Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 12/19/2016
-
EPA Starts Clock On First 10 TSCA Reviews
Dec 16, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA is publishing its list of the first 10 chemicals it will evaluate under section 6 of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), starting the six-month statutory clock for the Trump administration to issue scoping documents that will provide a preliminary indication of each chemicals' hazards, potential susceptible subpopulations and other data. -
White House Should Finalize Nano Reporting Rule
Dec 16, 2016 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Jennifer Sass
Under EPA’s Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a) authority, EPA is proposing to require nanomaterial companies to report to EPA on what nanomaterial they are making or importing, how much, by what methods, exposure or environmental release information, and any information the company may have on possible health effects. -
Nature Editorial ‘Exploits Public Anxiety’ On Endocrine Disruptors
Dec 15, 2016 | Genetic Literacy Project
By Geoffrey Kabat
In December 2016, the European Union member states will vote on proposed legislation that would mandate an ambitious program to identify and regulate “endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in the environment. -
Some Baby Teething Toys May Contain Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals
Dec 18, 2016 | Reuters (In The Washington Post)
Some baby teething toys marketed as nontoxic may contain chemicals that could interfere with hormones involved in normal growth and development, a study suggests. -
Future of Top Pesticide Uncertain After Grueling Cancer Review
Dec 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The future of glyphosate, the most widely used pesticide in the world, is uncertain after a grueling, four-day review of the Environmental Protection Agency's scientific evaluation of the chemical's cancer-causing potential. -
Final EPA Assessment For Ethylene Oxide Retains Cancer Risk Findings
Dec 16, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's final assessment of the sterilizing chemical ethylene oxide's (EtO) inhaled cancer risks echoes three earlier drafts of the study that found the chemical causes both breast cancer and leukemia, and sets a cancer potency estimate that the chemical industry has protested as overly strict, particularly for a chemical with EtO's benefits. -
Enviros Sue FDA Over Formaldehyde In Hair Products
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Gabriel Dunsmith
Two environmental groups sued the Food and Drug Administration this week, accusing the agency of failing to protect the public from formaldehyde in hair salons. -
EU Moves to Close Loopholes on Mercury Ban
Dec 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
European Union countries Dec. 16 signaled that they would back a regulation that will close a number of loopholes in EU laws on mercury, and will align the EU with the United Nations Minamata Convention on Mercury. -
Energy Dept. Defends Environmental Review of Cove Point LNG
Dec 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Energy Department said it couldn't forecast meaningful indirect environmental effects from exporting liquefied natural gas at Dominion Resources Inc.'s Cove Point export facility being built in Maryland (Sierra Club v. Energy Dep't, D.C. Cir., No. 16-01186, brief filed 12/15/16). -
The EPA’s Science Deniers
Dec 18, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
Speaking of fake news, the political scientists at the EPA have rewritten the conclusion of a report in order to cast doubt on the safety of hydraulic fracturing. Consider this EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy’s parting gift to Donald Trump -
Don’t Shut Down Fracking — Regulate It Instead
Dec 16, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Editorial Board
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING — also known as fracking — has been a roiling issue over the past several years. -
Michigan Passes Major Energy Policy Overhaul
Dec 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
The Michigan Legislature approved two bills that will shape for decades the state's energy policies, requiring increased use of renewable energy sources while empowering retail customer choice, and providing new business opportunities for alternative-energy generators. -
Senate Democrats Seek Probe of Trump's Queries of Energy Staff
Dec 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Traywick
Senate Democrats asked a U.S. investigative agency to determine whether a questionnaire sent to Department of Energy staff by President-elect Donald Trump's transition team violates federal law. -
Dems Call For Federal Probe Of Trump Team's DOE Questionnaire
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
Nine Democratic senators today called for a federal investigation into a controversial questionnaire distributed by President-elect Donald Trump's transition team to Department of Energy staffers. -
Draft Massachusetts Rules Would Require Lower Emissions in 2018
Dec 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel
Massachusetts power plants and gas companies would be required to lower their greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 under draft regulations issued by the state Dec. 16. -
1,100 Medical Professionals Urge Trump To Keep Rule
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
A coalition of 1,100 doctors, nurses, medical students and other health professionals today urged President-elect Donald Trump to support U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan and other climate change initiatives. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Pick Pruitt Strong Critic of Draft Chemical Plant Safety Rule
Dec 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
President-elect Donald Trump's nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) to head the Environmental Protection Agency could weaken safety standards at high-risk chemical plants as the agency delays finalizing the draft regulation. -
Corpus Christi, Tex., Lifts Ban on Drinking the City’s Water
Dec 16, 2016 | AP (In The New York Times)
A nearly four-day ban on drinking the water in Corpus Christi, Tex., was lifted on Sunday after test results showed no contamination because of a chemical leak, the city’s mayor announced. -
New York’s Cybersecurity Regulations May Seem Burdensome, But They’re Necessary
Dec 19, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Chris Ensey
In recent years, more and more companies across a range of industries have fallen victim to cyber attacks, including Sony Pictures, Yahoo!, and LinkedIn; however, we have yet to see a successful large scale breach of a major U.S. financial institution. -
(ACC Mentioned) Rail Shippers Call On Trump To Appoint A Shipper-Friendly STB
Dec 16, 2016 | Progressive Railraoding
A group of more than 50 business executives recently sent a letter to President-elect Donald Trump's administration calling on it to work with them to appoint Surface Transportation Board (STB) members who are "committed to eliminating outdated rules and overly bureaucratic procedures that shield the rail industry from competition." -
Five Ways Trump Could Unwind Obama's Environmental Policies
Dec 17, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Many of President Obama’s climate and environmental policies are unlikely to survive under President-elect Donald Trump.
Congressional Hearings - There are no relevant hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
EPA Starts Clock On First 10 TSCA Reviews
Dec 16, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA is publishing its list of the first 10 chemicals it will evaluate under section 6 of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), starting the six-month statutory clock for the Trump administration to issue scoping documents that will provide a preliminary indication of each chemicals' hazards, potential susceptible subpopulations and other data.
The agency in a Federal Register notice slated for publication Dec. 19 formally announced that the first 10 chemicals it will review are: 1,4 dioxane; 1-bromopropane; asbestos; carbon tetrachloride; cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster; methylene chloride; n-methylpyrrolidone; pigment violet 29; trichloroethylene; and tetrachloroethylene.
While there are few surprises on the list, some of the chemicals have been viewed as more controversial than others. For example, EPA included three substances -- methylene chloride (MC), n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) and trichloroethylene (TCE) -- for which the agency is already planning to limit some uses under TSCA section 6(a), suggesting the agency may seek broader use limitations.
EPA is also facing a number of questions on how it plans to address asbestos, such as which substances it will assess and regulate and how it will be able to regulate a naturally occurring substance.
EPA first floated the list Nov. 29, but, under the revised TSCA, publishing the list means the agency has until June 17, 2017, to publish a scoping document for each chemical, outlining hazard, exposure, conditions of use, and potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations the agency expects to consider in the section 6 risk evaluation. The revised law generally requires that these risk evaluations will be completed within three years of initiation, with the possibility of a 6-month extension.
Each risk evaluation the agency completes trigger the requirement that the agency launch an evaluation of another high-priority existing chemical under section 6.
Meanwhile, EPA is working to issue two essential section 6 proposed rules by the statutory deadline of Dec. 19: a draft rule establishing a process for conducting risk evaluations and a draft prioritization rule for how the agency will designate existing chemicals as high- or low-priority. The proposals are currently under review at the White House Office of Management & Budget.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/toxics-epa-starts-clock-first-10-tsca-reviews
-
White House Should Finalize Nano Reporting Rule
Dec 16, 2016 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Jennifer Sass
Under EPA’s Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a) authority, EPA is proposing to require nanomaterial companies to report to EPA on what nanomaterial they are making or importing, how much, by what methods, exposure or environmental release information, and any information the company may have on possible health effects.
The Rule doesn’t ask the company to generate any new data, but just report on what the company already knows, and do it BEFORE the material is manufactured or processed.
The rule is now under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) – the economic arm of the White House – that has been called the place where rules go to die. Well, EPA’s Proposed Rule on Nanomaterials Reporting and Recordkeeping is one I’d like to see finalized, and soon!
EPA first started working on this rule in 2009, sent a draft to OMB for review in 2010, collected public comments in 2015, and sent it back to OMB in a finished form in late 2016. And, although the Rule has moved slowly through the regulatory process, nanotechnology has not. In the last decade (since 2005) EPA has received and reviewed over 160 applications for new nanomaterials, including the carbon nanotubes that look and act much like asbestos (see report by U Mass Lowell, 2014) .
Nanoscale chemicals (nanomaterials) are in products from all commercial sectors ranging from sports equipment to agrochemicals to clothing. Increased concern for potential health and environmental impacts of chemicals, including nanomaterials, in consumer products is driving demand for greater transparency regarding potential risks. To that end, we recently published the results of our research using the GreenScreen hazard assessment method to show both hazards and data gaps for conventional silver and nanosilver approved by EPA for commercial uses (Sass et al 2016). The ability to conduct hazard assessments like the GreenScreens we published depends on reliable and publicly available information. EPA’s Rule is an important tool to gather relevant data on nanomaterials to inform hazard assessment, regulatory decisions, and industrial product design and development.
Unfortunately, EPA’s proposal has some weaknesses. It proposes to exclude from the requirements of this rule nanoclays, zinc oxide, and chemical substances manufactured at the nanoscale as part of a film on a surface. We disagree with EPA’s position that these materials are either well-characterized or that they present little exposure potential. We believe that exclusions should not be given without the data to support the claims. EPA, the public, processors, formulators, risk assessors, and others need robust, reliable, and publicly available information to evaluate and validate product and material safety claims. We would urge EPA to drop the proposed exclusions in the final rule.
You can view the Rule and its progress through OMB review here.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jennifer-sass/white-house-should-finalize-nano-reporting-rule
-
Nature Editorial ‘Exploits Public Anxiety’ On Endocrine Disruptors
Dec 15, 2016 | Genetic Literacy Project
By Geoffrey Kabat
In December 2016, the European Union member states will vote on proposed legislation that would mandate an ambitious program to identify and regulate “endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in the environment. On November 22, the journal Nature carried an editorial entitled “Stand firm on hormone disruptors” by NYU pediatrician Leonardo Trasande. Rather than laying out the scientific issues relevant to consideration of the problem of chemicals in the environment and their effects on the general population, the editorial indulges in far-reaching speculation.
In his second sentence, referring to EDCs, Trasande writes, “These chemicals are everywhere – in food, personal-care products, electronics and furniture – and are widely detected in human blood and urine at levels known to affect health.” He then goes on to state that the proposed regulation resulting in “removal of these pesticides could prevent autism and loss of cognition, which have been linked to exposure in utero.” And he claims that the annual costs associated with health effects from exposure to EDCs are in the hundreds of billions of dollars in the U.S. and Europe.
What is the evidence for Trasande’s and other advocates’ claim that EDCs are having detectable and widespread effects on public health from maladies of unknown etiology? Rather than engaging in speculation, a number of crucial points need to be made.
First, we can agree that potentially endocrine-active chemicals are present virtually everywhere, i.e., they can be detected in the environment and in human populations by highly sensitive analytical techniques. However, Trasande and other advocates pay little attention to actual human exposure in the real world. For most people, exposure to pesticides and industrial chemicals through food and water involves trace amounts. While these chemicals may be detectable in blood or urine using highly sensitive analytical techniques, there is little evidence indicating that they are having biological effects at these very low levels. Not surprisingly, many of the associations that have been reported are not reproducible.
Second, Trasande and other EDC advocates ignore the fact that pesticides currently in use have been tested for toxicity and have a safety margin of several orders of magnitude below the level at which toxic effects have been observed.
Third, while focusing on trace chemical residues, advocates ignore the many real-world factors that have documented health effects and are likely to dwarf any effects of EDCs. These include the increasing consumption of calorie-dense foods and its attendant effects on the prevalence of obesity and diabetes, medications, endogenous hormone production, and physical activity/sedentary behavior.
Fourth, advocates often resort to a sleight-of-hand to give unmerited weight to their hypothesis. They choose disease states like breast and prostate cancer, obesity, or autism, where the causes are complex and poorly understood. They use the seriousness of the disease and the uncertainty about its etiology to frame the question and then provide a convenient “answer” in EDCs.
Finally, Trasande reveals his ideological bent when he asserts that only a “small group of scientists” question the endocrine disruption hypothesis. While academic investigators are more likely to accept this hypothesis, scientists within the regulatory agencies (e.g., U.S. FDA and EPA, EFSA) reviewing the same data often do not find sufficient evidence for adverse effects from EDCs, like BPA at current exposure levels. Truth in science and legally-mandated risk assessments do not rest on consensus, but rather on what the best evidence shows when, interpreted in the light of relevant considerations.
Richard Sharpe, a leader in the field of male reproductive development and one the originators of the “environmental estrogen hypothesis” in the 1990s, has pointed out the fundamental bias that underlies the activist position on EDCs: “I ended up disproving my own hypothesis/ideas (on the potential impact of environmental oestrogens on male reproductive disorders) early on in the ED saga … Plus I was lucky that the question that drove me was ‘what causes these disorders?’ not ‘how do EDCs cause these disorders? Such a simple difference, but it takes your thought processes in a very different direction.” (correspondence with the author, cited in G. Kabat, Getting Risk Right, p. 113).
By refusing to make crucial distinctions and to put the problem of EDCs in perspective, activists divert attention from real problems of much greater magnitude. Of course, contaminants need to be studied, and, particularly, in some heavily exposed subgroups of the population, these may turn out to be having detectable effects. However, to ignore that twenty-plus years of research has failed to turn up solid evidence in support of the thesis does not do much to promote science.
When activists deftly exploit public anxiety, weak but fashionable hypotheses can take on a life of their own, becoming a “regime of truth” that cannot be questioned. However, the self-serving overstatement of what is known is not without consequences. It can provide effective ammunition for those who are ideologically committed to rolling back even well-founded environmental regulation and to dismantling agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency.
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/12/15/nature-editorial-exploits-public-anxiety-endocrine-disruptors/
-
Some Baby Teething Toys May Contain Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals
Dec 18, 2016 | Reuters (In The Washington Post)
Some baby teething toys marketed as nontoxic may contain chemicals that could interfere with hormones involved in normal growth and development, a study suggests.
Fifty-nine water-filled, solid or gel-filled teethers were purchased online and tested for 26 compounds that are called endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
All of the products tested positive for one of those chemicals, bisphenol-A, even though most of the teethers were marketed as BPA-free, researchers report in the journal Environmental Science and Technology.
“BPA has been linked in a wide range of adverse health effects including obesity, diabetes, neurological and developmental disorders,” said senior study author Kurunthachalam Kannan, a researcher at the New York State Department of Health and the State University of New York at Albany.
“We need a stringent regulation to make sure that labels do reflect the reality,” Kannan added by email. Researchers didn’t identify specific products or manufacturers by name in the study, which found a range of different parabens and the antimicrobials triclosan and triclocarban in most of the teethers.
In animal studies, endocrine-disrupting compounds such as BPA, parabens and antimicrobials have been shown to interfere with hormones and have harmful developmental, reproductive and neurological effects.
The Food and Drug Administration banned BPA from baby bottles and children’s drinking cups in 2012. But few studies have investigated whether these compounds are used in teethers or whether the chemicals can leech out and be ingested by babies.
The authors said typical teether usage might keep a baby’s exposure below levels deemed unsafe.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/some-baby-teething-toys-may-contain-hormone-disrupting-chemicals/2016/12/16/7473c01a-c314-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?utm_term=.3bd534dd7b92
-
Future of Top Pesticide Uncertain After Grueling Cancer Review
Dec 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The future of glyphosate, the most widely used pesticide in the world, is uncertain after a grueling, four-day review of the Environmental Protection Agency's scientific evaluation of the chemical's cancer-causing potential.
The 15 scientists assembled by the EPA to analyze glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup and dozens of other weed killers, struggled to reach a consensus amid an ocean of conflicting and, in some cases, flawed data on the health and environmental effects of the chemical.
The scientists now have three months to make a formal recommendation to the agency that could strongly influence its upcoming decision on whether it should impose new safety restrictions on how glyphosate is used.
With the chemical's ubiquity on farms, especially alongside genetically engineered crops, any measure the EPA takes to rein in glyphosate could have seismic economic effects for the agriculture industry. The amount of the chemical used has grown exponentially over the past 30 years and is now approaching 300 million pounds annually, according to data the EPA presented to the scientists.
Carcinogenic?
In advance of the panel's session this week, the EPA prepared hundreds of pages of scientific evidence supporting its conclusion that glyphosate is likely not carcinogenic. This conclusion diverged from a 2015 World Health Organization review that found glyphosate is probably carcinogenic, a finding that triggered numerous lawsuits against Monsanto from cancer sufferers. The European Union also is conducting a risk review of the chemical.
Charla Lord, a Monsanto spokeswoman, told Bloomberg BNA that “the overwhelming conclusion of experts worldwide, including the EPA, has been that glyphosate can be used safely. No regulatory agency in the world considers glyphosate to be a carcinogen.”
However, the scientists assembled by the EPA weren't so certain. They spent four days, including one and a half days devoted solely to hearing comments from the public, poring over scientific studies on links between glyphosate and cancer, particularly a type of immune system cancer called non-Hodgkin's lymphoma that farmers suffer at higher rates than other occupational groups.
Many of the panel's scientists were reluctant to declare that glyphosate definitively does not cause cancer, as the EPA had done. But they also said the data indicating the chemical is a cancer danger is far from clear.
“There's been 30 years of study on this chemical, and I'm surprised we're still at this level of uncertainty on this,” panelist Kenneth Portier, a statistician with the American Cancer Society, said.
‘Clear as Mud’
One of the key disputes among the panel was whether the increased lymphoma rate among farmers is caused by glyphosate exposure or by some other aspect of agricultural work.
Dr. Eric Johnson, a panelist who teaches epidemiology at the University of Arkansas, said this could be settled by comparing data on cancer rates among farmers who spray glyphosate with the same data on factory workers who manufacture the chemical. This would also reveal whether the raw chemical itself is causing cancer or whether it's the mixture of glyphosate with other commonly used inert ingredients.
However, EPA officials informed Johnson that they don't have access to the factory worker data because these workers fall under the jurisdiction of occupational health and safety authorities. Industry representatives, meanwhile, told Johnson they couldn't supply him with the data.
“We're asking EPA to be transparent, but we're not seeing that from industry,” Johnson said. “These are the types of things that make people suspicious of industry.”
At the end of a lengthy discussion on this topic, filled with cross-talk and raised voices, the chairman of the scientific panel asked EPA official Anna Lowit if the agency understood the panel's position.
“It's clear as mud,” Lowit replied.
Panel Makeup
To make matters more complicated, the very makeup of the panel itself was a point of contention.
The scientists were supposed to have met in October but, just days before it was to begin, the EPA postponed the meeting until Dec. 13. The delay was “due to the voluntary departure of a panel member,” EPA spokesman Nick Conger told Bloomberg BNA at the time.
As it turned out, that member was likely Peter Infante, a scientist who had in the past strongly condemned Monsanto and its research into the risks posed by its own products. The pesticide industry trade group CropLife America had asked the EPA to remove Infante from the panel, citing his alleged biases against its members. Infante responded to these claims with a subsequent letter of his own to the EPA.
But while Infante was not sitting on this week's panel, he did attend its deliberations and made comments to the panel as a member of the public. He also told Bloomberg BNA that his removal was not voluntary, but he declined to elaborate further on what happened.
The EPA also declined to comment on Infante's status. The environmental advocacy group the Center for Food Safety sent the EPA a letter earlier this week arguing that Infante's removal violated federal laws on advisory committees.
Next Steps
Now that the panelists have concluded their public deliberations, they will have 90 days to synthesize their thoughts into an official but nonbinding report to the EPA.
The EPA will use that report to inform its decision on how glyphosate can be used, not only on farms but also for weed control in residential and commercial buildings.
The EPA has been revisiting the terms of its approval of glyphosate as a part of its periodic registration review process, in which it's legally required to review the risks and efficacy of all pesticides at least once every 15 years.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102143411&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102143411&jd=102143411
-
Final EPA Assessment For Ethylene Oxide Retains Cancer Risk Findings
Dec 16, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's final assessment of the sterilizing chemical ethylene oxide's (EtO) inhaled cancer risks echoes three earlier drafts of the study that found the chemical causes both breast cancer and leukemia, and sets a cancer potency estimate that the chemical industry has protested as overly strict, particularly for a chemical with EtO's benefits.
The final Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment released Dec. 16 sets a full lifetime unit risk estimate of 5×10^-3 per microgram per cubic meter of air (per ug/m^3). This cancer potency estimate is based on human epidemiology data of both incidence of lymphoid cancers and breast cancer.
It includes an Age Dependent Adjustment Factor, an extra measure of safety EPA uses when a chemical is considered to be of particular risk to children. EPA's first draft of the EtO assessment, released in 2006, was the agency's first use of the safety factor.
The newly finalized potency estimate is slightly stricter than the estimates presented in the last draft of the report, released in 2014, of 1.8×10^-3 per ug/m^3. It is significantly stricter than the number EPA calculated for EtO in a previous analysis of the chemical in 1985, of 1 x 10^-4 per ug/m^3.
The final number will disappoint industry officials who criticized the similar draft values in the past for being too strict. Various trade groups urged EPA to account for the fact that EtO is an endogenous chemical, produced naturally by the body as well as exogenously. They also outlined the chemical's beneficial uses in sterilizing medical equipment and other items. Some argued that for certain medical devices, there are not alternatives to EtO to sterilize the items.
Since 1999, EPA has sought to update its published 1985 IRIS assessment of the chemical's carcinogenicity. EtO, commonly used as an intermediate to make other chemical products like detergent, antifreeze and polyester, and to sterilize medical equipment, has long been suspected of causing breast and lymph cancers.
EPA first released a draft assessment in 2006 and sought peer review from its Science Advisory Board (SAB). The advisors' critical review, which was issued in 2007 with recommendations on how to better perform the study, delayed the completion of the assessment, as agency staff sought to update and expand its assessment of a key epidemiological study and respond to SAB's recommendation that EPA reconsider its approach to modeling the chemical's cancer risk.
The document also includes separate risk calculations for workers who would be exposed to the chemical on the job, with EPA noting particular concern for sterilizers, as its risk analyses are based on a study of sterilizers. The assessment explains that “the inhalation unit risk estimate was developed for environmental exposure levels (up to about 40 μg/m3) and is not applicable to higher exposure levels, such as those that may occur occupationally, which appear to have a different exposure-response relationship.”
EPA calculates an upper bound extra risk estimate for occupational exposure of 0.081−0.22 per ug/m^3. Because of its uses as a sterilizing agent, EtO is registered as a pesticide.
Usually, EPA's pesticides office calculates its own risk estimates for chemicals that it registers for pesticide uses. But because the chemical has both industrial and pesticidal uses, IRIS retains the authority to assess it -- resulting in a rare pesticide whose risks are analyzed using epidemiological data.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/final-epa-assessment-ethylene-oxide-retains-cancer-risk-findings
-
Enviros Sue FDA Over Formaldehyde In Hair Products
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Gabriel Dunsmith
Two environmental groups sued the Food and Drug Administration this week, accusing the agency of failing to protect the public from formaldehyde in hair salons.
The Environmental Working Group and Women's Voices for the Earth said that FDA had failed to respond to a formal request, made in 2011, that the agency investigate particular hair straighteners. Their petition was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The groups charged that many keratin hair treatments harm stylists and consumers alike.
"For years stylists have reported that the application of these hair treatments caused difficulty breathing, eye irritation and nosebleeds," Tina Sigurdson, assistant general counsel for EWG, said in a statement. "The FDA has been aware of the health hazards associated with the products since at least 2008. Despite these dangers, FDA has yet to take action to remove them from the market."
As formaldehyde-containing hair solutions are heated, the chemical vaporizes. Formaldehyde is a carcinogen as well as a potent allergen.
The hair-straightening treatment often known by the brand name Brazilian Blowout is particularly dangerous, EWG noted.
"The health risks posed by these products deserved immediate action from the FDA when it was brought to their attention in 2008," Alexandra Scranton, director of science and research for Women's Voices for the Earth, said in a statement. "Allowing salon workers and their customers to continue to be harmed by these products for over six years is unconscionable."
On its website, FDA says it sent warning letters in 2011 to two hair product manufacturers — GIB LLC, which does business as Brazilian Blowout, and Van Tibolli Beauty Corp. — citing safety violations involving formaldehyde.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, a branch of the Department of Labor, has also investigated the use of formaldehyde-containing products at beauty salons.
OSHA found multiple salons exceeding federal air standards for the chemical. It also discovered that a Brazilian Blowout product, labeled "formaldehyde-free," contained the toxin. The agency subsequently issued several violations and citations.
But EWG says FDA's and OSHA's work is insufficient to safeguard public health.
The nonprofit notes that Canada, France and Ireland — along with U.S. states California and Oregon — have banned products such as Brazilian Blowout that contain high levels of formaldehyde.
As far back as 2011, House Democrats had called on FDA to recall Brazilian Blowout (E&E Daily, May 11, 2011).
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/12/16/stories/1060047371
-
EU Moves to Close Loopholes on Mercury Ban
Dec 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
European Union countries Dec. 16 signaled that they would back a regulation that will close a number of loopholes in EU laws on mercury, and will align the EU with the United Nations Minamata Convention on Mercury.
The regulation, which was proposed in February by the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, would supplement existing rules by clarifying that mercury is banned from use in the EU unless there are no alternatives, by prohibiting imports of mercury into the EU in most cases, and by permitting mercury in dental amalgam only if contained in capsules.
The regulation also would prohibit use of mercury-containing dental amalgam for children and pregnant women and would require dentistsas of Jan. 1, 2019, to separate waste containing mercury and ensure that it does not enter water supplies.
The EU already bans exports of mercury under a 2008 law (Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008), which would be replaced by the proposed regulation.
Minamata Ratification
The proposed regulation also would be the EU's ratification of the Minamata Convention. Agreed to in 2013, the convention requires the phaseout by 2020 of the manufacture, import and export of products that use mercury, though certain exceptions are allowed.
The regulation is subject to an informal agreement between the European Parliament and the Council of the EU, which represents the governments of EU countries. EU member ambassadors endorsed the informal agreement Dec. 16.
The regulation still requires formal approval by the council and via a vote of the European Parliament, which is scheduled in March 2017.
The EU lags some other economies in taking measures on mercury in line with the Minamata Convention. Canadian prohibitions on mercury imports have been in place since 2015, and the U.S. accepted the Minamata Convention in 2013.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Dec. 15 that practitioners will be required to use dental amalgam separators to capture mercury before discharges are released to publicly owned wastewater treatments plants.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102143399&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102143399&jd=102143399
-
Energy Dept. Defends Environmental Review of Cove Point LNG
Dec 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
The Energy Department said it couldn't forecast meaningful indirect environmental effects from exporting liquefied natural gas at Dominion Resources Inc.'s Cove Point export facility being built in Maryland (Sierra Club v. Energy Dep't, D.C. Cir., No. 16-01186, brief filed 12/15/16).
Along with its Dec. 15 brief filed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Energy Department also filed a new environmental addendum with current data finding that liquefied natural gas exports might increase growth of domestic natural-gas production and incrementally add to significant environmental impacts. But, the department said it “reasonably declined to speculate about specific impacts because such impacts cannot be reasonably foreseen.”
LNG export levels depend on long-term conditions in foreign and domestic markets that are “highly uncertain,” the Energy Department said. It also said that without the ability to predict the total amount and location of increased natural-gas production, it couldn't reasonably predict the impacts on bodies of water, air-quality control regions and land-use planning areas.
The Energy Department's brief is in response to a lawsuit filed by Sierra Club, which claims that expanded LNG exports will increase U.S. natural gas production, processing and pipeline transportation. The Sierra Club argued that these indirect environmental impacts can be reasonably foreseeable in their opening brief filed in October.
The Cove Point LNG case is one of four lawsuits that the Sierra Club has filed in the D.C. Circuit against the Energy Department related to environmental reviews of LNG export facilities. The other ongoing lawsuits include Freeport LNG Expansion, L.P.'s Freeport LNG facility in Texas; Cheniere Energy Inc.'s Corpus Christi LNG facility in San Patricio County, Texas; and Cheniere's Sabine Pass LNG terminal in Cameron Parish, La., which opened and began exports this year.
The Sierra Club separately filed four petitions in the D.C. Circuit against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's approval to begin construction of the Cove Point, Freeport and Sabine Pass LNG export facilities. The D.C. Circuit denied all of these petitions, finding that the indirect environmental impacts of LNG exports would be better addressed by the Energy Department.
Final briefs in the Cove Point LNG case against DOE are due Feb. 14, 2017. The schedule for oral argument has not yet been set for the case.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the majority owner of Bloomberg L.P., parent of Bloomberg BNA.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102143401&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102143401&jd=102143401
-
Dec 18, 2016 | The Wall Street Journal
Speaking of fake news, the political scientists at the EPA have rewritten the conclusion of a report in order to cast doubt on the safety of hydraulic fracturing. Consider this EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy’s parting gift to Donald Trump.
Last week the EPA issued the final version of a five-year study evaluating the impact of hydraulic fracturing, the oil and gas drilling method known as fracking, on groundwater contamination. The draft report released last year for public comment concluded that fracking has not “led to widespread, systemic impact on drinking water resources in the United States.” The EPA’s findings haven’t changed, but its conclusion has.
After being barraged by plaintiff attorneys and Hollywood celebrities, the EPA in its final report substituted its determination of no “widespread, systemic impact” with the hypothetical that fracking “can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances” and that “impacts can range in frequency and severity” depending on the circumstances.
Any technology has the potential to inflict some damage—self-driving cars can be hacked to go haywire—and the EPA explains that drinking-water contamination could occur if wastewater is incorrectly disposed or wells are poorly sealed. In Pavillion, Wyo., the EPA’s faulty construction of a monitoring well caused contamination.
Yet after reviewing more than 1,000 studies, the EPA couldn’t find more than limited evidence—mostly alleged by plaintiff attorneys—of operational failures causing contamination. That the EPA uncovered only a few instances of contamination among a million some wells reinforces its prior conclusion that fracking doesn’t threaten the drinking-water supply.
The EPA now asserts that “significant data gaps and uncertainties” prevent it from “calculating or estimating the national frequency of impacts.” For instance, water-quality data was not collected everywhere prior to the introduction of fracking, which has allowed plaintiff attorneys to ascribe any contamination to oil and gas companies.
Methane can leak into groundwater naturally, and the EPA even notes that “site-specific cases of alleged impacts” are “particularly challenging to understand” because “the subsurface environment is complex.” Scientists have documented methane in the shallow subsurface of Susquehanna County, Pa.—one area of alleged fracking contamination—dating back more than 200 years.
So after spending $30 million and five years to produce a risk assessment, the EPA has found no evidence that fracking causes widespread contamination. Two years ago, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo used the pretext of scientific “uncertainties” to ban fracking, and the EPA’s revised report will give him cover for depriving upstate residents of its economic benefits. Progressives are using the report as ammunition in their media campaign against fracking, and plaintiff attorneys will use it in lawsuits.
Liberals denounce anyone who cites uncertainties about carbon’s climate impact as “deniers.” So it’s ironic that they are now justifying their opposition to fracking based on scientific uncertainties. As for the EPA’s science, bending to public comment from litigants and actor Mark Ruffalo does not instill confidence in the agency’s integrity.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-epas-science-deniers-1482099327
-
Don’t Shut Down Fracking — Regulate It Instead
Dec 16, 2016 | The Washington Post
By Editorial Board
HYDRAULIC FRACTURING — also known as fracking — has been a roiling issue over the past several years. For much of that time, Environmental Protection Agency experts have been studying the practice, used to extract oil and natural gas from underground rock formations, at Congress’s behest. The agency released its final report Tuesday, and the conclusion the findings support is inescapable: Fracking should not be shut down — it should be well-regulated.
Various players in the fracking debate reacted to the EPA’s work, which focused on fracking’s possible effects on drinking water, by claiming some degree of vindication. The report backed off controversial language included in a draft that suggested no “widespread, systemic impacts,” and underscored that there is still some uncertainty about fracking’s impact. Environmental activists played up the report’s finding that it is possible for fracking operations to harm drinking water in certain circumstances. Industry boosters noted that, despite the shift in wording, the EPA found only scattered and anecdotal records of any kind of harm.
In fact, the report’s findings help neither the activists who want to end fracking nor the industry that wants unfettered drilling. This should be unsurprising to reasonable observers following the issue for the past several years; the facts have never supported either side’s radical position.
Of course there is potential for fracking to affect drinking water. This can occur because of poor drilling jobs, drilling too close to old wells, injecting fracking fluid at the same depth as water resources, mishandling fracking chemicals, improperly collecting flowback water, carelessly disposing of wastewater, failing to seal spent wells properly and using up scarce water resources in drought zones. The EPA found real-world instances of harm, including a 30-foot geyser of brine and gas that shot out of an old well in Pennsylvania after a nearby frack job forced drilling fluid into the ground at high pressure.
But, the agency also noted, the number of fracked wells in the country has been astonishingly high in recent years, and there is only sparse and isolated evidence of real harm. Meanwhile, drilling for gas has provided jobs and helped displace dirty coal as an energy source.
This is not to say the EPA documented every instance of harm — it did not. The agency stressed that there is still uncertainty about how often fracking affects nearby water. But in documenting the ways in which fracking might contaminate water, the EPA provided a road map for minimizing the potential for harm. Regulations should do things such as require solid well casings, prohibit injecting water too close to the water table, demand that drillers account for nearby wells and force operators to take care in handling chemicals and wastewater. Even as fracking continues, regulators should ensure consistent and careful monitoring of nearby water resources.
With the Trump administration poised to ramp up drilling across the country, officials should keep the EPA’s balanced report in mind. A host of fracking regulations are justified — not in the interest of punishing industry or asserting federal control, but of public health and environmental responsibility. With smart state and federal rules, the country can reap big economic and environmental benefits with far lower risks, more local acceptance and a cleaner conscience.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-shut-down-fracking--regulate-it-instead/2016/12/16/43d5db98-c2f4-11e6-8422-eac61c0ef74d_story.html?utm_term=.249990ff6d6f
-
Michigan Passes Major Energy Policy Overhaul
Dec 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
The Michigan Legislature approved two bills that will shape for decades the state's energy policies, requiring increased use of renewable energy sources while empowering retail customer choice, and providing new business opportunities for alternative-energy generators.
The bills, approved late Dec. 15, preserve the state's hybrid policy of having 90 percent of the state's energy market regulated and allowing customer “choice” in 10 percent of the market, based on overall electricity sales. They will require regulated market participants to increase their use of renewable energy sources to at least 15 percent by 2021.
The legislative package leaves in place a net metering regime that allows retail customers to sell excess capacity to the grid at retail prices, a model opposed by some utility companies, but the legislation requires further study of the issue.
No Rate Hikes Seen
While no exhaustive economic analysis was conducted of the bills, in part because they were heavily rewritten in the days leading up to their passage, environmental organizations and utility companies said the measures were not expected to result in rate increases for retail or industrial customers.
The legislative package is seen as a success for Gov. Rick Snyder (R), who is expected to sign the bills.
The measures are S.B. 437, which introduces and extends a regulatory regime for public and private utilities; and S.B. 438, which requires regulated utilities to develop energy efficiency plans and renewable energy goals, and assess net metering costs.
Snyder said the bills mean the state will have a reliable energy supply delivered at affordable prices in an environmentally sustainable way, while working to eliminate energy-inefficient practices. He spoke to reporters after both legislative chambers approved the package.
Manufacturers, utilities and environmental groups all ultimately supported the legislative package, even while not happy with all elements of the bills.
“This legislation is the result of two years of debate, discussion, and compromise. And the definition of compromise is that nobody gets everything they want,” John Austerberry, Detroit-based DTE Energy Co. spokesman, told Bloomberg BNA.
Snyder first outlined his energy objectives in 2012.
Utilities Must Outline Plans
Under the legislation, Jackson, Mich.-based Consumers Energy Co. and DTE Energy, the state's two large energy utilities, as well as other regulated energy firms, must increase their renewable energy credit portfolios to 15 percent by 2021.
The companies will then have to solicit bids from alternative-energy generators and consider their inclusion in the utilities’ “integrated resource plan” that will be submitted to the Michigan Public Service Commission, which will have the authority to reject the plan.
Their integrated resource plans could recommend reducing the amount of their renewable use, or expand their use greatly. The utilities are required to issue a request for proposal soliciting the use of alternative energy sources to help the utility meet its expected electricity demands.
The plan will provide a 15-year outlook for meeting the state's electricity demand in a way deemed in the best interests of ratepayers; it can be amended with commission approval.
“The best part of this is that you don't have to run back to the legislature” to have a new energy plan reviewed, Sen. Mike Nofs (R), a sponsor of the legislation, told Bloomberg BNA. “We said anything, anything, even if it doesn't exist today, can come into this process. And once it's developed its owners can make a pitch that we go forward utilizing that new technology,” he said.
“That's what I love about this plan: We, the legislature, didn't pick winners and losers. Everyone has to compete—coal, solar, biomass, everything—and when they compete we get the best deal for the Michigan citizens,” he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102143416&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102143416&jd=102143416
-
Senate Democrats Seek Probe of Trump's Queries of Energy Staff
Dec 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Traywick
Senate Democrats asked a U.S. investigative agency to determine whether a questionnaire sent to Department of Energy staff by President-elect Donald Trump's transition team violates federal law.
The questionnaire, obtained by Bloomberg News, asked Energy Department staff to provide the names of staff who attended United Nations climate meetings and helped to shape climate policy at the agency, among other queries.
In a letter dated Dec. 15 and sent to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, nine senators led by Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal assert that the Trump team's request violates a nearly 40-year-old law protecting federal employees from recrimination.
‘Clear Intent to Retaliate’
“Taken together, these questions seem to demonstrate a clear intent to retaliate or discriminate against federal employees,” the senators wrote. “We ask you to take a close look at the motives of the transition officials in singling out federal employees for implementing our nation's climate change policies.”
The Energy Department refused to provide the Trump team with the names of staff members. The Trump transition team has since tried to distance itself from the questionnaire, saying the information request was unauthorized and the person who sent it “has been properly counseled.“
Sen. Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, also sent a letter to Trump warning that any punishment of agency workers carrying out policies his administration doesn't agree with “would be tantamount to an illegal modern-day political witch hunt, and would have a profoundly chilling impact on our dedicated federal workforce.”
The senators are asking for a response from Carolyn Lerner, who heads the Office of Special Counsel, by Dec. 23.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102143419&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102143419&jd=102143419
-
Dems Call For Federal Probe Of Trump Team's DOE Questionnaire
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
Nine Democratic senators today called for a federal investigation into a controversial questionnaire distributed by President-elect Donald Trump's transition team to Department of Energy staffers.
A letter to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, spearheaded by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), outlines concerns about the Trump team's request for a list of the personnel who may have been involved in climate-related issues. They also sought peer-reviewed publications by staff of the 17 national laboratories.
The Democrats asked the Office of Special Counsel, which protects federal employees, to probe whether the DOE questionnaire "or any similar questionnaire being circulated by transition officials" violated federal laws designed to protect civil servants from partisan attacks.
"We also ask that you publicly communicate to Congress clear guidance on the circumstances under which the Office of Special Counsel will investigate instances of retaliation or discrimination against career civil servants for implementing the policies of any previous administration," the senators wrote.
DOE declined to turn over the names, and Trump's transition team has since disavowed the request, indicating that the staff member behind it had been "properly counseled" (Greenwire, Dec. 14).
The senators say that the "opaque response" only increases the need for an independent investigation and request a reply by Dec. 23.
The letter was signed by Democratic Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Dianne Feinstein of California, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Ben Cardin of Maryland and Chris Coons of Delaware.
In a related development, Democratic members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee have urged the State Department to follow DOE's lead in shielding career employees who worked on climate change in the event they receive a Trump transition team request (Climatewire, Dec. 16).
Senate Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), House Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), and House Oversight and Government Reform ranking member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) have all requested records and correspondence related to the questionnaire.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/12/16/stories/1060047367
-
Draft Massachusetts Rules Would Require Lower Emissions in 2018
Dec 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel
Massachusetts power plants and gas companies would be required to lower their greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 under draft regulations issued by the state Dec. 16.
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection issued the draft rules as a step toward bringing the state into compliance with its 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act. The Supreme Judicial Court ruled May 17 that the state would not meet its own targets and had to issue new rules (Isabel Kain & Others v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., Mass., No. SJC-11961, 5/17/16).
The proposed regulations will ensure the state meets these limits and “continue to protect public health and safety, infrastructure, communities, small businesses, and our state's abundant natural resources from the effects of climate change,” Gov. Charlie Baker (R) said Dec. 16 in a statement.
Eighty Percent Reduction by 2020
The Global Warming Solutions Act calls for emissions reductions that are 25 percent below those of 1990 levels, by 2020 and 80 percent below that level by 2050.
The draft regulations are broken down into six areas that focus on carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles; other transportation emissions; methane emissions from natural gas: emissions from electricity generation; sulfur hexafluoride emissions; and a proposed clean energy standard.
Massachusetts had reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 19.7 percent from 1990 levels in 2013, Baker said. The draft regulations will lower emissions another 5.3 percent by 2020, Baker said.
Not Strong Enough, CLF Says
The Conservation Law Foundation, which was a plaintiff in the suit calling for enforcement of the state's global warming law, believes the draft rules need to go further to meet the court's directive, David Ismay, an attorney with CLF, told Bloomberg BNA Dec. 16.
The aggregate cap on emissions from in-state power plants is set too high, Ismay said. The draft rules propose a cap on those emissions in 2018 of 9.12 million metric tons. The CLF believes it should be 8 million metric tons or less, Ismay said.
The DEP is accepting public comments on the rules and will hold hearings the week of Feb. 6. It will finalize the regulations by Aug. 11, 2017.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102143417&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102143417&jd=102143417
-
1,100 Medical Professionals Urge Trump To Keep Rule
Dec 19, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
A coalition of 1,100 doctors, nurses, medical students and other health professionals today urged President-elect Donald Trump to support U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan and other climate change initiatives.
In a letter organized by Environment America, the coalition outlined health impacts associated with climate change, such as heat-related illness, asthma and respiratory illnesses.
"You have the power to dramatically cut the greenhouse gas pollution fueling this crisis. We ask you to work to shift towards a 100 [percent] renewable energy and efficient future, while phasing out the use of fossil fuels," the letter states.
The coalition suggests five steps Trump should take during his first years in office, including supporting the power-sector regulations, phasing out fossil fuel drilling and mining on federal lands, and enforcing greenhouse gas standards in the automobile sector.
On the campaign trail, Trump promised to unwind many of President Obama's environmental rules. He has selected Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R), a prominent foe of the Clean Power Plan, to head his EPA.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/12/16/stories/1060047366
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Pick Pruitt Strong Critic of Draft Chemical Plant Safety Rule
Dec 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
President-elect Donald Trump's nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) to head the Environmental Protection Agency could weaken safety standards at high-risk chemical plants as the agency delays finalizing the draft regulation.
Pruitt has taken a hard line against the pending regulation, “Modernization of the Accidental Release Prevention Regulations Under Clean Air Act” (RIN:2050-AG82), writing in a letter to the agency in July the rule was dangerous and should be withdrawn.
“As the federal agencies responsible for national security have warned you, compiling that information and making it easily accessible also aids those who might seek to cause an intentional release for nefarious purposes, by providing those bad actors with information that would help them both select a target and exploit any security vulnerabilities their target might have,” the letter said.
EPA, meanwhile, has delayed its timeline to complete the rulemaking. According to a Nov. 15 letter that Mathy Stanislaus, assistant administrator for land and emergency management, sent to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the rule is slated for publication in January, not this month as previously announced. Stanislaus’ letter contradicts EPA's regulatory agenda, published on Nov. 17, that stated the rule would be released this month.
That leaves expected publication just weeks away from President-elect Trump's inauguration, making the rule vulnerable to being rescinded by Congress or Pruitt. The House Freedom Caucus also included the risk management plan rule on a list of more than 200 regulations it wants repealed.
Echoing arguments advanced by industry groups, Pruitt warned against disclosing information about the chemical inventories of high-risk sites because it could be useful to terrorist groups. Advocacy groups, meanwhile, have argued that communities have a right to know that chemical facilities have emergency plans for accidents, should they occur.
Context of Pruitt's Warning Unclear
Pruitt's letter did not specify which warnings by federal national security agencies he referenced. In 2000, the EPA and the Department of Justice finalized a rule implementing restrictions on public distribution of offsite consequence analysis information or companies’ estimates of the impacts of a catastrophic release on a surrounding area from risk management plans. The rule was required under the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act of 1999.
That rule allowed for limited public access to information while accommodating security concerns. For example, only residents near a plant can view the information at EPA reading rooms, and they face limits on how many reports can be accessed over a period of time.
According to the final rule, the FBI “and other representatives of the law enforcement and intelligence communities” had warned the EPA not to post the information on the Internet because it would “enable individuals anywhere in the world anonymously to search electronically for industrial facilities in the U.S. to target for purposes of causing an intentional industrial chemical release.”
The EPA's more recent proposal does not propose changing the status of offsite consequence analysis data. However, even its more limited disclosure requirements have been met with controversy.
Pruitt's office didn't respond to a request for comment by Bloomberg BNA.
Audit Disclosure Flagged as Terrorist ‘Roadmap’
In comments to EPA earlier this year, the American Chemistry Council argued against even the more limited disclosure. The group noted that during interagency deliberations on the draft rule, a reviewer warned EPA that making third-party audit reports available under public records requests, as proposed in the rule, “may inadvertently provide a roadmap to assist terrorists” and provides greater detail than made available under related Department of Homeland Security and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Explosives permitting programs. The reviewer's affiliation was not specified.
Beyond the risk management rule, Pruitt's stance has right-to-know advocates concerned that access to public information could be curtailed in the Trump administration.
It's not clear if Pruitt's EPA would attempt to rescind the regulations through rulemaking, ask Congress to block them under the Congressional Review Act, or simply not enforce the regulation.
Right-to-Know Advocates Worried
Pruitt's stance runs contrary to that of the EPA's current leadership and former EPA administrators like Christine Todd Whitman, who led the agency for part of the George W. Bush administration.
The next administration could try to roll back the RMP rule if EPA finalizes it by then, or rescind President Obama's Executive Order 13650, “Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security,” to choke off a process that prodded agencies to coordinate on new regulations.
The disclosures proposed under EPA's pending rule will help communities hold companies accountable for their practices and having less transparency would be a mistake, Greenpeace Legislative Director Rick Hind told Bloomberg BNA Dec. 15.
Local first-responders can request information under the proposed rule.
“I think this is shaping up to be the most corrupt administration in history,” Hind said. “Whenever you have this many elements of the industry that is supposed to be regulated running the government, you're asking for a lot of trouble because there's a conflict of interest that is wrong from the standpoint of public trust, but it's also an area where it's easy to stray into illegality.”
The EPA also missed opportunities to finish the rule faster, Hind said, which would have made it more difficult for the next administration to rescind the rule.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102143402&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102143402&jd=102143402
-
Corpus Christi, Tex., Lifts Ban on Drinking the City’s Water
Dec 16, 2016 | AP (In The New York Times)
HOUSTON — A nearly four-day ban on drinking the water in Corpus Christi, Tex., was lifted on Sunday after test results showed no contamination because of a chemical leak, the city’s mayor announced.
Mayor Dan McQueen said residents could resume using the city’s water supply for drinking, bathing and cooking.
“It is all full use, but we are going to continue to monitor as we go on,” Mr. McQueen said.
None of the 28 drinking water samples the Environmental Protection Agency reviewed tested positive for Indulin AA-86, an asphalt-emulsifying agent that is corrosive, the federal agency said on Sunday in a statement. Indulin can burn the eyes, skin and respiratory tract if a person comes into contact with concentrated amounts.
The water ban had been issued late Wednesday out of concern that a chemical leak at an asphalt plant leased to Ergon Asphalt and Emulsions by oil refiner Valero could have contaminated the city’s water supply.
The E.P.A. said there had been seven unconfirmed reports of symptoms possibly related to prohibited water use. The federal agency, along with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, will continue collecting and testing water samples over the next few days.
Mr. McQueen said officials would continue investigating the leak at the asphalt plant and seek possible damages from those responsible.
An E.P.A. spokesman, David Gray, said on Saturday night that the federal agency would begin an investigation of the leak and take appropriate action as soon as it finished with the water testing.
On Saturday, city officials had said that there had been three reports of dirty water before the ban had been issued.
Valero said in a statement Saturday that it then notified the city of “milky, sudsy water” at the plant on Dec. 7, a week before the water use ban was announced.
Ergon had said in a statement that it used a soap solution consisting of about 98 percent water and 2 percent Indulin and hydrochloric acid in its asphalt operations.
Officials in Corpus Christi on Sunday began to dismantle distribution centers that had been set up to give water to residents, said the city manager, Margie Rose.
The mayor cautioned residents to be conservative in their water use to avoid overtaxing the system after water tanks were flushed in parts of the city, which has about 300,000 residents and is along the Texas Gulf Coast.
This was the latest in a string of water scares for the city. In May, the city issued its third boil advisory in a year as a precaution after nitrogen-rich runoff from rain flowed into the water system, resulting in low chlorine disinfectant levels in the water supply.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/18/us/corpus-christi-tex-lifts-ban-on-drinking-the-citys-water.html?_r=0
-
New York’s Cybersecurity Regulations May Seem Burdensome, But They’re Necessary
Dec 19, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Chris Ensey
In recent years, more and more companies across a range of industries have fallen victim to cyber attacks, including Sony Pictures, Yahoo!, and LinkedIn; however, we have yet to see a successful large scale breach of a major U.S. financial institution.
Given the vast influence that large banks hold over both an individual’s personal finances and the greater U.S. economy, there must be systems in place to help prevent cyber attacks, alert customers in the event of a breach, and allow institutions to recover following an attack.
In September, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New York’s top banking regulator wisely proposed new regulations that would require financial institutions, including banks and insurance companies, to follow a new set of cyber protection guidelines. (There are many exemptions for banks that have fewer than 1,000 customers in each of the last three calendar years, less than $5 million in gross annual revenue for each of the past three fiscal years, and less than $10 million in year-end total assets.)
The period for comments from the industry closed in November, and the regulation will be effective starting Jan. 1, 2017. Financial institutions then have 180 days to comply with the policy. The new regulations have sparked many discussions about the impact they will have on both the finance industry and cybersecurity broadly.
The New York regulations are a good starting point to help ensure cybersecurity best practices within the financial industry. The new provisions align strongly with the Center for Internet Safety (CIS)’s 20 CIS Controls, which are seen as an industry standard for threat prevention and mitigation for cybersecurity. Earlier this year, the state of California made history by releasing the California Data Breach Report, which recommended that companies operating in California and other states adhere to the CIS Controls.
Several provisions of the New York policy specifically are worth drawing attention to for both their strengths and faults.
500.04 Chief Information Security Officer
The new regulations call for companies to designate a Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) to oversee the implementation and enforcement of the organization’s cybersecurity practices. This is a great step toward creating a more secure financial industry, as making one individual responsible for the coordination of all cybersecurity efforts lowers the chance that something will fall through the cracks. In the current cyber climate it is more important than ever for cybersecurity professionals to have a voice within the C-suite. The provision’s statement that companies can use third-party service providers to fill this role will also allow financial institutions to meet this requirement while using fewer resources. Additionally, it is a thoughtful, appropriate response to the current cybersecurity employment environment, in which there are not enough cybersecurity professionals to meet the demand.
500.05 Penetration Testing and Vulnerability Assessments
Penetration testing, in which assessors try to get past a company’s security measures to test the strength of the protections, is a good start, but broader monitoring tactics would provide a stronger defense against attacks. Instead of or in addition to penetration testing, financial industries should engage in continuous monitoring of their defenses. Continuous monitoring enables companies to spot a potential breach as soon as it occurs and take immediate steps to address it, as opposed to identifying security gaps every once in a while.
500.12 Multifactor Authentication
The focus on multifactor authentication is great from a cybersecurity industry perspective. This tactic has been proven to be extremely effective at protecting companies and their customers’ sensitive data. However, this security system can be expensive to implement, and many organizations will likely struggle to get these mechanisms in place. In the long run, though, multifactor authentication is a solution that will be worth the cost.
500.18: Limited Exemption
Although the intention of this item to protect small businesses from overly burdensome regulation is admirable, in this case it is actually somewhat misguided. Certainly, other provisions of this policy have been criticized for requiring too much from companies, between time, money, and human resources. The less obvious downside to this provision that removes the burden from small companies is that requiring them to comply with these regulations will actually help them and their clients in the long run. A full 60 percent of small companies go out of business within six months of a cyber attack, according to The US’ National Cyber Security Alliance. Small companies often have more to lose than large companies when their data is breached, so it is critical for them to have systems to protect their data. Implementing good cybersecurity hygiene when the company is still small can be less expensive than waiting until the company grows, and it is a good practice to have good cybersecurity habits ingrained in the company as it expands and new people come on board. Despite the potential financial stress these regulations may pose for small companies, it is truly in their best interest to implement them. From the policy side, lawmakers should strive to create a middle ground that minimizes exemptions for smaller companies without being too burdensome in order to promote the long-term success of small businesses.
Although New York’s regulations are far from perfect, they are a step in the right direction toward creating a more secure cyber environment for the financial industry.Chris Ensey is COO of Dunbar Security Solutions.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/310734-new-yorks-cybersecurity-regulations-may-seem-burdensome-but
-
(ACC Mentioned) Rail Shippers Call On Trump To Appoint A Shipper-Friendly STB
Dec 16, 2016 | Progressive Railraoding
A group of more than 50 business executives recently sent a letter to President-elect Donald Trump's administration calling on it to work with them to appoint Surface Transportation Board (STB) members who are "committed to eliminating outdated rules and overly bureaucratic procedures that shield the rail industry from competition."
In a letter addressed to Vice President-elect Mike Pence, the executives identified themselves as leaders of some of the nation's largest customers of freight-rail service. Many of them are members of the Rail Customer Coalition, a collection of trade associations that represent the manufacturing, agricultural and energy industries, including the American Chemistry Council, Edison Electric Institute, Fertilizer Institute and International Warehouse Logistics Association.
"Over the past decade, obsolete regulatory protections and an overly burdensome STB process have allowed freight-rail rates to double — more than three times the rate of inflation — even though the volume of freight carried by the railroads has barely increased," the letter stated. "At the same time, rail service has not improved. Many shippers — from factories to farms — are captive to a single railroad, and the STB has been ineffective in addressing widespread complaints about unreasonable rates and poor service."
In the letter, the executives ask the Trump administration to work with them to appoint a new chairman and new members for the STB who are committed to moving the board forward "instead of preserving the status quo."http://www.progressiverailroading.com/shippers/news/Rail-shippers-call-on-Trump-to-appoint-a-shipper-friendly-STB--50416
-
Five Ways Trump Could Unwind Obama's Environmental Policies
Dec 17, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Many of President Obama’s climate and environmental policies are unlikely to survive under President-elect Donald Trump.
Trump railed against Obama’s record throughout the presidential campaign, promising to repeal regulations, increase fossil fuel production and more.
Since so much of Obama’s record on the environment is built on regulations and executive actions, Trump can scale back or outright reverse much of it without action from Congress.
Trump will be able to start executing many of the changes on his first day in office, while others will require a long regulatory process.
Here are five of the major changes Trump is likely to bring.
Allow more fossil fuel production
Trump promised during the campaign that he would “unleash an energy revolution,” in large part by making it easier to extract oil, natural gas and coal, even though domestic oil and gas production levels are near record highs.
He said that on his first day in office, he would lift “the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal, and we will put our miners back to work.”
One of his top targets is the Obama administration’s moratorium on new leases for mining coal on federal land, which began earlier this year. The administration said it was imposing the moratorium while it reviews the environmental impacts of the federal coal program and possible policy changes such as increased royalty rates.
The coal moratorium falls under the purview of the Interior Department, which Trump tapped Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke (R) to lead. Zinke has been an outspoken opponent of the moratorium, which he said has an outsized impact on Montana.
Trump also wants to make more areas available for offshore drilling. Obama recently made final a five-year schedule for offshore leases that excludes the Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific oceans, which prompted congressional Republicans to call for Trump to immediately expand areas for drilling.
Obama’s final years in office have brought numerous regulations on oil and natural gas drilling, including rules regarding hydraulic fracturing and methane emissions.
Companies say those rules severely limit their growth and are pushing for them to be repealed. The rule on fracking on federal land, written by the Interior Department, was struck down in court, and Trump could quickly end the Obama administration’s appeal of the decision.
Repeal regulations
Obama’s regulations have been a hallmark of his environmental agenda. He frequently argued that Congress fell short of its responsibility to protect the environment and tasked his administration with filling the gap.
Since so many of Obama’s policies were regulatory, Trump can use the same regulatory process to roll them back.
The Clean Power Plan and the Waters of the United States rule were two of the regulations Trump spoke about unwinding most frequently on the campaign trail. Both are on hold while they are being litigated.
The climate rule limits carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, while the water rule asserts federal authority over small waterways like streams and wetlands.
Representatives of two dozen conservative states this week wrote to Trump to suggest that he take action on his first day in office against the climate rule. They said he could immediately declare that it is illegal and instruct the EPA not to enforce it, then later work through the regulatory process to wipe it from the books.
Any move by the Trump administration to roll back a regulation would be subject to lawsuits from environmentalists, liberal states and others. Courts are likely to give Trump wide leeway in his regulatory moves, but they might not let him roll back everything he wants to.
Stop international cooperation on climate
Last year’s Paris agreement, in which nearly 200 nations agreed to limit or cut their greenhouse gas emissions, was one of the top items on Obama’s climate agenda.
It’s also one of Trump’s top targets. While he has shown some signs since Election Day of reconsidering, he promised to “cancel” the accord, and his aides have analyzed strategies to quickly pull the United States out of it — potentially within the first 100 days of his presidency.
Obama promised as part of the agreement that the United States would reduce its emissions 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025. But the emissions cuts are not internationally binding, so Trump could also choose to ignore them altogether.
Beyond the Paris agreement, Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerrymade climate a top diplomatic priority. In recent years they have used almost every high-level diplomatic communication to push international leaders on the issue.
Trump, by contrast, has shown no willingness to follow suit. Rex Tillerson, his nominee for secretary of State and the outgoing CEO of Exxon Mobil Corp., comes from a company that supports the Paris accord, but it remains to be seen if that will inform his work as the country’s top diplomat.
Stop defending Obama’s regulations in court
Nearly every major environmental regulation from Obama garnered a lawsuit from the industries it affects and from conservative states, and much of that litigation is ongoing.
Once Trump takes office, he will have the power to instruct Justice Department attorneys to stop defending the regulations.
Those attorneys could let the courts decide the cases, or could ask the courts to let the agencies go back and rewrite the rules.
Since the fracking rule has been overturned by a district court and is now being appealed, the decision to stop defending it could mean that the rule is dead.
Other major regulations like the Clean Power Plan and Waters of the United States could potentially be sent back to the agencies. But it is up to the courts to decide.
When the Trump administration declines to defend Obama’s regulations, environmental groups are likely to step in to defend them, whether the federal government wants them to or not.
Weaken environmental enforcement
Trump’s attorneys in the EPA, the Justice Department and other agencies will have great leeway in how they enforce environmental laws against companies that pollute or break other laws.
Recent Republican administrations have taken action to cut back on enforcement at the EPA and elsewhere, while Democrats have ramped it up.
Trump, his attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions and others would have multiple tools at their disposal to ease up on punishments.
They could use prosecutorial discretion to decide which cases to pursue, change budgeting to devote less money to the cause or prioritize resources to certain law enforcement issues over others.
Environmental groups can at times challenge changes to enforcement policy in court. Specifically, greens can sometimes sue companies that break laws if the federal government doesn’t take action, or if they argue that the action is too weak.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/310822-five-ways-trump-could-unwind-obamas-environmental-policies
Congressional Hearings - There are no relevant hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested