Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 1/16/2017
-
Dems Prepare to Face Off With Trump's Pick to Lead EPA
Jan 16, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Democrats are gearing up for battle as Donald Trump's pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency heads to the Capitol for his confirmation hearing this week. -
10 Things to Know About Ryan Zinke
Jan 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Ryan Zinke has helped kidnap an accused war criminal, keeps an arsenal of serious knives nearby when he's working and answers to "Z Man." -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Issues TSCA Prioritisation, Risk Evaluation Proposals
Jan 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has released two proposed rules laying out how it will prioritise substances and conduct risk evaluations under the new TSCA. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Industry Calls for Clarity on Final Nano Rule
Jan 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) says many of the issues it raised on the US EPA's proposed nano reporting rule were not addressed sufficiently in the final rule. -
EPA to Convene Hearing on TSCA First Ten Substances
Jan 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA will convene a public meeting on 14 February to solicit input on the scope of its assessments for the first ten substances subject to risk evaluation under the new TSCA law. -
EPA to Propose Process to Prioritize, Evaluate Chemicals
Jan 16, 2017 | Hydrocarbon Processing
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving to propose how it will prioritize and evaluate chemicals, given that the final processes must be in place within the first year of the new law’s enactment, or before June 22. -
EPA Proposes Procedures to Prioritize Chemicals for Risk Evaluation Under TSCA
Jan 13, 2017 | Lexology
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scheduled to publish a proposed rule in the January 17, 2017, Federal Register that would 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. -
Onshore Oil, NatGas Activity Escalating, Operators Tell Fed
Jan 16, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Energy firm activity accelerated in the final three months of 2016 and the "future activity outlook also improved considerably" across the Midcontinent, the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Fed) said Friday. -
Miss. Manufacturing Workers Exposed to Toxins — EPA
Jan 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
Hundreds of workers in a Grenada, Miss., manufacturing facility are likely inhaling toxic air during the workday, according to a study released by U.S. EPA. -
AAR Responds to Latest 'Reciprocal Switching' Comments Filed With STB
Jan 16, 2017 | Progressive Railroading
The Association of American Railroads (AAR) late last week responded to comments filed by a group of shippers that favor the Surface Transportation Board's (STB) proposed "reciprocal switching" regulation. -
Five Reasons a Pruitt EPA Would Threaten Public Health
Jan 16, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Colin O’Neil
President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to run the Environmental Protection Agency is a notorious opponent of efforts to cut carbon pollution that causes climate change. The nominee, Scott Pruitt, has a record that also raises the specter of crippling rollbacks of vital public health protections. -
Obama Changes Agency's Order of Succession
Jan 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Catherine McCabe, you got a promotion. -
Is The U.S. Failing to Lead on Climate Change?
Jan 16, 2017 | Forbes
By Robert Rapier
During last week's confirmation hearing for Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon pressed Tillerson on climate change. -
EPA Faults 15 States, D.C. on Ozone Plans
Jan 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA has officially faulted 15 states and the District of Columbia for failing to turn in complete plans for meeting the 2008 ozone air quality standard. -
EPA Again Argues for Remand of Texas Haze Regs
Jan 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA has renewed its call for a federal appellate court to permit the voluntary remand of the disputed portion of regional haze regulations for Texas and Oklahoma.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Dems Prepare to Face Off With Trump's Pick to Lead EPA
Jan 16, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Democrats are gearing up for battle as Donald Trump's pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency heads to the Capitol for his confirmation hearing this week.
Scott Pruitt will testify before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Wednesday, giving his opponents their first chance to poke into his record as Oklahoma attorney general, a position he has held since 2011.
Pruitt’s nomination is one of Trump’s most controversial. In Oklahoma, he has emerged as one of the EPA’s most aggressive legal adversaries, and his past tepid statements about the science behind climate change have solidified climate hawks’ opposition to his nomination.
Democrats on the Environment and Public Works Committee last week previewed an aggressive line of questioning they hope will lay bare his positions during Wednesday’s hearing.
“We’re going to ask tough questions, fair questions,” Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the committee's top Democrat, said this week.
“We want to be guided by the truth and real insights. At the end of the day, we don’t want to go back, we want to go forward."
Committee Democrats have landed on at least two key talking points against Pruitt: that his nomination represents a conflict of interest because of his work in Oklahoma, and that his views on climate are out of step with the majority of climate scientists.
They will likely employ those arguments as they push Pruitt to answer tough questions for the record.
In letters to government ethics offices on Thursday, nine Democrats on the committee asked for more information about Pruitt’s past campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry, as well as clarification on how he will run the EPA in light of his lawsuits against it.
Democrats have also zeroed in on Pruitt’s past statements about climate change.
In a May op-ed with a fellow attorney general, Pruitt wrote that the climate debate is “far from settled” and that “scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.”
That statement, Pruitt’s ties to the oil industry and his litigious approach to the EPA enraged the environmental movement, whose Senate allies have vowed to fight Pruitt’s nomination.
“I think the most reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that in every area he has the ability to exercise discretion … he will lean in as far as he possibly can to protect the fossil fuel industry that has for so long been his patron,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a committee member, said at a press conference.
“I think there’s a lot of concern.”
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said Pruitt “has made his primary professional mission to undermine the authorities that the EPA operates under.”
“I can’t imagine that he’s going to hide that,” he said.
Pruitt, like most Cabinet picks, hasn't addressed the criticism publicly since his nomination was announced in December. But his supporters expect the Oklahoman to cruise through his confirmation hearing and go to the Senate floor on, at worst, a party-line vote from the committee.
Scott Segal, an energy lobbyist at Bracewell, said Democrats’ arguments won’t stick.
He contended Pruitt’s lawsuits against the EPA don’t reveal an underlying bias against the agency, but rather its direction under President Obama. And he said Pruitt’s statements about climate change shouldn’t prevent him from becoming the country’s top environmental regulator.
“Surely environmentalists don’t believe that you have to support the Clean Power Plan in order to prove that you believe in climate change,” Segal said, noting Pruitt’s lawsuit against Obama's chief EPA climate rule, which is currently on hold as the suit proceeds.
Pruitt looks poised to clinch his confirmation as long as the Senate’s 52 Republicans are united in their support. But Pruitt backers are also bullish on his chances of attracting votes from moderate Democrats as well, especially those up for reelection in 2018.
"The lesson of [Trump's] populist message is there is support for someone who is committed to rule of law and a very close reading of statutory authorization,” Segal said. “If Pruitt stands for nothing else, he stands for that."
Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) have met with Pruitt since Trump announced his nomination in December. Both gave him positive reviews in post-meeting statements, and neither closed the door on supporting Pruitt when the Senate considers his confirmation.
Officials in ruby-red West Virginia, which gave Trump 68.7 percent of the vote in November, blame federal regulations for at least part of the downturn in the state’s coal industry. In a statement after his meeting, Manchin said Pruitt “has the right experience for the position.”
He told reporters this week that he gives a lot of leeway to presidential Cabinet nominations.
“I think I’ve said this over and over again: Anybody who has an FBI background check done, their financial disclosures, and passes the ethics and is clean and squeaky clean, there would have to be a reason not to support somebody’s staff,” he said. “Because [Trump] won, he is president-elect and he has the right to put his staff together.”
Heitkamp said she discussed a handful of issues with Pruitt during their meeting, including the federal ethanol mandate that divides the oil and agriculture industries, both key sectors in North Dakota.
But could she support Pruitt's nomination?
“I don’t know yet, but we certainly had a very candid and very direct — I wouldn’t say high-level just because it was nerdy — a nerdy conversation about energy,” she said.
The outside lobbying efforts over Pruitt picked up last week.
The Sierra Club released a series of digital ads against the nomination on Thursday, and the National Association of Manufacturers followed up with an ad buy supporting him on Friday. The League of Conservation Voters sent a letter to senators saying they should vote against Pruitt and his “radical record and the far-reaching damage he could do at the helm of the EPA."
A slate of industry groups sent their own letter to members, supporting Pruitt as "a stalwart defender against federal intrusion into state and individual rights.”
Chris Warren, a spokesman for the industry-funded American Energy Alliance, predicted the confirmation process is “going to be noisy, a lot of bluster not just from environment groups but a lot of senators. It will be tough but I think he’s in a good position.”
Democrats, though, are hankering for a fight over Pruitt, the environment and the future of the EPA.
“Is it possible that Mr. Pruitt will have an epiphany in this role?” Whitehouse said.
“All things are possible, but I think we have to deal with what the reasonable conclusions are that his record suggests — unless we find something to the contrary — and he will have a very robust hearing to make that case for himself.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/314258-dems-prepare-to-face-off-with-trumps-pick-to-lead-epa
-
10 Things to Know About Ryan Zinke
Jan 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
Ryan Zinke has helped kidnap an accused war criminal, keeps an arsenal of serious knives nearby when he's working and answers to "Z Man."
Zinke, who is President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the Interior Department, also thinks the Keystone XL pipeline and hydraulic fracturing have gotten a bad rap, and warns that "false tears for the sage grouse" have hurt energy development.
The 55-year-old Montana Republican congressman is a relative newcomer to politics, having served just one term in the House, and isn't yet well-known on the national scene. That'll change tomorrow, when he heads to the Senate to testify before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Last year, Zinke co-authored "American Commander" with Scott McEwen, who also co-authored the best-selling autobiography "American Sniper" with another Navy SEAL, Chris Kyle. The book about Zinke's upbringing and 23-year career in the Navy SEALs offers copious details about his personal life and policy views.
Here are 10 things to know about Zinke as his Senate vetting kicks off:
1. He's tough.
His Senate confirmation hearing promises to be intense, but Zinke has endured some grueling physical and psychological challenges.
He scored a full-ride scholarship to play football at the University of Oregon, where he was a 225-pound offensive lineman up against much bigger guys. "To have a guy of Ryan's size, which is small, you've got guys playing with you that are 350 pounds," McEwen said in an interview. The fact that he started on the Division 1 team "tells you not only that he's strong, but he's tough."
Zinke also survived Navy SEAL training, which included intense physical exercises, sleep deprivation and "Hell Week," where recruits in their tents experienced a "noise-and-smoke assault on the senses" and were ordered into the Pacific Ocean, where they approached hypothermia before they were ordered out onto the beach to crawl while machine guns "blazed above us," Zinke wrote in "American Commander." During some of the cold water exercises, "your testicles are climbing up into your stomach to escape frigid water," he wrote.
Those who want to quit can ring a bell and get coffee and doughnuts, and most trainees don't make it. But Zinke powered through. "I never want to fail," he said in the book. "Let's call it a soul-deep detestation of failing, of not doing my duty. That is an enormous driver. It has defined me."
2. He picked his college major at random.
Zinke majored in geology at the University of Oregon. He picked it by "closing my eyes and randomly pointing to a major from the academic catalog."
He added, "I never looked back."
His college teammates dubbed him "The Professor," and he received an award for academic achievement and attitude his senior year, according to his book.
3. He's no fan of President Obama's energy policies.
Zinke likes the Keystone XL pipeline proposal and fracking, and he thinks the government has been heavy-handed in its approach to sage grouse. His book refers to the "Obama administration's war on fossil fuels."
He called the rejection of Keystone XL "ill-advised quashing" and said opponents of fracking "haven't done their homework." He said "solar and wind sources don't have the economies of scale yet to deliver cost-efficient energy the way coal can."
And he criticized "D.C. bureaucrats who have publicly stated that oil and gas exploration is responsible for the decline of the sage grouse population in Montana." He said the West Nile virus, coyotes, hawks and wildfires "are far more detrimental to sage grouse than a pump jack."
Interior's Bureau of Land Management knows "that false tears for the sage grouse offer a very real way to arbitrarily restrict energy exploration activities," he wrote.
4. He keeps a knife arsenal near his desk.
Zinke keeps about a dozen Navy SEAL knives in his congressional office. He showed off the collection last year to the Stars and Stripes military newspaper.
Those knives "span the history of the underwater demolition teams and SEAL teams," McEwen said. "It's almost a definition of why [Zinke] believes that government spending can get out of control as well.
"He analogizes that the first knife in the SEAL team knives that were made is almost identical to the last knife, but you have all this development and money that's spent on all these different knives in between, and the last one ends up to be almost exactly the same as the first one that's 50 years before."
5. He's helped kidnap people.
In the late 1990s, Zinke was the commander of a SEAL team deployed to capture a Bosnian police chief.
Stevan Todorovic was a "torturer, rapist, and mid-level thug who specialized in violating the rights of non-Serbian Bosnians," according to Zinke in "American Commander." His team was charged with ensuring that Todorovic "simply vanish without any trace until he showed up at The Hague for prosecution." One morning outside Todorovic's apartment complex, the SEAL team threw him to the ground and packed him into the van.
Todorovic was later sentenced by the United Nations war crimes tribunal to 10 years in prison after he was convicted of crimes against humanity.
In Iraq, Zinke worked on a team charged with snatching the accountant of Muqtada al-Sadr, an Iraqi Shiite leader who called on his followers to target U.S. troops. Zinke was on an operations base to coordinate support when the SEAL team entered the accountant's compound. "The accounted, selected members of his family and his books and computers were loaded into the waiting vehicles outside," Zinke wrote.
6. He's got working-class roots.
When Zinke was 2 years old, his family lived in a single-wide trailer in Bozeman, Mont.
"I once opened the door just a crack on an especially windy day," he wrote. "... [W]hen the wind caught the aluminum door and used it like a sail, I sailed right along with it — out the door and onto the sidewalk." He wound up in the hospital with a concussion "and a taste for flight," he said. (He went on to do 900 parachute jumps in the SEALs. McEwen said Zinke has a "certain deference to adrenaline.")
His family later moved to Whitefish, Mont., in a small home on a lake near the railroad tracks before his parents went through a "nasty divorce" when he was a kid, he wrote.
When Zinke was in college, he'd come home during summers to work for his father, a plumber. He pumped out septic systems, where he'd sometimes need to clear grinder pumps of debris like "a wedged pair of women's panties or a towel." It was "a time where little concern was placed on contagious viruses or diseases, and the only precaution was a well-earned shower at the end of the day."
7. Other SEALs call him 'Z Man.'
Zinke knew he was "one of the guys" when his fellow SEALs dubbed him "Z Man."
"I liked it, and the name stuck," he wrote.
McEwen said in an interview, "If you say 'Z,' any SEAL — active or inactive — will know exactly who you're talking about."
When he was in college, "aided by a bottle of cheap tequila," he had his friend carve Z's into his hair on both sides, connected in the back with lightning bolts.
His last name, pronounced "zinc-ee," means "prominent nose" in German, according to his book.
8. He considers himself a Roosevelt conservationist.
As a young Boy Scout, Zinke was inspired by President Theodore Roosevelt's conservation policies.
"It was Roosevelt who had the courage to look into the future and use his powers under the Antiquities Act to preserve and protect public lands for the benefit of generations to come," he wrote.
Zinke quoted Roosevelt saying, "Conservation means development as much as it does protection," and the Montana congressman criticized "special interest groups" for blocking resource management and reducing public access to public lands. "Our elderly and disabled no longer are able to access lands, as paths and trails are only for those able to backpack in or ride on horseback."
He's also an avid hunter. "He hunts big game, everything from big game to birds and fishes. He's an avid fisherman as well," McEwen said. But Zinke's not in it for trophies, McEwen added. "I would say he's more like a subsistence-type hunter. I think he enjoys the hunting sport as well as any of the meat that's taken."
9. He's got travel baggage.
Zinke has caught flak during his House campaign and since being picked to lead Interior for reports that he committed travel fraud during his SEAL days.
The website The Intercept reported in December that Zinke was caught traveling to Montana multiple times in the late 1990s to renovate his home, while claiming his travel was for official duties. The report cited three anonymous sources (Greenwire, Dec. 21, 2016).
Zinke wrote in his book that he had a "glitch" in his record as a SEAL. "Call it bad judgment or a bad habit; it was one [and] the same." He said he'd traveled to Montana to scope out training sites and then went on leave to work on restoring his grandparents' house in Montana. Selecting training sites "was a privilege that had been afforded to every team leader before me," but the rules had changed and "autonomous travel was no longer authorized."
His travel claims were scrutinized, and he ended up having to repay $211 in unauthorized expenses, he said. "[T]he biggest penalty was being embarrassed for wrongdoing."
10. Beer played a role in friendships, marriage.
Beer has played a part in some of the bigger moments of Zinke's life.
In grade school, he'd put a case of Olympia Beer on his grandfather's tab at the local bar and make a profit selling it to high school kids. He'd repay the tab at the bar and made some important older friends, so he "never had to worry about getting a ride or getting beat up," he wrote.
Zinke got married when he was in Officer Candidate School. He and his first wife eloped one night after drinking "a beer or two more than we should have." They were married for five years. Zinke came home from a deployment in the Philippines to find all the furniture gone, including a teak and mahogany bar he'd had commissioned in the Philippines. "I remember my first thoughts were not about losing a wife. They were about losing the bar. God, I miss that bar. The marriage was over. I wished her the best."
He met his second and current wife, the former Lolita Hand, in a SEAL hangout bar called McP's Irish Pub & Grill in California in 1990. She bought the first round of drinks. Zinke still remembers "the color of her skirt and her black cowboy boots."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/16/stories/1060048426
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Issues TSCA Prioritisation, Risk Evaluation Proposals
Jan 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has released two proposed rules laying out how it will prioritise substances and conduct risk evaluations under the new TSCA.
The two 'framework' rules will implement a key feature of the new TSCA law: the requirement that the agency systematically prioritise and assess existing chemical substances, and then manage any identified risk those chemicals may pose.
"After 40 years we can finally address chemicals currently in the marketplace," said Jim Jones, the EPA's assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. The agency's proposals "set into motion a process to quickly evaluate chemicals and meet deadlines required under, and essential to, implementing the new law."
Industry and NGOs lauded the proposals as a key milestone in the EPA's implementation of the new TSCA law. The news came at the end of a busy week at the agency that also saw release of the proposed TSCA 'inventory reset' rule and two substance prohibition proposals under section 6 of the law.
Overview of proposals
As drafted, the EPA's prioritisation proposal calls for a four-step process:
pre-prioritisation, during which the agency will apply statutory preferences to narrow the pool of potential candidates to a single substance (or category of substances), and screen it against certain criteria;
initiation – the agency announces a candidate chemical triggering a 90-day comment period;
proposed designation, during which the agency proposes to name a substance a high or low priority, triggering a second 90-day comment period; and
final designation, when the EPA determines if a substance is a high or low priority. The former will require initiation of a risk evaluation, while the latter means the agency would not begin risk evaluation unless or until new information leads it to revisit the prioritisation.
Meanwhile, the proposal for risk evaluation describes a process that includes scoping, hazard assessment, exposure assessment, risk characterisation, and finally a risk determination.
The EPA says its approach "does not propose a new method of risk evaluation, but builds upon existing and proven methodologies for evaluating risk."
The proposal expounds on several statutory terms, including the EPA's interpretation of weight of scientific evidence, conditions of use, and determination of unreasonable risk.
Disagreement brews
In its immediate reaction to the proposals, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said the prioritisation rule "must do more than address procedural requirements. 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 prioritisation score."
And on risk evaluation, the ACC reiterated calls it made during the pre-proposal stakeholder process for:
a tiered approach, beginning with an initial screening-level assessment;
consideration of a substance's conditions of use and its hazard and exposure potential; and
clarification of how the agency will base risk evaluations on "the highest quality, most relevant scientific data and the weight of the scientific evidence as required by the law."
During the pre-proposal consultation, a coalition of NGOs urged the agency to flesh out scientific details in more 'nimble' guidance documents, rather than in the rulemaking. And they called on EPA to reject a tiered approach, calling its application to the risk evaluation process "contrary to the law, and arbitrary and capricious".
These and other debates are expected to continue to play out through the forthcoming public consultation. The 60-day review period will begin upon their publishing in the Federal Register.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52156/epa-issues-tsca-prioritisation-risk-evaluation-proposals
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Industry Calls for Clarity on Final Nano Rule
Jan 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) says many of the issues it raised on the US EPA's proposed nano reporting rule were not addressed sufficiently in the final rule. And it has strongly encouraged the agency to schedule public question and answer sessions prior to the new rule taking effect to address stakeholder concerns.
The ACC's comments came in response to the issuance of the new nanomaterials reporting rule. This was finalised last week after more than a decade of debate. It requires one-time reporting for existing nanoscale materials and for new discrete nanomaterials before they are manufactured or processed.
"We appreciate EPA's acknowledgment that there are several important questions to be answered in future guidance and the extension of the reporting deadline," the ACC said. It added it hopes to work with the agency "to ensure that additional guidance is as clear and workable as possible and is available in a timely manner."
While the ACC has said it is is compiling a list of topics it believes require additional explanation, a legal expert has pointed out one potential discrepancy. This is where language in the preamble differs from the final rule: an inconsistency she says makes a major part of the rule unclear.
Martha Marrapese, a partner at law firm Keller and Heckman, told Chemical Watch the issue centres on a requirement that manufacturers must report nano substance use 135 days before they intend to start the manufacturing process.
The preamble, said Ms Marrapese, says manufacturers do not need to wait those 135 days, but could file a report within 30 days of the formation of such an intent. However, the rule itself says the report must be filed at least 135 days before commencing manufacture, a distinction that would require manufacturers to indeed wait out the clock.
"I don't think EPA planned to have some companies wait 135 days and others go right to market," Ms Marrapese said, "but I think the language of the regulation needs to be adjusted to level the playing field."
That aside, Ms Marrapese said the rule marked improvement over the final rule. The rule added clarity to the term "unique and novel," used to help define a reportable substance. And the final rule also increased the definition of a small business from a company with $4m in annual revenue to one with $11m, she noted.
The ACC said it was also pleased with the inclusion of some references to internationally recognised terminology and material characterisation.
NGOs welcome rule
Stakeholders in the NGO community were largely pleased with the rule.
Jennifer Sass, senior scientist and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), said she could find little fault with the rule after her initial review. Her only point of contention was that the rule should have come out sooner.
Dr Sass said the NRDC was pleased the EPA took on its recommendation not to exclude nanoclays and zinc oxide from the requirements of the rule. She also mentioned the EPA's enhanced definition of novel properties as a positive addition to the final rule.
Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), said the reporting requirements covering both existing materials as well as new nanoforms of chemicals before they come into commerce is "really important". And he was pleased that the EPA "soundly rejected" arguments questioning the breadth of its authorities under section 8(a) of TSCA.
But the EDF had hoped the EPA would require reporting of any substance comprised of nanoscale particles between 1 and 100nanometers, even if those particles aggregate into something larger.
And, Dr Denison said the organisation took issue with the fact that if a company has submitted a pre-manufacture notice (PMN) for a nanomaterial after 2005, then it will not be required to report that material, even if new information has since been developed on that substance.
This is troubling, he said, "in part because so many of these materials are new and have come into commerce that way".
https://chemicalwatch.com/52155/us-industry-calls-for-clarity-on-final-nano-rule
-
EPA to Convene Hearing on TSCA First Ten Substances
Jan 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA will convene a public meeting on 14 February to solicit input on the scope of its assessments for the first ten substances subject to risk evaluation under the new TSCA law.
In its notice, the agency said it is particularly interested in information related to each substance's conditions of use. These are "the circumstances under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of."
It has also opened public dockets for submission of comments.
Under the new TSCA law, the agency must release scoping documents within six months (that is by 19 June) of each of the first ten substances subject to risk evaluation. These are:
1,4-dioxane;
1-bromopropane (1-BP);
asbestos;
carbon tetrachloride;
cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster (HBCD);
methylene chloride;
n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP);
pigment violet 29;
tetrachloroethylene (perc); and
trichloroethylene (TCE).
Completed documents will describe the scope of information about the chemical substance that the agency expects to consider in the risk evaluation. This includes the substance's conditions of use, hazards, and exposures, including to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations (Pess).
The agency says that in view of the statutory deadline to complete these ten risk evaluations, "it will be difficult, and may not be possible, for EPA to adjust the scope of the evaluations following release of the scoping document." It adds that will likely not be able to accommodate information as to scope received after the February meeting, or submitted to the docket after 1 March.
The meeting will take place in Washington, DC, and will be available by remote access. Registration is needed by 10 February.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52185/epa-to-convene-hearing-on-tsca-first-ten-substances
-
EPA to Propose Process to Prioritize, Evaluate Chemicals
Jan 16, 2017 | Hydrocarbon Processing
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving to propose how it will prioritize and evaluate chemicals, given that the final processes must be in place within the first year of the new law’s enactment, or before June 22.
“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. “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 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was enacted in 1976, it grandfathered in thousands of unevaluated chemicals that were in commerce at the time. The old law failed to provide EPA with the tools to evaluate chemicals and to require companies to generate and provide data on chemicals they produced.
EPA is proposing three rules to help administer the new process. They 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.
These three rules incorporate comments received from a series of public meetings held in August 2016.
If 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.
http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/news/2017/01/epa-to-propose-process-to-prioritize-evaluate-chemicals
-
EPA Proposes Procedures to Prioritize Chemicals for Risk Evaluation Under TSCA
Jan 13, 2017 | Lexology
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scheduled to publish a proposed rule in the January 17, 2017, Federal Register that would 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. The pre-publication version of the proposed rule describes 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. EPA notes that prioritization is the initial step in a new process of existing chemical substance review and risk management activity established under recent amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Publication of the notice will begin a 60-day comment period. More information on the final rule will be available in our forthcoming memorandum, which will be available on our website under the key phrase TSCA.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=158cbcb5-068a-48ef-9fd9-0698291db03a
-
Onshore Oil, NatGas Activity Escalating, Operators Tell Fed
Jan 16, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Energy firm activity accelerated in the final three months of 2016 and the "future activity outlook also improved considerably" across the Midcontinent, the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Fed) said Friday.
In its 4Q2016 survey results, compiled Dec. 15-30, operators said they would need, on average, oil prices of $60/bbl and natural gas prices of $3.98/MMBtu to increase activity "substantially." "Regional oil and gas firms said they returned to profitability in the fourth quarter for the first time in over two years," said Fed economist Chad Wilkerson, based in Oklahoma City. "Companies began hiring again and increased their drilling programs further."
Current New York Mercantile Exchange strip prices for oil and gas "has spurred drilling on our acreage," one respondent said in the latest survey. "We will participate and lock in these prices over the next year via hedging."
U.S. producers will "continue to produce where economic," another survey respondent said. "As prices rise, there will be more areas that are economic and there will be less infrastructure required to address the growth given that some of the first areas back will be areas where infrastructure is new and relatively underutilized."
The quarterly Tenth District survey provides information on current and expected activity by oil and gas-related firms located and/or headquartered in the district, with results based on total firm activity. The Tenth District encompasses Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Wyoming, as well as the western third of Missouri and the northern half of New Mexico.
Survey results reveal changes in several indicators of energy activity, including drilling, capital spending and employment. Firms also indicate projections for oil and gas prices. All results are diffusion indexes -- the percentage of firms indicating increases minus the percentage of firms indicating decreases.
The findings mirror survey results issued in late December by the Eleventh District, which covers most of Texas and southern New Mexico.
"The drilling and business activity index increased from 26 to 64, the highest reading in the three-year history of the survey," the Tenth District survey said. "The total revenues index climbed from 5 to 62, and the total profits index jumped from minus 10 to 42, its first positive reading in over two years.
"The employment, employee hours, and wages and benefits indexes also increased modestly back into positive territory. The access to credit index rose from minus 5 to 0, while the supplier delivery time index inched higher but remained negative."
According to the survey, year/year indexes improved considerably, with drilling and business activity, revenues, profits and capital spending indexes back into positive territory for the first time since 2014. Employee hours and wages and benefits indexes also turned positive. The employment and access to credit indexes rose modestly but remained negative, while the supplier delivery time index edged lower.
Future expectations indexes also increased considerably, with the future drilling and business activity index jumping from 21 to 73. The future revenues index rose from 6 to 67, and the future total profits index also picked up moderately.
The future capital spending index jumped to 79, while the future employment and employee hours indexes were moderately higher. The access to credit index rose from minus 6 to 3.
"Price expectations for oil and gas were mostly higher," according to the Tenth District. The expected oil prices index rose from 49 to 72, while the natural gas liquids price index also picked up moderately. "Conversely, the expected natural gas prices index fell from 44 to 26."
Respondents were asked various questions, including one about whether acreage is "overvalued in the Permian Basin and elsewhere given reports about recent transactions.” Most firms thought that acreage prices were overpriced, and they expect the trend to continue for some time.
"Permian acreage is overvalued," said one respondent. "At near-term oil prices, it would be difficult to pay the prices some are paying today..."
Another respondent said, acreage prices "have gotten completely out of hand," not only in the Permian, but in Oklahoma's myriad stacked reservoirs as well. "Oil and gas prices will have to improve significantly in order to justify the current prices being paid."
Most firms also said they do not expect the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to comply with a lower oil production target.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109050-onshore-oil-natgas-activity-escalating-operators-tell-fed
-
Miss. Manufacturing Workers Exposed to Toxins — EPA
Jan 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
Hundreds of workers in a Grenada, Miss., manufacturing facility are likely inhaling toxic air during the workday, according to a study released by U.S. EPA.
Cancer-causing vapor flows inside the Grenada Stamping facility at rates higher than the federal action level, which is the highest threshold created by the agency.
"Those levels are outrageous, and it shows the callous disregard those companies that operated the plant had for those workers," said Ted Lyons, the attorney representing residents who have sued companies that previously ran the plant.
Years ago, the plant's operators used trichloroethylene, a known carcinogen, as a cleaning agent. EPA found the carcinogen at concentrations in the indoor air up to 3 units above the action level for the general population.
EPA has directed the current facility operator, Ice Industries, to notify its employees immediately.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/16/stories/1060048429
-
AAR Responds to Latest 'Reciprocal Switching' Comments Filed With STB
Jan 16, 2017 | Progressive Railroading
The Association of American Railroads (AAR) late last week responded to comments filed by a group of shippers that favor the Surface Transportation Board's (STB) proposed "reciprocal switching" regulation.
The proposed regulation involves "reciprocal" or "competitive switching," which refers to a situation in which a railroad that has physical access to a specific shipper facility switches rail traffic to the facility for another railroad that does not have physical access, according to the STB. The second railroad pays the railroad that has physical access, typically in the form of a per-car switching charge.
In its reply comments, the AAR outlined to the STB how the shipper comments "do nothing to contradict the conclusion that the board's proposed reciprocal switching rules are unlawful," AAR officials said in a press release summarizing the filing.
Association officials also said that "the shippers are using the proposed rule as a means of circumventing existing rate regulation standards."
"The narrow self-interest of certain shippers in a revenue transfer in their favor — based on government intervention that they would never tolerate in their own industries — cannot offset the multiple flaws in the Board's proposal," AAR officials said.
Forced access is an ill-conceived approach that compromises the efficiency of the entire networ, AAR President and CEO Edward Hamberger said.
"This proposed regulation represents a sweeping reversal of the market-based approach favored by Congress over the last three-plus decades," he said in the release.
Hamberger noted existing STB regulations already protect rail shippers as railroads voluntarily switch traffic under the current system, and by law, if freight can get from its origin to final destination only if it is carried by two or more railroads, railroads must cooperate to move the shipments.
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/AAR-responds-to-latest-reciprocal-switching-comments-filed-with-STB--50608
-
Five Reasons a Pruitt EPA Would Threaten Public Health
Jan 16, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Colin O’Neil
President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to run the Environmental Protection Agency is a notorious opponent of efforts to cut carbon pollution that causes climate change. The nominee, Scott Pruitt, has a record that also raises the specter of crippling rollbacks of vital public health protections.
If Pruitt is confirmed as EPA administrator, he could pose these five threats to Americans’ health and safety:
Dirtier air. Pruitt could weaken air pollution rules intended to cut mercury, lead and other air pollutants that lower IQ and cause asthma attacks. As Oklahoma attorney general, Pruitt sued the EPA twice to block new air pollution rules that could save thousands of lives.
Dirtier water. Pruitt could roll back rules designed to prevent pollution of drinking water supplies from factories and farms. As attorney general, he sued the EPA to block new rules to protect clean water. Instead of fighting the water polluters who funded his campaigns, Pruitt spent the last six years suing the EPA.
More toxic pesticides. Pruitt could allow more toxic pesticides to be sprayed on our food, including chemicals like chlorpyrifos, which lowers IQ, and atrazine, which harms the hormone system. Pruitt could also remove special pesticide protections for pregnant women and children.
More toxic chemicals. Pruitt could likely allow more toxic chemicals to be used in consumer products, including toxic chemicals linked to cancer such as formaldehyde. In particular, he could undermine a new law designed to finally ban dangerous substances such as asbestos.
More environmental crime. Pruitt could turn a blind eye to polluters who break environmental laws by polluting our air and water, and dumping toxic waste. As Oklahoma’s attorney general, he shut down the state’s environmental protection unit.
http://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2017/01/five-reasons-pruitt-epa-would-threaten-public-health
-
Obama Changes Agency's Order of Succession
Jan 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Catherine McCabe, you got a promotion.
McCabe, deputy administrator for U.S. EPA's Region 2 branch, jumped up a few places in the agency's order of succession under an executive order that President Obama issued Friday.
Of the 18 people who could run EPA, including the administrator and deputy administrator, McCabe, based in the agency's New York office, is now 15th. The order details who would take control of the agency if EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy died, resigned or otherwise could not perform her duties.
Obama last updated EPA's order of succession in August of last year. McCabe in Region 2 was then 17th in line to power at the agency (Greenwire, Aug. 12, 2016).
Under this recent order, her ascension pushes down the principal deputy general counsel and principal deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance when it comes to who would take charge of EPA.
Region 5's deputy administrator remains in the 18th and final spot on the list.
Many of the higher positions in EPA's succession order stayed the same, as well, with the general counsel as third in line, followed by the top assistant administrators for the agency.
Like previous orders, the one issued Friday by Obama says that officials holding positions on an acting basis cannot serve as EPA administrator. That means several top officials, such as acting Deputy Administrator Stan Meiburg, could not take the top spot.
Also on Friday, the president made changes to who would lead some offices in the White House in the event of their top officials being unable to perform their duties.
Obama added one more official who could take charge of the White House Council on Environmental Quality in a separate memorandum.
If the CEQ chairman is unable to perform his or her duties, and neither can the office's managing director, chief of staff or general counsel, the associate director for the National Environmental Policy Act would step in under Obama's memo. That person now comes in before associate directors, who would take charge of the office going in the order in which they have been appointed.
Obama updated CEQ's order of succession in March 2015 and didn't mention the associate director for the National Environmental Policy Act — associate directors followed the general counsel.
President George W. Bush also changed up CEQ's order of succession toward the end of his administration in September 2008 (E&E News PM, Sept. 18, 2008).
Obama also issued a memo on Friday to detail the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy's order of succession.
Under that memo, if OSTP's director is unable to lead the office, then the associate director for national security and international affairs would take charge, followed by the associate directors for technology, then science, and finally environment and energy. If none of those associate directors could lead OSTP, then the chief of staff would, followed by the deputy chief of staff, assistant director and, finally, the general counsel.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/16/stories/1060048436
-
Is The U.S. Failing to Lead on Climate Change?
Jan 16, 2017 | Forbes
By Robert Rapier
Senator Jeff Merkley's Claims
During last week's confirmation hearing for Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon pressed Tillerson on climate change. During an exchange about leadership on climate change, Sen. Merkley made the following comments:
"Leading up to Paris, China is committed to producing as much renewable power as our entire electricity production in the United States. And we have seen India now talking about how to shift providing electricity to 300 million people who don't have it, and shifting primarily from a coal strategy to a primarily renewable energy strategy. So we are seeing big countries with big populations that have far smaller carbon footprints than the United States stepping up -- and shouldn't we step up as well?"
Tillerson countered "I think the United States has stepped up. The United States has a record over the past 20 years of which it can be quite proud."
But I want to dissect Sen. Merkley's comments.
Fact Check
First, let's cover what isn't true. China surpassed the U.S. in carbon dioxide emissions in 2006, and they have increased by nearly 40% since -- while emissions in the U.S. have declined. In 2015, China emitted 67% more emissions than the U.S. So China certainly doesn't have a smaller carbon footprint.
India's carbon footprint is smaller than ours in the U.S., but it is growing even faster than China's. In the past 10 years India's carbon dioxide emissions have increased by 83%, and they have increased 37 years in a row.
The primary culprit in India is coal consumption that has nearly doubled in the past 10 years. In fact, in 2015 India's coal consumption surpassed that of the U.S.:
If we look at historical carbon dioxide emissions, Sen. Merkley's point about what India is "talking about" doing and the investments that China is making are faced with the reality of what they have been doing:
The U.S. was the only country of the three that saw a decline in carbon dioxide emissions over the past decade, while carbon dioxide emissions in India and China both rose by more than 50%. If current trends continue, India's carbon dioxide emissions will surpass those of the U.S. in the next decade. China's emissions were flat last year, but it's too early to know if this is the start of a trend, or if it will turn out like the flattening that took place in 1997 -- just before emissions growth there exploded.
If Senator Merkley was referring to per capita emissions, then he is certainly correct. India and China, both with populations over one billion, have significantly lower per capita emissions than we do in the U.S. That's largely a function of the level of development of these populations, but those per capita emissions are increasing -- again in contrast to the U.S. As Sen. Merkley also noted, a large portion of India's population doesn't even have electricity. And if you look at it in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) to carbon dioxide emissions, the U.S. produces around four times as much as China or India.
Further, the International Energy Agency's 2016 World Energy Outlook projects that India's coal consumption is set to grow more than any other country's, more than doubling again by 2035 -- even if India follows through on the climate change promises it made as a result of the Paris Agreement. India is also projected to be the source of the largest source of demand growth for oil, with a 6 million barrel per day (bpd) projected increase.
Meanwhile, U.S. coal consumption is forecast to continue to drop at about 2% per year, while China's is forecast to decline by 0.5% per year. But of the three countries, the U.S. is the only one forecast to see a decline in carbon dioxide emissions over the next 10-15 years.
Concessions
However, there are a few things that can be conceded. First, the amount of carbon dioxide that the U.S. has already put into the atmosphere exceeds that of both China and India. Based on current trends this will change in the future, but at least for now the U.S. bears a greater responsibility than any other country.
Second, although U.S. renewable capacity has exploded in recent years (e.g., solar capacity is up over ten times in under five years), this lags well behind China's pace. Likewise, the U.S. growth rate for wind power was only about half that of China's in 2015, with China now having over three times the wind power capacity of the U.S. (and 70% more installed solar capacity).
Conclusions
If we circle back to Sen. Merkley's comments, recent history and projections from the IEA do not support his contention that India and China are stepping up, while the U.S. is not. In fact the U.S. is the only country of the three that has reduced carbon dioxide emissions over the past decade, and the only one that is forecast to continue doing so.
It can be argued that the U.S. should be doing more, especially in light of our legacy carbon dioxide emissions. It is also important that we continue to lead on this issue. While I wouldn't characterize the U.S. as failing to step up and lead, there is a risk that we will cede that leadership to other countries.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/01/16/is-the-u-s-failing-to-lead-on-climate-change/#2423aa486856
-
EPA Faults 15 States, D.C. on Ozone Plans
Jan 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA has officially faulted 15 states and the District of Columbia for failing to turn in complete plans for meeting the 2008 ozone air quality standard.
Administrator Gina McCarthy signed the "findings of failure" to submit state implementation plans (SIPs) Friday. They will take effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, starting the clock on a two-year process for the jurisdictions to either file complete cleanup plans or have federal regulators do the job for them.
"The states affected by these findings are overdue to submit SIP revisions for their designated nonattainment areas, or their entire state as a member of the Ozone Transport Region, or both," EPA said in a summary, also released Friday.
Ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is formed by the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunshine. It is linked to asthma attacks and worsened emphysema symptoms. The 2008 ambient air quality standard is 75 parts per billion.
McCarthy signed the findings in response to a tentative settlement to a lawsuit brought last July by the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity and two other groups alleging that EPA has failed to meet a statutory timetable for enforcing compliance with that threshold (Greenwire, Dec. 9, 2016).
As of Friday, the proposed consent decree was still awaiting a judge's signature after the two sides filed a version revised from the draft released for public comment last month.
Along with the District of Columbia, affected states are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont and Wisconsin.
Since 2008, EPA has further tightened the ozone standard to 70 ppb. As of last September, however, almost 120 million people lived in parts of the United States still designated as in nonattainment with the earlier 75 ppb limit, according to the agency.
EPA faulted D.C. and nine of the affected states for falling short of SIP requirements stemming from their membership in the Ozone Transport Region created by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments to reduce the movement of ozone and the chemicals that create it across state lines.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/16/stories/1060048419
-
EPA Again Argues for Remand of Texas Haze Regs
Jan 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
U.S. EPA has renewed its call for a federal appellate court to permit the voluntary remand of the disputed portion of regional haze regulations for Texas and Oklahoma.
In a motion filed Friday, EPA attorneys reiterated that the remand would allow the agency to reconsider those provisions in light of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to stay them on the grounds that Texas officials and other challengers were likely to prevail on the merits.
EPA had sought the remand early last month, saying it would allow for "a second look" to decide whether another route might be preferable (Greenwire, Dec. 5, 2016).
Texas officials, joined by power producers that would have to install new pollution controls under the haze regulations, have opposed the remand request, arguing that the court should throw out the "illegal portions of the final rule" (Greenwire, Dec. 20, 2016).
The regulations, published last January, would force seven coal-fired power plants in Texas to install or upgrade sulfur dioxide controls to curb haze in Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend national parks in Texas, as well as Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma.
EPA had imposed the added requirements as a partial substitute for a state strategy that it deemed inadequate for meeting the "reasonable progress" goals of the haze program.
After a three-judge panel on the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit stayed implementation in July, EPA proposed a separate rule that would also require new controls on coal-fired plants, but under another part of the haze program requiring adoption of "best available retrofit technology."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/01/16/stories/1060048437
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested