Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 1/19/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) 5 Chemical Growth Stocks to Enrich Your Portfolio in 2017
Jan 18, 2017 | Zacks (In Yahoo News)
By Zacks Equity Research
The chemical industry fared reasonably well last year, thanks to continued strong momentum in the automotive space and a rebound in the housing sector – two major end-use markets for chemicals. -
(ACC Mentioned) Global Plastics Industry Effort to Combat Marine Litter Grows in 2016
Jan 19, 2017 | Creamer Media's Engineering News
Seven new signatories were added to The Declaration of the Global Plastics Associations for Solutions on Marine Litter, also informally known as the “Joint Declaration” in 2016. -
Scott Pruitt, Donald Trump’s Pick for EPA Chief, Backs View Agency Has Overreached
Jan 19, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
President-elect Donald Trump’s choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, defended his record Wednesday against harsh questioning from Senate Democrats, while getting help from Republicans who back his bid to head an agency he has sued more than a dozen times. -
Pruitt Vote Likely Soon, Though Dems Aim 'to Take Every Shot'
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus and Geof Koss
After more than six hours of heated debate over climate change, potential conflicts of interest and states' rights, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) yesterday emerged bruised but upright after his confirmation hearing — and likely headed for Senate approval as Donald Trump's EPA administrator, possibly before the end of the month. -
Perry to Promise Agency Reforms, Not Extermination
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey and George Cahlink
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry will in his Senate confirmation hearing tomorrow call for deep reforms at the Energy Department and step back from his earlier calls to dismantle DOE, according to Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.). -
Learning Curve’ as Rick Perry Pursues a Job He Initially Misunderstood
Jan 19, 2017 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport and David E. Sanger
When President-elect Donald J. Trump offered Rick Perry the job of energy secretary five weeks ago, Mr. Perry gladly accepted, believing he was taking on a role as a global ambassador for the American oil and gas industry that he had long championed in his home state. -
Transition: EPA Names McCabe as Acting Administrator Post-Inauguration
Jan 18, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA has named Catherine McCabe, currently the agency’s Region 2 deputy administrator, to serve as acting EPA administrator until Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the agency, is confirmed by the Senate, according to an internal agency memo obtained by Inside EPA. -
DOE Lab Director to be Acting Energy Secretary
Jan 18, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
National Energy Technology Lab Director Grace Bochenek will act as Energy secretary until a new leader for the Energy Department is officially sworn in, an agency spokesperson said. -
(ACC Mentioned) Getting it up front: EPA Clarifies Substantiation Requirements for CBI Claims Under the New TSCA
Jan 18, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing a notice in tomorrow’s Federal Register affirming that the Lautenberg Act requires upfront substantiation of all confidential business information (CBI) claims submitted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)... -
EPA Seeks Public Ideas on Evaluating 10 Chemicals
Jan 19, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency is starting to assess 10 chemicals under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act by soliciting public comment on health risks and other issues. -
Departing EPA Toxics Chief Sees OPPT, IRIS Link With TSCA Implementation
Jan 18, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's outgoing toxics chief Jim Jones sees the agency's growing Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) working with the agency's influential Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program in the research office on chemicals in common as OPPT... -
Companies Must Back Up Privacy Claims When Asserted: EPA
Jan 19, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Companies that submit proprietary chemical information to the Environmental Protection Agency must justify upfront the reasons the information cannot be publicly released, the agency said in a notice to be published Jan. 19. -
EPA Issues Proposed Rules on Chemical Risk Evaluation
Jan 18, 2017 | EHS Today
By Stefanie Valentic
After 40 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will have established rules to prioritize and evaluate chemicals in the marketplace and the manufacturing process. -
Two Carbon Nanotube Rules Withdrawn by EPA Following Comment
Jan 19, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Two significant new use rules that would have required companies making or processing two specific carbon nanotubes to manage chemical risks through worker protection and other means are being withdrawn by the Environmental Protection Agency. -
Pruitt Aims to Rein in US EPA Regulatory Authority
Jan 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump’s choice to administer the EPA, said he would work to rein in agency's regulatory authority to be more consistent with the law during his confirmation hearing 18 January. -
Manufacturing Chemicals Added to REACH Substances of Very High Concern List
Jan 18, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Four chemicals used in manufacturing may soon be banned in the European Union, following their inclusion on a list of substances of very high concern. -
Commission Decides Against Changes to EDCs Authorisation Text
Jan 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The European Commission says it will not make changes to the REACH text on how endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs)are handled under the authorisation procedure. -
Monsanto and EPA Seek to Keep Talks About Glyphosate Cancer Review a Secret
Jan 18, 2017 | Eco Watch
By Carey Gillam
Monsanto and officials within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are fighting legal efforts aimed at exploring Monsanto's level of influence over regulatory assessments of the key chemical in the company's Roundup herbicide, new federal court filings show. -
UK Chemical Industry ‘Must Unite’ Under New Brexit Plan
Jan 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Prime minister Theresa May’s comments that the UK will exit the European single market mean the national chemical community must play its part to inform the government on getting the best deal with the union, says a national chemicals sector trade body. -
Report Shows Environmental Progress on Great Lakes, But More Work Needed
Jan 18, 2017 | Minnesota Public Radio
By Dan Kraker
The draft progress assessment from the International Joint Commission commends the U.S. and Canada for taking significant steps to restore contaminated areas of concern around the Great Lakes, including the St. Louis River estuary in Duluth. -
Rick Perry Can Help Launch the Next Great Era in American Energy
Jan 19, 2017 | Roll Call
By Sen. John Cornyn
Texas and energy are synonymous with one another. Most Americans probably think of the Lone Star State as an oil and gas economy with a lot of heft, and for good reason. The industry supports tens of thousands of jobs in the state and helps power one-third of the country. -
EIA Sees Ethane Production, Consumption Rising Through 2018
Jan 18, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
U.S ethane production is expected to increase over the next two years as the petrochemical industry consumes more and new export facilities ramp-up their overseas shipments, according to the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) latest Short-Term Energy Outlook. -
Exiting Rail Safety Chief Looks to Technology to Save Lives
Jan 18, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Michael R. Sisak
Sarah Feinberg was on the job as the nation’s chief railroad regulator for just three weeks when a packed commuter train slammed into an SUV stopped on tracks north of New York City, killing six people. -
North Dakota Eyeing RCRA Ruling, Oil Rail Oversight, Pipeline Protesters
Jan 18, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
North Dakota is concerned about the “strict timeline” regarding a settlement between environmental groups and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over oil and natural gas waste handling. -
Expanded Ozone Region Not Necessary, EPA Proposes
Jan 19, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Downwind states will still press the Environmental Protection Agency to curb ozone-forming pollution that crosses state lines after the agency decided it's unnecessary to expand the region of states required to take additional steps to control emissions. -
Litigation: EPA, Environmentalists Fault Attacks on Texas Haze Plan
Jan 18, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA and environmentalists are faulting efforts by Texas and utilities to have a federal appeals court block the agency from relying on any regulatory requirements in a stayed federal plan to curb the state's regional haze when it crafts other regulations... -
EPA's Refrigerant Leak Regulations Challenged in Court
Jan 19, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Industry groups have filed two lawsuits challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's attempts to regulate leaks of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) 5 Chemical Growth Stocks to Enrich Your Portfolio in 2017
Jan 18, 2017 | Zacks (In Yahoo News)
By Zacks Equity Research
The chemical industry fared reasonably well last year, thanks to continued strong momentum in the automotive space and a rebound in the housing sector – two major end-use markets for chemicals.
Notwithstanding a slew of headwinds including concerns over China’s economy, Eurozone’s tepid recovery and weak demand in the energy space, the industry’s recovery momentum is expected to continue this year, supported by continued strength in the light vehicles market, positive trends in the construction space and significant shale-linked capital investment.
U.S. Chemical Industry Set for Strong Growth
While the European chemical industry remains in limbo given lower prices, shrinking production, sluggish demand for European chemical exports and weak R&D investments, prospects in the U.S. look bright.
The U.S. chemical industry remains on course for growth this year and the next despite several challenges including a strong dollar, soft export markets and a low oil price environment. The American Chemistry Council (“ACC”), in a recent report, said that it envisions national chemical production to rise 3.6% in 2017, further accelerating to a 4.8% growth in 2018.
Advances in manufacturing and exports is expected to boost demand for basic chemicals this year and beyond. The ACC expects basic chemicals production to expand 4.2% in 2017.
The trade group also expects American chemical industry’s growth to transcend the nation’s overall economic growth in the long haul. It sees domestic chemical sales to cross the $1 trillion milestone by 2020.
The shale gas boom in the U.S. has also been a huge driving force behind chemical investment on plants and equipment in the country and have provided domestic petrochemicals producers a compelling cost advantage over their global counterparts. The shale revolution has made the U.S. an attractive investment hotspot and incentivized a number of chemical companies to pump in billions of dollars to beef up capacity.
According to the ACC, over 275 new chemical projects have been announced by chemical makers (worth more than $170 billion) since 2010 to take advantage of ample natural gas supplies, nearly half of which already complete or under construction. Such investments – many backed by Federal government support – are expected to boost capacity and export over the next several years.
Strength Across Key End-Markets
The automotive sector continues its good run. This major chemical end-use market is enjoying the fruits of low fuel prices. In particular, U.S. light vehicles market continued to show strength in 2016, supported by an improving job market, rising personal income, low fuel prices and attractive financing options, and the momentum is expected to continue this year.
A recovery across housing and commercial construction markets has been another tailwind for the chemical industry. After being hit hard in the recession, the construction sector has bounced back on the heels of strong housing fundamentals. The underlying demand trends in the housing space remain strong, supported by an improving employment levels, affordable interest/mortgage rates and a rise in income levels. This augurs well for chemical demand in this key market.
Strategic Actions to Reap Benefits
Chemical companies continue to shift their focus on attractive, growth markets in an effort to cut their exposure on other businesses that are grappling with weak demand. The industry is also seeing a pick-up in consolidation activities (exhibited by a wide swath of deals in the recent past) as chemical makers are increasingly looking for cost synergy opportunities and enhanced operational scale in a still-difficult global economic environment.
Moreover, cost-cutting measures (including plant closures and headcount reduction) and productivity improvement actions by chemical companies are expected to yield industry-wide margin improvements.
5 Chemical Growth Plays
Growth investors look for stocks with aggressive earnings or revenue growth potential, which should lead to higher stock prices. Here we put a spotlight on chemical stocks that are poised for healthy growth. With the help of our style score system, we have picked 5 stand-out stocks that have excellent prospects and might offer solid investment returns.
Our research shows that stocks with Growth Style Scores of ‘A’ or ‘B’ when combined with Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) or Zacks Rank #2 (Buy) offer the best investment opportunities in the growth investing space.
Kronos Worldwide, Inc. KRO
Headquartered in Dallas, TX, Kronos sports a Zacks Rank #1 and a Growth Score 'A.' The company delivered a healthy positive earnings surprise of 111.1% in the last reported quarter. The stock has a long-term expected earnings per share (EPS) growth rate of roughly 5%.
Kronos’ cost-reduction efforts and savings from workforce reduction should lend support to its earnings. It is also expected to benefit from lower raw material and other production costs.
Ingevity Corporation NGVT
South Carolina-based Ingevity has a Zacks Rank #2 and a Growth Score 'A.' The stock has a long-term expected EPS growth rate of 10%. The company delivered an average earnings surprise of 19.8% over the trailing four quarters.
Ingevity is expected to benefit from strength in its Performance Materials segment and strong adoption of innovative pavement technologies in its Performance Chemicals segment. The company’s cost-reduction efforts should also support its earnings this year.
LyondellBasell Industries NV LYB
Netherlands-based LyondellBasell has a Zacks Rank #2 and a Growth Score 'B.' LyondellBasell has delivered positive earnings surprises in 3 of the last 4 quarters. The stock has a long-term expected EPS growth rate of 8%." class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)--sm Mt(0.8em)--sm" data-type="text" data-reactid="5" style="margin-bottom: 1em; color: rgb(38, 40, 42); font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The chemical industry is gradually gaining strength after being badly shaken by the Great Recession. The highly cyclical industry – which had long been out of favor – is finally getting its groove back, making it an attractive investment proposition for 2017.
The chemical industry fared reasonably well last year, thanks to continued strong momentum in the automotive space and a rebound in the housing sector – two major end-use markets for chemicals.
Notwithstanding a slew of headwinds including concerns over China’s economy, Eurozone’s tepid recovery and weak demand in the energy space, the industry’s recovery momentum is expected to continue this year, supported by continued strength in the light vehicles market, positive trends in the construction space and significant shale-linked capital investment.
U.S. Chemical Industry Set for Strong Growth
While the European chemical industry remains in limbo given lower prices, shrinking production, sluggish demand for European chemical exports and weak R&D investments, prospects in the U.S. look bright.
The U.S. chemical industry remains on course for growth this year and the next despite several challenges including a strong dollar, soft export markets and a low oil price environment. The American Chemistry Council (“ACC”), in a recent report, said that it envisions national chemical production to rise 3.6% in 2017, further accelerating to a 4.8% growth in 2018.
Advances in manufacturing and exports is expected to boost demand for basic chemicals this year and beyond. The ACC expects basic chemicals production to expand 4.2% in 2017.
The trade group also expects American chemical industry’s growth to transcend the nation’s overall economic growth in the long haul. It sees domestic chemical sales to cross the $1 trillion milestone by 2020.
The shale gas boom in the U.S. has also been a huge driving force behind chemical investment on plants and equipment in the country and have provided domestic petrochemicals producers a compelling cost advantage over their global counterparts. The shale revolution has made the U.S. an attractive investment hotspot and incentivized a number of chemical companies to pump in billions of dollars to beef up capacity.
According to the ACC, over 275 new chemical projects have been announced by chemical makers (worth more than $170 billion) since 2010 to take advantage of ample natural gas supplies, nearly half of which already complete or under construction. Such investments – many backed by Federal government support – are expected to boost capacity and export over the next several years.
Strength Across Key End-Markets
The automotive sector continues its good run. This major chemical end-use market is enjoying the fruits of low fuel prices. In particular, U.S. light vehicles market continued to show strength in 2016, supported by an improving job market, rising personal income, low fuel prices and attractive financing options, and the momentum is expected to continue this year.
A recovery across housing and commercial construction markets has been another tailwind for the chemical industry. After being hit hard in the recession, the construction sector has bounced back on the heels of strong housing fundamentals. The underlying demand trends in the housing space remain strong, supported by an improving employment levels, affordable interest/mortgage rates and a rise in income levels. This augurs well for chemical demand in this key market.
Strategic Actions to Reap Benefits
Chemical companies continue to shift their focus on attractive, growth markets in an effort to cut their exposure on other businesses that are grappling with weak demand. The industry is also seeing a pick-up in consolidation activities (exhibited by a wide swath of deals in the recent past) as chemical makers are increasingly looking for cost synergy opportunities and enhanced operational scale in a still-difficult global economic environment.
Moreover, cost-cutting measures (including plant closures and headcount reduction) and productivity improvement actions by chemical companies are expected to yield industry-wide margin improvements.
5 Chemical Growth Plays
Growth investors look for stocks with aggressive earnings or revenue growth potential, which should lead to higher stock prices. Here we put a spotlight on chemical stocks that are poised for healthy growth. With the help of our style score system, we have picked 5 stand-out stocks that have excellent prospects and might offer solid investment returns.
Our research shows that stocks with Growth Style Scores of ‘A’ or ‘B’ when combined with Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) or Zacks Rank #2 (Buy) offer the best investment opportunities in the growth investing space.
Kronos Worldwide, Inc. KRO
Headquartered in Dallas, TX, Kronos sports a Zacks Rank #1 and a Growth Score 'A.' The company delivered a healthy positive earnings surprise of 111.1% in the last reported quarter. The stock has a long-term expected earnings per share (EPS) growth rate of roughly 5%.
Kronos’ cost-reduction efforts and savings from workforce reduction should lend support to its earnings. It is also expected to benefit from lower raw material and other production costs.
Ingevity Corporation NGVT
South Carolina-based Ingevity has a Zacks Rank #2 and a Growth Score 'A.' The stock has a long-term expected EPS growth rate of 10%. The company delivered an average earnings surprise of 19.8% over the trailing four quarters.
Ingevity is expected to benefit from strength in its Performance Materials segment and strong adoption of innovative pavement technologies in its Performance Chemicals segment. The company’s cost-reduction efforts should also support its earnings this year.
LyondellBasell Industries NV LYB
Netherlands-based LyondellBasell has a Zacks Rank #2 and a Growth Score 'B.' LyondellBasell has delivered positive earnings surprises in 3 of the last 4 quarters. The stock has a long-term expected EPS growth rate of 8%.
Celanese Corporation CE
Our next pick in the space is Texas-based Celanese, armed with a Zacks Rank #2 and Growth Score 'B.' The company has surpassed expectations over the last four quarters with an average earnings surprise of around 7.1%. Its long-term projected EPS growth rate is 8.8%.
Celanese’s strategic measures including productivity and efficiency improvement actions should lend support to its earnings in 2017. Further, the company should benefit from capacity expansion, growth initiatives in emerging regions and expansion of its engineered materials pipeline.
Albemarle Corporation ALB
North Carolina-based Albemarle is another attractive choice with a Zacks Rank #2 and Growth Score 'B.’ The company delivered positive earnings surprises over the last four quarters with an average earnings surprise of 27.1%. Its long-term projected EPS growth rate is 10%.
The company is taking steps to strengthen its lithium business, partly through strategic acquisitions. As part of this move, it recently closed the acquisition of the lithium assets of Jiangli New Materials. The buyout will accelerate the company’s ability to meet its goal of capturing 50% of the growth in the lithium industry.
Final Thoughts
While the chemical industry still remains hamstrung by a host of headwinds, the industry’s upturn is expected to continue this year on sustained healthy momentum in the automotive space and an upswing in the housing market.
Amid such a backdrop, it would be prudent idea to invest in the above-mentioned stocks with compelling growth prospects if you are looking to reap solid returns from your portfolio this year.
Zacks' Top 10 Stocks for 2017
In addition to the stocks discussed above, would you like to know about our 10 finest buy-and-hold tickers for the entirety of 2017?
Who wouldn't? As of early December, the 2016 Top 10 produced 5 double-digit winners including oil and natural gas giant Pioneer Natural Resources which racked up a stellar +50% gain. The new list is painstakingly hand-picked from 4,400 companies covered by the Zacks Rank. Be among the very first to see it>>" class="canvas-atom canvas-text Mb(1.0em) Mb(0)--sm Mt(0.8em)--sm" data-type="text" data-reactid="10" style="margin-bottom: 1em;">LyondellBasell continues to benefit from the favorable North American natural gas environment. It should also gain from its ethylene and polyethylene expansion moves. The company is executing its expansion projects to leverage the U.S. natural gas liquids (NGLs) advantage.
Celanese Corporation CE
Our next pick in the space is Texas-based Celanese, armed with a Zacks Rank #2 and Growth Score 'B.' The company has surpassed expectations over the last four quarters with an average earnings surprise of around 7.1%. Its long-term projected EPS growth rate is 8.8%.
Celanese’s strategic measures including productivity and efficiency improvement actions should lend support to its earnings in 2017. Further, the company should benefit from capacity expansion, growth initiatives in emerging regions and expansion of its engineered materials pipeline.
Albemarle Corporation ALB
North Carolina-based Albemarle is another attractive choice with a Zacks Rank #2 and Growth Score 'B.’ The company delivered positive earnings surprises over the last four quarters with an average earnings surprise of 27.1%. Its long-term projected EPS growth rate is 10%.
The company is taking steps to strengthen its lithium business, partly through strategic acquisitions. As part of this move, it recently closed the acquisition of the lithium assets of Jiangli New Materials. The buyout will accelerate the company’s ability to meet its goal of capturing 50% of the growth in the lithium industry.
Final Thoughts
While the chemical industry still remains hamstrung by a host of headwinds, the industry’s upturn is expected to continue this year on sustained healthy momentum in the automotive space and an upswing in the housing market.
Amid such a backdrop, it would be prudent idea to invest in the above-mentioned stocks with compelling growth prospects if you are looking to reap solid returns from your portfolio this year.
Zacks' Top 10 Stocks for 2017
In addition to the stocks discussed above, would you like to know about our 10 finest buy-and-hold tickers for the entirety of 2017?
Who wouldn't? As of early December, the 2016 Top 10 produced 5 double-digit winners including oil and natural gas giant Pioneer Natural Resources which racked up a stellar +50% gain. The new list is painstakingly hand-picked from 4,400 companies covered by the Zacks Rank.http://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-chemical-growth-stocks-enrich-202908507.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Global Plastics Industry Effort to Combat Marine Litter Grows in 2016
Jan 19, 2017 | Creamer Media's Engineering News
Seven new signatories were added to The Declaration of the Global Plastics Associations for Solutions on Marine Litter, also informally known as the “Joint Declaration” in 2016. New participants include the American Fiber Manufacturers Association (AFMA), the Bangladesh Plastic Goods Manufacturers & Exporters Association (BPGMEA), the Flexible Packaging Association (FPA), the Ghanaian Plastics Manufacturers Association (GPMA), the Myanmar Plastics Industries Association (MPIA), the Indonesian Olefins, Aromatics and Plastics Association (INAPLA), and the Vietnam Plastics Association (VPA).
“We’re excited to welcome each of these new partners, who bring perspectives from countries in Asia and Africa, on types of plastic not previously represented in our Joint Declaration,” said Steve Russell, Vice President, Plastics, American Chemistry Council, at the 27th Global Meeting on Plastics and Sustainability in Hanoi, Vietnam. At the meeting, delegates also agreed that going forward the group will become the “Global Plastics Alliance.”
Delegates from 17 countries and four continents participated in the Global Meeting – making this the largest and best attended meeting to date. “Addressing marine litter issues effectively requires that we bring local, regional and global stakeholders together,” said Karl-H. Foerster, Executive Director of PlasticsEurope. “Broadening our fold helps us find new partners and opportunities to tackle this very serious problem.”
“Plastic producers from around the world are coming together to keep used plastic out of the environment, and to further improve the sustainability of these energy and resource efficient materials. The strong participation at this meeting demonstrates that this industry is committed to providing solutions to ensure a more sustainable future,” said Callum Chen, Secretary General of the Asia Plastics Forum.
“Together, as a united, global industry, we’re involved in hundreds of marine litter prevention programs in all regions of the globe,” added Chen. “But there is still much to do. Growing our ranks helps further grow our work.”
The Global Declaration was launched in March 2011 at the 5th International Marine Debris Conference. Today, the Declaration has been signed by 69 plastics associations from regions across the globe. Recognizing their important role in fighting marine litter, these plastics associations have launched and are supporting projects in six key areas aimed at contributing to sustainable solutions. The six focus areas of the Global Declaration are education, research, public policy, sharing best practices, plastics recycling/recovery, and plastic pellet containment.
In May, leaders from plastics organizations across the globe announced that there were approximately 260 projectsplanned, underway or completed. Plastics|SA has been a signatory of the Joint Declaration since 2011 and PackagingSA signed the Declaration in 2015.Douw Steyn, Director Sustainability, represents Plastics|SA’s Sustainability Council on various GPA task teams viz. advocacy, marketing and research, is the chairman of the subgroup: Stakeholder Engagement and attends GPA meetings on an annual basis. The Sustainability Council’s marine activities are in line with the 6 focus areas of the Joint Declaration with a focus on providing strategic leadership to the industry on sustainability issues. Douw is also a member of the leading team on Plastics Waste Management, led by Dr Jurgen Bruder, IK Germany, as nominated in Hanoi in 2016.
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/global-plastics-industry-effort-to-combat-marine-litter-grows-in-2016-2017-01-19/rep_id:4136
-
Scott Pruitt, Donald Trump’s Pick for EPA Chief, Backs View Agency Has Overreached
Jan 19, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder
President-elect Donald Trump’s choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, defended his record Wednesday against harsh questioning from Senate Democrats, while getting help from Republicans who back his bid to head an agency he has sued more than a dozen times.
Mr. Pruitt, currently Oklahoma’s attorney general, reiterated his view that the EPA has overreached, in essence making its own laws, and that states should lead on environmental regulation. “EPA is an administrative agency. It is not a legislative body,” he said. “There’s an idea in Washington that the states don’t care about the water we drink or the air we breathe.”
Mr. Pruitt was one of a handful of Mr. Trump’s controversial nominees facing confirmation hearings across Capitol Hill Wednesday. Democratic senators say Mr. Pruitt is one of the most extreme nominees of Mr. Trump, but he will likely receive enough Senate support for his confirmation.
Most, if not all, Republicans are likely to vote for him, along with at least one Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, whose vie
http://www.wsj.com/articles/scott-pruitt-donald-trumps-pick-for-epa-chief-plans-to-emphasize-disagreements-with-obama-1484735405
-
Pruitt Vote Likely Soon, Though Dems Aim 'to Take Every Shot'
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus and Geof Koss
After more than six hours of heated debate over climate change, potential conflicts of interest and states' rights, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) yesterday emerged bruised but upright after his confirmation hearing — and likely headed for Senate approval as Donald Trump's EPA administrator, possibly before the end of the month.
While Pruitt will first need to respond to written questions for the record, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) made clear he's aiming to see the nominee installed as the nation's top environmental regulator before Feb. 1.
"The last five directors of the EPA have all had their hearings and their discussion and their confirmations in January," Barrasso told E&E News after Pruitt's hearing broke for lunch.
New EPW Committee ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) conceded that Democrats will likely fall short in their bid to derail Pruitt's nomination. He also said, however, they will continue to highlight their concerns with a nominee they harshly denounced as unfit to lead EPA — even if they lack the votes to block him.
Carper recalled an anecdote about someone asking hockey superstar Wayne Gretzky what made him such a great player. "And he says, 'I missed every shot I never took,'" Carper told E&E News during the hearing break. "And we're going to take every shot."
Environmentalists were very alarmed when Carper took the Democratic reins on the EPW Committee from retired Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), but the moderate Democrat known for cracking jokes carefully picked apart Pruitt's record as Oklahoma attorney general.
"I believe EPA should be guided by good science, should encourage collaboration with states and should make sure that we look at economic consequences except in some particular health issues," he told reporters.
"I'm not convinced that [Pruitt] relies on science all that much — certainly doesn't rely on it with respect to climate change, sea-level rise. My state — we live with it. We're the lowest-lying state in America. And it's real. We see it every day."
Carper also said he was "stunned" by Pruitt's refusal to fully recuse himself from any of the ongoing litigation he brought against the agency he now wants to lead, noting that most nominees "recuse themselves rather freely."
"If you have been part of a lawsuit against EPA and it hasn't been decided, and you become the administrator of the EPA, that lawsuit can run for years," he told reporters. "And to say I'm not going to recuse myself for the duration of that lawsuit — really? It makes no sense."
Pruitt's supporters have push backed against the effort to have the EPA nominee step away from prior litigation against the agency.
In a letter to Barrasso and Carper sent ahead of the hearing, Scott Segal, a Bracewell LLP partner and utility lobbyist, said the recusal calls were unfounded because "his efforts constitute an open contesting of rules of general applicability, little different from rulemaking comments or other attempts at appropriate participation in the process."
Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, also noted that current EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy likewise participated in litigation against the agency before she joined President Obama's administration.
So far no Republicans have indicated that they will oppose the nomination, and at least one Democrat — West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin — is expected to back Pruitt. Another Democrat, North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, is considered a possible yes vote for the EPA nominee, although she told E&E News yesterday she is still undecided.
Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), another moderate who was considered a possible yes for Trump's EPA pick, announced yesterday he would vote against Pruitt.
Republicans gang up on EPA
While Democrats looked to land punches on Pruitt at yesterday's confirmation hearing, Republicans sought to get their shots in on EPA under the Obama administration.
In his opening statement, Barrasso said EPA's "broad and legally questionable new regulations" had undermined faith in the agency. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) blasted EPA's Waters of the U.S. rule. And Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) took time to complain about fish guts, or specifically an EPA rule that would require fishermen to secure a permit to wash fish guts off their boats back into the ocean.
"This is the kind of thing that has eroded the trust between Americans and the EPA so much," said Sullivan, holding aloft the regulation, about a 200-page stack of paper clipped together.
Pruitt agreed, saying EPA should focus on more concrete goals, like cleaning up Superfund sites or reducing air pollution.
"What you cite there, it's just missed priorities," Pruitt said.
Barrasso also asked Pruitt about "Richard Windsor" — the alias for former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's secondary email account, which critics say was used to hide her communications. The EPW chairman asked Pruitt if he would "refrain" from hiding his emails from the Freedom of Information Act; Pruitt indicated that he would not.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) also asked Pruitt about FOIA, noting that a public records request for communications between his Oklahoma attorney general office and several energy companies had been held up for more than two years.
Pruitt emphasized that he would stick to the law as EPA chief, even if it meant seemingly going against his own past positions.
"The endangerment finding is there and needs to be enforced and respected," Pruitt said, referring to a 2009 ruling by EPA that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, serving as the foundation of the Obama administration's climate change rules. Pruitt has sued in the past to overturn that finding.
Democrats tried to rattle Pruitt often throughout the hearing, holding up an asthma inhaler or a bottle of Trump brand spring water when asking questions about air or water pollution.
The Oklahoma attorney general did slip at one point, saying he needed to further review what was the safe level of lead in drinking water was for young people — there is none. In addition, Pruitt did criticize EPA’s lackluster response to the Flint, Mich., drinking water crisis, saying he wanted a quicker reaction from the agency.
Pruitt eventually went through four rounds of questioning from senators, pushed often by Democrats on energy companies' political contributions to him as well as not following through on a state lawsuit to clean up the Illinois River from poultry producers' pollution.
That resulted in a full-day hearing for Pruitt, leading to Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to compliment not the nominee but his family for their stamina, who sat behind Pruitt the whole time.
"They are true champs," Booker said. "I thank them for their indulgence."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/01/19/stories/1060048616
-
Perry to Promise Agency Reforms, Not Extermination
Jan 19, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey and George Cahlink
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry will in his Senate confirmation hearing tomorrow call for deep reforms at the Energy Department and step back from his earlier calls to dismantle DOE, according to Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).
Speaking with reporters today, Manchin said Perry, President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead DOE, is prepared to be asked by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee whether he still wants to dismantle the department.
Manchin, who'll introduce the former Texas governor to the committee with Republican Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), said Perry had a "good answer" about why he once wanted to abolish DOE and how he can now improve it.
"I said, 'That's great. Tell us what it is you want to do [at DOE],'" Manchin said, recalling his conversation with Perry. "He said, 'I think that's what I am going to do.'"
Perry became a political punchline five years ago when he forgot the name of the agency he wanted to eliminate in a nationally televised presidential primary debate. "It's three agencies of government when I get there that are gone, Commerce, Education and the, uh, what's the third one there?" Perry said. "The third one I can't, sorry. Oops" (Greenwire, Nov. 21, 2016).
Trump spokesman Sean Spicer has stressed That Trump, not the agency heads, will decide how the agencies are managed or dismantled. With 158 political appointees, DOE oversees the national laboratories, the nuclear arsenal, and more than 13,000 employees and contractors.
Trump, who handily won West Virginia in the presidential election, met with Manchin earlier this year to discuss the possibility of having him lead DOE. In December, the senator announced he would be staying in the upper chamber, a move followed quickly by Trump announcing his intention to nominate Perry (Greenwire, Dec. 13, 2016).
Manchin said he's known Perry for years, since they were both governors of their respective states.
"I think Rick will do well," Manchin said. "He really will."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/01/18/stories/1060048595
-
Learning Curve’ as Rick Perry Pursues a Job He Initially Misunderstood
Jan 19, 2017 | New York Times
By Coral Davenport and David E. Sanger
When President-elect Donald J. Trump offered Rick Perry the job of energy secretary five weeks ago, Mr. Perry gladly accepted, believing he was taking on a role as a global ambassador for the American oil and gas industry that he had long championed in his home state.
In the days after, Mr. Perry, the former Texas governor, discovered that he would be no such thing — that in fact, if confirmed by the Senate, he would become the steward of a vast national security complex he knew almost nothing about, caring for the most fearsome weapons on the planet, the United States’ nuclear arsenal.
Two-thirds of the agency’s annual $30 billion budget is devoted to maintaining, refurbishing and keeping safe the nation’s nuclear stockpile; thwarting nuclear proliferation; cleaning up and rebuilding an aging constellation of nuclear production facilities; and overseeing national laboratories that are considered the crown jewels of government science.
“If you asked him on that first day he said yes, he would have said, ‘I want to be an advocate for energy,’” said Michael McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist who advised Mr. Perry’s 2016 presidential campaign and worked on the Trump transition’s Energy Department team in its early days. “If you asked him now, he’d say, ‘I’m serious about the challenges facing the nuclear complex.’ It’s been a learning curve.”Continue reading the main storyThe Trump White HouseStories on the presidential transition and the forthcoming Trump administration.Senate’s Closer Look at Steven Mnuchin Reveals Much MoreJAN 19Under Trump, Approach to Civil Rights Law Is Likely to Change DefinitivelyJAN 19What to Watch: Rick Perry Gets Another ChanceJAN 19For Trump’s Nominees, a Billionaires’ Guide to Running the GovernmentJAN 19At Dinner Honoring Mike Pence, Donald Trump Touches Many BasesJAN 18
See More »
Mr. Perry, who once called for the elimination of the Energy Department, will begin the confirmation process Thursday with a hearing before the Senate Energy Committee. If approved by the Senate, he will take over from a secretary, Ernest J. Moniz, who was chairman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology physics department and directed the linear accelerator at M.I.T.’s Laboratory for Nuclear Science. Before Mr. Moniz, the job belonged to Steven Chu, a physicist who won a Nobel Prize.
For Mr. Moniz, the future of nuclear science has been a lifelong obsession; he spent his early years working at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. Mr. Perry studied animal husbandry and led cheers at Texas A&M University.
Mr. Moniz had such deep experience with nuclear weapons that in 2015, President Obama made him a co-negotiator, along with Secretary of State John Kerry, of the Iran nuclear deal.
Mr. Perry would sit atop the men and women making the judgments about whether Iran is complying with that accord. In the basement of the Energy Department’s headquarters, the agency’s intelligence unit monitors compliance, working closely with the C.I.A., the National Security Agency and other intelligence bodies.
While even Mr. Perry’s supporters concede that he has no experience making high-level decisions on nuclear weapons policy, he has had some dealings with the problem of nuclear waste, which also falls under the purview of the Energy Department.
As governor, Mr. Perry pushed a plan to create a low-level nuclear waste repository in Texas, to be privately run by a Dallas-based company, Waste Control Specialists, which was also a contributor to Mr. Perry’s re-election campaigns. The question of what to do with nuclear waste has long been a central problem for the Energy Department. By law, it is supposed to be buried at a federally run repository to be built at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
“No other state has licensed a nuclear waste facility like this, and it was all done on Governor Perry’s watch,” said Charles McDonald, a spokesman for Waste Control Specialists. “He really understands this stuff.”
Mr. Perry’s backers also note that Texas is home to Pantex, an Energy Department plant where nuclear weapons are assembled. But as governor, he had no role in running the facility.
His supporters say, however, that his experience running the nation’s second-largest state economy has sufficiently prepared him. “Like with any of these positions in Washington, what is needed is strong leadership skills,” Deirdre Delisi, his former chief of staff, said. “I have no doubt he will be able to attract the best and the brightest.”
In a recent interview in the energy secretary’s office, down the hall from the secure facility where he gets his updates on nuclear threats, Mr. Moniz talked about the challenges the United States will face as the Trump administration decides where to take a multibillion-dollar renovation of the nation’s nuclear production facilities and laboratories. Mr. Moniz championed that effort, hoping it would position the United States to preserve its nuclear force without resuming nuclear tests, and ultimately to reduce the number of nuclear warheads.
“We refurbished our weapons to make them safer and more reliable,” Mr. Moniz said, choosing his words with precision. “We didn’t ‘modernize.’” Modernization, he said, “is what Russia is doing and China is doing,” which, he acknowledged, could jeopardize Mr. Obama’s vision of a world free of nuclear weapons.
But the scope of the Obama-era effort was so broad that, paradoxically, it will give Mr. Perry and Mr. Trump the opportunity to go in a very different direction: With the scientific and infrastructural upgrades, America is now better poised to resume an arms race that Mr. Trump recently said he was open to pursuing.
If Mr. Perry has views on those issues — including on whether to test nuclear weapons rather than build computer models of how they would perform — they are unknown.
He would not be the first nonexpert to run the Energy Department. Bill Richardson took the job under President Bill Clinton after serving as ambassador to the United Nations, and later became the governor of New Mexico.
But Mr. Perry’s qualifications to oversee a muscular renovation, or expansion, of the nation’s nuclear weapons complex are expected to be among the chief topics of questioning at his confirmation hearing. Mr. Trump’s transition team declined a request to interview Mr. Perry.
“Rick Perry was pitch-perfect for Texas politics,” said Calvin Jillson, a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University in Texas. “He has very close ties to the oil industry. He is about ‘the Texas way’ — low taxes, low regulation. But none of that gives him the depth of knowledge needed for running the Energy Department.”
Mr. Perry is attuned to that vulnerability. The Energy Department was on the list of agencies he said he wanted to eliminate when he ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 — though he famously forgot its name during a debate. Despite what he called his “oops” moment, he stood by his call to dismantle the department, saying, “They’ve never created one bit of energy, the best I can tell.”
If confirmed, Mr. Perry would be at the table for one of the first big debates of the Trump presidency: what to do with the Iran nuclear deal that Mr. Moniz played such a critical role in shaping. Mr. Trump has called the deal a “disaster,” and Vice President-elect Mike Pence talked during the campaign about scrapping it.
But the president-elect’s pick for defense secretary, Gen. James N. Mattis, advised keeping the agreement during his confirmation hearing, and the nominee for secretary of state, Rex W. Tillerson, was equally cautious.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/us/politics/rick-perry-energy-secretary-donald-trump.html?_r=0
-
Transition: EPA Names McCabe as Acting Administrator Post-Inauguration
Jan 18, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA has named Catherine McCabe, currently the agency’s Region 2 deputy administrator, to serve as acting EPA administrator until Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the agency, is confirmed by the Senate, according to an internal agency memo obtained by Inside EPA.
The agency has also announced several other temporary appointments of career staff to high-level positions within the agency, pending confirmation of Trump administration appointees, EPA Acting Deputy Administrator Stan Meiburg says in a Jan. 13 memo distributed widely within EPA.
The agency “will continue to be led and managed by the current leadership team until noon Eastern time on January 20, 2017,” when Trump is slated to be inaugurated, he says. Following the inauguration, “it is likely that career EPA senior managers will serve in acting roles until new appointed leaders are in place,” Meiburg adds.
McCabe will be acting administrator until the new administrator is confirmed, he says. The Senate Environment & Public Works Committee is holding a confirmation hearing Jan. 18 on Pruitt's nomination though it is not clear when the full Senate will vote to confirm him.
Prior to being tapped as the deputy administrator in Region 2, McCabe served as a judge on the agency’s Environmental Appeals Board. She also served as deputy assistant administrator of EPA’s enforcement office following a 22-year career at the Justice Department, the memo says.
The memo also names Mike Flynn, currently the agency’s associate deputy administrator, to temporarily take over the number two slot at EPA.
Meiburg names several other acting senior managers to fill the gap before Trump nominees are put in place. These include: John Reeder, currently deputy chief of staff, to serve as acting chief of staff; Robin Richardson, currently principal deputy associate administrator in the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (OCIR), to serve as acting associate administrator of OCIR; and Shannon Kenny, currently principle deputy associate administrator for the Office of Policy, to serve as acting associate administrator of the Office of Policy.
Other temporary appointments include: George Hull, currently acting principle deputy associate administrator for the Office of Public Affairs (OPA), to serve as acting associate administrator of OPA; and Tom Brennan, currently chief of staff for the Office of Public Engagement and Environmental Education, to serve as acting associate administrator of that same office.
The memo follows an earlier memo dated Jan. 5 that listed a number of career officials to lead various headquarters and regional offices prior to Trump appointees being chosen.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/transition-epa-names-mccabe-acting-administrator-post-inauguration
-
DOE Lab Director to be Acting Energy Secretary
Jan 18, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
National Energy Technology Lab Director Grace Bochenek will act as Energy secretary until a new leader for the Energy Department is officially sworn in, an agency spokesperson said.
Like other political appointees in the federal government, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz resigns his post effective 12:01 p.m. on Friday and it's unclear when his intended successor, Rick Perry, will get confirmed.
Bochenek, who holds a Ph.D. in industrial and systems engineering, was named director of the DOE national lab in the summer of 2014. NETL, which is based in West Virginia, specializes in fossil energy research. Before DOE, she was first Chief Technology Officer of the U.S. Army Materiel Command.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Jan 18, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing a notice in tomorrow’s Federal Register affirming that the Lautenberg Act requires upfront substantiation of all confidential business information (CBI) claims submitted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), except for certain claims that the law exempts from substantiation requirements.
While EPA initially took a narrower approach on an interim basis in the flurry of activity following last June’s passage of the Lautenberg Act, today’s notice supersedes that earlier approach and clarifies the upfront substantiation requirement.
In today’s notice, EPA notes the strong support for its clarification in the statute itself as well as in the legislative history in both Houses of Congress leading up to its final passage.
This clarification hopefully won’t be controversial: A broad swath of stakeholders have voiced support for the upfront substantiation requirement and have noted that it is a key reform made by the new law.
In November the American Alliance for Innovation (AAI) sent a letter to EPA Administrator McCarthy signed by more than 60 trade associations – including the American Chemistry Council, the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, the American Cleaning Institute, the American Petroleum Institute and the Consumer Specialty Products Association – noting that under the Lautenberg Act “[c]laims for CBI protection must be accompanied by an upfront substantiation.”
And back in 2013, the American Chemistry Council provided responses to questions for the record posed by then-Congressman Henry Waxman that stated that “[i]mprovements to the CBI provisions in a modernized TSCA should include … [r]equiring upfront substantiation of the CBI claim.” The same response letter noted that: “The American Chemistry Council and its members support up-front substantiation of CBI claims.”
Importantly, EPA’s notice makes clear that the substantiation requirement applies to all non-exempt CBI claims made since passage of the law last June, although EPA is providing an exceedingly generous length of time for companies to comply.
Given the law’s 90-day deadline for EPA review of CBI claims, there are strong policy reasons for requiring upfront substantiation of CBI claims:
· First, EPA’s own experience based on recent chemical reporting it has required demonstrates that requiring upfront substantiation reduces the number of CBI claims asserted. That means fewer claims EPA has to review and a greater likelihood that claims are only asserted for information that warrants protection.
· Second, when those reviews are conducted, EPA will already have the information it needs to review the claim instead of having to request it from the company, wasting precious days or weeks of the 90-day review period.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/?_ga=1.261674253.1811801690.1480061726
-
EPA Seeks Public Ideas on Evaluating 10 Chemicals
Jan 19, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency is starting to assess 10 chemicals under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act by soliciting public comment on health risks and other issues.
In a notice to be published Jan. 19, the EPA said it is seeking oral and written comments on the uses, exposures and other conditions in addition to the risks it should examine when it evaluates the 10 chemicals. It will hold a public meeting on Feb. 14.
Those chemicals are asbestos, 1,4-dioxane, 1-bromopropane, carbon tetrachloride, the cyclic aliphatic bromides cluster of related chemicals, methylene chloride, n-methylpyrrolidone, pigment violet 29, trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene, also known as perchloroethylene.
The EPA is required, under the TSCA amendments of 2016, to publish scoping documents describing what it will or won't examine as it evaluates those chemicals. The scoping documents must be published by June 19.
The June deadline means the scoping documents must be published before the EPA anticipates publishing a final rule detailing the process it will use to conduct risk evaluations under the amended chemicals law, the notice said.
The EPA invited written comments through March 1 on the scope of each chemical's assessment. Its notice provides separate docket numbers for comments on each chemical. EPA “will likely not be able to accommodate” scoping information it receives after March 1, the notice said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103798677&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103798677&jd=103798677
-
Departing EPA Toxics Chief Sees OPPT, IRIS Link With TSCA Implementation
Jan 18, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's outgoing toxics chief Jim Jones sees the agency's growing Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) working with the agency's influential Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program in the research office on chemicals in common as OPPT begins to implement its new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authorities to screen the safety of thousands of chemicals.
"The IRIS program exists to support other parts of EPA in need of hazard assessments in their work," Jones said in a recent exit interview with Inside EPA. "Since OPPT has not been doing risk assessment it has not been a big customer of IRIS, but it is becoming so. To the extent there is [an IRIS assessment], we'll use it. If one is three or four years away, we'll wait for it." If not, he added, then OPPT will develop the hazard and dose-response information that IRIS assessments provide for use in its evaluations.
Jones, assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OSCPP), noted that the pesticides office within his office has "long been a customer of IRIS," while OPPT, also within OSCPP and responsible for implementing TSCA, is "a new customer."
As such, "there's a much greater need for coordination," Jones said. "There are several chemicals that they're working on we'll be interested in." As an example, Jones pointed to IRIS' long-running assessment of formaldehyde.
Jones' comments provide some insight on a widespread question after Congress' reform of TSCA last summer.
With the newly enhanced law requiring EPA to assess the health risks industrial chemicals might pose to human health or the environment, even for those existing chemicals that were once largely grandfathered under the original 1976 law, some stakeholders questioned what the ongoing role for IRIS would be.
The IRIS program was developed in the mid-1980s to provide risk numbers for EPA cleanups and other rules, largely for industrial or legacy chemicals about which EPA often had little information but needed to make informed decisions. The program, now housed in EPA's research office, was intended to provide agency-wide consistent hazard and dose-response information that could be plugged into any region or program office's specific risk analysis.
But following TSCA's reform, some sources believed OPPT could take over risk assessment from IRIS. For example, during Aug. 9-11 public meetings on implementing the new TSCA, chemical industry officials warned EPA officials against utilizing IRIS assessments in risk evaluations performed under the agency's new TSCA authorities. The suggestion was line with industry's frequent criticisms of IRIS for producing overly-conservative human health risk estimates.
IRIS Assessments
Additionally, multiple entities have questioned the quality of IRIS assessments, a concern lent credence by a 2011 report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reviewing EPA's draft IRIS assessment of formaldehyde. The report was critical and included a rare extra chapter outside its charge addressing broader concerns with IRIS practices generally. Since then, EPA has sought to address these concerns and recommendations with a series of varied efforts, earning praise for its progress in a followup NAS report in 2014.
While President-elect Donald Trump has been notably silent on the subject of toxics and chemical regulation, focusing instead on climate science and over-regulation in the environmental sphere, several members of his EPA transition team are with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which recently released a blog calling on the Republican Congress to move IRIS from its traditional home in the research office to the toxics office, where it envisions IRIS under greater scrutiny as part of implementation of the new TSCA.
"TSCA's requirements for reliance on 'best available, peer reviewed science' as well as weight of the evidence consideration could make IRIS evaluations more meaningful," CEI's Angela Logomasini writes in the Dec. 20 blog post. "In addition, as part of a formal regulatory program, chemical assessments would hopefully be more transparent," she says.
OPPT's use of the IRIS program in its 2013 TSCA work plan program's risk assessment of the solvent trichloroethylene quickly became controversial -- in large part because OPPT largely adopted the 2011 IRIS assessment. The Obama EPA implemented the work plan program in 2012 with a view to perform risk analyses of existing chemicals for stricter regulation and also to prepare staff for anticipated changes should Congress reform TSCA.
The IRIS TCE assessment was controversial itself, because of its use of a hotly debated endpoint -- cardiac birth defects based on a single toxicology study -- that was the basis for its risk estimates. Several of the peer reviewers of the OPPT assessment urged the agency to revise it. They argued that it provided only a screening level analysis that was insufficient to support regulation.
Risk Analyses
Jones for his part acknowledges that IRIS is the more experienced program in performing risk analyses in his remarks, noting that risk analysis is new to OPPT. Staff is "starting to do risk assessment. It's not something the toxics program was doing prior to my arrival," he said. "They've embraced it. You see quick learning up the curve."
One ongoing issue remains the IRIS program's lengthy process and limited production of new chemical assessments. The program published three assessments near the end of 2016, the first IRIS assessments in nearly two years. When asked about this potential issue for collaborating with the program, Jones said, "To me its a management issue. Don't commit to doing something you can't do in a three-year timeline."
He added that OPPT will "certainly influence" the IRIS program's agenda of chemicals to assess in the future.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/departing-epa-toxics-chief-sees-oppt-iris-link-tsca-implementation
-
Companies Must Back Up Privacy Claims When Asserted: EPA
Jan 19, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Companies that submit proprietary chemical information to the Environmental Protection Agency must justify upfront the reasons the information cannot be publicly released, the agency said in a notice to be published Jan. 19.
The Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016 require companies to substantiate confidential business information claims at the time they submit information they say the agency must keep private, the EPA's notice said. Its interpretation of the 2016 TSCA amendments will be effective March 20.
Two attorneys Bloomberg BNA contacted Jan. 18 expressed concerns that the process the agency used—issuing a notice rather than a direct final or proposed rule—denied the public the opportunity to weigh in on the agency's legal interpretation.
Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a blog post that he hoped the agency's notice would not be controversial. “A broad swath of stakeholders have voiced support for the upfront substantiation requirement and have noted that it is a key reform made by the new law,” Denison wrote.
Request for Clearer Instructions
Irene Hantman, a TSCA attorney working in Verdant Law, PLLC's Washington office, told Bloomberg BNA that her clients are happy to submit information to substantiate confidential business information claims.
However, “we need clarity in the process and procedure,” she said.
The EPA's notice fails to clearly state what information can be claimed as confidential business information and what information companies should provide to substantiate their claims that information they submit warrants protection, Hantman said.
Under the TSCA amendments, substantiation is not generally required for certain information, such as specific details about the methods a company uses to make or process a chemical. Yet the amendments say there may be circumstances when the EPA administrator could require substantiation for such information even though it typically isn't required, Hantman said.
Hantman asked how a company would know when information that normally is protected without substantiation needs to be substantiated.
The notice doesn't explain that, she said. Nor does it say what types of details the agency needs to substantiate a confidential business information claim, she said.
If the EPA had issued its interpretation of the law through rulemaking, companies could have sought the clarity they need, Hantman said.
Sara Beth Watson, an attorney working in Steptoe & Johnson LLP's Washington office, pointed to a section of the EPA's notice that said the agency may promulgate regulations in the future that would provide more information about how to substantiate confidentiality claims.
“More instruction on the form and manner of submission of the substantiation would be helpful,” she said by e-mail.
Objecting to EPA's Process
Charles Franklin, an attorney with the Washington office of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, said the EPA's notice constitutes “rulemaking” without the opportunity for public comment required by TSCA.
He told Bloomberg BNA that he needed more time to determine whether the EPA's legal interpretation raised concerns.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103798686&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103798686&jd=103798686
-
EPA Issues Proposed Rules on Chemical Risk Evaluation
Jan 18, 2017 | EHS Today
By Stefanie Valentic
After 40 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will have established rules to prioritize and evaluate chemicals in the marketplace and the manufacturing process.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which was signed on June 22, 2016, gives the EPA the authority to look at and regulate unevaluated chemicals in the marketplace originally grandfathered in with the Toxic Substances Control Act.
A series of public meetings helped determine three proposed rules the EPA will use to administer the new evaluation process, which goes into effect on June 22, 2017.
1. Inventory - There are currently over 85,000 chemicals on EPA’s inventory and many of these are no longer actively produced. This rule will require manufacturers, including importers, to notify EPA and the public on the number of chemicals still being produced.
2. Prioritization - The 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.
3. Risk Evaluation – With this rule, 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.
The TSCA, which originally was enacted in 1976, failed to provide EPA with the tools to evaluate chemicals and to require companies to generate and provide data on chemicals they produced.
Now, if EPA identifies unreasonable risk in the evaluation process, it is required to eliminate that risk through regulations. The agency must have at least 20 ongoing risk evaluations by the end of 2019.
Comments on the proposed rules must be received 60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register. At that time, go to the dockets at www.regulations.gov and search for: HQ-OPPT-2016-0426 for the Inventory Rule; HQ-OPPT-2016-0636 for the Prioritization Rule; and HQ-OPPT-2016-0654 for the Risk Evaluation Rule.
http://ehstoday.com/industrial-hygiene/epa-issues-proposed-rules-chemical-risk-evaluation
-
Two Carbon Nanotube Rules Withdrawn by EPA Following Comment
Jan 19, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Two significant new use rules that would have required companies making or processing two specific carbon nanotubes to manage chemical risks through worker protection and other means are being withdrawn by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The two rules were part of a larger group of 57 new use rules the EPA issued Nov. 17, 2016, as a direct final rule (81 Fed. Reg. 81,250). The agency will repropose the new use rules for each carbon nanotube.
The EPA is withdrawing both new use rules to comply with procedures requiring it to withdraw direct final new use rules if it receives objections or notices of an intent to file objections. The agency received two anonymous public comments objecting to the two carbon nanotube rules.
Both Chemicals in Commerce
The EPA's new chemicals program already allowed each carbon nanotube to enter commerce. The EPA managed their potential risks through consent orders it negotiated with the original manufacturer of each chemical. The new use rules would apply the same controls to any other company wanting to make or process the carbon nanotubes.
The generic names and identification numbers for the two chemicals are:
• bimodal mixture consisting of multi-walled carbon nanotubes and other classes of carbon nanotubes, P-11-482, which is a specialty additive;
• carbon nanotubes, P-15-54, which is being used as a chemical intermediate to make other chemicals.
The agency was concerned that both carbon nanotubes could harm lung function or cause cancer based on toxicity test data it has on analogous respirable, poorly soluble particulates.The comment filed regarding P-11-482 said the agency's regulation of all new chemicals should be more stringent.
The comment filed regarding P-15-54 said the agency should withdraw the new use rule, because the manufacturer has asked to renegotiate the consent order under which the chemical is made.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103798667&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103798667&jd=103798667
-
Pruitt Aims to Rein in US EPA Regulatory Authority
Jan 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump’s choice to administer the EPA, said he would work to rein in agency's regulatory authority to be more consistent with the law during his confirmation hearing 18 January.
Answering questions from the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Mr Pruitt said: “It is important that regulations and rules are implemented consistently to give people confidence that the EPA is not seen as picking winners or losers, but acting in the best interest of the people.
“Without that consistency, people lose faith that the agency is doing the right thing for them and acting with its legal right.”
While attorney general for Oklahoma Mr Pruitt brought more than a dozen lawsuits against the EPA. However, defending his actions, he argued they were intended to stop the agency from overreaching its legal authority.
If confirmed, Mr Pruitt said he intends to give more regulatory power to state governments. But he did dispel rumours that he would severely restrict the EPA.This was something some environmental activists feared, following negative comments from Mr Trump during the election.
"I believe there is a very important role for the Environmental Protection Agency," Mr Pruitt testified.
Capacity to ban substances questioned
While the majority of the hearing focused on climate change and pollution issue, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) questioned Mr Pruitt on the levels of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in drinking water.She called on Mr Pruitt, if confirmed, to act quickly and ban the substance if “it is the carcinogen many scientists say it is”.
The American Cancer Society has said the PFOA, used in the process of making Teflon and other chemicals, has the potential to be a health concern as it can stay in the environment and the human body for long periods of time.
When asked if he would work to ban PFOA if the substance was shown to be a major public health concern, Mr Pruitt said he would.
Contentious hearing
Mr Pruitt's nomination has come under criticism because of his stated beliefs on climate change, and a record of taking large donations from energy companies while Oklahoma attorney general. And the hearing was interrupted early on by protesters.
"Scott Pruitt has devoted his career as Attorney General to fighting EPA's basic mission to protect human health and the environment," the Natural Resources Defense Council wrote in a blog urging his appointment not to be confirmed. "Scott Pruitt's own actions and views confirm that he is too extreme to lead the EPA.”"
Statements from other groups, including the American Sustainable Business Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Environmental Working Group, echoed the NRDC's call to reject Mr Pruitt's nomination.
The nominee's proponents,however, believe he will reduce agency spending and the number of regulations it issues.
"The agency needs a leader who will follow the laws created by this committee,” said Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), EPW chairman, during his opening statement."During the last eight years EPA administrators created broad and legally questionable new regulations which have undermined the American people's faith in the agency."
The committee will now vote whether to recommend confirmation to the full Senate.The Senate will vote on Mr Pruitt's nomination, along with those of other high-ranking government officials, after Mr Trump's inauguration on 20 January.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52267/pruitt-aims-to-rein-in-us-epa-regulatory-authority
-
Manufacturing Chemicals Added to REACH Substances of Very High Concern List
Jan 18, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Four chemicals used in manufacturing may soon be banned in the European Union, following their inclusion on a list of substances of very high concern.
These are chemicals or compounds that may have serious effects on human health or the environment and as such may be restricted by the EU’s primary chemical law, the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals or REACH.
The four substances, used in the manufacturing of chemicals, plastic products and lubricants, are: 4,4’-isopropylidenediphenol (bisphenol A; BPA) Nonadecafluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) and its sodium and ammonium salts p-(1,1-dimethylpropyl)phenol 4-heptylphenol, branched and linear [substances with a linear and/or branched alkyl chain with a carbon number of 7 covalently bound predominantly in position 4 to phenol, covering also UVCB- and well-defined substances which include any of the individual isomers or a combination thereof]
Although REACH applies only to products sold in the EU, US and other global businesses are affected because REACH compliance throughout the supply chain is required to do business in Europe.
The EU’s list of substances of very high concern now includes 173 chemicals and compounds.
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has identified these four new substances as candidates for the final authorization listing. If they are placed on the authorization list, ECHA will set a deadline to control their use, reduce their risks the human health, and to seek a safer alternative substance. After the sunset date, companies would need to seek permission to continue using them.
The REACH news comes as the EPA has been turning out several chemical regulations during President Obama’s final days in office.
These include proposals to ban toxic chemicals used in paint strippers and vapor degreasing under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act and rules that clarify the process for evaluating chemicals that may pose health and environmental risks. Three of these process rules would requires the agency to look at chemicals that were grandfathered in under old TSCA law.
The agency also finalized the nation’s first-ever federal nanoscale chemical rule that will require manufacturers and companies that import or process nanomaterials to report certain information to the EPA.
Additionally, some facilities that store chemicals will soon be required to adhere to stricter EHS guidelines under a rule finalized by the EPA that amends its Risk Management Program (RMP) regulations.
Manufacturers say the updated RMP rules will “add burdensome and often duplicative requirements on manufacturers” and that the new compliance hurdles aren’t likely to improve safety.
The EPA, however, says the finalized amendments will help avoid accidents, such as the explosions at the Chevron Richmond refinery in 2012 and at West Texas Fertilizer in 2013.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2017/01/manufacturing-chemicals-added-to-reach-substances-of-very-high-concern-list/
-
Commission Decides Against Changes to EDCs Authorisation Text
Jan 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The European Commission says it will not make changes to the REACH text on how endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs)are handled under the authorisation procedure.
EDCs should onlybe authorised through the so-called 'socio-economic' route, and not via the 'adequate control' option, the Commission says ina review required under REACH law.
To grant an authorisation, one of the following conditions mustbe fulfilled:
· the risks from the use of the substance areadequately controlled; or
· socio-economic benefits of continued use outweigh the risks to human health or the environment, and no suitable alternatives exist.
The appropriate route for an authorisation application depends on whether a safety threshold can be set for the substance.In its report on the review, issued on 20 December but only published last week, the Commission confirmed it "remains the responsibility of applicants todemonstrate that a safety threshold exists for an EDC".
And it is up to Echa's Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) to assess "the validity of the assessment andultimately decide on the possible existence or not of this threshold".
The Commission said the Rac could set reference derived no effect level (Dnels) on a case-by-case basis – as it does for other substances – which industry can use when applying for authorisation.
"Therefore, under REACH as it stands today, only the 'socio-economic route' canbe used when a threshold cannotbe determined.Considering the conclusion of the REACH review that regulatory stability is desirable, the Commission will not propose a change to the legislation."
Some scientists maintain it is possible to set threshold concentrations for EDCs.For example, at the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (Setac) Pellston workshop in early 2016, consultant ecotoxicologist Peter Matthiessen said EDCs "do havethreshold concentrations for populations and, with adequate data, conducting environmental risk assessment of them isscientifically sound".
'Weakened' text
The Commission report follows discussions over the last two years by the Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal). These looked at the following four options for authorisation:
a. all EDCs do not have a threshold;
b. EDCs do not have a threshold, except where it canbe shown that a threshold exists;
c. EDCs have a threshold, except where it canbe demonstrated that such a threshold does not exist; and
d. all EDCs have a threshold.According to Ninja Reineke, senior policy adviser at NGO CHEM Trust, the discussion document said "option B applies".However, the final report does not state thisexplicitly.
"Now it is a bit more ambiguous because the Commission has taken out that sentence [but] it doesn'treally matter because it is a case-by-case decision.In a way, it is now all put on Rac to assess if what the threshold companies come up with is good enough, [whereas] we would have wanted option A."
She added that the Commission has deleted further text from the 2014 discussion document that hadbeen agreed by member states."It now misses important sections on the scientific [evidence pointing to] uncertainties around thresholds for EDCs." As a result, she said, this has "considerably weakened" the text.
Overall, the review is a missed opportunity, Ms Reineke said."Ideally you always need to look at the availability of safe alternatives – when there are none, companies should notbe granted an authorisation for continued use.The report has the fingerprints of those that want business as usual, both in the Commission and within industry."
https://chemicalwatch.com/52227/commission-decides-against-changes-to-edcs-authorisation-text
-
Monsanto and EPA Seek to Keep Talks About Glyphosate Cancer Review a Secret
Jan 18, 2017 | Eco Watch
By Carey Gillam
Monsanto and officials within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are fighting legal efforts aimed at exploring Monsanto's level of influence over regulatory assessments of the key chemical in the company's Roundup herbicide, new federal court filings show.
The revelations are contained in a series of filings made within the last few days in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as part of litigation brought by more than 50 people who are suing Monsanto. The plaintiffs claim they or their loved ones developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after exposure to Roundup herbicide, and that Monsanto has spent decades covering up the chemical's cancer risks.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs want the court to lift a seal on documents that detail Monsanto's interactions and discussions with former top EPA brass Jess Rowland regarding the EPA's safety assessment of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. Monsanto turned the documents over in discovery but marked the documents "confidential," a designation plaintiffs' attorneys say is improper. They also want to depose Rowland. But Monsanto and the EPA are fighting both requests, the filings show.
The EPA has spent the last few years assessing the health and environmental safety aspects of glyphosate as global controversy over the chemical has mounted. The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared in March 2015 that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen, with a positive association found between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Monsanto has been fighting to refute that classification because of financial and legal liability ramifications.
Rowland has been key in Monsanto's efforts to rebut the IARC finding because until last year he was a deputy division director within the health effects division of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs, managing the work of scientists who assessed human health effects of exposures to pesticides like glyphosate. And, importantly, he chaired the EPA's Cancer Assessment Review committee (CARC) that issued an internal report in October 2015 contracting IARC's findings. That 87-page report, signed by Rowland, determined that glyphosate was "not likely to be carcinogenic."
The report was a godsend to Monsanto because it has helped bolster the company's defense against the Roundup liability lawsuits, and helped shore up market support for a product that brings in billions of dollars in revenues to the company annually. The EPA's stamp of approval for the safety of glyphosate has also been key to the success of Monsanto's genetically engineered, glyphosate-tolerant crops, which have been popular with farmers.
But the handling of the CARC report raised questions last year when it was "inadvertently" posted to a public EPA website on April 29, 2016, and kept on the site three days, before being pulled down. The agency said the report was not final and that it should not have been posted, but Monsanto touted the report as a public affirmation of its safety claims for glyphosate. The company also cited the report at a May court hearing in the Roundup litigation as a counter point to the IARC cancer classification. Shortly after the CARC report was removed from the EPA website, Rowland left his 26-year career at the EPA.
Plaintiffs' attorneys have asked to depose Rowland to learn about that situation and other dealings with Monsanto. But, along with Monsanto's objection to a release of the documents that relate to its conversations with Rowland, the EPA has specifically refused the deposition request, saying it would "not clearly be in the interests of EPA" to allow attorneys to question Rowland about the cancer review and interactions with Monsanto.
Monsanto has so far turned over roughly six million pages of documents through the court-ordered discovery process, but has designated roughly 85 percent of the information as "confidential," meaning plaintiffs' attorneys must black out information from those documents in any court filings that could be accessed by reporters or other members of the public. That designation is improper for many of the documents, especially ones dealing with the company's interactions with, and influence attempts over, EPA officials, plaintiffs' lawyers argue.
The lawyers said that the documents obtained through discovery show that "Monsanto has been confident all along that EPA would continue to support glyphosate, whatever happened and no matter who held otherwise." According to the court filings by plaintiffs' attorneys, the documents show "it is clear that Monsanto enjoyed considerable influence within the EPA's OPP, and was close with Mr. Rowland ... The documentary evidence strongly suggests that Mr. Rowland's primary goal was to serve the interests of Monsanto."
The EPA is a taxpayer-funded, public agency and its dealings with Monsanto should be subject to public scrutiny, particularly given the widespread use of glyphosate herbicide products and the current ongoing international debate over the safety of the chemical, the lawyers claim.
"The health and safety of millions of U.S. citizens is at stake," states the Jan. 16 plaintiffs' filing. "Decisions affecting the public health should not be based on secret conversations between Monsanto and EPA officials. If Monsanto wants to advocate on behalf of glyphosate to EPA employees, they should have to do it publicly, so that concerned citizens have equal opportunity to advocate for their health and the health of their families. This issue is too important to allow Monsanto to improperly influence the EPA, and then hide such communication behind an improper 'confidential' designation."
Monsanto is adamant that its documents not be made public, saying releasing them would be "premature and improper." Allowing public dissemination "of a few select internal corporate documents taken out of context … would be prejudicial to Monsanto and could cause reputational harm," the company's attorneys wrote in their response.
The plaintiffs' attorneys say at least four specific documents they have obtained are clearly in the public interest and "illuminate that one of Monsanto's chief business strategies is its secret and untoward influence on EPA." The documents include both internal memos and email chains, according to descriptions of the documents.
"Since Monsanto's communications with the EPA remain secret, these known lobbying efforts are only the tip of the iceberg of Monsanto's collusion with the EPA. Monsanto's bad acts in violating U.S. regulations through secret communications with the EPA should not by rewarded by allowing them to keep these communications secret by merely stamping them 'confidential,'" the plaintiffs' attorney state in the filings. "These documents summarize communications with EPA which are not elsewhere memorialized; they are not trade secrets and the public has a compelling interest in disclosure."
Monsanto argues otherwise, saying the four documents at issue "contain sensitive, non-public commercial information, relate to a motion seeking to obtain discovery from a non-party, and bear only a tangential, at best, connection to the questions at issue in this litigation; hence, any public interest 'is minimal.'"
U.S. District Jude Vince Chhabria, who is overseeing the multi-district Roundup litigation, could rule on these matters any day.
http://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-epa-glyphosate-cancer-2199584469.html
-
UK Chemical Industry ‘Must Unite’ Under New Brexit Plan
Jan 18, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Prime minister Theresa May’s comments that the UK will exit the European single market mean the national chemical community must play its part to inform the government on getting the best deal with the union, says a national chemicals sector trade body.
In her speech on 17 January on the government’s plans for Brexit, Ms May said the UK would pursue a free trade agreement, and warned against those in the EU wanting to “punish” the UK. Doing so would damage important sectors of the EU economy, she said, and went on to mention chemicals as one of a number of “crucial export markets for the rest of Europe”.
“It was very reassuring to hear the explicit reference [to] chemicals as [a] key sector of the economy,” Chemical Industry Association (CIA) chief executive Steve Elliott said. “It is now up to all of us to inform the objectives with our questions, evidence [and] analysis. With that in mind, let’s unite and play our part in delivering an outcome which gives businesses the confidence to invest and grow in our country.”
But the prime minister’s “clarity around leaving the single market and not pursuing full membership of the Customs Union will concern many in the business community”, he added.
In contrast, Chemical Business Association CEO Peter Newport said he welcomed Ms May’s ambition to secure “frictionless and tariff-free access” to European markets. “Our member companies do not expect Brexit negotiations to weaken their competitive position,” he said.
Chemical law compliance
There has been much debate about what will happen to UK chemicals regulations, and, in particular, the future of REACH in the country, after Brexit.
The UK parliament’s Environmental Audit Committee’s second inquiry into the future of environmental law and policy, following the EU referendum, is focusing on the national scope of REACH.
NGO ChemTrust’s executive director Michael Warhurst said “the most sensible option” - from a human health, environmental and economic point of view - is for the UK to stick with REACH.
Ms May’s speech could mean Brexit significantly affects chemical law compliance for companies, Marcus Navin-Jones, partner at law firm Keller and Heckman, said.
It appears that the UK may no longer be in the European Economic Area (EEA) or the customs territory following the two-year negotiation period once Article 50 is triggered, he said. “If that is the case, [REACH] registrations by UK ORs [only representatives] may not be recognised as covering relevant imports into the EEA.”
Imports from the UK into the EEA may need to be covered by EEA entity registrants, he said. “These changes will mean new registrations will likely be needed by entities in the EEA, and existing registrations will need to be updated – in some cases impacting tonnage thresholds.”
One question, he said, is whether the European Commission and Echa will try to develop a strategy to allow companies, particularly SMEs, time to understand the implications and respond to them - something they may struggle to do in the two-year period.
Another concern is the potential impact of additional compliance costs on the UK chemical industry, Elizabeth Shepherd, partner at law firm Eversheds, said.
Mulling over models
Since the UK’s EU referendum last June, there has been speculation about whether the country would have a role like Norway’s in the EEA or like Switzerland’s in the European Free Trade Area.
“It is now clear that Brexit means something other than the Norwegian model,” Riku Rinta-Jouppi, from consultancy REACHLaw, said. “[This] hard Brexit approach will take the UK not only out of the scope of REACH but outside the jurisdiction of EU institutions altogether.”
At the same time, Mr Rinta-Jouppi said it opens the way for the UK to establish its own UK-REACH, run by UK authorities, which “should be capable of mutual recognition with REACH to meet the objective of continued maximal access to the single market for the UK chemical industry”.
And Ms May has raised the possibility of a post-Brexit transitional period, with individual interim arrangements to minimise disruption to certain sectors of the economy, Ms Shepherd said. “For the chemical industry, this could include Echa continuing to administer REACH for the UK, while a UK body - presumably the Health and Safety Executive - gears up to take over.”
In the meantime, the closest existing reference model “is actually the Turkish draft KKDIK Regulation with national control, but otherwise with equivalent processes to REACH”, Mr Rinta-Jouppi said.
But while the country awaits the trigger, the UK must maintain its voice in EU policy meetings, said CIA’s Steve Elliott.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52249/uk-chemical-industry-must-unite-under-new-brexit-plan
-
Report Shows Environmental Progress on Great Lakes, But More Work Needed
Jan 18, 2017 | Minnesota Public Radio
By Dan Kraker
The draft progress assessment from the International Joint Commission commends the U.S. and Canada for taking significant steps to restore contaminated areas of concern around the Great Lakes, including the St. Louis River estuary in Duluth.
However, more work is needed to identify and control emerging chemicals of concern, slow the spread of aquatic invasive species throughout the lakes and make the region more resilient to the effects of climate change, the report concluded.
The draft assessment is required under the 2012 update of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which was first signed by Canada and the U.S. in 1972 to protect and restore the Great Lakes.
The findings show:
• Progress to reduce legacy contaminants like PCBs and dioxins is encouraging, but there has been little progress in the identification of new, emerging chemicals of concern, and no publicly available progress in the development of binational strategies to address toxic contaminants such as PBDEs, compounds that are used as flame retardants.
• Water quality in western and central Lake Erie is unacceptable.
• Ballast water controls on ships have prevented the introduction of new aquatic invasive species for the past several years. But more needs to be done to prevent the spread of invasives from lake to lake.
• The U.S. and Canada have conducted significant research on the impacts of climate change on the Great Lakes Basin. But the two countries can demonstrate "global leadership by developing a binational approach to Great Lakes climate change adaptation and resilience."
The International Joint Commission is an independent, binational organization that was created by the U.S. and Canada more than a century ago.
The IJC is accepting public comments on the draft report until April 15. Five public meetings will also be held in March in Canada and the U.S.
"Now that the IJC has released a draft assessment of the progress report, the Commission is eager to hear from Great Lakes residents," said U.S. commissioner Rich Moy.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2017/01/18/report-mor-work-needed-on-identifying-great-lakes-toxins
-
Rick Perry Can Help Launch the Next Great Era in American Energy
Jan 19, 2017 | Roll Call
By Sen. John Cornyn
Texas and energy are synonymous with one another. Most Americans probably think of the Lone Star State as an oil and gas economy with a lot of heft, and for good reason. The industry supports tens of thousands of jobs in the state and helps power one-third of the country.
But what many don’t know is that my state’s energy dominance isn’t confined to oil and gas alone — in recent years, Texas has become a leader in renewables, thanks in large part to former Gov. Rick Perry.
Today, my state generates more wind power than any other, and is experiencing explosive growth in solar power as well. If growth continues at the current rate, Texas will soon be a national leader. Put another way, our state has benefited from an all-of-the-above, diversified energy strategy spearheaded by Gov. Perry. As the President-elect’s choice to take the helm of the Department of Energy, I have no doubt he will build on his successful track record in Texas to spur energy growth across the country.
As governor of Texas for 14 years, Perry managed a state with a budget and bureaucracy larger than the Energy Department. His sensible approach to regulation kept unnecessary red-tape out of the way, allowing job creators and innovators the room to thrive.
During his tenure, he also championed and signed legislation that created a renewable portfolio standard and helped jumpstart wind energy production in the state, empowering Texans with more energy choices. In Houston, for example, residents have a menu of more than 100 rate plans to choose from, with varying levels of renewable power.
Of course, an all-of-the-above energy strategy isn’t just about the economy. It’s about pioneering more energy solutions that work for everyone.
Gov. Perry never prioritized traditional energy production at the expense of innovation and research. Where some might have seen an either/or proposition — protecting the environment at the expense of growth — Rick Perry saw an opportunity to promote a climate of innovation and smart regulation.
Under his leadership, Texas pursued cutting-edge technologies that led to a boom in shale oil production, helping create thousands of jobs and making energy more affordable for Texas families along the way.
Promoting an all-of-the-above energy policy doesn’t just power our lives and drive economic growth. It’s a national security imperative too.
While Congress took a big step forward last year by lifting the crude oil export ban, more must be done to embrace American energy for the future, and reduce our allies’ dependence on volatile, foreign sources of energy.
That means streamlining and expediting the review and approval process to help American energy — like liquefied natural gas — get to international markets. And it should also include a continued push toward the next game-changing breakthrough by supporting fiscally responsible research and development of both traditional and new energy sources.
Gov. Perry is the right man to get it done. Texas is the pre-eminent case study in what can be accomplished in energy production, and it’s only natural that the Trump administration should tap the man whose leadership led to that success.
By nominating Gov. Perry as our next Energy secretary, President-elect Trump chose someone who knows how to shake the cobwebs off a lumbering bureaucracy and pave the way for the next North American energy renaissance. The guiding principles of his tenure — smart regulation, encouraging innovation, and growing every aspect of energy production — continue to benefit Texans now. As Energy secretary, I have no doubt he will build on them to the benefit of the American people.
Sen. John Cornyn is the majority whip, the second-highest ranking position in the Senate Republican Conference. He also serves on the Senate Finance and Judiciary Committees. The Texas native was elected to his third Senate term in 2014.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/rick-perry-energy-secretary-trump-cornyn
-
EIA Sees Ethane Production, Consumption Rising Through 2018
Jan 18, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
U.S ethane production is expected to increase over the next two years as the petrochemical industry consumes more and new export facilities ramp-up their overseas shipments, according to the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) latest Short-Term Energy Outlook.
The EIA estimates that ethane production could rise from 1.25 million b/d in 2016 to 1.7 million b/d in 2018. Expansions at existing ethylene plants contributed to a 170,000 b/d increase in ethane consumption between 2013 and 2016, the agency said this week in a Today in Energy note.
By mid-2018, construction is expected to be completed on six ethane crackers and one is to restart on the Gulf Coast, which together collectively would be capable of using 450,000 b/d of feedstock. Ethane consumption is forecast to increase by 310,000 b/d between 1Q2013 and 4Q2018 as the plants ramp-up operations, EIA said.
Ethane in natural gas has lagged domestic demand and exports in recent years, forcing producers to leave it in stream. EIA noted that ethane is almost exclusively used as a petrochemical feedstock to produce ethylene, which is a building block for plastics.
Shale gas production has delivered the U.S. petrochemical industry a competitive advantage that has led to a wave of new construction. More crackers are scheduled to come online through 2019, mostly along the Texas Gulf Coast. Royal Dutch Shell plc's decision to move forward with a facility in resource-rich Western Pennsylvania is expected to lead a second wave of construction and start-ups in the 2020s. More consumption, EIA said, is expected to lift ethane prices and further encourage ethane recovery.
Exports are on the rise as well. Pipelines that have come online to take more ethane to Canada, such as Sunoco Logistics Partners LP's Mariner West, and two marine export terminals in the Northeast and on the Gulf Coast are expected to boost overseas shipments.
Sunoco's Marcus Hook Industrial Complex near Philadelphia shipped its first cargo to Europe in March 2016, while Enterprise Products Partners LP's Morgan's Point terminal in Texas shipped its first ethane cargo last August. EIA forecasts exports to increase by 180,000 b/d between the fourth quarters of 2016 and 2018 as those shipments continue to accelerate.
The agency also said in its short-term outlook that Lower 48 natural gas and crude oil production is expected to increase year/year in 2017 as commodity prices rise.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109093-eia-sees-ethane-production-consumption-rising-through-2018
-
Exiting Rail Safety Chief Looks to Technology to Save Lives
Jan 18, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Michael R. Sisak
Sarah Feinberg was on the job as the nation’s chief railroad regulator for just three weeks when a packed commuter train slammed into an SUV stopped on tracks north of New York City, killing six people.
The February 2015 crash highlighted a problem that has plagued the railroad industry since the invention of the automobile: the potential for danger wherever tracks and roads meet.
Feinberg, a former Obama White House adviser whose lack of railroad industry experience drew criticism early on, sought a new approach to safety at the nation’s 240,000 railway crossings. Signs, gates, bells and lights were fine where rail crossings had them, but what about using technology to empower motorists and keep them from harm?
Feinberg, whose tenure as the Federal Railroad Administrator ends with Donald Trump’s inauguration as president on Friday, embraced her outsider status in the entrenched, slow-to-evolve world of railroading.
That meant not getting bogged down in past practice, the 39-year-old West Virginia native said, and not shying away from holding railroads accountable for wrongdoing. During Feinberg’s tenure, the Federal Railroad Administration has aggressively policed safety violations, closing cases at a higher rate and collecting more fine money per year than her predecessors.
“There were a lot of potential improvements that would only come to fruition if the industry chose to embrace technology and safety improvements, and if the regulator chose to force their hand a bit,” Feinberg said in a recent interview. “That’s the moment we walked into.”
U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who criticized the FRA under previous administrators as a “rogue agency” beholden to the railroad industry, praised Feinberg’s “fresh approach” to the role.
“She demonstrated a true willingness to work together and focused much-needed attention on the problem of dangerous grade crossings,” said Blumenthal, a Democrat representing Connecticut.
Three months after the New York crash, when an Amtrak train derailed in Philadelphia, killing eight people, Feinberg pressed the railroads to hasten the installation of automated speed controls that had been available for years.
When the industry convinced Congress to postpone the installation deadline until the end of 2018, Feinberg fought back and said she would not accept further delays. To keep the pressure up, she had the FRA post quarterly updates to its website on each railroad’s progress.
As oil trains continued to derail and catch fire, Feinberg again turned to technology, championing modern electronic braking systems. And, with a link between recent commuter train crashes and sleep apnea becoming clearer, Feinberg issued a safety advisory urging railroads to test engineers for the dangerous, fatigue-inducing disorder.
“The most important development that we’ve seen over the last few years is there’s now a public expectation for safety improvements in the rail industry,” Feinberg said.
As she leaves office, Feinberg is seeing results from the new approach to rail crossings she embraced in her first weeks on the job. Technology companies have started adding railway crossing locations to GPS devices and mapping applications, warning motorists as they approach.
“That just seemed like common sense,” Feinberg said. “It’s a good example of, even when safety challenges and problems have been with us for a long time, you have to think about them in new and creative ways.”
Other safety initiatives are a work in progress, with Feinberg’s yet-to-be-named successor left to shape the future of rail travel. There’s the looming, $120 billion redesign of the busy Northeast Corridor, planned high-speed service in Florida, Texas and California and aging infrastructure that’ll need billions in repairs.
Trump, a Republican, has proposed spending $1 trillion on infrastructure, but his transition team has not discussed specifics about how that will apply to rail travel.
At her confirmation hearing, Trump’s Transportation Secretary nominee, Elaine Chao, was non-committal on the deadline for installing speed controls saying she needed a briefing on the technology before answering.
Patrick Warren, the FRA’s acting executive director, will become acting administrator until Trump appoints a replacement for Feinberg. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat who has been vocal on rail issues, called on Trump to appoint someone who “prioritizes safety as much as” Feinberg.
“Certainly the incoming administrator’s priorities matter, because that’s the direction the agency tends to move in,” Feinberg said. “But, FRA has always been a safety agency. It has always been staffed by safety experts and I know that the team will continue the safety work no matter who’s leading it.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/exiting-rail-safety-chief-looks-to-technology-to-save-lives/2017/01/18/dbca868c-ddc1-11e6-8902-610fe486791c_story.html?utm_term=.bd9ca2a6d76a
-
North Dakota Eyeing RCRA Ruling, Oil Rail Oversight, Pipeline Protesters
Jan 18, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
North Dakota is concerned about the “strict timeline” regarding a settlement between environmental groups and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over oil and natural gas waste handling.
In late December, the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of Columbia granted the joint motion of the EPAand plaintiff environmental organizations for a consent decree to settle litigation over EPA's alleged failure to update its rules for managing oil and gas drilling waste under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The consent decree was issued in Environmental Integrity Project v. McCarthy, No. 1:16-CV-00842-JDB.
The settlement requires the incoming Trump administration to propose by March 15, 2019, a rulemaking to revise Subtitle D criteria regulations pertaining to oil and gas wastes at 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 257, or sign a determination that revising the rules is not necessary.
"This is a classic sue-and-settle situation, and we're not concerned about the review of the regulations, but we are concerned about the strict timeline for that review and the fact that the rule proposal goes beyond the original act and authorization that Congress gave EPA," said North Dakota's Lynn Helms, director of the Department of Mineral Resources.
Separately, he said North Dakota is closely watching an interim final rule issued last month by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) that could negate the state's standard for oil conditioning transported by rail.
PHMSA “is looking into completely overturning North Dakota's oil conditioning regulations and imposing a regulation of 9 psi vapor pressure on crude oil-by-rail," said Helms. The state Industrial Commission may want to weigh in, he noted. On Tuesday commissioners took no formal action but asked staff to prepare comments on the rule.
As it stands, the PHMSA proposal could be "a major interference” with North Dakota’s oil conditioning rule, which Helms said “has been very, very successful.”
Meanwhile, North Dakota’s Republican-dominated legislature already has several bills inspired by protests against the four-state, 1,200-mile Dakota Access oil pipeline project, which was stalled at the eleventh hour by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
One bill would not allow protesters to wear gas masks. Another would exempt drivers from liability if they unintentionally injure or kill a pedestrian/protester obstructing traffic. A third proposal would allow the state attorney general to sue the federal government to recover added costs of policing protests.
To date, North Dakota officials have calculated the state has spent more than $22 million on responding to the many weeks of Dakota Access protests in the south-central part of the state near the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's reservation.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109084-north-dakota-eyeing-rcra-ruling-oil-rail-oversight-pipeline-protesters
-
Expanded Ozone Region Not Necessary, EPA Proposes
Jan 19, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Downwind states will still press the Environmental Protection Agency to curb ozone-forming pollution that crosses state lines after the agency decided it's unnecessary to expand the region of states required to take additional steps to control emissions.
The EPA, in a notice scheduled for publication in the Federal Register Jan. 19, is proposing to reject a petition from several mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states to add nine additional states to the Ozone Transport Region. States within that region, which currently runs down the Eastern seaboard from Maine to Washington, are required to submit an ozone pollution control plan and impose pollution controls on industrial facilities, even in areas that are in compliance with all national ozone standards.
The petition seeks to add the following states to the Ozone Transport Region: Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia and Virginia.
The Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to add more states to the region, but the agency said it thinks there are other, more effective tools available to address emissions of ozone precursors that cross state lines and affect the ability of downwind states to meet or maintain national ozone standards. The tools identified by the EPA include the 2016 Cross-State Update Rule to further reduce power plant emissions of ozone precursors and the ability of states to file petitions under Section 126 of the Clean Air Act to seek pollution control requirements at specific stationary sources.
Delaware, one of the states that signed onto the petition to expand the Ozone Transport Region, is still waiting on a response to four different Section 126 petitions filed with the EPA, according to Ali Mirzakhalili, director of the Air Quality Division at the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Mirzakhalili told Bloomberg BNA that it is “awfully disingenuous” for the EPA to point to Section 126 as a solution when the agency has granted itself additional time to respond to petitions from Delaware and other states.
“It seems like no matter which lever we push to address transport, they say there's something else to be pushing,” Mirzakhalili said.
States to Keep Pushing
While the proposed petition denial will be one of the last formal actions published in the Federal Register by President Barack Obama's EPA, the final decision on the petition will fall to the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump. The EPA faces an Oct. 27 deadline to make a final decision under a proposed settlement with the petitioning states, who brought a lawsuit against the agency for a failure to respond in a timely manner (New York v. McCarthy, S.D.N.Y., No. 1:16-cv-7827, proposed consent decree filed 12/8/16).
Mirzakhalili said the pending change in administration won't change the facts on the ground in downwind states: emissions from other states will still be contributing to ozone attainment issues. A combination of federal action and action by those upwind states will be needed to resolve those, he said.
“We'll continue to push this case,” Mirzakhalili said. “You can expect us to weigh in and comment on EPA's [proposed] decision.”
EPA will accept public comments on its proposed decision until Feb. 21. Comments can be filed at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. EPA-OAR-2016-0596.
Delaware isn't the only state that plans to continue pushing for stronger action on interstate pollution: Maryland Secretary of the Environment Ben Grumbles said in a Jan. 18 statement e-mailed to Bloomberg BNA that Maryland will continue to insist that upwind states do more to address interstate pollution.
“We are committed to using all available and appropriate tools, including Clean Air Act petitions and lawsuits,” Grumbles said.
Maryland in November petitioned the EPA to require 36 power plants in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia to either operate more efficiently or use already-installed pollution control equipment during the summer months when ground-level ozone concentrations are elevated. The EPA extended its deadline for responding to that request until July.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103798678&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103798678&jd=103798678
-
Litigation: EPA, Environmentalists Fault Attacks on Texas Haze Plan
Jan 18, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA and environmentalists are faulting efforts by Texas and utilities to have a federal appeals court block the agency from relying on any regulatory requirements in a stayed federal plan to curb the state's regional haze when it crafts other regulations, saying the push is an unlawful attempt by EPA to undermine a slew of haze mandates.
In State of Texas, et al. v. EPA, et al., Texas and industry groups are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to vacate EPA's federal implementation plan (FIP) imposing regional haze controls on the state, claiming that EPA overstepped its authority by largely disapproving Texas' state implementation plan (SIP) and replacing it with the FIP.
EPA imposed its FIP on Texas after finding that the state failed to impose necessary haze controls on power plants that created haze-forming air pollution in both Texas and Oklahoma. Under the agency's haze program, states must craft plans to meet its goal of restoring visibility in “Class I” national parks and wilderness areas to natural conditions by 2064. EPA issued an update to the nationwide regional haze rule establishing the overall program Jan. 10, streamlining some requirements for states and delaying compliance deadlines, but also requiring greater involvement of federal land managers in haze planning.
The court has already stayed the haze FIP pending the outcome of litigation, based on its assessment that the state is likely to prevail and faces irreparable injury. EPA is asking the court for a voluntary remand and continued stay of the FIP to correct perceived mistakes in its methodology for determining “reasonable further progress” (RFP), one of the requirements of the haze program. EPA has also granted administrative reconsideration of the haze FIP.
However, Texas and industry groups have in joint cross-motions asked the court for “summary vacatur” of the FIP, and also for a “clarification” of the court's stay order in order to prevent EPA from “relying on any of its SIP disapprovals or FIP actions and related findings in the Final Rule in any subsequent rule or action, including a subsequent rule or action to impose virtually the same emissions control requirements that are presently stayed.”
But the Department of Justice (DOJ) in a Jan. 13 response on EPA's behalf says, “Because there has been no final adjudication of the merits, EPA does not believe grounds exist for vacatur.”
Nonetheless, DOJ concedes that there is “little if any practical difference” between a continued stay and summary vacatur. DOJ asks that should the court opt for vacatur, it should keep in effect those parts of the Texas and Oklahoma haze SIPs it did approve, as these were never at issue in the case.
DOJ objects strenuously, however, to Texas' request for “clarification” of the stay, which it says is an unlawful attempt to strike at both a separate, proposed FIP imposing best available retrofit control technology (BART) haze controls on Texas. DOJ calls the cross-motion “a meritless attempt to hobble” the proposed BART FIP, which imposes sulfur dioxide (SO2) and other controls on some of the same power plants at issue in the existing FIP. The forthcoming rule is merely a proposal, and therefore not subject to judicial review, DOJ says, adding that the proposed rule itself does not incorporate any element of the stayed haze FIP.
In a separate Jan. 13 brief, Sierra Club and the National Parks Conservation Association ask the court to deny the state and industry cross-motions in their entirety. They make similar points to DOJ with respect to the proposed BART FIP, which shares some underlying technical analysis with the stayed Texas FIP, but also note the motions' apparent targeting of EPA's nationwide haze rule.
“With respect to the Regional Haze Rule, Petitioners’ cross-motion effectively would enjoin the recently-finalized revisions to the nationwide rulemaking on regional haze - which clarify certain provisions of the regulations instructive in the second and future rounds of regional haze plans and, in part, address issues raised by this Court in the stay ruling,” they say. “After arguing the Final Rule is not of nationwide significance, Petitioners now reverse course seeking a nationwide injunction to preclude EPA from addressing many of the Court’s concerns in the national rule revision - a bold request,” the groups argue.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/litigation-epa-environmentalists-fault-attacks-texas-haze-plan
-
EPA's Refrigerant Leak Regulations Challenged in Court
Jan 19, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Industry groups have filed two lawsuits challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's attempts to regulate leaks of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs. The chemicals are commonly used as refrigerants, but they are also potent greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change when they leak from air conditioners or other appliances.
The Air Permitting Forum and the National Environmental Development Association, two groups that represent businesses and manufacturers on air pollution issues, filed separate lawsuits Jan. 17 against the EPA in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Air Permitting Forum v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 17-01017, 1/17/17); (Nat'l Envtl. Dev. Ass'n Clean Air Project v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 17-01016, 1/17/17).
The groups are asking the court to overturn a regulation issued by the EPA late last year that would reduce the maximum amount of HFC leakage appliances could have and would also mandate leak inspections for certain appliances. The groups’ attorneys did not respond to requests for comment in time for this story.
An earlier EPA regulation that would phase out the manufacturing and use of many HFCs is also being challenged by two manufacturers of the chemicals. Oral arguments in that suit are scheduled for next month. (Mexichem Fluor Inc. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-01328, 9/15/15).
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=103798673&vname=dennotallissues&fn=103798673&jd=103798673
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested