Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 3/16/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Lobbyists Finding Spots In Trump Administration
Mar 15, 2017 | The Hill
By Megan R. Wilson
Drew Maloney, who led the Washington office for an oil and gas giant, has been chosen as the Treasury Department’s liaison to Congress, becoming the latest lobbyist to go into the Trump administration. -
(ACC Mentioned) Business Inventories Rise In January, Signaling Economic Growth
Mar 15, 2017 | Medill Reports: Chicago
By Katherine Hyunjung Lee
Business inventories for manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers in January increased a seasonally adjusted 0.3 percent, after a 0.4 percent rise in December, according to data released Wednesday by the U.S. Census Bureau. -
Pruitt Withdraws Decision-Making Powers From Senior Officials, Email Shows
Mar 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has since March 2 rescinded delegated authority for acting assistant administrators and regional administrators to take “significant” actions on his behalf, according to an internal email obtained by Inside EPA, centralizing decision-making for many high-profile issues despite Pruitt's lack of agency experience and minimal staff. -
Pruitt Said To Be Seriously Weighing Shuttering EPA's Enforcement Office
Mar 15, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and top White House officials are said to be seriously considering a major reorganization of EPA's Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance (OECA), which could result in moving much of the office's personnel to the agency's program offices. -
Dow, BASF, Eastman Stir Up New Formulas For Safer Chemicals
Mar 16, 2017 | GreenBiz
By Barbara Grady
In the 40 years between passage of the Toxic Substance Control Act in 1976 and the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act last year, a generation and a half grew up drinking from baby bottles and cups laden with Bisphenol A, playing with toys manufactured with phthalates and wearing pajamas and T-shirts treated with flame retardants. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Calls For US EPA To Withdraw Two Proposed Snurs
Mar 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has called on the US EPA to withdraw two proposed significant new use rules (Snurs) for certain chemical substances derived from the use of isocyanates as monomers. -
SC Johnson To Phase Out Controversial Fragrance Ingredient
Mar 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Consumer products conglomerate SC Johnson says it is phasing out the use of the fragrance ingredient galaxolide. -
Asbestos Admiralty Suit Tossed, Laborer's Work Land-Based
Mar 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
A federal court doesn't have admiralty jurisdiction over claims that a stevedore developed mesothelioma from workplace asbestos exposure, the Middle District of Louisiana said March 13 (Signal Mut. Indem. Ass'n v. Asbestos Corp., 2017 BL 77831, M.D. La., 15-00633, 3/13/17). -
Swimming Upstream Against Infertility: What You Can Do to Protect Your Sperm
Mar 15, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Paul Pestano
In his most recent op-ed in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof examined an alarming rise in sperm or semen abnormalities – including misshapen sperm, lower sperm counts and poor swimming capacity. These qualities have been linked to infertility among men, and according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the male partner is either the sole or a contributing cause in about 40 percent of infertile couples. -
EPA Scientist Sided With Monsanto on Pesticide's Safety: Emails
Mar 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
An EPA scientist allegedly bragged that he could “kill” indications that Monsanto Co.'s widely-used Roundup weedkiller is linked to cancer, according to recently filed court documents (In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation, N.D. Cal., 3/14/17). -
World's Most Popular Herbicide, Glyphosate, Not Carcinogenic: EU Science Panel
Mar 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The world's most widely used herbicide, glyphosate, is not carcinogenic, the European Chemicals Agency said March 15, opening the way for its continued use in the European Union. -
EU Science Committee Consults On Five Opinions
Mar 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) issued five Opinions on 7 March. They are: -
New Nanomaterial Risk Assessment Framework Needed
Mar 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
A review of risk assessment frameworks available for nanomaterials has found that none covers all user requirements and there is scope for improvement. It also considers risk assessment tools and notes a growing trend in quantitative models, which can assess uncertainty. However, groupings of, and read-across between, nanomaterials is still under development. -
Member States Press EU Commission To Reconsider CMR Cosmetics ‘Ban’
Mar 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Seven EU member states have joined Denmark in a campaign to reinstate what they consider to be an “automatic ban” on the use of carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic (CMR) substances in cosmetics products. -
Trump Administration to Rescind Obama's BLM Rule on Fracking
Mar 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy and Thomas Korosec
The Trump administration said in a legal filing March 15 that it would begin rescinding an Obama-era rule setting standards for hydraulic fracturing on public lands. -
Trump Admin To Roll Back Fracking Rule
Mar 16, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Obama administration's landmark effort to regulate hydraulic fracturing on public lands is likely a goner. -
Energy Execs Urge Senate Panel to Fix Federal Permitting Process
Mar 16, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Executives with ties to the energy industry told a Senate panel that delays in the current federal permitting process for infrastructure projects, including for natural gas pipelines, are unreasonable, create uncertainty and higher costs for the sector. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Chief Delays Industrial Chemical Safety Regulation
Mar 15, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has backed an industry request for delay and review of a new chemical safety regulation that sprang from the deaths of 15 people in a calamitous 2013 accident in Texas. -
(ACC Mentioned) Republicans Are Racing To Make Workplaces More Dangerous and Unhealthy
Mar 16, 2017 | In These Times
By Elizabeth Grossman
“Every regulation should have to pass a simple test: Does it make life better or safer for American workers or consumers? If the answer is no, we will be getting rid of it and getting rid of it quickly,” President Donald Trump said as he signed an executive order establishing federal task forces to eliminate regulations. -
Trump Plan Takes Ax To EPA, Environmental Spending
Mar 16, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Robin Bravender and George Cahlink
President Trump's proposed budget takes a hatchet to federal environmental and energy spending. -
House Republicans Seek ‘Economically Viable’ Climate Solutions
Mar 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Nearly 20 House Republicans introduced a resolution that would commit Congress to finding “economically viable” solutions to climate change risks. -
Missing California Ozone Plans Prompt Litigation Threat
Mar 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Missing plans detailing strategies to reduce ozone pollution in California prompted a litigation threat from environmental advocates, who want the EPA to take action against the state for not meeting a Clean Air Act deadline. -
Connecticut Joins Carbon Tax Debate
Mar 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel
Connecticut has joined a growing pack of states debating a tax on carbon fuels.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Lobbyists Finding Spots In Trump Administration
Mar 15, 2017 | The Hill
By Megan R. Wilson
Drew Maloney, who led the Washington office for an oil and gas giant, has been chosen as the Treasury Department’s liaison to Congress, becoming the latest lobbyist to go into the Trump administration.
The White House on Tuesday evening announced that President Trump would be nominating Maloney to serve as the assistant secretary of Treasury for legislative affairs. While he awaits Senate confirmation, he will be serving as Treasury’s deputy under secretary for legislative affairs.
Maloney, a former adviser to Mitt Romney during his presidential campaigns, has spent the last four years at the Hess Corporation, working as a vice president of government and external affairs. He previously served as the chief executive of Ogilvy Government Relations, one of K Street’s top lobbying shops.
While Maloney hasn't been a registered lobbyist in years, another nomination from K Street is hitting against the grain of Trump’s promise on the campaign trail to “drain the swamp” in Washington and end “business as usual.”
Right before the election, Trump came out with an advertisement vowing to replace “a failed and corrupt political establishment with a new government controlled by you, the American people.”
But like administrations before him, Trump has turned to lobbyists to staff his transition and fill administration posts.
Asked about his hires during the transition effort, Trump suggested it was hard to find people in Washington who weren’t lobbyists.
"That's the only people you have down there," Trump said during an interview on CBS’ “60 Minutes” in November. “Everybody's a lobbyist down there.”
“We're going to phase that out,” he added. “You have to phase it out.”
All administration employees are mandated to sign an ethics pledge that requires them to not work on issues they handled while in the private sector for two years without first obtaining a waiver. This applies to both former registered lobbyists and others from the private sector who have not lobbied. Maloney, for example, has not been a registered lobbyist since 2012 when he helmed Ogilvy, but must still stay away from policy issues that could directly impact Hess Corporation.
Within the White House itself, three prominent lobbyists have been added to the senior leadership team of the National Economic Council (NEC).
Mike Catanzaro, a former energy lobbyist with CGCN Group, was named the special assistant to the president for domestic energy and environmental policy. Catanzaro had worked for the Senate Environment Committee on Capitol Hill and, until his post at the White House, lobbied on behalf of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Chemistry Council, Devon Energy and Noble Energy.
Shahira Knight is serving as the special assistant to the president for tax and retirement policy. Before that, she had been a lobbyist at Fidelity Investments, serving as the vice president in the public affairs and policy group. On Capitol Hill, she had worked on the House Ways & Means Committee and the Joint Economic Committee.
George David Banks joined the administration as special assistant to the president for international energy and environment. He comes from the American Council for Capitol Formation, an industry group that lobbies on economic and environmental policy, and he has worked in the George W. Bush White House. (In an interview with ProPublica, Banks said that his registration as a lobbyist was in error, and he did not do work qualifying him as a lobbyist.)
However, most lobbyists joining the administration have gone in with “beachhead” teams throughout various agencies, which are groups of temporary employees, put in place while permanent officials are installed. Some beachhead staffers end up joining the agencies they helped to get moving.
Geoff Burr, for example, is one of the first waves of employees at the Labor Department. He formerly lobbied for the Associated Builders and Contractors, and is in line to become the department’s chief of staff once a secretary is confirmed, Bloomberg BNA first reported last month.
While Burr also spent time in the Labor Department during the George W. Bush administration, he had dealt with labor policies at the agency in his 13 years at the construction industry group.
It is unclear whether the beachhead staffers, because they are temporary, must sign or abide by Trump’s ethics pledge.
Another new Labor Department staffer, Byron Anderson, had been part of the in-house lobbying team for Transamerica since 2006, according to ProPublica. He’s now serving as serving as a special assistant to the secretary at an agency that is grappling with an Obama-era rule that would create conflict-of-interest standards for investment advisers.
ProPublica obtained a list of more than 400 names of beachhead staffers across the government, several of which had been lobbyists before taking on roles in the Trump administration.
The hires have occurred across the government, including healthcare lobbyists who have gone to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), run by former Republican congressman Tom Price, and a lobbyist for the Defense tech firm Palantir holding a senior role at the Department of Defense.
At the Department of Education, a former for-profit college lobbyist has been hired as a beachhead team member, according to a separate ProPublica report.
The White House did not answer an inquiry asking about how beachhead staff is required to follow the administration’s ethics policy. However, other media reports cite administration lawyers saying that the staffers must participate in an ethics briefing.
https://origin-nyi.thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/324195-more-lobbyists-finding-spots-in-trump-administration
-
(ACC Mentioned) Business Inventories Rise In January, Signaling Economic Growth
Mar 15, 2017 | Medill Reports: Chicago
By Katherine Hyunjung Lee
Business inventories for manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers in January increased a seasonally adjusted 0.3 percent, after a 0.4 percent rise in December, according to data released Wednesday by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Auto inventories posted the sharpest rise — up a seasonally adjusted 2.4 percent. Economists said a broad increase in other durable goods categories, such as furniture, appliances and building materials, were a good sign.
“Inventories will provide support to headline GDP for the first quarter of 2017,” Daniel Sanabria, senior economist at Comerica Bank, wrote in a blog post.
Sanabria also observed “the overall inventory-to-sales ratio is trending down, which is a good sign, after trending up through 2015.”
The total business inventories-to-sale ratio remained constant from December at 1.35 percent.
The level of inventories is closely watched by economists because it is a component of gross domestic product and can signal turning points in the economy.
“Fluctuations in inventories in fixed investments, which could include housing and durable goods, account for all of the fluctuations in the business cycle,” said Thomas Kevin Swift, chief economist at the American Chemistry Council.
Rising inventories may signal business optimism and boost GDP. But a pile-up of inventories may reflect slowing consumer spending that could lead to cuts in production and employment.
“To the extent that the inventory imbalance that has occurred in 2015 is easing, productive activity will improve going forward.” Swift said. “Sales are now well above the growth rate in inventory, which is good for the economy and good for manufacturing.”
The Manufacturing and Trade Inventories and Sales estimates are based on monthly surveys for retail trade and wholesale trade, as well as surveys on manufacturers’ shipments, inventories and orders.
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/inventories-to-sales-ratio-declines-despite-increase-in-inventories-signaling-possible-production-growth/
-
Pruitt Withdraws Decision-Making Powers From Senior Officials, Email Shows
Mar 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has since March 2 rescinded delegated authority for acting assistant administrators and regional administrators to take “significant” actions on his behalf, according to an internal email obtained by Inside EPA, centralizing decision-making for many high-profile issues despite Pruitt's lack of agency experience and minimal staff.
The instruction is already raising concerns from industry officials, who fear it could delay decisions they are seeking. “Ironically I can imagine a lot of industry people getting stressed about this if they need certain permits/approvals etc. to move forward with projects, financing, etc. . . . There could be a lot of screaming,” says one industry attorney.
“Because the Presidentially-appointed Assistant Administrators and Regional Administrators have yet to assume their duties, for the next 30 days, the Administrator wishes to retain approval authority for Agency actions having significant regulatory and enforcement effect,” says the March 2 email from David Schnare, a former EPA attorney whom the Trump administration added as a senior adviser at the agency soon after inauguration.
Under the memo Pruitt has removed much of the authority for acting officials, usually career staff, to bring enforcement actions or otherwise enact any significant agenda item without his explicit approval -- limiting their ability to undermine the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda as some have suggested could happen.
The email is addressed to a list of acting officials at EPA headquarters and its regional offices, as well as Samantha Dravis, Pruitt's pick to head the agency's Office of Policy, and Ryan Jackson, his chief of staff.
It says that instead of acting directly on major regulatory and enforcement decisions, the acting regional administrators (RAs) and associate administrators (AAs) should refer those issues to Pruitt. It specifically targets actions that limit state discretion, affect energy policy, carry significant compliance costs or would be high-profile for other reasons as requiring the administrator's attention.
“The Administrator will rely on the Acting RA’s and AA’s to identify and send upward any proposed decisions or final agency actions for the Administrator’s review which, in the judgement (sic) of the Acting RA’s and AA’s would limit the flexibility of the States, limit energy resource use, impose significant costs on industry or commerce, or otherwise likely result in significant public attention on the proposed decisions or final agency actions,” Schnare's email says.
The current AAs and RAs are generally senior career officials serving in acting capacities. Since President Donald Trump has yet to name candidates for those or other high-profile EPA positions, such as the deputy administrator, the agency is likely to continue relying on them for some time.
But Schnare's email signals that those positions will have limited discretion until the Trump administration picks are in place. However, restricting the lower officials' power could limit EPA's ability to act quickly on many issues that the administration would ultimately favor, such as approving permits for energy projects.
And the email comes after Pruitt's own supporters have raised concerns that his lack of environmental policymaking experience, combined with delays in nominating senior EPA officials, could make it more difficult for him to run day-to-day operations at the agency. Those challenges would be heightened if Pruitt is taking on more duties compared to his predecessors.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/pruitt-withdraws-decision-making-powers-senior-officials-email-shows
-
Pruitt Said To Be Seriously Weighing Shuttering EPA's Enforcement Office
Mar 15, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and top White House officials are said to be seriously considering a major reorganization of EPA's Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance (OECA), which could result in moving much of the office's personnel to the agency's program offices.
EPA official David Schnare, who attended a closed-to-press Energy Bar Association meeting March 13 in his personal capacity, indicated to attendees that closing OECA “is a real live issue, not just at EPA but at the White House. They really want to cut staff. They're not joking around. . . . This is not a fake thing,” according to a source who attended the meeting.
Another source who attended the meeting confirmed the account, saying officials are “definitely looking to pare [the enforcement office] back.”
Pruitt's spokesman was not immediately available for comment.
The plan, which would close the office and shuttle personnel into the program offices, would echo a move that Pruitt made when he was Oklahoma attorney general and he closed his office's Environmental Protection Unit in 2011. It would also revert the agency to the approach it used until the Clinton administration, when then-Administrator Carol Browner centralized the agency's enforcement functions.
The idea of dispersing EPA's enforcement function, first reported by Inside EPA early last month, has been under consideration by the Trump administration, though prospects for its implementation were unclear.
The initial report drew immediate opposition from a former high-level OECA official who said the only reason to abolish the office is “because you want to limit enforcement or make it more difficult” but that proponents of such a move were “underestimating how big a challenge this is.”
But a Trump administration source sidestepped the issue, suggesting discussion was premature given Pruitt's then-pending confirmation. “Let the administrator get a chance to sit in his new chair for a day or two before expecting him to understand what's on his plate and how he is going to handle those priorities.”
Now, less than a month later, Pruitt and the White House seem extremely interested in executing the plan, according to the first source from the Energy Bar Association meeting, “The Future of Environmental Law Under the Trump Administration.”
The source notes that since assuming the administrator role, Pruitt has said nothing publicly about his commitment to enforcement, but instead has focused his remarks on preserving funds for Superfund, brownfields, water infrastructure and grants to states.
“What is interesting is what he is not talking about,” the source notes, saying the omission of support for core EPA functions adds to speculation that Pruitt could move to eliminate OECA. “He's not talking about keeping EPA together, making sure the mission is carried out, things like that. He's not talking about how EPA is here to ensure clean air and clean water, and that is the story. That is what most administrators do talk about.”
Skinny Budget
More insight into the likelihood of shuttering OECA is likely to be gleaned March 16 when the White House releases its initial budget proposal, known as a skinny budget, which could be a significant driver for overhauling the enforcement office, as well as other parts of EPA.
“I think that will shed more light on where the reductions are going to come from within EPA,” the source says, adding that while the precise contents of the document remains unknown, “it should not be good for morale at the agency. Morale at the agency is just in the gutter.”
Initial White House plans, contained in the budget “pass back” that OMB provided to EPA, indicate the agency is facing a $2 billion -- or 25 percent cut -- to its current $8.1 billion budget, though recent press reports indicate the administration is considering even deeper cuts. That would include a 30 percent cut to state grant programs and eliminating funding for dozens of other popular programs.
In addition to considering dispersing enforcement personnel, the pass back also reportedly told EPA to “evaluate ways to reduce federal enforcement inspections while [keeping] a consistent and effective enforcement program,” according to the Washington Post.
And the passback called on EPA to develop a plan to to shutter two regional EPA offices as a way to realize “efficiencies.”
One informed source says the skinny budget document will provide a blueprint that will detail highlights, including total spending for each agency, but not revenue projections or policy statements.
But the documents will provide agencies with “a lot of discretion” in how to implement cuts. “The goal is to drive efficiency and cut waste,” the source says.
Another driver for overhauling OECA is the executive order President Donald Trump signed March 13 that requires EPA and other agencies to craft plans on how to become more efficient, including whether to have states take over some of their work.
The White House will then use the agencies' plans to craft a government-wide plan to reorganize the executive branch and end “unnecessary” programs.
While Pruitt has said publicly he would fight to preserve funds for his four priorities, his comments have reportedly caused a riff with Office of Management & Budget (OMB) Director Mick Mulvaney.
The Trump administration source says Mulvaney wants “big cuts” government wide, and appears to have been given the authority to seek them as long as he achieves a top line number given to him by the White House.
“Pruitt's mistake is you don't publicly argue with the White House,” especially over a draconian budget proposal that Congress is unlikely to accept. “The way you deal with it is you to go the Hill quietly, not publicly.”
An industry source expresses some surprise that Pruitt was so public in his budget remarks and says that could have prompted a bit of tension between EPA and OMB. But this source says Pruitt's remarks seemed to defend portions of EPA's work, rather than criticize Mulvaney.
Civil Service Protection
The source who attended the Energy Bar meeting notes that it is unclear whether either Mulvaney or Pruitt understand the difficulties of closing federal offices. “That's the thing. You just can't fire [employees]. I am not sure if they've thought through the personnel issues of getting rid of federal employees but it is not easy. They have civil service protections” that were put in place by Congress for this very reason: to protect employees from a hostile administration.
And while buyouts could attract several hundred at EPA, “It's not easy to just say goodbye and thank you for your service for 3,000 employees” who have a union bargaining agreement as well, the source says, referencing reports that the Trump administration wants to cut EPA staff from 15,000 to 12,000.
Sources also note that the administration, for now, appears to be prioritizing broader efforts to scale back EPA and other agencies over proceeding with a long-promised executive order to roll back EPA and other agencies' climate rules.
The administration is far more interested in “deconstructing” the regulatory state, says the source who attended the bar association meeting. Such a move was outlined by Trump's chief strategist Stephen Bannon at the Conservative Political Action Conference last month.
The administration appears more concerned about “reshaping federal agencies completely, as opposed to particular issues,” such as climate change rules, says the source.
While the order could still be issued this week, the longer it is delayed, the more worried opponents of Obama's climate change rules are getting. For example, one industry source involved in the challenge to EPA's greenhouse gas rule for new power plants warns that the longer the order to roll back the rule is delayed, the more likely it is that the federal court hearing litigation over the rule will reject efforts to delay oral arguments that are slated for next month.
However, when the climate order does come out, in addition to asking EPA to revise or rescind the power plant GHG rules and to reverse a moratorium on issuing new coal leases on federal lands, it is expected to include language on the social cost of carbon that will either rescind the measure entirely or reconvene a working group to revise it in a way that is likely to nullify its meaning.
This issue was also discussed at the bar association meeting, according to the source, who says there is a debate on what approach to take among the “usual suspects” at the White House, with Bannon wanting to take a more draconian step and rescind rules entirely while environmental moderates such as Jared Kushner want more measured language.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/pruitt-said-be-seriously-weighing-shuttering-epas-enforcement-office
-
Dow, BASF, Eastman Stir Up New Formulas For Safer Chemicals
Mar 16, 2017 | GreenBiz
By Barbara Grady
In the 40 years between passage of the Toxic Substance Control Act in 1976 and the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act last year, a generation and a half grew up drinking from baby bottles and cups laden with Bisphenol A, playing with toys manufactured with phthalates and wearing pajamas and T-shirts treated with flame retardants.
During that time, the incidence of testicular cancer in young men doubled in the United States and the average age of the beginning of puberty in girls crept two years earlier, leaving girls significantly more susceptible to breast cancer later in life.
Epidemiologists attribute these alarming trends in reproductive health to several causes, but one factor that's on all their lists is the prevalence of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in our everyday environments — principally BPA, phthalates and perfluorinated substances.
Under the TSCA, chemicals could be introduced into the commercial marketplace without regulatory review of their safety — and 84,000 synthetic chemicals were. Only if a substance's safety was challenged were chemicals reviewed. Only six chemicals flunked the TSCA review. (The Food & Drug Administration finally banned the use of BPAs in infant feeding products in 2012.)
The ink on the new more stringent Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century is barely dry, but a much more powerful force is already inspiring chemical and materials manufacturers to create safer chemicals — the rule of the consumer marketplace.
Many buyers shun plastic beverage and food containers that might contain BPAs and phthalates, clothing that might contain flame retardants or perfluorinated chemicals, and household cleaning products with any of these ingredients. That has created a huge and fast-growing market opportunity for companies creating environmentally safe chemicals, estimated by Trucost to be $11 billion in 2015 and projected to grow ninefold to nearly $100 billion by 2020.
Dow Chemical, BASF and Eastman Chemical are prioritizing this opportunity with research and development that's driving the introduction of new, more naturally derived additives and materials that they can sell to product makers. Consumer goods companies such as Johnson & Johnson, Levi Strauss & Co., Unilever and Proctor & Gamble have reengineered their supply chains to avoid environmental toxins. And retailers and consumers are rewarding both groups.So what are the innovations?
Dow Chemical established an entire business line of new elastomers — polyolefin elastomers and olefin block polymers — that bring characteristics such as flexibility to plastics but do not contain chemicals suspected to be endocrine disruptors and carcinogens.
Dow has branded them under the names Infuse and Intune and sold them to consumer product makers and industrial users. One of its customers is Munchkin Baby Products, which eliminated BPAs and phthalates containing materials from its supply chains and now uses Dow’s Infuse to make children’s supplies.
Last year, Dow’s lab developed a new polyolefin technology as a replacement for one of the remaining widespread uses of BPA additives — the linings of canned food and beverages.
Dow’s Canvera can replace epoxy coating systems with an aquenous polyolefin dispersion that manufacturers can apply to metal surfaces using the same equipment they used with the epoxy coatings. The product has won two innovation awards: one from Business Intelligence Group and inclusion in the R&D 100, a select group of innovators that include Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and MIT, along with a few companies.
Dow isn't the only company being recognized for its advances. BASF’s approach has won it the gold standard as far as consumer scrutiny of safe products: it received a Safer Choice Innovator Award last year from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Safer Choice criteria offer a strict set of guidelines; only companies that pass them can use the label on their products — which many consumers look for.
One of BASF’s innovative breakthroughs is Ecovio, a bio-based, biodegradable and compostable polymer. Its first commercial uses are in coffee capsules and packaging, but BASF sees applications in a range of consumer and industrial products as it continues development. As a bio-based polymer derived from renewable sources based on sugars, Ecovia does not contain synthetic compounds that interrupt natural human biology. Yet, BASF said, it has the same properties as conventional non-biodegradable standard plastics.
The EPA's Safer Choice program recognized BASF for its overall systematic approach to creating environmentally healthy products. BASF scrutinizes all of its products and product development through the lens of a Sustainable Solutions Steering methodology.
As of last year, 74 percent of BASF's sales are from products that meet a basic definition of sustainable under that program while 23 percent make a clear contribution to the cause of sustainability. Additionally, Safer Choice recognized BASF for the fact that it is "continually adding new products to the CleanGredients list," the Safer Choice list of approved products.
The first chemical company to introduce a plasticizer that met the EPA’s Safer Choice chemical standards was Eastman. Its 168 SG non-phthalate plasticizer is a non-sexy name for a breakthrough product, but it was the first plastics additive providing flexibility and bendability to materials without adding toxicity. The substance is used to make toys, medical devices, flooring and other products that require flexible vinyl.Non-toxic product innovators
Product makers that have innovated their way out of potential carginogenic and endocrine-disrupting toxins include Levi Strauss & Co. Levi also was among the most recent winners of the Safer Choice Innovator awards, with the EPA commending it for using the strict criteria of the Safer Choice program to develop its own procurement criteria.
Levi's Restricted Substances List (PDF) is shared with all its suppliers worldwide, naming chemicals it will not permit in its products or production process because of their potential impact on consumers, workers and the environment. The list includes substances ranging from Azo Colorants to flame retardants, biocides, phthalates, PVCs, dioxins and perfluorinated chemicals.
This list makes Levi Strauss novel among clothing manufacturers because perfluorochemicals are what is added for stain resistance; azo dyes are a common colorant and flame retardants were for a long time nearly ubiquitous in clothing.
But the company has shown that eliminating some 24 chemicals from products and production is not only possible but profitable."Levi Strauss demonstrated that its factories can make clothing for the global market using safer chemicals," noted the Safer Choice program.
Similarly, Johnson & Johnson employs an Earthwards process by which all of its product development and business development is judged. It includes safety assessments on any chemical or material before its use in a product by a team of toxicologists and medical doctors unless the material is already "generally recognized as safe" by major regulatory authorities around the world.
And J&J has its doctrine of principles that must be followed in evaluating new product materials: Understand and communicate product chemistry; thoroughly assess and act on risks; employ safety standards that are science-based: commit to continuous improvement; support public policies and industry standards; and educate stakeholders about J&J’s position.Profit rewards
BASF, Dow, Levi Strauss and other companies that have eschewed suspected toxins and environmental hazards are finding it is good business.
These days, "being environmentally and socially responsible goes hand in hand with running a profitable business," Charlene Wall-Warren, director of sustainability for BASF’s North America operations, wrote in an email. "Creating sustainable products and services is driven by several business factors," among them consumer expectations, new laws, uncertainty about the cost and availability of raw materials and resources.
BASF financial reporting describes its innovation in sustainability products as "a growth driver" for the company. By comparison, BASF’s oil and gas businesses saw steep declines in sales and profitability, hurting its overall year-end results.
Meanwhile, Dow reported higher 2016 sales and operating earnings, attributing its sales volume gain to its portfolio shift toward consumer end-markets, agricultural sciences and performance plastics — all areas where sustainability innovations were brought to market.
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/dow-basf-eastman-stir-formulas-safer-chemicals
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Calls For US EPA To Withdraw Two Proposed Snurs
Mar 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has called on the US EPA to withdraw two proposed significant new use rules (Snurs) for certain chemical substances derived from the use of isocyanates as monomers.
The Snurs are for:diisocyanato hexane, homopolymer, alkanoic acid polyalkylene glycol ether with substituted alkane (3:1) reaction products-blocked (generic); andmodified diphenylmethane diisocyanate prepolymer with polyol (generic).
The ACC claims in a comment letter the EPA has not made it clear why it issued the proposed Snurs. The trade group's request for withdrawal is based on its interpretation of a statement the EPA made in the preamble to the proposed rules.
"Despite the limited rationale that is publicly available, it appears that EPA may be basing the proposed Snurs on the hazards and risks of excess and residual monomers rather than on the identified polymers or prepolymers themselves," the ACC says.
"If it does have such concerns, EPA should indicate why those concerns are sufficient to support the proposed Snurs."
If the EPA does not withdraw the proposed Snurs, the ACC says the agency should clarify their scope and provisions, and delete their record-keeping provisions.
"EPA should withdraw the proposed Snurs to the extent that they are based on concerns with excess or residual isocyanate monomers,” the ACC writes. "If there has been a shift in agency policy with new isocyanates chemistries, EPA should update the diisocyanates chemical category document to reflect the change and provide adequate justification for any modifications."
The EPA published direct final rules for these chemical substances on 16 May 2016. However, following receipt of notices of intent to submit adverse comments regarding the final rules, it withdrew them on 14 July 2016. The agency issued the proposed Snurs for the chemical substances on 27 October 2016 and reopened the comment period on 3 January.
The ACC's diisocyanates and aliphatic diisocyanates panels submitted the comments.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54417/acc-calls-for-us-epa-to-withdraw-two-proposed-snurs
-
SC Johnson To Phase Out Controversial Fragrance Ingredient
Mar 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Consumer products conglomerate SC Johnson says it is phasing out the use of the fragrance ingredient galaxolide.
The transition comes after months of pressure from NGO Women’s Voices for the Earth (WVE), which has repeatedly called on the company to stop use of the persistent synthetic musk.
Kelly Semrau, SC Johnson’s senior vice president of global corporate affairs, communication & sustainability, told Chemical Watch the company continuously reviews all of the chemicals it uses in its products, under its proprietary Greenlist programme. And she said it had been evaluating the science on galaxolide prior to WVE’s furnishing information on the substance last autumn.
In a 13 March letter to WVE, the company said that it has seen “business benefits” of transitioning away from galaxolide, but has wanted to wait while alternatives were tested to ensure its decision was “grounded in science”.
New data have come to light in recent years that have given SC Johnson the reassurance to move toward these alternatives, it said. It started to transition some products last year, and “plans to continue that process over time”.Transition to alternatives
Ms Semrau told Chemical Watch that the company is moving to two macrocyclic musks – ethylene brassylate and habanolide – that more readily biodegrade in the environment, and also meet the company’s safety and performance standards.
Company scientists have been reviewing the body of literature on these substances – dating to 2011 – and determined there were sufficient scientifically sound, repeatable studies to support their use.
“What's really important to us is that if we move into any alternative chemicals, that we've got really good, robust science,” said Ms Semrau.
The product transition period, however, takes some time, she explained. Six to nine months of stability, consumer, performance and other tests typically take place when substituting a new substance.
“You don't just swap something out ... that would be irresponsible,” added Ms Semrau. “You don't want to trade off to something that's worse.”
Galaxolide has been used in as many as 80 SC Johnson products, in such lines as Glade, Shout!, Scrubbing Bubbles and Windex.Company stands by galaxolide
Despite its transition plans, SC Johnson continued to take issue with WVE’s “campaign against the science on galaxolide”. The company reiterated that Echa and the US EPA have found the substance not to meet persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) criteria, and defended the rigour of its chemical review efforts.
In its response to the NGO, the company told them it is “unfortunate that you knowingly distort and sensationalise the science for self-serving purposes rather than working to serve the public’s benefit”.
Specifically, it provided arguments against WVE's:drawing conclusions from the GreenScreen hazard assessment of the substance – which indicates it is a 'benchmark 1' substance of highest concern – without taking risk into account;calling galaxolide ubiquitous, a charge which SC Johnson calls “a bit misleading”;'mischaracterising' the company as a top six user of the substance; andtaking a “singular focus” on the fragrance ingredient, while overlooking more pressing threats to human health and the environment.
“Ingredient selection is about integrity,” wrote SC Johnson. This includes the integrity of the science, it said, as well as of the process: “taking the time to get scientific input on decisions, holding true to research findings, and taking measured steps rather than jumping on the latest trend that the data doesn’t back up”.
WVE could not be reached for comment by press time.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54464/sc-johnson-to-phase-out-controversial-fragrance-ingredient
-
Asbestos Admiralty Suit Tossed, Laborer's Work Land-Based
Mar 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
A federal court doesn't have admiralty jurisdiction over claims that a stevedore developed mesothelioma from workplace asbestos exposure, the Middle District of Louisiana said March 13 (Signal Mut. Indem. Ass'n v. Asbestos Corp., 2017 BL 77831, M.D. La., 15-00633, 3/13/17).
Because the job was primarily land-based, the court said it lacks original admiralty jurisdiction, which covers maritime issues.
Louis Genusa, Jr., was exposed to asbestos while working as a longshoreman, truck loader, and warehouse worker from 1963 to 1999.
After Genusa died of mesothelioma in 2014, his wife filed a claim for death benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act.
Genusa's last employer, Baton Rouge Marine Contractors, Inc., and its insurer, Signal Mutual Indemnity Association, Ltd. paid benefits under the the compensation law to Genusa's wife.
The insurer then sued in federal court, invoking its admiralty jurisdiction.
The complaint alleged Genusa was “exposed to asbestos aboard vessels on navigable waters while engaged in the traditional maritime activity of loading and unloading vessels.”
Judge Brian A. Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana issued the opinion.
Johnson, Yacoubian & Paysse in New Orleans, represented Signal Mutual Indemnity Association, Ltd.
Swetman Baxter Massenburg in New Orleans represented Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107304205&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107304205&jd=107304205
-
Swimming Upstream Against Infertility: What You Can Do to Protect Your Sperm
Mar 15, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Paul Pestano
In his most recent op-ed in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof examined an alarming rise in sperm or semen abnormalities – including misshapen sperm, lower sperm counts and poor swimming capacity. These qualities have been linked to infertility among men, and according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the male partner is either the sole or a contributing cause in about 40 percent of infertile couples.
In the column, several eminent scientists in the field cite endocrine-disrupting chemicals as likely culprits for these sperm woes. From active ingredients in sunscreens to chemicals in plastics, these environmental pollutants mimic hormones and may affect how the male reproductive system develops.
So what’s a man to do?
EWG released a report in 2014 to illuminate some surprising scientific findings related to men’s environmental health issues – like fertility, prostate cancer, heart disease and skin cancer – and to provide men with advice on how to lower their chemical exposures.
And good news, there are ways for men to protect their little swimmers. Here’s a quick list:Avoid canned foods and plastic containers to dramatically lower exposure to BPA and other plastic chemicals like phthalates.Choose conventionally grown fruits and vegetables that have the fewest pesticide residues and buy the organic versions of produce on EWG’s Dirty DozenTM list of fruits and vegetables with the most pesticide residues.Consult EWG’s Skin Deep® Cosmetics Database of nearly 65,000 personal care products to find deodorants, soaps, lotions and shampoos that are free of toxic chemicals.Learn more about skin cancer and melanoma, use proper sun protection and have regular skin checks with a dermatologist. Consult EWG’s annual guide to sunscreens to find the safest, most effective sunblock products.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2017/03/swimming-upstream-against-infertility-what-you-can-do-protect-your-sperm
-
EPA Scientist Sided With Monsanto on Pesticide's Safety: Emails
Mar 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
An EPA scientist allegedly bragged that he could “kill” indications that Monsanto Co.'s widely-used Roundup weedkiller is linked to cancer, according to recently filed court documents (In re Roundup Products Liability Litigation, N.D. Cal., 3/14/17).
Jess Rowland, a retired deputy director of the Environmental Protection Agency's pesticide health effects division, bragged to Monsanto's regulatory affairs lead Dan Jenkins that he “should get a medal” for finding a study to dispute another agency's research that could back a contentious March 2015 safety finding.
That 2015 conclusion from the International Agency for Research on Cancer found that glyphosate—the main ingredient in Roundup—is “probably” carcinogenic. The exchange involving Rowland's claim is in an April 28, 2015 email from Jenkins to two Monsanto employees.
Jenkins told Monsanto toxicologist William Heydens and global regulatory affairs lead Jennifer Listello that Rowland called “out of the blue” that day to tell him that the EPA had “enough to sustain our conclusions” in an EPA Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) report that found glyphosate is not linked to cancer.
Rowland cited data his office had on a study of mice from pesticide manufacturer Cheminova A/S, which is now a part of FMC Agricultural Solutions that he believed would exonerate glyphosate. He also sought to derail an investigation from the Centers for Disease Control's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), according to the attorneys’ brief.
“I am the chair of the CARC: and my folks are running this process for glyphosate in reg review,” Jenkins’ email quoted Rowland as saying.
A number of previously confidential emails from Monsanto were made public on March 14 as part of multi-district litigation from dozens of plaintiffs who say the agricultural company's signature herbicide, whose main ingredient is glyphosate, caused their non-Hodgkins lymphoma.
Rowland Erred By Siding with Monsanto: Lawyers
The plaintiffs’ lawyers want Rowland to submit to a deposition. Rowland retired shortly after the EPA released the CARC findings on April 29, 2015, only to quickly remove them from the EPA website a few days later.
The correspondence “strongly suggests that Mr. Rowland's primary goal was to serve the interests of Monsanto,” the attorneys wrote the court in their motion to compel Rowland's deposition.
Jenkins was skeptical of Rowland's claims, though hopeful that he could influence the EPA.
“Don't get your hopes up,” he wrote to Heydens and Listello. “I doubt EPA and Jess can kill this; but its good to know they are going to actually make the effort now to coordinate due to our pressing and their shared concern that ATSDR is consistent in its conclusions w EPA.”
“I think you and I could get on the phone w Jess Rowland and discuss this pretty openly. He'll give us straight talk,” Jenkins wrote.
“Wow! - that's very encouraging. Thanks for the news update,” Heydens wrote back.
A spokeswoman for Monsanto did not respond to a request for comment via email.
More to Come
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Judge Vince Chhabria ordered that the confidentiality seal on the Monsanto emails be removed on March 13.
He also expressed the “tentative view” that Rowland's testimony to the court would be appropriate, but that testimony from other EPA officials would not.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Aimee Wagstaff, in the Lakewood, Colorado office of the firm Andrus Wagstaff, told Bloomberg BNA that her team will file one more document previously under seal in the next few days.
A separate email made public March 14 suggested that Monsanto employees ghost-wrote scientific studies to bolster their claim that glyphosate does not cause cancer.
Monsanto released a statement that afternoon rebuking the assertion that company scientists wrote a 2000 paper published in Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology that evaluated the safety of Roundup for humans.
“Plaintiffs’ attorneys have cherry picked a single email—out of more than 10 million pages of documents produced—to allege that Monsanto scientists ghostwrote” the study, Monsanto wrote in a blog post.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107304204&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107304204&jd=107304204
-
World's Most Popular Herbicide, Glyphosate, Not Carcinogenic: EU Science Panel
Mar 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The world's most widely used herbicide, glyphosate, is not carcinogenic, the European Chemicals Agency said March 15, opening the way for its continued use in the European Union.
Glyphosate should continue to be classified in the EU as potentially causing serious eye damage and as toxic to aquatic life, but there is no evidence to support its classification as carcinogenic, as toxic to reproduction or as causing changes to genetic material, the agency said.
The decision opens the way for the long-term reauthorization of in the EU of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. Glyphosate also is the active ingredient in pesticides registered by the BASF Corp., DuPont, FMC Corp. and Syngenta Crop Protection LLC.
The reauthorization has been held up by a dispute over whether the substance is carcinogenic triggered by a 2015 finding from the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer that it was “probably carcinogenic.” A conflicting assessment from the European Food Safety Authority, also in 2015, concluded glyphosate was “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard.”
“Science prevailed” with the European Chemicals Agency assessment, said Graeme Taylor, director of public affairs for the European Crop Protection Association, which represents pesticides manufacturers.
EU authorities should “move swiftly with the registration process for the substance in the EU and grant a 15-year approval,” Taylor said.
Authorization Dispute
Glyphosate was authorized in the EU up to June 30, 2016. Because of disputes over whether it was carcinogenic, the European Commission, the EU's executive, extended the authorization through the end of 2017 while the European Chemicals Agency carried out its assessment.
Jack de Bruijn, the chemicals agency's director of risk management, said the agency's Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) had reached “a very clear conclusion” that glyphosate should not be classified as carcinogenic.
“It does not fulfill the criteria to be called a carcinogen,” de Bruijn said.
The chemicals agency said the RAC conclusions would be finalized and forwarded to the commission, which would prepare a new proposal on the reauthorization of glyphosate. That proposal would have to be discussed with EU country authorities.
The RAC decision on glyphosate was taken on the basis of scientific evidence, but the commission might take into account other factors, such as public opposition to the reauthorization of glyphosate, which has become a high-profile issue in the EU.
Consideration of the different aspects of the debate around glyphosate “is a discussion that will have to take place in Brussels,” de Bruijn said.
‘Emotional’ Issue
Taylor said the reauthorization of glyphosate in the EU had become “the subject of a political and emotional debate rather than a scientific one.”
In a non-binding vote in March 2016, the European Parliament's environment committee said the substance should not be reauthorized in the EU, and European Commission efforts to find agreement on reauthorization in a regulatory committee of EU country experts have so far not succeeded.
Environmental groups in February started a European Citizens’ Initiative opposing the reauthorization of glyphosate. The initiative could oblige the commission to make a formal response if 1 million validated signatures of EU residents are collected.
Green groups condemned the RAC decision. Greenpeace said the RAC had “rejected glaring scientific evidence of cancers in laboratory animals, ignored warnings by more than 90 independent scientists, and relied on unpublished studies commissioned by glyphosate producers.”
Genon K. Jensen, director of the Brussels-based Health and Environment Alliance, said the International Agency for Research on Cancer ultimately “will be recognized as having been right” to say glyphosate is probably carcinogenic, and that the European Chemicals Agency's assessment “feeds public suspicion about the reliability of EU scientific agencies’ opinions.”
Decision Defended
Tim Bowmer, chair of the RAC, speaking at the same briefing as de Bruijn March 15, said the RAC had assessed a very wide range of evidence and that the International Agency for Research on Cancer did not have strong data proving carcinogenic effects of glyphosate.
“Depending on how it's analyzed statistically, there's either no effect or very little effect,” Bowmer said.
European Commission spokesman Enrico Brivio said the commission “takes note” of the RAC assessment and expected to receive the finalized RAC opinion by the middle of 2017.
Thereafter, the commission would “restart their discussions with the member states as regards the approval of glyphosate as an active substance in plant protection products,” Brivio said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107304193&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107304193&jd=107304193
-
EU Science Committee Consults On Five Opinions
Mar 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) issued five Opinions on 7 March. They are:
· on water-soluble zinc salts used in oral hygiene products: it has estimated exposure and considers its use in toothpaste and mouthwashes is safe for adults and children aged seven to 17 years. It also considers the use of zinc in toothpaste to be safe for children from six months to six years. With regard to further scientific concerns for children between one to 17 years, the Commission notes it has not taken into account dietary sources. Any additional exposure, including cosmetics, may lead to upper limits being exceeded for this group;
· on methoxypropylamino cyclohexenylidene ethoxyethylcyanoacetate (S87): it cannot exclude its genotoxic potential when used as a UV filter in cosmetic products to a maximum concentration of 5%, based on the data provided. On the basis of the studies, skin and eye irritation potential cannot be excluded. Dermal penetration data using 5% of the test material should also be provided;
· on titanium dioxide (nano form) as a UV-filter in sprays at a concentration up to 5.5%: it has concluded information is insufficient to allow assessment of the safety in sprayable applications. The exposure studies have not been conducted using representative sprayable products that may be intended for the EU market. The submission also does not contain a toxicological evaluation for nano-titanium dioxide via the inhalation route;
· on basic blue 99 (C059) as a direct hair dye substance in formulations with a concentration on-head of up to a maximum of 1.0%: it cannot conclude on safety because it is composed of several substances and isomeric forms, with a large variability between the composition of different batches. The toxicological data provided in the previous submission do not relate to the material specifications provided for the current assessment. It will require a clear, well-defined set of specifications for the composition of the material intended to be used as well as supporting toxicological data, relating to a representative composition; and
· on dimethylpiperazinium aminopyrazolopyridine HCl (A164): it has concluded that the substance is safe when used in oxidative hair colouring products up to a maximum on-head concentration of 2%.
The opinions are open for comment until 14 May.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54413/eu-science-committee-consults-on-five-opinions
-
New Nanomaterial Risk Assessment Framework Needed
Mar 15, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Philip Lightowlers
A review of risk assessment frameworks available for nanomaterials has found that none covers all user requirements and there is scope for improvement. It also considers risk assessment tools and notes a growing trend in quantitative models, which can assess uncertainty. However, groupings of, and read-across between, nanomaterials is still under development.
A group of 13 European researchers conducted the review. The emerging technology of manufactured nanomaterials is hampered by uncertainties surrounding health and environmental risks, they say. Improved risk assessment frameworks and tools are needed for the safe development and regulation of nanomaterial products.
Drawing on the scientific and technical literature, the researchers reviewed 12 frameworks, such as the Echa risk assessment guidance under REACH and the Ecetoc DF4nanoGrouping. They also reviewed 48 different tools including protocols, models or databases that can be used in nanomaterial hazard and exposure assessment.
The frameworks were judged against eight key criteria, including whether: nano-specific properties are accounted for; the entire lifecycle of the nanomaterial is considered; grouping and read-across are allowed; and the framework has documented applications. The tools were judged against seven criteria, associated with, among other things, ease of use, quantitative information and uncertainty.
The group produced a list of strengths and weaknesses for the frameworks and tools, based on which of the criteria each met. The evaluation showed that most of the frameworks set out the goals and scope of an assessment at the planning stage, which is essential to avoid unnecessary testing. In addition, most consider routes of exposure in the initial stages of assessment, which is beneficial as it can exclude irrelevant exposure routes and also avoids unnecessary tests.
However, none of the frameworks met all eight of the criteria. The study therefore recommended that a new, comprehensive framework be developed to meet all of them. Such a framework is needed to inform regulation, the researchers say, and should integrate human health and environmental factors, and cover all stages of the lifecycle of a product containing nanomaterials.
The researchers’ evaluation of the tools suggested that many are designed to screen risks, and not necessarily to support risk assessment. However, their strengths include a growth trend in quantitative models, which can assess uncertainty, and protocols for experiments that are reproducible across laboratories. These could lead to a shift from case-by-case testing of nanomaterials towards a more efficient process, based on groupings and read-across, where the properties of one material can be inferred from the known properties of a similar material.
The researchers note that read-across methods are still largely under development for nanomaterials. To improve them, they suggest more data are needed on the links between their specific properties and biological effects.
The review was funded by the EU Marina project and was published in the journal Environment International.
It coincides with a regulatory roadmap produced by the EU NanoSafety Cluster and the European Commission’s third regulatory review on nanomaterials.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54420/new-nanomaterial-risk-assessment-framework-needed
-
Member States Press EU Commission To Reconsider CMR Cosmetics ‘Ban’
Mar 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Seven EU member states have joined Denmark in a campaign to reinstate what they consider to be an “automatic ban” on the use of carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic (CMR) substances in cosmetics products.
In a letter to the European Commission on 10 March, the Danish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), along with representatives from Belgium, Finland, France, Greece, Lithuania, Portugal and Sweden, urged the Commission to reconsider its “new interpretation of the automatic ban”.
Member states have usually viewed a substance as banned in cosmetics if it has a mandatory classification as a CMR under the CLP Regulation. However, in September the Commission clarified that the prohibition must be implemented by a specific act amending the relevant annexes of the cosmetics Regulation. Therefore, it said, the substances are not automatically banned in cosmetics.
In November, Denmark’s food and environment minister Esben Lunde Larsen wrote to the Commissionasking it to revisit its position. It replied by saying it does not intend to change its interpretation, Mr Larsen told Chemical Watch this week.
The latest letter was sent to the Commission before its working group meeting on cosmetics products on 14 March, at which the Danish EPA said it raised the issue of the CMR ‘ban’.
In an excerpt of the letter shown to Chemical Watch, the member states say that “the best way to ensure legal certainty” for economic operators, as well as authorities, and secure consumer safety is through “an automatic ban and ongoing amendments to annexes”.
The automatic ban, they say, does not exempt the Commission from adjusting the annexes of the cosmetics Regulation when CMR substances are listed in these. “The challenge so far has been that it has taken the Commission far too long to adjust the annexes, by adopting the necessary amendments.”
In his comments to Chemical Watch, Mr Larsen said that if the automatic ban were not upheld, some 200 substances considered to be harmful to humans “would have to be prohibited” under the cosmetics Regulation. “Our hope is that even more countries will support our position.”
On the national market, CMR substances, such as the preservative polyaminopropyl biguanide (PHMB) used in 36 cosmetics products - including those from L’Oréal and L’Occitane - will now be “less strictly regulated”, says the Danish Consumer Council.
Its senior project manager Claus Jørgensen says that, up until now, the precautionary principle “has ruled out” CMR substances, and manufacturers and producers had to prove the use in cosmetics was safe first.
Now, he says, an "upside down" precautionary principle is in place “where everything is safe until proven otherwise”.Industry comments
Industry has welcomed the Commission’s interpretation but is still asking for more clarity. Trade bodies Cosmetics Europe and Cosmetica Italia name ongoing legal uncertainty over the use of CMR substances in cosmetics as their main concern in their submissions to the Commission’s REFIT fitness check on chemicals legislation excluding REACH.
They say “contradictory enforcement” at national level has led to a loss of ingredients, without any evidence of health issues related to their use in cosmetics products.
And in their comments, industry giants Coty, Henkel and Unilever say chemicals should not be banned based on their hazard profile. If CMR substances are banned without concern for exposure, industry has little chance to defend them if they are safe, Unilever says.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54450/member-states-press-eu-commission-to-reconsider-cmr-cosmetics-ban
-
Trump Administration to Rescind Obama's BLM Rule on Fracking
Mar 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy and Thomas Korosec
The Trump administration said in a legal filing March 15 that it would begin rescinding an Obama-era rule setting standards for hydraulic fracturing on public lands.
The Bureau of Land Management rule, which was finalized in March 2015 but has never gone into force amid legal challenges, requires companies to disclose the chemicals they pump underground and seal off waste water in storage tanks.
The bureau said it will begin a rulemaking aimed at rescinding the regulation in a filing with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The BLM “is preparing a notice of proposed rulemaking for publication in the Federal Register to rescind the 2015 rule,” the agency said.
It said it expects the notice is expected to be issued within 90 days. “BLM respectfully requests this court to continue the oral argument and hold these appeals in abeyance pending a new rulemaking by BLM,” it said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107304222&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107304222&jd=107304222
-
Trump Admin To Roll Back Fracking Rule
Mar 16, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Obama administration's landmark effort to regulate hydraulic fracturing on public lands is likely a goner.
President Trump's Interior Department will soon kick off a rulemaking process to rescind the Bureau of Land Management's fracking rule, which has been tangled in litigation since its unveiling two years ago. Justice Department lawyers representing Interior are expected to ask a federal court today to pause the legal battle.
Oral arguments on the rule had been scheduled for next Wednesday at the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. DOJ lawyers will ask the court to put off arguments and hold the case in abeyance.
The years-in-the-making fracking rule set new requirements for well construction, wastewater management and chemical disclosure for fracked wells on public and tribal lands, and was the Obama administration's most visible effort to address environmental concerns from an uptick in fracking and horizontal drilling across the country in recent years.
Western states, industry groups and American Indian tribes panned the rule as a costly regulatory overreach that duplicated states' efforts and burdened oil and gas operators working on public and tribal lands. A federal district court struck down the rule last summer, finding that it was beyond BLM's authority (Energywire, June 22, 2016).
DOJ lawyers, who had fiercely defended the rule since its release, quickly appealed to the 10th Circuit last summer, as did a coalition of environmental groups that support the regulation. Until today, it was unclear whether the Trump administration planned to continue backing the rule (Energywire, March 10).
Earthjustice attorney Mike Freeman, representing the environmental groups, has previously promised that the groups will seek to continue their appeal even if the Trump administration backs out. The legal issues in the case are sweeping, addressing whether Interior has authority to regulate fracking at all.
Lawyers in the case declined to comment on the development until DOJ files its formal notice with the court.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/03/15/stories/1060051514
-
Energy Execs Urge Senate Panel to Fix Federal Permitting Process
Mar 16, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Executives with ties to the energy industry told a Senate panel that delays in the current federal permitting process for infrastructure projects, including for natural gas pipelines, are unreasonable, create uncertainty and higher costs for the sector.
During Tuesday's hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Dominion Energy CEO Diane Leopold, one of the witnesses called to testify, said her company has devoted $16 billion toward infrastructure projects.
"However, to make these beneficial investments we need certainty from federal agencies," Leopold said. "Not a rubber stamp, but a rational path forward with clear processes, reasonable schedules and reasonable decisions."
Those projects include the $4 billion Cove Point liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility in Calvert County, MD, which is being built by Dominion Cove Point LNG LP.
"Federal and state permitting [for Cove Point] took about three and a half years, requiring more than 55 federal, state and local permits and reviews," Leopold said. "[But] this exhaustive process now looks simple compared with what we faced with the much-needed Atlantic Coast Pipeline [ACP]."
Leopold said the $5-5.5 billion ACP project -- a 600-mile, 1.5 Bcf/d pipeline that would run from West Virginia into Virginia and North to supply Appalachian Basin natural gas to the Southeast -- has so far required more than 18 major federal permits and authorizations, plus numerous other federal, state and local approvals.
"The process is already approaching three years and has a Sept. 28 deadline to complete federal authorizations -- a date that is later than it needed to be, and not as certain as it should be," Leopold said.
Case in point, Leopold said Dominion chose to use the horizontal directional drilling method to bore nearly one mile of the ACP under a mountain in Virginia, avoiding impacts to the Appalachian Trail and the Blue Ridge Parkway. But she said it took the National Park Service 14 months to review Dominion's 22-page application just to conduct a survey, and the company is still waiting for a decision on moving forward with the actual construction.
The survey, she noted, was completed in one afternoon.
"[It] is just mind-boggling that an agency would be so inefficient [and] ineffective that something as harmless as a survey -- which is not a permission to go forward, rather just a survey -- would take 14 months," said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) during the question-and-answer portion of the hearing. "As my daughter would say, 'OMG.' I am truly flabbergasted."
It was a sentiment shared by other witnesses who testified.
Pacific Power CEO Stefan Bird complained that it took nearly a decade to obtain the necessary federal permits for its Gateway West project, which calls for constructing about 1,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines in Wyoming and Idaho.
Meanwhile, the National Hydropower Association’s Jeffrey Leahey, deputy executive director, said in his written testimony that hydropower has "the longest, most complex development timeline of any renewable energy technologies...with some projects taking 10 years or longer from the start of the licensing process through construction to being placed in-service."
Terry O'Sullivan, general president for the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA), said his organization supports a streamlined regulatory review process, allowing different federal agencies to work concurrently on permitting requests, and a more definitive permitting process.
LIUNA also supports a "speedy filling" of vacant spots at FERC. O’Sullivan also urged the Trump administration to open offshore areas of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans to energy development, something that the Obama administration put off limits before leaving office.
"Our country needs a common-sense energy policy," O'Sullivan said in his written remarks. "Moving forward with a nonpartisan energy agenda will facilitate significant private investment that will create millions of new jobs across all sectors of the economy.
"It is also critical to addressing and improving the vital energy infrastructure that keeps our lights on, that heats and cools our homes and businesses, and that moves people and goods across the country. This infrastructure is in desperate need of repair and modernization."
Responding to questioning by Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI), O'Sullivan briefly touched on the issue surrounding President Trump's directive that oil and gas pipelines use American steel. He said that during a meeting with Trump, the issue of the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline was brought up. TransCanada Corp. already had ordered most of the steel for the project from overseas and begun construction before Trump was elected.
"I anticipated that there was going to be a problem with that one because TransCanada had already bought the pipeline from India," O'Sullivan said. But he told Hirono that LIUNA would "unequivocally support" to requirement that American steel be required for pipelines in the future.
In her closing remarks, U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the committee's chairman, "we can have as many shovel-ready projects as we could possibly line up on paper, but when we meet the bureaucracy that hits and causes uncertainty and increased costs -- it really does complicate the creation of energy infrastructure.
"We don't want to abandon the regulations that allow for safety and good environmental considerations, but we want to allow for a process that is workable and fair."
Leopold said Dominion supports legislation the committee, and the Senate as a whole, approved last year, in particular concurrent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission “and other permitting agencies, including agencies working with FERC's extensive NEPA process, rather than contesting duplicative reviews. We also support an expectation that agencies notify applicants when their permits are complete, to help stay within the timeline.
"The energy industry is poised to accelerate development of critical infrastructure serving the national interest...But to commit billions in private capital, we need a reasonable regulatory path to success if we follow the process."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109776-energy-execs-urge-senate-panel-to-fix-federal-permitting-process
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Chief Delays Industrial Chemical Safety Regulation
Mar 15, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has backed an industry request for delay and review of a new chemical safety regulation that sprang from the deaths of 15 people in a calamitous 2013 accident in Texas.
The new regulation would toughen requirements for industry-prepared risk management plans (RMP) intended to protect communities and workers from chemical-related accidents.
Pruitt’s decision will delay implementation of the rule for 90 days, EPA says, adding that further extensions may be needed.
“As an agency, we need to be responsive to concerns raised by stakeholders regarding regulations so facility owners and operators know what is expected of them,” Pruitt said on March 13, as he directed the agency to delay the effective date of the final regulation until June 19.
Seven trade associations sought the EPA review, including the American Chemistry Council, a trade group of chemical manufacturers. In a petition, they said the regulation was unnecessary and insufficient time had been provided for comments. They also objected to new provisions for third-party safety audits after a chemical release or accident and sections calling for companies to consider implementing inherently safer processes.
Industry also asked Congress to intervene. Legislation pending in the House of Representatives (H.J. Res. 59) and Senate (S.J. Res. 28) would overturn the rule and prevent EPA from issuing one that is substantially similar to it.
A spokesperson for Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), who is leading the effort to overturn the regulation in the House, says the rule would have gone into effect on March 21. The extension Pruitt granted was needed to give Congress time to pass legislation, she says.
The rule followed an April 2013 incident in which a retail agricultural warehouse in the small Texas community caught fire. Several hundred tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer exploded, killing 13 volunteer firefighters and two residents and flattening schools and other structures.
Within months, President Barack Obama issued an executive order requiring some dozen federal agencies to examine their safety regulations. After three years of meetings, public comments, and reviews, EPA issued the final RMP rule on Jan. 13 as the only regulation to emerge from the executive order.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i12/EPA-chief-delays-industrial-chemical-safety-regulation.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Republicans Are Racing To Make Workplaces More Dangerous and Unhealthy
Mar 16, 2017 | In These Times
By Elizabeth Grossman
“Every regulation should have to pass a simple test: Does it make life better or safer for American workers or consumers? If the answer is no, we will be getting rid of it and getting rid of it quickly,” President Donald Trump said as he signed an executive order establishing federal task forces to eliminate regulations.
In fact, the executive order criteria say nothing about making life safer for U.S. workers and consumers. Rather they focus on rules that “eliminate jobs or inhibit job creation.”
“The intent of this executive order is go to after Obama-era health and safety regulations,” said Public Citizen regulatory policy advocate Amit Narang.
The Trump administration and Congressional Republicans are moving fast. And what they’re targeting for “reform” are regulations that protect public and workplace health and safety. Among the targets are rules that protect the manufacturing and construction workers the Trump administration claims to support. The rollback of other regulations will adversely impact Americans from coast-to-coast but most seriously affect low-income and minority communities.“Designed to destroy the system not improve it”
Ahead of any task force formation, however, Republican lawmakers are busy introducing legislation to undo health and safety protections. Many of these bills would nullify rules currently on hold, delayed by a January 20 presidential memo freezing federal regulations not yet in effect. Much of the legislation uses the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which would prevent an agency from reintroducing similar regulations. Others, including the so-called SCRUB Act (“Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act”) that the House has passed, would essentially put into law what Trump mandated by executive order.
Many of the health and safety protections now in jeopardy have been singled out by the Business Roundtable, an organization representing “exclusively” corporate CEOs. The group’s “Top Regulations of Concern” include Clean Air Act rules, the Obama administration’s expansion of overtime pay, rules requiring federal contractors to report wage and labor violations and to prevent Equal Pay Act violations, and standards for employer-sponsored wellness programs. This wish-list was sent to National Economic Council director Gary Cohn in a February 22 letter from the Business Roundtable leadership, a group that includes top executives from JP Morgan Chase, Lockheed Martin, Dow Chemical, Honeywell and Eastman Chemical.
“These are the guys whose baseball team Donald Trump wants to be picked for,” quipped University of Maryland School of Law professor Rena Steinzor, who served as legal advisor to the Federal Trade Commission and several House committees.
Standing by on February 24 at the executive order signing event were executives from many of these same companies, among them Dow Chemical, Lockheed Martin, Archer Daniels Midland, 3M, Johnson & Johnson, International Paper and United Technologies. When asked for an example of a regulation they would like to see repealed, seven of the nine companies present declined to do so. The two others were not contacted. (In addition, two more companies the White House listed as at the event—Campbell’s and U.S. Steel—said they had not, in fact, been present.)
International Paper expressed interest in “clarity” around regulation of carbon emissions from biomass, changes in truck and freight rail policies and a “complete overhaul” of international tax rules, but did not name any specific regulations. Dow sent a statement with a comment from its chairman and CEO Andrew Liveris saying, “there is real meat on the bones, with respect to the work this White House is doing with business leaders, such as the manufacturing group of CEOs.”
Says Natural Resources Defense Council government affairs director, David Goldston, “These guys have an aggressively anti-regulatory agenda. It’s designed to destroy the system not improve it.”“Federal legislation is a safety net”
Currently on hold are rules to reduce air pollution and workplace exposure to the carcinogenic metal beryllium, and to clarify the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) authority to hold employers to their obligation to maintain records of workplace injuries and illness. Another rule on hold would require industrial facilities that use or distribute hazardous chemicals to improve safety and emergency response plans. With the exception of the beryllium rule, all are also now the subject of CRA legislation to undo them. And some of these bills are moving quickly—passing on heavily party-line votes.
Specifically, rules on hold would bring communities in at least 15 states into compliance with existing Clean Air Act standards, particularly for ozone and fine particulate matter (PM 2.5), both of which can cause breathing problems, including lung damage, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), these measures provide benefits that “vastly exceed compliance costs,” by more than 30-to-1. And, says the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), asthma affects 1 in 11 U.S. children and 1 in 12 U.S. adults, costing the United States an estimated $56 billion annually.
On March 2, the EPA withdrew its rule requiring oil and gas companies to report methane emissions. Research led by the EPA has found that reducing emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to ozone formation, can substantially reduce deaths from heart and lung disease.
Also increasing the possibility of more lung disease is delay of the OSHA’s new beryllium exposure limits. Reduced for the first time in 40 years, the rule aims to prevent chronic, incurable beryllium disease and lung cancer among the approximately 62,000 workers in the 7,300 workplaces industrial workplaces nationwide that use beryllium. It would also protect these workers’ families from being exposed through dust on clothing and vehicles.
Also now on hold and the object of CRA legislation in both the House and Senate is the EPA’s Risk Management Plan rule. Established in the wake of the 2013 West, Texas fertilizer plant disaster, it requires the country’s approximately 12,500 industrial facilities that use or distribute certain hazardous chemicals to enhance emergency management and safety plans. Industry representatives have called the rule “costly and unnecessary.” They’ve also suggested, erroneously, that the rule would endanger Americans by requiring that companies release sensitive information about chemicals at their facilities. In fact, this provision—designed to inform first responders—leaves information-sharing details to plant owners and operators. Unaware of the chemical hazards they were encountering, West, Texas firefighters lost their lives when a dangerous situation became calamitous.
“It’s the manufacturing, working communities that get hurt when these things go wrong—workers, families, first responders,” says Mike Wilson, national director of the BlueGreen Alliance’s occupational and environmental health program, who spent 13 years working as a firefighter, paramedic and EMT.
“The federal legislation is a safety net to make sure all companies are keeping up with standards, not just those that have moved ahead voluntarily,” says Wilson. “When you’re handling millions of pounds of hazardous materials, the laggards are genuine threats to public safety worker safety and to safety of first responders. And their errors aren’t confined to company property.”
On March 13, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, siding with a petition from an industry group that includes the American Chemistry Council, American Petroleum Institute and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, announced that the rule will be reconsidered and reopened for public comment. The petition, which also asks that the rule be rescinded, was filed just seven working days after Pruitt’s confirmation by the same businesses supporting the CRA bill introduced in the House by Oklahoma Republican Markwayne Mullin and in the Senate by Oklahoma’s James Inhofe.
At the same time, the House has already passed CRA legislation that would undo OSHA’s rule clarifying how employers keep records of serious workplace injury and illnesses, and both the House and Senate have negated the rule requiring federal contractors to fully disclose wage and other labor, including workplace safety, violations.
Sixty-six labor advocacy groups—including the Communication Workers of America, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Service Employees International Union, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America—wrote to House leadership opposing the legislation to repeal the new recordkeeping rule.
“This resolution,” the groups said, “will undermine workplace health and safety in the most dangerous industries.”
The same can be said of dozens of bills Republicans are now pushing through Congress with White House support.
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/19974/republicans_are_racing_to_make_workplaces_more_dangerous_and_unhealthy
-
Trump Plan Takes Ax To EPA, Environmental Spending
Mar 16, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Robin Bravender and George Cahlink
President Trump's proposed budget takes a hatchet to federal environmental and energy spending.
The White House proposed a dramatic cut of about 31 percent to U.S. EPA, even more than many had anticipated. The budget aims to cut climate change and environmental enforcement programs, slash EPA's workforce by 3,200 jobs and leave the agency with its lowest funding levels since the George H.W. Bush administration.
Those cuts, the administration said in its proposal, reflect "the success of environmental protection efforts, a focus on core legal requirements, the important role of the states in implementing the nation's environmental laws, and the president's priority to ease the burden of unnecessary federal regulations that impose significant costs for workers and consumers without justifiable environmental benefits."
The Interior and Energy departments would see big cuts, too. Trump is proposing a 12 percent hit to Interior's budget and a 5.6 percent cut to DOE, where cash would be shifted away from certain energy projects toward the department's defense programs.
Overall, the new administration's budget plan for fiscal 2018, which begins Oct. 1, aims to beef up defense spending by $54 billion, while slashing domestic spending by that same amount. The White House also released today a supplemental spending proposal for the last six months of fiscal 2017.
The fiscal blueprint, dubbed a "skinny budget," only offers topline spending figures for each agency and highlights programs that would see major increases or cuts in the coming fiscal year. A more detailed budget is due in May that will contain line-by-line spending for agencies as well as projections for tax revenue and entitlement spending.
Many of the steep cuts proposed by the White House will face hurdles clearing Congress, but Trump's budget outline reflects many of the energy priorities the president touted on the campaign trail and since taking office.
"We wrote it using the president's own words. We went through his speeches, we went through articles that had been written about his policies. We talked to him. We turned those policies into numbers," Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney told reporters yesterday.'Significant' cuts to EPA
EPA would receive $5.7 billion in fiscal 2018 under Trump's request — down $2.6 billion, or 31 percent, from current funding levels.
Mulvaney said yesterday that EPA would see some of the most "significant" cuts of any agency but insisted its core functions could still be "satisfied."
The blueprint eliminates funding for the Obama administration's signature climate change rule — the Clean Power Plan — and discontinues spending on international climate change programs, climate change research and partnership programs, and related efforts.
The budget also "reorients" EPA's air program to "protect the air we breathe without unduly burdening the American economy."
EPA's enforcement office would see its budget cut by nearly $130 million. The administration said it would concentrate EPA's enforcement on programs that are not delegated to states. The Office of Research and Development's budget would also be slashed.
The cuts would mean staff reductions of about 3,200 workers at the agency, according to the White House, representing a sizeable chunk of EPA's current staff of about 15,000 employees.
Mulvaney, however, said the agency would have some flexibility in deciding its staffing levels. He said Trump, unlike past presidents, would leave it up to the agencies to decide what layoffs might be required to carry out his budget plans.
"We've worked very closely with [EPA Administrator Scott] Pruitt. He's done a tremendous job to try and prioritize things over at the EPA," Mulvaney said.
One program that would see an increase is EPA's drinking and wastewater infrastructure programs, which the White House said furthers Trump's commitment to improving infrastructure.Emphasizing energy production at Interior
The Interior Department would receive $11.6 billion under Trump's plan, a 12 percent cut from current spending levels.
"The budget requests an increase in funding for core energy development programs while supporting DOI's priority agency mission and trust responsibilities, including public safety, land conservation and revenue management," the outline says.
"It eliminates funding for unnecessary or duplicative programs while reducing funds for lower priority activities, such as acquiring new lands," it says.
A top priority in the blueprint is boosting energy development on public lands.
Trump seeks to increase funding for Interior's efforts that "support environmentally responsible development of energy on public lands and offshore waters." Investment in the National Park Service's deferred maintenance projects would also see a boost.DOE
The Energy Department would see narrower cuts than some other agencies, in part due to a boost in defense spending within that department.
Trump has requested $28 billion for DOE, down $1.7 billion — or 5.6 percent — from current spending levels.
That includes an 11 percent increase for the National Nuclear Security Administration and cuts to other DOE programs deemed unnecessary by the new administration.
The budget for DOE "emphasizes energy technologies best positioned to enable American energy independence and domestic job-growth in the near to mid-term," the blueprint says.
The budget provides $120 million to restart licensing activities for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository and $6.5 billion to advance nuclear waste cleanup efforts.
The White House seeks to eliminate DOE's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) office, the Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program and the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program. The administration said, "the private sector is better positioned to finance disruptive energy research and development and to commercialize innovative technologies."Congressional caution
Trump's proposed cuts are far from final, and lawmakers in both parties insist that Congress will have the final budget say.
"There's always a few surprises, but you to have remember this is only a proposal. Congress I don't believe has ratified any president's budget" without changes, said Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), a senior appropriator, ahead of the budget's public release today.
Other appropriators, citing concerns about the cuts for EPA and foreign aid, have suggested the proposal might not have the votes to pass the House and almost certainly would not have the 60 votes needed to overcome a Senate filibuster.
"There is a lot of talk early on, if you visit with [lawmakers] privately they just don't think the cuts are going to be as severe as proposed," said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), the ranking member on the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee.
Udall noted cuts to Interior would hit rural areas in the West that tend to be Republican strongholds. He said conservatives on Capitol Hill probably would reject those reductions.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said backers of EPA need to stress that the cuts would lead to less clean air and drinking water. He also said he'd emphasize the EPA budget has already been cut back over the past several years.
Carper said he expected Democrats to push back hard against proposed cuts in science funding.
"The idea of walking away from science and not being guided by science is crazy. We can't do that, it would be foolish," he said.
Conservative critics of the EPA however, are already cheering the cuts.
"It'd be a good deal to me," said Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a senior EPW Committee member who has long battled EPA. Inhofe, a close ally of Pruitt, suggested layoffs at EPA might even help the agency better focus its mission.
"They need to get back to the job they are supposed to be doing without all this political activism they have historically had," he added.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/03/16/stories/1060051556
-
House Republicans Seek ‘Economically Viable’ Climate Solutions
Mar 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Nearly 20 House Republicans introduced a resolution that would commit Congress to finding “economically viable” solutions to climate change risks.
The resolution (bill number unavailable) led by Reps. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) and Ryan Costello (R-Pa.), introduced March 15, is identical to one sponsored by now-retired Rep. Chris Gibson (R-N.Y.) in the last Congress. It comes days after Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt questioned whether carbon dioxide emissions are a major cause of climate change, and the day before the White House is expected to release a proposed budget that is widely expected to significantly cut the EPA.
Gibson's resolution (H. Res. 424) never received a hearing in the 114th Congress. A Republican House Energy and Commerce Committee aide told Bloomberg BNA in an email that the committee is aware of the resolution and looks “forward to working with” the sponsors “as we reevaluate the Obama EPA policies versus our own new policies going forward.”
‘Not in a State of Denial’
Environmentalists such as the Union of Concerned Scientists lauded the Republican members for urging science-based decision making on climate change.
“If Congress followed the science it would, of course, see that fossil fuel emissions are driving climate change,” Union of Concerned Scientists President Ken Kimmell said in a statement. “While the resolution doesn't explicitly make that link, it shows that these Republican lawmakers are not in a state of denial about this key issue. There is strength in numbers, and I hope that this sizable group of responsible leaders will have an impact on votes in Congress.”
While the resolution that included 14 other Republican co-sponsors supports addressing climate change, it doesn't mean those Republicans supported the Obama administration's approach. Many of the 17 members have opposed such actions as the Clean Power Plan, which was intended to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electricity-generating units.
Other co-sponsors include Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.), Rep. John Faso (R-N.Y.), Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), Rep. John Katko (R-N.Y.), Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.), Rep. Mia Love (R-Utah), Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.), Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-Pa.), Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.), Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.), Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) and Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.).
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107304206&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107304206&jd=107304206
-
Missing California Ozone Plans Prompt Litigation Threat
Mar 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
Missing plans detailing strategies to reduce ozone pollution in California prompted a litigation threat from environmental advocates, who want the EPA to take action against the state for not meeting a Clean Air Act deadline.
The Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Environmental Health, in a March 14 letter, asked the Environmental Protection Agency to issue a regulatory determination known as a “finding of failure to submit” against California. The finding would cover missing plans for reducing emissions of ozone precursors such as nitrogen oxides and volatile organics in the Los Angeles and Sacramento metropolitan areas.
That regulatory determination would trigger an obligation that the EPA issue its own federal plans for reducing pollution in those cities within two years.
The advocacy organizations said they will sue the EPA if the agency fails to issue the required findings within 60 days. The EPA's failure to meet Clean Air Act deadlines often prompts such citizen suits from environmental advocates, which typically result in a settlement that establishes a court-enforced deadline for EPA action.
However, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has been critical of the number of environmental advocacy organization lawsuits settled by the Obama EPA, a practice opponents often refer to as “sue-and-settle.”
“The sue-and-settle practice through consent decrees has been something that the EPA and other agencies have used, I think, to the detriment of the people that we serve,” Pruitt said March 10 at an energy conference in Houston. “That will change under our administration.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107304203&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107304203&jd=107304203
-
Connecticut Joins Carbon Tax Debate
Mar 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel
Connecticut has joined a growing pack of states debating a tax on carbon fuels.
A divisive new bill, HB 7247, would create a new tax on wholesale sales of coal, gasoline, natural gas and oil, based on the amount of carbon dioxide that is produced by burning the fuel.
“Across the entire political spectrum, there's a growing consensus that market-driven programs to address the real costs of carbon emissions are the answer,” bill sponsor Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (D), told reporters March 13 after a hearing on the measure by the Joint Committee on the Environment.
But any consensus that exists in Connecticut doesn't yet include Steinberg's Republican colleagues in the Senate.
“This proposed legislation will ultimately result in an additional tax burden on the already over-taxed residents of Connecticut,” Sen. Republican Majority Whip Eric Berthel, told the committee. “If passed, this legislation will result in an average increase of over $200 per year in new taxes on every household in Connecticut that uses oil for heat, transportation and electricity.”
State Interest, Federal Lobbying
The bill, which has spawned a flood of public comments, hasn't yet been scheduled for a committee vote.
Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Washington are also debating carbon tax bills, and New Hampshire and Vermont are deciding whether to study the issue.
Also, a prominent group of Republicans is lobbying the federal government to take up the issue.
Almost 40 nations, including Canada, already tax carbon, according to the American Sustainable Business Council, a national group pushing for the Connecticut measure.
The Connecticut bill would charge a tax of $15 per ton of “carbon-dioxide equivalent” produced by petroleum products beginning Jan. 1, 2019. The tax would go up by $5 per year until 2022.
The tax would only take effect if the neighboring states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island also levy a carbon tax.
Utilities Charged
Electric generators and distributors in the state also would be subject to the Connecticut tax if they use carbon fuels. However, they would be able to deduct any fees they paid related to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a carbon cap-and-trade program.
The tax on utilities would be based on the kilowatt-hour of electricity used by customers.
The Commissioner of Revenue Services would annually determine the amount of the tax charged to electric companies.
Natural gas distributors also would be subject to the tax, which would be based on the amount of cubic feet of natural gas used by each customer.
The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority would determine the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent associated with natural gas.
Utility Opposition
“This bill will significantly raise rates for UIL's electric and gas customers through a hidden tax on energy usage, while providing a very uncertain environmental benefit,” Albert Carbone, a lobbyist for UIL Holdings Corp., told the committee. UIL owns United Illuminating Company, the Southern Connecticut Gas Company and Connecticut Natural Gas.
Similar to the Massachusetts bill, S.1021, and Rhode Island bill, H. 5369, the Connecticut proposal would be revenue neutral because it rebates the tax to residents and businesses.
Thirty percent of the tax collected would be returned to businesses. Forty percent would go back to residents. Another 25 percent to 30 percent would be used to enhance energy conservation of low-income residents.
The revenue collected would fund renewable energy and public transportation projects.
The Connecticut League of Conservation Voters supports the bill and believes the idea of sending 30 percent of the revenues collected to employers is a “significant benefit,” Lori Brown, director of the Connecticut league, told the committee March 13.
Businesses Oppose
But the Connecticut Business & Industry Association opposes the bill and called it “highly risky” and “potentially economically damaging.”
“Several aspects have the potential to send shock waves through many business sectors within and beyond our state borders,” Eric Brown, attorney with the CBIA, told the committee.
The association also doesn't back the idea of a new body, a Carbon Pollution Council, being in charge of setting and collecting the tax, Brown said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107304214&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107304214&jd=107304214
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested