment Wednesday.
Members began working on an energy reform effort after the 2014 elections, with the goal of passing a bill to expand energy production and streamline federal rules this session. The energy industry was also hopeful the effort would result in legislation.
But the House and Senate went in different directions with their bills, setting up a difficult end-of-session effort to reconcile them.
In its bill, the House included conservative provisions opposed by Democrats, such as a GOP package to relieve the California drought and a measure to bypass environmental regulations for energy projects on Native American land, among others.
The Senate bill was less broad and attracted more bipartisan support, aiming to clear the way for liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, expand energy efficiency programs and lock in federal conservation programs indefinitely.
Members convened a conference committee in September but couldn’t bridge the significant gap between their bills.
As of November, Murkowski and Cantwell said in a statement that month, negotiators were still grappling with issues “related to LNG exports, sportsmen’s, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, hydropower, natural gas pipelines, manufacturing, innovation, carbon benefits of biomass, critical minerals” and “provisions related to California’s drought crisis, to remedy wildfire funding challenges, and to improve forest management.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/309312-speakers-office-no-energy-bill-this-year
-
Ebell Offers Energy And Environment Agenda To Next Congress
Dec 8, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Hannah Hess
Senate leaders would schedule a ratification vote on the Paris climate agreement to set the stage for withdrawal from the deal if they follow an agenda released today by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Other recommendations include defunding the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and amending the Clean Air Act to clarify that it never delegated to U.S. EPA the authority to make climate policy.
The 25-page energy and environment portion of the free-market think tank's "pro-growth" proposal for the 115th Congress cites longtime climate change skeptic Myron Ebell, whom President-elect Donald Trump tapped to lead his EPA transition team, as the chief expert behind the plan.
However, recent analysis suggests it would be tricky for Trump or Republicans on Capitol Hill to follow all of Ebell's advice.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) maintains the Paris Agreement is an executive agreement. Because it entered into force on Nov. 4, 2016, Trump would not have the right to withdraw from the deal until Nov. 4, 2019, under Article 28 of the agreement.
Congressional researchers noted this week that any party that withdraws from the UNFCCC would also be considered to have withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, under the same clause. The fact that the UNFCCC was approved by the Senate "makes the withdrawal procedure under domestic law less straightforward," CRS stated, and potentially subject to a legal challenge if Trump acts unilaterally.
Trump would likely need the approval of two-thirds of the Senate to do so, according to CRS.
The think tank also encourages lawmakers to reject legislation intended to enact a carbon tax, saying it is "a market-rigging policy, not a free market one."
CEI is supportive of Republican attempts to prohibit agencies from using the social cost of carbon in rulemaking. Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) this week introduced a bill that would bar the Department of Energy and EPA from using the government's social cost of carbon, methane, nitrous oxide or any other greenhouse gas in any action (E&E News PM, Dec. 7).
The report says climate change mitigation policies "pose serious risks to American prosperity, competitiveness, and living standards."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/12/08/stories/1060046850
-
Energy Department Leading Federal Grid Cyberattack Strategy
Dec 8, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Energy Department will take a lead role in ordering actions in response to grid security emergencies, like cyber and physical attacks on the electric grid, according to a proposed rule from the agency.
The proposed rule (RIN:1901–AB40), published Dec. 7, authorizes the energy secretary to order emergency measures after the president declares a grid security emergency, particularly with the increasing attention to the impact that a large cyberattack on the nation's grid could have on electric reliability.
“Both the current and incoming administrations face the same daunting cybersecurity threats,” Jed Davis, partner in New York at Day Pitney LLP, which focuses on cybersecurity issues, told Bloomberg BNA.
The goal of the energy secretary's emergency order capability would be to help prevent or eliminate threats to reliability as quickly as possible.
President-elect Donald Trump has identified cyberattacks as a priority for his administration. His transition team website says his administration “will review and minimize our nation's infrastructure vulnerabilities to cyber threats.”
The proposal implements provisions from the December 2015 Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which provided long-term funding for transportation infrastructure planning and investment. However the law directed the Energy Department to issue the rule within about six months of the its issuance last December, and thus this release is six months late.
Davis said this rule goes beyond just implementing the new authority under the FAST Act.
“The regulation is consistent with an overall effort by this administration to prepare the country for cyber events, and to put government in a better position to respond, not just with its own resources, but also to coordinate better with industry in the event these challenges arise,” he said.
The rule implements a provision that was added to the existing Federal Power Act via the FAST Act, which defines a grid security emergency as: a physical attack; cyberattack; an electromagnetic pulse—one or more pulses of electromagnetic energy by a device capable of destroying or disrupting hardware or software; or a geomagnetic storm—a disturbance of the Earth's magnetic field resulting from a solar storm, which could damage electricity infrastructure or the reliability of the grid.
The emergency order would last for 15 days, with the option of extending the time period.
Implications for Utility Industry
The rule elaborates on a provision in the FAST Act that enables utility companies to go to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to seek cost recovery for operating during a grid security emergency.
It also enables companies affected by emergency orders from being held liable for what would otherwise be violations of the Federal Power Act or existing reliability standards, except in cases of gross negligence.
“What's also important to industry is that putting this procedure in place at DOE does elevate and give a more coordinated plan for addressing cybersecurity,” Brooksany Barrowes, partner in Washington, D.C., at Baker Botts whose practice covers FERC and energy regulations, told Bloomberg BNA.
Temporary Access to Classified Information
The rule would also enable the energy secretary to give temporary access to key personnel of any entity subject to such emergency measures. The intention of the temporary access is to “enable optimum communication” between the affected entity (typically utilities and grid operators), the energy secretary and other appropriate federal agencies involved in the grid emergency, the proposal says.
“Often getting somebody access to classified information is not simple,” Doug Henkin, a partner at Baker Botts LLP in New York who focuses on cybersecurity issues, told Bloomberg BNA. “So for there to be an express provision that gives temporary access to classified information for the purpose of addressing one of these orders, that's important because that's designed to make this function much more effectively.”
Progress Under Trump
Henkin noted that cybersecurity was one of the first topics that Trump identified as a priority after being elected. “So I wouldn't expect an impact on this other than perhaps elevating it,” he said.
Barrowes agreed, saying, “My expectation would be that cybersecurity remains at the forefront, and this procedure would not change very much.”
Public comments on the proposed rule are due Feb. 6, 2017.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101492710&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101492710&jd=101492710
-
Trump Names Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma Attorney General Suing EPA On Climate Change, To Head The EPA
Dec 8, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Chris Mooney, Brady Dennis and Steven Mufson
President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday nominated Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of the oil and gas-intensive state of Oklahoma, to head the Environmental Protection Agency, a move signaling an assault on President Obama’s climate change and environmental legacy.
Pruitt has spent much of his energy as attorney general fighting the very agency he is being nominated to lead.
He is the third of Trump’s nominees who have key philosophical differences with the missions of the agencies they have been tapped to run. Ben Carson, named to head the Department of Housing and Urban Development, has expressed a deep aversion to the social safety net programs and fair housing initiatives that have been central to that agency’s activities. Betsy DeVos, named education secretary, has a passion for private school vouchers that critics say undercut the public school systems at the core of the government’s mission.
Trump’s transition team announced the nomination in a news release Thursday, calling Pruitt “an expert in Constitutional law” and saying he “brings a deep understanding of the impact of regulations on both the environment and the economy.”
“For too long, the Environmental Protection Agency has spent taxpayer dollars on an out-of-control anti-energy agenda that has destroyed millions of jobs, while also undermining our incredible farmers and many other businesses and industries at every turn,” the release quoted Trump as saying. He said Pruitt “will reverse this trend and restore the EPA’s essential mission of keeping our air and our water clean and safe.” Trump added, “My administration “strongly believes in environmental protection, and Scott Pruitt will be a powerful advocate for that mission while promoting jobs, safety and opportunity.”
Pruitt was quoted as saying: “The American people are tired of seeing billions of dollars drained from our economy due to unnecessary EPA regulations, and I intend to run this agency in a way that fosters both responsible protection of the environment and freedom for American businesses.”
Pruitt, who has written that the debate on climate change is “far from settled,” joined a coalition of state attorneys general in suing the agency’s Clean Power Plan, the principal Obama-era policy aimed at reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector. He has also sued, with fellow state attorneys general, over the EPA’s recently announced regulations seeking to curtail the emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from the oil and gas sector.
On his Linked In page, Pruitt boasts of being “a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda.”
After he was elected attorney general in 2010, Pruitt established a “Federalism Unit” to “more effectively combat unwarranted regulation and systematic overreach by federal agencies, boards and offices,” according to his online biography.
And he has gone on to challenge the administration not just over the environment but over a host of other areas. He joined other Republican attorneys general in a lawsuit over Obama’s immigration policies. He has also sued the administration over the Affordable Care Act, saying the health-care mandate on religious employers to provide coverage including contraception was unconstitutional. He has sued over the Dodd-Frank financial reform.
An ally of the energy industry, Pruitt, along with Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange, came to the defense of ExxonMobil when it fell under investigation by attorneys general from more liberal states seeking information about whether the oil giant failed to disclose material information about climate change.
“We do not doubt the sincerity of the beliefs of our fellow attorneys general about climate change and the role human activity plays in it,” they wrote at the conservative publication National Review. “But we call upon them to press those beliefs through debate, not through governmental intimidation of those who disagree with them.”
In an interview with The Post in September, as a D.C. federal appeals court was preparing to hear arguments over the Clean Power Plan, Pruitt detailed why he has remained a leading opponent of the EPA’s efforts to curb carbon emissions by regulating power plants.
“What concerns the states is the process, the procedures, the authority that the EPA is exerting that we think is entirely inconsistent with its constitutional and statutory authority,” he said at the time.
Agencies such as the EPA, he said, should not be trying to “pinch hit” for Congress.
“This is a unique approach by EPA, whether they want to acknowledge it or not,” he said of the provisions of the Clean Air Act that the agency had relied upon to write new regulations. “The overreach is the statutes do not permit [EPA officials] to act in the way they are. They tend to have this approach that the end justifies the means . . . They tend to justify it by saying this big issue, this is an important issue.”
But he added that’s where Congress should have authority, not EPA. “This is something from a constitutional and statutory perspective that causes great concern.”
Environmental groups reacted with alarm Wednesday at the nomination. And New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman vowed to “use the full power” of his office to wage a legal battle to “compel” enforcement of environmental laws under Trump.
“Scott Pruitt has a record of attacking the environmental protections that EPA is charged with enforcing. He has built his political career by trying to undermine EPA’s mission of environmental protection,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund. “Our country needs — and deserves — an EPA administrator who is guided by science, who respects America’s environmental laws, and who values protecting the health and safety of all Americans ahead of the lobbying agenda of special interests.”
Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that “over the past five years, Pruitt has used his position as Oklahoma’s top prosecutor to sue the EPA in a series of attempts to deny Americans the benefits of reducing mercury, arsenic, and other toxins from the air we breathe; cutting smog that can cause asthma attacks; and protecting our wetlands and streams.”
Pruitt has also fought to limit the scope of the federal government in regulating pollution of rivers under the Waters of the United States rule.
Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who has been active on environmental issues, said, “Scott Pruitt would have EPA stand for Every Polluter’s Ally.”
In 2014, the New York Times reported that a letter ostensibly written by Pruitt alleging that the agency overestimated air pollution from natural gas drilling was actually written by lawyers for Devon Energy, one of the state’s largest oil and gas companies.
Industry representatives expressed satisfaction with the choice Wednesday. “The office he headed was present and accounted for in the battle to keep EPA faithful to its statutory authority and respectful of the role of the states in our system of cooperative federalism,” said Scott Segal, head of the policy group at the lobbying and legal firm Bracewell. “Given that we are almost two decades overdue for an overhaul of the Clean Air Act, there is interest on both sides of the aisle to look at that statute.”
David Rivkin, a constitutional litigator who represented Pruitt and Oklahoma in challenging the Clean Power Plan, said he believed Pruitt would be able to make sure the EPA lives up to its mission of protecting air and water while avoiding federal overreach.
“General Pruitt has been the leader among the AGs in defending federalism, the key feature of our constitutional architecture,” said Rivkin, a partner at Baker Hostetler, adding that he believed Pruitt would “ensure both environmental protection and constitutional fidelity.”
Pruitt’s outlook reflects his home state: Oklahoma ranked fifth in the nation in onshore crude oil output in 2014, has five oil refineries, and is home to the giant Cushing oil storage and trading hub, where the price for the benchmark West Texas Intermediate grade is set every day. Although oil and natural gas production sagged in the 1990s and early 2000s, the surge in horizontal fracturing, or fracking, has boosted output.
The state’s natural gas output accounts for 10 percent of the nation’s overall total. For the week ended Oct. 28, there were 73 drilling rigs in operation in Oklahoma.
Pruitt has served as head of the Republican Attorneys General Association, a group that has relied heavily on funds from ultraconservative groups and the oil industry. The biggest contributors this year included the Judicial Crisis Network, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute of Legal Reform, Sheldon Adelson, oil conglomerate Koch Industries and Murray Energy, a leading coal mining company.
Pruitt, a Kentucky native who moved to Oklahoma to attend the University of Tulsa law school, has also been active in religious groups. He serves as deacon of the First Baptist Church of Broken Arrow. In 2012, Pruitt was named a trustee of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Before serving as attorney general, he was a member of the state legislature.
Dallas investor Doug Deason, a friend of Pruitt, said he expects the Oklahoma attorney general to immediately get to work rolling back the EPA’s “silly overreach” and to let states handle environmental oversight.
“Just like most Republican attorney generals, especially in energy-producing states, he has been really frustrated with the government and the EPA’s overreach into everything,” Deason said.
But Deason said liberals will be happily surprised by Pruitt’s “open-minded” attitude, adding that he is “willing to look at things.”
“He will bring a more balanced, logical look” at environmental regulation,” he said.
Pruitt’s selection was strongly supported by Oklahoma oil billionaire Harold Hamm.
The nomination suggests an extraordinarily tough road ahead for the Clean Power Plan, president Obama’s signature climate policy. However, the precise fate of the regulation most immediately turns on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which has not yet ruled in the lawsuit brought by Pruitt and his fellow attorneys general against the agency Pruitt is now named to lead.
“Some have suggested that Pruitt’s hands might be tied because he participated in litigation against the agency,” Segal said in an email. “This is a silly position. There is no conflict in representing your state on litigation dealing with rules of general applicability and then serving your nation as a federal official.”
Dismantling the regulation if it survives the courts would not be simple, because the agency has already finalized it — meaning that to undo and replace it would require a public notice and comment process. Environmental groups would likely sue the agency over such a move.
However, some of the Clean Power Plan’s objectives appear to have been already realized long before it came into effect. The United States is already burning less coal and more natural gas, meaning fewer carbon dioxide emissions.
In 2030, the EPA projected in its final Clean Power Plan rule, coal would be reduced to providing 27 percent of U.S. electricity, with natural gas at 33 percent. Yet this very year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, natural gas will provide 34 percent of U.S. electricity, and coal 30 percent.
Matea Gold and William Branigin contributed to this report.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/07/trump-names-scott-pruitt-oklahoma-attorney-general-suing-epa-on-climate-change-to-head-the-epa/?utm_term=.d78e8c154025
-
Trump's Pick Of Pruitt For EPA Chief Signals Dismantling Of Climate Rules
Dec 7, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
President-elect Donald Trump's imminent announcement that he plans to nominate Oklahoma Attorney General (AG) Scott Pruitt (R) to head EPA is signaling the agency will work to swiftly dismantle the Obama administration's climate and other rules, prompting an outcry from environmentalists and Capitol Hill Democrats but praise from Republicans and industry.
As Inside EPA first reported, Trump chose Pruitt, a Beltway outsider, to lead the agency but he has not formally announced the pick. He will name his EPA nominee at the same time he announces his selections to head the departments of Energy and Interior, a source says.
Pruitt, whose spokesman did not respond to a request for comment, has a reputation as being a fierce litigator over EPA rules, and has expressed pride over his efforts to undercut the agency's regulatory reach. He has also questioned climate change science, and because of this -- as well as his ongoing litigation against the agency -- is expected to face a heated confirmation battle in the Senate, though Republicans have the votes to confirm him.
Incoming Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) is already suggesting that Democrats will make an issue of whether Pruitt accepts mainstream climate science. He noted in a statement that Pruitt's “reluctance to accept the facts or science on climate change couldn't make him any more out of touch with the American people -- and with reality.” He added that his selection “only tightens” the special interest grip on Washington that Trump promised to break, and said Pruitt will have to “answer many tough questions” in his nomination process.
Also billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer urged the Senate “to stand on the right side of history and fight for our families by defeating this nomination.”
Democrats and environmentalists are also underscoring Pruitt's work with fossil fuel groups and other Republican AGs targeting EPA rules. Fred Krupp of Environmental Defense Fund cited a 2014 New York Times report about a Pruitt-led “unprecedented, secretive alliance” with large energy companies to attack clean air rules that said Pruitt sent letters to senior federal officials that were actually drafted by industry lawyers. Krupp argued that “is not the leadership America needs.”
One source familiar with the Trump transition team debate over EPA says that Pruitt “somehow emerged from the scrum” of top contenders that also included former Texas environment regulator Kathleen Hartnett White. Both met with Trump Dec. 4 at Trump Tower in New York. Pruitt went back Dec. 7 for a second meeting. Former George W. Bush EPA air chief Jeff Holmstead was also considered a top choice, though he was interviewed not by Trump but by surrogate billionaire adviser Carl Icahn.
But this source says “things seemed to shift last week, perhaps indicting that the Trump Tower interviews had a part. Otherwise, Pruitt's legal background obviously would be beneficial, given the number of rules and regulations in litigation.”
News of the selection comes days after the president-elect and his daughter Ivanka Trump met with climate change advocate and former Vice President Al Gore, who offered a positive post-meeting message, giving a glimmer of hope to climate advocates that Trump might have an “open mind” on the issue, as he told the New York Times last month.
But his selection of Pruitt suggests that he is still staunchly in favor of rolling back climate regulations -- in line with his campaign stance that climate change is a “hoax.”
Legal Thorn
Pruitt has long been a legal thorn in the Obama EPA's side. “The judicial process is the right way to go," he told Inside EPA in a November 2013 interview. He cited several lawsuits that he was involved in against EPA that would allow states to “enforce the right granted to them by statute and to scale back EPA's aggressive view of what they think their role is.”
At the time, Pruitt praised the Supreme Court's decision to review a lawsuit Oklahoma and other states brought over EPA's GHG permitting program -- which resulted in a ruling that curbed the program and also underscored a legal theory regarding “transformative” rules that critics are seeking to apply in litigation over EPA's power plant GHG rule.
Other actions Pruitt has participated in targeted EPA's regional haze plan for Oklahoma, as well as its alleged “sue-and-settle” strategy, in which environmentalists file lawsuits charging that EPA has a mandatory duty to take some regulatory action, resulting in a settlement with a court-enforced deadline. Pruitt also participated in litigation with other states challenging EPA's Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule.
Additionally, he filed novel litigation in federal district court in Oklahoma over the proposed version of EPA's power plant GHG rule, known as the existing source performance standards (ESPS) -- highlighting his extreme opposition to the policy.
That failed suit -- as well as similar ones brought by other states and coal firms -- underscored states' opposition to the ESPS and likely played a role in the high court's unprecedented February decision to stay the rule even before a lower court had ruled on the merits of challenges.
West Virginia AG Patrick Morrisey (R) praised Pruitt's nomination to head the agency. The two are companions in many suits over EPA rules, and Morrisey called Pruitt “a steadfast partner with West Virginia in our job-saving efforts to defeat the Obama EPA's Clean Power Plan, New Source Performance Standards, the Waters of the United States rule and rules targeting oil and gas jobs. I am confident the Mountain State will have a friend in Scott Pruitt, a leader who shares President-Elect Trump's pledge to eliminate the burdensome, job-killing regulations brought on by eight years of unlawful overreach.”
But New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) is already vowing to file suit if Pruitt fails to adequately address climate change and enforce federal environmental laws. “If the EPA under Scott Pruitt fails to uphold our nation’s environmental laws, I stand ready to use the full power of my office to compel their enforcement by the agency. As New York’s top law enforcement officer, I am proud to be leading a coalition of states that is already aggressively fighting back against efforts to reverse the progress this country has made in combating climate change over the past eight years,” he said.
Also, while some critics have suggested that Pruitt's nomination might be curtailed because of his litigation against EPA, industry attorney Scott Segal dismissed the concern. Suggestions that Pruitt's “hands might be tied because he participated in litigation against the Agency . . . is a silly position,” he said, noting that almost every state is involved in litigation over the power plant GHG rules -- either in support or opposition -- and that current Administrator Gina McCarthy sued EPA when she was a Connecticut state official.
Segal, who works with Holmstead, called Pruitt “a measured and articulate student of environmental law and policy. The office he headed was present and accounted for in the battle to keep EPA faithful to its statutory authority and respectful of the role of the states.” Segal also suggested the need for “an overhaul of the Clean Air Act” that Pruitt could help shepherd.
'Remains To Be Seen'
James Rubin, a former Department of Justice environment division official, said in a statement that Pruitt's nomination “will certainly raise alarms for environmental advocates and please foes of federal carbon regulation.” But he said “it remains to be seen what his policies and perspectives are on the myriad of issues related to human health and the environment that Congress has tasked EPA with handling.”
But Craig Richardson, president of the free-market Energy & Environmental Legal Institute (EELI) said the group is “delighted” with Pruitt's nomination because he has “led the charge in recent years to confront head on the enormous federal regulatory overreach proposed by the EPA.”
Richardson added that it is “reassuring” Trump has chosen someone from a state so important to energy production. He also said Pruitt should “gear up for battle, since draining the EPA swamp will be met with the utmost resistance from an entrenched and well-funded green industrial complex.” He also urged Pruitt to pick a deputy administrator with significant EPA experience who can protect Trump's policies “from a hostile agency staff.”
One EPA source calls Pruitt's selection “scary” and says it is unclear what he “really believes in terms of environmental protection.” The source wants information on the Trump administration plans for more than 25 environmental statutes, arguing that many of these authorities cannot be given to states without adequate funding. The source also questions whether any moderate Republicans will “turn out” to help the agency do its job.
Meanwhile, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers -- which recently blasted an 11th-hour Obama EPA proposal to retain its vehicle GHG standards through 2025 -- said it looks forward to working with Pruitt “to help ensure that the [review] process for fuel economy and greenhouse gases is completed thoroughly and with close attention to achieving a balanced outcome.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trumps-pick-pruitt-epa-chief-signals-dismantling-climate-rules
-
Senate Bill Would Bar Social Cost Of Carbon In Rules
Dec 7, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) yesterday introduced a bill to target the federal government's estimate of the social cost of greenhouse gases.
The legislation, S. 3508, would bar the Department of Energy and U.S. EPA from using the government's social cost of carbon, methane, nitrous oxide or any other greenhouse gas in any action.
It marks the latest salvo in an ongoing GOP battle against the estimates developed by the Obama administration to monetize the incremental environmental damage of adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
Earlier this year, Lankford and Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), the outgoing chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, wrote to the White House Office of Management and Budget demanding answers about how EPA arrived at its 2015 estimate of $36 per metric ton of CO2 (Greenwire, April 15).
Language in the bill alleges that use of the estimates in rulemakings without an opportunity for public notice and comment "violates scientific peer review requirements" and President Obama's stated commitment to transparent and open government.
"With more transparency comes more efficiency and accountability," Lankford said today in a statement.
"American taxpayers deserve a government that enacts efficient environment policy, and this legislation helps to point us in that direction," he added.
It is similar to H.R. 5668, introduced by Rep. Evan Jenkins (R-W.Va.) this summer (Greenwire, July 8).
Supporters have suggested that President-elect Donald Trump could try to attack the calculations as a means of unraveling the Obama administration's climate agenda (Greenwire, Nov. 11). Since 2008, the social cost of carbon has been used in more than 150 federal regulatory actions at various dollar amounts.Dems call for clean energy revolution
Democratic senators sent their own message on climate today by introducing a resolutioncalling for generating 100 percent of the electricity consumed in the United States from clean and renewable energy resources by 2050.
Sens. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Jeff Merkley of Oregon are leading the effort to frame the energy transition in terms of jobs.
The legislation points to the expansion of wind and solar electric generating capacity over the last decade, noting that by the end of 2016, the solar industry is projected to employ 310,000 people and the wind industry will employ 88,000.
"The question is no longer if we can power our country with 100 percent renewable energy; it's when and how we will make the transition," Markey said.
More than half of all new electric capacity added in the world in 2015 was renewable. The nation is projected to add more electric generating capacity from solar and wind than from any other source in 2016, the senators note.
Merkley said the resolution sends a message to Senate colleagues: "It's time to get serious about our climate efforts with big, bold and rapid moves to accelerate the clean energy economy."
Co-sponsors of the resolution include Sens. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii).
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/12/07/stories/1060046824
-
Obama's Climate Rules Are Safer Than They Seem
Dec 8, 2016 | Bloomberg View
By Cass R. Sunstein
Those who support aggressive action to reduce greenhouse gases fear that the Donald Trump administration will undo all or most of President Barack Obama’s climate change initiatives. But those fears are probably unwarranted.
A good guess, based on a close look at the regulations that matter most, is that the Obama administration’s work on climate is more secure than most people realize; for the most part, Trump is unlikely to revisit it. (Disclosure: As administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs from 2009 to 2012, I had some involvement with most of these initiatives.)
As Trump’s transition team investigates which regulations he might reverse (and how much effort it will require), here’s what it’s likely to discover.
1: The endangerment finding. In 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency started the process for using the Clean Air Act to address climate change by making an unambiguous scientific finding: Greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. A new EPA administrator could reassess some of the details -- but in light of the law and the current science, it would be exceedingly difficult to overturn the finding itself. Any reversal would be unlikely to stand up in court.
Odds of surviving: Excellent.
2: Fuel economy standards for light-duty vehicles. Some of the most important climate change initiatives come from reducing the carbon emitted by light-duty vehicles, a program run jointly by the EPA and the Department of Transportation.
The first set of rules in that program, for the period between 2012 and 2016, is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 960 million metric tons over the lifetime of the vehicles sold during that time. A second set, governing 2017 through 2025, is expected to reduce emissions by a whopping 2 billion tons -- cutting oil consumption by about 4 billion barrels in the process. While the rules aren’t cheap, their benefits will exceed their costs by billions of dollars each year.
It would make little sense for the Trump administration to junk those standards, or even to make fundamental changes. The Clean Air Act requires some kind of action, and if the federal government backs off, California’s regulators will step up, and possibly move the national market even more aggressively than the Obama administration has.
There is a qualification: The Obama administration recently completed a technical review of its 2017-2025 program, proposing to keep the aggressive targets in place. The automobile companies, which have generally accepted the fuel economy program, have been more critical about the EPA's latest proposal. The new administration may want to weaken those targets -- but in view of the technical nature of the underlying findings, and the risk that any change will be struck down in court, it probably won’t make major revisions.
Odds of surviving: For the program in general, excellent; for the most recent targets, uncertain.
3: Fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles. In 2011, the EPA and DOT finalized the first-ever rule to regulate emissions from heavy-duty vehicles, such as combination tractors, school and transit buses, and utility service trucks. Covering model years 2014-2018, the rule is estimated to reduce carbon emissions by about 270 million tons. In 2016, the two agencies produced new regulations for heavy-duty vehicles for vehicles built through 2027; it is expected to lower emissions by as much as 1.1 billion tons.
There’s no point in the Trump administration revisiting the 2011 rule, which has already had its major effects. But the 2016 initiative will be subject to heavy scrutiny from both Congress and the new EPA head, because it will impose significant costs on the private sector. It’s doubtful, though, that Congress will have the votes to eliminate the rule, and it would take a lot of time and effort for the EPA to do so.
Odds of surviving: For the 2011 rule, excellent. For the 2016 rule, uncertain (but probably more likely than not to survive without fundamental changes).
4: Energy efficiency standards. The Department of Energy has issued more than forty energy efficiency regulations, governing refrigerators, clothes washers, small motors, clothes driers, microwave ovens and more. This may be the least visible part of the Obama administration’s effort to combat climate change, but it has had large consequences.
In 2015, for example, DOE issued energy conservation standards for air conditioning and heating equipment, and also for commercial warm air furnaces. By itself, that rule is expected to cut carbon emissions by as much as 885 million tons. The total emissions reductions from DOE initiatives are almost certainly in excess of 1.5 billion tons -- and for all of them, the benefits are far greater than the costs.
Energy efficiency standards are mandated by law; they also come from a consensus process, in which companies work closely with DOE to decide what kinds of standards are technologically feasible and economically justified. So it’s highly unlikely that the Trump administration will rescind or even alter them.
Odds of surviving: Excellent.
5: The Clean Power Plan. In the view of the public and of the Republican Party, this is the Obama administration’s most prominent effort to address climate change. The EPA estimated that by 2030, this rule would eliminate 870 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions -- and that the benefits (including substantial health gains) would be far higher than the costs.
If Trump wants to scrap the Clean Power Plan -- and it’s the most obvious target -- there may well be an avenue for doing that. The plan is now under challenge in federal court; his administration could ask the court to dismiss the case on the grounds that it will be reevaluating the rule. Trump’s EPA could then rescind the rule and say it’s considering other options.
But this approach is less straightforward than it seems. First, eliminating the rule would itself be subject to legal challenge; it would have to be shown to be reasonable in terms of both science and economics. Second, the Clean Air Act appears to require some regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from existing plans; the EPA can’t simply ignore the problem.
Odds of surviving: Uncertain.
Of course, predictions about what Trump will or won’t do are necessarily speculative. But with respect to climate change, critics of the Obama administration may be in for a surprise: There’s a whole lot that won’t be easy to eliminate -- or worth the trouble to try.(Corrects number of tons of carbon in 18th paragraph.)
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-07/obama-s-climate-rules-are-safer-than-they-seem
Industry and Association News
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