Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 2/15/17
-
Trump Eyes EPA Visit To Announce Limits On Agency After Pruitt Sworn In
Feb 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
President Donald Trump plans to visit EPA headquarters to sign executive orders (EOs) aimed at scaling back the agency's climate change and other work, but is waiting until after the expected confirmation and swearing in of agency Administrator-nominee Scott Pruitt, an administration source says. -
Pruitt Slated for Confirmation as Democrats Urge Delay
Feb 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Scott Pruitt will have to wait in line for a confirmation vote on President Donald Trump's pick to run the White House Office of Management and Budget, but Republican senators supporting the Oklahoma attorney general's appointment to head the EPA predicted he will still be confirmed this week. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA TSCA Review Plan Sparks Debate Over Scope Of 'Uses' To Consider
Feb 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's plan to use authority under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to review 10 chemicals is sparking debate between the chemical industry and environmentalists over the uses of the substances the agency should weigh in its risk reviews, with a former EPA official urging EPA to collect a broad set of data. -
(ACC Mentioned) Retailers, Products Named as EPA Scrutinizes 10 Chemicals
Feb 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Businesses that make, use, sell, distribute or dispose of a host of chemical-containing products have a month to check out the EPA's preliminary information about their use of 10 chemicals and correct that information if it's outdated or flat out wrong. -
(ACC Mentioned) Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals Takes Shape at EPA
Feb 14, 2017 | Chem. Info
By Meagan Parrish
Under guidelines established by the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, which became law last year, the Environmental Protection Agency was required to form a Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC). -
Safer Chemicals Healthy Families Responds to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Public Meeting On New Chemicals Law
Feb 14, 2017 | Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held a public meeting “to receive input and information to assist the Agency in its efforts to establish the scope of risk evaluations under development for the 10 chemical substances designated on December 19, 2016 for risk evaluations pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended.” -
Debate Over Nonstick Chemical Reaches Federal Court in Alabama
Feb 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
Tennessee Riverkeeper is taking on 3M over a novel question: Should certain emerging contaminants be considered hazardous waste? -
Suppressed EPA Toxicologist: 'It Is Essentially Certain That Glyphosate Causes Cancer'
Feb 14, 2017 | The Ecologist
By Carey Gillam
Letters from an EPA toxicologist to the EPA official in charge of assessing whether glyphosate, the active ingredient of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, causes cancer, reveal accusations of 'staff intimidation' and 'political conniving games with the science' to favour pesticide corporations, writes Carey Gillam. Could this be a game-changer for cancer-suffering plaintiffs? -
NGOs Call For Unified System To Identify EDC Criteria
Feb 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
Environmental NGOs have called on the European Commission to rework its draft proposal for criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) into a single, unified system that covers products in all relevant sectors. -
EU Urged to Adopt Single Set of Endocrine Disruptor Criteria
Feb 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Union should adopt a single set of criteria to enable the identification of endocrine-disrupting substances across all legislation, rather than pursuing specific criteria for biocidal products and pesticides as currently planned, according to a report published by two environmental law groups Feb. 14. -
Nanomaterials Guidance Under REACH Review
Feb 14, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
In a move that could affect US manufacturers and chemical companies that do business in Europe, the European Chemicals Agency is moving forward with nanomaterial guidance regulations. -
(ACC Mentioned) Portman-Shaheen Bill Is Back
Feb 15, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Christa Marshall
A draft of major energy efficiency legislation from Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) has begun making the rounds on Capitol Hill and is expected to be introduced as early as today. -
Gas Exporter Appeals to Trump's Hunt for Jobs in Push for Permit
Feb 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik
The developer of an Oregon terminal that would send liquefied natural gas to Asia is seeking a helping hand from President Donald Trump as it makes a second attempt at gaining federal approval. -
Colorado Sues Boulder County Over Drilling Moratorium
Feb 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman (R) sued Boulder County for “continuously” placing a five-year halt on oil and gas development in violation of state law (Colo. v. Cty. of Boulder, Colo. Dist. Ct., 2/14/17). -
Commenters Argue For Alternative North Slope Gasline Route, LNG Plant Site
Feb 15, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
Proving that plans to pipe Alaska North Slope natural gas to a liquefaction plant for global tanker export are far from a done deal, multiple commenters in the project's FERC docket have said the natural gas pipeline should follow a different route and the liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant should be sited elsewhere than currently proposed. -
Carbon Tax Foes Request White House Meeting
Feb 15, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist and other prominent carbon tax foes want a chance to make their case to White House officials. -
EPA Plans Hearing On Proposed Denial Of OTC Expansion Request
Feb 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA plans to hold a March 14 public hearing in Washington, D.C., to seek input on its proposal to deny a petition by nine East Coast states to massively expand the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) area, which would have subjected nine additional states to the same strict ozone controls that apply within the OTC. -
Draft EPA Inventory Shows GHG Cuts Amid Doubts On Trump Climate Plan
Feb 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
EPA's new draft greenhouse gas inventory shows net emissions at their second-lowest level since the Great Recession due in part to continued energy-sector trends such as coal-to-gas switching and low electricity demand, though doubts linger about how the Trump administration plans to address global efforts to target climate change. -
Rep. Bonamici Vows To Push Back On Trump Attempts To Limit EPA
Feb 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) is vowing to use her newly-elected position as ranking member on a House environment panel to push back on expected attempts by President Donald Trump's administration to limit the scope of EPA's work. -
U.K. Said to Lobby Trump Officials to Stay in Paris Climate Deal
Feb 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jessica Shankleman
The U.K. government is seeking to convince Donald Trump to support the landmark Paris climate deal, touting the economic benefits of clean energy while steering clear of the debate about climate science, according to a person familiar with the discussions.
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 - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Trump Eyes EPA Visit To Announce Limits On Agency After Pruitt Sworn In
Feb 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
President Donald Trump plans to visit EPA headquarters to sign executive orders (EOs) aimed at scaling back the agency's climate change and other work, but is waiting until after the expected confirmation and swearing in of agency Administrator-nominee Scott Pruitt, an administration source says.
The president will visit agency headquarters to conduct a ceremonial swearing in of Pruitt, the outgoing Oklahoma attorney general (AG), possibly as soon as next week depending on when the Senate confirms him. Democrats are expected to almost universally oppose him -- with the notable exception of Sen. Joe Manchin (WV) -- though barring any surprise GOP defections, he appears to have enough votes to be confirmed.
The administration source would not share the content or number of the EPA-related EOs, but did say they are intended to send a message that Pruitt is ready to get to work and that they could “suck the air out” of the room.
The source also says that one of the drafted EOs will be directed at the State Department rather than EPA, suggesting that it is related to U.S. participation in the international Paris Agreement or another global environmental issue.
The orders are expected to dramatically scale back the agency's climate change work, and could revoke former President Barack Obama's Climate Action Plan, which is an administration-wide blueprint that lays out regulatory and voluntary measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate impacts.
Another order could direct EPA to begin the process of revoking the Clean Power Plan (CPP) and related new source performance standards to reduce power sector GHGs.
Pruitt Nomination
But it is unclear when Pruitt might get a Senate vote, leaving the timing of Trump's visit EPA uncertain. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced that Pruitt is second in a queue of six Cabinet officials to move to the Senate floor this week.
First up is controversial White House Office of Management & Budget Director-nominee Mick Mulvaney. That process could take until the evening of Feb. 16, assuming that Democrats use the full 30 hours of debate as they have for several previous Cabinet picks. That raises the question of whether senators would have enough time to vote on Pruitt before they leave for Congress' President's Day recess on Feb. 17.
Also, Democrats on the Senate environment committee are urging McConnell to delay Pruitt's vote, saying senators should wait until after an Oklahoma court holds an “emergency” hearing on a suit seeking documents from his tenure as AG.
The administration source says Vice President Mike Pence intends to conduct a rapid-fire swearing in Feb. 17 of whichever nominees get through this week, and that Pruitt is currently expected to have his first day on the job at EPA Feb. 17. That day, he would sign an ethics recusal letter, set up his email accounts and take care of other housekeeping tasks.
Pruitt is expected to seek to focus on traditional areas of EPA work, and is said to be most interested in looking first at the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act implementation, brownfields and cooperative federalism, the source says.
As soon as the week of Feb. 20, Trump would then come to EPA to conduct the ceremonial swearing in and sign EPA-related EOs, the source says. The source adds that the White House could also change the plan.
Trump's Orders
The source says Trump's planned EPA visit is envisioned as similar to the president's Pentagon trip Jan. 27 after Defense Secretary James Mattis was formally sworn in on Jan. 20. At that visit, Trump signed his “extreme vetting” immigration EO, which has been stayed by federal courts, as well as a second order on military readiness.
Top Trump EPA transition team official Myron Ebell, who has since returned to the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, told Inside EPA Feb. 7 that he envisioned the repeal of EPA's climate programs would be presented as a package contained in an EO or several EOs. Those orders could, for example, tell EPA to reconsider its new and existing power plant GHG rules, rescind or forbid the use of the social cost of carbon as a measure of such rules' benefits, and announce a schedule for undoing the rest of the Climate Action Plan.
Ebell also expects an order telling EPA to reopen the Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule.
“I am not sure when in the pecking order” this comes for Trump, but “I expect to see something as a package,” he said.
Ebell added that he expects an effort to undo the GHG endangerment finding but not as part of the initial actions.
Another possible approach for Trump's EPA-related orders is contained in a four-part recommendation from a group of AGs and environmental regulators from 24 states to the Trump administration and the GOP-controlled Congress to withdraw the CPP and ensure that “similar or more extreme proposals never again take shape.”
The recommendations were in a Dec. 15 letter organized by West Virginia AG Patrick Morrisey (R) and Texas AG Ken Paxton (R) that advised Trump to issue an EO on his first day in office rescinding Obama's memorandum that directed EPA to issue the CPP, and instruct the agency to “take no further action to enforce or implement the rule,” which is stayed and under court review.
Presidential Visits
Both Obama and his predecessor, President George W. Bush, visited EPA once during their two terms. President Bill Clinton never visited the agency, though President George H.W. Bush did.
Obama visited EPA on Jan. 10, 2012, where he expressed appreciation for the vital work done by the staff, according to a White House transcript of his remarks. Obama pledged to stand by EPA and said, “I want you to know that you've got a president who is grateful for your work and will stand with you every inch of the way as you carry out your mission to make sure that we've got a cleaner world.”
Bush visited EPA on May 23, 2005, to witness the swearing in of Administrator Stephen Johnson, in a bid to boost sagging agency morale at the time.
However, his visit only further undermined morale, agency sources said at the time, and was seen as further hampering Johnson's ability to push the administration's agenda within the agency. Johnson was the first career employee elevated to administrator.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trump-eyes-epa-visit-announce-limits-agency-after-pruitt-sworn
-
Pruitt Slated for Confirmation as Democrats Urge Delay
Feb 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Scott Pruitt will have to wait in line for a confirmation vote on President Donald Trump's pick to run the White House Office of Management and Budget, but Republican senators supporting the Oklahoma attorney general's appointment to head the EPA predicted he will still be confirmed this week.
Democrats are poised to exhaust all possible debate time on both nominations, setting the stage for a possible Pruitt confirmation late Feb. 16 or Feb. 17.
Those tactics, however, will not derail the Pruitt nomination, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters Feb. 14. “We'll soldier on here,” McConnell said, adding that Pruitt will be confirmed this week before the chamber departs for a recess.
Open Records Hearing
Still, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Democrats urged the Republican leadership to postpone the confirmation further, pointing to a pending Oklahoma District Court hearing on a long-delayed response to an open records request involving e-mails shared between the attorney general's office and a host of fossil fuel companies.
That hearing will now likely take place prior to Pruitt's confirmation but only by a matter of hours, according to the current timeline.
The Center for Media and Democracy and the American Civil Liberties Union sued Pruitt's office earlier in February over an alleged violation of the “prompt and reasonable” release requirement of state open records law. The Center for Media and Democracy filed the request in January 2015.
The request calls for Pruitt's correspondence with Peabody Energy Inc., Arch Coal Inc., Murray Energy Corp., Devon Energy Corp. and Koch Industries Inc., among other organizations.
Republican Rejection
Senate Republicans dismissed the Democratic plea for a postponement, pointing to what they saw as a rigorous nomination process for Pruitt to date.
“We're going to vote on Pruitt and confirm Pruitt this week,” Senate EPW Committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told Bloomberg BNA. “I'm going to make sure we stay here until he's confirmed.” The Senate is tentatively scheduled to depart the Capitol Feb. 17 and return Feb. 27.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the former EPW chairman and close Pruitt ally, said the postponement call is just another Democratic tactic to stall confirmations. “[Democrats have] had ample time to do all of these things, and this is another example of just delay for the sake of delaying,” Inhofe told Bloomberg BNA.
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) recently predicted Pruitt would come before Mulvaney. Inhofe also echoed that forecast in a recent interview with Bloomberg BNA, saying Pruitt would be confirmed Feb. 15.
Missing Documents?
A Center for Media and Democracy spokeswoman said Pruitt's office released more than 400 e-mails pertinent to the request Feb. 10. That number pales in comparison to the more than 3,000 e-mails Pruitt's attorney said they located in responding to the request, the spokeswoman, Leah Conklin, said in a statement Feb. 14.
The released batch does not include 27 e-mails related to the request that the attorney general's office already released to The New York Times, the statement said.
“If those e-mails have been omitted, what else is being withheld?” Nick Surgey, CMD's director of research, said in the request. “The Senate cannot properly vet Pruitt for EPA administrator if he is concealing information on conflicts of interest that would impact his ability to faithfully perform the EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment.”
The Senate Democrats cited the need for proper scrutiny in the postponement plea to McConnell.
“This request does not create an unreasonable delay in Mr. Pruitt's confirmation process,” 10 Democrats, led by committee chairman Tom Carper (D-Del.), said in a letter. “The fact that some of this information has just been released strongly suggests that much of the information that members of the EPW Committee are seeking will finally be made available to the public, and to us, shortly.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105660166&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105660166&jd=105660166
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA TSCA Review Plan Sparks Debate Over Scope Of 'Uses' To Consider
Feb 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA's plan to use authority under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to review 10 chemicals is sparking debate between the chemical industry and environmentalists over the uses of the substances the agency should weigh in its risk reviews, with a former EPA official urging EPA to collect a broad set of data.
Robert Sussman, deputy agency administrator under former President Bill Clinton and a top policy advisor to President Barack Obama's EPA, told a Feb. 14 public agency meeting that EPA should issue orders requiring industry to submit all existing unpublished health and safety data on the 10 chemicals to help inform the reviews. Such data would likely reveal information that companies hold on the broadest possible range of uses of their substances.
He said the 10 chemicals -- which include asbestos -- are unique as they did not go through a prioritization process that EPA is developing to select future high priority chemicals for risk evaluation. The chemicals were on the marketplace when the original TSCA took effect in 1976, and the updated toxics law enacted last June required the agency to draft a list of 10 existing substances that it would prioritize for review for regulation.
“This means that your ability to characterize hazard and exposure for the full range of exposure and conditions of use will be constrained by data gaps,” Sussman said during the meeting, where EPA sought input on the 10 chemicals. “The scoping process should be designed to fill the data gaps as expeditiously as possible.”
Sussman said EPA should take advantage of the new authorities it received under the updated TSCA, known as the Frank R. Lautenberg Safe Chemicals for the 21st Century Act after the late Democratic senator from New Jersey who long advocated to update the law to lift barriers on EPA's ability to regulate existing chemicals.
Sussman pointed in particular to EPA's data gathering power under section 8(d) of the law, and urged the agency to “add the 10 chemicals to its existing 8(d) reporting rule.”
He added that, “I do believe that could be accomplished fairly quickly. The effect would be to require industry to submit unpublished health and safety studies. Not only toxicology studies, but also industrial hygiene studies, risk assessments, monitoring studies looking at worker exposure and the like.”
Echoing comments from other environmentalists at the meeting, Sussman -- now legal counsel to the environmentalist coalition Safer Chemicals Healthy Families -- also urged EPA to utilize its TSCA section 4 ordering authority to require companies to conduct new toxicology or exposure and studies, or its section 11 subpoena authority to compel information from industry where companies might refuse to provide it to EPA.
Sussman's comments came at the end of lengthy public comments responding in part on preliminary use information documents that EPA compiled on each of the 10 chemicals and released late last week.
Industry's Concerns
Throughout the meeting, chemical industry representatives expressed concerns that EPA should not try to consider all possible uses of a chemical during an evaluation, that it would be unwieldy and impossible for EPA to do so within the three to five years that the statute grants EPA to complete its assessments.
Environmentalists and others, however, urged EPA to consider uses broadly, noting that real world uses often extend beyond those uses of a product intended by the manufacturer, regardless of warning labels.
Karyn Schmidt, with the chemical industry trade group American Chemistry Council (ACC), said that the “Lautenberg [Act] is intended to focus on current uses in commerce. Lautenberg doesn't intend that everything be considered in everything all of the time. EPA may have the authority to do that. But if we want [evaluations] on time, we'll have to start thinking about that.”
Schmidt argued that in addition to current use of a chemical, her group also considers “whether EPA looks at aggregate exposure is critical.” She noted that the agency has discretion, and could also use a sentinel approach rather than an aggregate approach in its evaluations, as outlined in revisions to TSCA.
EPA sought comment last summer as it began to develop its risk evaluation rule under TSCA section 6(b)(4)(f), which says that evaluations shall "describe whether aggregate or sentinel exposures to a chemical substance under the conditions of use were considered, and the basis for that consideration."
Environmentalists in their comments throughout the meeting urged EPA to use an aggregate exposure approach to their evaluations. These groups have long favored this approach, saying it would better reflect real world risk compared to the sentinel method traditionally used by agencies. Aggregate exposure assesses every possible exposure and leads to an evaluation that aims to reduce the sum total of risk.
By contrast, environmentalists have generally argued that sentinel exposures are in line with EPA's traditional approach for risk assessment, taking the most serious risk and assuming that reducing that exposure will lower overall risk and that this is the chemical sector's preferred approach, unlike the aggregate exposure approaches environmentalists prefer.
Similarly, Derek Swick of the American Petroleum Institute argued that “Accidents and unintended releases are outside the scope and conditions of the modernized TSCA.”
He urged EPA to “consider all controls, process controls and personal protective equipment. Finally, the risk evaluation should incorporate consideration of existing regulations both at the federal and state level.”
Numerous industry representatives echoed Swick's remarks, while environmentalists argued that it is important for EPA's scope of use to include accidents and non-intended uses of chemicals.
Environmentalists point to language in the revised toxics statute directing EPA to include “reasonably foreseen” uses of chemicals in the evaluations as the basis for their arguments. But Swick said that it is so far unclear how EPA will define this phrase, and he encouraged agency staff to define the term.
“We'd expect there could be more definition once we see the final evaluation rule,” he said, but adding that the first 10 chemical evaluations “will be somewhat precedent-setting, we encourage you to define those now.”
'Foreseeable' Uses
By contrast, Steven Markowitz, occupational medicine physician, and professor at City University of New York, argued that “leaks, spills, malfunction of machinery are common. . . . These events may not reflect the intended use. They certainly are reasonably foreseeable. They must be considered, regardless of how difficult to quantify.”
Environmentalists and industry representatives also clashed over whether EPA's consideration of chemical uses should expand into uses that are not controlled by TSCA. Several speakers raised concerns that some of the 10 use documents EPA released included food uses that would be controlled by the Food and Drug Administration, or pesticide uses that another EPA office controls with the agency's Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act authorities.
But environmentalists argued that these uses are an important part of aggregate exposure assessment considerations. Melanie Benesh, an attorney with the Environmental Working Group, said that she thinks EPA “absolutely should” consider uses of chemicals that fall outside of EPA's TSCA jurisdiction. “All of those different kinds of exposure to a chemical should be taken into consideration for those exposures you're considering under TSCA,” she said otherwise, she added, the evaluations “might not be able to adequately address the risk.”
Environmentalists also sought to weigh in on the susceptible populations that EPA should consider when evaluating the chemicals' risks as directed in the updated TSCA. Regarding various chemicals, they pointed to exposures to workers, people of reproductive age, children, the elderly, communities close to chemical manufacturing plants and those with underlying diseases or conditions that make them more vulnerable.
EPA and industry representatives at the meeting referenced a series of meetings that EPA has hosted with stakeholders seeking information as the agency began to draft the use documents that will inform the scoping documents that EPA is required to release by June. Several industry representatives expressed concerns that during these meetings EPA staff asked whether there were alternatives to particular uses of some of the chemicals.
“The existence of alternatives is irrelevant . . . at this stage,” argued Christina Franz of ACC, who said the question was asked at meetings on two of the 10 chemicals. She argued that EPA shouldn't “consider non-risk factors such as whether an alternative exists . . . unless and until it reaches the risk management stage.”
Franz also encouraged EPA to “get the scoping documents right” even if it means missing the June deadline. “We are not encouraging delay, however, we do want you to get this right.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-tsca-review-plan-sparks-debate-over-scope-uses-consider
-
(ACC Mentioned) Retailers, Products Named as EPA Scrutinizes 10 Chemicals
Feb 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Businesses that make, use, sell, distribute or dispose of a host of chemical-containing products have a month to check out the EPA's preliminary information about their use of 10 chemicals and correct that information if it's outdated or flat out wrong.
States, health officials, unions, environmental health and other organizations have the same amount of time to provide the Environmental Protection Agency information they have about how people or the environment are exposed to the 10 chemicals. Information about groups of people that warrant particular attention because their exposures are higher than other groups or because of their stage of life, genetics or situation makes them more vulnerable to the chemicals than others also is welcomed by the agency.
The continued consumer, commercial and industrial uses of these 10 chemicals, which help lubricate machines so they keep running, protect the wires in electronic equipment so they keep working and provide many other services are being scrutinized.
The uses may be circumscribed. Such restrictions or bans could be needed to protect people from cancer, birth defects and other problems. Or, if the science used in the EPA's risk assessments is flawed, the assessments could needlessly restrict chemical uses.
But, the clock is ticking. The EPA is seeking use and exposure information by March 15.
And the stakes are high. The 10 risk assessments the agency is preparing to carry out will set precedent. They are the first the EPA will conduct under the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act last year. A primary reason lawmakers revised TSCA is they wanted the EPA to examine—and when necessary reduce through regulations—the risks of chemicals in commerce.
The 10 Chemicals
The 10 chemicals, primarily solvents, flame retardants and one dye, are:
• 1,4-dioxane (Chemical Abstracts Service No. 123-91-1);
• 1-bromopropane (CAS No. 106-94-5);
• asbestos (CAS No. 1332-21-4);
• carbon tetrachloride (CAS No. 56-23-5);
• cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster, also known as hexabromocyclododecane or HBCD (CAS No. 25637-99-4);
• methylene chloride (CAS No. 75-09-2);
• n-methylpyrrolidone (CAS No. 872-50-4);
• pigment violet 29 (CAS No. 81-33-4)
• tetrachloroethylene, also known as perchloroethylene, (CAS No. 79-01-6);
• trichloroethylene (CAS No. 127-18-4).
Who Makes What; Where to Buy
The question of what uses should the EPA consider as it evaluates the 10 chemicals became paramount during a Feb. 14 meeting the agency held to discuss the scope of its risk evaluations.
Amended TSCA defines the “conditions of use” the EPA is to examine as “the intended, known, or reasonably foreseeable circumstances under which a chemical is manufactured, processed, distributed, disposed of, or used.”
In keeping with that broad definition, the EPA released on Feb. 10 preliminary information summaries it gathered on the ways each of the 10 chemicals is made, processed, distributed, used and disposed in the U.S.
The reports drew on information that companies, researchers and environmental organizations shared during meetings they've had with the agency; industry data submitted to the EPA for various reporting obligations such as Chemical Data Reporting rule submissions; state information and internet searches.
For example, the EPA searched Amazon's website to determine what products consumers could purchase and combined that with a safety data sheet and other information about the concentrations of the 10 chemicals that might be in those products.
Those 10 summaries provide an unprecedented amount of information concerning hundreds of specific adhesives, brake cleaners, lubricants, paints and other products made with specific concentrations of chemicals.
It lists manufacturers of consumer products such as Utrecht Art Supplies and Winsor & Newton; and retailers such as Autozone Inc., W.W. Grainger Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc.—in addition to Amazon—where products may be purchased.
Industry to EPA: Narrow Scope
Kathleen Roberts, who spoke on behalf of the N-Methylpyrrolidone Producers Group Inc., which consists of the BASF Corp., International Specialty Products and Lyondell Chemical Co., said the EPA's current approach is “unworkable for industry and EPA.”
The manufacturers she works with are trying to get as much information as possible from their customers by March 15 to know how those customers are using the solvent. But they will not be able to provide details on every product, every use, and every distributor in that time, she said.
The law also gives the EPA “the liberty to scope risk evaluations in a manner that is selective, flexible, responsive, and cost-effective and will get the job done on time,” said Karyn Schmidt, senior director of chemical regulation, regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, which represents major chemical producers. “We believe that's what the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act intended.”
But, the EPA must define how it interprets terms such as “reasonably foreseen” chemical uses, Derek Swick, regulatory and scientific affairs manager for the American Petroleum Institute, said.
Uses that are inconsistent with a safety data sheet or label should not be considered, he said. Nor should accidents or unintended releases be considered, Swick said.
Off label uses must be considered, countered Lindsay McCormick from the Environmental Defense Fund.
Many studies show that people, including professionals, don't read labels or don't understand them, she said.
EPA Urged to Cast Broad Net
The risk evaluation must be comprehensive, including all uses, all exposures and all vulnerable populations, said Michael Belliveau, executive director of the Environmental Health Strategy Center, which works to eliminate toxic chemicals.
“It is essential that EPA cast a broad net when looking at uses,” said Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Council.
Workers should typically be considered a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation, he said.
Other at-risk groups identified by various environmental and public health organizations included men, whose chemical exposures could affect their offspring; tribes, infants, children and women of child-bearing age.
Next Steps
The use information the EPA is compiling will be integrated into the agency's document describing the scope of each risk evaluation it will conduct for each of the 10 chemicals. Those scoping documents must be published by by June 19 under the amended chemicals law.
Tala Henry, director of the risk assessment division within the agency's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, described the scope during the Feb. 14 meeting. It includes three core parts, she said:
• The hazards, exposure, conditions of use, potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation or subpopulations the risk evaluation will examine;
• The “conceptual model,” which describes actual or predicted relationships such as how a chemical gets into people's bodies or the water; and
• An analysis plan, describing the approaches, methods, and/or metrics the agency will use to assess exposures, effects, and risks.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105660164&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105660164&jd=105660164
-
(ACC Mentioned) Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals Takes Shape at EPA
Feb 14, 2017 | Chem. Info
By Meagan Parrish
Under guidelines established by the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, which became law last year, the Environmental Protection Agency was required to form a Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC).
The purpose of the 18-member committee is to provide “independent advice and expert consultation” on how to implement the new chemical regulations under Lautenberg.
According to a report in Chemical Watch, the committee will be tasked with reviewing risk assessments, models, tools, guidance documents, chemical category documents and more.
For the committee, the EPA drew on experts from academia, government and the industry. The American Chemistry Council told Chemical Watch, however, that it would like to see more members from the chemical industry on the committee.
Here’s a list of the committee members:
Academia Henry Anderson, MD – University of Wisconsin-Madison James Bruckner, PhD – University of Georgia Deborah Cory-Slechta, PhD – University of Rochester Medical School William Doucette, PhD – Utah State University Panos Georgopoulos, PhD – Rutgers, the State University Kathleen Gilbert, PhD – University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences John Kissel, PhD – University of Washington (retired) Sheela Sathyanarayana, PhD – University of Washington Daniel Schlenk, PhD – University of California, Riverside
State and federal government Holly Davies, PhD – Washington State Department of Ecology Melanie Marty, PhD – California Environmental Protection Agency (retired) Valentine Schaeffer, PhD – US Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Industry Concepcion Jimenez-Gonzalez, PhD – GlaxoSmithKline Alan Kaufman – Toy Industry Association (TIA) Craig Rowlands, PhD – Underwriters Laboratories Christopher Waller, PhD – Merck Research Laboratories
Non-governmental organization Kenneth Portier, PhD – The American Cancer Society Catherine Willett, PhD – The Humane Society of the United States
The committee plans to meet three or four times each year.
Since passing Lautenberg, the EPA has also released a list of the first 10 chemicals it plans to review.
http://www.chem.info/news/2017/02/science-advisory-committee-chemicals-takes-shape-epa
-
Feb 14, 2017 | Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held a public meeting “to receive input and information to assist the Agency in its efforts to establish the scope of risk evaluations under development for the 10 chemical substances designated on December 19, 2016 for risk evaluations pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended.” This is the first public meeting EPA has held under the new Administration to discuss implementing this important piece of legislation.
In response Liz Hitchcock, Legislative Director for Safer Chemicals Healthy Families released the following statement:
“In the D.C. policy world of alphabet soup agencies and chemicals regulation, it’s rare that a wide variety of constituencies willingly spends all of Valentine’s Day in a windowless conference room or on a webinar. The turnout at today’s meeting clearly demonstrates that the stakes are high for how well EPA does their job to protect American families from dangerous toxic chemicals like asbestos. EPA heard from Safer Chemicals Healthy Families partner groups from Alaska to Maine who made a strong case for EPA to dig deep into the the first ten chemicals it tackles under the new law. This is an important test for EPA in the new Administration. How well they protect the public from these chemicals will set the tone for EPA’s future chemicals work.
Our coalition looks forward to continued work with EPA as it moves forward on the first chemicals designated for action under the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act.”
http://saferchemicals.org/newsroom/schf-responds-to-us-epa-public-meeting-on-new-chemicals-law/
-
Debate Over Nonstick Chemical Reaches Federal Court in Alabama
Feb 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
Tennessee Riverkeeper is taking on 3M over a novel question: Should certain emerging contaminants be considered hazardous waste?
Tennessee Riverkeeper filed a lawsuit in June against 3M Co., BFI Waste Systems of Alabama and the city of Decatur, Ala., for violations of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (Tennessee Riverkeeper Inc. v. 3M Company, N.D. Ala., 5:16-cv-01029-AKK, 6/23/16).
The defendants, Riverkeeper claimed, are causing imminent endangerment to health and the environment by contaminating groundwater, sediment, the Tennessee River and public drinking water with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS).
On Feb. 10, the court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss Tennessee Riverkeeper's claims, allowing the case to move forward.
The fluorinated chemicals are used in the production of consumer goods such as nonstick cookware. 3M operates manufacturing and disposal facilities in Decatur, Ala., which allegedly release PFOA, PFOS and other chemicals into surface water and groundwater, according to court documents.
Disputing Hazardous Status
William A. Brewer III, counsel for 3M, said in a statement that the company voluntarily stopped manufacturing and using the fluorinated chemicals over a decade ago.
“3M believes the actions of the Tennessee Riverkeeper are premised on an incorrect understanding—that the mere presence of these chemicals equals harm,” he said in the statement.
In court documents, 3M states that its discharges are not considered solid waste under RCRA because they are industrial discharges allowed under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. But the court agreed with Tennessee Riverkeeper's argument Feb. 10 that the groundwater at issue, and liquids resulting from leaching, are solid waste.
BFI's Morris Farm Landfill and the city of Decatur's Morgan County Landfill have accepted industrial waste and contaminated sludge from 3M's Decatur facility. Attorneys for BFI and the city of Decatur did not respond to requests for comment.
Riverkeeper claims 3M's waste has resulted in environmental contamination, according to court documents, but BFI claims the waste at its landfill is shielded from liability because it holds Alabama solid waste and indirect discharge permits.
To prevail in this case, Riverkeeper needs to prove that BFI is accepting hazardous waste from 3M. The Morris Farm Landfill is only permitted to receive nonhazardous waste, according to court documents.
“The crux of this dispute is whether PFOA and PFOS are, in fact, hazardous waste,” U.S. District Judge Abdul K. Kallon said in a Feb. 10 order.
The Alabama court has asked the parties to plan out their next steps and report back by Feb. 24.
Leaning on Standards
Bina Reddy of Beveridge and Diamond, P.C., who handles RCRA matters, noted that this case can pose “difficult issues” for the court and defendants seeking the applicable standard to establish harm.
Though courts often look to regulatory standards for guidance, Reddy said in an e-mail, the standards do not exist in this case.
The Environmental Protection Agency issued health advisories for PFOA and PFOS in 2016, but those are meant to provide a lifetime margin of protection to the most sensitive populations, not necessarily what could harm a person in the general population, she said.
“The science is still very much evolving,” Reddy said.
PFOA In Court
Mark E. Martin, who is representing Tennessee Riverkeeper, noted the recent settlement in the case of another PFOA manufacturer, DuPont. The company, formally E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., is finalizing a $670 million settlement that covers 3,500 personal-injury lawsuits in West Virginia and Ohio.
Residents there claimed DuPont's fluorinated chemical sickened them, causing cancer and serious illnesses.
“The awareness of PFOA and PFOS as toxic chemicals that are prevalent in our environment … is really just beginning,” Martin said.
DuPont and its spinoff, Chemours, both denied any wrongdoing in that case. The settlement was announced Feb. 13.
“We are pleased to have reached a mutually satisfactory resolution for all parties that brings this matter to a close,” said Dan Turner, spokesman for DuPont.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105660151&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105660151&jd=105660151
-
Suppressed EPA Toxicologist: 'It Is Essentially Certain That Glyphosate Causes Cancer'
Feb 14, 2017 | The Ecologist
By Carey Gillam
Letters from an EPA toxicologist to the EPA official in charge of assessing whether glyphosate, the active ingredient of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, causes cancer, reveal accusations of 'staff intimidation' and 'political conniving games with the science' to favour pesticide corporations, writes Carey Gillam. Could this be a game-changer for cancer-suffering plaintiffs?
Now it's getting interesting.
A new court filing made on behalf of dozens of people claiming Monsanto Co.'s Roundup herbicide gave them cancer includes information about alleged efforts within the Environmental Protection Agency to protect Monsanto's interests and unfairly aid the agrichemical industry.
The filing, made late Friday by plaintiff's attorneys, includes what the attorneys represent to be correspondence from a 30-year career EPA scientist accusing top-ranking EPA official Jess Rowland of playing "your political conniving games with the science" to favor pesticide manufacturers such as Monsanto.
Rowland oversaw the EPA's cancer assessment for glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto's weed-killing products, and was a key author of a report finding glyphosate was not likely to be carcinogenic.
But in the correspondence, longtime EPA toxicologist Marion Copley cites evidence from animal studies and writes: "It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer."
This could be a game-changer, say cancer campaigners
Attorneys for the plaintiffs declined to say how they obtained the correspondence, which is dated March 4, 2013. The date of the letter comes after Copley left the EPA in 2012 and shortly before she died from breast cancer at the age of 66 in January 2014.
She accuses Rowland of having "intimidated staff" to change reports to favor industry, and writes that research on glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup, shows the pesticide should be categorized as a "probable human carcinogen".
The International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, declared as much - that glyphosate was a probable human carcinogen - in March 2015 after reviewing multiple scientific studies. Monsanto has rejected that classification and has mounted a campaign to discredit IARC scientists.
The communication, if authentic, could be an explosive development in the snowballing multi-district litigation that now comprises more than 60 plaintiffs from around the United States accusing Monsanto of covering up evidence that Roundup herbicide could cause cancer.
The plaintiffs, all of whom are suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) or lost a loved one to NHL, have asserted in recent court filings that Monsanto wielded significant influence within the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), and had close ties specifically to Rowland, who until last year was deputy division director within the health effects division of the OPP.
Rowland managed the work of scientists who assessed human health effects of exposures to pesticides like glyphosate and he chaired the EPA's Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) that determined glyphosate was "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans."
Rowland left the EPA in 2016 shortly after a copy of the CARC report was leaked and cited by Monsanto as evidence that the IARC classification was flawed.
The light of day must shine on these murky dealings
Lawyers for the plaintiffs want the federal judge in the case to lift a seal on documents that detail Monsanto's interactions with Rowland regarding the EPA's safety assessment of glyphosate.
Monsanto turned the documents over in discovery but marked them 'confidential', a designation plaintiffs' attorneys say is improper. They also want to depose Rowland. But Monsanto and the EPA object to the requests, court documents show. Rowland could not be reached for comment.
Plaintiffs' attorneys wrote in the Feb. 10 filing in the multi-district litigation, which has been consolidated in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, that Mr Rowland must now tell the court what he knows:
"The Plaintiffs have a pressing need for Mr. Rowland's testimony to confirm his relationship with Monsanto and EPA's substantial role in protecting the Defendant's business. Mr. Rowland operated under Monsanto's influence to cause EPA's position and publications to support Monsanto's business."
The EPA has spent the last few years assessing the health and environmental safety profile of glyphosate as global controversy over the chemical has mounted. The agency had planned to finish its risk assessment on glyphosate in 2015; then said it would be completed in 2016; then said it would be finished by the first quarter of 2017. Now the agency says it hopes to have it completed by the end of the third quarter of 2017.
Monsanto: plaintiffs must prove every cancer was caused by Roundup
Monsanto also made a new filing in the litigation on Friday, laying out its assertion that there is no evidence Roundup and glyphosate products are "defective or unreasonably dangerous" and said the products complied with "all applicable government safety standards". There is no evidence of carcinogenicity in glyphosate or Roundup, Monsanto said in its filing.
In a separate filing made on Feb. 8, Monsanto submitted a court brief arguing that the IARC classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen is not relevant to the question of whether or not Roundup caused the plaintiffs' cancers.
IARC's approach is "less rigorous" than EPA's in evaluating scientific evidence, according to the brief, and IARC's conclusions are "scientifically unreliable".
Monsanto told the court that neither the views of IARC or EPA are necessarily relevant to the general causation issue of the litigation because plaintiffs will need to present admissible expert testimony showing the company's products in fact caused their cancers.
Now, a cunning plan to block class action suits against corporate abuses
As the litigation drags on, legislation that could potentially benefit Monsanto and numerous other companies facing consumer class action lawsuits was proposed on Feb. 9. The 'Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017' (H.R. 985) was introduced in the US House of Representatives by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA.)
Business interests backing the law say it would reduce frivolous suits and ensure that plaintiffs receive the bulk of any damage awards rather than enriching the attorneys who bring such lawsuits.
But opponents say it would make it nearly impossible for individuals with limited financial resources to challenge powerful corporations in court. The bill would apply both to pending and future class action and multi-district litigation.
"The bill is designed to ensure that no class action could ever be brought or litigated for anyone", said Joanne Doroshow, executive director of the Center for Justice & Democracy. "It would obliterate civil rights, antitrust, consumer, essentially every class action in America."
EU Citizens' Initiative
Meanwhile in Europe, an EU Citizens' Initiative has just been launched demanding that glyphosate is banned in all EU countries. Once 1 million signatures have been received from at least seven EU countries, the proposal will have to be debated in the European Parliament.
The petition, reachable via the Stop Glyphosate website, calls on the European Commission to:ban glyphosate-based herbicides, exposure to which has been linked to cancer in humans, and has led to ecosystems degradation;ensure that the scientific evaluation of pesticides for EU regulatory approval is based only on published studies, which are commissioned by competent public authorities instead of the pesticide industry;set EU-wide mandatory reduction targets for pesticide use, with a view to achieving a pesticide-free future."
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2988645/suppressed_epa_toxicologist_it_is_essentially_certain_that_glyphosate_causes_cancer.html
-
NGOs Call For Unified System To Identify EDC Criteria
Feb 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
Environmental NGOs have called on the European Commission to rework its draft proposal for criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) into a single, unified system that covers products in all relevant sectors.
A report by the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel) and ClientEarth says criteria exclusive to the biocides and pesticides regulations could mean substances of concern regulated by other legislation will fall through the net.
For example, REACH regulates EDCs as SVHCs on a case-by-case basis. The NGOs warn that different approaches will cause uncertainty and delay the process of identifying substances.
And the draft criteria are incompatible with other legal frameworks restricting their use, they say. If the criteria are later applied to the cosmetic products Regulation, the water framework Directive, or the medical devices Regulation, some chemicals are likely not to be identified as endocrine disruptors.
Sector-specific criteria would also contradict the Commission's Better Regulation guidelines, because they create unnecessary complexity, Ciel and ClientEarth say. They could trigger several assessments to verify whether the same chemical fulfils the EDC criteria under various regulatory frameworks.
The NGOs want them to be redesigned to identify EDCs irrespective of sector - with their scope of application being defined as 'horizontal'. This would fulfil the principles of Better Regulation and contribute to achieving the EU's priority objectives set out in the 7th Environmental Action Plan, the NGOs say.
ClientEarth lawyer Vito Buonsante says the report “seeks to make a distinction between identification and risk management” - a distinction the Commission “seems to ignore".
If the Commission does not amend its draft proposal before putting it to the vote in the Standing Committees for biocides and pesticides, Ciel and ClientEarth say they will call on the European Parliament and Council to veto it. This would comply with the regulatory procedure for scrutiny.MEP support
The NGOs list Finnish, Czech, French and Italian MEPs in support of their report.
“Horizontal criteria for endocrine disruptors is the only way to reduce their appearance in the environment, consumer products and food,” Sirpa Pietikäinen, Finnish MEP from the group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), says.
Younous Omarjee, French MEP from the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, says the Commission needs to propose criteria that would enable the identification of EDCs "wherever they are, because the health of our citizens depends on it”.
And Piernicola Pedicini, an Italian MEP from the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy Group, says it should make sure that they are “both scientific and can apply to all relevant laws”.
The Commission’s Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (PAFF) is due to discuss, and possibly vote on, the criteria on 28 February.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53570/ngos-call-for-unified-system-to-identify-edc-criteria
-
EU Urged to Adopt Single Set of Endocrine Disruptor Criteria
Feb 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Union should adopt a single set of criteria to enable the identification of endocrine-disrupting substances across all legislation, rather than pursuing specific criteria for biocidal products and pesticides as currently planned, according to a report published by two environmental law groups Feb. 14.
A single set of criteria would better protect health because endocrine disruptors, or substances that can interfere with the hormone system, are found in a wide range of products, including plastics, toys, cosmetics and cleaning products, said the report from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) and environmental lawyers ClientEarth.
Criteria for the identification of endocrine disruptors for the purposes of the EU Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR, (EU) No. 528/2012) and the EU Plant Protection Products Regulation ((EC) No. 1107/2009) are under consideration and could be voted on by a regulatory committee Feb. 28. The laws would ban proven endocrine disruptors from biocides and pesticides.
Vito Buonsante, an adviser with ClientEarth, told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 14 that although the criteria were intended for use in the context of biocides and pesticides only, they would probably be taken into account in the implementation of the EU's REACH law (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals), and would have an impact on other laws covering areas such as cosmetics and toys.
This could lead to “inconsistency from a better regulation point of view,” Buonsante said.
Sirpa Pietikainen, a center-right Finnish member of the European Parliament, said that a single set of criteria to identify endocrine disruptors was “the only way to reduce their appearance in the environment, consumer products and food.”
Latest Twist
The call for a single set of criteria that would apply to all uses of endocrine-disrupting substances was the latest twist in a long-running saga.
The laws on pesticides and biocides required the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, to publish the criteria by December 2013. After delays and a case at the Court of Justice of the European Union, which found the commission in breach of EU law for missing the deadline, proposed criteria were published last June.
Environmental groups, some lawmakers and some EU countries criticized the draft criteria as setting too high a bar for identification of endocrine disruptors. The criteria specified that substances should be considered endocrine disruptors if they have endocrine-disrupting properties that are causally linked to “adverse effects.”
Since the publication of the draft criteria for biocides and pesticides, a regulatory committee of EU country representatives has discussed the criteria several times. But the committee has held back from voting because it is unclear if there is a sufficient majority of EU countries for the criteria to be approved.
Possible Vote
Commission spokesman Enrico Brivio told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 14 that at the Feb. 28 committee meeting “a vote may or may not take place.”
Brivio added that once criteria for biocides and pesticides are finalized, “nothing will prevent” application of “the same criteria to other fields.”
But the CIEL/ClientEarth report said the biocides and pesticides criteria were “sector-specific by design” and include elements that are “only relevant to pesticides and biocides.”
Separately from the CIEL/ClientEarth report, EDC-Free Europe, a coalition of environmental groups, wrote to the commission Feb. 14 to say that a single set of criteria to identify endocrine disruptors should be adopted because the current plan “jeopardizes the adoption of harmonized criteria worldwide and thus creates further uncertainty for businesses and policymakers.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105660140&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105660140&jd=105660140
-
Nanomaterials Guidance Under REACH Review
Feb 14, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
In a move that could affect US manufacturers and chemical companies that do business in Europe, the European Chemicals Agency is moving forward with nanomaterial guidance regulations.
These substances are regulated under the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), the primary chemical law in the European Union.
It follows the first-ever federal nanoscale chemical rule in the US, finalized last month, that will require manufacturers and companies that import or process nanomaterials, now and in the future, to report certain information to the EPA. These nano-sized versions of chemicals and are now subject to EPA regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The European Chemicals Agency recently moved several REACH guidance documents concerning nanomaterials to the next step in the consultation process. The draft guidance is intended to provide an approach on how to justify the use of hazard data between nanoforms, and the non-nanoforms, and within groups of nanoforms of the same substance, according to attorneys at Bergeson & Campbell.
This includes:Appendix R7-1 Recommendations for nanomaterials applicable to Chapter R7a Endpoint specific guidance;Appendix R7-1 Recommendations for nanomaterials applicable to Chapter R7b Endpoint specific guidance; andAppendix R7-2 Recommendations for nanomaterials applicable to Chapter R7c Endpoint specific guidance.
Although REACH is an EU law, it’s worth paying attention to for companies in the US as its reach extends beyond far Europe.
REACH affects a wide range of producers, importers, exporters and downstream users of chemicals in industries from automotive to textiles manufacturing. If the European Chemicals Agency deems a chemical to be unsafe to human health or the environment, it places it on the REACH restricted substances list.
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.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Portman-Shaheen Bill Is Back
Feb 15, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Christa Marshall
A draft of major energy efficiency legislation from Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) has begun making the rounds on Capitol Hill and is expected to be introduced as early as today.
The bill mirrors previous versions from the senators, who have been trying to push efficiency legislation across the finish line for six years. In 2016, language from Portman and Shaheen passed the Senate as part of an energy reform package, before negotiations on the broader legislation stalled between the House and Senate.
In an interview yesterday, Shaheen said Senate support remains strong.
The bill "doesn't put you on a camp of either being for fossil fuels or alternatives. ... Everybody benefits," she said.
The new measure contains titles on buildings, regulations and industrial efficiency and would direct new policies at federal agencies. It would strengthen national model building codes, establish new job training programs, require federally issued home mortgages to consider efficiency and mandate that the federal government adopt energy-saving measures for computers.
It also would establish a program at the Department of Energy called "SupplySTAR" to highlight companies with efficient supply chains and streamline financing to improve efficiency at schools.
A range of energy and environmental groups supported previous versions of the bill.
Yesterday, the American Chemistry Council said in a statement that "as in years past, the bill has robust and diverse support, and we urge lawmakers to make its passage a top priority." The group praised language that it said would help families reduce mortgage and utility payments, partly by prompting home appraisers to consider the value of energy-efficient features.
At the same time, legislation is expected to face pushback from conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation that held sway with President Trump's transition team. In the past, the think tank called the bill "a special interest grab bag."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1060050079/search?keyword=%22American+Chemistry+Council%22
-
Gas Exporter Appeals to Trump's Hunt for Jobs in Push for Permit
Feb 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik
The developer of an Oregon terminal that would send liquefied natural gas to Asia is seeking a helping hand from President Donald Trump as it makes a second attempt at gaining federal approval.
Veresen Inc. is pitching its $10 billion Jordan Cove LNG project as a job creator that will lower the U.S. current account deficit with Japan, said Betsy Spomer, executive vice president with the Calgary-based company. Veresen worked with a colleague of Trump energy adviser Harold Hamm to get material on the project to the Trump administration before its meeting last week with Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Jordan Cove was also raised by the North America's Building Trades Unions at a recent meeting with the president, she said.
Veresen is seeking Trump's support after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rejected Jordan Cove last year, saying it wasn't convinced the market needed the terminal. Trump has voiced his support for energy infrastructure projects stalled by opposition, and signed memos last month to expedite approval of the controversial Dakota Access and Keystone XL oil pipelines.
“When we got denied in March of last year, we went into terminal purgatory,” Spomer, who is based in Houston, said in a telephone interview Monday. “We worked with the Administration to bring him up to speed on the project. It's exactly what he wants to support: shovel-ready infrastructure projects that will create U.S. jobs.”
Veresen plans to file a new application in August rather than fight the commission's March decision, which will put it on track to start producing LNG in mid-2023, Spomer said. The rejection came as a surprise as it followed a positive environmental review and was decided just weeks before Veresen announced two contracts with Japanese buyers for its LNG terminal.
Interest in Jordan Cove from Japanese buyers is increasing as the cost for Northeast Asia LNG fell 62 percent in the past two years.
“Suddenly LNG is not a luxury commodity,” Spomer said. “I do feel like we are driving the bus finally and we have an element of control back in our hands.”
Japanese Buyers
Jordan Cove LNG is in “advanced” negotiations with a third Japanese buyer for liquefaction capacity that isn't committed, she said. Preliminary agreements with Jera Co., a joint venture between Tokyo Electric Power Co. Holdings Inc. and Chubu Electric Power Co., and Itochu Corp. are being finalized. Jera is also seeking to invest in the terminal.
“The current administration definitely looks favorable for LNG exports, and Jordan Cove has the commercial support now from Jera and Itochu,” Dulles Wang, a principal gas analyst with Wood Mackenzie Ltd, said in an e-mail Monday. “We do think the project is very likely to get the FERC certificate this time around.”
The project failed in March in part because the 233-mile (375-kilometer) Pacific Connector gas pipeline, which will supply the terminal, had not completed contracts with gas producers. The pipeline, co-owned by Williams Cos., plans to hold an open season for available volume before its final environmental review, according to a commission filing last month.
Veresen has also started “a very direct” stakeholder process in recent weeks.
“Turning the perception of the project around locally can have a big difference,” Spomer said. “It's important to note that southern Oregon went overwhelmingly for Trump.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105660165&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105660165&jd=105660165
-
Colorado Sues Boulder County Over Drilling Moratorium
Feb 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman (R) sued Boulder County for “continuously” placing a five-year halt on oil and gas development in violation of state law (Colo. v. Cty. of Boulder, Colo. Dist. Ct., 2/14/17).
While the Boulder County Board of County Commissioners has called its hold on hydraulic fracturing, drilling, and other oil and gas activities a “temporary” moratorium, the halt has been in place since 2012, and the board has re-imposed or extended it eight times, Coffman alleges in the complaint filed Feb. 14 in the Colorado District Court, Boulder County.
Coffman said the county's moratorium conflicts with the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act, which regulates oil and gas development and operations in the state.
The Colorado Supreme Court, ruling in May 2016 in two separate cases simultaneously, said a ban in Longmont, Colo., and a five-year moratorium in Fort Collins to be in violation of the act (City of Longmont v. Colo. Oil and Gas Ass'n, Colo., No. 15SC667, 5/2/16); (City of Fort Collins v. Colo. Oil and Gas Ass'n, Colo., No. 15SC668, 5/2/16).
After the rulings, other local governments lifted their bans and moratoriums—but not Boulder County, Coffman said.
Needed More Time
The county extended its moratorium twice after the court rulings came down, Coffman said. Commissioners extended the ban to May 1, 2017, saying it needed more time to draft regulations and prepare to accept new drilling permit applications from operators.
“Because five years is more than reasonable time to complete such a project, and because Boulder County continues to operate in clear violation of Colorado law, the Attorney General today is filing suit in Boulder County District Court to compel compliance,” she said.
The lawsuits against Longmont and Fort Collins were filed by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association on behalf of producers. In January, Coffman warned the county that the state would take legal action if the county did not rescind its ban by Feb. 10.
Not Industry's Job to Sue
“It is not the job of industry to enforce Colorado law; that is the role of the Attorney General on behalf of the People of Colorado,” she said. “Regrettably, Boulder County's open defiance of State law has made legal action the final recourse available to the State.”
Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) issued a statement critical of the lawsuit and called it a waste of taxpayer money.
“We should all be outraged that the Colorado Attorney General has chosen to use public tax dollars to bully Boulder County on behalf of the oil and gas industry,” Polis said. “The oil and gas industry is more than equipped to bring their own lawsuits, and I suspect they have opted not to sue Boulder County because they know Colorado law allows for a short-term fracking moratorium. What the Attorney General has done today is a purely political waste of money, and it is not legally sound.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105660154&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105660154&jd=105660154
-
Commenters Argue For Alternative North Slope Gasline Route, LNG Plant Site
Feb 15, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
Proving that plans to pipe Alaska North Slope natural gas to a liquefaction plant for global tanker export are far from a done deal, multiple commenters in the project's FERC docket have said the natural gas pipeline should follow a different route and the liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant should be sited elsewhere than currently proposed.
Earlier this month, the city of Valdez, and mayors of the Fairbanks North Star Borough, city of Fairbanks, and city of North Pole, along with the Alaska Gasline Port Authority (AGPA) told the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that regulators are obligated to consider their preferred "Valdez alternative." The alternative route would bring the pipeline closer to their communities -- providing more readily available access to gas -- and would site the LNG liquefaction and export terminal at Valdez instead of Nikiski. The comments were posted on the Commission website last Friday [PF14-21].
The "Nikiski alternative" follows the route of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) from the North Slope south to Livengood. At Livengood the pipeline route deviates from the TAPS corridor and travels to the west side of Cook Inlet, crosses the inlet and makes landfall near Nikiski, where the LNG plant and terminal would be located.
Valdez, the mayors and AGPA want the pipeline to follow a "historically preferred" route from Livengood south along the TAPS corridor to Anderson Bay near Valdez, where an LNG facility and terminal would be sited.
"A robust analysis of the Valdez alternative is required in order to determine if the project applicants have justified deviating from the decade's worth of analysis that previously led FERC to choose the Valdez alternative as the preferred alternative," the commenters said.
They contend that continuing to follow the TAPS corridor would avoid environmentally sensitive areas. Previously, FERC and the federal Bureau of Land Management/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued final environmental impact statements (EIS) designating the Valdez alternative as the preferred route, they said. "Accordingly, any EIS for the AKLNG Project must '[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate' the Valdez alternative."
Late last year state entity Alaska Gasline Development Corp. took over the AKLNG project from the state's major producers, who backed out because of the project's weakened economics.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109418-commenters-argue-for-alternative-north-slope-gasline-route-lng-plant-site
-
Carbon Tax Foes Request White House Meeting
Feb 15, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess
Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist and other prominent carbon tax foes want a chance to make their case to White House officials.
The request comes a week after former Secretary of State James Baker and other senior Republican statesmen lobbied for using a carbon tax and dividend model in exchange for regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Today, conservative and free-market groups sent a letter asking for their own West Wing meeting.
They want to bend the ear of Gary Cohn, the former Wall Street executive serving as President Trump's economic adviser, who met seven days ago with the group urging climate action from the GOP (E&ENews PM, Feb. 8).
"Our organizations have significant concerns regarding any prospective carbon tax proposal. Such a policy would place undue economic burdens on American families and businesses by intentionally increasing the cost of the energy they rely on every day," argued Norquist, along with Thomas Pyle, head of the American Energy Alliance, and Competitive Enterprise Institute scholar Myron Ebell.
Pyle and Ebell have close ties to the president. Pyle headed Trump's transition team at the Energy Department, while Ebell led the transition at U.S. EPA.
They note the Trump administration "is already taking steps to eliminate harmful regulations" such as EPA's Clean Power Plan, which they claim will help energy consumers.
"Adding a new tax on energy in return would represent an extremely costly step in the wrong direction — one that those workers, families, and businesses cannot afford," they stated.
Other signatories include Michael Needham, president of Heritage Action, and FreedomWorks' Adam Brandon.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/02/15/stories/1060050076
-
EPA Plans Hearing On Proposed Denial Of OTC Expansion Request
Feb 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA plans to hold a March 14 public hearing in Washington, D.C., to seek input on its proposal to deny a petition by nine East Coast states to massively expand the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) area, which would have subjected nine additional states to the same strict ozone controls that apply within the OTC.
In a Federal Register notice slated for publication Feb. 15, EPA announces the hearing and also extends the deadline for written comments on the proposal from Feb. 21 to April 13. This will allow ample time for the Trump EPA to consider the issue, but given the stated deregulatory goals of the new administration, EPA seems unlikely to change course.
The agency Jan. 19 proposed to deny a petition filed in 2013 by current OTC members Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont for EPA to expand the OTC area under Clean Air Act Section 176(A). OTC states are subject to more-stringent ozone emissions control requirements than other areas because of the region's long-running ozone problems.
The current OTC area includes Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, the northern part of Virginia, and Washington, D.C.
The petitioning states argued that dramatically enlarging the area to include Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia, and the remainder of Virginia would help the OTC states combat interstate air pollution that contributes to excessive ozone levels.
However, EPA in a fact sheet on its proposed denial said it “is proposing to deny the petition because the [air law] provides other, more effective mechanisms to address the transport of ozone between states and the impact this pollution has on the states” within the OTC area with respect to the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), set at 75 parts per billion (ppb). EPA tightened the ozone NAAQS again in 2015, to a level of 70 ppb, which will require states to achieve even more ozone cuts.
EPA said there are better mechanisms under the air law, such as the “good neighbor” provision, to deal with interstate transport of pollution. The provision requires states to mitigate their emissions that compromise NAAQS attainment downwind. Also, EPA touted air law section 126, which allows states to petition EPA to directly regulate emissions sources in upwind states that are interfering with NAAQS attainment downwind.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-plans-hearing-proposed-denial-otc-expansion-request
-
Draft EPA Inventory Shows GHG Cuts Amid Doubts On Trump Climate Plan
Feb 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
EPA's new draft greenhouse gas inventory shows net emissions at their second-lowest level since the Great Recession due in part to continued energy-sector trends such as coal-to-gas switching and low electricity demand, though doubts linger about how the Trump administration plans to address global efforts to target climate change.
The Feb. 14 report is an annual submission of the country's GHGs to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The “policy-neutral” draft report will be open for public comment until March 17, after which EPA is expected to finalize the data.
In previous years, the report has served as a rough guide of U.S. progress toward achieving its GHG reduction goals. For example, last year's report underscored the significant uncertainty surrounding the estimates and suggested that there is a somewhat larger “gap” between the country's target under the Paris Agreement and current or planned domestic GHG controls.
However, President Donald Trump has injected another layer of uncertainty into the dynamic. On the domestic level, he has pledged to roll back or other scrap a slew of current GHG rules, which some analysts say could create a massive gap in GHG reduction efforts.
Regarding international climate efforts, the president has sent vague and sometimes contradictory signals. Some Trump advisers are urging a hard-line stance in which the United States would leave the UNFCCC entirely, allowing the country to also exit the Paris Agreement without abiding by that deal's multi-year departure process.
However, supporters of staying in the deal underscore the significant diplomatic repercussions that would likely occur from a departure, with some sources likening the situation to what happened after the Bush administration refused to submit the Kyoto Protocol for Senate ratification.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson during his Senate confirmation process said the U.S. should keep a “seat at the table” in global climate change efforts, suggesting that he would advise against leaving Paris.
And because country's targets under Paris are not binding, others note that Trump could simply not enforce or change the Obama administration's target of reducing GHGs 26-28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
Latest Emissions
In the new draft inventory, EPA says net GHG emissions in 2015 -- the latest year for which full data is available -- were 6,219 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide equivalent. That is 2.2 percent less than 2014's emissions of 6,367 MMT, and roughly 11 percent less than 2005 levels.
The 2015 figure is also just the second-highest net emissions total following a significant drop off in emissions in 2009 after the Great Recession. Only 2012's total of 6,149 MMT is lower in that time period.
EPA notes in an executive summary of the report that the decrease in total GHGs from 2014 to 2015 “was driven in large part by a decrease in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion.”
It adds that the fossil fuel reduction was spurred by substitution from coal to natural gas in the power sector due to ongoing low gas prices, as well as “a slight decrease in electricity demand.”
The report also notes that “warmer winter conditions in the first quarter of 2015” resulted in lower demand for residential and commercial heating fuel.
Overall, power generation is the largest source of fossil fuel emissions, at 1,901 MMT. Those emissions are dominated by coal combustion, though the report notes that the sector's carbon intensity has “significantly decreased” since 1990, dropping 16 percent. The sector's total emissions are up 4 percent over that timeframe.
The second-largest category of fossil fuel emissions is transportation, at 1,733 MMT. That comes almost entirely from burning petroleum.
Remaining fossil fuel categories include industrial (829 MMT), residential (320 MMT) and commercial (226 MMT). U.S. territories also account for 41 MMT.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/draft-epa-inventory-shows-ghg-cuts-amid-doubts-trump-climate-plan
-
Rep. Bonamici Vows To Push Back On Trump Attempts To Limit EPA
Feb 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) is vowing to use her newly-elected position as ranking member on a House environment panel to push back on expected attempts by President Donald Trump's administration to limit the scope of EPA's work.
Democrats on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee re-elected Bonamici as the ranking member of the Environment Subcommittee Feb. 13. In a Feb. 14 statement accompanying the announcement, Bonamici pledged to “lead my colleagues in rejecting ideological attacks on science and the environment.” The subcommittee oversees climate change and oceanic research efforts, among other issues.
“I am deeply troubled by the Trump administration's assault on the Environmental Protection Agency and research-based science,” Bonamici said in her statement. “We cannot afford to return to the days when our rivers were so polluted they caught on fire, and families, forests, and wetlands were subjected to harmful chemicals like DDT. I will continue to work with my colleagues to find commonsense solutions to climate change and the environmental issues we face, including protecting our coastal communities from the threat of tsunami.”
President Trump's nominee to lead EPA, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R), has provided vague answers on how the agency would address climate change if he is confirmed, opening the door to undermining key Obama administration policies, including its landmark greenhouse gas endangerment finding.
For example, in written responses to questions from Democrats on the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, Pruitt declined specify to a greater extent how he views the role of human activity in global warming and how severe climate risks could be. Instead, he offered generalities about “objective” science and his intent to “encourage an honest debate on our changing climate, the role of human activity, our ability to measure the degree and the extent of human activity, and what to do about it.”
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), who returns as the full committee's ranking member, said in the statement that she is “honored to again be entrusted with the task of defending our nation's scientific integrity,” and hopes the committee will be able to pass some bipartisan legislation as it did in the 114th Congress.
In addition to Bonamici and Johnson's return to their roles, Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX) is the new ranking member of the Energy Subcommittee. Veasey said “maintaining America’s energy leadership remains a top priority,” and can be achieved in part by “advancing research for renewables and nuclear small modular reactors, and promoting the efficient use fossil fuels while being good stewards of the environment..”
Other Democrats serving on the Environment Subcommittee include Reps. Colleen Hanabusa (HI) and Charlie Crist (FL). Democrats on the Energy Subcommittee include Reps. Zoe Lofgren (CA), Dan Lipinski (IL), Jacky Rosen (NV), Jerry McNerney (CA), Paul Tonko (NY), Bill Foster (IL) and Mark Takano (CA).
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/rep-bonamici-vows-push-back-trump-attempts-limit-epa
-
U.K. Said to Lobby Trump Officials to Stay in Paris Climate Deal
Feb 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jessica Shankleman
The U.K. government is seeking to convince Donald Trump to support the landmark Paris climate deal, touting the economic benefits of clean energy while steering clear of the debate about climate science, according to a person familiar with the discussions.
British government representatives stationed in Washington have been talking to officials in the U.S. president's administration about climate policy, focusing on the jobs and growth that tackling pollution can bring to the U.S., according to an energy official who isn't authorized to speak to the media and asked not to be named.
Trump has sent mixed signals about U.S. climate policies. He pledged during his campaign to pull the U.S. out of the 2015 United Nations accord on greenhouse gases and to support burning coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel. Since then, he told the New York Times that he was keeping an “open mind” about the deal and named as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who supported the UN effort in Paris and said the U.S. should retain a seat at the discussions.
European leaders are looking at how to preserve the Paris framework for fighting climate change, which underpins policies across the region limiting emissions and pushing industry to move away from polluting fuels. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who leads the Group of 20 nations this year, also is emphasizing the business benefits of turning toward renewable energy, a German official said in December.
The talks between U.K. and U.S. officials haven't gone very far if only because Trump's administration is so new and he hasn't appointed people to serve at lower posts in the departments involved. Yet to be confirmed by Congress include Scott Pruitt, nominated to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, and Rick Perry, who Trump appointed to the Department of Energy.
The British official said Trump may be more inclined to listen to the U.K. over the European Union because he has backed the U.K.’s decision to leave the European Union. Trump lauded Prime Minister Theresa May at a meeting in Washington last month and set in motion the groundwork for a trade deal between the U.S. and Britain.
May's office at No. 10 Downing Street didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Economic Advantages
Businesses and environmental groups have urged May to raise the issue of climate change with Trump, and company executives have been emphasizing the job-creating opportunities that come from cutting back on pollution. The most recent figures from the U.S. Energy Department show about 600,000 Americans with jobs generating power with green technologies compared to about 150,000 working with fossil fuels.
Economic arguments may resonate with Trump, who has pledged to revive the coal industry and jobs in areas where mines have closed down while questioning climate science. Spending on clean energy in the U.S. reached $58.6 billion last year, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
On Feb. 13, a group of governors that included eight Republicans released a letter to Trump saying wind and solar are crucial economic engines for impoverished rural regions. And last month, more than 600 U.S. companies including DuPont Co., Johnson & Johnson and Monsanto Co. issued a statement urging the president not to withdraw from the Paris deal, saying it will generate trillions of dollars in clean energy investments.
--With assistance from Joe Ryan.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=105660139&vname=dennotallissues&fn=105660139&jd=105660139
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 - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested