Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/9/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC: US Chemical Industry Continues to Outpace Industrial Output
Dec 9, 2016 | Hydrocarbon Processing
The business of American chemistry is strong, and getting stronger, according to the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) “Year End 2016 Chemical Industry Situation and Outlook,” released today. -
(ACC Mentioned) Zacks Industry Outlook Highlights: Dow Chemical, DuPont, Albemarle, FMC and Westlake Chemical
Dec 9, 2016 | Nasdaq
By Zacks Equity Research
The chemical industry's recovery remains on track amid a still-fragile global economic environment. The industry's recovery is supported by healthy demand across automotive and construction markets. -
Concerns Mount Over TSCA New Chemical Reviews Ahead of EPA Meeting
Dec 9, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Chemical makers are stepping up their concerns over EPA’s implementation of provisions in the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) over how to assess the safety of new chemicals, warning ahead of an EPA meeting to seek input on the provisions that they could lead to delays in reviews and increase burdens on industry. -
US EPA Solicits Input on Science Advisory Committee Nominees
Dec 9, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is seeking comment on 29 candidates under consideration for appointment to the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC). -
Recent Reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act – What You Need to Know and Steps You Can Take
Dec 9, 2016 | National Law Review
By John L. Clancy & Daniel C.W. Narvey
On June 22, 2016, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Act) was signed into law by President Obama. The Act was the first significant reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) since enacted in 1976. -
(ACC Mentioned) Ebell-Linked Website Bashes Rachel Carson, Promotes DDT
Dec 9, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
A website organized by the libertarian think tank that employs President-elect Donald Trump's U.S. EPA transition leader takes issue with an icon of the environmental movement — the late biologist, conservationist and author Rachel Carson. -
California Offers Guidance on Prop 65 BPA Reporting
Dec 9, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has published a Q&A addressing the new reporting requirements under its Proposition 65 BPA safe harbour regulation. -
US FDA Issues Draft Guidance on Infant Formula FCMs
Dec 9, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The US FDA has published draft guidance on the preparation of food contact notifications (FCNs) for infant formula and milk. -
Toxics: EPA (Finally) Publishes Formaldehyde Emissions Rule
Dec 9, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA's long-delayed formaldehyde emissions rule from composite wood products is scheduled for publication in the Federal Register Dec. 12 -- nearly five months after the agency announced its completion but whose promulgation was delayed because EPA did not complete complete a necessary technical procedure until November. -
Cosmetics for Black Women More Likely Hazardous — Study
Dec 9, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
Black women could be disproportionately affected by toxic chemicals in cosmetic products, a report from the Environmental Working Group warned this week. -
House Speaker's Office Reportedly Calls Energy Bill Dead; Senators Not Pleased
Dec 8, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Two of the top proponents of an omnibus energy bill in the Senate took aim at House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) Wednesday after his office reportedly declared that lawmakers had run out of time to reach a compromise on outstanding issues in the legislation. -
Greens Lobby Moderates Against Pruitt for EPA
Dec 9, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
Democrats looking to block the confirmation of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) as U.S. EPA administrator are hoping to convince moderate Republicans to join their cause. -
Moderate Republicans Not Siding with Dems on EPA Nominee
Dec 9, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
Republican senators don't seem worried about failing Democrats' "litmus test" on Scott Pruitt. -
DOE Approves Aussie-Backed LNG Project in La.
Dec 9, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
The Energy Department granted broad export approval to a major liquefied natural gas project last week, clearing the final big federal hurdle for the project weeks before the end of the Obama administration. -
Looser Requirements for Dairies Make Slashing Methane a Tall Order
Dec 9, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
California's push to reduce greenhouse gases 40 percent by 2030 will be a steeper climb than expected due to protections for the state's largest methane emitters. -
Blizzards Hinder Cleanup of N.D. Oil Spill
Dec 9, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Winter weather is preventing cleanup of a "significant" pipeline rupture by a company with a long history of oil spills in North Dakota and Montana. -
Wash. Sues Monsanto Over PCB Pollution
Dec 9, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Washington state yesterday sued agrochemical giant Monsanto Co. for decades of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) pollution, becoming the first state in the country to do so. -
Help with PTC Implementation: Rail Supply Community Perspectives
Dec 9, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
By Jeff Stagl
There’s only about two years left for the dozens of freight and commuter railroads impacted by the Rail Safety Act of 2008 to meet the federal deadline for implementing positive train control (PTC). -
E&E News' Bravender Talks Trump EPA Pick, Future of Climate Policy
Dec 9, 2016 | E&E TV
By The Cutting Edge
Following weeks of speculation, and even a meeting with former Vice President Al Gore, President-elect Donald Trump chose Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to lead U.S. EPA this week. -
Emboldened by Pruitt Pick, Conservatives Renew Calls to Scrap GHG Finding
Dec 9, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Emboldened by President-elect Donald Trump's selection of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head EPA, conservative critics of the Obama EPA are stepping up their calls for the incoming administration to scrap the endangerment finding that underlies the agency's greenhouse gas rules and are suggesting a number of ways Trump could revoke it.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC: US Chemical Industry Continues to Outpace Industrial Output
Dec 9, 2016 | Hydrocarbon Processing
The business of American chemistry is strong, and getting stronger, according to the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) “Year End 2016 Chemical Industry Situation and Outlook,” released today. Despite a contraction this year, US chemical production (excluding pharmaceuticals) is expected to realize overall growth of 1.6% in 2016, followed by 3.6% growth next year, and 4.8% in 2018.
“American chemistry is on the move,” said Kevin Swift, chief economist of ACC and lead author of the report. “The competitive advantage the US still maintains, driven by access to affordable and abundant supplies of natural gas, continues to offset significant headwinds, including an overall drop in business investment, a rebalancing in the oil and gas sector, soft export markets, and a high dollar.”
According to the report, output gains were led by agricultural chemicals, coatings and other specialties, as well as bulk petrochemicals and organics and plastic resins, all areas aided by renewed competitiveness arising from shale gas. Advances in manufacturing and exports during 2017 and beyond will drive increased demandfor basic chemicals and improving manufacturing activity is expected to support growth for most specialty segments.
Swift also noted that production grew in every major chemical producing region in the US during 2016. Over the next five years, the most dynamic growth will occur in the Gulf Coast region, followed by the Ohio Valley and Southeast regions. In the long-term, the US chemical industry will grow faster than the overall economy, and by 2020, US chemical industry sales are expected to exceed $1 trillion.
US basic chemicals, while benefiting from the shale gas advantage, were constrained by weakness in manufacturing and export markets. With new capacity coming on stream, production volume growth will grow to 4.2 % next year and exceed 6.0 % per year during 2018-19.
In the specialties chemical segment, production will pick up and grow to 3.0 % in 2017. Performance in these sectors has continued to be dampened by oilfield and mining chemicals, but demand is expected to grow as the oil and gas sector recovers.
Most notably, according to Swift, momentum for the entire industry will continue as new capacity comes online in the next several years. As of December 2016, more than 275 new chemical production projects had been announced since 2010 with a total value of more than $170 billion, with a full 49 % already complete or under construction.
http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/news/2016/12/acc-us-chemical-industry-continues-to-outpace-industrial-output
-
Dec 9, 2016 | Nasdaq
By Zacks Equity Research
The chemical industry's recovery remains on track amid a still-fragile global economic environment. The industry's recovery is supported by healthy demand across automotive and construction markets. Notwithstanding a few industry-related headwinds, weak demand across agricultural and energy markets and sluggishness in China, there are a number of reasons to be optimistic about the broader chemical industry for both the short and long haul, which we have highlighted below:
Shale Boom - Driving Force for Chemical Investment
The shale gas revolution in the U.S. has been a huge driving force behind chemical investment on plants and equipment in the country. According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the U.S. has emerged as an attractive investment location and petrochemical makers are now significantly expanding capacity in the country leveraging new supplies of natural gas. New methods of extraction such as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (or fracking) are boosting shale production, bringing down prices of ethane (derived from shale gas) in the process.
The shale boom has incentivized a number of chemical companies to pump in billions of dollars for setting up facilities (crackers) in the U.S. to produce ethylene and propylene in a cost-effective way. Per ACC, domestic chemical investment related to shale gas has reached as high as $164 billion, more than 60% of which are from firms outside the U.S.
Already 264 projects -- many backed by the Federal government -- have been announced by chemical makers to take advantage of ample natural gas supplies, with 40% of them already complete or under construction. Such investments are expected to boost capacity and export over the next several years. The ACC expects average annual gains of more than 8% in U.S. chemical industry capital spending through 2018.
Construction Sector Gathering Steam
A recovery across housing and commercial construction -- major chemical end-markets -- has been another tailwind for the chemical industry. After being hit hard in the recession, the construction sector has bounced back on the back of strong housing fundamentals. The U.S. housing sector saw steady recovery in 2015 backed by stabilizing mortgage rates, improving job market and moderating home prices, and the momentum continues this year.
The underlying demand trends in the housing space remain strong, supported by an improving employment levels, affordable interest/mortgage rates and a rise in income levels. Recent housing data has been fairly upbeat with housing starts scaling a 9-year high in October as builders ramped up construction to meet rising demand for new homes and apartments.
The renewal of long-stalled construction projects and long awaited access to credit from lending institutions has also helped invigorate the commercial construction sector. U.S. architecture firm billings continue to rise. The US Architecture Billings Index (ABI), an indicator that offers a glimpse into the future of U.S. non-residential construction spending activity, clocked 50.8 in October 2016 (a reading above 50 indicates an increase in billings).
Moreover, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) expects healthy growth in non-residential construction spending based on strong demand for hotels, office space, manufacturing facilities and amusement and recreation spaces. The AIA sees spending to go up 5.8% in 2016 and 5.6% in 2017.
Automotive - Good Run Continues
Chemical makers continue to see healthy demand from the automotive sector -- a major end-use market. The sector is enjoying the fruits of low fuel prices.
U.S. light vehicles (a key end-user market for chemicals) sales hit all-time high of around 17.5 million units in 2015. The U.S. light vehicles market continues to show strength this year, supported by an improving job market, rising personal income, low fuel prices and attractive financing options.
A high average age of cars on the U.S. roads is also fueling replacement demand for cars. U.S. light-vehicle sales rose 3.6% year over year to 1.38 million units in November 2016, hitting a new high for the month. New car and light truck sales are expected to reach to 17.4 million units in 2016, as per The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) estimates, indicating a fairly stable market.
Low interest rates, favorable financing and cheap oil have also backed a recovery in the European auto market this year. The auto industry in Asian countries, especially China, is also expected to thrive over the next several years. According to IHS Automotive, new vehicle sales are expected to touch nearly 90 million units globally in 2016. Healthy momentum in the automotive space augurs well for chemical demand in this important end-market.
Chemical Bonding - M&A Heating Up
Chemical makers remain actively focused on mergers and acquisitions to diversify and shore up growth in a still-difficult global economic environment. The industry saw a pick-up in consolidation activities last year and the momentum continues in 2016.
Chemical companies are increasingly looking for cost synergy opportunities and enhanced operational scale through consolidations. The $130 billion proposed mega-merger of Dow Chemical (NYSE: DOW - Free Report ) and DuPont (NYSE: DD - Free Report ) -- the biggest chemical deal ever -- is a huge testimony to these strategic moves.
Other major deals that have taken place in the chemical space in the recent past include Albemarle Corp.'s (NYSE: ALB - Free Report ) $6.2 billion buyout of Rockwood Holdings, Inc., Merck KGaA's $17 billion acquisition of Sigma-Aldrich, and FMC Corp.'s (NYSE: FMC - Free Report ) acquisition of Cheminova A/S, Westlake Chemical's (NYSE: WLK - Free Report ) $3.8 billion acquisition of Axiall Corp.
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/zacks-industry-outlook-highlights-dow-chemical-dupont-albemarle-fmc-and-westlake-chemical-cm719353#ixzz4SMfnQ5Zd
-
Concerns Mount Over TSCA New Chemical Reviews Ahead of EPA Meeting
Dec 9, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Chemical makers are stepping up their concerns over EPA’s implementation of provisions in the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) over how to assess the safety of new chemicals, warning ahead of an EPA meeting to seek input on the provisions that they could lead to delays in reviews and increase burdens on industry.
“There are multiple issues and concerns” one industry source says, noting that the review process for new chemicals is “much longer, and the lack of a discernible process is unsettling, particularly with respect to business planning” -- and stakeholders could potentially raise some of these issues at the Dec. 14 meeting in Washington, D.C.
Jim Jones, head of Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), recently said one of the significant hurdles that may be slowing implementation is the law’s new language that requires the agency to assess a new chemical’s “reasonably foreseeable” uses in addition to the intended uses of the manufacturer.
EPA recently announced next week’s meeting to update the public on changes the reform law made to the new chemicals review program under section 5 of the chemical safety law. “EPA will describe its review process for new chemicals under the amended statute, as well as discuss issues, challenges, and opportunities that the Agency has identified in the first few months of implementation,” EPA said in a Nov. 16 press release.
EPA is hosting the meeting for the chemical industry and other stakeholders a chance to weigh in on several mandates under the revised TSCA, including submission of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs), microbial commercial activities notices (MCANs), and significant new use notices (SNUNs), under section 5 of the law.
But the industry source says that, ahead of the meeting, it is “unclear” how EPA’s OSCPP is implementing the new requirements, and that EPA’s implementation seems to be “yielding both delay (which is understandable) and many more [significant new use rules] SNURs, which in some cases is not understandable.”
Under the TSCA overhaul, which took effect June 22, section 5 now requires EPA to review all new chemicals and make an affirmative finding on each substance’s safety before the chemical may be sold. The agency may find that the chemical is not likely to present a significant risk; it may find that there is “insufficient information” to make a safety determination; or it may find that it will or may present an unreasonable risk.
Regulatory options include a consent order with testing mandates, limits on some releases, or other provisions. Another option is a SNUR to “require notice to EPA before chemical substances and mixtures are used in new ways that might create concerns.”
Under section 5 of the original 1976 TSCA, EPA did not have to issue findings on the safety of new chemicals entering the marketplace, although it had power to do so. A company could under the prior TSCA begin manufacturing and sales of a new chemical after 90 days barring an EPA finding that the chemical “may present an unreasonable risk,” but the agency was not required to make an affirmative finding of safety for a substance to be used in commerce.
Section 5 Backlog
EPA is currently facing a considerable backlog of section 5 reviews under the new law, having issued roughly two dozen final regulatory determinations as of press time but wading through several hundred additional submissions, including those that were in interim stages when the new law took effect, thus resetting the 90-day review period.
“It’s very concerning, actually,” a second industry official says, noting that “since enactment, there have been many reports of increased delays in getting chemicals to market, and chemicals that do have decisions seem to be getting regulated under consent orders.”
That source acknowledges that EPA has been trying to address the backlog, doubling up on the number of meetings in which staff conducts the reviews.
But the source adds, “I’d say there is still time to get on track, but I’m concerned about the direction its heading.” While there are clearly resource issues at play in addressing the backlog, the source says, “EPA should be reminded that despite the affirmative finding requirement, many aspects have not changed at all” in the section 5 program.
EPA’s Jones told a Nov. 1 panel, “TSCA Then and Now: Impact of Chemical Regulation,” hosted by the firm Akin Gump that there are also roughly 150 chemicals in the “middle category” in the interim stages of review, in which they may present an unreasonable risk or there is insufficient information to reach a determination.
“We’re working through how to move forward with the rather large universe of submissions,” Jones said.
Previously, EPA allowed chemicals to enter the market after a 90-day review period lapsed based on their intended use, then later issued a SNUR if necessary to restrict other possible uses.
'Reasonably Foreseeable'
“Now, however, the finding we need to make is not only for intended use for reasonably foreseeable, so ultimately, we’re likely to be writing orders that restrict you from the get go to anything other” than the manufacturer’s intended use absent a safety finding for all reasonably foreseeable uses, Jones said.
“That’s a pretty significant change,” and is “creating a fair amount of, first I would say, confusion,” Jones said, adding that industry had expressed some concerns about the review process, and that “the more of these we do, the more it will become clear.”
But the second industry source notes that EPA has always considered some form of the reasonably foreseeable analysis when reviewing PMNs, and addressed them through SNURs rather than section 5(e) consent orders, saying the requirements should not mean a drastic change from the agency’s longstanding practice.
“Industry is saying, ‘whoa, whoa, EPA, this is way beyond what we expected’” for the revised section 5 program, a third source says. The revisions to the program were not expected to be major, given that the bulk of concerns with previous TSCA stemmed from existing chemical provisions, not the new chemicals provisions.
Similarly, the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates says in a Nov. 7 letter to Wendy Cleland Hamnett, principal deputy assistant administrator for EPA’s toxics office, “Given Congress’s decision to retain the principal features of Section 5, there is great hope among the regulated community that the EPA’s new chemicals program will be able to maintain this level of productivity.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/concerns-mount-over-tsca-new-chemical-reviews-ahead-epa-meeting
-
US EPA Solicits Input on Science Advisory Committee Nominees
Dec 9, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA is seeking comment on 29 candidates under consideration for appointment to the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC).
Establishment of the SACC is a requirement of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act. It will provide advice and recommendations on the scientific basis for risk assessments, methodologies, and pollution prevention measures or approaches under the new TSCA.
In a Federal Register notice, the EPA says it had approximately 100 nominees in response to its 26 August call for candidates. It has narrowed these down to the current slate by considering criteria such as:
interest and availability to take part in committee meetings;
absence of financial conflicts of interest, or of the appearance of a loss of impartiality;
scientific expertise, and
backgrounds and experiences that would contribute to the diversity of scientific viewpoints on the committee. These include professional experiences in government, labour, public health, public interest, animal protection, industry or other groups.
The candidates include nine who are existing members of the Chemical Safety Advisory Committee (CSAC).
The nominees are:
[image available at link]
The EPA says it will accept comments until 9 January.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51587/us-epa-solicits-input-on-science-advisory-committee-nominees
-
Recent Reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act – What You Need to Know and Steps You Can Take
Dec 9, 2016 | National Law Review
By John L. Clancy & Daniel C.W. Narvey
On June 22, 2016, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Act) was signed into law by President Obama. The Act was the first significant reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) since enacted in 1976. The Act primarily affects chemical manufacturers and processors, but it will also impact downstream businesses - companies that use, import or export, or sell products containing chemicals.
The Act lowers the burden for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate chemicals that it finds pose a risk to health, requires the EPA to approve new chemicals before they hit the marketplace, and puts limits on new chemical legislation by states. While the full consequences of the Act will take time to discern as it is implemented and interpreted, there are some immediate steps all affected companies should take:
Consider seeking preemptive EPA safety review of chemicals you manufacture
Review your processes for protecting confidential business information (CBI), and review your prior submissions of CBI to the EPA
Take stock of all chemicals manufactured or processed in last the 10 years in preparation for new reporting requirement
Take a more proactive role in determining the chemicals you use and make contingency plans for possible restrictions
Companies should also prepare for slower speed to market of new chemicals and prepare to provide safety information to the EPA for all new chemicals before they go on the market.
Overview of the Act
Since its enactment in 1976, the TSCA has been widely criticized as impotent because of the standard the EPA was required to meet before it could regulate chemicals. Industry had also become increasingly concerned about a patchwork of state laws enacted to fill the regulatory void created by the EPA’s inaction. The Act was the result of a bipartisan effort and a coalition featuring both industry and environmental/public health groups.
Here are five top highlights of the Act:
Mandatory EPA safety review of all chemicals
The Act creates enforceable deadlines for the EPA to prioritize and review all chemicals, including new chemicals and those already on the market. The EPA must finalize an initial list of high priority chemicals within 12 months, then conduct safety review of high priority chemicals within 3 years of being added to the list. If a chemical fails to pass the safety review, the EPA must finalize regulation of the chemical within two years.The Act requires expedited action on certain persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals (PBTs), chemicals widely considered to pose environmental and health risks. The EPA has already identified 30 PBTs.
Manufacturers can preemptively request EPA review of a chemical at the manufacturer’s cost. By requesting EPA review of a PBT, a manufacturer can delay the EPA’s action to regulate that PBT.
Mandatory review of new chemicals before use
The EPA must now make an affirmative finding that a chemical is not likely to present an unreasonable risk before a manufacturer can commence production. Manufacturers are required to submit premanufacture notices to the EPA 90 days before beginning to manufacture or process a new substance. The EPA must then review all new chemicals and significant new uses before manufacturing or processing can commence.Lowered burden for EPA to regulate chemicals
The Act lowers the safety standard that the EPA must show to regulate a chemical. The EPA was previously required to take the cost of regulation on industry into account when deciding whether to regulate a chemical, but now may consider only health and environmental factors.The EPA also now has broader authority to act once it has decided to regulate a chemical. The EPA was previously required to use the least restrictive possible means to regulate a chemical. Now, the EPA must decide how to regulate chemicals based on an array of factors, including cost benefit analysis with a focus on health risks and special emphasis on vulnerable populations like pregnant women, infants and the elderly. EPA’s regulatory options include labeling requirements, use restrictions, phase-outs or bans.
The Act now mandates that the EPA regulate chemicals found unsafe. If the EPA fails to regulate a chemical it found unsafe, it can be compelled to do so through private litigation.
Preemption of state laws
The Act provides a framework for preemption of state laws. In general, any state laws passed after the Act will be preempted with respect to a chemical once the EPA makes a final determination about that chemical. All state restrictions currently in place, however, will remain in place.States may continue to initiate new restrictions unless the EPA adds a chemical to the high priority list; states are then prohibited from establishing new restrictions that address the same scope the EPA plans to review. If the EPA declares a chemical safe, states are preempted from regulating that chemical. If the EPA declares a chemical unsafe, states may impose restrictions while the EPA decides how to regulate the chemical, but once the EPA finalizes its regulations, states may not regulate the chemical unless they obtain a waiver from the EPA.
Less protection for confidential business information
Companies are now required to substantiate claims of CBI at the time of submission of materials to the EPA. The claims must be re-substantiated no less than every 10 years. This affects CBI claims made, for example, when companies submit toxicity information on chemicals (which the EPA may now require with greater frequency) or comply with reporting requirements. Moreover, the EPA now has broader authority to share certain information with state and local governments and health providers.What happens next and steps you can take
The EPA has already begun assigning chemicals to the high priority list and will soon begin chemical reviews. The EPA will also commence formulating regulations on topics such as the prioritization process, risk evaluation process, and guidance for industry-requested evaluations and confidential business information handling. Industry will have opportunities to weigh in on proposed rules and regulations.
Manufacturers and processors of chemicals will see the greatest impacts from the Act, including the following:
Higher likelihood the EPA will determine chemicals pose a risk and then take action to regulate such chemicals
Slower speed to market time for new chemicals or uses as EPA must conduct risk evaluation before market entry
Greater burden on companies to protect their confidential business information
In light of these impacts, manufacturers and processors should discuss with their advisors where and how to take the following steps:
Consider initiating a manufacturer-requested review of chemicals. This may provide greater certainty to your company, reduce delay in waiting for regulatory approval, and preempt future state regulation. In addition, manufacturer requests can potentially force EPA to conduct risk evaluation of PBTs before it can take expedited action as otherwise required by the Act.
Manufacturers will be required to report on chemicals manufactured or processed in the last 10 years. Manufacturers therefore should consider how to begin gathering the data needed to comply with this requirement.
Review your company’s prior CBI claims and consider confidentiality claims you may make in the future. Consider taking reasonable measures to protect CBI prior to making a CBI claim, as companies will be required to demonstrate such measures.
Downstream producers and retailers should consider possible impacts on their businesses as well, including addressing with their suppliers the potential impact of new chemical restrictions on their products.
Conclusion
The Act contains both positives and negatives for businesses. The Act will result in increased regulation of certain chemicals and potentially slower speed to market for new chemicals, but will reduce regulatory uncertainty and unpredictability. Companies that take appropriate action now to prepare for the Act’s implementation will be in a better position to profit from the new regulatory environment and mitigate the risk of heightened regulation.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/recent-reform-toxic-substances-control-act-what-you-need-to-know-and-steps-you-can
-
(ACC Mentioned) Ebell-Linked Website Bashes Rachel Carson, Promotes DDT
Dec 9, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
A website organized by the libertarian think tank that employs President-elect Donald Trump's U.S. EPA transition leader takes issue with an icon of the environmental movement — the late biologist, conservationist and author Rachel Carson.
"RACHEL WAS WRONG," SafeChemicalPolicy.org proclaims.
The website assails Carson's "dangerous legacy" that has "generated a culture of fear" and "deprived many people access to life-saving chemicals."
Among the chemicals the site promotes is the pesticide DDT, which Carson excoriated as acutely toxic to people and wildlife in her 1962 expose, "Silent Spring." Carson's book fueled a push to bar the use of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane). It was banned by EPA in 1972.
While SafeChemicalPolicy has been around in one form or another since 2007, it's grabbing attention because it's organized by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, home of Myron Ebell, the leader of Trump's EPA transition team. Ebell is likely to have the ear of Trump's pick for EPA chief, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R).
Ebell's stance on chemicals is often overlooked, as he's best known as one of Washington's biggest critics of climate science. But as CEI's director of environmental policy, Ebell might affect how Pruitt interprets the Toxic Substances Control Act amendments signed into law this year by President Obama (Greenwire, June 22).
"Ebell has intricate knowledge of EPA in many respects," said Ken Cook, president of the nonprofit Environmental Working Group. CEI, he added, has "honed an agenda over decades — they know just what to do with this power."
Cook and others worry a Trump EPA could sow doubt about toxicology and chemical regulation, rolling back risk assessments.
CEI senior fellow Angela Logomasini, who runs the SafeChemicalPolicy website, said EPA should ease restrictions.
"Hopefully, we'll be able to advance sound science, policy, regulatory reform ... to make things less burdensome," she said.
TSCA reforms passed Congress with broad bipartisan support, but Logomasini said she's "skeptical or concerned" about how the law will be implemented. She particularly targeted EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), the agency's chemical testing arm that Republican lawmakers and industry groups have attempted to curtail (Greenwire, March 9).
In a blog post, Logomasini also claimed that under the new TSCA, "some [chemical] bans could actually undermine public health and safety."
Among the bans she cited in her blog: asbestos in automobile brakes that she says has been critical to preventing highway crashes.
EPA last week named asbestos, a carcinogen, to its list of 10 priority chemicals to target under the revised law. Trump himself has praised the compound (E&E News PM, Nov. 29).
Logomasini said federal chemical restrictions exaggerate risk because of "the idea that [industries] use the maximum amounts [of a chemical] and that people are exposed to it in every possible way."
Lawmakers have already picked up on concerns on how a Trump EPA might handle TSCA. In a letter to the Trump transition team last week, a bipartisan coalition of senators — including Environment and Public Works Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) — urged "the new Administration to ensure that this new law is successful" (E&E Daily, Dec. 1).
If the government shifts its understanding of risk, analysts say, certain chemicals might slide under the radar. Notably, once EPA designates a compound high- or low-priority under TSCA, states will be barred from placing further restrictions on the compound (E&E Daily, June 9).
'Extremist voice'
EWG's Cook sees much on SafeChemicalPolicy to be concerned about.
The site says attempts at chemical regulation amount to a "war on women's personal care choices," blasts schools that require advanced notification of pesticide sprays and asserts that EPA "invent[s] ... bogus human carcinogens." Another post tells parents to ignore "spurious claims" that infants could be exposed to toxins while still in utero.
"When you take it that far, which I don't even think the American Chemistry Council would do, you've really got an extremist voice coming out," Cook said, referencing the chemical industry's main trade group.
"It's scary to think that someone like Ebell [could] have, finally, the reins of government, and begin to roll back laws and regulations," he continued. "There's almost no aspect of the environmental rule of law ... that he hasn't opposed. ... If his [web]page was true, no one would have been in support of reforming TSCA — not even the industry."
Among its partners, SafeChemicalPolicy lists the Heartland Institute, backed by the Koch brothers; the 60 Plus Association, which opposes AARP; and the American Council on Science and Health, whose own website carried a blog post titled, "Talk to a DDT Zealot or Hang Yourself? Not So Clear."
Until 2013, SafeChemicalPolicy operated as RachelWasWrong.org. Its logo featured an enormous red mosquito stinging the continent of Africa and blamed Carson for "millions" of malaria deaths a year. Banners on the website — still seen on SafeChemicalPolicy — depict the faces of children in sub-Saharan Africa who purportedly died from malaria.
Because DDT was used historically to eradicate mosquito populations, the site says, the compound is "a public health miracle" that is effective in combating malaria — and it is only due to the "negative publicity" of "Silent Spring" that the disease is still a threat.
The World Health Organization counts the total number of malaria deaths at 438,000 last year, far from the millions that CEI asserts. The fatalities are roughly half what they were in 2000, when 839,000 people died of the disease.
Scientists began noting DDT resistance among mosquito populations as far back as the 1960s, and WHO says overuse of the chemical and government mismanagement of health programs are to blame for the persistence of the disease.
For its part, WHO does support limited use of DDT in Africa. In September 2006, the organization backed the indoor use of DDT in African countries where malaria is a major health problem. That position is consistent with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, which bans DDT for all uses except for malaria control. EPA says it works with other agencies and countries on DDT programs.
'I advocate for freedom'
While CEI backs the use of DDT to fight malaria-carrying mosquitoes abroad, Logomasini hedged on whether the U.S. ban should be lifted.
"I don't know that I'm advocating that we should be spraying it" in the United States, she said. "Ultimately, those decisions need to come from people in the vector-control industry. ... We've advocated the freedom of people in other nations to use [DDT] to fight malaria. ... Particularly in developed nations, we have other tools that we can and should be using."
While Logomasini didn't say why "other tools" couldn't be used in sub-Saharan Africa, she said groups like the American Mosquito Control Association should be free to "advocate for the right tools in the right circumstances."
Joseph Conlon, technical adviser with AMCA, said his group wouldn't back DDT's revival in the United States.
"Issues with environmental persistence and resistance by mosquitoes to its lethal properties make it a poor choice for renewal as part of any foreseeable mosquito control strategy," he continued, adding that limited use was appropriate in Africa.
Logomasini said CEI is not advocating for DDT or any other chemicals.
"Ultimately, I advocate for freedom," she said. "We at CEI have never been about picking a particular product."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/09/stories/1060046951
-
California Offers Guidance on Prop 65 BPA Reporting
Dec 9, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has published a Q&A addressing the new reporting requirements under its Proposition 65 BPA safe harbour regulation.
It comes after the agency adopted a temporary regulation allowing manufacturers of canned and bottled food and drink products containing intentionally added BPA to comply with Prop 65 warning requirements through point-of-sale warnings.
The Q&A addresses general questions on who must report, and the frequency, timing and types of information to be included in businesses' reports.
It also clarifies that a business need only report BPA-related information if it is covering products with point-of-sale warnings. Reporting is not required for those giving warning with standard safe harbour language, or alternative "clear and reasonable" warning.
According to the agency, the BPA warning database will launch as early as 1 January 2017, "or at the earliest possible date afterward". It will become inoperative when the regulation expires on 30 December. Oehha will post a statement clarifying that the database will no longer be a reliable source of information beyond that time.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51566/california-offers-guidance-on-prop-65-bpa-reporting
-
US FDA Issues Draft Guidance on Infant Formula FCMs
Dec 9, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The US FDA has published draft guidance on the preparation of food contact notifications (FCNs) for infant formula and milk.
Once finalised, it will outline the agency's current thinking on how to prepare FCN submissions for its review and how it will evaluate the safety of food contact substances (FCSs) used in contact with infant formula and human milk.
The draft guidance – Preparation of Food Contact Notifications for Food Contact Substances in Contact with Infant Formula and/or Human Milk – addresses:
chemistry recommendations, including migration testing and exposure estimation;
toxicology recommendations, including exposure-based testing tiers, minimum testing recommendations and age-dependent cancer risk analysis of carcinogenic constituents; and
administrative recommendations, such as acknowledgment of FCNs, non-acceptance of an FCN and premarket notification consultations.
It will apply to a number of consumer products, including:
infant formula packaging for both liquid and powdered formula;
baby bottles;
bottle inserts;
nipples; and
other materials that are in contact with infant food.
In the draft guidance, the FDA says there has been increased scientific interest in the role of human life stages when evaluating chemical safety in recent years. This comes from advances in areas such as developmental biology and toxicology suggesting different life stages involve fundamental biological differences that may influence responses to chemical exposure. This is particularly so with infants and small children.
As such, the FDA says it will reevaluate its approach to the safety assessment of FCSs that interact with infant food. It says it is especially important considering the reliance infants have on formula or human milk during their first six months.
The FDA previously provided guidance on the safety assessment of FCSs as part of 2002's Guidance for Industry: Preparation of Premarket Submissions for Food Contact Substances: Chemistry Recommendations. This was last updated in 2007. It does not specifically address dietary exposure and safety assessment considerations related to the migration of chemical substances from packaging and other food contact articles. The new guidance is intended to fill those gaps.
Stakeholders can submit comments at any time, but the FDA has recommended they submit comments before 7 February 2017. At that point, the FDA will begin work on the final version of the guidance.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51589/us-fda-issues-draft-guidance-on-infant-formula-fcms
-
Toxics: EPA (Finally) Publishes Formaldehyde Emissions Rule
Dec 9, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA's long-delayed formaldehyde emissions rule from composite wood products is scheduled for publication in the Federal Register Dec. 12 -- nearly five months after the agency announced its completion but whose promulgation was delayed because EPA did not complete complete a necessary technical procedure until November.
Jim Jones, EPA's toxics chief, told Inside EPA's Maria Hegstad last month that the delay in formal publication was due to “technical issues when you incorporate by reference … It's a technical glitch that has taken longer than anticipated” to get resolved.
EPA's rule, which the agency announced in July, sets emissions standards for composite wood products manufactured, imported, or sold in the United States and establishes testing requirements to ensure compliance. The text of the final regulation notes that it is not deemed effective until 60 days after its publication in the Register.
The rule's completion far exceeds the 2013 deadline Congress set for EPA in 2010 to match a similar standard set by California regulators for products sold in that state.
While the regulation enjoys broad support from industry and environmentalists -- whose representatives called the delay unfortunate -- its implementation could be snagged in a likely delay of all rules the incoming Trump administration plans to impose.
The rule's publication appears to have been delayed because EPA failed to follow methods for incorporating by reference (IBR), the practice that the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) uses to reference material that cannot be reprinted because of copyright or other issues.
“All agencies that want to require use of something that is not part of the CFR or the U.S. Code, they have to use [IBR],” OFR staff attorney Miriam Vincent said in a Nov. 21 interview with Inside EPA.
Generally, the process requires an extra review by OFR attorneys, who have up to 20 days to complete it. The referenced material must be kept in the OFR's files and the publishing agency must provide evidence that those who must comply with the rule are generally aware of, or have access to, the information.
Vincent declined to comment specifically on EPA's formaldehyde rule but explained that IBR generally is used when it is not efficient or practical for an agency to “create a whole new standard for industry to follow, but we can't print the actual content . . . for a variety of reasons, for example copyright.”
In the case of EPA's formaldehyde rule, stakeholders believe the information requiring this process are copyrighted standards from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for emissions and testing, though neither OFR nor EPA would confirm.
An EPA spokesman, however, did confirm that the IBR approval was not completed until Nov. 17. EPA announced a pre-publicaiton copy of the final rule July 27.
https://insideepa.com/the-daily-feed
-
Cosmetics for Black Women More Likely Hazardous — Study
Dec 9, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
Black women could be disproportionately affected by toxic chemicals in cosmetic products, a report from the Environmental Working Group warned this week.
EWG, which runs a database called Skin Deep to educate consumers on the ingredients in personal care items, found that products marketed to black women are more likely to contain hazardous chemicals. The group also expressed concerns "[b]ecause Black women appear to buy and use more personal care products" than other groups.
"As a Black woman, I was ... disheartened to discover that there are fewer options for healthier, less hazardous products marketed specifically to women like me," EWG Deputy Director of Research Nneka Leiba said in a statement.
EWG sampled over 1,100 products in its new analysis and deemed less than 25 percent of those marketed to black women safe, compared with 40 percent of products for the general public.
It warned that hair relaxers, hair color and bleaching products could be particularly dangerous.
"Many of the hair relaxers and dyes are multi-step products that increase the chance of being exposed to hazardous chemicals," Paul Pestano, EWG senior database analyst, said in a statement. "Some of the hair lotions and styling gels contain ingredients of concern like parabens, formaldehyde-releasing preservatives and 'fragrance.' In fact, half the products we reviewed contained 'fragrance,' which factored into the higher, red scores in Skin Deep."
"Fragrance" is an umbrella term for roughly 3,000 ingredients. The Food and Drug Administration allows companies to list specific compounds as fragrance in order to protect trade secrets.
EWG said many of the compounds in cosmetics targeting black women are linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, allergies, and developmental and reproductive harm.
"This report makes clear the lack of safer alternatives for Black women," said Jamie McConnell, director of programs and policy for nonprofit Women's Voices for the Earth, in a statement. "Demand for these products is increasing and the cosmetics industry needs to provide healthy beauty options for Black women."
But the Personal Care Products Council, a trade group for the cosmetics industry, lambasted the report as "speculative" and "misleading."
"Consumer and product safety are top priorities for the cosmetics and personal care products industry, with careful and thorough scientific research and development serving as the foundation for everything we do," Linda Loretz, the group's chief toxicologist, said in a statement. "Our products are among the safest product categories regulated by the Food and Drug Administration."
Loretz asserted that EWG's study "does not use sound science to assess the safety of ingredients used in cosmetics and personal care products. ... The analysis in this report is fundamentally flawed, and the conclusions are not meaningful."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/09/stories/1060046946
-
House Speaker's Office Reportedly Calls Energy Bill Dead; Senators Not Pleased
Dec 8, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Two of the top proponents of an omnibus energy bill in the Senate took aim at House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) Wednesday after his office reportedly declared that lawmakers had run out of time to reach a compromise on outstanding issues in the legislation.
According to reports, Ryan spokeswoman AshLee Strong said Wednesday that conferees in the House and Senate "were not able to come to agreement on various outstanding issues in time for the House to consider a conference report." Last July, lawmakers in both chambers of Congress agreed to conference to try to reconcile the differences between two versions of the bill.
The announcement that the energy bill was essentially dead didn't sit well with Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
"Despite some recent assertions that there are many items left to be sorted out, we have now resolved all but two issues for our conference report," Murkowski said Wednesday. "Both of those issues can easily be resolved, in plenty of time before congressional adjournment, if the will exists in the House to work through them in good faith. In fact, on both issues, the Senate has already written and proposed the modifications we know are necessary to reach final agreement, only to receive no substantive response."
Murkowski said a critical component of the Senate bill -- S 2012, also known as the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2015 -- addresses the issue of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. She said every offer the Senate has made to the House includes a provision for LNG exports, but the House has continued to remove it. Under a potential compromise, the LNG export provision would remain in the final bill in exchange for agreements on wildfire budgeting, timber management reforms and sportsmen's legislation, among other things.
"The House may want to claim that this bill cannot move forward because we are running out of time," Murkowski said. "The reality is that the House is attempting to run us out of time in order to prevent this bill from moving forward, even though it contains the priorities of dozens of its members. I urge my House colleagues to reconsider and to allow our conference report to come up for a vote before we adjourn."
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), the committee's ranking member, also urged Ryan to reconsider.
"We should capitalize on these long and hard-fought agreements and should enact them before going home for the year and having to start over again in the next Congress," Cantwell said. "If we miss this opportunity now, we are not likely to have another one next year. Our House colleagues should be less concerned about going home this week and more concerned about giving communities the tools they need to deal with wildfire problems and other key issues."
The Senate passed S 2012 last April. The bill calls for, among other things, changes to the approval process for proposals to site, build, expand or operate LNG facilities. Specifically, under projects that require FERC or U.S. Maritime Administration approval, the secretary of the Department of Energy would be required to issue a final decision on any application to authorize LNG exports within 45 days of completion of the required review under the National Environmental Policy Act.
But the House countered with passage of HR 8, also known as the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015, in December 2015. The White House hinted it would veto the House bill, in part because it contains a provision giving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the authority to set deadlines for other agencies that review projects proposed under the Natural Gas Act.
Last month, Todd Wooten, senior energy counsel at the Senate Finance Committee, predicted Republicans would likely scuttle the energy bill despite bipartisan support. George Lowe, vice president for federal affairs at the American Gas Association, voiced similar doubts about the bill's prospects at a meeting with reporters last October.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108674-house-speakers-office-reportedly-calls-energy-bill-dead-senators-not-pleased
-
Greens Lobby Moderates Against Pruitt for EPA
Dec 9, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
Democrats looking to block the confirmation of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) as U.S. EPA administrator are hoping to convince moderate Republicans to join their cause.
They are particularly targeting GOP lawmakers who have broken with conservatives in their party by saying they believe human activity is contributing to climate change.
"It's a true opportunity to move this issue forward, I think, and I think we should we should take full advantage," Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said during a conference call yesterday about Pruitt's nomination.
During 2015 debate on the Keystone XL oil pipeline project, five Republican senators voted for an amendment stating that human beings were having a significant impact on the climate (E&E Daily, Jan. 22, 2015).
They were Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Susan Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
Ayotte and Kirk lost their re-election bids last month and will not be on Capitol Hill next year. Alexander, Collins and Graham, however, will have the chance to vote on Pruitt's confirmation.
As Oklahoma attorney general, Pruitt worked with oil and gas companies to push back against EPA, and he has questioned climate change science.
Pruitt has also sued the agency he may soon lead a number of times, including on controversial regulations such as the Clean Power Plan and the Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule (Greenwire, Dec. 8).
Democrats are looking to convince moderate members of the GOP caucus that Pruitt is on the wrong side of the climate debate and too close to fossil fuel interests.
"We have a lot of Republican senators who have supported climate change bills in the past, who have voted on [the] climate change amendments and who need to be put on the spot about this one," said Whitehouse.
Some of those Republicans, however, remain unwilling to join the opposition against Pruitt. Graham rejected the idea of making the vote a litmus test for those who believe in climate science.
"It may be for them, not for me," Graham said. "I appreciate [Democrats'] advice. I tend not to take it."
Graham said he recognized Pruitt comes from an "energy-rich state" and agreed with him that "the EPA has gone overboard" with regulations.
"I think he [Pruitt] will understand in the real world how some of this stuff has gone too far," Graham said. "I'm going to keep saying what I believe: that man-made CO2 emissions is creating the greenhouse gas effect and is heating up the planet. To the level of danger, I don't know. I think over time it's very harmful."
Despite any potential disagreement with President-elect Donald Trump's team on the issue, Graham said he was leaning toward supporting Pruitt.
"Yeah, unless there's a reason not to, unless there's some problem, I will vote for him, yeah," Graham said.
Alexander said yesterday that he didn't have anything to say about the EPA pick. "Look, I told you that I don't know about the nomination, so I don't have anything to say about it at this point. My views on climate change are well-known and have been for a dozen years," Alexander said.
Collins had similar sentiments. "I don't know who he is. I truly know nothing about him or his views. I didn't even know his name," Collins said about Pruitt in a statement shared by her office.
Many Republicans have cheered Pruitt's nomination, with lawmakers praising him at an energy policy summit held at the Heritage Foundation yesterday (Greenwire, Dec. 8; see related story).
But like Collins and Alexander, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said yesterday: "I had not even heard his name until this morning."
Moderate Democrats
Climate hawks like Whitehouse will also need to hold members of their own party in line if they want any chance at blocking Pruitt. That includes Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who have also been critical of EPA under President Obama and have been mentioned as picks for a Trump Cabinet.
"I'm still learning about him, but I have serious concerns about his record of opposing the Renewable Fuel Standard, which is critical for farmers and jobs across North Dakota," Heitkamp said in a statement.
"If we're going to have an EPA administrator who understands rural America, that means they also have to understand the needs of farmers and want to support those farmers. I also share concerns about regulatory overreach, but also want to make sure we have clean air and water," Heitkamp said.
Manchin's office did not respond to messages asking for comment. He has expressed willingness to work with the new administration and is scheduled to meet with Trump today.
Liberal Democrats and environmentalists are not mincing words about Pruitt. "At the risk of being dramatic. Scott Pruitt at EPA is an existential threat to the planet," Dan Pfeiffer, a former senior adviser to President Obama, wrote on Twitter this week.
Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters, said, "When it comes to the nomination of [Pruitt], he would be by far the worst-ever administrator of EPA we have ever seen when it comes to protecting health, protecting air, protecting water."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/12/09/stories/1060046936
-
Moderate Republicans Not Siding with Dems on EPA Nominee
Dec 9, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
Republican senators don't seem worried about failing Democrats' "litmus test" on Scott Pruitt.
Liberals, fuming over President-elect Donald Trump's choice of Pruitt for chief of U.S. EPA, are describing the Republican Oklahoma attorney general as a "professional climate denier." And they say moderate Republicans who believe in climate change could suffer electorally if they support Pruitt's confirmation.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) isn't heeding that message.
"I'd be very inclined to support him," Graham said yesterday. "If I excluded everyone in the Republican Party who doesn't believe in climate change, I wouldn't have too many friends."
Graham has long urged his party to be more accepting of climate science and work to find legislative compromises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He was a lead sponsor, for a time, of cap-and-trade legislation in 2010.
Now he and a handful of other centrist GOP senators are the focus of Democrats vowing to make Pruitt's confirmation process untouchable to lawmakers who accept the scientific underpinnings of rising temperatures.
They point to Pruitt's legal challenges to EPA's endangerment finding, the Clean Power Plan and other environmental rules on the fossil fuel industry.
"I think his positions are so radical, so extreme that it's going to be difficult for the Republican Party as a whole to accept the climate-denying, anti-clean water, anti-clean air positions that he's going to be dragging their party through," said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
Other Democrats who prioritize climate action said Pruitt's confirmation will be colored by detailed accounts of his history helping fossil fuel companies. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) described Pruitt's nomination as an attempt by Trump to replace environmental regulators with industry advocates. He suggested a level of malfeasance.
"We should be prepared to talk about this not just as a matter of bad climate policy but as a corruption of government," Whitehouse said on a conference call with reporters.
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said Pruitt's nomination is a "full-fledged environmental emergency."
"This is going to be a litmus test for every member of the Senate who claims not to be a denier," he said on the conference call. "This is a four-alarm fire. We are going to do everything we can to stop his nomination."
They will need Republican help. Democrats might try to halt Pruitt in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which will host Pruitt's confirmation hearing. But the committee is composed largely of conservative Republicans, and it would appear difficult for Democrats to find a GOP member who is willing to oppose Pruitt.
That means the fight could move to the Senate floor, where at least three Republicans would have to turn against Pruitt to prevent him from becoming the 14th EPA administrator approved by the Senate. The Senate is expected to have 52 Republicans and 48 Democrats next year.
"Ultimately, it is the vote on the Senate floor which is determinative, and that is where the showdown will occur," Markey said. "It won't just be a showdown on his nomination. It will be a showdown on every clear air, clean water, climate bill that has ever passed the House and Senate of the United States."
So far, the GOP isn't showing signs of cracking.
"I do believe in climate change. I can't speak for anybody else," Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said yesterday when asked about Pruitt, whom he's never met.
Flake seemed to suggest that there's no litmus test on climate change. Other issues are also important, he said. "There are a lot of things to consider."
Another moderate, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), sidestepped questions about Pruitt.
"I haven't heard about it yet, so I don't know," he said. "Since I haven't heard about it, I couldn't comment on it."
Other Republicans seem to be preparing for the upcoming fight from Democrats and their environmentalist allies. Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) said he suspects that climate issues would take a front seat whether it were Pruitt or someone else. Being named by Trump is reason enough to be labeled a "denier," he suggested.
"I think Democrats are going to make climate change an issue no matter who the nominee is, because that seems to be a partisan campaign tactic they like to use," Gardner said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/12/09/stories/1060046937
-
DOE Approves Aussie-Backed LNG Project in La.
Dec 9, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
The Energy Department granted broad export approval to a major liquefied natural gas project last week, clearing the final big federal hurdle for the project weeks before the end of the Obama administration.
The Magnolia LNG project is under development by Perth, Australia-based Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd., and proposes to send up to 8 million metric tons per year of LNG from a new plant to be built near Lake Charles, La.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the project's environmental and safety plans in April, but the Sierra Club filed a rehearing request on that decision that was resolved in late November when FERC declined to reconsider it. That cleared the way for DOE to decide on the permit for exports to non-free-trade nations, which are required to sell LNG into key markets including Japan, China and India.
"We are well underway in progressing on the final offtake milestones to enable us to move this leading energy efficient, innovative and low cost project into the construction and operations phases," Greg Vesey, the CEO and managing director of LNG Ltd., said in a statement.
DOE has faced pressure in the past for the slow pace of its consideration of LNG export proposals. Lobbyists in recent years have pushed for legislative language that would have placed the department under a short deadline to issue such decisions. But hopes of including it in an energy bill during this Congress were dashed when House-Senate conference talks on a measure fell apart in recent days (E&E Daily, Dec. 8).
DOE's quick issuance of a full export license days after the resolution of the FERC rehearing request backs up officials' contention that no such legislative measure is necessary, though officials have not opposed such a requirement either. Industry stakeholders say the issue is less pressing in a Trump administration because DOE would be less inclined to delay such decisions.
The Magnolia LNG order brings the total amount of permitted non-free-trade LNG exports to 16.3 billion cubic feet per day. DOE has authorized a larger amount of exports to free-trade countries, some of which overlap with the non-Free Trade Agreement permits.
That total is not an indicator of how much total capacity will ultimately be built, however. That figure depends more on the financial climate for capital-hungry LNG projects and estimates of international LNG demand.
Global markets currently reflect an oversupply of LNG, with spot prices in Asia and Europe below the levels of a few years ago when Magnolia LNG and the other U.S. projects currently under construction were proposed. But analysts see excess supply being taken up over the next several years by steady demand growth, with markets potentially becoming tighter and more volatile in the early 2020s unless new projects are finalized within the next year or two.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/12/09/stories/1060046925
-
Looser Requirements for Dairies Make Slashing Methane a Tall Order
Dec 9, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Debra Kahn
California's push to reduce greenhouse gases 40 percent by 2030 will be a steeper climb than expected due to protections for the state's largest methane emitters.
Dairy and livestock cows produce more than half of California's methane emissions, via decomposition of manure as well as enteric fermentation, also known as burping. But the state has yet to require facilities to reduce emissions, given high technological and financial hurdles.
Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed a law in September shielding the dairy and livestock industries from having to reduce their methane emissions until 2024 at the earliest. The effects of that bill, S.B. 1383, are now being felt in the state's plans to reduce overall methane emissions 40 percent by 2030, for which the state Air Resources Board released a revised strategy last week.
The so-called short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs), which spend less time in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide but trap far more heat during their lifetimes, accounted for 42 percent of California's greenhouse gas emissions in 2013. But they were left out of the state's first set of climate regulations.
While the state's overall SLCP targets are the same as before — a 40 percent reduction in methane and fluorinated gases and a 50 percent reduction in non-forest black carbon emissions by 2030 below 2013 levels — state Sen. Ricardo Lara's (D) bill prohibited the state Air Resources Board from regulating methane from dairies and cattle farms until at least 2024. Until then, reductions will be voluntary and funded by various sources including grants, pilot projects by utilities, and the sale of credits under the state's low-carbon fuel standard.
"Frankly, if you try to do it with regulatory authority, they fail and we fail, because the dairies can't do it and they just move out of state," said Michael Boccadoro, executive director of the industry trade group Dairy Cares, which represents 98 percent of the state's milk producers. "If they were to say tomorrow that the 200 largest dairies have to have digesters installed by 2020, it can't and won't happen because the projects aren't economic."
Out of roughly 1,400 dairies statewide, 16 have methane digesters, which siphon methane from a covered pool of manure and use it to run generators. The power can be used as electricity or turned into biogas for specially equipped vehicles, but systems cost roughly $8 million to $12 million, and there is no solid market for the power, Boccadoro said.
As a result of Lara's bill, ARB will only have the authority to reduce 12 million metric tons of methane from the sector in 2030, rather than the 26 million metric tons called for in the plan, he said.
"I think those delays and hurdles included in S.B. 1383 will make it difficult to meet the target for reducing methane from dairies," said Bill Magavern, policy director of the Coalition for Clean Air, who had sought to toughen the bill to require ARB to adopt dairy regulations in 2024, rather than merely allow the agency to regulate. "Some of this language may set ARB up for failure when it comes to regulating the dairy sector, and that's why the dairy industry wanted the language."
Other sectors, like oil and gas producers and utilities, say they are worried that the methane-reducing burden could fall on them if the dairy industry's reductions fail to materialize. They also warn that they might seek similar treatment in the future.
"You're opening the door wide open for us," said Eloy Garcia, a lobbyist for the Western States Petroleum Association, at an August hearing on the bill. "What's good for the cow is good for every other sector. So when every other sector comes to you next year and says, 'Hey, we'd like some of that, too. We'd like to limit the Air Resources Board's authority over our sector, our emissions; we'd like you to give us instead incentive-based funding paid by the ratepayers, paid by your constituents,' that's good for everybody."
ARB is holding public hearings on the short-lived climate pollutants strategy starting next week in Fresno. An agency spokesman said the plan is sound. "California can get where it needs to be on emissions with 1383," said Dave Clegern.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/12/09/stories/1060046942
-
Blizzards Hinder Cleanup of N.D. Oil Spill
Dec 9, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Winter weather is preventing cleanup of a "significant" pipeline rupture by a company with a long history of oil spills in North Dakota and Montana.
The spill from the Belle Fourche Pipeline Co. is leaking crude oil into a tributary of the Little Missouri River in western North Dakota, according to state regulators (E&E News PM, Dec. 6).
The cause and degree of the leak are unknown due to recent blizzards.
The spill appears to be contained, according to Bill Suess, an environmental scientist with the North Dakota Department of Health.
He said the spill did not reach the Little Missouri River and that no drinking water has been contaminated.
Belle Fourche is one of three oil companies owned by Wyoming-based True. Since 2006, the companies have had 36 spills leaking 320,000 gallons of petroleum products. True is under federal investigation for a 2015 spill that leaked into the Yellowstone River and contaminated drinking water in Glendive, Mont. Damages since 2006 total nearly $11 million.
True also owns Black Hills Trucking Inc., which is accused of dumping wastewater from oil production in 2014 in northwestern North Dakota.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/09/stories/1060046964
-
Wash. Sues Monsanto Over PCB Pollution
Dec 9, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
Washington state yesterday sued agrochemical giant Monsanto Co. for decades of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) pollution, becoming the first state in the country to do so.
The state charges that Monsanto owes millions or billions of dollars in compensation due to environmental and health effects of the bioaccumulative toxins.
"It is time to hold the sole U.S. manufacturer of PCBs accountable for the significant harm they have caused to our state," said Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D). "Monsanto produced PCBs for decades while hiding what they knew about the toxic chemicals' harm to human health and the environment."
Congress banned the production of PCBs in 1979, but they are persistent in the environment. The state said the chemicals have harmed salmon and orca species. PCBs are linked to cancer as well as immune, nervous and reproductive system damage.
Multiple West Coast cities have sued Monsanto for PCB pollution, including Oakland, Berkeley, San Jose, Long Beach and San Diego, Calif.; Portland, Ore.; and Spokane, Wash.
Monsanto charged that the case "lacks merit."
"PCBs have not been produced in the U.S. for four decades, and Washington is now pursuing a case on a contingency fee basis that departs from settled law both in Washington and across the country," said company spokesman Scott Partridge.
Ferguson said that PCB pollution is personal.
"[T]he Skagit River, which my family depended on to a great degree in the 19th century as they homesteaded here, is now contaminated by PCBs, as are the fish," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/09/stories/1060046952
-
Help with PTC Implementation: Rail Supply Community Perspectives
Dec 9, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
By Jeff Stagl
There’s only about two years left for the dozens of freight and commuter railroads impacted by the Rail Safety Act of 2008 to meet the federal deadline for implementing positive train control (PTC). Or, nearly four years remaining for those roads that meet certain conditions for a two-year extension, such as the installation of all PTC hardware by 2018’s end.
When completed, PTC systems will be operating on about 60,000 route miles in the United States. The systems will include devices installed on 25,000 passenger and freight locomotives, or 90 percent of all motive power.
But before railroads reach the completion stage, teams of railroaders, manufacturers, software designers and safety experts will continue to toil full time to develop, test, validate and install the many complicated and interconnected pieces of PTC systems. The rail supply community offers many products and services, some of which are new or redesigned, to help railroads adopt the technology.
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/article/Help-with-PTC-implementation-Rail-supply-community-perspectives--50316
-
E&E News' Bravender Talks Trump EPA Pick, Future of Climate Policy
Dec 9, 2016 | E&E TV
By The Cutting Edge
Following weeks of speculation, and even a meeting with former Vice President Al Gore, President-elect Donald Trump chose Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to lead U.S. EPA this week. What will a Pruitt EPA look like, and how does climate policy stand to change over the next four years? On today's The Cutting Edge, E&E News reporter Robin Bravender explains how Pruitt may navigate the endangerment finding and work to unravel the Clean Power Plan.
Transcript: http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2185/transcript
Video: http://www.eenews.net/tv
-
Emboldened by Pruitt Pick, Conservatives Renew Calls to Scrap GHG Finding
Dec 9, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Emboldened by President-elect Donald Trump's selection of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head EPA, conservative critics of the Obama EPA are stepping up their calls for the incoming administration to scrap the endangerment finding that underlies the agency's greenhouse gas rules and are suggesting a number of ways Trump could revoke it.
At a Dec. 8 forum on energy and climate policy in the Trump administration, hosted by the Heritage Foundation and the Texas Public Policy Foundation, some conservative opponents of EPA's rules argued that scrapping the finding would undercut EPA's ability to regulate GHGs and remove legal roadblocks environmentalists may attempt to put up as the incoming administration works to dismantle the rules.
But others acknowledged that reversing the finding is difficult and suggested that Congress should instead clarify the Clean Air Act to indicate that it is not intended to regulate GHGs.
“The law is complex, and my feeling is that everything the [Trump] administration does to try and stop the nonsense” and reverse Obama-era climate rules “is going to be challenged in court,” Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute told the forum.
Michaels said environmentalists will challenge any Trump efforts to roll back climate rules by saying that “EPA says that [GHGs] endanger health and welfare [and] the Supreme Court in 2007 said if EPA says this, it must regulate,” referring to the landmark high court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA.
He added: “So what's going to have to happen is the endangerment finding is going to have to be torn apart.”
Several other speakers at the event agreed with Michaels' premise, but they had varying opinions on the best way to approach the issue -- perhaps signaling the difficulty the Trump administration would face should it decide to go down this path.
Multiple sources told Inside EPA shortly after the election that attempts to scrap the endangerment finding would be fraught with legal risks, in part because doing so would involve undoing a lengthy administrative record and scientific analyses pointing to the dangers of climate change.
One industry attorney said there is a plausible scenario in which a Trump EPA seeks to narrow, rather than completely scrap, the endangerment finding. “Is there a [possible] strategy to change that [finding]? Yes . . . but this is not something that turns on a dime,” the attorney said earlier this month, characterizing the strategy as legally risk and adding that it could take “years . . . When people sober up . . . [they] should be a little bit more cautious about this.”
And Columbia Law School professor Michael Gerrard warned recently that reversing the finding would be like “running toward a machine gun” because “scientific support was very strong when it was issued in 2009; it has become much stronger since then.”
Even so, conservatives like Michaels, despite acknowledging the potential complexity of the process, have doubled down on their calls to target the endangerment finding.
Trump himself has not signaled an intent to address the endangerment finding once in office, though he did pledge during the campaign -- in response to questions from the American Energy Alliance -- to review “all EPA rules,” including the endangerment finding. His response did not promise to scrap the finding, but it did say that “any regulation that imposes undue costs on business enterprises will be eliminated.”
'Good Fight To Have'
But Michaels and others see hope in Trump's choice of Pruitt as EPA's next administrator, with Michaels noting that Pruitt as Oklahoma's attorney general undertook a legal effort to reverse the finding. That refers to the 2011 effort by Pruitt and a number of other states, as well as industry groups, challenging the endangerment finding -- as well as EPA's GHG permitting program and GHG standards for light-duty vehicles.
Opponents' effort to overturn the endangerment finding ultimately failed when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the finding and the vehicle rules. The Supreme Court in 2013 took up a narrower challenge focused only on the permitting program, in a case that became known as Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA.
According to Michaels, successfully scrapping the endangerment finding requires going after the scientific models that underpin the studies forming the basis of the finding. “You have to take down those models,” he said, adding that he “alluded to some sickness that is infecting science.”
Michaels admitted that such a process would take time. “You're going to have to reverse that. It's not going to happen overnight. To do a really good job, you're going to have to do a massive literature search . . . and you're going to have to go into the code” of the models and find the “fudge factor,” he said.
Environmentalists, however, have long called such attacks on the endangerment finding foolish because attempts to revisit it would be ruled arbitrary and capricious by the courts.
For example, Natural Resources Defense Council's David Doniger in a 2012 statement noted the finding “stands atop an enormous, multi-layered pyramid of peer-reviewed scientific research and assessment developed over decades. At the base of the pyramid are tens of thousands of scientific publications, each one peer-reviewed before acceptance in a scientific journal.”
Given the complexity and time associated with addressing the models, some conservatives are suggesting a “faster” solution to effectively hamstring EPA's GHG regulatory authority, urging Congress to “clarify” the Clean Air Act to remove carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
Such a solution is called “Congress do your job,” said Mark Mills of the Manhattan Institute. “Congress has the authority to pass laws. In this case they can clarify the Clean Air Act and simply remove carbon dioxide as a regulated pollutant by declaration.”
He added: “They could certainly invite and have hearings to talk about carbon dioxide and its role and all that stuff and decide later to add it as an ostensible pollutant. But they simply can clarify the Clean Air Act.”
Mills acknowledged such a move from lawmakers would be met with fierce opposition, though noting that “it would be a good fight to have.” Several GOP senators have already said they are not planning to reopen the air act.
Nonetheless, Mills' suggestion led to an exchange with Michaels, who noted that even if Congress were to take such a step, the “endangerment finding will still be there.”
Mills, however, seemed to suggest the endangerment finding would not carry any weight if the Clean Air Act “is changed,” adding “it would be an interesting legal fight to take to the Supreme Court once Congress says the act isn't clarified.”
'Easy Wins'
Despite the debate over how to tackle the endangerment finding, Mills urged Pruitt to target Obama administration regulations first, suggesting such rollbacks could be easy first steps for the new administrator. In particular, Mills cited the Obama EPA's power plant GHG rule as a first target.
“The Clean Power Plan is the easiest first step that [Pruitt] has available to him, to decide that [the administration is] not going to pursue it,” Mills said, adding that the “more difficult one” is taking on the endangerment finding.
“What [Pruitt] ought to do and probably will do is pick telegraphic easy wins in the first few months. So [making] the Clean Power Plan dead on arrival would be a relatively easy fix, and he should focus on that initially,” Mills added.
In addition, Michaels noted a “very good chance” the power plant rule “is going to be ruled as not consistent with the Clean Air Act by the Supreme Court, probably next summer would be my guess,” under the assumption a Trump Supreme Court nominee has been appointed by then.
Thus, he cited the Paris Agreement as the “second thing” Pruitt should look to address. “The backup thing would be either to submit the Paris treaty to the Senate for ratification, or [withdraw from] the whole framework convention -- just have the president send a letter to [the United Nations] saying, 'We're not going to do this. We're going to make climate great again,'” Michaels said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/emboldened-pruitt-pick-conservatives-renew-calls-scrap-ghg-finding
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested