Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 1/16/17
-
Hearing of Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Nominee.
Jan 18, 2017 | Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Location: 406 Dirksen / 10:00 AM -
Hearing of Energy Secretary Nominee
Jan 19, 2017 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Location: 366 Dirksen / 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Signals Major Shift In Import-Export Policy
Jan 16, 2017 | Glenn Hess
By Chemical & Engineering News
Trump is promising to usher in a new era for trade policy that could signal trouble ahead for U.S. chemical manufacturers. -
Ethics Watchdog Asked to Investigate Possible Pruitt Conflicts
Jan 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Democratic senators are urging a federal ethics watchdog to investigate potentially unreported conflicts of interest between the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), along with other advocacy groups, and President-elect Donald Trump's pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency. -
Senate EPW Democrats Raise Ethics Concerns Over Pruitt
Jan 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
Democrats on the Senate environment committee are raising a host of concerns with EPA's ethics office about Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the agency, arguing that he has only made “little more than pro forma representations” about how he will handle potential ethical problems concerning his time as Oklahoma's top litigator. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Proposes Strategy to Identify, Review Commercial Chemicals
Jan 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency released three proposed rules that would establish its first-ever, comprehensive regulatory strategy to evaluate—and regulate, if needed—chemicals in commerce. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Rule Proposes Process to Evaluate Chemical Risks in Commerce
Jan 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency released a proposed rule Jan. 13 that describes the process it will use to evaluate the risks of chemicals in commerce in accordance with the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act overhaul. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Rule Proposal Aims To Spur TSCA Regulations
Jan 13, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Gabriel Dunsmith
U.S. EPA proposed a rule today to inventory tens of thousands of chemicals currently on the market, setting the groundwork for two other upcoming proposals that will tighten the nation's chemical regulations. -
(ACC Mentioned) Process to Select Chemicals for Risk Review Proposed: EPA
Jan 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency released a proposed rule Jan. 13 describing a risk-based process it would use to identify chemicals in commerce that are high priorities for risk evaluation and low priority chemicals that don't warrant scrutiny. -
(ACC Mentioned) Nanomaterials Makers Must Report Production, Safety Data
Jan 16, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jessica Morrison
The Environmental Protection Agency recently finalized a long-awaited data collection rule for commercial nanoscale materials. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals Used in Paint Strippers, Vapor Degreasing May Be Banned; EPA to Evaluate Chemicals Grandfathered in Under Old TSCA
Jan 13, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyones Hardcastle
A slew of chemical regulations that will affect manufacturers and other industrial sectors have been proposed this week by the EPA. -
EPA Proposes New TSCA Process For Establishing Chemical Risk Reviews
Jan 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA is proposing a new process under the updated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for how it will evaluate the potentially unreasonable risks to human health and the environment from the thousands of chemicals currently in commerce, which will help guide the agency as it determines whether to issue new rules for some substances. -
Chemical Makers Cite TSCA Listing In Call For EPA To Drop NMP Proposal
Jan 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosm
Manufacturers of the chemical n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) in recent meetings with White House and EPA officials urged the agency to drop a proposed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 6(a) rule to limit certain uses of NMP, saying it is unnecessary because EPA has listed NMP as one of 10 high-priority substances to review under TSCA. -
EPA Floats Four-Step Plan For Prioritizing Chemical Reviews Under TSCA
Jan 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA is proposing a four-step process for implementing a mandate under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that it screen existing chemicals as either high- or low-priority for the purposes of further review, saying its goal is a “pipeline” that will help the agency wade through the backlog of thousands of chemicals in commerce. -
On A Roll: EPA Proposes To Ban Or Restrict Two Highly Toxic Paint Stripping Chemicals
Jan 13, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Lindsay Mccormick
Yesterday, EPA proposed a rule to ban methylene chloride and either ban or restrict the use of N-methylpyrrolidone in paint stripping products, subject to certain national security exemptions. This proposal is the third such proposed action by the agency in the past month (see here and here). Below, find a short description of these chemicals and EPA’s proposed actions. -
EPA Achieves Major TSCA Implementation Milestone
Jan 13, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
The Environmental Defense Fund applauds the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for meeting a major milestone in implementing the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, the landmark legislation reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that passed in June 2016 with overwhelming bipartisan support. -
(ACC Mentioned) Persistent Pollutants: Industry Continues To Seek U.S. Ratification Of Treaty
Jan 16, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
Chemical manufacturers are asking Congress to make the U.S. an official treaty partner to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Under that agreement, countries are reducing or eliminating the release of substances that can cause serious health problems. -
House Oversight Chair Questions ‘Public Scrutiny’ Over Glyphosate
Jan 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is taking steps to revive the debate on an international agency's finding that the popular herbicide glyphosate may cause cancer. -
Advocates Prepare for Battle as Weedkiller Use Expands
Jan 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
Environmental advocacy groups are gearing up to protest a decision from the Environmental Protection Agency to approve expanding a herbicide's use on cotton and in new states to kill stubborn weeds. -
EPA Makes Slew Of Decisions On Pesticides
Jan 16, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
With just a few days remaining of the Obama Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency’s office that oversees pesticides has gone into overdrive. The office is churning out rules and policies that have long been in the works, including three on Jan. 12. -
EFSA Boss: Trust In Integrity Of Science Has A Cost
Jan 16, 2017 | EurActiv
By Frédéric Simon
Studies on the safety of GMOs, glyphosate or other pesticides could enjoy higher levels of trust from the general public if there were stronger guarantees that the science behind them is really independent, says Bernhard Url, executive director of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). -
Reconsideration of Power Plant Carbon Rule Denied by EPA
Jan 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency will not entertain revisions to its carbon dioxide limits for power plants, which are already under review by a federal appellate court. -
EPA Downplays ESPS Stringency As Trump Prepares To Target Regulation
Jan 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Citing updated internal and third-party analysis, EPA is substantially downplaying the stringency of its landmark power plant greenhouse gas rule, arguing ongoing power sector trends will make compliance easier and cheaper than anticipated, just as the Trump administration is poised to take office and target the rule. -
Legal Questions Follow Perry Ahead Of Hearing
Jan 13, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) claims he was the subject of a "politically motivated sham" in a new questionnaire senators requested as they prepare to vet his nomination to lead the Energy Department. -
Opening Arguments in BLM Frack Rule Appeal Delayed Until March
Jan 13, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The Obama administration will not have an opportunity to defend an embattled rule governing hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on public and tribal lands, after an appellate court postponed oral arguments in the case until March. -
Will Putin and Trump Bond Over Oil?
Jan 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Philips
In the early 2000s, the Russian and U.S. presidents, Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush, decided it was time their two countries had a closer relationship. The obvious place to start was the oil industry. The U.S. was importing almost twice as much crude as it produced and wanted to diversify away from Middle Eastern suppliers. Russia's vast, untapped reserves of oil needed two things U.S. companies had plenty of: money and technology. -
API Suggests Potential CRA Vote On EPA Safety Rule
Jan 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is suggesting that EPA's recently finalized revised facility safety rule could be a target for lawmakers to undo through a Congressional Review Act (CRA) disapproval resolution, after various sectors have faulted the rule for imposing new hazard analysis and auditing requirements on certain facilities. -
OSHA Sets Lower Beryllium Exposure Limit
Jan 13, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jyllian Kemsley
Allowable worker exposure to beryllium will be reduced to one-tenth of the current level, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) announced earlier this month. -
Pipeline Agency Expands Inspection, Reporting Requirements
Jan 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration released newly expanded reporting, inspection and assessment requirements for hazardous liquid pipelines in the final version of a wide-ranging rule Jan. 13. -
PHMSA Finalizes Long-Awaited Safety Regs
Jan 16, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Mike Lee
The Transportation Department expects to finalize new safety regulations on oil pipelines by the end of next week, just ahead of President-elect Donald Trump's first day in office. -
Environmentalists Criticize Boiler MACT Provisions
Jan 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists in a new legal filing are attacking various provisions of EPA's boiler maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule, including startup and shutdown issues, and questions relating to EPA's use of carbon monoxide (CO) as a “surrogate” pollutant, that were unresolved in other litigation over the standards. -
California Considers Guaranteeing Carbon Prices in Trump Era
Jan 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mathew Carr
California is considering a system to protect projects that cut global-warming emissions from a market downturn that may worsen under a Trump administration. -
Obama EPA Locks Trump Team Into Air Standards Decisions
Jan 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Trump administration will need to make a decision by this summer on whether to retain or revise an air quality standard for nitrogen oxides after the Obama Environmental Protection Agency agreed to a court deadline for reviewing its regulations.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Hearing of Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Nominee.
Jan 18, 2017 | Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
-
Hearing of Energy Secretary Nominee
Jan 19, 2017 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Signals Major Shift In Import-Export Policy
Jan 16, 2017 | Glenn Hess
By Chemical & Engineering News
Trump is promising to usher in a new era for trade policy that could signal trouble ahead for U.S. chemical manufacturers.
Last August during the campaign, Trump said he would shift the focus from expansive multilateral trade agreements to renegotiation or withdrawal from existing pacts that he contends have failed to protect U.S. manufacturing jobs.
As one of the nation’s top exporting industries, the chemical sector has been a strong proponent of the 14 free trade agreements the U.S. has entered into with 20 countries.
“We would like to see a continuance of trade policies that will create new opportunities and address barriers that impede the ability of U.S. specialty chemical manufacturers from growing their businesses,” says Brittany Mountjoy, manager of government relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates, an industry trade group.
SOCMA’s member companies—mainly small and mid-sized businesses—are “hopeful about the new Administration,” and the benefits it might bring to specialty chemical makers, Mountjoy says.
Trump, who has long disdained international trade deals that he says make it easier to offshore U.S. jobs, has promised to immediately ditch the Trans Pacific Partnership. He has described the pending free trade agreement signed by 12 countries around the Pacific Rim, including the U.S., Japan, and Australia, as a job-killing “potential disaster for our country.”
“Instead, we will negotiate fair, bilateral trade deals that bring jobs and industry back onto American shores,” Trump said in a late November 2016 video announcing his transition plans.
Last June, he threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the North American Free Trade Agreement, which connects Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, if Mexico doesn’t agree to renegotiate the pact. The 22-year-old agreement, Trump argues, has hollowed out U.S. manufacturing to Mexico’s benefit.
With vast supplies of low-cost natural gas from shale deposits and $175 billion invested in new factories and expanded production capacity, U.S. chemical exports are projected to grow on average 7% per year through 2021, according to the American Chemistry Council, an industry association. But meeting that potential will require new trade agreements, it claims.
“We agree that trade should be fair, and also know firsthand that trade can unlock potential in our economy and create jobs here at home,” ACC says. “We hope to work with Congress and the Trump Administration to chart a path forward on trade that will help American businesses thrive and benefit American workers.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i3/US-science-policy-big-shift.html
-
Ethics Watchdog Asked to Investigate Possible Pruitt Conflicts
Jan 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Democratic senators are urging a federal ethics watchdog to investigate potentially unreported conflicts of interest between the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), along with other advocacy groups, and President-elect Donald Trump's pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency.
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt “blurred the distinction between official and political actions” during his tenure in state government, but the watchdog ethics request focuses on personal rather than political affiliations, the Environment and Public Works Committee's Democrats said in a Jan. 12 letter to the Office of Congressional Ethics.
More information on Pruitt's connection with the Rule of Law Defense Fund and several other advocacy groups could shape lawmakers’ views as Pruitt prepares for a Jan. 18 confirmation hearing before the committee.
Both the watchdog and the committee cleared Pruitt in recent days based on his financial filing. No Republicans so far have contested the nomination.
Conservative Groups Reaffirm Support
In fact, a wide swath of state and nationwide organizations urged senators to support Pruitt Jan. 12 in separate letter criticized by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a staunch environmentalist and critic of Pruitt.
Those groups, led by the Heritage Action for America, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Club for Growth and others, praised Pruitt's high-profile legal fights against the Clean Power Plan and the Clean Water Rule.
“Some claim that Mr. Pruitt opposes clean air and water. This could not be further than the truth,” the groups said. “Mr. Pruitt respects and upholds the Constitution, and understands that many of the nation's challenges regarding clean air and water are best met at the state and local level. It is, in fact, the states that implement many of the nation's environmental laws, and for good reason.”
But Democrats continue to criticize Pruitt for his connections to fossil-fuel lobbyists and skepticism about the human connection to climate change. According to Whitehouse “I am ‘shocked, shocked’ that the vast network of Koch brothers front groups have put their logos on a letterhead for Scott Pruitt. Actually, I'm only surprised it took so long.”
Political Funding Concerns
Meanwhile, Pruitt's financial connections with groups that are not obligated to reveal their donors are drawing increased attention among Democrats.
“Corporations spend their money to get results, so it is now more important than ever that we have a full disclosure of a nominee's ties to the industries he or she will be charged with regulating,” Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the EPW Committee's ranking member, and eight other Democrats on the committee told the ethics office.
“Mr. Pruitt's OGE disclosures do not include information about any gifts or in-kind donations Mr. Pruitt received from RAGA or other groups with which he's been involved.”
Many of those Democrats had raised concerns roughly two weeks ago about Pruitt's ties to the Rule of Law Defense Fund, a group linked to Republican attorneys general that promotes the devolution of federal powers to states. Pruitt resigned in December as director of the defense fund.
Democratic Questions
Pruitt did not respond to the Democrats’ inquiry, Whitehouse said in a statement. In the Jan. 12 letter, the Democrats asked OGE Director Walter Shaub to release information about any additional disclosures Pruitt made.
The Democrats’ questions include:
• Did Pruitt provide the ethics office with the identities of defense fund donors, amounts contributed, and any promises he made or actions that he or the fund took took in exchange for donations?
• Did Pruitt provide information about his positions with RAGA; any role he played soliciting money for RAGA; what resulted from those solicitations; or any promises made or actions taken by him or RAGA in exchange for donations made to it?
• Did Pruitt provide the office with any information about gifts, such as any RAGA-sponsored chartered flights he may have taken?
• Did Pruitt disclose contributions to section 527 [political action committees] operating on his behalf?
• Does the office require nominees to provide information about the types of groups described above as part of its vetting process? If so, is it satisfied that it has received complete disclosures from Pruitt, and is it aware of any other avenues that will require Pruitt to disclose this information to EPA ethics officials if he is confirmed?
Meanwhile, Pruitt also has not responded to an inquiry from Carper in late December, Carper's spokeswoman said. That memo includes more than five full pages of questions, touching on personal leadership qualities and financial relationships, among a range of other inquiries.http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103349999&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103349999&jd=103349999
-
Senate EPW Democrats Raise Ethics Concerns Over Pruitt
Jan 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
Democrats on the Senate environment committee are raising a host of concerns with EPA's ethics office about Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the agency, arguing that he has only made “little more than pro forma representations” about how he will handle potential ethical problems concerning his time as Oklahoma's top litigator.
Pruitt's Jan. 3 ethics agreement to EPA's designated ethics official says that for one year, he will seek authorization from the agency's ethics office to participate in matters in which Sooner State is a party, such as lawsuits.
But Democrats on the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee -- which has planned a Jan. 18 hearing to consider Pruitt's nomination -- argue that pledge is too vague.
“As you may be aware, Mr. Pruitt has brought multiple lawsuits against EPA on behalf of the State of Oklahoma, many of which remain in active litigation,” says a Jan. 12 letter from nine EPW Democrats to EPA's ethics official, Kevin Minoli.
The senators ask a range of questions on the topic, requesting a list of topics that would require authorization to participate and asking Minoli how he will determine if authorization will be granted or if Pruitt must recuse himself from the issue.
“For example, Mr. Pruitt has challenged EPA's carbon pollution standards for power plants. Assuming that a recusal would be required in that matter, would it be limited to decisions regarding the litigation, or to other matters considered by the Office of Air and Radiation?” the letter says.
They add that an ethics agreement for former EPA Administrator Carol Browner included a “clear and permanent recusal” from all issues in which Florida was a party, due to her experience as the Sunshine State's environment secretary.
“Why has EPA concluded that a more lenient arrangement for Mr. Pruitt's conflicts is appropriate?” the letter says.
The lawmakers also question whether any recusal would be limited to one year, or whether there are any provisions in place to prevent the “unauthorized” disclosure of information by Pruitt regarding his previous participation in multi-state legal coalitions.
They seek responses by the Jan. 18 hearing date.
Inside EPA has been closely following Pruitt's nomination process, with Democrats vowing a “robust” hearing to highlight their concerns. For example, EPW member Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said that “bringing forward a nominee for EPA, Mr. Pruitt, who does not believe in climate change is crazy. It is insane.”
And our Dawn Reeves earlier reported that Pruitt's history in bringing suits against EPA raises a host of ethics concerns, including an American Bar Association prohibition on “side switching” that could ensnare Pruitt.
One former top EPA official warns that the Trump transition team might not have fully vetted this issue before nominating Pruitt. “I think he has some serious conflict-of-interest issues that so far there is no sign he is addressing. I don't see how a guy acting as a lawyer in litigation against EPA can ethically be involved in that litigation as an EPA decisionmaker.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/transition-senate-epw-democrats-raise-ethics-concerns-over-pruitt
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Proposes Strategy to Identify, Review Commercial Chemicals
Jan 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency released three proposed rules that would establish its first-ever, comprehensive regulatory strategy to evaluate—and regulate, if needed—chemicals in commerce.
The Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016 required the EPA to develop all three rules to build a foundation that would allow the agency to meet the law's other requirements to manage chemicals in commerce. The rules must be issued as final by June 22, 2017, according to the statute.
“After 40 years, we can finally address chemicals currently in the marketplace,” said Jim Jones, the EPA assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention in a statement announcing the release of all three rules (see related stories on selection of chemicals for risk review and the chemical evaluation process.
“Today's action will set into motion a process to quickly evaluate chemicals and meet deadlines required under, and essential to, implementing the new law,” Jones said.
The three proposed rules, published Jan. 12 and 13, would allow the EPA to:
• identify chemicals made in, imported into or processed within the U.S. during the last 10 years;
• decide which of those have potential risks that need to be evaluated and which have sufficient data to conclude they do not warrant evaluation; and
• assess those risks and pursue regulatory controls if needed.
Foundation for Amended Law
Congress amended TSCA to solve a problem the agency discusses in its regulatory package. When the original TSCA became law in 1976 tens of thousands of chemicals were grandfathered in, presumed safe, with no requirement for the EPA to evaluate their risk to human health or the environment.
“The absence of a review requirement or deadlines for action, coupled with a burdensome statutory standard for taking risk management on existing chemical substances, resulted in very few chemical substances every being assessed for safety by EPA, and even fewer subject to restrictions to address identified risks,” the agency said in its proposed rule to determine which chemicals are a priority for risk evaluation.
“One of the key features of the new law is the requirement that EPA now systematically prioritize and assess existing chemical substances and manage identified risks,” EPA's prioritization rule continued.
EPA Effort Praised
The American Chemistry Council praised the EPA for keeping on schedule and proposing the core regulatory requirements mandated by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which amended TSCA.
“Importantly, the release keeps EPA on schedule for finalization of these rules by its June 2017 statutory mandate,” the council said in a Jan. 13 statement.
Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell PC in Washington, D.C., told Bloomberg BNA, “EPA has done the near impossible in proposing three epic rules. Now the burden is on other stakeholders to define, clarify, and help the process along.”
Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, which worked to overhaul TSCA, praised the staff and management of the EPA for the amount of work carried out since the TSCA amendments became law less than seven months ago.
In that time, the agency has proposed not only the three foundational rules, but also three chemical-specific risk management rules, he told Bloomberg BNA and later blogged.
The chemical-specific rules address the paint and coating removal uses of two solvents, methylene chloride and n-methylpyrrolidone; the dry cleaning and aerosol degreasing uses of another solvent called trichloroethylene; and the vapor degreasing uses of trichloroethylene.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103349998&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=499469500&searchid=29159991&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Rule Proposes Process to Evaluate Chemical Risks in Commerce
Jan 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency released a proposed rule Jan. 13 that describes the process it will use to evaluate the risks of chemicals in commerce in accordance with the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act overhaul.
The proposed rule describes how the agency will conduct the four stages of a risk evaluation—scoping the issues to be studied, assessing chemical hazards, determining exposures and characterizing risks—to reach a final conclusion about the risks the chemical may or may not pose.
The proposed rule also describes the process that chemical manufacturers must use if they ask the EPA to evaluate the risks of a chemical.
Company-Requested Evaluations
The TSCA amendments allow chemical manufacturers to request EPA risk evaluations. Companies, for example, may want the agency to evaluate a chemical regulated in diverse ways by various states.
The law requires companies that ask for agency risk evaluations to pay for those evaluations. To ensure that the EPA's capacity to conduct risk evaluations is not overwhelmed by manufacturers’ requests, the TSCA amendments limit the number of evaluations that could be triggered by company requests. Between 25 percent and 50 percent of the EPA's assessments could be triggered by companies requests.
The EPA's proposed rule describes the criteria it would use to determine whether a company's request that the agency evaluate a chemical's risks should be granted. For example, the company or companies requesting the risk evaluation must:
• show that there is sufficient, reasonably available information for the agency to conduct a risk evaluation;
• list available information on the chemical's hazards, exposures and conditions of use; and
• be in possession of data the agency would have to conduct the evaluation.
“EPA will prioritize requests where there is evidence that restrictions imposed by one or more states have the potential to have a significant impact on interstate commerce or health or the environment,” the proposed rule said.Neither the risk evaluation rule nor a related chemical prioritization rule the agency also proposed Jan. 13 define some of the scientific terms used in the TSCA amendments. The amendments, for example, require the EPA to use “best available science” and a “weight-of-the-evidence” approach to evaluating that science.
Such terms, both of EPA's proposed rules said, “are not novel concepts.” Rather their meanings are discussed extensively in existing agency guidance, the proposed rules said.
“EPA believes further defining these and other terms in the proposed rule is unnecessary and ultimately problematic. These terms have and will continue to evolve with changing scientific methods and innovation,” the agency said in both proposed rules.
Weight-of-Evidence Approaches
The EPA, however, did describe its understanding of a weight-of-evidence” approach it would propose to use to analyze scientific information.
That approach is “a collective evaluation of all pertinent information so that the full impact of biological plausibility and coherence is adequately considered,” the proposed rule said. It quoted from the agency's 1999 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment.
The agency further described a weight-of-evidence approach as “a process by which trained professional judge the strengths and weaknesses of a collection of information to render an overall conclusion that may not be evident from the consideration of the individual data.” That definition was recommended by an EPA advisory committee, the agency said.
Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, said the EPA was right to leave definitions of scientific terms to guidance.
The understanding of what constitutes best science, weight of evidence and other terms evolves over time and guidance can be more easily updated than regulations, he said.
It wasn't clear Jan. 13 whether the agency's described approach would satisfy chemical manufacturers.
American Chemistry Council's Goals
The American Chemistry Council issued a statement Jan. 13 that said: “It is critical that the rule clarify how the agency will base its risk evaluations on the highest quality, most relevant scientific data, and the weight of the scientific evidence as required by the law. In addition, in order to ensure transparency and credibility, it is critical that EPA engage stakeholders early and often throughout the risk evaluation process and peer review.”
The council's statement described what it would like to find in the proposed risk evaluation rule without saying whether the rule achieved those goals.
“The risk evaluation rule must lay out a reasonable, efficient process to determine whether a substance presents an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. The rule should consist of a tiered approach that includes an initial screening-level evaluation; if necessary, a more detailed evaluation to quantify potential risks would then be conducted. It must require consideration of a chemical's conditions of use, and its hazard and exposure potential,” the council said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103350014&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=499483000&searchid=29159991&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Rule Proposal Aims To Spur TSCA Regulations
Jan 13, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Gabriel Dunsmith
U.S. EPA proposed a rule today to inventory tens of thousands of chemicals currently on the market, setting the groundwork for two other upcoming proposals that will tighten the nation's chemical regulations.
The three proposed rules are intended to streamline implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act reforms signed into law last summer by President Obama (Greenwire, June 22, 2016).
The initial TSCA, which became law in 1976, grandfathered in thousands of chemicals and failed to provide regulators appropriate control mechanisms. It was widely panned by environmentalists and industry groups alike as inefficient and arcane.
"After 40 years we can finally address chemicals currently in the marketplace," said Jim Jones, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, in a statement. "Today's action will set into motion a process to swiftly evaluate chemicals and meet deadlines required under, and essential to, implementing the new law."
The inventory rule would force manufacturers and importers to notify EPA of all chemicals currently in production, making for a comprehensive catalogue designed to increase regulatory efficiency. The agency's current database contains in excess of 85,000 compounds, "many of [which] are no longer actively produced."
The American Chemistry Council praised the proposed rule.
"The Inventory Reset is a foundational sorting step ... designed to make the prioritization and risk evaluation functions of the law work better," the trade group said in a statement. "We are pleased that EPA has released its Inventory Reset proposal first — in advance of its prioritization and risk evaluation proposals — to help review and consider these important framework rules together."
EPA has released notices for the two other proposed rules, though those rules have not yet been published in the Federal Register.
One rule would establish a framework for the agency's prioritization of certain compounds for testing.
"EPA will use a risk-based screening process and criteria to identify whether a particular chemical is either high or low priority," the agency said.
The other forthcoming proposal would provide a rubric for EPA's risk evaluation process.
"Chemical hazards and exposures will be assessed along with characterizing and determining risks," EPA said.
In a blog post, Richard Denison, senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, "applaud[ed]" EPA for the trio of rules.
"The management and staff of EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and Office of General Counsel deserve major kudos for their tireless work over these past seven months to reach this milestone," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/01/13/stories/1060048398
-
(ACC Mentioned) Process to Select Chemicals for Risk Review Proposed: EPA
Jan 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency released a proposed rule Jan. 13 describing a risk-based process it would use to identify chemicals in commerce that are high priorities for risk evaluation and low priority chemicals that don't warrant scrutiny.
The proposed rule, required by the Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016, is designed to create what the EPA called a “gateway to risk evaluation.”The EPA would use the process and criteria in the proposed rule to make a judgment as to whether a particular chemical or group of chemicals warrants risk evaluation. The agency described the risk evaluation it would use in a second rule also proposed Jan. 13.
Science Definitions Left to Guidance
Neither the prioritization nor the risk evaluation rule propose definitions for some of the scientific terms used in the TSCA amendments. The amendments, for example, require the EPA to use “best available science” and a “weight-of-the-evidence” approach to evaluating that science.
Such terms, both of EPA's proposed rules said, “are not novel concepts.” Rather their meanings are discussed extensively in existing agency guidance, the proposed rules said.
“EPA believes further defining these and other terms in the proposed rule is unnecessary and ultimately problematic. These terms have and will continue to evolve with changing scientific methods and innovation,” the agency said in both proposed rules.
Codifying specific definitions for these phrases in either rule could inhibit the flexibility and responsiveness the agency needs to quickly adapt to and implement changing science, both rules said.
Herb Estreicher, an attorney with the Washington D.C. office of Keller and Heckman LLP, called EPA's decision to not define these scientific terms disappointing.
“This raises the question as to EPA's commitment to proceed on the basis of ‘best available science’ and the ‘weight-of-the-evidence,’” he said in a e-mail to Bloomberg BNA.
Richard Denison, lead senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, disagreed. In an interview with Bloomberg BNA, Denison said EPA's proposed rule correctly said the science-based standards in the statute apply to the decisions the agency will make.
The EPA rightly stayed away from highly prescriptive definitions of scientific terms, he said.
Defining science terms in regulations doesn't make for sound policy. The EPA should continue to define such terms through guidance that can evolve over time, Denison said.
Prioritize When Data Insufficient
The agency's proposed prioritization process would set a low bar for designating high-priority chemicals. The process “defaults” to designating chemicals as high priority whenever information about its hazards, exposures and uses is insufficient and the agency cannot confidently set the chemical aside, the proposed prioritization rule said.
Conversely the proposed rule would set a high bar for determining a chemical is a low priority. That means the agency must have sufficient hazard, exposure and use information to determine a risk evaluation was not warranted.
The rationale, EPA said, is that the high priority designation is not a final agency action. It means the chemical or group of chemicals will be reviewed in greater detail.
By contrast, low priority designation is a final action that can be challenged in court.
More Chemical Data Needed
Denison said the agency was right to designate chemicals as high priorities if they have insufficient data.
Prioritization determines which chemicals need a further investment in time to determine whether they pose a risk, he said.
“Most chemicals need a further investment. Very few have sufficient information to say they are low priority,” Denison said.
“I'm not saying most chemicals pose a high risk,” he said. Instead, most chemicals need more data and analysis before their risks can be determined, he said.
High Priority Not a Wide Net
Estreicher told Bloomberg BNA he disagreed with EPA's interpretation of the TSCA amendments.
The bar for high priority designation was set too low, he said. The “high priority” designation was meant under the amendments to mean the chemical “may present an unreasonable risk,” he said by e-mail.
Congress never intended for the “may present an unreasonable risk” determination to cast a wide net, Estreicher said. “Congress contemplated that only some of the many chemicals in commerce may present an unreasonable risk.”
Pre-prioritization Process
EPA's proposed prioritization process places a premium on obtaining information before it starts to figure out whether a chemical is a high or low priority by establishing what it calls a “pre-prioritization” process.
Before it formally begins to review a chemical for prioritization the agency will try to get needed information, the proposed rule said. The TSCA amendments boosted the EPA's authority to obtain hazard, exposure and use data for chemicals. The proposed rule said the agency intends to use those authorities.
The TSCA amendments gave the agency a deadline to ensure it has an incentive to have information before it starts the formal prioritization process.
Time Limited Prioritization Process
The prioritization process officially starts with a Federal Register notice that identifies the chemical or chemical group being considered for prioritization.
Once that notice is published the agency has to decide whether the chemical or chemical group is a high or low priority in no less than nine months and no more than one year, according to the law.
The Federal Register notice also marks the first of two 90-day public comment periods required by the law. The first comment period occurs after the EPA initiates prioritization, and the second after the EPA has proposed a designation for prioritization.
Prioritization Criteria
The EPA's proposed decision that a chemical is a high or low priority for risk evaluation is based on nine criteria described in the proposed rule. The criteria include whether the chemical is:
• persistent, bioaccumulates and toxic;
• a probable or known carcinogen;
• neurotoxic;
• used in children's products;
• used in consumer products; and
• detected in human or ecological monitoring programs.
That criteria is not clear enough, the American Chemistry Council said in a statement issued Jan. 13.“It is imperative that clear criteria for identifying low and high priority chemicals for risk evaluation are included in the rule as well as the process by which the agency will explain exactly how and why a chemical substance or category of substances received a certain prioritization score,” the council said.
Lynn Bergeson, managing partner with the Washington D.C.-based law firm Bergeson & Campbell, PC, said she too would have liked EPA's proposed rule to be clearer as to how exactly the criteria would translate into a decision as to whether high priority status is warranted for a chemical.
“EPA is correct that the statute sets a low bar (“potential hazard” and “potential route of exposure”), but that makes it all the more important to be clear about what the legal standard is and how the criteria and considerations will be weighed, evaluated, and consistently applied,” Bergeson said by e-mail.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103350015&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=499470000&searchid=29159991&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
(ACC Mentioned) Nanomaterials Makers Must Report Production, Safety Data
Jan 16, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jessica Morrison
The Environmental Protection Agency recently finalized a long-awaited data collection rule for commercial nanoscale materials.
The regulation requires manufacturers of certain new and existing nanomaterials to report data that includes chemical identity, manufacturing methods, production volume, and available health and safety information. The one-time reporting rule applies to commercial materials with dimensions approximately 1-100 nanometers at any production volume.
The agency met resistance from industry groups and environmental advocates when it proposed the reporting rule in April 2015. But EPA received nods from both for the new final rule, which the agency issued under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The rule is not meant “to conclude that nanoscale materials will to cause harm to human health or the environment,” EPA says. The agency says effort will help it decide if it needs more data bout nanoscale materials for risk reviews under TSCA.
“This basic rule has been a very long time coming,” says Richard Denison, a lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, an advocacy group. “EPA can at last begin to get basic risk-relevant information needed to make sound decisions about which materials and uses present concerns and which do not.”
The final rule addressed some industry concerns about standardized terminology and material characterization approaches, says Jay West, senior director of chemical products and technology at the American Chemistry Council, a chemical manufacturers’ trade group.
ACC’s Nanotechnology Panel, led by West, is working on a list of topics related to the final rule that manufacturers of nanomaterials believe require further clarification from EPA.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/web/2017/01/Nanomaterials-makers-must-report-production.html
-
Jan 13, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyones Hardcastle
A slew of chemical regulations that will affect manufacturers and other industrial sectors have been proposed this week by the EPA.
Three toxic chemicals, two used in paint strippers and one in vapor degreasing, will likely be banned following EPA notices published this week.
Trichloroethylene (TCE) is widely used in industrial and commercial processes and has some uses in consumer and commercial products. Last month the EPA proposed a rule banning use of TCE as an aerosol degreaser and spot cleaning agent in dry cleaning facilities. And earlier this week the agency proposed banning its use as a vapor degreaser — this is an industrial process used in electronics assembly and repair shops, among others.
Specifically, the latest proposal would:prohibit the manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in commerce of TCE for use in vapor degreasing;prohibit commercial use of TCE in vapor degreasing;require manufacturers, processors, and distributors, except for retailers of TCE for any use, to provide downstream notification of these prohibitions throughout the supply chain; andrequire limited recordkeeping.
The agency also wants to largely ban methylene chloride, also called dichloromethane, and n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), both which have a variety of uses. The EPA wants to ban their use in paint and coating removal.
Specifically, this proposal would prohibit the manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in commerce for each of these chemicals.
All three of these chemicals pose high levels of risk to workers and consumers, according to EPA risk assessments. Additionally, a 2015 Center for Public Integrity investigation uncovered more than 50 accidental exposure deaths linked to methylene chloride since 1980 in the US.
The EPA today also published several proposed rules today that clarify the process for evaluating chemicals that may pose health and environmental risks.
One would require chemical manufacturers to retroactively electronically notify the agency of chemical substances on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory that were manufactured (including imported) for non-exempt commercial purposes during the 10-year time period ending on June 21, 2016.
The recently updated TSCA requires the EPA to designate chemicals on the TSCA Inventory as either “active” or “inactive” in US commerce. Th agency says it will use these e-notifications to distinguish active substances from inactive substances.
The chemical industry’s trade group, the American Chemistry Council, praised the EPA’s proposal to designate chemicals as active or inactive.
“The Inventory Reset is a foundational sorting step of the LCSA, designed to make the prioritization and risk evaluation functions of the law work better,” the ACC said in a statement. “We are pleased that EPA has released its Inventory Reset proposal first – in advance of its prioritization and risk evaluation proposals – to help review and consider these important framework rules together.
“EPA’s proposal offers some welcome efficiencies by avoiding the need for industry to duplicate notifications that have been made in recent Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) cycles, using a simple notification form and using EPA’s existing Central Data Exchange (CDX) reporting infrastructure. We are also pleased that processors will have an opportunity to participate in the Reset on a voluntary basis. We look forward to constructive discussion of other ways the Agency might further reduce the notification burden on affected stakeholders during the development of this rule.”
Three other rules proposed today would requires the agency to look at chemicals that were grandfathered in under old TSCA law.
“After 40 years we can finally address chemicals currently in the marketplace,” said Jim Jones, EPA’s assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention in a statement. “Today’s action will set into motion a process to quickly evaluate chemicals and meet deadlines required under, and essential to, implementing the new law.”
When the TSCA was enacted in 1976, it grandfathered in thousands of unevaluated chemicals that were in commerce at the time. The agency says the old law failed to provide it with the tools to evaluate chemicals and to require companies to generate and provide data on chemicals they produced.
The three proposed rules to help administer the new process are:
Inventory rule. There are currently over 85,000 chemicals on EPA’s Inventory, many of these are no longer actively produced. The rule will require manufacturers, including importers, to notify EPA and the public on the number of chemicals still being produced.
Prioritization rule. This will establish how EPA will prioritize chemicals for evaluation. EPA will use a risk-based screening process and criteria to identify whether a particular chemical is either high or low priority. A chemical designated as high-priority must undergo evaluation. Chemicals designated as low-priority are not required to undergo evaluation.
Risk Evaluation rule. This will establish how EPA will evaluate the risk of existing chemicals. The agency will identify steps for the risk evaluation process, including publishing the scope of the assessment. Chemical hazards and exposures will be assessed along with characterizing and determining risks. This rule also outlines how the agency intends to seek public comment on chemical evaluations.
If the EPA identifies unreasonable risk in the evaluation, it is required to eliminate that risk through regulations. Under TSCA the agency must have at least 20 ongoing risk evaluations by the end of 2019.
3http://www.environmentalleader.com/2017/01/chemicals-used-in-paint-strippers-vapor-degreasing-may-be-banned-epa-to-evaluate-chemicals-grandfathered-in-under-old-tsca/
-
EPA Proposes New TSCA Process For Establishing Chemical Risk Reviews
Jan 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA is proposing a new process under the updated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for how it will evaluate the potentially unreasonable risks to human health and the environment from the thousands of chemicals currently in commerce, which will help guide the agency as it determines whether to issue new rules for some substances.
The agency unveiled the process in a pre-publication Federal Register notice released Jan. 13, identifying the steps of a risk evaluation process agency staff will need to take to assess whether chemicals pose an “unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.” Those steps include conducting a review of scope, hazard assessment, exposure assessment, risk characterization, and lastly a risk determination.
EPA is proposing to apply this process to the first 10 chemicals -- announced last month -- that it will evaluate from its 2014 TSCA Work Plan, chemicals it designates in the future as “high-priority” chemicals during the prioritization process, and those substances for which manufacturers request a risk review. EPA will take comment on the proposed rule for 60 days after it is published in the Register.
The updated TSCA signed June 22 requires EPA to issue a host of rules, and the agency is also floating a rule on how to “reset” its TSCA inventory of chemicals, as well as a separate proposal on prioritizing chemicals for review, in addition to the planned process for evaluating risk.
Under the revised toxics law, EPA has until June 2017 to develop criteria and a final implementing rule outlining how agency staff will establish a process for evaluating the risk of existing chemical substances and determining whether they present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to identified susceptible subpopulations under the conditions of use.
The prohibition on considering cost in the risk evaluation, and the requirements for defining the conditions of use and identifying susceptible subpopulations are new statutory requirements that EPA is figuring out how to implement for the first time in risk evaluations under TSCA.
“After 40 years we can finally address chemicals currently in the marketplace,” Jim Jones, EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said in a Jan. 13 press release, referring to the thousands of chemicals “grandfathered” in commerce under the previous version of TSCA, passed in 1976.
“Today’s action will set into motion a process to quickly evaluate chemicals and meet deadlines required under, and essential to, implementing the new law,” Jones said.
Chemical Reviews
In the Register notice, EPA says the absence of a review requirement or deadlines for action, coupled with a burdensome statutory standard for taking risk management action on existing chemicals, resulted in very few risk evaluations conducted under the old TSCA, and even fewer risk management rules issued under section 6 to guard against those risks.
The new law now requires EPA to begin systematically prioritizing and reviewing existing chemicals and to manage risks where identified, and the agency says the risk evaluation proposal and a proposal also released Jan. 13 for establishing a prioritization process, along with the new deadlines and other statutory requirements, create a “pipeline” for helping EPA make progress on reviewing the chemicals in commerce.
In the proposed rule, EPA says it is not suggesting a new method of risk evaluation, but rather building upon existing and proven methodologies for conducting risk assessments, noting the new statutory consideration it must now include, such as conditions of use and timelines.
On conditions of use, for example, EPA says it is interpreting the amended TSCA as requiring that risk evaluations encompass all manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal activities that constitute the conditions of use, or all “known, intended, and reasonably foreseen activities associated with the subject chemical substance.”
“The evaluation is on the chemical substance -- not individual conditions of use -- and it must be based on 'the conditions of use,'” EPA says.
How broadly EPA would interpret the scope of “conditions of use” has been a major talking point since the law was passed, and EPA acknowledges the confusion, noting several possible interpretations of the language.
But EPA says in the proposal that if it were to base its determination of risk on a subset of individual uses, saying it “could, for example, determine that a chemical substance with 10 known uses does not present an unreasonable risk of injury based on an evaluation of a single one of those uses, with no further obligation to evaluate the remaining uses within the three-year statutory deadline.” That interpretation, EPA says, would be a “strained reading” of the agency's statutory obligations.
Existing Substances
Moreover, the agency says that given the large number of existing chemical substances, it would not be feasible to complete risk evaluations on any significant number of them if EPA were to continually need to re-evaluate chemical substances based on different subset of uses.
However, the agency also acknowledges concerns that fully evaluating every conceived condition of use might hinder its ability to meet statutory time frames, adding that it is EPA is also proposing to require that the components of its risk evaluations will be “fit for purpose.” That means that all conditions of use might not warrant the same level of evaluation, and EPA expects it may be able to reach conclusions without extensive or quantitative evaluations of risk.
EPA is also taking comment on whether it should specifically define “unreasonable risk” in the rulemaking. If it were to do so, EPA says, “acknowledging that the statute precludes consideration of costs and other non-risk factors at this step, what factors should EPA consider in making such a determination?”
The notice says that because of the case-by-case nature of the variety of factors EPA must weigh in determining unreasonable risk, it did not specifically develop a definition ahead of the proposal. Those factors include characterization of cancer and non-cancer risks (including margins of exposure for non-cancer risks), the population exposed (including any susceptible populations), the severity of hazard (the nature of the hazard), the irreversibility of hazard, uncertainties, and estimates of cumulative exposure.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-proposes-new-tsca-process-establishing-chemical-risk-reviews
-
Chemical Makers Cite TSCA Listing In Call For EPA To Drop NMP Proposal
Jan 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosm
Manufacturers of the chemical n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) in recent meetings with White House and EPA officials urged the agency to drop a proposed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 6(a) rule to limit certain uses of NMP, saying it is unnecessary because EPA has listed NMP as one of 10 high-priority substances to review under TSCA.
The meetings at the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) -- which took place in the last few weeks but were only recently posted to OMB's website -- gave several companies the chance to argue that the proposed section 6(a) rulemaking could conflict with requirements in the revised TSCA signed June 22. EPA sent the draft rule for OMB pre-publication review on Oct. 24 and released it Jan. 12 ahead of its publication in the Federal Register.
EPA is proposing to determine that the use of NMP or another chemical, methylene chloride, in commercial and consumer paint removal poses an unseasonable risk under section 6(a) of TSCA, based on its 2014 TSCA Work Plan risk assessments for the substances. The Work Plan assessments, which EPA undertook prior to the enactment of the updated toxics law, reviewed chemicals' targeted uses across a range of exposure scenarios.
In the proposal, EPA says it has identified risks of concern associated with their use in paint and coating removal, and proposes to find that both NMP and methylene chloride for these uses present unreasonable risks. For methylene chloride for consumer and most types of commercial paint and coating removal under section 6 of TSCA, EPA is proposing to prohibit its manufacture for consumer and most types of commercial paint coating removal.
The agency also warns that while it has identified unreasonable risks from the use of methylene chloride in commercial furniture refinishing, it is not proposing section 6 regulations at this time.
For NMP, EPA is proposing to prohibit the manufacture, including import, processing, and distribution in commerce of NMP for all consumer and commercial paint and coating removal. But EPA is also seeking comment on an alternative
NMP proposal for paint and coating removal that would establish a worker protection program for dermal and respiratory protections that would prohibit use of paint and coating removal products that contain greater than 35 percent NMP by weight, although with similar protections for processors.
High-Priority Chemicals
The agency is also including both chemicals in its Dec. 19 list of the first 10 high-priority chemicals it will review under the revised TSCA section 6, which governs chemicals already in the marketplace. EPA plans to more broadly review risks associated with other uses of the 10 designated substances.
Section 26(l)(4) of the updated law says that for those chemicals included in EPA's 2014 TSCA work plan with completed assessments -- like methylene chloride, NMP, and the industrial solvent trichloroethylene -- EPA may publish proposed and final rules under Section 6(a) that are "consistent with the scope of the completed risk assessment for the chemical substance and consistent with other applicable requirements of section 6."
But representatives from Bergeson & Campbell on behalf of NMP producers in a Dec. 5 meeting with EPA and OMB officials ahead of the proposal's release argued that the rulemaking does not appear to be consistent with the completed risk assessment and therefore may violate section 26 under the updated law.
"Our argument is as we understand the section 6 proposed rule, it is not consistent with a March 2015 NMP risk assessment," meaning it is inconsistent with the requirements in section 26(1)(4), one industry source says.
Because of those inconsistencies, that source adds, "we think the right answer is to pull the section 6 rules and look broadly at all applications" given that EPA opted to list NMP as among the first 10 high-priority substances for which it will conduct broad risk evaluations under the new law.
"Why would you do two risk assessments?" the source asks, pointing out that conducting a risk evaluation and section 6 rulemaking to manage any identified risks is a "hefty regulatory burden."
Risk Assessments
Specifically, industry is charging that the final Work Plan assessment did not find significant risks association with consumer use scenarios, contradicting EPA's statements in June last year during Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) meetings that the risk assessment showed risks from "a number of work and consumer exposure scenarios" and that section 6 risk management action is needed to reduce risks to both groups.
NMP is used as an intermediate or a solvent in electronics, agricultural chemical, pharmaceutical, coating, petrochemical processing, and industrial and consumer cleaner sectors. The agency later last June indicated to industry that a supplemental risk assessment for NMP showed potential risk to consumers, according to industry slides presented by Bergeson & Campbell at the Dec. 5 meeting.
Industry argues that the supplemental risk assessment does not meet the requirements for a "completed" assessment under section 26 because it has not undergone a formal peer review process, been floated for public notice and comment, or subject to SBREFA review.
The slides say that while EPA included a "worst-case" acute exposure scenario that yielded a margin of exposure estimate of 29.5 -- slightly below the the benchmark of 30, above which exposures were considered low risk -- the assessment did not include scenarios for chronic exposure.
According to the slides, EPA said it considered the value of 29.5 to be equivalent to the benchmark 30 margin, indicating low risk, because it designed the use scenario to represent an upper bound exposure scenario based on assumptions from a reported fatality using a paint stripper or a worst-case scenario.
The slides warn that if the supplemental risk assessment includes consumer chronic exposure, it is not consistent with the initial scope of the Work Plan assessment and that it should not include risk management actions related to potential consumer risk. If it does, OMB must direct EPA to withdraw the rule and issue a new risk evaluation for public notice and comment, the slides say.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/chemical-makers-cite-tsca-listing-call-epa-drop-nmp-proposal
-
EPA Floats Four-Step Plan For Prioritizing Chemical Reviews Under TSCA
Jan 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA is proposing a four-step process for implementing a mandate under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that it screen existing chemicals as either high- or low-priority for the purposes of further review, saying its goal is a “pipeline” that will help the agency wade through the backlog of thousands of chemicals in commerce.
In a Federal Register notice slated for publication Jan. 17, the agency says that the four-part process for prioritizing chemicals for review includes pre-prioritzation, initiation, proposed designation and final designation. EPA is taking comment on the proposed rule for 60 days from publication in the Register, until March 18.
The long-awaited proposed rule is among a set of so-called “framework” rules the agency is crafting in order to begin implementing its new mandate under the revised chemical safety law signed last June to begin assessing risks from the thousands of chemicals already in commerce, along with expanded authority to assess fees from industry and to review new chemicals.
In addition to the risk prioritization rule, EPA is also issuing a proposed rule to establish a process for conducting risk evaluations, and a separate proposal to reset the TSCA section 8 inventory of chemicals currently in commerce, released Jan. 13 for public comment.
Section 6(b)(1) of the revised TSCA requires EPA to establish a risk-based screening process and criteria that EPA will use to identify chemical substances as either high-priority substances for risk evaluation, or low-priority substances for which risk evaluations are not warranted at the time.
Under the updated toxics law, the agency has until June 2017 to develop criteria and a final implementing rule outlining how agency staff will prioritize as high priority those chemicals that “may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment,” and as low priority those that do not meet that standard.
“Through a combination of new authorities, a risk-based safety standard, mandatory deadlines for action, and minimum throughput requirements, TSCA effectively creates a 'pipeline' by which EPA will conduct existing chemical substances review and management,” EPA says in the Register notice.
The notice says the prioritization rulemaking is the first step in a process it hopes will drive “steady forward progress” on the backlog of existing chemical substances left largely unaddressed by the original law.”
The proposed rule outlines the processes for identifying potential candidates for prioritization, selecting a candidate, screening that candidate against certain criteria, formally initiating the prioritization process, providing opportunities for public comment, and proposing and finalizing designations of priority.
Four-Step Process
EPA's four-step process will begin with pre-prioritzation, in which it would narrow the pool of potential chemicals using the statutory criteria.
Second, this would be followed by an initiation phase in which the agency would announce a candidate chemical ahead of a 90-day public comment period.
Third, at the proposed designation stage, EPA would then propose to designate a chemical as high- or low-priority, publish the proposed designation, information, analysis, and basis for the decision, and take a second round of public comment for 90 days.
Under the fourth and final step, EPA would either finalize a high-priority designation and initiate a risk evaluation, or finalize a low-priority substance, which would mean a review would not be necessary until or unless the agency received new information on that substance that indicated potential increased risks.
EPA held a public meeting in August to seek input on how to develop the various new rules under TSCA, where it heard from stakeholders on what they wanted to see in the regulations.
For example, chemical industry officials urged EPA to provide more information on how the proposed prioritization rule will apply to new chemicals, as well as details on what the agency will do when there is inadequate safety data for a substance.
In contrast, environmentalists in their remarks at the public meeting suggested that EPA set general guidelines outlining the procedural steps it would take in making a prioritization decision rather than crafting a rigid process that applies to every chemical.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-floats-four-step-plan-prioritizing-chemical-reviews-under-tsca
-
On A Roll: EPA Proposes To Ban Or Restrict Two Highly Toxic Paint Stripping Chemicals
Jan 13, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Lindsay Mccormick
Yesterday, EPA proposed a rule to ban methylene chloride and either ban or restrict the use of N-methylpyrrolidone in paint stripping products, subject to certain national security exemptions. This proposal is the third such proposed action by the agency in the past month (see here and here). Below, find a short description of these chemicals and EPA’s proposed actions.
Methylene chloride
Methylene chloride (also known as dichloromethane, or DCM) is carcinogenic, neurotoxic, and acutely lethal. It is produced and imported in huge amounts – 261 million pounds annually.
According to EPA, DCM’s short-term effects include “dizziness, incapacitation, and, in some cases, death.” As of 2012, OSHA had linked DCM to over 50 worker deaths nationwide since the mid-1980s. Many of these deaths have been associated with the use of DCM-based paint strippers in confined spaces to refurbish bathtubs. EPA’s 2014 risk assessment identified at least 15 such reported cases of worker deaths, associated with 10 different DCM-containing paint stripper products. Effects of long-term exposure to DCM include liver toxicity, liver cancer, and lung cancer.
EPA’s risk assessment demonstrated that current levels of exposure to DCM-containing paint strippers pose unacceptably high acute and chronic risks to workers and occupational bystanders as well as acute risks to consumers and residential bystanders.
Given these high risks, we applaud the Agency’s proposal to “prohibit manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in commerce” for use as a paint stripper using its section 6 authority under the recently reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA’s current proposal does not, however, include commercial furniture refinishing, even though it has concluded that such uses present unreasonable risks; EPA notes it plans to issue a separate proposal after collecting more information on the impacts of regulating such uses to inform its selection of risk management actions.
N-methylpyrrolidone
NMP is commonly used as a DCM replacement, yet it too presents significant risks. Health impacts of NMP include developmental and reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, and liver and kidney toxicity. It is also produced and imported in large volumes (184 million pounds annually).
As we blogged about previously, EPA demonstrated in its 2014 NMP risk assessment that current levels of exposure to NMP-containing paint strippers pose an unacceptably high risk of adverse developmental toxicity (fetal effects) associated with acute and chronic exposure to female workers and consumers of childbearing age. EPA found that exposure to NMP-based paint strippers in women of childbearing age beyond four hours per day presents risks that cannot be mitigated from use of protective gear such as gloves and respirators.
In EPA’s proposed rule, it is requesting comment on two approaches to address risks of NMP. As stated in its press release:
One approach would prohibit manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in commerce of NMP when used as a paint remover, as well as require various notification measures on the restrictions to downstream processors and users. The other approach would put in place a combination of requirements to address unreasonable risks, including limiting the amount of NMP in paint remover products [to 35% by weight], providing warning labels for consumers, and requiring workers to wear specialized gloves and other equipment.
EDF is very concerned about anything less than a ban on this use of NMP, given its demonstrated high risks and given that such labeling and protective equipment requirements are typically used already but are insufficient to mitigate the risks. In the proposed rule, EPA notes the limited effectiveness of labels, especially under real-world conditions. Further, reliance on personal protective equipment (PPE) is often subject to major practical limitations and at best mixed effectiveness. As recently described by OSHA:
…to be effective, respirators must be individually selected, fitted and periodically refitted, conscientiously and properly worn, regularly maintained, and replaced as necessary. The absence of any one of these conditions can reduce or eliminate the protection the respirator provides.
Respirator effectiveness ultimately relies on the practices of individual workers who must wear them. … Furthermore, respirators can impose substantial physiological burdens on workers, including the burden imposed by the weight of the respirator; increased breathing resistance during operation; limitations on auditory, visual, and olfactory sensations; and isolation from the workplace environment.
OSHA therefore continues to consider the use of respirators to be the least satisfactory approach to exposure control.
Addressing DCM and NMP simultaneously in a TSCA section 6 rulemaking makes a lot of sense. As NMP is a common substitute for DCM in paint strippers, this approach will help prevent regrettable substitution – where one bad chemical is simply replaced with another. However, this strategy will be severely hampered if the final rule relies only on NMP restrictions that fall short of a ban.
Putting aside the ample public health reasons to ban NMP for paint stripping uses, EPA’s economic analysis demonstrates that it would cost industry far more (on the order of $100 million) to implement such concentration, labeling, and PPE requirements than to comply with a simple ban.
EDF intends to submit comments on these aspects of the proposed rule, and encourages others to do the same. Comments will be accepted at www.regulations.gov (docket: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0231) until 90 days after the rule’s publication in the Federal Register, which is expected next week.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/01/13/on-a-roll-epa-proposes-to-ban-or-restrict-two-highly-toxic-paint-stripping-chemicals/
-
EPA Achieves Major TSCA Implementation Milestone
Jan 13, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
The Environmental Defense Fund applauds the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for meeting a major milestone in implementing the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, the landmark legislation reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that passed in June 2016 with overwhelming bipartisan support.
EPA reached this milestone this week when it released proposals for the three foundational rules that the Lautenberg Act mandates be finalized by June of this year, as well as three proposed rules restricting specific high-risk uses of several chemicals.
The management and staff of EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and Office of General Counsel deserve major kudos for their tireless work over these past seven months to reach this milestone. This should also bring satisfaction to the Members of Congress who authored the Lautenberg Act and included aggressive deadlines as part of the bipartisan effort to reform the law.
Shortly after passage of the Lautenberg Act, EPA issued an implementation plan that called for proposal of each of these rules by about this time, in order to pave the way for the rules to be finalized early in the next Administration. At the time, a broad range of stakeholders voiced their support for EPA’s plan and stated that the agency could and should meet this timeline for proposing these rules.
All six of these proposed rules are now open for public comment.
A fourth foundational rule to establish a fee system is under development; while it is not subject to a statutory deadline, we understand considerable progress has been made and it is on track to be proposed a little later this year.
In addition, in November EPA also met its 6-month deadline under the law for identifying the first ten chemicals to undergo risk evaluations. Finally, EPA also promulgated its long-awaited rule requiring reporting of nanoscale materials under TSCA; our blog post on that final rule is here.
Below we provide links to each of these rules as well as EPA’s announcement of the first ten chemicals.
In the coming days, EDF will be reviewing each of the six proposed rules and providing more information via our blog. (We have already posted on EPA’s proposed rules restricting certain uses of trichloroethylene (TCE): here and here.)
So stayed tuned!
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/01/13/epa-achieves-major-tsca-implementation-milestone/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Persistent Pollutants: Industry Continues To Seek U.S. Ratification Of Treaty
Jan 16, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
Chemical manufacturers are asking Congress to make the U.S. an official treaty partner to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Under that agreement, countries are reducing or eliminating the release of substances that can cause serious health problems. Among chemicals it covers are several obsolete pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls. The American Chemistry Council, an industry group, supports the U.S. becoming a full participant in the 2001 accord, a move that environmental activists back too. “As we work to highlight issues that are important to U.S. manufacturers and American competitiveness, ACC will continue to include ratification of the Stockholm Convention,” the group says
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i3/US-science-policy-big-shift.html
-
House Oversight Chair Questions ‘Public Scrutiny’ Over Glyphosate
Jan 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is taking steps to revive the debate on an international agency's finding that the popular herbicide glyphosate may cause cancer.
Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) sent a letter to National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins Jan. 12, asking him to hand over communications between NIH and the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
Chaffetz sent the letter in light of news last fall that IARC asked members of a working group to ignore requests for records on the 2015 finding that glyphosate “probably” causes cancer.
The chemical, developed by Monsanto Co. for use in its RoundUp weedkiller, is the most widely used herbicide in the world.
NIH helps fund IARC, which assesses the cancer risk posed by many types of hazards including chemicals, shift work and air pollution. NIH's National Cancer Institute funds about half of the IARC's monograph program that reviewed glyphosate.
‘Creates the Appearance...’
IARC's refusal to hand over documents “creates the appearance that it is IARC's practice to avoid public scrutiny,” Chaffetz wrote in his letter, which was first reported by Reuters.
Chaffetz asked that Collins submit the communications to the committee by Jan. 26. The chairman also sent a letter to National Archivist David Ferriero to ask whether U.S. public records laws could extend to foreign countries if communications are received by federal agencies.
The 2015 IARC finding was promoted by environmental groups as a reason to restrict glyphosate use, and panned by Monsanto and other pesticide interests as misleading.
The House Science and Agriculture committees also launched investigations into the issue last year after the Environmental Protection Agency published its conclusion that glyphosate does not cause cancer, then abruptly pulled it offline.
The House Science Committee plans to address glyphosate in this Congress, spokeswoman Kristina Baum told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103350007&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103350007&jd=103350007
-
Advocates Prepare for Battle as Weedkiller Use Expands
Jan 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
Environmental advocacy groups are gearing up to protest a decision from the Environmental Protection Agency to approve expanding a herbicide's use on cotton and in new states to kill stubborn weeds.
The Environmental Protection Agency on Jan. 12 finalized its approval to expand use of a controversial weedkiller from 15 to 34 states, and allow farmers to spray the herbicide on cotton as well as corn and soybeans.
Enlist Duo, an herbicide developed by Dow AgroSciences that contains the choline salt of 2,4-D and glyphosate, works in tandem with Dow's genetically-engineered, herbicide-resistant seeds.
The EPA is reaffirming its original decision to give Dow the go-ahead to market the herbicide for cotton. The agency made the unusual request in late 2015 to ask judges on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to nullify the agency's own decision.
EPA discovered that Dow did not submit scientific data on the synergistic effects between 2,4-D and glyphosate. The judges sent the decision back to the agency for reconsideration, but did not vacate the decision, meaning Enlist Duo could still be sold (Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 9th Cir., No. 14-73353, order 1/25/16).
The approval is the latest move in a two-year legal fight between the EPA and environmental groups, a battle that is likely to continue.
“We absolutely are,” Nathan Donley, senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity, told Bloomberg BNA when asked if the nonprofit was considering a challenge to the decision. “It's our opinion that this decision is unlawful from both a [Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act] point of view and an Endangered Species Act point of view.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council, the Center for Food Safety, the Center for Biological Diversity and others sued the agency almost immediately after it initially approved the herbicide for six states in October 2014 (Ctr. for Food Safety v. USEPA, 9th Cir., No. 14-73359, 10/31/14); (Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 9th Cir., No. 14-73353, 10/30/14).
Seed Approval Still Pending
Environmental groups claim 2,4-D is linked to non-Hodgkins lymphoma and other illnesses. They have also sought to highlight 2,4-D as an ingredient in Agent Orange, the defoliant used by U.S. forces to clear jungle growth during the Vietnam War. The EPA maintains that 2,4-D was not the chemical in Agent Orange that causes cancer and birth defects.
The EPA backtracked on its decision when it learned that Dow had submitted information on synergistic effects—or the outcomes when two chemicals are mixed together—to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, but not to the EPA. Dow submitted the data, and the EPA determined that the combination of 2,4-D and glyphosate does not show any unusual increased toxicity to plants.
The herbicide is now approved for use in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin. This covers most of the corn, soybean and cotton-growing states.
The emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds over the past several years has prompted the demand for a greater variety of weedkillers.
In a statement, Dow said the approval from the EPA would provide another option for growers struggling to control these weeds.
However, farmers are still waiting for the companion Enlist cotton seed to be available for sale, and Dow is waiting on import approvals for the corn and soybean seeds.
Enlist cotton is expected to be available this spring, Dow said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103349987&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103349987&jd=103349987
-
EPA Makes Slew Of Decisions On Pesticides
Jan 16, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
With just a few days remaining of the Obama Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency’s office that oversees pesticides has gone into overdrive. The office is churning out rules and policies that have long been in the works, including three on Jan. 12.
In one of those actions, EPA moved to expand the use of Dow AgroScience’s herbicide Enlist Duo, a combination of glyphosate and 2,4-D. The controversial mixture can now be sprayed on cotton that has been genetically modified to tolerate the chemicals, as well as on corn and soybeans in 34 U.S. states.
In a separate move, the agency released draft assessments of four neonicotinoid pesticides, finding potential risks to bees and other pollinators for a few spray applications. The agency also released voluntary guidelines for labeling pesticides to protect pollinators, easing restrictions for some applications at the request of pesticide makers.
Environmental groups are infuriated by EPA’s decision to expand the use of Enlist Duo, as well as by the agency’s move to ease restrictions on some uses of neonicotinoids.
EPA first approved Enlist Duo for use on corn and soybeans in a handful of states in 2014, but the agency then discovered information in a patent application that suggested synergistic effects between the two ingredients. EPA subsequently asked a federal court to overturn the approval.
In November 2016, after receiving additional data from Dow, EPA said that it agrees with the company that the two chemicals do not amplify each other’s toxicity.
Earlier this month, the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group, submitted a Freedom of Information Act request seeking data from four unpublished studies by Dow that EPA relied on in making its decision.
“EPA’s about-face on Enlist Duo was very sudden and came only after it received a handful of unpublished studies on the pesticide from Dow,” says Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the center. “This is extremely troubling because it suggests Dow’s studies painted a completely different picture of the pesticide’s potential toxicities than data the company submitted in earlier applications to another federal agency, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.”
The center is also discouraged by EPA’s move to loosen proposed restrictions on neonicotinoids.
EPA proposed in 2015 to prohibit spraying pesticides that are acutely toxic to bees when crops are blooming. But pesticide companies pushed back, arguing that some pesticides have low residual toxicity and that some crops have extended blooming periods. As a result, EPA developed exceptions to the label restrictions for products with short residual toxicity times and crops with extended blooming periods.
“It’s outrageous that on the same day the EPA acknowledged these dangerous pesticides are killing bees it also reversed course on mandating restrictions on their use,” says Lori Ann Burd, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health program.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/web/2017/01/EPA-makes-slew-decisions-pesticides.html
-
EFSA Boss: Trust In Integrity Of Science Has A Cost
Jan 16, 2017 | EurActiv
By Frédéric Simon
Studies on the safety of GMOs, glyphosate or other pesticides could enjoy higher levels of trust from the general public if there were stronger guarantees that the science behind them is really independent, says Bernhard Url, executive director of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
However, this would carry a potentially heavy cost, Url warned in an interview with EurActiv.com. In the United States, a multi-generational study on Bisphenol A cost about $30 million, a figure that could be multiplied by a factor of 20 or more if EFSA was to commission regular studies on pesticides or food contaminants from independent research institutes, he said.
One suggestion is that private companies bidding for safety clearance for new products could “pay into a pool” that goes out to funding independent research on food safety, Url told EurActiv. Scientific data could also be shared more widely at international level and even crowdsourced, he suggested.
Bernhard Url is Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). He spoke to EurActiv’s publisher and editor, Frédéric Simon. A shortened version of this interview is available here.
As the old saying goes, “An apple a day keeps the doctor away.” But can you still say this, knowing the amount of pesticides that go into growing apples? Would it not be truer nowadays to say, “Don’t eat too many apples or you might get ill”?
No, this saying is still true, and increasingly so. Not because the amount of pesticides in use is falling, but because there is a lot of evidence that in Europe, many deaths could be avoided by eating more fruits and vegetables.
Our diets are very low in fruits and vegetables and very high in foods of animal origin, fats, salt and saturated fat. So changing our dietary habits to eat more fruits and vegetables would have a hugely positive impact on public health. The WHO even recommends eating at least five portions of fruits and vegetables per day to keep the doctor away.
But when they buy their apples in the supermarket, a lot of consumers think they are buying a fresh product. What they often don’t realise is that there are a lot of chemicals – like Smartfresh for instance – which are used to keep the fruits looking fresh for many months. Isn’t that concealing essential information from the consumers? Shouldn’t they be made aware of this?
For me there are two different aspects. One is the use of pesticides to grow foods of plant origin, to protect them from diseases, fungi and parasites. This is a food security issue. Can we produce enough food of plant origin in the future to feed nine or ten billion people? So this is something that is really needed for agricultural production. Of course it still has to be controlled and we can discuss the role of EFSA in this control.
Then the other aspect, which some even call the cosmetics of food – using chemicals to make food look perfect – where we could really have a societal discussion. Is this needed? Is it something the consumers really want?
It is not so much of a safety question because we only authorise products that do not cause harm, but we are entering a discussion about the acceptability of certain practices. Here we can say that maybe if consumers knew, they would make different choices. This is true for organic farming: consumers know that there is a different system available and make a choice.
The apple example of having a substance that keeps them edible for longer and make them look more appealing, I think if you talked to the industry they would say of course we need it.
But don’t they lose some of their nutritional value in this process?
That is something we would have to look at more closely. It is not a given.
Is it something EFSA would be entitled to look into or not?
It is not our primary mandate, which is safety and not efficacy or risk-benefit assessment. But it is a very pertinent question whether in the future more of these risk-benefit questions should come to our table.
Maybe the products are safe but the benefits are not obvious. In pharmaceuticals they always have this efficacy assessment. Medicines are tested not only for safety but also for efficacy and quality. In food, as there are no authorisations, we are really sticking to the safety mandate. But we do have a nutrition department in EFSA, which examines nutrition and health claims.
Do you think EFSA could expand its role in this direction?
Yes, but it depends on society, financing and whether the Council and the Commission want it. Then there is the question of whether this should be done at a European level or a member state level, which is a policy decision.
But this question of risk-benefit is becoming more and more important.
Have you changed your personal dietary habits, knowing all the pesticides that go into fruits and vegetables and all the additives used in all kinds of food products?
Not because of food safety. Food in Europe is safe. We have a really comprehensive system, involving the food producers, the member states, the European Union… And there are many indicators to show that progress has been made: salmonella has gone down, other indicators have also fallen…
I have changed my diet to include more fruits and vegetables because of my personal belief that this is good for my health.
It is known from EFSA’s annual pesticide reports that most of the residues are found in fruits like strawberries. So do you take extra care to wash fruits before you eat them, whether strawberries or apples or anything else?
I would say I take normal care. I do wash fruit before I eat it, but I did this before I came to EFSA, I think it is normal common sense. If you look into the pesticides report that we recently published, something like 97% of products were below the legal pesticides limits.
Some products were above the legal limits, but this does not mean that they are immediately dangerous. It is above a very conservative threshold, but still something has to be done about this small percentage. Yet I think 97% is something we can be very proud of, it is really not bad.
Do you eat organic yourself?
Yes, but not out of any strong conviction. For example, I buy organic tomatoes in Italy, I try to find bread that has been produced organically, but it is more of a convenience thing, rather than a philosophy.
EFSA published its annual report in October on pesticide residues in food, which found a slight increase of food containing pesticides above the accepted safety limit, especially from imports. What can Europe do to ensure imported foods are in line with EU rules?
We could do more controls at the point of entry, but the best response would be to work with our partners and raise their food safety standards to the level we want to see.
It is obvious that when we do global trade, we also trade risks and hazards globally. But still it is not fully appreciated by everybody. So the safest investment is to collaborate with our partners and bring their food safety standards up to the same level as our own, which the EU does. So we work a lot with China and the South American countries, from the EU perspective, to have comparable food safety standards.
Does the EU’s push to speed up international trade agreements with countries like Canada put additional pressure on EFSA to ensure that the food being traded is compliant with EU standards?
No, we give technical advice to the Commission during the negotiation phase if they need it. We carry out scientific risk assessments, we do not check food. We do not have laboratories where we test samples – that’s the task of the member states.
Personally, I feel very comfortable with Canada.
Is there a safety issue with things like hormone beef, which is common in these regions?
Well the European Union has some concerns with hormone beef, as we know, and there have been trade agreements on how to deal with hormone beef. But even if we import hormone beef, as long as it is properly labelled and consumers can make a choice, I don’t see the problem.
So labelling for you is a guiding principle that could probably help address these kinds of consumer concerns.
If it is a real safety concern, we cannot solve it with labelling. You cannot label something with: warning, salmonella inside. That would be stupid. But if it is about the acceptability of certain production methods, like GMOs, then labelling can help consumers to make their choice and that is actually a policy we have in Europe.
Food and consumer organisations claim that the European Commission’s draft regulation on acrylamide is based on the wrong regulation: the Hygiene Regulation. They say the correct legal basis is the Regulation on Contaminants, which sets maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs. What is EFSA’s view on that?
That is really a question for the risk managers, which legal basis they have to use to achieve a certain outcome.
Personally I would not know between these two, because I have not studied it. I have read about the NGOs’ argument, but it is a question for the European Commission. I think what the Commission wants is to protect public health, to bring acrylamide levels down, following EFSA’s scientific advice, and whether they do this using one legal basis or another, I do not really mind.
But in principle, do you agree with the food and consumer organisations saying that acrylamide in food should be reduced?
I think we are all in agreement. The Commission and the member states are asking for it. We have produced a scientific opinion saying that there is a concern with acrylamide and the levels should be as low as possible, and the industry has been working on this since the first reports were published in 2002. So there is a common interest in it, there is no argument or ambiguity about it. Views on how to achieve it are a different matter, but we are not involved in this negotiation, we have done our work.
Changing the subject, what is EFSA’s position on new plant breeding techniques? Are we talking about an innovation breakthrough or GMOs in disguise?
The Commission asked us about two years ago to look at eight different new technologies and we have given a scientific opinion on two of them, on whether they can be assessed with risk-assessment technologies.
Our answer was yes, they can be assessed with existing methodologies in the GMO area. Whether they should be subject to GMO regulation or not is a political decision and we should not have a view.
But the political decision is informed by science, and this is where EFSA and others can come into play.
Yes, and as I said we have given two opinions on the science, but here it is really a societal risk-management decision whether to say, ‘Yes, we want this subject under GMO rules’ – I think the German minister recently asked for that – or whether we say ‘No, the end product is the same as we can achieve with other technologies’.
But this is for society to decide, not for scientists.
Talking about GMOs, the safety assessments made by EFSA are based on scientific studies provided by the industry, which raises questions about their independence. How can EFSA restore credibility in the scientific assessment process?
We are completely independent in the way we carry out risk assessments. We not only look at industry data but at all data available in the scientific literature. There is also a legal requirement for the applicant to provide not only their own data but also a systematic literature review covering the last ten years of scientific publications.
So it is regulated studies, mostly following OECD protocols, and then the scientific literature and academic publications.
Which can sometimes be contradictory or at least arrive at different conclusions…
Well it is often the case that academic research asks new questions or raises new issues that are then taken up into the OECD’s testing framework. So there are maybe two different tasks: one is to highlight the progress of research that is then taken up by the regulated science within the OECD framework.
Coming back to your question of whether industry should be the one commissioning these studies and producing the data, that is the current legal framework. Not only in Europe but globally. If you want to authorise a GMO, it is your duty to convince the regulator that it is safe. So you have to bring the evidence that allows the assessor to do a risk assessment.
You could ask whether this should be paid for by the tax payer. But you could equally say that it is in the economic interest of the company to have their product marketed so they should pay for it, but using external, accredited, controlled laboratories that we trust. And that is the current requirement.
The good thing about this is that the independent laboratories are obliged to keep the raw data for a long time, so if there is some statistical uncertainty EFSA can go back and say it wants to look at the raw data and come to its own conclusions. And we do this regularly and arrive at different conclusions.
But the fundamental question this raises is the independence of these studies. Can EFSA take a more prominent role in commissioning studies and performing its own studies, using taxpayers’ money? Is that something you believe will become necessary as a way of restoring trust?
It could be. Moving away from pesticides to another chemical – Bisphenol A, which is also quite well known – the United States is now carrying out a multi-generational study on this chemical, and it costs about $30 million. That is just one study.
So if people now say that EFSA should commission and fund studies on 20 pesticides, ten GMOs and 20 contaminants each year, you can get an idea of what this would mean financially. The one Bisphenol A study cost about $30m, so this is real money we are talking about. Then there is the animal welfare issue. Should we use so many animals to do laboratory studies that the industry has already done?
Some people say we should change the system to make industries pay into a pool, and then from this pool, EFSA or other authorities commission the studies. So this is still industry money, the study is only done once, and it is carried out by an independent body like EFSA.
That could work, but it needs quite a significant change in the legislation. I am not sure whether the legislators – the European Parliament, the Council – would go for it. But you talked about restoring trust and this might be one way to go about it.
In November 2015, EFSA suggested that glyphosate was unlikely to cause cancer in humans and proposed higher limits on the amount of residue of the weedkiller deemed safe for humans to consume. Environmentalists criticise this for ignoring the precautionary principle. What is your view?
EFSA worked together with the member states on this peer review of active substances and made a very comprehensive assessment. The rapporteur member state was Germany, the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin, and they did a very thorough job of the draft report, then EFSA and the other states came in.
In the end we came out with an acceptable daily intake of 0.5, and before it had been 0.3. So maybe this is why people cried out that it had been increased. But the increase was extremely small and it was based on evidence.
And the increase itself was not the problem. The argument arose because the IARC said this substance was a probable carcinogen. So it was a question of carcinogenicity, not about the acceptable daily intake. This was the big argument: people saw that it was a possible or probable carcinogen and immediately thought that such a substance should not be authorised.
But the thing is that the carcinogenicity, if it exists at all, is seen at such levels that you would have to eat the food of 20,000 people every day in order to reach it. And this is unlikely to happen.
So do you dismiss calls to ban glyphosate because they are not founded on science?
With glyphosate we have seen so many different aspects of the discussion come together. There are people saying we should not have this kind of agriculture in Europe and we should not use it on such a wide basis. That is legitimate, but it is nothing to do with safety. It is about the way we produce agricultural goods.
And this is an area where policy-makers have to make the decisions. So to use the safety argument to say glyphosate is a carcinogen that needs to be banned is not relevant.
On the other hand, there were many value statements related to glyphosate, which are legitimate – how agriculture should be done in Europe, how many pesticides should be used, biodiversity protection, the structure of farming, the GMO debate because it was a Monsanto product, etc. – all of these elements came together at once.
So this was a legitimate discussion, but not on a safety level, because this is not about safety. If you apply glyphosate properly, there is no health concern.
That is a big if.
Well, the farmers are trained, the labelling is clear.
Are checks really carried out on the ground? Obviously you cannot really go and check that each farmer is spraying the product in the correct way. Some won’t wear proper protection, some will spray too much, too close to harvest, etc. and that cannot be regulated.
It can be regulated in as much as it is a condition of use. You can’t have a policeman behind farmers at all times. But there are enforcement principles, there are random controls at farm level. The farmers are very well educated, they would not use more than needed because it would cost more.
Of course things can go wrong. There is no guarantee that everything will always be done properly, but that is true of everything we do.
Do you see precision farming as a way to address this?
Yes I do.
Still on glyphosate, and to conclude, the use of glyphosate has been extended until the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) gives its opinion and not later than 31 December 2017. Who will be responsible politically and legally in the event that ECHA says that glyphosate causes cancer? The Commission, the member states, Monsanto or EFSA?
It will not be EFSA. It is a highly political decision that can only be taken by risk managers, and there we have a comitology procedure in Europe, which means that the Commission decides along with the member states.
As you said, this is a highly political question. But the comitology procedure is not exactly democratic or transparent. Or is it?
You have seen with glyphosate that the member states did not follow the recommendations of the Commission. This is democratic, you could say, because the member states represent the European citizens.
Should the European Parliament be involved?
The Parliament did make recommendations. If I remember correctly, they actually recommended the reauthorisation for seven years, instead of 15 years. So I would not say they were liberal but they did recommend the reauthorisation.
Then it turned out to be more difficult than expected in the comitology procedure because the member states either abstained or voted against the reauthorisation. And that, you could say, is very democratic.
Still, the transparency is questionable, to say the least. Thinking outside the box, do you have an idea to make these mechanisms more acceptable from a consumer and public opinion perspective? When you are dealing with such complex scientific issues that have an impact on people’s perception of food safety, is there any easy way forward?
That is a really difficult question. It is no longer about the accuracy or the truthfulness of science. That is no longer enough. You can have the very best science, state of the art science. There can even be agreement on a global basis, but still it can be unacceptable for society.
So there is this interface: when science meets values, ethics, beliefs, religion, even economic interests. This is where it really gets complicated. And there, from my point of view, food becomes a proxy for a much broader discussion on globalisation, big business, multi-national companies, maybe even inequality.
And in food many of these issues come together. Discussions on TTIP also focussed on food: chlorine chicken, GMOs… So food is a proxy for a much broader societal discussion, which I would in the end link to the inequality question. How is wealth distributed?
From my point of view this also influenced the Brexit referendum and maybe even the US election. People have the feeling that global trade is wonderful and that it creates wealth, but how is that wealth distributed?
Coming back to your question on what we could do to make science more accepted by society, there is no silver bullet. But at EFSA, what we try to do is engage civil society, not only to communicate with them, to tell them what we know in a top-down way, but to reach out to citizens, scientists, academics, and sometimes even to co-produce science.
The old model was that we would say we are the ‘elite’ and the ‘experts’, and we will tell you the answer. Now citizen scientists collect large amounts of data, for example about bird movements, about environmental pollution, using smartphones and other technologies.
We also have to think about how we can use a broader brain base – crowdsourcing – not only to improve our own opinions but to gain the acceptance of science in society. People now call this the ‘post-truth’ era, so without this acceptance, our job is becoming very difficult.
And this goes back to what you alluded to earlier about creating a pool where industry puts in money to allow independent scientists to carry out studies.
You mentioned the term independent science and independent scientists. Another discussion we should have in Europe is about how independent science has to be in order to be used in the regulatory framework.
Because with the EU research programmes, Horizon 2020 for example, we push scientists to collaborate with industry. You don’t get a research grant without an industry partner. This is a pre-requisite and it feeds into innovation, competition, the Digital Single Market and so on. It is sensible, but then when the scientists that have worked with industry come through the door of EFSA, we tell them ‘Sorry, you are not virgin enough anymore’ because you have worked with industry.
So people are confused. On the one hand we drive them to work with industry and then in order to be credible they have to pretend never to have spoken to industry in their life. That is a major contradiction.
We need a political consensus to say, ‘Yes we want scientists to work with industry’, but up to a certain level they should be considered independent enough to work on the regulatory framework.
At EFSA we have a rather complex system of managing interests and preventing conflicts of interest to address this question, which is not only difficult, but also costs a lot of resources.
Is EFSA under-sized for all the tasks it is supposed to perform?
Yes. Definitely yes. For everything that is expected, there is no doubt that it is too small. We try to improve our efficiency all the time with machine learning, cognitive computing, any improvements we can make to our processes. But the expectations are much higher.
And things fall through the cracks in the end?
Not really. The problem is more that we are too slow because we can only do things sequentially.
Some people say we should be much faster in dealing with nanotechnology, with chemical mixtures, with endocrine active substances… Yes we understand, thank you very much, but with the resources we have we can only do things at a certain pace and one by one.
The answer, if there is one, is collaboration with the member states and on an international level. We can be stronger here and aim for a European risk assessment community, and with global trade we should take a longer view and aim for a global approach to risk assessment. Of course we talk to our colleagues in Japan, Australia, New Zealand, but there is still some way to go.
http://www.euractiv.com/section/science-policymaking/interview/efsa-boss-trust-in-integrity-of-science-has-a-cost/
-
Reconsideration of Power Plant Carbon Rule Denied by EPA
Jan 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Environmental Protection Agency will not entertain revisions to its carbon dioxide limits for power plants, which are already under review by a federal appellate court.
The EPA denied the majority petitions from states and industry groups to reconsider aspects of the Clean Power Plan, according to a notice to be published in the Federal Register Jan. 17. While it denied most of the petitions to reconsider the rule, the EPA has not yet taken action on petitions to reconsider how utilities burning biomass are treated under the carbon dioxide standards.
The Clean Power Plan (RIN:2060-AR33) sets carbon dioxide emissions limits on the fleet of existing power plants in each state, which state regulators would be charged with implementing. The U.S. Supreme Court has halted implementation of the rule during legal challenges to the standards. A 10-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has already heard argument in the case a decision is expected shortly (West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir. en banc, No. 15-1363, 9/27/16).
President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to roll back the rule and his pick to head the EPA, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, is among those challenging the standards.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103349985&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103349985&jd=103349985
-
EPA Downplays ESPS Stringency As Trump Prepares To Target Regulation
Jan 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Citing updated internal and third-party analysis, EPA is substantially downplaying the stringency of its landmark power plant greenhouse gas rule, arguing ongoing power sector trends will make compliance easier and cheaper than anticipated, just as the Trump administration is poised to take office and target the rule.
“Since the Rule was finalized, new information makes clear that the trends away from coal-fired generation and towards cleaner generation have accelerated. As a result of these trends, the EPA has determined that the [Clean Power Plan (CPP)] is projected to have a modest impact on the generation mix, one that is less than the EPA projected at the time of the final Rule,” the agency writes in a Jan. 12 memo detailing why the agency rejected a host of petitions to reconsider aspects of the rule.
EPA's comments could be an 11th-hour push to soothe opposition to the power plant rule, known as the existing source performance standards (ESPS), amid pledges by the incoming Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress to scuttle the rule.
Such comments could also help the Obama EPA and its supporters make the case that the ESPS is not “transformative” as critics of the rule argue, a key issue in pending litigation against the rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The D.C. Circuit has only one day before Inauguration Day when it could be expected to issue a ruling in the litigation. But it is far from clear whether the court -- which heard oral argument in the case Sept. 27 -- will rule then. Were the court to uphold the ESPS, it could complicate efforts by the Trump administration to quickly roll back the rule.
The agency's new comments are part of a memo detailing its rationale for denying most of the petitions for reconsideration filed against the ESPS. In a notice signed Jan. 11 and released Jan. 12, EPA said it is denying most such petitions, though it is “deferring action on the petitions to the extent they raised” issues related to biomass and waste-to-energy.
It also denied all petitions for an administrative stay of the ESPS, arguing that issue is moot because the Supreme Court has stayed the rule pending the resolution of the litigation.
The move could be an attempt to block the incoming Trump administration from granting the reconsideration petitions and changing key aspects of the ESPS relatively quickly.
Such petitions typically raise concerns about a final rule that groups were unable to raise in comments on the proposed version of the regulation. Parties can now file suit over EPA's denial of the petitions, opening another litigation opportunity over the ESPS.
In its memo, EPA defends its decision not to reconsider several ESPS provisions, including its uniform performance rates, its use of beyond-the-fence actions in its best system of emissions reductions, the rule's reliability safety valve and leakage requirements, the Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP), and more.
'Less Impactful' Rule
But the agency memo, as well as an appendix released alongside it, include a larger discussion of energy market trends in which EPA admits that the trajectory of the power sector will continue to put downward pressure on GHGs, thus diminishing the impact of the ESPS beyond a business-as-usual scenario.
EPA cites new data that projects natural gas prices will remain low, while renewable energy prices continue to drop and energy demand grows slowly in part due to energy efficiency measures. The agency also highlights Congress' extension of renewable energy tax credits, as well as state policies driving clean energy deployment.
“The combination of all of these factors is leading to continued changes in the nation's generation mix away from coal-fired generation and toward natural gas-fired and renewable generation. This means that the final Rule will be less impactful on the generation mix of the industry and considerably less costly to implement now than the EPA anticipated at the time of promulgation,” the agency writes.
For example, EPA says updated agency analysis on the ESPS' compliance cost estimates “the highest marginal cost of compliance in any state in 2030 to be $17 [per ton] of [carbon dioxide], with an average of $4/ton of CO2, and 18 states without any marginal costs.”
The average cost in this scenario would be roughly equivalent to the current price of emission allowances in the Northeast's Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a price considered very low.
By contrast, EPA's analysis at the time it finalized the ESPS predicted a highest compliance cost in 2030 of $26/ton, an average cost of $11/ton and seven states with no marginal cost.
EPA's updated analysis tracks with several studies of ESPS compliance from energy analysts and environmental groups, all of which indicated that higher renewables deployment -- in part due to the extension of the tax credits -- and the continued low cost of natural gas would ease states' compliance.
For example, M.J. Bradley last June released analysis to reflect the tax credit extensions, finding the ESPS would be “non-binding” -- meaning allowance prices would be $0 and national emissions under the cap -- in 2025 under all mass-based compliance scenarios.
A February analysis from the Rhodium Group found one scenario in which the ESPS is non-binding until 2028. That scenario modeled a technological and market sensitivity that assumes a higher penetration of distributed generation and lower renewable energy costs.
EPA cites many of these analyses to back its conclusions that ESPS compliance will would be easier and less costly than expected. For example, the agency notes that several studies indicate as many as half the states could achieve their final compliance goals simply from business-as-usual trends.
The agency adds that many of studies show that if states participate in interstate emissions trading, all states likely would not have to take additional actions to comply until the mid-2020s.
'Legal and Regulatory Guarantee'
Even so, EPA also argues the rule is “important” to ultimately secure the reductions. “While near-term CO2 reductions do reflect market trends, the final Rule will ultimately secure meaningful additional reductions, particularly in later compliance years, even under updated economic assumptions. The CPP is needed to secure the trends in emission reduction, so there is no backsliding,” EPA writes.
Environmentalists and analysts have also made this argument, stressing the ESPS is a larger framework or a backstop to ensure states will make the emissions cuts even if circumstances change and compliance becomes more difficult.
EPA in its memo makes a similar claim, noting that even if economic conditions change, the “purpose of section 111(d) [of the Clean Air Act] is to provide a legal and regulatory guarantee” that sources continue to reduce emissions, referring the air act section under which the ESPS is promulgated.
The agency adds that the rule provides certainty to industry and “serves as a check on potentially perverse incentives or perverse outcomes.”
Reconsideration Petitions
Beyond discussing power sector trends, EPA includes a detailed defense of its reconsideration petition denials. EPA says it denied all of the 38 such petitions it received, except for the biomass and waste-to-energy issues.
EPA says it considered both the arguments presented in the reconsideration petitions, as well as other information presented after the ESPS was promulgated -- including arguments raised in the pending litigation. “We did so to ensure that our reasoning is robust and as part of our explanation for why Petitioners did not present information that would lead us to revise the CPP,” the agency writes, adding that it remains “confident that the CPP is well-grounded in the statute and the record.”
For example, EPA includes a lengthy explanation dismissing critics' arguments that its decision to use uniform performance rates is not a “logical outgrowth” of the proposal and should be altered. The agency argues that critics did not identify “specific objections” to EPA's method of calculating state targets -- choosing the least stringent of three regional rates for coal- and natural gas-fired plants to serve as the national uniform performance rate.
“Petitioners supported the establishment of source-specific rates, and the EPA's decision to apply the least-stringent regional rate to all sources inures to Petitioners' benefit. Thus, there is no prejudice to Petitioners and no 'serious' error,” EPA writes.
The agency makes a similar argument in denying critics' calls for EPA to re-propose the CEIP, the early action incentive program by which states can receive compliance credit for deploying renewables and energy efficiency in the two years before the compliance period. EPA writes there is “no question that the concepts for a program of early action crediting were well-noticed” in the proposed rule and were commented on by several of the petitioners.
EPA also discusses its rationale for denying petitions related to several other aspects of the ESPS, including: its inclusion of beyond-the-fence actions in the rule's target-setting formula; its method of calculating the individual parts of that formula; the issue of “headroom” in the formula; the stringency of specific state goals; the role of trading in the rule's target-setting formula; the reliability safety valve; the rule's consideration of plants' remaining useful life; and more.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-downplays-esps-stringency-trump-prepares-target-regulation
-
Legal Questions Follow Perry Ahead Of Hearing
Jan 13, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) claims he was the subject of a "politically motivated sham" in a new questionnaire senators requested as they prepare to vet his nomination to lead the Energy Department.
Perry, in a document the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee released today, explained how Texas' highest criminal court indicted him in the summer of 2014 over his decision to veto $7.5 million in funds to a public integrity unit of the Travis County District Attorney's Office.
Perry refused to approve the funds in retribution for District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg's refusal to honor his demand that she resign following her arrest for drunk driving.
Perry in the questionnaire said the charges — "abuse of official capacity" and "coercion of a public servant" — were both tied to his "alleged" comment threatening to veto the funding bill and were both ultimately politically motivated.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in February dropped the charges, clearing the former governor after an 18-month proceeding.
"Legal experts of all political views uniformly criticized the investigation and indictment as a politically motivated sham," Perry wrote.
Perry said he is not currently a party to any legal action, has not declared bankruptcy, nor has he ever been convicted of a crime or minor traffic violation. Perry did reveal he lobbied on dental issues for the state of Florida last year and that his registration was withdrawn on April 6, 2016.
Perry also vowed to avoid any conflicts of interest and said an ethics officer had reviewed his financial holdings. Perry this week, in financial disclosure forms submitted to the committee, vowed to step away from a company building the controversial Dakota Access oil project in North Dakota and other energy entities (Greenwire, Jan. 11).
-
Opening Arguments in BLM Frack Rule Appeal Delayed Until March
Jan 13, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The Obama administration will not have an opportunity to defend an embattled rule governing hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on public and tribal lands, after an appellate court postponed oral arguments in the case until March.
Attorneys representing the Department of Interior (DOI) and its Bureau of Land Management (BLM) were originally scheduled to defend the fracking rule at the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver on Jan. 17, three days before the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump.
Last week, the court granted a request made in December by appellees in the case for more time to make their arguments. But in an unusual twist, the court also delayed the proceedings until March 22. The appellees include Colorado, North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming; the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation; and the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and the Western Energy Alliance (WEA).
According to court records, one hour of argument time has been scheduled, with each side receiving 30 minutes. For the appellees, the aforementioned states, IPAA and WEA will have a combined 24 minutes to make their arguments, while the Ute Indian Tribe will be allotted the remaining six minutes.
Mark Barron, an attorney with law firm Baker & Hostetler LLP representing IPAA and WEA, told NGI's Shale Daily that the decision to delay opening arguments was made by the court on its own volition.
"We were prepared to argue [next] Tuesday," Barron said Thursday, adding that each side traditionally gets 15 minutes to argue their case. He opined that the court granted 30 minutes "because of the number of parties involved, the importance of the issues, and the like."
BLM first unveiled the rule in March 2015. The rule would require oil and gas operators to use the FracFocus registry to disclose the chemicals used in fracking and use above-ground tanks to temporarily store produced water, among other things. But U.S. District Court Judge Scott Skavdahl ruled in June 2016 that the BLM does not have the authority to regulate fracking. The government subsequently filed an appeal.
It remains unclear how the incoming Trump administration will handle the case. Its options include continuing to defend the rule in court, dropping the appeal or withdrawing the rule entirely.
"The new administration could simply drop the appeal, or they could modify the arguments that have already been submitted," Barron said. "They could show up in March and say something different or slightly more nuanced than what is in their briefing. They could voluntarily initiate an administrative remand, where they say they would reconsider the rule. Or they could initiate a rulemaking to just withdraw it entirely."
Although Barron declined to speculate on which option was more likely, he did say it was possible for the Trump administration to continue its campaign message of being friendly to the fossil fuel industry by stating that it doesn't like the rule.
"But there are very few executive branches that come in and say that they are OK with divesting themselves of the authority to do something, if they change their minds down the road," Barron said. "I do think it's a fair observation that even if the Trump administration hates the rule, that it may also dislike the district court's result in this particular lawsuit.
"On the other hand, if Trump really [favors] small government and is anti-regulation, if that philosophy is actually rampant and dominant in their thinking, then maybe they would say 'We don't have jurisdiction. Congress spoke, so let's get the executive branch out of this.'"
Officially, the legal dispute involves two companion cases: State of Wyoming et al v. Jewell et al [No. 16-8068] and State of Wyoming et al v. DOI [No. 16-8069].
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109040-opening-arguments-in-blm-frack-rule-appeal-delayed-until-march
-
Will Putin and Trump Bond Over Oil?
Jan 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Philips
In the early 2000s, the Russian and U.S. presidents, Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush, decided it was time their two countries had a closer relationship. The obvious place to start was the oil industry. The U.S. was importing almost twice as much crude as it produced and wanted to diversify away from Middle Eastern suppliers. Russia's vast, untapped reserves of oil needed two things U.S. companies had plenty of: money and technology.
In October 2002 the inaugural U.S.-Russia Commercial Energy Summit convened in Houston. Over two days, members of both governments and executives from 70 oil and gas companies mingled and talked business. Eleven months later, a second summit was held in St. Petersburg, where the focus was on improving the climate for energy investment in Russia. A closer relationship seemed to be developing, but there would be no third summit.
By 2004 the Kremlin had begun nationalizing portions of Russia's private energy sector, most notably seizing the assets of Yukos, the largest oil company. At home, U.S. drilling companies were developing fracking technology to unlock oil and gas from shale formations, and they were reluctant to share their knowledge with the Russians. “The U.S. became quite cautious, and so the basis for establishing this harmonized relationship was destabilized,” says Igor Yusufov, Russia's energy minister from 2001 to 2004 and a key participant in the energy summits.
Yusufov, who now runs an energy investment fund, is hoping that incoming U.S. President Donald Trump will restart the high-level meetings. Trump has vowed to improve relations with Russia and has tapped former ExxonMobil Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson to serve as secretary of state. Tillerson arguably has more Russia experience than any other U.S. executive, having negotiated a $500 billion joint venture with Kremlin-controlled Rosneft in 2011.
The potential for a new era of constructive relations between the U.S. and Russia will likely be a topic of discussion in the hallways of Davos, where the attendee list reads like a who's who of the oil industry. A lot has changed since Yusufov was clinking glasses with then-Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham. The U.S. is poised to become a net energy exporter in the next decade, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In time, American oil and gas could compete with Russian supplies, exerting pressure on global prices. Cheap energy isn't exactly good for the Kremlin, which has been starved of revenue since the crash in oil prices.
A first step in any rapprochement would be to lift the sanctions that the Obama administration put in place in retaliation for Russia's incursions into Crimea and Ukraine. “If he wants a better relationship with Russia, Trump can start by dropping the sanctions,” says Steven Pifer, who served as deputy assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs with responsibilities for Russia and Ukraine from 2001 to 2004. The question is what does the U.S. get in return. “If you take the sanctions off, you have no leverage,” Pifer says. Speaking at his Jan. 11 confirmation hearing, Tillerson called sanctions a “powerful tool” but said that poorly designed sanctions can be worse than having none at all.
Carlos Pascual, who led the Department of State's Bureau of Energy Resources from 2011 to 2014, says any reevaluation of the relationship with Russia will have to include the issue of cyber attacks, the situation in Syria, and Russia's role in the Mideast. There's also the question of whether a Tillerson-led State Department would work in concert with U.S. companies trying to exploit opportunities in Russia. Richard Morningstar says that when he was U.S. ambassador to the Republic of Azerbaijan from 2012 to 2014, “the State Department people and the Exxon people were like two ships passing in the night,” even though both camps were deepening their engagement on energy issues in Russia and the surrounding area.
Morningstar, who now runs the Global Energy Center at the Atlantic Council in Washington, wonders if a Trump administration will prioritize closer ties with Russia over geopolitical issues. “Will he care what role Russia plays as a primary supplier of gas to Europe?” he asks. “There is also the question of how a potential reset with Russia flies in the face of a desire in the U.S. to sell more to Europe.”
Yusufov brushes aside talk of competition and instead emphasizes how the two countries could cooperate to stabilize a volatile oil market. “We could combine our efforts to establish prices that would be of benefit to both countries,” he says. A range of $60 to $80 a barrel would be high enough for the Kremlin to plug its budget hole and for U.S. frackers to start investing in new projects—though not so high that drivers in the U.S. would feel too much pain. “This could be the essence of the discussion of a Russian-American energy summit as it was 15 years ago,” Yusufov says.
The bottom line: U.S. and Russia may struggle to carve out room for energy cooperation now that America is also a big oil and gas producer.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103349981&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103349981&jd=103349981
-
API Suggests Potential CRA Vote On EPA Safety Rule
Jan 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
The American Petroleum Institute (API) is suggesting that EPA's recently finalized revised facility safety rule could be a target for lawmakers to undo through a Congressional Review Act (CRA) disapproval resolution, after various sectors have faulted the rule for imposing new hazard analysis and auditing requirements on certain facilities.
EPA Jan. 13 published in the Federal Register its final rule overhauling its RMP program as part of a broad federal effort to implement President Obama's 2013 Executive Order on improving the safety and security of industrial plants. The RMP rule requires that certain facilities conduct hazard analysis and independent audits, plan with first responders and share data with the public.
The rule takes effect 60 days after its publication in the Register, and in addition to triggering CRA review the publication also starts the clock for groups to file legal challenges to the rule.
The same day, API's Chief Strategy Director Marty Durbin said that the group expects the GOP-controlled Congress to ease regulations on the oil and gas sector, and named the RMP rule as one regulation that legislators will soon target with its CRA authority. Other targets include EPA's stream buffer rule and the Bureau of Land Management's rule on venting and flaring of methane, Durbin said.
Under the CRA, Congress can pass disapproval resolutions on simple majority votes in the House and Senate to reverse discretionary rules promulgated within 60 legislative days of their actions. The law, which has only been used successfully once, bars agencies from pursuing rules substantially similar to regulations scrapped by the CRA.
EPA Dec. 21 announced its final rule updating its RMP facility safety program, largely codifying many proposed changes, despite objections from various sectors that provisions such as requiring assessments of whether alternative chemicals or processes would improve safety and use of outside auditors would undermine facilities' safety efforts.
In the final rule, EPA did scale back some requirements for sharing data with the public after state officials raised security concerns, including Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R), President-elect Donald Trump's planned nominee to head the agency.
Late last year, industry officials approached legislators about a possible CRA resolution targeting the RMP rule, though proponents of rolling back the regulation have acknowledged uncertainty over whether Congress has bandwidth to target RMP, given competing priorities, namely other recently-issued Obama rules.
But Durbin's announcement during a press call suggests that Congress will target the rule with the CRA.
Groups representing various industry sectors have also begun discussing a possible legal challenge to the RMP rule should Congress fail or choose not to roll back RMP using the CRA. But a source familiar with those discussions has said the CRA remains the first course for rolling back the rule, given such action must be quickly invoked, and because any lawsuit challenging the rule would not be filed until after the rule takes effect.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/congress-api-suggests-potential-cra-vote-epa-safety-rule
-
OSHA Sets Lower Beryllium Exposure Limit
Jan 13, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jyllian Kemsley
Allowable worker exposure to beryllium will be reduced to one-tenth of the current level, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) announced earlier this month.
Beryllium is used in multiple applications in areas such as aerospace, electronics, energy, and medicine. Industrial workers who inhale beryllium-containing dust or mist while mining or processing the metal can develop lung disease.
The current permissible exposure limit for airborne beryllium dates to the 1940s, when the now-defunct Atomic Energy Commission set the limit at 2.0 µg/m3, as averaged over an eight-hour period. OSHA first proposed lowering it in 1975. The Department of Energy lowered its exposure limit for nuclear weapons workers to 0.2 µg/m3 in 1999.
In 2012, the United Steelworkers union and Materion, the only U.S. beryllium materials maker, together proposed to OSHA that the agency also lower its limit to 0.2 µg/m3.
Employers have one year to implement most of the new standard’s provisions. Once the standard is fully implemented, OSHA estimates that it will prevent 46 new cases of chronic beryllium disease and save the lives of 94 workers annually.
The effort to lower the exposure limit demonstrates that “industry and labor can collaborate to protect workers and protect jobs at the same time,” Materion chairman Richard J. Hipple has said in the past.
“This rule will protect workers who are exposed to beryllium in general industry, construction, and shipyards and ensure that controls are put in place to prevent future occupational illness from developing,” says United Steelworkers president Leo W. Gerard.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i3/OSHA-sets-lower-beryllium-exposure.html
-
Pipeline Agency Expands Inspection, Reporting Requirements
Jan 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration released newly expanded reporting, inspection and assessment requirements for hazardous liquid pipelines in the final version of a wide-ranging rule Jan. 13.
In the rule (RIN:2137-AE66), which has not yet been published in the Federal Register, the agency makes several amendments to its current pipeline safety regulations:
• extending reporting requirements to some hazardous liquid gravity and rural gathering lines that PHMSA doesn't currently regulate;
• requiring inspections of all offshore, onshore, high-consequence and non-high-consequence pipelines after extreme weather and natural disasters;
• requiring integrity assessments using inline inspection tools, or other technology, once per decade for some transmission hazardous liquid pipeline segments;
• providing more flexibility in pipeline repair criteria;
• extending the required use of leak detection systems;
• requiring pipelines in or near high-consequence areas to accommodate in-line inspection tools.
The rule's main benefits will come from avoiding hazardous pipeline accidents that can be prevented through early detection, the agency said.Parts of the rule are based on recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board's report on a 2010 pipeline rupture in Marshall, Mich. and a 2012 Government Accountability Office report on federally unregulated gathering pipelines.
Paying for Pipeline Incidents
Between 2010 and 2015, operators reported to PHMSA that they spent $88.6 million in damages for hazardous liquid incidents outside high-consequence areas. That amounts to about $770 per mile of pipeline.
For incidents inside those areas, operators reported paying $300.8 million, or $3,572 per mile of pipeline, in damages.
“These damages are only a fraction of the total social costs of hazardous liquid releases but indicate the potential magnitude of benefits derived from preventing pipeline failures,” PHMSA said in the final rule.
Fine-Tuning Pipeline Safety
“A lot of [the rule] is technical, engineering material, and actually that's a good thing,” said John Stoody, vice president of government and public relations at the Association of Oil Pipe Lines.
Operators have been concerned that previous pipeline repair criteria required them to spend more time on less-urgent issues, creating blind spots in potentially high-priority areas.
“PHMSA has adjusted the language now; they're allowing for engineering assessments of the pipe and giving multiple approaches,” Stoody said.
Stoody said the rule allows operators to be proactive with their safety inspections.
“We're gratified that PHMSA heeded the comments of stakeholders and made adjustments to the rule that allows operators to tailor their safety programs to best fit the specific pipelines,” he said.
Peter Chace, national chairman of the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives, said there will be more for operators to do, but that the rule will improve safety.
“Some of the benefits, I think, include more comprehensive reporting of what lines are out there, and better assessment of the pipe to prevent ruptures and failures,” he said.
The executive director of the Pipeline Safety Trust, Carl Weimer, said he is disappointed the rule allows more time for aging pipelines to accommodate diagnostic robots, or “pigs,” that scan pipes for corrosion and cracks.
“While we support these new rules, with this country's aging pipeline infrastructure we are concerned that this level of slow incremental improvement will not be enough to keep our communities and environment safe,” he said in a statement.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103349993&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103349993&jd=103349993
-
PHMSA Finalizes Long-Awaited Safety Regs
Jan 16, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Mike Lee
The Transportation Department expects to finalize new safety regulations on oil pipelines by the end of next week, just ahead of President-elect Donald Trump's first day in office.
The department's Pipeline and Hazardous Safety Materials Administration started working on the rules shortly after a 2010 rupture that spilled 1 million gallons of oil in a tributary of the Kalamazoo River near Marshall, Mich.
PHMSA Administrator Marie Therese Dominguez signed the final version of the standards this week, and the agency expects the final version of the rules to be published in the Federal Register by Jan. 20.
The rules will, among other things, expand the use of leak detection systems, require more frequent testing for corrosion and other flaws, and require companies to inspect pipelines within 72 hours of natural disasters, such as floods and hurricanes. Companies will also have to make immediate repairs more frequently than under previous regulations.
The United States has about 191,000 miles of pipelines dedicated to oil, gasoline and other liquid fuels, and pipeline safety has become a growing concern after a string of accidents that followed the Marshall spill.
"The goal is to put the limited resources where they have the most impact on pipeline safety," PHMSA Associate Administrator Alan Mayberry said on a conference call with reporters.
Congress ordered PHMSA to write some of the rules as part of a 2011 law that reauthorized the agency. Other recommendations came out of the Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2016.
The oil industry has objected to some of the proposals. The 72-hour inspection requirement, for instance, could put pipeline workers at risk, the American Petroleum Institute said last year (Energywire, Jan. 11, 2016).
PHMSA revised the post-disaster inspection requirement to clarify that operators have 72 hours "from the point in time when the area can be safely accessed." The agency modified other pars of the regulation to give the industry more flexibility, said John Stoody, vice president of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines.
"With pipelines, there really is no one-size-fits-all approach," Stoody said.
Congress and some pipeline safety advocates have criticized PHMSA for the delay in writing the new mandates. Some of the requirements in the 2011 law were intended to address gaps that contributed to major spills.
The leak detection requirement, for instance, is a response to the Marshall spill, which wasn't discovered for 12 hours. And the post-disaster inspection requirement came after a 2011 flood broke a pipeline in Montana's Yellowstone River, spilling about 42,000 gallons of oil.
Dominguez made finishing the rules one of her top priorities when she was appointed in 2015 (E&E Daily, July 23, 2015).
Click here to read the final rules.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/01/13/stories/1060048390
-
Environmentalists Criticize Boiler MACT Provisions
Jan 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists in a new legal filing are attacking various provisions of EPA's boiler maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule, including startup and shutdown issues, and questions relating to EPA's use of carbon monoxide (CO) as a “surrogate” pollutant, that were unresolved in other litigation over the standards.
EPA's MACT rule for major source boilers is now remanded to the agency by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, so that EPA can re-work a number of emissions limits that the court found in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, et al. were unlawfully weak.
However, the court rejected environmentalists' challenge to EPA's standards for smaller “area” source boilers, where EPA opted for boiler “tune-ups” rather than numeric emissions limits.
In a related case, Sierra Club et al. v. EPA, environmental groups are pursuing claims over issues not resolved by U.S. Sugar. In a Jan. 13 reply brief, the groups say that EPA cannot use the CO levels it does in the MACT rule to control air toxics, because they are unrepresentative of true levels of toxics emitted by boilers.
The “carbon monoxide standards do not, in any sense, reflect the emission levels achieved by the best performing boilers,” as they must under the Clean Air Act, the groups say. “EPA does not have to set carbon monoxide standards but, if it does, those standards must comply with the statute’s stringency requirements.”
EPA in the rule set 13 individual MACT limits for different boiler types at 130 parts per million (ppm), and argues that reducing emissions below this level does not yield further reductions in toxics. But environmentalists argue this is an effect of EPA's choice to use CO as a surrogate, and does not reflect the air toxics emissions for individual pollutants of the best-performing boilers.
“If EPA believes that setting compliant standards is futile, the agency can meet its obligation to regulate organic hazardous air pollutants by using a different surrogate or setting direct standards for them,” the groups say.
The groups fault EPA's use of “work practice standards” instead of numeric limits during boiler startup, when emissions controls are not yet fully operational. EPA requires operators during the first four hours of operation to engage controls “as expeditiously as possible,” but the environmentlists say this is not enough, and MACT controls must apply at all times.
“EPA does not claim that it is impracticable for either all boilers or any particular class of boilers to measure emissions during the four hours after they first supply useful energy. Further, EPA concedes that some boilers can do so. Because EPA did not show that setting numeric standards is infeasible, it violated the statute and acted arbitrarily by setting work practice standards instead,” they argue.
Environmentalists also dispute EPA's assertions in the suit that the agency requires use of “clean fuels,” such as natural gas, in lieu of other fuels such as coal, during startup and shutdown. In fact, EPA's MACT rule does not demand use of clean fuels, they claim, saying, “by falsely claiming that its rule requires the use of clean fuels -- rather than explaining why it does not -- EPA acted arbitrarily,” and therefore unlawfully.
The groups ask for remand without vacatur of the MACT standard provisions at issue, and for vacatur of EPA's definition of startup under which “[s]tartup ends four hours after when the boiler or process heater supplies useful thermal energy … or generates electricity, whichever is earlier.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/litigation-environmentalists-criticize-boiler-mact-provisions
-
California Considers Guaranteeing Carbon Prices in Trump Era
Jan 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mathew Carr
California is considering a system to protect projects that cut global-warming emissions from a market downturn that may worsen under a Trump administration.
The state may guarantee the money these project developers get for emission-reduction credits by auctioning options that oblige California to pay a minimum price for them, based on measures the state's considering. Having a buyer of last resort encourages private finance.
California's moving forward with aggressive programs to curb global warming, even as President-elect Donald Trump and his nominee for the Environmental Protection Agency have questioned the science around climate change. The auctions could underpin emissions-cutting projects in an era of volatile carbon prices and regulatory uncertainty.
Cost effectiveness is a key attraction of the auctions, said Ryan McCarthy, science and technology policy adviser to Mary Nichols, chair of the California Air Resources Board.
The World Bank pioneered the auctions of credit price guarantees in 2015. The Climate Trust, a non-profit organization based in Portland, Oregon, plans a similar mechanism called the Environmental Price Assurance Facility that it expects to start by next year. EPAF will act as a “buyer of last resort,” said Peter Weisberg, the senior investment manager at the trust.
Put Option
Under Climate Trust's facility, private developers of low-carbon projects bid in a reverse auction for an option to sell their credits to the facility, known as EPAF, at a set price. If carbon market prices rise, auction winners don't have to use their option and EPAF keeps the premium. If markets fall, the developer receives the fixed price.
California, which already has a cap-and-trade market and low-carbon fuel standard, is seeking to accelerate emission cuts in areas it doesn't already regulate.
Under a draft California plan to deal with dairy industry emissions, one option would be to install equipment at hundreds of farms to capture methane from cow manure for transport fuel. Auctions could help attract the finance—potentially about $500 million by 2020 and $1.7 billion by 2030—because the price of the low-carbon fuel credits would be guaranteed.
Nations are gearing up to comply with emission-reduction targets under the Paris climate deal starting in 2020.
“If you're a country wanting to get the most bang for your taxpayer money to achieve your climate goals, the auction is a really good and effective tool to do that,” Scott Cantor, senior carbon finance specialist at the World Bank in Washington, said by phone.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103349978&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103349978&jd=103349978
-
Obama EPA Locks Trump Team Into Air Standards Decisions
Jan 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Trump administration will need to make a decision by this summer on whether to retain or revise an air quality standard for nitrogen oxides after the Obama Environmental Protection Agency agreed to a court deadline for reviewing its regulations.
The proposed consent decree, reached with the Center for Biological Diversity, sets a schedule for the EPA to review the health-based national ambient air quality standards for both nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, according to a notice to be published in the Federal Register Jan. 17. As part of the schedule, which must still be approved by a federal judge, the EPA must propose by July 14 whether to retain or revise the nitrogen oxides standard. That standard was set in 2010.
The primary air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide, used as a surrogate for various nitrogen oxides, is 100 parts per billion. A final decision would be due by April 6, 2018.
The EPA would also be required to take action on the health-based standards for sulfur dioxide by May 25, 2018. The current primary standards for sulfur dioxide is 75 ppb, set in 2010. The final rule would be due by Jan. 28, 2019.
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to review its air quality standards every five years to determine whether they should be retained or revised. The Center for Biological Diversity had sued the EPA in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in 2016 for missing those statutory deadlines (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. McCarthy, N.D. Cal., No. 3:16-cv-03796, consent decree proposed 1/6/17).
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103349988&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103349988&jd=103349988
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested