Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 3/23/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) BASF, HPE Team Up to Bring Safer Chemicals to Market More Quickly, Cost Effectively
Mar 23, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
In a move that aims to make it cheaper and faster to bring safer chemicals to market, BASF and Hewlett Packard Enterprise are partnering to develop one of the world’s largest supercomputers for industrial chemical research. -
(ACC Mentioned) PP Prices on the Rise Again in March
Mar 23, 2017 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
North American polypropylene resin prices have continued their early-year surge, increasing by 3 cents per pound in March. -
(ACC Mentioned) Sonoco is Latest to Join the Recycling Partnership
Mar 23, 2017 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson
An effort to divert more plastics and other recyclables from the waste stream has another funding partner. -
Former Staffers Decry 'Draconian' Budget Cuts
Mar 23, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
A coalition of former U.S. EPA staffers yesterday unveiled a scathing analysis of President Trump's proposed budget, calling cuts to the agency "draconian" and "a full-throttle attack" on environmental laws. -
(ACC Blog) Working Together to Improve EPA’s Proposed Rules for Chemical Prioritization and Risk Evaluation Under the Lautenberg Act
Mar 23, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
As efforts continue in earnest to implement the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (LCSA), ACC sees two areas in particular where industry and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can work together closely to put the program on a solid footing – prioritizing chemicals for review and conducting efficient risk evaluations. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Presses EPA to Restrict Scope of Chemical 'Uses' for TSCA Reviews
Mar 23, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The American Chemistry Council is pressing EPA to restrict the scope of chemical "uses" it considers for the first 10 substance reviews it is planning under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authority, arguing the agency should only look at the chemicals' current uses rather than all possible uses of the substances. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trade Bodies Seek More Transparency in TSCA Risk Evaluation Proposal
Mar 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry groups say that the US EPA’s proposed approach for conducting risk evaluation under the new TSCA lacks specificity and must clearly define scientific concepts in order to ensure transparency and consistency. -
(ACC Mentioned) SOCMA Urges EPA to Cut Costs of TSCA Inventory Rule, Citing Trump's EO
Mar 23, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Chemical and other industry officials are urging EPA to revise its proposed rule updating and and resetting its inventory of chemicals in the U.S. marketplace so that it cuts costs and eases compliance, with one group saying that such changes will help the agency comply with President Donald Trump's executive order capping rules' costs. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Declares Opposition to California Priority Product Proposal
Mar 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) says it will oppose California’s proposal to list spray polyurethane foam (SPF) insulation containing unreacted methylene diphenyl diisocyanates (MDI) as a priority product under the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme. -
Companies Urge Pruitt to Back Safer Choice Programme
Mar 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
More than 180 organisations have written to US EPA administrator Scott Pruitt to support the agency’s Safer Choice programme. Among signatories to the letter are the Consumer Specialty Products Association, the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) and the worldwide cleaning association, ISSA. -
US Agency Solicits Nominations for Toxicological Profile Development
Mar 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is seeking nominations for the next set of substances for which it will develop toxicological profiles. -
US EPA Round-Up
Mar 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) has announced two meetings of its Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC) to review the draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) toxicological review of hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX). -
Echa Publishes REACH Data on 15,000 Chemicals
Mar 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has published information on approximately 15,000 substances registered under REACH. -
Echa Round-Up
Mar 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Germany has notified Echa of its intention to submit a dossier on restricting the manufacturing, placing on the market, industrial and professional use of the following substances, including their salts and precursors. -
Court Tosses Sweeping Suit Against FERC
Mar 23, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A federal court yesterday rejected an ambitious lawsuit from environmentalists who say federal regulators are biased toward approving natural gas pipelines. -
Calif. May Go Its Own Way on Emissions
Mar 23, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
California today is expected to pass the nation's strictest methane emissions restriction. -
State Department to Approve Keystone: Report
Mar 23, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The State Department is expected to approve a permit for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline as early as Monday. -
DHS Cyber Shakeup Gets Warm Reception at House Hearing
Mar 23, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A leading House lawmaker drummed up support yesterday for legislation to reform the Department of Homeland Security's cyber role "in the near future." -
Industrial Facilities Infected with Malware 3,000 Times a Year
Mar 23, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Collin Eaton
Cybersecurity researchers believe computer controls at industrial facilities, including in the oil business, get infected by non-targeted malware at least 3,000 times a year. -
Court's Air Rule Deadlines Add to Growing EPA Budget, Staffing Problem
Mar 23, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
A federal district court has issued an order setting a near three-year deadline for EPA to issue 13 overdue air toxics rules days after the same court imposed a similar mandate for issuing 20 other delayed air toxics rules, creating a growing problem for the agency to meet the legal deadlines at a time of massive proposed budget and staffing cuts. -
Appeals Court Gives EPA 2nd Chance on Texas Haze Rule
Mar 23, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A federal appellate court has granted U.S. EPA's motion to revisit a disputed portion of its initial regional haze reduction plan for Texas and Oklahoma, while turning back a bid by opponents to scrap the rule entirely.
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) BASF, HPE Team Up to Bring Safer Chemicals to Market More Quickly, Cost Effectively
Mar 23, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
In a move that aims to make it cheaper and faster to bring safer chemicals to market, BASF and Hewlett Packard Enterprise are partnering to develop one of the world’s largest supercomputers for industrial chemical research.
The new supercomputer, located at BASF’s Ludwigshafen headquarters, is based on the latest generation of HPE Apollo 6000 systems. It will drive the digitalization of BASF’s worldwide research, the companies say.
“The new supercomputer will promote the application and development of complex modeling and simulation approaches, opening up completely new avenues for our research at BASF,” said BASF chief technology officer Dr. Martin Brudermueller in a statement.
The system will make it possible to answer complex questions and reduce the time required to obtain results from several months to days across all research areas, the companies say. As part of BASF’s digitalization strategy, it plans to significantly expand its capabilities to run virtual experiments with the supercomputer. It will help BASF reduce time to market and costs by, for example, simulating processes on catalyst surfaces more precisely or accelerating the design of new polymers with pre-defined properties.
“We expect this supercomputer to help BASF perform prodigious calculations at lightning fast speeds, resulting in a broad range of innovations to solve new problems and advance our world,” said Meg Whitman, HPE president and CEO in a statement.
The BASF-HPE announcement comes as manufacturers are expressing frustration over the time and expense it takes to bring new substances to market, which they say is caused in part by last year’s updates to the Toxic Substances Control Act. The manufacturers say a backlog of chemicals awaiting EPA approval is hurting business, and the US economy at large.
Only 33 new chemicals have been allowed to enter commerce since the law was amended, according to American Chemistry Council president Cal Dooley: “This is stunning for a program that has historically reviewed about 1,000 substances annually.”
https://www.environmentalleader.com/2017/03/basf-hpe-team-bring-safer-chemicals-market-quickly-cost-effectively/
-
(ACC Mentioned) PP Prices on the Rise Again in March
Mar 23, 2017 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
North American polypropylene resin prices have continued their early-year surge, increasing by 3 cents per pound in March.
The increase was connected to tightness in supplies of propylene monomer feedstock, which caused prices for that material to rise as well. Regional PP resin prices now are up 19.5 cents per pound since Jan. 1.
But market sources told Plastics Newsthat the March PP hike might be the last for a while. "March will be the peak," said Scott Newell, a market analyst with Resin Technology Inc. in Fort Worth, Texas. "I see a large correction coming. We can already see the signals that this thing is starting to turn around.
"Propylene monomer supply is heavily incentivized from all production streams [and] seasonal outages are wrapping up," he added. "As monomer supply comes back, demand needs to come back. Prices must come down."
A major regional PP buyer agreed, saying that "it appears all resins have peaked and the downward slide is next."
North American PP sales were up almost 1 percent in the first two months of 2017, according to the American Chemistry Council. Domestic sales were down almost 1 percent in that period, but export sales more than doubled. Regional PP sales grew 0.4 percent in full-year 2016.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20170323/NEWS/170329942/pp-prices-on-the-rise-again-in-march
-
(ACC Mentioned) Sonoco is Latest to Join the Recycling Partnership
Mar 23, 2017 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson
An effort to divert more plastics and other recyclables from the waste stream has another funding partner.
Sonoco Products Co. has joined the Recycling Partnership, which already has a litany of partners familiar to those in plastics, including the Association of Plastic Recyclers, the American Chemistry Council, Dow Chemical Co., Amcor Ltd., Plastics Industry Association and Dart Container Corp.
"Sonoco has set aggressive sustainability goals, and we are dedicated to not just meeting, but exceeding those goals," said Laura Rowell, manager of global sustainability for Sonoco, in a statement. "The expanding impact of the Recycling Partnership is one of the most exciting developments in the industry today, and together we can magnify those results."
A big part of the partnership's mission is to make recycling easier and more accessible through the placement of recycling carts in communities around the country. These roll-out carts, with wheels and more capacity than smaller hand-held bins, help capture more recyclables from households.
"Most people take it for granted that recycling is universally available in this country, but that's far from true," said Jeff Meyers, vice president of operations for the Recycling Partnership in a statement. "Sonoco's support strengthens our ability to bring better recycling programs to communities all over America. Not only will we be growing access to recover more consumer packaging, we will be leading the charge to improve the quality of the recovered material."
Sonoco also has been making headlines in recent months with the introduction of its plastic TruVue clear food can. The company makes consumer packaging, industrial products and protective packaging. Sonoco also has its own recycling division that includes material recovery facilities.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20170323/NEWS/170329944/sonoco-is-latest-to-join-the-recycling-partnership
-
Former Staffers Decry 'Draconian' Budget Cuts
Mar 23, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
A coalition of former U.S. EPA staffers yesterday unveiled a scathing analysis of President Trump's proposed budget, calling cuts to the agency "draconian" and "a full-throttle attack" on environmental laws.
The report by the Environmental Protection Network is based on an assessment of the "skinny" budget Trump released last week as well as an earlier leaked internal Office of Management and Budget "passback," which provided much more detail on specific proposed cuts.
Overall, the White House aims to reduce EPA spending by 31 percent, cutting it from $8.2 billion to $5.7 billion. That, the authors argue, would limit the agency's ability to protect environment and public health.
The network of roughly 75 people also includes former officials from other federal and state agencies. They issued the report as part of what they describe as an effort to provide context for changes happening at EPA under the Trump administration. But, they maintained, they are not advocating for all EPA programs to remain as they are today.
"However, we do believe the immense and ill-conceived cuts that the Trump Administration has proposed would inflict severe harm to the system of environmental protection that the nation has built over the past half century. The unavoidable consequences of the cuts would be more pollution that causes illness, death and dangerous changes to the earth's climate and ecosystems on which Americans and people around the world depend," they wrote.
The 51-page report blasts the Trump administration for eliminating nearly all of EPA's climate funding, "even as the earth continues to warm and climate change impacts grow worse." The group argues that the cuts are ideological, saying "there is no evidence that the cuts are based on any real analysis of changing needs."
The president's budget blueprint has proposed eliminating a broad swath of climate initiatives at EPA that are responsible for much of the country's progress in reducing carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases. Funding would disappear for implementing the Clean Power Plan limiting emissions from the power sector, for voluntary programs like Energy Star that encourage industry efficiency, and for helping other nations address climate change through the Paris Agreement.
The proposed cuts would also sharply limit climate change research, limit science education efforts, and make it more difficult to create reports tracking climate change impacts on public health and a number of environmental factors.
Trump's budget blueprint frames the cuts as $100 million in savings. The report argues that the actual costs would be more than tens of billions of dollars from the combination of increased risks to human health and property from climate change, as well as from "irreparable" damage to the global environment.
The authors point out that a 69 percent cut to climate regulatory programs proposed in the OMB passback would severely limit the agency's ability to regulate carbon, methane and other greenhouse gases as it is required to do under the Clean Air Act.
In addition to eliminating the Clean Power Plan — which the report describes as vitally important to convincing other countries to reduce their carbon footprints — vehicle greenhouse gas standards and methane regulations on landfills and for new sources in the oil and gas industry would be weakened or eliminated under the budget. Regulations currently under development such as aviation emissions standards, methane regulations for existing oil and gas sources, and regulations of hydrofluorocarbons could also be at risk.
The authors noted that efforts to roll back EPA's climate rules would incur additional costs not reflected in the budget, both for starting a new rulemaking process to change "existing rules and findings," and to combat legal challenges for failing to meet its Clean Air Act obligations.
Since the agency is still legally required to regulate greenhouse gases, EPA would also have to be prepared to respond to rulemaking petitions to restrict emissions from unregulated sources.
"It is extremely doubtful that the Agency could now decline to make an endangerment finding for any significant source of GHG pollution and so avoid regulating them. Setting standards in the wake of endangerment finding will require funding," the authors wrote.
They argue that the budget would not only severely hamper the agency's ability to address climate change — which the Trump administration has shown little interest in doing — but also undermine goals expressed by both EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and the administration to give more local governments greater control over environmental regulation. They include:
Halving state grant funding
The budget proposes a 45 percent cut in state grants, reducing both the funding and manpower to respond to devastating events like hurricane and floods, as well as the ability to carry out inspections and conduct environmental cleanup of contaminated sites. States would also be less able to adjust how they implement federal programs so they are more suited to the specific needs of the state, the Environmental Protection Network argued.
Cuts to EPA headquarters would also have a trickle-down impact on states, which partner with the federal staff and EPA's regional offices to carry out national policy.
Reducing enforcement
Even where state funding is maintained — for example, for state-run water infrastructure projects — local ability to carry out the work would be hampered by planned cuts to enforcement funding.
The budget blueprint suggests a 23 percent cut to compliance assistance and enforcement. According to the proposal, this change "avoids duplication by concentrating EPA's enforcement of environmental protection violations on programs that are not delegated to States, while providing oversight to maintain consistency and assistance across State, local, and tribal programs."
George Wyeth, a former EPA lawyer who co-authored the report, said it is already a challenge for states to keep up with their own enforcement issues.
"The great majority of enforcement cases are brought by states," said Wyeth. "It's leaving the state in a position to go to taxpayers to make up that gap."
Consolidating EPA's regional offices
Among the suggestions in the OMB passback was a proposal to consolidate EPA's 10 regional offices into eight. The document set a June 15 deadline for the agency to identify which two regional offices would be eliminated. It also called for EPA to try to find office space in areas with less expensive real estate.
Doing away with regional offices would hobble the partnership between the federal government and states, since the regional offices are more easily able to respond to any problems within the states, the network argued.
For instance, during the water crisis in Flint, Mich., EPA's Region 5 office in Chicago sent 60 staff members to conduct on-the-ground work in the community, while EPA headquarters sent a handful of people, said Nicole Cantello, an EPA lawyer (Climatewire, March 3).
Stopping conversion to electronic records
States could also be hit by a loss of funding for "E-Enterprise for the Environment," which is aimed at reducing paperwork for states, tribes and local communities by providing more resources online. The initiative would also streamline state and federal regulations, making it easier for businesses facing regulations to comply and help the public track air and water pollutants.
The budget would also get rid of funding for "E-Manifest," an effort to create electronic tracking of hazardous waste shipments.
"These are modernizations with an upfront cost that will save government, businesses and taxpayers time and money in the long run," the report's authors wrote.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/03/23/stories/1060051945
-
Mar 23, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
As efforts continue in earnest to implement the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (LCSA), ACC sees two areas in particular where industry and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can work together closely to put the program on a solid footing – prioritizing chemicals for review and conducting efficient risk evaluations.
EPA must complete new rules governing these processes by June 2017.
To support this important work, ACC filed comments this week on EPA’s proposed rules for Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals and Risk Evaluation, as required by the new law.
Strong footing: Prioritization of chemicals
Prioritization of chemicals for review is a key provision of the LCSA’s framework. It is the foundation for a more efficient EPA process to evaluate the risks of high priority substances.
However, EPA’s proposed prioritization process for designating chemicals as low or high priority for risk evaluations raises several concerns.
EPA suggested a “pre-prioritization” step to identify candidate chemicals for prioritization but provided very little detail about the operation of this step. ACC strongly urges EPA to clarify the criteria, methods, authority and limitations on this step in its final rule. Greater clarity is essential to ensure consistency in, and credibility of, EPA’s prioritization designations.
The prioritization process rule’s treatment of low priority chemicals is also problematic. EPA suggests that it would be unlikely to designate chemicals as low priorities because the Agency proposes that ALL conditions of use of the chemical meet the low priority criteria to be designated as such.
Congress intended low priority designations to be one way EPA could make more efficient progress in reviewing chemicals, to assure the public about chemical safety, and to conserve resources by focusing its attention on chemicals that may pose a risk to human health and the environment. EPA has authority to designate low priorities more often than it has suggested.
It is critical that EPA get prioritization right.
Next step forward: Risk evaluations
At the core of the LSCA is effective and efficient risk evaluation of prioritized chemicals and uses.
ACC and our members have called for EPA to focus on the most relevant, greatest potential risk conditions of use that warrant risk evaluations — taking into account a substance’s hazards and its exposure potential, using the best available science and the full weight-of-the-scientific-evidence. The process should consist of a tiered approach that includes an initial screening-level evaluation; when necessary, a more detailed evaluation to quantify potential risks would then be conducted.
Unfortunately, the Agency’s proposed rule on risk evaluation does not incorporate the key scientific criteria and weight-of-the-evidence provisions that were required by the LCSA.
We believe revisions to the rule are necessary so that all stakeholders can understand exactly how EPA will evaluate the quality, reliability, and relevance of the scientific evidence it examines to achieve final risk evaluations.
Not to be overlooked: Data and information sharing
Embedded in each of these components of the LCSA is the need for data and information sharing.
Industry has a lot to offer in this regard – from our deep knowledge base and expertise both in the U.S. and abroad, to the robust chemical safety information we’ve developed over the years on chemicals in commerce.
That’s why we are committed to working closely with EPA to provide or identify the information that can help the Agency make quick, accurate risk evaluations.
Why it matters
Steady and consistent progress to review chemicals in commerce will only be possible if EPA, industry and other stakeholders commit to it; view each other as partners with shared goals; and cooperate to reach milestones.
The Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act is our opportunity to demonstrate:
how a state-of-the-art, risk-based chemical safety program truly works in practice;
how it can protect both public health and the environment without unnecessarily stifling innovation; and
how key elements of such a risk-based program can be implemented around the globe today, especially in developing countries where governments and communities could most benefit from the innovation and economic growth that chemistry makes possible.
That is why ACC and our members are committed to implementing the Lautenberg Act successfully.
It’s important to note that Administrator Pruitt has committed to making sound science the foundation of all regulation – a principle that ACC, its members and their customers have long supported.
Administrator Pruitt’s leadership and commitment to science will be instrumental to ensuring that the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act is implemented in the way that lawmakers intended.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2017/03/working-together-to-improve-epas-proposed-rules-for-chemical-prioritization-and-risk-evaluation-under-the-lautenberg-act/
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Presses EPA to Restrict Scope of Chemical 'Uses' for TSCA Reviews
Mar 23, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The American Chemistry Council is pressing EPA to restrict the scope of chemical "uses" it considers for the first 10 substance reviews it is planning under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authority, arguing the agency should only look at the chemicals' current uses rather than all possible uses of the substances.
"It is very important that the first 10 (and subsequent) risk evaluations be successful, effective, and completed within the statutory deadline. Therefore, it is important that EPA prioritize the conditions of use it will evaluate and focus on those that present the greatest potential risk to human health and/or the environment," writes ACC in March 15 comments to EPA. Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com. (Doc. ID: 200094)
The comments highlight an opposing stance to environmentalists and others who have suggested that that first 10 chemicals EPA reviews under the updated toxics law should consider all possible uses.
ACC filed the comments on the Obama EPA's list of 10 substances it would review for possible restrictions or bans with the new authority given it in last June's Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (LCSA). The chemicals are 1,4 dioxane; 1-bromopropane; asbestos; carbon tetrachloride; cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster; methylene chloride; n-methylpyrrolidone; pigment violet 29; trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has said the agency will push ahead with implementation of LCSA. The agency has begun scoping work to determine how the analyses will be conducted. The updated toxics law sets a Dec. 19, 2019 deadline for EPA to complete risk evaluations determining whether the chemicals present an unreasonable risk to humans or the environment -- and if so, triggering risk management rulemaking.
But some observers have raised questions about whether the Trump EPA will pursue the same list the Obama EPA proposed, given President Donald Trump's comments doubting concerns about asbestos. And ACC's comments show debate lingers about the scope of a chemical's uses EPA should consider in the evaluations.
ACC says some speakers at a February EPA stakeholders' meeting "claimed that EPA is required to examine all conditions of use, all vulnerable subpopulations, aggregate risks, continuing exposures to legacy contamination, intended and actual uses (even misuses), and incidental and cumulative exposures. It was suggested that EPA should not consider current risk management measures in place . . . based on a blanket assertion that people often do not follow risk management requirements or read labels. Notably, EPA is expected to accomplish all these tasks within the statutory deadlines. ACC is concerned that such a comprehensive approach is neither legally required nor practical."
EPA's interpretation of changes in the statute regarding how the agency conducts its pre-market review program for new chemicals, known as the pre-manufacture notice (PMN) process, has stalled its processing of new chemicals. Industry representatives at an annual conference last month complained that EPA's PMN program, which usually processes 1000-1500 PMNs a year, has completed just 33 in the past six months, Cal Dooley, president and CEO of ACC told attendees at GlobalChem Feb. 23.
Delays are said to stem from EPA's insistence that its PMN reviews must consider all potential uses of the new chemicals in order for the agency to make the statements now required about the risks that the chemical may pose to human health and the environment. EPA's acting toxics chief Wendy Cleland-Hamnett said at the event that she and her staff are working to improve the process but must meet the statute's requirements in their reviews.
ACC in its comments argues that there is no statutory mandate for EPA to include all conditions of use in its evaluations of existing chemicals as outlined in section 6(b) of the updated toxics law. "The LCSA requires EPA to conduct risk evaluations to determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under certain evaluated circumstances called 'conditions of use.'"
ACC argues that the statute requires EPA to scope evaluations before conducting them in order to select the chemical uses that should be evaluated. "Congress intended the scoping phase as the opportunity to focus the risk evaluation; otherwise, Congress would not have included the step," the group argues, adding that Congress could have required EPA to evaluate all uses as part of the updated TSCA, but did not.
ACC also quotes the LCSA's definition of condition of uses as "'the circumstances, as determined by [EPA], under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of.' Nowhere in the statute does Congress modify 'conditions of use' with 'all.' The plain meaning of the statute does not require EPA to include 'all' conditions of use in a risk evaluation. EPA clearly has the discretion to scope the risk evaluation to include and exclude certain uses."
In addition, ACC argues that there are situations that EPA should exclude from its evaluations, among them chemical uses regulated by laws other than TSCA, accidental or misuses of chemicals, chemicals present in trace amounts or were unintentionally added, and "defunct uses" of substances.
ACC says, "EPA has a directive from Congress to narrow, not expand, the universe of all potential exposures to those that are most significant in terms of risk -- current conditions of use -- not obsolete ones."
The trade association American Cleaning Institute (ACI) in its March 6 comments makes the same argument regarding one of the first 10 chemicals EPA has selected for evaluation, 1,4-dioxane, which is used to make soaps and detergents and can remain in the finished products as a contaminant but is not an ingredient.
"Given the extraordinarily low levels of 1,4-dioxane that might remain at trace quantities in certain materials and products, we question whether any further in-depth assessment of the unintentional presence of the substance must be undertaken and whether doing so represents a good use of the Agency's scarce resources," ACI writes. "Thus, ACI recommends that the Agency exercise its discretion to determine that the presence of unintentionally present trace levels of 1,4-dioxane in consumer and similar commercial products is beyond the scope of the risk evaluation EPA will undertake for 1,4-dioxane." ACI goes on to argue that unintended impurities or residues are not conditions of use as defined by the LCSA, nor do they meet the law's risk standard for performing an evaluation.
ACC, meanwhile, argues that EPA should ignore calls from environmental and advocacy groups to consider aggregate exposures and narrow its analyses of the risks that chemicals pose sensitive subpopulations -- as required in the statute -- to "potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations relevant to the conditions of use."
Further, while the statute directs EPA to consider whether workers may be a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation, ACC argues that "Any consideration of worker exposure must acknowledge that worker exposures are regulated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). Given that OSHA protocols are designed to regulate risk to worker populations, it should be the unusual case where an unreasonable risk may present to a worker population under conditions of use (e.g., use of controls and personal protective equipment)."
ACC goes on to remind EPA that under section 9(d) of the revised TSCA, the agency must consult with OSHA before undertaking risk mitigation actions that would impact workers.
ACC also reminds the agency of the new language in TSCA section 26 requiring EPA to use the best available science and the weight of the scientific evidence in its evaluations.
While the group merely defines the terms in these comments, ACC at recent hearings in Congress has raised concerns that EPA has indicated that it believes its existing practices meet these scientific standards and does not intend to make changes to its operating procedures.
For example, ACC argued before a March 9 Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management panel hearing that EPA needs to make changes to strengthen its approach and make it more transparent, such as using a systematic review approach in its analyses.
ACC in its new comments to EPA also raises concerns about the agency's use of its Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data in the preliminary scoping information the agency released last month about each of the 10 chemicals. The group argues that the database does not include information on relevant factors relating to exposures, such as environmental fate, exposure routes and pathways.
"ACC believes TRI may have a role to play as an element in an overall approach to chemical prioritization, but it is of questionable or little value in risk evaluation, which EPA should acknowledge and explain," the comments say.
https://insideepa.com/inside-epa/acc-presses-epa-restrict-scope-chemical-uses-tsca-reviews
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trade Bodies Seek More Transparency in TSCA Risk Evaluation Proposal
Mar 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Industry groups say that the US EPA’s proposed approach for conducting risk evaluation under the new TSCA lacks specificity and must clearly define scientific concepts in order to ensure transparency and consistency.
The feedback was offered in response to a consultation on the agency’s proposed risk evaluation ‘framework rule’, issued in January.
Stakeholders largely agreed with the American Chemistry Council’s stance that the EPA should articulate a clear regulatory definition of ‘systematic review’ – “a process to collect and evaluate information in a transparent and reproducible manner”.
NGO the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said that the “transparency, objectivity and consistency” inherent to such an approach are necessary in a risk evaluation. For example, some of the agency’s TSCA workplan assessments, it said, failed to describe how it identified relevant information and assessed study quality.
But industry and consumer advocacy groups diverged on the extent to which the rule should specify the scientific details of how risk evaluations are to be conducted.
The EDF stood by its previously expressed position that such concepts are better addressed in more nimble guidance documents. But the ACC and several other industry groups urged clarification in the rule to help them understand the EPA’s approach.
Industry calls for transparent, comprehensive approach
The ACC said that the risk evaluation rule must be more specific about the EPA’s scientific approach.
“Just providing a list of EPA guidance documents or [National Academy of Sciences] reports is not only woefully inadequate, it is not sufficiently transparent for stakeholders to understand the actual scientific approach EPA intends to take,” it added.
The Biobased and Renewable Products Advocacy Group (BRAG) said that it is “crucial that all stakeholders fully comprehend the process by which a chemical substance will be evaluated”, but that the current proposal “does not provide the transparency to achieve such”.
The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers said the EPA should make the evaluation methods, information it intends to consider, criteria for determining quality and peer review procedures available for review and comment.
“All measured data – sufficient to replicate findings critical to the overall evaluation – and default assumptions used in modelling should be made publicly available, to afford stakeholders the opportunity to verify evaluation results,” it added.
Call for clearer definitions
In its proposal, the EPA said that many of the terms used in the proposed rule are “not novel concepts and are already in use”, and thus further defining several scientific terms would be “unnecessary and ultimately problematic”.
But BRAG said that the application of key scientific terms is “the cornerstone for the risk evaluation process” and it is “crucial that EPA provide appropriate definitions so that there is no confusion among stakeholders regarding what the terms mean or how they will be applied”.
Dow Chemical called for the development of a “single cohesive risk standard” for a weight-of-evidence standard, rather than “relying on, or referring to, sundry guidance documents published over the last 20 years”.
The Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association added that defining section 26 terms like ‘sufficiency of information’ is important to the transparency of EPA’s work. “Stakeholders will need to recognise what types of data will be considered ‘sufficient’ early enough in the process so that they can collect the relevant information prior to risk evaluation,” it said.
The ACC suggested definitions for such scientific terms as ‘best available science’, ‘systematic review’ and ‘sufficiency of information’, and said these should be included in the rule rather than subsequent guidance. Although the EPA has defined these in its risk characterisation handbook, the ACC says these lack sufficient clarity to inform stakeholders of their meaning under TSCA.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54674/trade-bodies-seek-more-transparency-in-tsca-risk-evaluation-proposal
-
(ACC Mentioned) SOCMA Urges EPA to Cut Costs of TSCA Inventory Rule, Citing Trump's EO
Mar 23, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Chemical and other industry officials are urging EPA to revise its proposed rule updating and and resetting its inventory of chemicals in the U.S. marketplace so that it cuts costs and eases compliance, with one group saying that such changes will help the agency comply with President Donald Trump's executive order capping rules' costs.
In recently posted comments on EPA's proposed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) inventory update rule, the
Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA), which represents small batch and specialty chemical companies, recommends that EPA require only one company to report each chemical to the agency for it to be considered listed on the inventory.
This "one and done" approach could "dramatically reduce burdens on reporting companies -- and EPA," the group says, adding that it would help the agency comply with provisions in Trump's Jan. 30 Executive Order (EO) 13771 that prohibits any additional incremental costs for new regulations in fiscal year 2017 and directs agencies to "identify" two rules for repeal for every new rule they propose. Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com. (Doc. ID: 200188)
Complying with the order's cost and deregulatory provisions could be difficult for EPA because many agency rules are required by statute, as is the TSCA inventory reset rule.
Dan Newton, SOCMA's senior manager for government relations, writes in the group's undated comments that complying with the order's cost requirements will be difficult for EPA and the agency should therefore ease industry burdens. "EPA will face sufficient challenges meeting its 'net zero' cap in any event; it ought not make the job any more difficult than it needs to," he writes.
The group's comments echo recent suggestions from several other industry groups who urged White House officials in recent comments to prioritize provisions in the order that require agencies to offset new regulatory costs over its requirements that agencies "identify" rules for repeal.
Like many environmentalists, the industry groups say the requirement that agencies identify rules for repeal is likely to create regulatory confusion and will be difficult to implement at EPA, where many rules are required by statute.
A case in point is EPA's rule setting effluent limits for dental amalgam, which was approved by the Obama administration but which has now stalled as the White House budget office insists that the agency comply with the executive order's deregulatory provisions.
EPA's inventory reset rule, proposed Jan. 13, is aimed at giving the agency a better sense of how many thousands of chemicals are already in the marketplace. Chemicals on the market do not undergo the pre-market review that is required of "new" chemicals, those not on the inventory.
The proposed rule would require a retrospective electronic notification of chemical substances on the TSCA inventory that were manufactured or imported for non-exempt commercial purposes during the ten-year time period ending on June 21, 2016.
The proposal would also accept notifications for substances that are processed, though it is not mandatory, and would use all notifications to distinguish active substances, meaning they currently being are made, imported sold or used in commerce, from inactive substances. EPA is also proposing to set procedures for future electronic notification of chemical substances on the TSCA inventory that are designated as inactive, if and when the manufacturing or processing of those substances is expected to resume, allowing EPA to easily change their designation from inactive to active.
The TSCA reform law enacted last year gives EPA more robust authority to evaluate risks for those "existing" chemicals, but industry has long said the agency must have an updated inventory so it is drawing from a universe of chemicals currently active in commerce rather than those that have been phased out.
Under the new law, EPA must promulgate a rule to facilitate industry reporting of chemicals that have been manufactured or processed in the previous 10 years, with the goal of allowing the agency to designate active and inactive chemicals on the TSCA inventory of existing chemicals. This delineation is important, because new chemicals -- those not on the inventory -- are subject to EPA's pre-market review process.
To ease the burden on companies seeking listings on the inventory, SOCMA, like many other commenters, urges EPA to create a dynamic public compilation of chemicals that have been identified as in use over the past decade, so that only one company needs to identify each chemical to the agency.
"If someone reports a chemical, no one else should have to. After all, the purpose of the reset is to determine which chemicals are in active commerce looking back from June 22, 2016. So long as one entity reports commercial activity, that purpose is served," Newton writes.
The group says such an approach would also help EPA comply with Trump's EO. "EPA needs to be hypervigilant about not imposing needless burdens. While the Inventory reset rulemaking seems likely not to trigger the '1 in, 2 out' provision of that order (because it is not a 'significant regulatory action'), that EO does impose on federal agencies like EPA a 'regulatory cap' for this fiscal year of zero net regulatory cost increases.
SOCMA also urges EPA to clarify in the final rule that companies need only identify chemicals by their chemical abstract service registry number (CASRN) alone, rather than requiring chemical names or structures as well.
"EPA could substantially reduce the costs of this proposed rule by implementing a 'one and done' and CASRN-only approach," SOCMA's Newton says.
SOCMA further argues that not making these changes to the proposed rule would violate TSCA Sections 8(a)(5)(A) and 8(a)(5)(B). SOCMA quotes those sections as requiring EPA to avoid unnecessary or duplicative reporting and to minimize reporting compliance costs on small businesses.
SOCMA is not alone in its requests and recommendations to EPA, which several other groups echoed. For example, SOCMA's call to require only one company to notify EPA of each chemical substance's activity is reiterated in comments from the American Chemistry Council and the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, among others. Similarly, its request that EPA seek only CASRN numbers, rather than chemical names or structures, is shared by many other commenters.
SOCMA, ACC and many others also strongly oppose EPA's proposed requirement that submitters indicate the date range of each chemical's production when reporting it is active and should appear as such on the inventory. "Locating records to establish conclusively first and last dates of manufacture would be significantly more burdensome than the effort to simply verify that a substance had been manufactured during the relevant period," ACC writes in its March 14 comments. "This is particularly the case when companies or business units have been sold, shut down, or merged."
ACC adds that the statute does not require these details, nor did EPA require "documentation of the date of commercial activity when the initial Inventory was established" in the 1970s.
Generally, commenters reacted positively to EPA's proposal as one designed to reduce burden and duplicative efforts by including chemicals reported to the agency as part of the 2012 and 2016 chemical data reporting rules as an initial group on the inventory, and frame their comments as changes that would further reduce burden. Chemical producers also praise EPA's proposal to allow chemical processors to voluntarily submit identifications of active substances after the manufacturing industry has reported on active chemicals. The trade groups are not alone, California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) also praises EPA's overall approach.
"DTSC strongly supports EPA's efforts to update the TSCA Inventory to support not only the continued success of EPA's work under TSCA, but also states' efforts to safeguard their citizens and the environment from the potential harms of chemicals used in commerce," that state agency's director Barbara Lee writes in March 14 comments.
https://insideepa.com/inside-epa/socma-urges-epa-cut-costs-tsca-inventory-rule-citing-trumps-eo
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Declares Opposition to California Priority Product Proposal
Mar 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) says it will oppose California’s proposal to list spray polyurethane foam (SPF) insulation containing unreacted methylene diphenyl diisocyanates (MDI) as a priority product under the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme.
The trade body’s statement follows the announcement by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) that it would begin the formal rulemaking process for the product chemical pairing.
The ACC says it is “deeply disappointed” by the DTSC’s decision to move forward with the priority product designation.
“In the more than three years since SPF was first suggested for this programme, industry has provided extensive data and science to DTSC that clearly illustrates SPF does not meet the minimum listing criteria, set by the department’s own regulations.”
It says that the product chemical pairing is one which is “well-studied and controlled”. It pointed to regulations from such agencies as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha), the EPA and the California Department of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/Osha) as already addressing risk of worker exposure to unreacted MDI.
“The existing controls, combined with industry’s extensive stewardship and training programmes, render the DTSC programme a duplicative exercise, and a poor use of taxpayer dollars,” the ACC says.
The proposal to list SPF and MDI as a priority product is the second initiated under the SCP programme. The first rulemaking – to designate children’s foam-padded sleeping products containing the flame retardants TDCPP or TCEP – is currently underway. Industry groups have questioned whether this is necessary, given that use of these substances in the named application has largely been phased out.
Consultation on the SPF proposal is set to run from 24 March to 16 May. A public hearing will be convened, once the comment period is concluded.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54671/acc-declares-opposition-to-california-priority-product-proposal
-
Companies Urge Pruitt to Back Safer Choice Programme
Mar 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
More than 180 organisations have written to US EPA administrator Scott Pruitt to support the agency’s Safer Choice programme. Among signatories to the letter are the Consumer Specialty Products Association, the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) and the worldwide cleaning association, ISSA.
Bryan McGannon, ASBC policy director, says the letter is “a proactive attempt to demonstrate broad private sector support for the Safer Choice programme”.
Rumours that the initiative would be named for axing in President Trump's recently published blueprint budget proposals were unfounded.
However, Mr McGannon says industry is keen to highlight the importance of the programme, as Congress is ultimately responsible for passing and appropriating the budget.
The letter says: “The Safer Choice programme has been, and continues to be, an invaluable resource to industry by working with individual companies to help them develop and promote new and innovative products that meet the rising demand by consumers, businesses, schools and hospitals for products and goods that possess an excellent environmental, health and safety profile.”
The organisations say the national initiative “is preferable to a patchwork quilt of logo programmes being promulgated and managed by retailers and NGOs, or local governments” and that it “strikes a balance between protecting confidential business information and public disclosure”.
Companies signing the letter include:
large chemicals producers, such as BASF, Dow Chemical and DSM;
personal care product companies Henkel and P&G;
consumer brands, Honeywell, Levi Strauss and Seventh Generation, and Staples;
retailers, Walmart and Target; and
smaller niche manufacturers.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54680/companies-urge-pruitt-to-back-safer-choice-programme
-
US Agency Solicits Nominations for Toxicological Profile Development
Mar 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is seeking nominations for the next set of substances for which it will develop toxicological profiles.
The public is invited to identify substances found on the Substance Priority List (SPL) to be considered for review under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Cercla) Set 31.
The SPL identifies 275 hazardous substances that the ATSDR and EPA have “determined pose the most significant potential threat to human health”.
ATSDR will also consider nominations of substances not included on the SPL.
Cercla Set 30 substances, identified in September, are:
1,1-dichloroethene;
1,2-dichloropropane;
DDT, DDD, DDE;
di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP); and
pyrethrins and pyrethroids.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54673/us-agency-solicits-nominations-for-toxicological-profile-development
-
Mar 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
SAB to review RDX IRIS draft
The EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) has announced two meetings of its Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee (CAAC) to review the draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) toxicological review of hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX).
The public teleconferences are on 13 April and 17 April. The SAB CAAC-RDX panel will discuss responses and the draft report generated from the 12-14 December public meeting.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54608/us-epa-round-up
-
Echa Publishes REACH Data on 15,000 Chemicals
Mar 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has published information on approximately 15,000 substances registered under REACH.
The information, which comes from manufacturers and importers, includes details of each substance’s properties and its impacts on human health and the environment.
Regulatory authorities, businesses and researchers can use the data to improve safe use of chemicals, help reduce animal testing and boost innovation, the agency says.
Members of the public can also access and download data, it says, but because it is structured in an Iuclid 6 database, they might not find it easy to follow. Instead, it recommends they use the ‘information on chemicals’ portal on Echa’s website.
Echa says to respect the ownership rights of registrants, only select data can be downloaded. This is limited to:
results from studies conducted by companies, but not the full summary; and
information that is not claimed as confidential in the registration dossier.
Echa says that 2% of all dossiers have a confidentiality claim, but this does not mean that the entire dossiers are not published – only those limited elements that are claimed are not published.
In the agency's press release, Cefic director general Marco Mensink says it is important that Echa has published the REACH registration data “without jeopardising data ownership”.
With the available data, he says, a better understanding of toxicology can be developed “which will help to further reduce animal testing. It is a win-win for all stakeholders”.
Echa executive director Geert Dancet says making the data downloadable, in a format that can be reused by others, is “another step towards safer chemicals in Europe”.
Industry can use the data to improve the way in which it uses chemicals – by enhancing safety data sheets and the classification and labelling of substances and products, Echa says.
The press release also quotes Jerker Ligthart of NGO ChemSec as saying such information is a step towards chemical transparency which "will allow for better in-depth analysis of groups of chemicals instead of the substance-by-substance approach”.
He adds that making the data public could mean “faster and earlier” identification of substances of concern which companies can substitute, and will also help companies make better informed decisions during product development.
Registered users can download the data and the Iuclid 6 application from the Iuclid website, free of charge. The same set of data is used to provide input to the OECD’s eChemPortal, Qsar Toolbox and Cefic’s AMBIT project.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54669/echa-publishes-reach-data-on-15000-chemicals
-
Mar 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Intention to restrict substances
Germany has notified Echa of its intention to submit a dossier on restricting the manufacturing, placing on the market, industrial and professional use of the following substances, including their salts and precursors:
perfluorononan-1-oic acid (PFNA);
nonadecafluorodecanoic acid (PFDA);
henicosafluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnDA);
tricosafluorododecanoic acid (PFDoDA);
pentacosafluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA); and
heptacosafluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTDA).
The expected submission date is 14 July.
Consultation on restriction proposals
Echa has launched public consultations on proposals to restrict lead compounds in PVC and diisocyanates.
The proposal on diisocyanates is a resubmission from Germany. It concerns industrial and professional uses, and comes after the original submission was found to be non-conforming.
The agency submitted the other report. It concerns the placing on the market of PVC articles containing lead compounds as stabilisers, in concentrations greater than 0.1% by weight.
Echa says that "time-limited derogations are foreseen for articles produced from recycled PVC and for PVC silica separators used in lead acid batteries".
PVC articles covered by EU-specific legislation regulating lead – food contact materials, electric and electronic devices, packaging and toys – and secondhand items are exempted from the proposed restriction.
Both consultations run from 22 March to 22 September.
Opinions on applications for authorisation
The Opinions of the Committees for Risk Assessment and Socio-economic Analysis (Rac and Seac) for uses of the following substances, by Gentrochema, are available on Echa's website:
two uses of potassium dichromate; and
three uses of sodium dichromate.
Update to substances potentially subject to compliance checks
Echa has updated the list of substances that might be chosen for compliance checks. It includes 130 new substances.
Registrants are advised to check and, if necessary, update their registration dossiers and tonnage bands by 22 May.
The agency has published the lists since January 2015. It aims to give registrants chance to update dossiers ahead of the checks. However, it is only indicative and non-exhaustive.
Translated guidance
Echa has released translated versions of its updated Guidance for identification and naming of substances under REACH and CLP (v2.0). This was published in English in December 2016. The document gives concise indications of how to assess if substances can be regarded as the same for the purposes of REACH and CLP, for example.
Exposure scenarios webinar
A 30 March agency webinar will look at getting meaningful exposure scenarios and how sector use maps help. The session is aimed at downstream users and sector organisations wanting to optimise the communication of safe use information in their supply chain.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54652/echa-round-up
-
Court Tosses Sweeping Suit Against FERC
Mar 23, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A federal court yesterday rejected an ambitious lawsuit from environmentalists who say federal regulators are biased toward approving natural gas pipelines.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a lawsuit from the Delaware Riverkeeper Network that accused the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of violating stakeholders' due process rights by rubber-stamping gas pipelines.
The group's lawsuit involved a particular proposal, the PennEast pipeline in Pennsylvania, but raised broader claims that FERC's funding structure creates a "structural bias" because the agency's budget is offset by fees and annual charges from natural gas companies.
The claim is based on the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, which sets the funding mechanism for FERC's natural gas pipeline program. The environmental group says the agency's reliance on pipeline fees results in a violation of constitutional due process rights: depriving the plaintiffs of a neutral decisionmaking body.
FERC lawyers noted in oral arguments earlier this month that the agency's budget is set by Congress, and while the agency uses fees from companies to recoup the cost of the natural gas program, it does not "receive additional revenue when it approves a natural gas pipeline project" (Energywire, March 6).
Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee, dismissed the case on procedural grounds, ruling that the group had not properly raised a due process claim, which must demonstrate a deprivation of liberty or property.
"Because Plaintiffs have not identified any liberty or property interest that is cognizable under the Fifth Amendment's due process clause, they have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted," she wrote in yesterday's opinion.
Chutkan also rejected the group's partial reliance on a provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution that gives citizens a right to clean air, pure water and conservation of natural resources.
"While [the provision] may confer a public right that would entitle plaintiffs to sue the state of Pennsylvania for failing to protect the environment, it does not create a federal protected property interest for purposes of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment," she wrote.
Curtin & Heefner LLP attorney Jordan Yeager, who is representing the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, said he was studying the decision. He would not say whether the group is considering an appeal.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/03/23/stories/1060051942
-
Calif. May Go Its Own Way on Emissions
Mar 23, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
California today is expected to pass the nation's strictest methane emissions restriction.
The California Air Resources Board will vote on the rule, which aims to cut methane releases from oil and natural gas producers by up to 45 percent over the next nine years. It would apply to private, state and federal property and would apply to storage sites like Aliso Canyon (Greenwire, Jan. 18).
Methane's impact on global warming is an estimated 72 times greater than carbon dioxide's over a 20-year period.
Supporters say California alone produces 75,000 tons of methane each year.
Opponents say the rule is unnecessary, given the state's already stringent air quality laws.
The move comes as the Trump administration and Congress are considering rolling back a Bureau of Land Management regulation to reduce venting, flaring and leaks on federal and tribal land. The House voted to discard the rule, and the Senate may take it up soon.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/23/stories/1060051951
-
State Department to Approve Keystone: Report
Mar 23, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The State Department is expected to approve a permit for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline as early as Monday.
Politico reported Thursday that department officials will release a cross-border permit for the contentious Canadian pipeline project by Monday, which was the deadline for a 60-day review of the project directed by President Trump in January.
Earlier Thursday, a State Department official told The Hill that the department “will be in compliance with the 60-day requirement," a reference to an executive order Trump signed shortly after taking office.
Issuing a permit for Keystone would reverse one of the highest-profile decisions of President Obama’s tenure in office.
In 2015, Obama’s State Department formally rejected Keystone developer TransCanada’s request to build the 1,179-mile pipeline, which would carry up to 830,000 barrels of oil each day between the Alberta oil sands to existing pipelines in the United States
Because the pipeline crosses an international border, it requires formal approval from the State Department. Obama rejected the project on environmental grounds, saying it would undercut his administration’s climate change goals.
Republicans strongly opposed the decision, and TransCanada filed a $15 billion NAFTA claim against the U.S. associated with Obama’s move.
Trump promised throughout his presidential campaign to revive the project if elected. Four days after taking office, Trump signed a memo ordering the State Department to reconsider TransCanada’s permit application, which they resubmitted days later.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former head of Exxon Mobil Corp., recused himself from any decision on the fate of Keystone.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/325422-state-department-to-approve-keystone-report
-
DHS Cyber Shakeup Gets Warm Reception at House Hearing
Mar 23, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A leading House lawmaker drummed up support yesterday for legislation to reform the Department of Homeland Security's cyber role "in the near future."
House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) said a "stronger, consolidated cybersecurity agency" at DHS would help the agency attract talent and "step up our cyberdefense."
"We have already begun to work with the new administration and others to make that a reality," he said at a hearing called to review DHS's capabilities amid new online threats from countries like Russia and Iran.
Expert witnesses backed McCaul's plan to bring the National Protection and Programs Directorate, which currently leads U.S. civilian infrastructure security efforts, out from its current status as a subcomponent of DHS headquarters.
"Taking NPPD out of being a headquarters function — which it is clearly not — and making it a line agency within DHS ... makes a great deal of sense," said Michael Daniel, president of the nonprofit Cyber Threat Alliance and former cybersecurity coordinator for then-President Obama. "Continuing that holistic focus on critical infrastructure and our federal agencies also makes a great deal of sense."
McCaul introduced a bill last year that would have renamed the NPPD and refined its authorities. He said the committee intends to reintroduce legislation this year to "streamline" the agency, though not necessarily enlarge it.
"Bigger federal agencies are not necessarily the answer," McCaul said. "We need to tap into private-sector innovation, and more quickly, but government does play a critical coordinating role."
DHS was one of the few federal agencies to get a boost under President Trump's budget proposal, though the new money would largely be funneled toward border security. Cybersecurity officials there have said that they are not planning to receive significant additional funding next year.
Gen. Keith Alexander, former director of the National Security Agency and president of IronNet Cybersecurity, and Frank Cilluffo, director of George Washington University's Center for Cyber and Homeland Security, also agreed with McCaul's push to reform DHS.
"I'm glad to see the agreement on the role for DHS," said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, who went on to call for greater scrutiny of Russian cyber aggression during last year's presidential election.
The fourth panelist at yesterday's hearing, Bruce McConnell, global vice president at the EastWest Institute and former DHS deputy undersecretary for cybersecurity, also encouraged McCaul to move quickly — and pick a catchier title for a designated cyber agency.
"We spent a lot of time while I was at Homeland Security debating what the name of this new organization should be," McConnell said. "It's a low bar, any name is going to be better than National Protection and Programs Administration, or whatever it is, so I think you should just get it done, sir."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/03/23/stories/1060051924
-
Industrial Facilities Infected with Malware 3,000 Times a Year
Mar 23, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Collin Eaton
Cybersecurity researchers believe computer controls at industrial facilities, including in the oil business, get infected by non-targeted malware at least 3,000 times a year.
Dragos Security, a cybersecurity firm in San Antonio, arrived at what it believes is a conservative estimate of worldwide industrial cyberattacks after studying roughly 30,000 samples of infected control system files submitted over the past decade and a half to a publicly available database called VirusTotal, a web service owned by Google.
The findings, released this week, show malware that isn’t even tailored to industrial controls finds its way into critical technology far more often than the public assumes. Some of the malware strains the researchers found can spread through these control systems with ease, and some were designed many years ago, a sign facility operators worldwide haven’t patched up security holes.
“If you have really bad cyber hygiene and you’re not paying attention to basic things, you’re more likely to get impacted by a virus that was written nine years ago,” said Ben Miller, director of the Dragos Threat Operations Center.
For example, Miller found nearly 3,000 instances of industrial files compromised by Sinowal, a Trojan first discovered in 2006. Even more common, though, were strains of malware that spread from computer to computer, created at least five years ago.
It’s not clear how many of these industrial facilities were tied to the energy industry, because the VirusTotal data only provided the country of origin of the independently uploaded files. But it’s yet another grim revelation for oil companies that rely on automated computer controls to run refineries, pipelines and offshore platforms.
Miller said these breaches could easily begin during the flurry of equipment upgrades that happen when power plants, refineries and other energy facilities are taken offline for repairs. Crews of engineers, equipment contractors and information technology specialists flowing in and out of the facilities could, for example, fail to follow security protocols and accidentally plug in infected USB drives into facility systems. And they might only discover they’ve infected operational computers after they use the same thumb drives in corporate computers outfitted with antivirus alert systems.
“Plant managers might have to stop (production) and clean it up because it’s a safety issue,” Miller said. “It could absolutely disrupt how you’re using the system.”
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/03/23/industrial-facilities-infected-with-malware-3000-times-a-year-researchers-say/
-
Court's Air Rule Deadlines Add to Growing EPA Budget, Staffing Problem
Mar 23, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
A federal district court has issued an order setting a near three-year deadline for EPA to issue 13 overdue air toxics rules days after the same court imposed a similar mandate for issuing 20 other delayed air toxics rules, creating a growing problem for the agency to meet the legal deadlines at a time of massive proposed budget and staffing cuts.
In a March 22 opinion in Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, et al. v. Scott Pruitt, Judge Christopher Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sets a deadline of June 30, 2020, for another 13 overdue risk-and-technology review (RTR) rules updating air toxics regulations. But he also notes “understandable” concern raised by the agency that it might lack the staffing and other resources to do the required work.
Cooper's order comes follows a similar opinion issued March 13 by D.C. district court Judge Tanya Chutkan in California Communities Against Toxics (CCAT), et al. v. EPA that gave the agency three years to issue 20 RTR rules, for a total of 33 such reviews the agency must now conduct in short order.
Both rulings resolve lawsuits brought by environmentalists over EPA missing by years its eight-year deadline to conduct RTRs after first issuance of an air toxics rule. RTRs assess the “residual” health risks from a sector's air toxics as well as any new developments in emissions control technology. If the agency finds risks remain high or that new controls can further cut pollution, it can propose to revise the RTRs to strengthen them.
In both RTR suits in the D.C. district court, EPA did not contest that it had missed its Clean Air Act deadlines for the RTRs, but asked the court to set longer deadlines to issue the required rules than the two years environmentalists sought. The court-ordered deadlines are, however, much shorter than EPA advocated even before the Trump administration proposed to slash EPA's budget by 31 percent, and its staff by 20 percent.
Both suits are also examples of “sue-and-settle” lawsuits brought by environmentalists or others to enforce statutory deadlines for EPA to issue rules, a practice new EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has vowed to end. However, in both instances, the court entered a judgment when the parties failed to settle. Some legal observers suggest EPA may end up on tighter schedules ordered by courts if it does not settle such cases and obtain more favorable terms.
Cooper in his opinion for the court acknowledges EPA's concern that it will lack the resources to comply, but points to the hard statutory deadlines in the Clean Air Act as a constraint on more flexibility. He issued a compromise remedy between the two-year deadline sought from environmentalists and the more than four-year deadline EPA suggested, hewing closely to the approach Chutkan used in her March 13 order in the CCAT case.
Resources 'Concern'
In his Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League opinion and order, Cooper writes, “The EPA’s concern over its current (and future) availability of resources to complete the required RTRs is understandable. Staffing and funding constraints are surely relevant in fashioning an appropriate remedy.
“Much more important, however, is the unambiguous command from a sweeping bipartisan majority in Congress that the EPA act diligently to limit the public’s exposure to hazardous air pollutants.”
Like Chutkan in the CCAT decision, Cooper finds that EPA has failed to meet a Clean Air Act legal standard to demonstrate that a faster schedule than it proposed is an “impossibility.”
“But, like other courts in this district, the Court is concerned that the remedial deadlines proposed by Plaintiffs are 'simply too compressed at this stage to afford any reasonable possibility of compliance,'” Cooper writes, citing CCAT. Cooper sets a deadline of December 31, 2018, for six of the 13 RTRs at issue, and another deadline of June 30, 2020 for the remaining seven. However, he leaves it to EPA's discretion to determine which rules to prioritize.
EPA's proposed schedule would have extended until October 2021 to complete the last of the rules. The agency supported that schedule with a March 1 declaration from Panagiotis E. Tsirigotis, director of the Sector Policies and Programs Division (SPPD) within EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards that handles RTRs. Tsirigotis says “the statutory requirements simply cannot be met given the size of the organization.”
He writes that “staff responsible for RTR rulemaking are doing a specialized job that requires specialized training and experience.” Although SPPD leverages expertise from elsewhere in the agency and from contractors, there are limits to how much of the division's work it can outsource, he says. In all, “RTRs for about 50 additional categories are overdue or will be due soon,” he writes, in addition to 60 already completed.
“SPPD leverages resources from other parts of the Agency . . . however, the division generally cannot rely on other staff within the Agency or on contractors to perform the tasks currently performed by SPPD staff.” Tsirigotis also notes that under the Obama administration, several of his staff worked on other tasks, such as crafting EPA's Clean Power Plan to reduce greenhouse gases from power plants. These staffers have since been reassigned, he says.
Non-Discretionary Activities
Environmentalists in Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League had argued that EPA could divert staff from discretionary activities such as the CPP in order to meet the non-discretionary RTR deadlines.
Cooper in his opinion does not weigh in directly on this issue, but says, “The EPA is undoubtedly correct that the number of RTRs on its plate will in some respect affect the duration of any particular review even if much of the work is performed by outside contractors. Yet, the Clean Air Act makes clear that Congress contemplated that the EPA could promulgate dozens of air toxics rules in a condensed amount of time.”
If EPA is unhappy with this requirement, the remedy “lies with Congress,” Cooper writes.
It is further unclear how President Donald Trump's executive orders designed to curb rulemaking activity will affect EPA's ability to issue regulations required by law. For example, Trump in a Jan. 30 executive order required agencies to identify for elimination two regulations for every new rule they issue. However, this in principle does not apply to regulations required by law -- and the RTRs are mandated by the Clean Air Act.
The 13 industry sectors for which EPA must conduct RTRs under Cooper's order are: printing, coating, and dyeing of fabrics and other textiles; surface coating of metal furniture; surface coating of large appliances; leather finishing operations; surface coating of wood building products; friction materials manufacturing facilities; rubber tire manufacturing; wet-formed fiberglass mat production; taconite iron ore processing; lime manufacturing plants; iron and steel foundries; plywood and composite wood products; and miscellaneous coating manufacturing.
The 20 air toxics rules covered by the CCAT court order are: solvent extraction for vegetable oil; boat manufacturing; surface coating of metal coil; cellulose products manufacturing; ethylene production; paper and other web coating; municipal solid waste landfills; hydrochloric acid production; reinforced plastic composites production; asphalt processing & roofing manufacturing; integrated iron & steel manufacturing; engine test cells/stands; site remediation; miscellaneous organic chemical manufacturing; surface coating of metal cans; surface coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products; organic liquids distribution; stationary combustion turbines; and surface coating of plastic parts and products; surface coating of automobiles & light-duty trucks.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/courts-air-rule-deadlines-add-growing-epa-budget-staffing-problem
-
Appeals Court Gives EPA 2nd Chance on Texas Haze Rule
Mar 23, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A federal appellate court has granted U.S. EPA's motion to revisit a disputed portion of its initial regional haze reduction plan for Texas and Oklahoma, while turning back a bid by opponents to scrap the rule entirely.
EPA attorneys had sought to voluntarily remand the federal implementation plan in December 2016, after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed it last summer on the grounds that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) and other challengers were likely to prevail on the merits.
In a brief order issued late yesterday, however, the same three-judge panel agreed to the remand and ordered the agency to report every 15 days on the status of its efforts to revise the plan, which would require new or upgraded sulfur dioxide controls on seven coal-fired power plants in Texas.
At the same time, the panel also rejected without comment a separate motion by Paxton, Luminant Generation Co. LLC and other plant owners to vacate the plan.
Spokespersons for Paxton and EPA's regional office in Dallas had no immediate comment this morning on the ruling. But Mary Whittle, a lawyer representing the National Parks Conservation Association and the Sierra Club, which have intervened on EPA's side in the case, saw it as a victory for the agency.
"We look forward to EPA issuing a revised final regional haze plan for the state as soon as possible," said Whittle, who works for Earthjustice, in an interview this morning.
The regional haze program, authorized by Congress under the Clean Air Act, aims to restore natural visibility conditions in 156 national parks and wilderness areas by 2064. EPA officials had issued the plan early last year under the "reasonable progress" provisions of the program after partially rejecting a Texas alternative as inadequate.
That final implementation plan, projected to eventually cut sulfur dioxide emissions by 230,000 tons per year, has a projected price tag of about $2 billion; it would improve vistas in Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains national parks in West Texas.
Late last year, EPA proposed a new rule under the "best available retrofit technology" requirements of the haze program that would require sulfur dioxide controls on many of the same plants (Greenwire, Dec. 12, 2016). The agency recently extended the public comment period on that draft until May 5 (Greenwire, Feb. 23). Under the terms of an earlier consent decree, the proposal must be finalized by September.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/23/stories/1060051973
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