Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 12/22/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Specialty Chemical Markets Volumes Rose In November, ACC Says
Dec 21, 2016 | ChemEngOnline
By Scott Jenkins
The American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com) reported that U.S. specialty chemicals market volumes rose 0.4 percent in November. -
Oregon Adopts Final Rules On Reporting Under Toxic Free Kids Act
Dec 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
Final rules setting out manufacturer reporting requirements and setting out non-compliance penalties under the Toxic Free Kids Act were posted by the Oregon Health Authority earlier this month. -
US Retailers Urged To Adopt Children's Cosmetics Safety Policies
Dec 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
US NGO, the Breast Cancer Fund, is calling on retailers to adopt policies that ensure the safety of personal care products aimed at children. This, it says, would fill the "void” left by federal cosmetics laws. -
Trump EPA Transition Team Lacks Expertise on Chemicals, Water
Dec 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
... But what appears to be absent from the nine members of the EPA transition team is any background in chemicals, pesticides, water pollution, and other policy areas where the agency enforces environmental laws to control contamination and protect public health. -
Dupont Loses Third Teflon Chemical Trial; Chemours Falls
Dec 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jack Kaskey and Tiffany Kary
DuPont Co. was found liable for causing a man's testicular cancer, the third consecutive verdict against the company as juries begin to hear 3,500 lawsuits over a Teflon chemical found in Ohio and West Virginia water supplies. -
Human Biomonitoring Programme “Paramount” To Chemical Regulation, Says Commission
Dec 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
Human biomontoring (HBM) will be a “paramount contribution” to the European Commission's work on chemicals regulation, says a key official in its industry directorate. -
ECHA Committee Highlights Risk Of DiBP In Children’s Products
Dec 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Echa's Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) has highlighted a potential risk from the phthalate DiBP in toys and childcare articles. -
UK Moves Closer To Ban On Microbeads In Cosmetics
Dec 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The UK's environment ministry and the devolved administrations for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have launched a consultation to ban microbeads in cosmetics and personal care products by October 2017. -
State Officials Wrong To Seek Reversal Of Clean Power Plan
Dec 21, 2016 | The Hill- Congress Blog
By Sarah Willey
One of the most significant threats to our health and our livelihood is climate change. I was so disappointed when I read that 24 state officials, including my own attorney general Chris Koster in Missouri, wrote a letter requesting the repeal of the Clean Power Plan when President-elect Trump takes office in January. -
Moniz To Perry: Call Me Anytime
Dec 21, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz is standing at the ready to answer any questions Rick Perry may have about the Energy Department, which the former Texas governor is slated to lead next month. -
Venture Global Says Second Louisiana LNG Terminal Is A Go
Dec 21, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
Venture Global LNG said Wednesday it will proceed with construction of its proposed $8.5 billion liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal in Plaquemines Parish, LA. -
Oklahoma's New Fracking Guidelines Aim to Reduce Quake Risk
Dec 21, 2016 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Liz Hampton
Oklahoma is imposing guidelines to reduce the risk of earthquakes caused by hydraulic fracturing in its oil-rich shale formations, the first rules in the state to target the controversial production technique. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Issues Chemical Plant Safety Rule Opposed by Pruitt
Dec 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The Environmental Protection Agency's final rule to tighten safety requirements at high-risk chemical plants, an important part of an executive order President Barack Obama issued in 2013, faces an uncertain future in the incoming Donald Trump administration. -
EPA Finalizes Refinery Rule With Flexibility For Responders
Dec 21, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell
U.S. EPA has finalized a chemical safety rule that would require oil refineries, chemical plants and major industries to increase efforts to prevent serious accidents and keep the public better informed about potential risks. -
EPA Issues New Facility Safety Rule, But Seeks To Ease Security Fears
Dec 21, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA's final rule strengthening its facility safety program includes new requirements for hazard analysis, auditing and information sharing, though the agency eased some proposed provisions to address concerns from industry and state officials, including those raised by President-elect Donald Trump's intended nominee to run the agency, though it is not clear if the changes will satisfy critics' calls to block or kill the measure. -
EPA Looks To Mitigate Chemical Plant Disasters
Dec 21, 2016 | The Hill -E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation aims to minimize the harm to local communities from disasters at chemical plants. -
EPA Defends Reliance On CSAPR Trading Rule As Regional Haze Control
Dec 21, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is defending from legal attacks its rule allowing states' participation in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) power plant emissions trading program to satisfy requirements in its regional haze reduction program, claiming environmentalists' attacks on the rule are largely moot and also faulting industry's challenge. -
Durbin Warns of Climate Shift Under Trump
Dec 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
Funding to combat the effects of climate change may get cut as early as 2017 if people President-elect Donald Trump has named to key cabinet positions adhere to their previously stated views on the issue, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), the minority whip, warned. -
Energy Secretary Says Trump Request On Climate Change Names “Not Appropriate”
Dec 21, 2016 | Fuelfix
By James Osborne
U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz criticized a request by President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team to hand over the names of federal employees who worked on climate change issues as “not appropriate.”
Industry and Association News
LCSA News- There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Specialty Chemical Markets Volumes Rose In November, ACC Says
Dec 21, 2016 | ChemEngOnline
By Scott Jenkins
The American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com) reported that U.S. specialty chemicals market volumes rose 0.4 percent in November. This follows a revised 0.1 percent gain in October and a 0.2 percent gain in September. Volumes have generally been moving up since May. All changes in the data are reported on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis. Of the 28 specialty chemical segments we monitor, twenty-one expanded in November and seven experienced decline. During November, large gains (1.0 percent and over) were noted in cosmetic chemicals, mining chemicals, oilfield chemicals, and specialties.
The overall specialty chemicals volume index was off 0.7 percent year-over-year (Y/Y) on a 3MMA basis. The index stood at 105.2 percent of its average 2012 levels. This is equivalent to 7.25 billion pounds (3.29 million metric tons). The downturn in the oil and gas sector affected headline volumes and weakness spread to other segments as well. Year-earlier comparisons have been negative since second quarter 2015. Lately, the year-earlier declines have been moderating. On a Y/Y basis, there were gains among sixteen market and functional specialty chemical segments.
Specialty chemicals are materials manufactured on the basis of the unique performance or function and provide a wide variety of effects on which many other sectors and end-use products rely. They can be individual molecules or mixtures of molecules, known as formulations. The physical and chemical characteristics of the single molecule or mixtures along with the composition of the mixtures influence the performance end product. Individual market sectors that rely on such products include automobile, aerospace, agriculture, cosmetics and food, among others.
Specialty chemicals differ from commodity chemicals. They may only have one or two uses, while commodities may have multiple or different applications for each chemical. Commodity chemicals make up most of the production volume in the global marketplace, while specialty chemicals make up most of the diversity in commerce at any given time, and are relatively high value with greater market growth rates.
http://www.chemengonline.com/u-s-specialty-chemical-markets-volumes-rose-in-november-acc-says/
-
Oregon Adopts Final Rules On Reporting Under Toxic Free Kids Act
Dec 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
Lawmakers incorporate lessons learned from Washington statute
Final rules setting out manufacturer reporting requirements and setting out non-compliance penalties under the Toxic Free Kids Act were posted by the Oregon Health Authority earlier this month.
Authority spokesman Jonathan Modie said state lawmakers had been interested in harmonising its law with other state statutes, especially those in Washington, and incorporating any lessons learned garnered from previous legislation.
The final rules end one of the bill’s most contentious debates – whether "inaccessible" chemicals should be exempt – by not including such an exemption.
Colin Price, director of market innovation at the Oregon Environmental Council, said NGOs and industry groups debated whether manufacturers should be required to notify the state if chemicals that appear on the state’s list of high priority chemical of concern are used in parts of a product that are “inaccessible.”
“In the end, they sided on the side of science and on the side of legislative intent and legal intent,” Mr Price said. “We didn’t want to see a loophole that could cause potential exposure.”
Mr Price said that while inaccessible parts of a children’s product are intended to not be in contact with children, the chemicals from those parts of the product could leach, volatilise or migrate, into other parts of the products, or into the environment. Allowing them, he said, added too much risk.
The American Chemistry Council and the Toy Industry Association were two organisations thatargued against the restriction earlier during the rulemaking process.
They argued that there is a false presumption that the presence of an identified chemical in a children's product means the product is somehow harmful. Instead, they said, the risks associated with a chemical in a product are dependent upon the potency of the chemical and the magnitude, duration and frequency of exposure.
There was also argument that these types of requirements put unnecessary burdens on industry, especially if they differ from state to state.Additional differences
Mr Modie said Oregon’s statute differs slightly from Washington’s regarding products that could be placed in children’s mouths.
For Oregon, the definition of a mouthable product has been expanded to include products, or parts of a children’s product, that are intended to be placed in a child’s mouth. Washington’s definition specifically applies to products that are kept in the mouth and sucked or chewed. The sizing of such objects is also specified in Washington’s definition, too.
Oregon also features a small business exemption. Businesses with less than $5m in global sales are not subject to the restrictions.Looking forward
With the Phase 2 rulemaking now complete, the state is expected to begin Phase 3 discussions in 2017 on rules for how industry must prove that substitute chemicals are safer than the toxics they will replace. Rule development and rules advisory committee meetings begin in 2019.
The final phase will detail requirements for manufacturers to phase out chemicals of concern from products. Oregon is the only state that has required this phase-out provision. Phase 3 will also establish approved methods for alternative assessment.
“The Oregon Health Authority has had a tough challenge during the rulemaking process, but they’ve done their due diligence to listen to all sides of the argument,” Mr Price said. “They’ve had to balance the arguments. They did their due diligence, listened to both sides and navigated the more difficult parts of rulemaking. We’re pleased with this process and look forward to working with them on Phase 3.”
https://chemicalwatch.com/51822/oregon-adopts-final-rules-on-reporting-under-toxic-free-kids-act
-
US Retailers Urged To Adopt Children's Cosmetics Safety Policies
Dec 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
US NGO, the Breast Cancer Fund, is calling on retailers to adopt policies that ensure the safety of personal care products aimed at children. This, it says, would fill the "void” left by federal cosmetics laws.
The NGO made the recommendation in its Campaign for Safe Cosmetics study, Unmasking Toxic Chemicals in Kids’ Make-up, which found that a number of children’s cosmetics contained volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The report says VOCs are linked to “a wide variety of cancers”.
Campaign for Safe Cosmetics director, Janet Nudelman told Chemical Watch: “The fact that only two pages of federal law exists to regulate a $71bn industry, means manufacturers and retailers need to do a better job of self-regulating the safety of cosmetics and personal care products and stop selling products that are exposing kids to unsafe, toxic chemicals."
Researchers tested 65 products containing either fragrance or styrene-based ingredients from the label-reading exercise to test for the presence of VOCs through third-party laboratories.
The products included lip balm, nail varnish, makeup kits, body sprays, shampoos and lotions.
At least one VOC was found in 20% of the products (13 of 65). Seven VOCs were found, including toluene, styrene, ethylbenzene and vinyl acetate.
The US National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer classify styrene as a reasonably anticipated human carcinogen.
Ethylbenzene and toluene are listed on California’s Proposition 65 list of known carcinogens.
In its Opinion, from 2008, the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (Sccp) said that "inclusion of toluene up to 25% is safe from the general toxicological view in nail cosmetics used as intended in adults and children".
However, it added that there is a “foreseeable risk of increased inhalation by children as part of the normal playing behaviour from cosmetics promoted as children's toys”. “Therefore, the use of toluene in such products is not considered appropriate”.Policy action
The Campaign for Safe Chemicals set the following guidelines for retailers:expand the sale of safer cosmetics and personal care products free from chemicals;adopt a list of chemicals banned from use in private-label and national brands sold in stores;reward full ingredient disclosure on the part of the brands they carry, including fragrance disclosure;reformulate private-label products to eliminate chemicals of concern;share the company’s safe cosmetics policy on website and corporate responsibility reports; andstrive for continuous improvement in policies and practices by monitoring scientific research regarding emerging chemicals of concern.
Ms Nudeman said that although a number of major retailers including Walmart, Target, CVS and Walgreens have announced publicly that they are “raising a higher bar of safety” for the cosmetics and personal care products they sell, their conversations were “not very public-facing.”
The study identified six products containing VOCs being sold at Target. A spokesperson for the store, said it was committed to providing “high quality and safe products” and required vendors to comply with all federal, state and local laws.
Researchers also found VOCs in four products sold at Toys R Us. A spokesperson at the company said: “We are working with the manufacturer to investigate the items in question and will pull the products from our shelves immediately if we find they are found in violation of our rules. There are no exceptions when it comes to ensuring the products we sell are safe for our customers.”
They added that the store required all manufacturers’ products to meet or exceed regulatory requirements, which are "outlined in the store’s global product requirements and reinforced in contracts and operating procedures".
VOCs were also found in three products sold at Dollar General, but the company did not respond to Chemical Watch’s request for comment.Heavy metals concern
The report also tested 48 face paints bought online and tested them for heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead and mercury. They found that 21 items had trace amounts of at least one heavy metals. Lead was found in 20% of the face paints and cadmium in 30%.
The report called these findings "particularly concerning."
Although cadmium and lead are restricted in children's products under the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), they are not restricted in cosmetics.
Ms Nudeman said: “Since the CPSC already has the legal authority to regulate cadmium and lead in kids' toys; and face paints and kids’ make-up kits are being sold in toy stores, we absolutely think the CPSC should guarantee the safety of these products as well.”
The CPSC did not respond to a Chemical Watch request for comment.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51667/us-retailers-urged-to-adopt-childrens-cosmetics-safety-policies
-
Trump EPA Transition Team Lacks Expertise on Chemicals, Water
Dec 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
President-elect Donald Trump's landing team at the Environmental Protection Agency includes some of the Obama administration's biggest foes on climate and energy policy.
But what appears to be absent from the nine members of the EPA transition team is any background in chemicals, pesticides, water pollution, and other policy areas where the agency enforces environmental laws to control contamination and protect public health.
By way of comparison, President Barack Obama's energy and natural resources transition team had “a broad mix of expertise,” said Robert Sussman, the co-chair of the Obama transition team in 2008 who later joined the EPA as a senior policy adviser.
“These areas were a significant focus of our transition report, in addition to air and climate,” Sussman told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail. He named former EPA water chief Chuck Fox, President Ronald Reagan's associate administrator Joe Cannon, and New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection policy adviser Michelle DePass as examples.
Myron Ebell, who leads Trump's EPA landing team, is a well-known skeptic of man-made climate change. Amy Oliver Cooke—one of the most recent additions to the team—built her career as a radio personality promoting energy independence and criticizing environmental regulations. David Schnare of the Energy and Environment Legal Institute has sought damaging information on climate scientists via the Freedom of Information Act.
These advisers, along with Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, the president-elect's pick to head the agency, have advocated for a hands-off federal EPA that transfers power to the states.
While that approach might appease the heads of some energy and utility sectors, it could rankle industries that must comply with those decisions such as the pesticides and commercial chemicals sectors.
Pushing for Uniformity
Chemical and pesticide companies are among those that welcome the predictability that comes with federal regulations.
“The chemical industry worked really hard to insist and push for uniformity” in the recent update to the 1976 Toxics Substances Control Act, Jim Aidala, former EPA toxics chief under President Bill Clinton and now a consultant with Bergeson & Campbell PC, told Bloomberg BNA. They pushed for central federal authority so “they don't have 50 different states regulating a product in 50 different ways,” he said.
Chemical manufacturers will see a number of new regulations under the June 22 Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182).
The Trump administration also will handle the implementation of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA), which will expire on Sept. 30, 2017, and must be reauthorized by Congress. The law gives the EPA the legal authority to license pesticide makers and review the potential health and environmental risks of using pesticides.
Those regulations and the approval process provide certainty for pesticide registrants, said Rebeckah Adcock, senior director of government affairs for Crop Life America and an unofficial adviser to the transition team.
But there's room for improvement within the Office of Pesticide Programs, which under Obama undertook a number of controversial stances, she said.
The EPA decided to consider epidemiological studies for its reassessment of chlorpyrifos, an insecticide linked to neurodevelopmental birth defects at sufficient levels of exposure. The pesticide industry, which rejects claims that the chemical has long-term effects on brain development, says that these types of population studies are less precise than laboratory studies on test animals.
“We will have to take issue with some of the broad-based policies and science that the OPP has taken on in the last few years,” she told Bloomberg BNA.
Those conversations are “going to be different than talking about the Office of Water and the Office of Air,” said Adcock, who sat on Trump's agricultural advisory committee for his campaign.
Adcock said she had no opinion on the makeup of the EPA transition team. A transition spokesman did not immediate respond to a request for comment.
Reliance on States
Trump has targeted for repeal the Obama administration's Clean Water Rule, which clarifies which streams and wetlands fall under federal oversight. But other Clean Water Act issues may not be as prominent said Fredric Andes, a water attorney who is a partner in the Chicago and Washington D.C. offices of Barnes & Thornburg LLP.
It is not uncommon for a president-elect to choose a team based on his priorities—in this case, climate change and energy issues—rather than having someone cover each of the various programs, such as water or Superfund, Andes told Bloomberg BNA.
He said that Trump's choice of Pruitt to lead the EPA may dictate the direction of programs within the agency. Oklahoma has substantial experience dealing with water shortages and reuse of water from oil and gas operations, said Claudio Ternieden, government affairs director for the Water Environment Federation.
The president-elect also made water infrastructure a central talking point in his campaign, calling for tripling the funds for the EPA's State Revolving Fund loan program to help communities pay for upgrades.
If the Trump administration doesn't show strong leadership in certain environmental areas, that leadership role may fall to states, said Jessica Dexter, staff attorney at the Environmental Law and Policy Center.
“We're going to have to rely a lot more on our states to uphold environmental regulations,” she told Bloomberg BNA.
States grappling with how to regulate coal ash from power plants, for example, may have an opportunity to develop strong permitting programs. The Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (S. 612), signed into law Dec. 16, allows states to develop their own programs to manage coal ash waste disposal that are at least as protective as federal rules.
“I don't expect to see wild variations between the different state permitting programs … but it kind of remains to be seen,” Dexter said.
CEI's Network
And while the transition team itself doesn't have any policy experts beyond climate and energy, the Competitive Enterprise Institute—Ebell's organization—does.
Angela Longomasini, a senior fellow at CEI, said she is not involved in the transition. But she has thoughts on how the new administration should handle her issues.
For one, Longomasini said she would like to see the EPA revise its standards for “reasonable certainty of no harm,” which she thinks has blocked necessary pesticides from approval.
“Those guys need tools on the ground to fight things like Zika,” she told Bloomberg BNA. “There's fewer and fewer [of those tools] because the standard is so stringent.”
“Maybe the climate now politically is better and they can start looking at these things,” she said.
With assistance from Sylvia Carignan and Amena H. Saiyid
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102393408&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102393408&jd=102393408
-
Dupont Loses Third Teflon Chemical Trial; Chemours Falls
Dec 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jack Kaskey and Tiffany Kary
DuPont Co. was found liable for causing a man's testicular cancer, the third consecutive verdict against the company as juries begin to hear 3,500 lawsuits over a Teflon chemical found in Ohio and West Virginia water supplies. Chemours Co., spun off last year, is supposed to bear the cost (In re Dupont de Nemours and Co. C-8 Pers. Injury Litig., S.D. Ohio, No. 13-md-2433, 12/21/16).
A jury in Columbus, Ohio, awarded $2 million in compensatory damages to Kenneth Vigneron, 56, activist group Keep Your Promises DuPont said in an e-mail Dec. 21. Jurors also found grounds for punitive damages, which will be determined after a hearing starting Jan. 4. DuPont made C-8, also known as PFOA, in Parkersburg, West Virginia, for nonstick coatings, stain-resistant carpets and firefighting foams.
Juries in the first two cases that went to trial also delivered verdicts against DuPont, and 38 more trials are scheduled to begin in May. The company is appealing the first ruling and plans to appeal the second.
The latest verdict is a significant setback for Chemours, Tom Claps, a litigation analyst at Susquehanna, said in a note. DuPont spun off Chemours last year and assigned the new company responsibility for covering damages from such lawsuits. Chemours has indicated it might not pay.
“DuPont is the named defendant in each of the cases and is liable for any judgment,” Cynthia Salitsky, a Chemours spokeswoman, said in a statement. “This type of litigation typically takes place over many years, and interim results do not predict the final outcome of cases.”
DuPont said it won't comment until the second phase is completed.
Shares Decline
Chemours dropped 6.5 percent to close at $23.43 in New York. DuPont, which has agreed to merge with Dow Chemical Co., gained 0.3 percent to $75.46.
Chemours bonds also fell. Its $1.2 billion of 6.625 percent bonds due in May 2023 dropped 2 cents to 98.5 cents on the dollar at 2:25 p.m. in New York, according to Trace, the bond-price reporting system of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.
Earlier this month, Carneys Point Township, New Jersey, where DuPont's Chambers Works facility is based, filed a lawsuit against DuPont in state Court. The town seeks $1.1 billion to clean up contamination, alleging the complex released more than 100 million pounds of chemicals from the late 19th century to the 1970s, affecting local areas. The facility was spun off to Chemours along with liability for C-8 and similar products in 2015.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102393418&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102393418&jd=102393418
-
Human Biomonitoring Programme “Paramount” To Chemical Regulation, Says Commission
Dec 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
Human biomontoring (HBM) will be a “paramount contribution” to the European Commission's work on chemicals regulation, says a key official in its industry directorate.
Speaking at the launch of the EU-funded Human Biomonitoring Initiative (HBM4EU) in Brussels, the directorate's deputy director general, Antti Peltomaki, said his team was “quite convinced” REACH was “delivering”. But “of course there is a lot still to be done, as new evidence and information becomes available. And that is what we are expecting of this project for human biomonitoring: that we are having better and better information available to us.”
He added: “Using our limited resources, authorities must then intervene on chemicals that are mattering the most and that are causing the most concern about creating harm for human beings or for the environment. Human biomonitoring will be a paramount contribution for all of our regulatory work.”
The initiative's organisers have conducted a prioritisation exercise, in which nine substance groups were selected for initial focus:phthalates and alternative plasticiser Hexamoll Dinch;bisphenols;per- and poly-fluorinated compounds (PFCs);flame retardants;cadmium and chromium;PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons);anilines, including MOCA;"chemical mixtures"; and"emerging substances".
Two additional rounds of prioritisation are scheduled in 2017-2018 and in 2019-2020.
Carlos Moedas, European Commissioner for research, science and innovation, described REACH as an “amazing” Regulation but said it "cannot be static, especially in the world in which we live, that regulation has to continually take on new scientific evidence.”
He said that fear of chemicals was at a “very high” level in Europe, laying blame at the door of the media. “The stories about chemicals and our health appear in newspapers, on the internet, everyday. But the evidence behind these stories most of the time is vague or is not there – and that is something that we have to fight against. We have to have stories that have evidence.”
He hoped the biomonitoring initiative would deliver:“comprehensive and accessible EU wide data on chemical exposure”;“joint guidelines and standards for sample collection and analysis across Europe”; and“a network of qualified laboratories”.
With reference to transparency, Mr Moedas said the initiative was a “showcase for open access to data”.
The Information Platform for Chemical Monitoring (IPChem) would be the “reference gateway” for data, said Charlina Vitcheva, deputy director general of the Commission’s Joint Research Council.
Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis said that for him there were three objectives: “First, to improve our understanding of the effects of chemical exposures. Second, to enable better targeting of health related measures; and finally, [moving us] towards building a new understanding where science is viewed as a friend rather than as enemy.”
He added that he hoped the initiative would “contribute to restoring public trust in science”.
Speaking via a pre-recorded video, Environment Commissioner Karmenu Vella said the collected data would grow the evidence base for development of chemicals policy.
HBM4EU will span five years with funding from the EU Horizon 2020 framework, although the organisers hope it will eventually lead to permanent HMM scheme. It builds on two previous EU HBM programmes, Cophes and Democophes.
Stated objectives include:harmonising HBM procedures across the EU, so that data from one region are directly comparable with those from all others;linking data on internal exposure to chemicals to aggregate external exposure in order to identify pathways and upstream sources;generating scientific evidence on the causal links between human exposure to chemicals and health outcomes;adapting chemical risk assessment methods to use HBM data and account for the contribution of multiple external exposure pathways to the total chemical body burden; andfeeding information on exposure pathways into the design of targeted policy measures to reduce exposure.
Videos and presentations are available online.
More explanation of HBM is available on CW+ Chemical Risk Manager.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51841/human-biomonitoring-programme-paramount-to-chemical-regulation-says-commission
-
ECHA Committee Highlights Risk Of DiBP In Children’s Products
Dec 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Echa's Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) has highlighted a potential risk from the phthalate DiBP in toys and childcare articles.
In the minutes of the 38th meeting of Rac, it says this risk "needs to be addressed."
DiBP is listed on Annex XIV of REACH, the authorisation lists. Because no application for authorisation of DiBP was submitted, its use in Europe was phased out by February 2015. However, this does not extend to imported articles.
Echa and Denmark have proposed a REACH restriction on the use of DiBP and three other phthalates (BBP, DBP and DEHP) in consumer products where skin contact or contact with mucus membranes is likely.
The agency and Denmark believe that restricting the substance – as opposed to authorisation – may be necessary for the phthalates, because many articles containing them have been produced outside the EU. As such, they are unaffected by any authorisations, which only apply to chemicals and articles manufactured in the EU.
Unlike the three other phthalates (DEHP, BBP and DBP), DiBP is not restricted in childcare articles, although Echa told Chemical Watch that the substance has “a similar anti-androgenic potency.”
In the Annex XV restriction report for the four phthalates, it says: “DiBP is not restricted in childcare articles. Children could therefore be exposed dermally to DiBP from childcare articles as changing mats, bibs or car seats. If DiBP is used in a changing mat, the exposed dermal area could be as large as half of the body surface area.”
The proposed restriction is supported by the European Council for Plasticisers and Intermediates (ECPI). ECPI manager Jean-Luc Wietor said the restriction of DiBP "would protect public health and ensure a level playing field for EU industry versus importers of articles manufactured outside the EU.”
The European Association for the Coordination of Consumer Representation in Standardisation (Anec) also told Chemical Watch that it “strongly supports" further restrictions of phthalates in consumer products and in particular, a ban of DiBP in toys and childcare articles.
Chair of the Anec sustainability and chemicals group, Dr Franz Fiala, said: “DiBP is of great concern because this substance has similar application properties as DBP covered by the current REACH restriction for toys and childcare articles (entry 51 of Annex XVII) and is, therefore, being used as a substitute for DBP. The toxicological properties of DiBP and DBP are similar.”
The NGO, Women in Europe for a Common Future (WECF) said a restriction of DiBP in toys and childcare articles would be "very good news”.
WECF health and environment advocacy & project manager, Elisabeth Ruffinengo said that because the proposed restriction would apply to imported articles, it would “avoid double standards between EU-made and imported products, and cover a number of articles which are not under a scope of a restriction today.”
Meanwhile in the US, the Consumer Products Safety Commission has proposed a ban on five phthalates in toys and childcare articles, including DiBP.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51737/echa-committee-highlights-risk-of-dibp-in-childrens-products
-
UK Moves Closer To Ban On Microbeads In Cosmetics
Dec 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The UK's environment ministry and the devolved administrations for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have launched a consultation to ban microbeads in cosmetics and personal care products by October 2017.
The consultation outlines proposals to ban the manufacture and sale of cosmetics and personal care products containing microbeads. It also explores further steps to prevent other sources of plastic from entering the marine environment. The consultation closes on 28 February.
Greenpeace welcomed the proposals but criticised the fact that they are "limited to just personal care and cosmetic products, despite the consultation document admitting that microbeads are found in 'washing powders, household cleaners' and other items not included in their draft ban."
It follows calls MPs made in August for a ban.
Meanwhile, many leading UK retailers, including Tesco, Waitrose, Boots and Superdrug have announced moves to phase out microbeads from the products they sell.
The Scottish government has also confirmed it will introduce legislation regulating the use of microbeads.
In November Canada proposed a ban on the manufacture, import or sale of personal care products containing plastic microbeads.
And a month earlier, South Korea's Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) said it was planning to ban the use of microbeads in cosmetics.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51850/uk-moves-closer-to-ban-on-microbeads-in-cosmetics
-
State Officials Wrong To Seek Reversal Of Clean Power Plan
Dec 21, 2016 | The Hill- Congress Blog
By Sarah Willey
One of the most significant threats to our health and our livelihood is climate change. I was so disappointed when I read that 24 state officials, including my own attorney general Chris Koster in Missouri, wrote a letter requesting the repeal of the Clean Power Plan when President-elect Trump takes office in January.
That’s not to say I was surprised to see the letter. After watching my attorney general join with some of his co-signors to sue the EPA over the Clean Power Plan, this was not an unexpected move. But it was the wrong one.
This legislation is extremely important for our future. The Clean Power Plan will reduce carbon pollution from power plants through better emissions standards. Controlling emissions is critical in order to combat climate change, which is accelerating and endangers us all. The worsening weather disasters that climate change causes are a real concern. Stronger hurricanes, more frequent heat waves, and increasing drought are three examples of how climate change impacts our country. Not only are these disasters costly in terms of dollars (the EPA says climate and weather disasters in 2012 alone cost our country’s economy over $100 billion), but they cost our citizens their lives. It is already happening, and if we don’t take action (and our government doesn’t help us address it), it will get worse.
Climate change isn’t the only reason the Clean Power Plan matters. The decline in air quality from coal plant emissions has a very real impact on our health directly, too. I suffer from asthma, currently requiring three daily inhalers. My ability to breath is deeply impacted by this pollution. I am not alone. Asthma rates are increasing in the United States, and the CDC reports asthma is responsible for 10.5 million doctor visits, 1.8 million emergency room visits, and over 3,600 deaths annually. The Clean Power Plan is estimated to be able to prevent 140,000 or more asthma attacks in children, and save anywhere from 2,700 to 6,600 lives, by 2030. Environmental protections are public health protections.
Ultimately, the Clean Power Plan is also a boon for our nation’s economy and independence. Solar energy is increasingly affordable, and has already been declared cheaper than coal in some places such as the Philippines and India. Wind energy is also increasingly competitive with fossil fuels. As utilities make the switch to more renewable sources of energy, we benefit as our electricity bills lower. We could each be spending an average of $8 a month less by 2030 according to the EPA’s estimate.
The officials who signed this letters are mistaken to think that the Clean Power Plan represents an “extreme” overabundance of regulation. It represents a reasonable and necessary protection of Americans’ health and well-being, one that we can’t afford to let go. Our elected officials need to put our health over corporate interests, and everyone who signed this letter should be ashamed of themselves.
Sarah Willey works for Great Rivers Environmental Law Center in St. Louis, Missouri, a non-profit that provides legal resources to defend the environment and public health. She is an active volunteer with the Sierra Club, and currently serves as the chair of their Council of Club Leaders and Missouri Chapter.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/311346-state-officials-wrong-to-seek-reversal-of-clean-power
-
Moniz To Perry: Call Me Anytime
Dec 21, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz is standing at the ready to answer any questions Rick Perry may have about the Energy Department, which the former Texas governor is slated to lead next month.
Moniz said that he’s had a “couple of brief conversations” with his intended successor.
“I must say [the conversations were] extremely cordial and constructive and we have every intention of talking with him as much as he would like, and as much as we can provide information for him, obviously, as would be the case for anyone,” Moniz told reporters today.
“He has to assemble a team that has different knowledge base, different experiences and — as with anyone — there’s a lot of information to absorb for a department that has, frankly, the complexity that this department has,” he said, before giving an elevator summary of the agency’s mission on Cold War nuclear cleanup, weapons, research and basic science.
“We have a lot of challenges and I’m certainly available to help the governor as much as I can,” Moniz said.
Moniz and Loan Programs Office Director Mark McCall suggested that the $2 billion in conditional loan guarantees officially offered to Lake Charles Methanol today weren’t run by President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team.
Loan guarantees “mature when they are ready,” Moniz said. “We cannot and I certainly have not discussed [loan guarantees] with anyone outside of the government… This is a procurement-sensitive activity and those discussions do not go outside until we announce them, like today.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Venture Global Says Second Louisiana LNG Terminal Is A Go
Dec 21, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
Venture Global LNG said Wednesday it will proceed with construction of its proposed $8.5 billion liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal in Plaquemines Parish, LA.
Plaquemines LNG will be Venture Global's second major natural gas liquefaction and export project in Louisiana, joining the $4.5 billion Calcasieu Pass project, which was announced in Cameron Parish in December 2014 and is under development.
"The long-term prospects for the U.S. natural gas industry are bright, and Louisiana is well-positioned to capitalize on that success with ready access to natural gas supplies and deepwater access for shipping LNG to destinations worldwide," said Gov. John Bel Edwards. "This facility will have a major impact on the local and regional economies by providing hundreds of new high-paying jobs for our skilled workforce."
Plaquemines LNG will be capable of exporting 20 million metric tons per year of LNG. The complex will be on the west bank of the Mississippi River near Mile Marker 55, downriver of Myrtle Grove. The 632-acre site -- about 30 miles south of New Orleans -- includes 7,000 feet of river frontage and is owned by the Plaquemines Port Harbor and Terminal District.
Construction of the project is expected to begin in 2018 once it is authorized by FERC. Full operations are expected to begin in 2022.
Last March, Venture Global Plaquemines LNG LLC applied to the U.S. Department of Energy for free trade agreement (FTA) and non-FTA authorization to export LNG [16-28-LNG]. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the request of Plaquemines LNG to initiate its prefiling process in July 2015 [PF15-27]. The company has said it anticipates filing its formal application with FERC later this year.
Production from Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass LNG project, at the intersection of the Calcasieu Ship Channel and the Gulf of Mexico, could begin by late 2019, and full operations are expected to start in 2020. That facility will be able to liquefy about 1.4 Bcf/d of gas for export, with an annual capacity of 10 million metric tons.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108819-venture-global-says-second-louisiana-lng-terminal-is-a-go
-
Oklahoma's New Fracking Guidelines Aim to Reduce Quake Risk
Dec 21, 2016 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Liz Hampton
HOUSTON — Oklahoma is imposing guidelines to reduce the risk of earthquakes caused by hydraulic fracturing in its oil-rich shale formations, the first rules in the state to target the controversial production technique.
The guidelines are aimed at the South Central Oklahoma Oil Province (SCOOP) and Sooner Trend Anadarko Basin Canadian and Kingfisher counties (STACK) formations, which are anticipated to account for most new oil and gas activity in the state, authorities said on Tuesday.
The moves by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission's Oil and Gas Conservation Division and the Oklahoma Geological Survey came as earthquakes in the state have risen sharply since the shale boom and the use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
The guidelines, which go into effect immediately, include provisions that require producers to implement mitigation plans following an earthquake of magnitude 2.5 or more and to suspend operations following a quake of magnitude 3.5 or greater.
While the guidelines are technically voluntary, the Oklahoma legislature this year gave the Oklahoma Corporation Commission powers to make compliance mandatory.
“We regard these as a starting point, and the producers have been fully cooperative,” said Matt Skinner, public information officer for the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.
So far, directives have focused on curbing use of injection wells for the disposal of saltwater, a normal byproduct of production.
Oklahoma experienced almost 900 earthquakes magnitude 3.0 or greater in 2015 versus just two or three a year before 2009. A magnitude 5.0 earthquake in November near Cushing, Oklahoma, the largest oil storage hub in the United States, renewed concerns a quake could damage energy infrastructure.
That earthquake came just two months after a 5.8 magnitude temblor, the strongest on record for the state.
Production in the STACK and SCOOP may rise if oil prices keep rising following a deal last month by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to curb output.
While the STACK and SCOOP produce much less water than the Mississippian Lime formation, where most of Oklahoma's quakes have occurred, some seismic anomalies have been observed in the area and are believed to be related to hydraulic fracturing.
"The commission isn't concerned about it, but wants to give guidelines to make sure they don't grow in magnitude. They're taking it as a proactive approach to this new emerging formation in the SCOOP and STACK," said Chad Warmington, president of the Oklahoma Oil and Gas Association.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2016/12/20/us/20reuters-oklahoma-quake-rules.html?_r=0
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Issues Chemical Plant Safety Rule Opposed by Pruitt
Dec 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The Environmental Protection Agency's final rule to tighten safety requirements at high-risk chemical plants, an important part of an executive order President Barack Obama issued in 2013, faces an uncertain future in the incoming Donald Trump administration.
The agency “struck the right balance” between industry's compliance concerns and public interest groups pushing for greater safety protections, Mathy Stanislaus, the EPA's assistant administrator for land and emergency management, told reporters on a conference call Dec. 21. Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R), whom President-elect Donald Trump tapped as EPA administrator, has been among the rule's most vocal critics, however.
“I'm very proud of this rule for the safety and protection it delivers local responders,” Stanislaus said. “I think none of us want what has happened in the past where local responders, not knowing what's at a chemical facility, get hurt or die.”
The final risk managmenet program rule (RIN:2050-AG82), released Dec. 21, stems from Executive Order 13650 that President Barack Obama issued in August 2013 calling for coordination between federal agencies to identify gaps in chemical facility regulation. Obama issued the order in the wake of an explosion that killed 15 people at a fertilizer plant in West, Texas.
Stanislaus said the rule is needed to stem 1,500 accidents reported by facilities in the risk management program in the past 10 years.
In proposing the rule in March, the EPA included provisions strengthening emergency preparedness, public access to information, auditing and disaster response coordination requirements, among other modifications.
Pruitt Among Critics
The proposed rule brought criticism from industry trade organizations, who warned it is burdensome and could pose security risks if it forces plants to disclose too much sensitive information.
Pruitt called the proposal a terrorism risk and asked the EPA to withdraw it in a letter to the agency in July.
Under the current system, covered plants are required to file risk management plans with the EPA and local emergency response committees. Part of the plans, known as off-site consequence analyses, are exempted from public disclosure and can be viewed only by local residents at government libraries. The EPA has not changed the status of off-site consequence analyses, but opponents warned posting audits online could make it too easy to learn which plants are vulnerable.
The EPA has made changes to at least two components that had drawn objections from companies and Pruitt in the proposed version.
Responding to the security concerns, the EPA will not require companies to post information on the internet regarding near-misses or chemical stockpiles, but this information will be available to local residents and emergency responders, Stanislaus said.
In addition, the EPA made changes to its requirements for third-party facility audits to make it easier for auditors to meet the requirements, among other adjustments.
Prospects for Rule Unclear
Industry groups said they were still reviewing the plan, but Jennifer Gibson, the vice president for regulatory affairs at the National Association of Chemical Distributors, told Bloomberg BNA the plan still contained problematic changes for companies.
Among the troublesome provisions is a requirement for companies to study if it is feasible to shift to inherently safer systems or processes and conduct third-party audits of plants, Gibson said.
While the EPA responded to security concerns by removing a proposal for online disclosure of some information, companies would still be required to provide some documents to community members upon request, Gibson said.
“In general, we don't think the whole rule is necessary,” Gibson said. “We think that the current [risk management program] regulations are very robust and effective and the key there is just to make sure that they are enforced and followed. I don't know if all these additional requirements are going to make communities safer because the existing rule was fine.”
In a statement to Bloomberg BNA, the American Chemistry Council said the EPA “did not make the best and appropriate use of its regulatory authority” when it issued the proposed rule. The group said its staff will review the final rule further but flagged concerns with auditing and safer alternatives analysis requirements.
Stronger Protections Sought
Public interest groups, meanwhile, said the EPA rule will do too little to protect the public.
Ron White, a public interest environmental health consultant formerly at the Center for Effective Government, told Bloomberg BNA the rule was “very much consistent with the original proposal, except for a few changes that actually, in my perspective, actually weaken the rule.”
White and others had lobbied the Office of Management and Budget to put tougher safety and information sharing requirements for facilities in the final rule.
The rule is not scheduled to take effect until at least a month into the new administration, raising the prospect of a regulatory rollback.
The final rule will take effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, the agency said, but the date of publication has not been determined.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102393419&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102393419&jd=102393419
-
EPA Finalizes Refinery Rule With Flexibility For Responders
Dec 21, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell
U.S. EPA has finalized a chemical safety rule that would require oil refineries, chemical plants and major industries to increase efforts to prevent serious accidents and keep the public better informed about potential risks.
The final rule, signed today by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and submitted to the Federal Register, aims to protect local emergency responders from chemical exposure, prevent accidents in the first place and help facility operators learn from accidents that do occur.
The final regulation differs somewhat from the proposed rule released last March. After seeking feedback from affected parties, agency administrators made several changes, including offering more flexibility for local emergency management teams.
"I think we have a rule that protects local responders, a rule that protects local communities, a rule that protects and enables managers of health facilities to protect themselves, and a rule that reflects the best practices and considerations," Mathy Stanislaus, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Land and Emergency Management, said on a conference call.
The proposal follows a 2013 executive order issued by President Obama after 15 people were killed in an ammonium nitrate explosion at a Texas fertilizer storage and distribution facility (Greenwire, April 18, 2013).
Under the rule, local emergency response and preparedness officials are required to coordinate with facility operators to share information and perform preparation exercises. The final rule is more flexible when it comes to scheduling these meetings.
"The local response and preparedness community wanted more flexibility, wanted to be able to determine the coordination and exercise requirements based on a schedule that works for them, rather than having a prescribed schedule, because we heard from a broad array of emergency response officials that have different kinds of capacity," Stanislaus said.
Monty Elder, former emergency response coordinator for the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, said she was pleased to see that EPA incorporated suggestions to facilitate better communication and coordination between facilities and local first responders.
"I think EPA did a very good job reaching out to stakeholders," she said. "I don't believe it will add a burden to facilities because they already collect that information. It will just allow them to work closer with communities in case of an accident."
The final rule also eliminates a proposed requirement to make information available online, due to cybersecurity concerns.
"We've heard a lot about security concerns, and we agreed with those security concerns, and we are not finalizing the web-based posting," Stanislaus said.
Chemical industry groups slammed the proposed rule, saying it would impose "substantial costs" without significantly reducing the risk of accidental chemical releases (E&E News PM, March 11).
President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to roll back regulations opponents say are too costly. Under a Republican-controlled Congress, the new rule could be included in a Congressional Review Act effort to overturn regulations.
Republicans have been looking at the CRA, which requires a simple majority in both chambers and the president's signature, as a straightforward route to rolling back recent regulations (E&E News PM, Dec. 8).
In reference to a CRA nix, Stanislaus said the new rule reflects years spent understanding the issue, engaging industry and incorporating their concerns.
"I can't speak to future events, although I can speak to [the fact that] I'm very proud of this rule for the safety and protection it delivers local responders," he said. "I think none of us want what has happened in the past, where a local responder not knowing what was at a chemical facility gets hurt or dies. This delivers that protection. And delivers protection for communities adjacent to that."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/12/21/stories/1060047564
-
EPA Issues New Facility Safety Rule, But Seeks To Ease Security Fears
Dec 21, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA's final rule strengthening its facility safety program includes new requirements for hazard analysis, auditing and information sharing, though the agency eased some proposed provisions to address concerns from industry and state officials, including those raised by President-elect Donald Trump's intended nominee to run the agency, though it is not clear if the changes will satisfy critics' calls to block or kill the measure.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy Dec. 21 signed the final rule revising the agency's “Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs [RMP] under the Clean Air Act,” part of a broad federal effort to implement President Obama's August 2013 Executive Order (EO) 13650 on improving facility safety and security.
The rule will take effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register in the coming days or weeks.
EPA's final rule generally codifies much of the agency's March proposed version, including new requirements that certain facilities conduct third-party audits after incidents and near misses, plan for emergencies with local authorities, and conduct an analysis of whether alternative chemicals or safer processes would improve safety.
But the agency sought to ease some proposed requirements to address criticism from industry and some state officials, including Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general who Trump plans to nominate to lead the agency. This summer, Pruitt led a group of Republican state AGs in faulting EPA's proposed information sharing provisions in the RMP rule as increasing risk of terrorist attacks.
"As the federal agencies responsible for national security have warned you,” Pruitt and other attorneys general told EPA, “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."
In response, EPA dropped from the final rule specific requirements for facilities to share information on chemical hazards with local emergency planners. Instead, the EPA rule provides that facilities must share data with local emergency planners during annual meetings, though the agency says its new approach will allow local officials to address security concerns on a case-by-case basis.
The agency also dropped a requirement that facilities make certain facility data available on public websites or libraries, citing security concerns, as well as industry's cost criticisms.
In a statement announcing the final rule, Mathy Stanislaus, EPA's assistant administrator for the Office of Land and Emergency Management, notes that the agency has sought to improve safety while also addressing security concerns raised in public comments on the proposed rule early this year.
“This rule is based on extensive engagement with nearly 1,800 people over the last two and a half years,” Stanislaus says, “These changes are intended to protect the lives of emergency responders and the public, while preserving information security.”
Obama Order
EPA's RMP overhaul is part of a broad federal effort led by EPA, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to implement Obama's 2013 EO seeking to improve facility safety by strengthening coordination; modernizing policies, rules and standards; and bolstering emergency response.
Obama issued the order in the wake of an April 2013 explosion at a fertilizer plant in West, TX, that killed 15 people, including first responders. Currently, the RMP program established under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act requires companies to craft a plan to submit to EPA that outlines how they will reduce risks from releases.
During a contentious rulemaking process, EPA sought to balance calls from environmental and labor groups to require that facilities use alternative chemicals or safer processes, and from industry officials to defer to facilities' expertise on their industrial processes and to limit release of information that could worsen risk of terror attacks.
Although EPA has met its goal of issuing the rule before Obama leaves office, industry sources have said it will likely be blocked by the new administration. Also, some industry sources see the rule as a prime candidate for formal disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, an action that would block a future administration from developing a “substantially similar” measure in the future.
EPA's scaling back of requirements in the proposed rule for sharing facility information responds to warnings this summer from Republican AGs, led by Pruitt, that the rule's disclosure requirements could threaten security by making facility data available to those seeking to carry out terrorist attacks.
Additionally, EPA's final rule adds flexibility to address industry concerns raised on some proposed provisions. For example, EPA requires that certain facilities conduct independent audits following facility incidents or near misses. But the agency dropped proposed requirements for certification of third-party auditors, which industry decried as overly-burdensome. EPA also added language noting that while auditing teams must be led by a third-party, they may include other participants.
Additionally, EPA dropped a provision seeking to clarify the RMP rule's definition of catastrophic release after industry criticism that the revision would expand the number of incidents requiring investigation and exceeds EPA authority.
The agency also finalized a controversial requirement that certain facilities assess whether inherently safer technologies (IST), usually alternative chemicals or processes would reduce risks. The agency declined advocates' calls to expand that requirement for IST analysis to additional facilities, and to require facilities use IST where feasible.
“Consistent with the structure of the RMP rule, EPA has placed IST among the methods a facility may choose to adopt to prevent accidents,” EPA says. “Commenters who argue that we have failed to require accident prevention by not mandating the adoption of IST measures for all facilities wherever feasible fail to acknowledge that non-IST methods for preventing accidents may be reasonable in some circumstances.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-issues-new-facility-safety-rule-seeks-ease-security-fears
-
EPA Looks To Mitigate Chemical Plant Disasters
Dec 21, 2016 | The Hill -E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation aims to minimize the harm to local communities from disasters at chemical plants.
The regulation overhauls major sections of the EPA’s Risk Management Program for such plants, with new requirements that companies coordinate with local officials and first responders, and learn from past mistakes.
The rule comes less than a month before President-elect Donald Trumptakes office, so it could be invalidated by Congress easily. But the regulation has not received the same opposition from Trump and Republicans as more high-profile rules that are likely to be targeted first.
The rule was prompted in part by a 2013 explosion at a chemical plant in West, Texas, that killed 15, injured dozens more and destroyed more than 150 buildings.
“We think this will increase the safety of communities living adjacent to chemical processing plants, while ensuring that they’re integrated within the way that chemical plants operation, because the plants provide an essential service to communities around the country,” Mathy Stanislaus, head of the EPA’s office for land and emergency management, told reporters Wednesday.
“Our data shows that while numerous chemical plants operate safely, in the last 10 years, there have been over 1,500 accidents reported by facilities subject to the [risk management] program.”
The bulk of the rule sets new standards for how companies communicate with their local communities, first responders, government and others, so the local area is prepared for potential explosions or other accidents.
“One of the key issues is to make sure that there’s full knowledge between the facility operators and the local responding community to make sure that they understand who is responding and who has the responsibility to respond,” Stanislaus said.
The rule requires active consultation among the parties involved, meetings if the local officials decide they are necessary and regular response drills.
Other provisions mandate thorough investigations of near misses, extensive third-party audits after actual accidents and, for the riskiest plants, studies of alternative plant technology that could be safer.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/311383-epa-looks-to-mitigate-chemical-plant-disasters
-
EPA Defends Reliance On CSAPR Trading Rule As Regional Haze Control
Dec 21, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is defending from legal attacks its rule allowing states' participation in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) power plant emissions trading program to satisfy requirements in its regional haze reduction program, claiming environmentalists' attacks on the rule are largely moot and also faulting industry's challenge.
In its opening brief filed Dec. 19 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), et al. v. EPA, et al., the Department of Justice (DOJ) on behalf of EPA says developments since the issuance of its June 7, 2012, rule moot many of the arguments brought by petitioners in the case. The rule established that states could use their power plants' participation in CSAPR as an alternative to source-specific best available retrofit technology (BART) otherwise required to curb haze-forming emissions.
CSAPR, finalized in 2011, set up a trading program for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emitted by power plants. It replaced the earlier George W. Bush EPA Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), a trading program which the D.C. Circuit first vacated, then reinstated pending a remand to EPA to address perceived failings. Both rules aimed to help meet the Clean Air Act's “good neighbor” provision, which requires states to mitigate their emissions that “significantly” affect the ability of downwind states to attain or maintain federal air quality standards.
EPA's rule being contested in the UARG suit is referred to by some as the “better than BART” rule, and several states relied on it when crafting their plans for complying with haze reduction mandates.
In the UARG suit, environmentalists -- led by the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) -- object to the use of any trading program to satisfy BART haze program mandates, which they say must apply to pollution sources adversely affecting specific “Class I” national parks and wilderness areas. BART is a one-time requirement that applies under the haze program to large stationary pollution sources, mainly power plants.
Emissions trading, environmentalists argue, can enable some sources to avoid cutting their emissions by instead buying pollution credits from others. This is contrary to the regional haze program, which requires that all sources impacting visibility in Class I areas cut their emissions, environmentalists say.
NPCA also raised other objections, including that EPA wrongly evaluated the impact of CSAPR as an alternative to other regulatory programs, rather than evaluating the combined impact of programs to mirror real-world requirements.
State Plans
Electric utility industry groups and the states of Indiana, Louisiana and Texas, meanwhile, say in the suit that EPA's “better than BART” rule wrongly invalidated state implementation plans (SIPs) for haze that instead rely on CAIR, because CAIR was still in effect -- although remanded by the court -- when states crafted those SIPs.
The court held the UARG case in abeyance pending the resolution of protracted litigation over CSAPR, in which the D.C. Circuit vacated the rule in 2012 in the first of a line of cases known as EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, only for the Supreme Court to reinstate it in 2014.
The high court, however, remanded the rule back to the appeals court, which then remanded several state emissions caps, or “budgets,” to EPA because of perceived “overcontrol” of upwind states.
In response to the remand, EPA has issued a CSAPR “update” rule that reconfigures the program, tightening NOx budgets for some states and adding Kansas to the program, but removing other states from NOx trading. It aims to help states attain the 2008 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 75 ppb, whereas the original addressed the weaker 1997 NAAQS expressed as 84 ppb. EPA, meanwhile, issued a tougher-still ozone NAAQS of 70 ppb in 2015.
The agency has yet to finalize a proposed update to its SO2 budgets, under which some states would voluntarily accept the original SO2 limits, and Texas would be removed from the SO2 program entirely, as SO2 levels have fallen dramatically in recent years.
DOJ in the new brief says all these developments moot industry's arguments in challenging the “better than BART” rule. “There is no effective remedy the Court can grant to State/Industry Petitioners. Therefore, their claims are moot and must be dismissed,” DOJ says. “State/Industry Petitioners are asking the Court to vacate EPA’s decision to delete the CAIR Better-than-BART Rule and to vacate EPA’s disapproval of state implementation plans that had relied on that provision. Such relief would be meaningless because CAIR no longer exists, and thus no state could rely on CAIR as an alternative to BART.”
DOJ adds, “State/Industry Petitioners’ request for the extraordinary and unprecedented relief of ordering EPA to reinstate the former regulation” and also disapproved SIPs “far exceeds the Court’s authority under the Clean Air Act’s judicial review provision and would be an inappropriate use of the Court’s equitable authority. This extraordinary request is also entirely contrary to the statutory requirement that state regional haze plans achieve real progress in reducing visibility impairment in designated Class I areas.”
Environmentalists' Arguments
With respect to environmentalists' arguments, DOJ says that their claims based on the tougher, remanded CSAPR budgets -- which they say demonstrate the better-than-BART rule's inadequacy -- are barred because environmental groups cannot raise issues not mentioned in comments on the proposed better than BART rule.
More broadly, subsequent events since the groups filed suit largely moot their case, DOJ says. “While NPCA did petition EPA for reconsideration of the Rule in light of this Court’s initial 2012 decision in EME Homer City I (which vacated CSAPR), that petition was based on different circumstances, and, in any event, became moot when this Court’s 2012 decision was reversed by the Supreme Court,” DOJ says.
“NPCA has never presented a petition for reconsideration to EPA raising the specific factual issue of whether the Court’s later decision, which remanded (without vacating) a portion of the CSAPR budgets, undermines EPA’s conclusion that CSAPR achieves greater average improvement in visibility than BART. Furthermore, EPA is currently engaged in a rulemaking process to determine whether CSAPR remains better than BART in light of the EME Homer City II remand, and has requested comment on its proposed determination that it does,” the brief adds.
DOJ further defends EPA's use of “presumptive BART” for power plants, under which the agency used computer modeling that was “conservative” and “reasonable” to compare CSAPR to source-specific BART. Also, the agency's choice to compare the two as free-standing requirements was appropriate, DOJ says, and environmentalists arguments against it are precluded by D.C. Circuit precedent in UARG v. EPA, in which the court accepted the approach.
Nor does EPA have to constrain BART alternatives to individual sources or small groups of sources, DOJ argues. “The regulations provide that an alternative to BART is acceptable if the average visibility improvement in all affected Class I areas affected by emissions in a state is greater with the alternative,” DOJ says.
DOJ further raises another procedural argument against NPCA's claims, saying, “its legal argument that EPA’s regulation permitting the use of an alternative to BART violates the statute is a challenge to actions taken in prior EPA rulemakings that were upheld by the Court. Because those agency actions were not reopened in this rulemaking, NPCA’s claim is untimely, and thus not properly before the Court.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-defends-reliance-csapr-trading-rule-regional-haze-control
-
Durbin Warns of Climate Shift Under Trump
Dec 22, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
Funding to combat the effects of climate change may get cut as early as 2017 if people President-elect Donald Trump has named to key cabinet positions adhere to their previously stated views on the issue, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), the minority whip, warned.
“We are all hoping that many of these people who are being named, once they get inside, will have different views when they see the magnitude of the challenge and the magnitude of their responsibility,” Durbin said.
Durbin and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz spoke at a Dec. 20 Energy Department event for young entrepreneurs sponsored by the University of Chicago and expressed concern that the views of some of the people Trump has picked to take charge of federal environmental and energy agencies may lead to some critical programs getting diluted. They urged the incoming Trump administration to maintain funding for critical climate and energy programs and research.
The Trump administration, Durbin said, could begin defunding present climate and other energy-related policies as early as April when the existing continuing resolution (Pub. L. 114-254) temporarily funding the federal government expires.
“[Trump] has five or six months left in this fiscal year that is under his control in negotiating with Congress,” Durbin said, which means the incoming administration will be able to quickly set its budget priorities.
Defending a Science ‘Powerhouse’
Moniz said the Department of Energy needs to continue to show the value of its programs and mission in order to ensure they can continue to get funded in the face of any attempt to weaken its commitment to science and technology.
Moniz and Durbin's concerns about the possible effects of Trump's administration on climate policy and the nation's energy policy come in light of the president-elect's comments on climate change and his nomination of former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) to head the Energy Department. Perry called for abolishing the Department of Energy when he ran for president in 2012.
“I've already spoken with Gov. Perry, and I think Gov. Perry is very intent on doing a good job,” Moniz said. “He's obviously in a mode of trying to absorb a lot of information about the department.”
Moniz said the best defense to maintaining strong funding for the Department of Energy and its programs is to demonstrate their value.
“Every job we do is fundamentally a science and technology job. DOE, I'll say it now since I'm leaving, DOE is a science and technology powerhouse in this country, and people should not forget that,” he said. “I don't think this country is going to turn away from innovation, research, science. And I think the Department of Energy programs have to remain priorities.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=102393403&vname=dennotallissues&fn=102393403&jd=102393403
-
Energy Secretary Says Trump Request On Climate Change Names “Not Appropriate”
Dec 21, 2016 | Fuelfix
By James Osborne
WASHINGTON – U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz criticized a request by President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team to hand over the names of federal employees who worked on climate change issues as “not appropriate.”
“I know that the both career staff at the Department and from the national labs, let’s say some of the questions led them to be rather unsettled. So I decided that it was simply best we are not going to get into names of individuals,” Moniz said in an interview this week. “Those particular questions we felt were not appropriate.”
The energy secretary’s comments come a week after top Democrats in Congress accused the Trump administration of attempting to intimidate federal scientists through a 75-point questionnaire that included the climate change question.
An official with the Trump transition team told CNN the questionnaire had been mistake and said the employee responsible had been “counseled.”
Outside the questionnaire, Moniz said his department was “cooperating very, very well with the [Trump] transition team.” He added he had extended personal invitations to Trump officials to join in meetings with CEOs of energy companies and the heads of the department’s 17 national labs.
“We are going above and beyond,” he said.
Under the Obama administration, the Energy Department has invested heavily in research into low carbon forms of energy from solar panels to carbon capture. But the future of such work has fallen into question since the election last month.
On the campaign trail Trump expressed skepticism about the validity of climate change research and said he planned to grow fossil fuel production in the United States. But since winning his unexpected victory over Hillary Clinton, Trump has said he is “keeping an open mind” on whether or not to pull the United States from the Paris climate change agreement, agreed to by close to 200 world leaders last year.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/12/21/energy-sec-says-trump-request-on-climate-change-names-inappropriate/
Industry and Association News
LCSA News- There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested