Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 4/4/2017

Industry and Association News

Pruitt Launches Effort To Identify Rules Targeted For Elimination, Change
Apr 4, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has begun to formally implement President Donald Trump's executive order directing agencies to develop an infrastructure for recommending regulations for elimination, naming agency staff in charge of the effort and seeking recommendations by mid-May on rules that should be repealed, replaced or modified.

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Secrets Face Greatest EPA Scrutiny Ever
Apr 4, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

Chemical manufacturers’ trade secret claims will face the most systematic scrutiny ever from the EPA as the agency proposes to update its inventory of commercial chemicals.
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Seeks $14 Million TSCA Boost As GOP Senator Vows Priority Funding
Apr 3, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad

EPA is seeking a $14 million funding boost to help implement the overhauled Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) even though President Donald Trump's fiscal year 2018 budget would cut overall agency funding by 31 percent, while a key GOP senator is vowing that adequate funding for implementing the law will be “prioritized.”
A Primer On The New Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) And What Led To It
Apr 3, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison

There is a swirl of activity underway around implementation of the Lautenberg Act, last year’s overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and we’ve been blogging quite a bit about those developments.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) GOP Looks To Skirt Hefty Price Tag For 'Secret Science' Bill
Apr 4, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly

When Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) two years ago introduced a bill known as the "Secret Science Reform Act," he quickly hit a big fiscal roadblock: an estimated $250 million annual price tag for U.S. EPA to ensure that the scientific research data underlying studies used in drafting new regulations became publicly available.
EPA Leaders Trashed Staff Comments Critical of Data Overhaul Bill: Officials
Apr 4, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs

EPA staff comments on extensive burdens linked to a controversial House-passed bill never made it to the Congressional Budget Office.
Hazmat Birth Defect Claims Shipped to State Court
Apr 4, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers

Signetics Corp. must defend birth defect claims of New Mexico plaintiffs who say their mothers were exposed to toxic chemicals at the company's semiconductor plant, the District of New Mexico ruled March 31 (Bellman v. NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc., 2017 BL 105272, D.N.M., No. 16-cv-0113, 3/31/17).
Exposure to BPA Substitute, BPS, Multiplies Breast Cancer Cells
Apr 3, 2017 | Science Daily
By Katie Aleck

BPS is found in polycarbonate hard plastics, currency bills and thermal paper receipts as well as many products touted to be free of BPA, a known endocrine-disrupting chemical suspected of having multiple possible health risks.
Flame Retardants, Other Factors Drive Thyroid Cancer Increase In The US
Apr 3, 2017 | Tech Times
By Kalyan Kumar

Thyroid cancer has been reported to be the fastest increasing cancer diagnosis in the United States. A new study says the annual growth in thyroid cancer incidence tripled between 1975 and 2013, with a majority of the new diagnoses being papillary thyroid cancer.
EU Laboratory Calls for Input on Non-Animal Tests Recommendation
Apr 4, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner

Comments can be submitted through April 16 on a draft European Union recommendation on the regulatory use of non-animal methods to test chemicals that might provoke allergic skin reactions.
New Version Of Qsar Toolbox Launched
Apr 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley

The OECD has launched version four of its Qsar Toolbox, with some features designed specifically for companies looking to register substances under REACH ahead of the 2018 deadline.

Energy News

Blue States Sue Trump Over Delay of Energy-Efficiency Rules
Apr 4, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Erik Larson and Andrew Harris

Ten states led by Democrats and a handful of national environmental groups sued the Trump administration, claiming it's violating federal law by delaying energy-efficiency standards intended to save Americans almost $24 billion (New York v. Perry, 2d Cir., 17-00918, 3/31/17).
Blue States Ready To Battle Pruitt Over Emissions
Apr 4, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Hannah Hess

Democratic attorneys general from eight states and the District of Columbia yesterday urged U.S. EPA to reconsider its decision to stop collecting certain emissions information from oil and gas operators, and hinted at a legal battle.

Chemical Security News

(ACC Mentioned) Another Delay of Chemical Safety Rule Is Dangerous and Unwarranted
Apr 3, 2017 | Union of Concerned Scientists
By Kathleen Rest

Last week was just chock full of setbacks and assaults on our public protections coming out of Washington. You’ve probably heard about President Trump’s all-out attack on climate policy; EPA Administrator Pruitt got right on it.

Transportation News

ACI Sides With Railroads Against Reregulation: Report
Apr 3, 2017 | RailwayAge
By William C. Vantuono

The American Consumer Institute (ACI), a 501c(3) non-profit educational organization with no direct ties to the U.S. freight railroad industry, is speaking out against what it calls “continued attempts to overregulate the freight rail sector.”

Environment News

Groups Roll Out Plan To Green NAFTA
Apr 3, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey

Environmental groups today floated a wish list for greening the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as President Trump prepares to renegotiate the trade pact and follow through on a campaign promise.
Same Words, Two Meanings, Los Angeles Air District Says in Brief
Apr 4, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel

Identical words used in two separate sections of the Clean Air Act may be interpreted differently if justified by context, according to Southern California air quality regulators South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, D.C. Ct. App., No. 16-1364, 3/31/17.
IPCC Begins Early Work on New Climate Report
Apr 4, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Eric J. Lyman

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change formally began the process that will lead to the release of its Sixth Assessment Report on climate change at its 45th session that concluded March 31 in Guadalajara, Mexico.
Pruitt Dodges On Health Impacts Of Killing Carbon Rule
Apr 3, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Rod Kuckro

Several times on yesterday's broadcast, Wallace tried to get U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to respond to the adverse health effects of withdrawing the Obama-era Clean Power Plan.

Industry and Association News

Pruitt Launches Effort To Identify Rules Targeted For Elimination, Change

Apr 4, 2017 | Inside EPA

By Doug Obey

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has begun to formally implement President Donald Trump's executive order directing agencies to develop an infrastructure for recommending regulations for elimination, naming agency staff in charge of the effort and seeking recommendations by mid-May on rules that should be repealed, replaced or modified.
As part of the effort, Pruitt is directing the agency's program, regional and other offices to provide their recommendations by May 15 to a newly created “Regulatory Reform Task Force” required by Trump's Feb. 24 order.
And Pruitt is asking each of numerous agency program offices to convene a dedicated public meeting in their area of jurisdiction to solicit ideas from the regulated community.
“[Trump's Executive Order], designed to reduce the regulatory burdens agencies place on the American people, directs agencies to undertake several activities to further this goal,” Pruitt says in a March 24 memo to staff launching the process of complying with Executive Order 13777.
The memo is addressed to high-level staff across the agency including the Acting Deputy Administrator, assistant administrators, associate administrators, regional administrators, EPA's office of General Counsel, EPA's inspector general, and others.
Trump's order requires EPA and other agencies to each designate regulatory reform officers and establish a regulatory reform task force with the goal of identifying existing regulations for repeal or modification.
“Each Regulatory Reform Task Force will evaluate existing regulations and identify candidates for repeal or modification. Each agency’s Task Force will focus on eliminating costly and unnecessary regulations,” according to a White House statement.
The order is seen as creating an infrastructure for implementing the administration's broader deregulatory agenda, which includes several other orders.
For example, an order Trump signed Jan. 30 requires agencies to “identify” two rules for repeal for every new rule it proposes.
Pruitt in the memo also announces that Samantha Dravis -- formerly general counsel for the Republican Attorneys General Association and now an EPA senior counsel and associate administrator for policy -- will lead the efforts to implement the executive order as a Regulatory Reform Officer.
Pruitt also announces that Ryan Jackson, his chief of staff who formerly served for Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), will chair EPA's task force. Other task force members will include Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Byron Brown and Office of Policy Deputy Associate Administrator Brittany Bolen.
“The Task Force is charged with evaluating existing regulations and making recommendations to me regarding those that can be repealed, replaced or modified to make them less burdensome,” Pruitt writes.
“The EO also requires that the Task Force seek input from entities significantly affected by our regulations, including state, local and tribal governments, small businesses, consumers, nongovernmental organizations and trade associations.”
Seven Offices
Pruitt then requests that seven EPA offices provide the agency task force by May 15 with “recommendations regarding specific rules that should be considered for repeal, replacement or modification.” The offices named are Air and Radiation, Land and Emergency Management, Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Water, Environmental Information, Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, and Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.
“While we intend to do some general outreach regarding this effort, I would like the recommendations from those offices to be informed by consultation with their particular stakeholders,” Pruitt writes, directing each office to hold a “dedicated public meeting on this topic so we can listen and learn directly from those impacted by our regulations."
Pruitt then asks all regional and headquarters offices receiving the memo to provide their recommendations to the task force by May 15.
The memo also specifically requests that all EPA regional offices send their comments to the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations for consolidation before they are provided to the task force, appearing to suggest that those regional offices have to submit recommendations at some point before the May 15 deadline to allow for that process.
Pruitt in a separate memo focused on improving “information sharing,” also dated March 24, calls for basing EPA's policymaking process for both regulatory and nonregulatory actions on “transparency, sound science and adherence to our legal authorities and executive orders.” Pruitt says the Office of Policy will play a “critical role” in achieving those policymaking principles.
Pruitt announces in the information memo that he wants to “expand and improve our internal mechanisms for information sharing, and he instructs that EPA program and regional offices, effective immediately, “shall report all regulatory actions in the agency's regulatory management system and adopt such reporting as common practice moving forward.” Regulatory actions to be reported “include, but are not limited to, those related to any statutory or judicial deadlines, petitions, pesticide tolerances, significant new use rules, national priority listings or de-listings, permits, federal implementation plans and state implementation plans.”
Pruitt says the improvements on information sharing “will enhance our efforts to protect human health and the environment, foster a credible process for EPA policymaking and provide proper implementation of our legal requirements of applicable executive orders. I look forward to the success of this improved process for managing the agency's regulatory authority.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/pruitt-launches-effort-identify-rules-targeted-elimination-change

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Secrets Face Greatest EPA Scrutiny Ever

Apr 4, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

Chemical manufacturers’ trade secret claims will face the most systematic scrutiny ever from the EPA as the agency proposes to update its inventory of commercial chemicals.
Of the approximately 85,000 chemicals on the Environmental Protection Agency's chemicals inventory, about 17,000—or 20 percent—are on the confidential portion of that inventory, Steve Owens, an attorney with Squire Patton Boggs’ Phoenix, Ariz., office told Bloomberg BNA.
Chemical manufacturers cannot patent their molecules, making the secrecy of their chemicals’ identity critical to safeguarding their intellectual property. Congress's 2016 overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act requires that companies back up many claims they make that information must be kept from the public—especially competitors—and it requires the EPA to review those claims, something it has rarely done.
“This will be the most comprehensive review of the confidential inventory that's ever been done,” said Owens, who previously served as assistant administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency's chemical and pesticide offices under President Barack Obama.
The 2016 amendments to TSCA require the EPA to propose the rule, which it published Jan. 13 (RIN:2070-AK24; 82 Fed. Reg. 4255). The proposed rule is designed to achieve two goals.
First, it would help the agency know what chemicals have been in commerce over the last 10 years.
Second, it would require the agency to review companies’ claims that certain information be kept confidential to protect trade secrets.
For example, companies that want to maintain a chemical's identity as confidential would have to assert that claim when they notify the EPA that they make, import or process a chemical that already has a confidential identity.
Being on the confidential inventory means the EPA knows the chemicals’ identities, but is not allowed to release that information to the general public.
Exceeding Law's Intent?
Environmental advocates argue that the EPA's proposal could lead to more chemicals being declared confidential. Richard Denison, lead senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, told Bloomberg BNA the EPA's proposed rule goes beyond what the 2016 TSCA amendments intended.
The agency has proposed to let companies make new claims, not just reassert their own prior claims that chemicals on the confidential inventory need to remain there, he said. The defense fund was the only environmental organization to comment on the inventory update rule.
The EPA's proposed rule would allow any chemical manufacturer or processor, which notifies the agency that it makes, imports or processes a chemical with an existing CBI claim, to ask the agency to maintain the confidential identity of that chemical.
The company can make that claim regardless of whether it “asserted the original claim that caused the specific chemical identity to be treated as confidential,” the EPA said in its proposal.
“A number of manufacturers and processors may legitimately benefit from the confidential status of a specific chemical identity, and the initial claimant may no longer exist,” the agency said.
Industries Back EPA Proposal
The Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates, which represents specialty chemical manufacturers, and the American Petroleum Institute were among the industry organizations to support the EPA's proposal in comments they filed about the rule. Comments were due March 14.
Any company claiming the need to protect information including chemical identity is required to substantiate that claim, Judah Prero, an attorney with Sidley Austin LLP who formerly worked at the American Chemistry Council, told Bloomberg BNA.
For example, the company must have taken reasonable measures to protect the confidentiality of a chemical's identity; that identity must not be disclosed or otherwise made available to the public under any other federal law; and there must be a reasonable basis to conclude that disclosure would likely cause substantial harm, he said.
Jessie Kneeland, an environmental chemist with the environmental and risk sciences consulting firm Gradient, told Bloomberg BNA any company that makes or imports a chemical on the EPA's confidential inventory should make sure it asserts a claim to maintain the confidential identity of that chemical.
Denison, however, said the amended law allows only the original company that asserted the need to keep a chemical's identity confidential to seek to maintain its confidential status.
“CBI claims are company-specific and can't be ‘borrowed’ by other companies,” he wrote in a recent blog.
“One company may be able to justify a trade secret claim for chemical identity, while another company can't,” Denison told Bloomberg BNA.
Companies that wish to assert a new claim can do so, but must follow procedures detailed in a separate section of amended TSCA (Section 14) —not Section 8, which requires the EPA to update the inventory, Denison said.
Two Stages of CBI Review
Owens said the EPA's proposed approach makes sense at this stage of the process since the proposal rule would not immediately require companies to substantiate claims to maintain the confidential identity of a chemical.
The EPA's review of confidential business information claims will occur in two stages because there are two types of claims the proposed rule addresses.
Chemical manufacturers, importers or processors that seek to maintain a chemical's confidential status on the TSCA inventory would click a box on a notification form the EPA's proposed rule provides and let the EPA know the chemical's identity should be kept confidential.
Specifics Coming
After the EPA determines which chemicals are active in commerce, it will propose another rule detailing the process it would use to review CBI claims for chemical identity.
The agency must complete its review of these confidentiality claims within five years of issuing that active substances list.
Owens said there are companies other than the original claimant that may rely on the fact that a chemical is currently on the confidential portion of the TSCA Inventory. It's reasonable to allow any company that manufactures, imports or processes a confidential chemical to assert the CBI claim for purposes of the inventory reset to avoid business disruptions and other issues that could arise, he said.
Allowing additional companies to maintain an existing CBI claim—pending later substantiation and review—would eliminate uncertainty for any company that may rely on the CBI claim and that may be unsure whether some other party is going to assert the claim, Owens said.
“EPA can make a determination later about whether the CBI claim should be allowed to continue, when it requires substantiation of the claim,” he told Bloomberg BNA.
There are other benefits to allowing parties other than the original claimant to assert CBI for chemical identity during the inventory update, Owens said.
In the short run, the agency would not have to spend time, resources and effort double-checking confidential business information claims to determine whether the company seeking to maintain the existing claim is in fact the original claimant, he said.
Other Confidential Information
The other types of information that companies may claim as confidential during the notification process include a company's identity and whether that company makes a chemical, imports it or processes it. The EPA's proposed rule would require those types of claims to be substantiated as they are made.
The proposed rule said the EPA would review a subset of these claims.
Denison said the EPA's proposed rule also is too lenient when it comes to reviewing CBI claims for information other than chemical identity.
The EPA's proposed rule would presume that any non-confidential chemical for which it received production information in 2012 or 2016 as chemical manufacturers complied with the Chemical Data Reporting rule would be in commerce.
Companies would not have to notify the agency again that they make those particular non-confidential chemicals. The consequence of that, Denison said, is that confidentiality claims for information other than chemical identity that had companies asserted when they filed their Chemical Data Reporting submissions would remain.
Those CBI claims would not necessarily be reviewed by the EPA to ensure they are warranted, he said.
Huge Workload Ahead
The inventory update rule is the first of three fundamental regulations the amended chemicals law required the EPA to issue as final by June.
Looking ahead Owens and Prero said the agency faces a tremendous workload.
Speaking only about the inventory update rule, Prero said, EPA has never had a time when it would have gotten the amount of information at once as it would receive to update the inventory.
“This will be a trial by fire as the EPA gets information and has to start reviewing it,” he said.
Owens said reviewing CBI claims is “a very resource intensive exercise.”
The EPA will have a hard time completing this task and other TSCA implementation tasks under the budget cuts the Trump administration has proposed, he said.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=108483981&vname=dennotallissues&fn=108483981&jd=108483981

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Seeks $14 Million TSCA Boost As GOP Senator Vows Priority Funding

Apr 3, 2017 | Inside EPA

By Maria Hegstad

EPA is seeking a $14 million funding boost to help implement the overhauled Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) even though President Donald Trump's fiscal year 2018 budget would cut overall agency funding by 31 percent, while a key GOP senator is vowing that adequate funding for implementing the law will be “prioritized.”
The agency's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OSCPP) -- the office tasked with implementing the massive toxics law overhaul -- would get $14 million “in non-pay resources in support of the new work required under the updated TSCA law,” according to a March 21 memo from the agency's acting chief financial officer David Bloom. The memo says the additional funds will help to pay for “the work required for the new TSCA legislation.”
The law, known as the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, provides EPA with a slew of new regulatory authorities to address new and existing chemicals. It gives the agency power to charge the chemical sector fees to cover risk evaluations of existing chemicals -- those chemicals that were on the market when the original TSCA took effect in 1976, and which generally grandfathered those chemicals from regulation.
A memo attachment describing Trump's budget policy guidance says the White House Office of Management and Budget “requested updated budget projections as TSCA reform implementation gets underway. OCSPP is to expedite the TSCA fee rule to generate the fee funding assumed in the FY 2018 President's Budget.”
The memo also indicates that 53.6 full-time employee equivalents (FTE) would be moved from OCSPP's “chemical risk review and reduction” activities and “shifted to the new fee fund account. OCSPP is to expedite promulgation of the new fee and include [the Office of the Chief Financial Officer] on the workgroup.”
The memo does not provide FY18 total funding per program. The proposed changes are based on FY16 enacted levels, which for the OCSPP risk review and reduction account were $19.8 million funding with 238.7 FTEs.
TSCA Funding
But the revised TSCA law says that paying for the costs of implementation is not solely industry's duty. The law requires that EPA must have appropriations at or above the FY14 enacted level for TSCA implementation to conduct its new responsibilities, and the budget memo indicates an attempt to satisfy that requirement.
The memo, first reported by the Washington Post, proposes that OCSPP receive a $13.8 million budget increase “in non-pay resources in support of the new work required under the updated TSCA law.”
Bloom's memo calls on top agency officials to detail “those activities that will be supported, reduced or eliminated,” so that the agency can develop the pending congressional justification for the FY18 budget request, and appropriators in Congress will then start crafting their EPA funding bills. “Notably, fee-based funding is encouraged,” says the memo, which would include the TSCA fee program to help pay for the law's implementation.
When attention on the FY18 budget process shifts to Congress, at least one key Republican senator is vowing to push for sufficient funding to cover the TSCA activities regardless of any overall cut to EPA's budget.
Trump's budget outline released earlier this year would impose a massive $2.4 billion cut to EPA's existing $8.1 billion budget, a level that would bring the agency's funding to $5.7 billion from the $8.3 billion 2017 funding level. It proposes cutting “approximately 3,200” employees and more than 50 programs.
However, Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) -- a member of the Appropriations Committee's interior panel that oversees EPA's funding -- is vowing that TSCA implementation will be adequately funded.
“TSCA is going to be prioritized,” he told Inside EPA in a brief March 29 interview when asked about the looming budget situation and its impact on EPA's ability to implement the toxics law.
EPA's Responsibilities
Although the Trump administration is floating almost $14 million in additional funding for EPA's work on TSCA, it is unclear whether that proposal will be sufficient to cover all of the agency's responsibilities.
EPA in a report provided to Congress last January estimated the resources the agency will need to perform risk evaluations of existing chemicals under TSCA section 6(b), as well as estimates of demand, and an anticipated schedule for performing the reviews. The report responds to a mandate in section 26(m)(1) of the updated TSCA law, which required the report's submission to Congress within six months of enactment.
The report indicated that EPA anticipates its first year costs at $12.3 million for beginning the evaluations of the 10 chemicals EPA announced last December would be the first reviewed in the new program. In 2018, EPA plans to be evaluating 15 chemicals, with costs for that calendar year rising to $28.4 million. EPA indicates that in 2019, as directed by the statute, it will be conducting 20 chemical evaluations, at a total cost of $38.3 million.
EPA expects that the program will cost $35.8 million annually after 2021, in a “generic future year when the EPA’s implementation of all provisions of the statute have reached specified minimum levels.”
Even before Trump released the budget outline, chemical industry officials had said they would engage in talks with Congress and the administration to ensure adequate funding for implementation of TSCA.
For example, the trade group Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) in a February press release outlined priorities for Trump's first 100 days in office, including the updated toxics law, saying the group would push for “reaffirming the importance of [TSCA] implementation and ensuring [EPA] moves forward in a way that not only protects human health and the environment but promotes innovation.”
In a Feb. 8 interview, SOCMA's Dan Newton, senior manager, government relations, said the group's priorities included working with EPA to ensure that the framework TSCA rules EPA is drafting “get done right.”
He also acknowledged “it's possible” SOCMA will need to advocate for EPA's toxics budget with the administration or Congress. The trade group is preparing for its annual April “Washington fly-in” where SOCMA members visit Washington, D.C. to meet with legislators and regulators to discuss their concerns and priorities.
'National Budget'
Following release of the FY18 budget blueprint last month, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) issued a statement saying it is “committed to working with the Administration and Congress to ensure EPA has funding to carry out essential responsibilities, including the implementation of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, in the most cost effective manner. Ensuring the safe development, use and disposal of chemicals in commerce is a top priority for our industry. We encourage Congress and the Administration to implement a national budget that ensures that the best available science and transparency are at the heart of Agency decision making.”
Mike Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at ACC, in a briefing for reporters last December described implementation of TSCA as the top priority for the trade group in 2017.
While acknowledging the possibility that Senate Democrats might try to block or slow the nomination process for Trump's eventual nomination to head OSCPP, or that Republicans might try to reduce the agency's budget significantly, Walls said he does not believe that either situation would hamper TSCA's implementation.
"[The] Lautenberg [law] is very clear in expectations for the agency. I'm absolutely confident without confirmed nominees for every [slot] we have [staff and] acting management . . . to ensure these deadlines can be met," he said.
Regarding funding, Walls pointed to ACC's support of EPA's new ability in the revised TSCA to assess fees on industry to help fund an enlarged toxics program. He also noted the language in the updated law that requires Congress to set the EPA toxics program's budget at or above the FY14 appropriations level.
ACC is also working with the American Chemical Society and the National Association of Chemical Distributors to launch a new chemistry caucus for the Senate, which could help push for adequate TSCA funding.
The group is a companion to the chemistry caucus the groups helped to launch in the House last year. During a kickoff reception March 29, several new members mentioned approval of the TSCA overhaul, though Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), a chemist, noted that there is more work for the caucus to ensure the new statute is successful.
“Many of us, I think, were inspired to form a chemistry caucus by the bipartisan, bicameral success in the last Congress of TSCA reform, something many of us thought would never happen, but actually got over the finish line and now we need to help make it live up to its promise,” Coons said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-seeks-14-million-tsca-boost-gop-senator-vows-priority-funding

Return to headline | Return to top
A Primer On The New Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) And What Led To It

Apr 3, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.
There is a swirl of activity underway around implementation of the Lautenberg Act, last year’s overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and we’ve been blogging quite a bit about those developments.
I’ve taken a step back here from implementation, however, and developed a new “primer” that discusses what led to the new law and describes in some detail the key reforms Lautenberg made to the original TSCA and how the law works.
The primer is intended to serve as an introduction and guide to the new law for those that haven’t been steeped in the details and provides our perspective on the key provisions. It also discusses those aspects of the new law that may be of particular interest and relevance to the public health community.
For the latest on the state of play on implementation, please keep an eye on our blog.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/04/03/a-primer-on-the-new-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca-and-what-led-to-it/

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) GOP Looks To Skirt Hefty Price Tag For 'Secret Science' Bill

Apr 4, 2017 | E&E Daily

By Sean Reilly

When Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) two years ago introduced a bill known as the "Secret Science Reform Act," he quickly hit a big fiscal roadblock: an estimated $250 million annual price tag for U.S. EPA to ensure that the scientific research data underlying studies used in drafting new regulations became publicly available.
Under the Trump administration, however, EPA has hit upon a solution: Ignore any studies that don't pre-emptively comply with the legislation's disclosure standards, according to a recently released Congressional Budget Office analysis of H.R. 1430, a recently reintroduced version of the bill that passed the House last week.
Based on information from EPA officials, the budget office "expects that the agency would choose to rely only on studies that already meet the act's requirements" when undertaking new rulemakings and other regulatory activities, the analysis says. "That manner of implementing the act would significantly cut the number of studies used to support the EPA's actions for the first few years following enactment."
Exactly how significantly is disputed, given that EPA employees rely on some 50,000 studies each year to do their jobs. A spokeswoman for Smith, who leads the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, suggested yesterday that the research data collected to reach scientific conclusions nowadays often see daylight in the course of the normal publication process.
"Scientists should serve the public interest," the spokeswoman, Kristina Baum, said in an email. "This movement has become widespread with major scientific journals that all data be publicly available to improve the integrity and openness of the data."
Pat Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the libertarian Cato Institute, agreed. Michaels also saw a bonus to the extent that the bill would put researchers on notice that "you'd better be forthcoming about your data and your methods and your code."
But in the air quality arena, which represents a large slice of EPA's regulatory portfolio, the agency's preferred approach "would typically exclude most studies" because researchers don't get funding to make data available, said Jon Samet, director of the University of Southern California's Institute for Global Health. Samet also led EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which furnishes outside expertise in setting federal air pollution standards for ozone and other major pollutants, from 2008 until late 2012.
Seconding that view are critics of H.R. 1430, dubbed the "Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment (HONEST) Act." If the bill were to become law, EPA would be "forced to use far less science to create public health and safety measures, and to create fewer of those protections and safeguards," said Sarah Lamdan, a law library professor at the City University of New York, noting that the bill would also cap the agency's annual spending on implementation at $1 million, a pittance by federal standards.
Moreover, journals only ask scientists to agree to share their "results data," said Gretchen Goldman, research director at the Center for Science and Democracy, an offshoot of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Making public a computer model and the raw data that went into it would be a different story, Goldman said, and could raise "a lot of intellectual property concerns."
At a minimum, the willingness of EPA leaders to consider implementation represents a turnaround from the stance taken by the Obama administration two years ago. Then, the White House threatened to veto H.R. 1030, the version of the bill introduced in the 114th Congress, on the grounds it would saddle EPA with costly new mandates while undercutting regulators' ability to protect health.
Now, EPA officials "fully support" the principles of the "HONEST Act" and "look forward to working with Congress throughout the legislative process to learn more about the agency's legal requirements" should the bill becomes law, spokesman John Konkus said in an email.
Like its predecessor, H.R. 1430 would bar EPA from proceeding with new regulations unless all underlying "scientific and technical information" is publicly available online "in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results."
Although the bill says that EPA itself doesn't have to disseminate that information, the Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2015 that the agency would initially need $250 million per year to meet those requirements, a figure that opponents repeatedly raised before the bill died in the Senate last year.
Smith last week labeled that estimate a misinterpretation and predicted that the true cost would be "minuscule."
But in its analysis of the "HONEST Act," CBO predicted that the yearly tab could top $100 million if EPA continues to rely on the same volume of scientific research as in the recent past. In part, the money would go to obtaining all of the underlying data for specific studies, formatting the information for public use, and providing access to the needed computer codes and models, the analysis said. Under the "minimal funding" approach currently favored by EPA, however, the five-year cost from 2018 through 2022 would be about $5 million, according to the budget office.
The bill won House approval last Wednesday on a mostly party-line vote (E&E Daily, March 30). Foes like Goldman acknowledge that they're worried that the bill has a better chance of final passage in the 115th Congress.
The bill also has the backing of influential business lobbies like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Chemistry Council. Attempts to get comments from both were unsuccessful yesterday.
Still, any contested legislation needs 60 votes to clear the Senate, and Republicans currently hold a 52-seat majority. The most recent test of Democrats' views of the bill came in April 2015, when a companion version introduced by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) won approval from the Environment and Public Works Committee on a 11-9 party-line vote (E&E News PM, April 28, 2015).
Among those voting "no" was Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), now the committee's ranking member, who indicated yesterday that his views haven't changed.
Since its founding in 1970, EPA "has used the best science available to protect the health of the American people," Carper said in a statement to E&E News. "Any efforts to suddenly limit the data the EPA uses to keep Americans safe is nonsensical and, frankly, irresponsible."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/04/04/stories/1060052544

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Leaders Trashed Staff Comments Critical of Data Overhaul Bill: Officials

Apr 4, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Brian Dabbs

EPA staff comments on extensive burdens linked to a controversial House-passed bill never made it to the Congressional Budget Office.
That's because personnel in the Environmental Protection Agency's leadership circle quashed the comments, choosing instead to say there would be no burden whatsoever if the bill became law, current EPA officials and an email obtained by Bloomberg BNA say.
The legislation (H.R.1430), which passed the House March 29 with only three Democrats in support, would require all research used in agency actions to be made public. The staff comments decried the bill, arguing it would cost the agency at least $250 million a year while threatening agency know-how and jeopardizing personal and confidential business information. Those current officials, along with a former career official, said they have never witnessed such a dramatic contradiction between staff-crafted comments and the official evaluation passed onto the budget office.
‘Complete Disregard’
“This is a complete disregard,” said an agency official who helped write the comments. But “it's consistent with everything else we've seen. Basically all the actions of our organization are being curtailed from every direction. This is just another piece of that, and it doesn't take a big step to connect those dots.”
An email obtained by Bloomberg BNA illustrated the inner-workings.
“The administrator's office decided not to send our responses forward,” the email said. “[The Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations] fought for the points we made, but [the administrator's office] ultimately decided to send a response back to [the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)] that said no cost, no comment.” Bloomberg BNA is not publishing the email to safeguard the identities of those involved.
The bill would force the EPA, in moving forward with actions such as regulations, risk assessments and others, to only use data that is publicly available online and reproducible. Critics say it would require a costly database. Some studies also shouldn't be reproduced because they may harm humans, those critics add.
Research used in EPA rulemaking is often shielded from the public. The comments tout the Open Government Initiative, which the EPA finalized a plan for in December, as the right way to achieve the transparency goals of the bill.
But agency leadership staunchly backs the legislation, according to transition team spokesman John Konkus.
Konkus declined to speak to the staff comments, saying internal deliberations shape a final assessment that “helps ensure EPA is responsive to the president and the American people.” The CBO relies on agencies to understand consequences of legislation. Budget law also directs agencies to provide the material to the budget office in order to boil down a budget assessment, often referred to as a “score.”
Deliberations Typical
Stan Meiburg, the career employee who took on the role as acting deputy administrator under Administrator Gina McCarthy, said the scenario marks a departure from typical agency discussions over CBO comments.
“I don't recall cases where comments are just discarded,” Meiburg told Bloomberg BNA. “There's typically a lot of dialogue, a lot of conversation and discarding would not be done unadvisedly or lightly.”
“There would be burden and if that was really blown off, that's not a good thing,” he said.
Administrator Scott Pruitt, who landed at the EPA in February after a lengthy, bitter nomination process, vows to change agency culture. A new EPA will restore primacy of the states in environmental protection and base actions on sound science, rather than ideological convictions, he says.
As Oklahoma attorney general, Pruitt sued the EPA over a wide range of actions, including the Clean Power Plan and the Clean Water Rule. Critics say he's bent on defanging agency authority while providing industry free reign to pollute.
Staff Complaints
The bill, authored by House Science, Space and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), says the agency should only spend $1 million a year on the new protocol, derived from appropriations otherwise approved.
But the staff comments say the legislation, known by the acronym the HONEST Act, would cost at least 250 times that.
“In addition to spending dollars and staff time on requesting and getting data from study authors, creating [information technology] infrastructure and a data management system to manage, store, and archive large volumes of data, and making the data available in a format that is useful and accessible to the public, EPA would also have to spend dollars and staff time combing through these extensive datasets to find and redact Personally Identifiable Information and Confidential Business Information,” the comments say. The bill directs the EPA to disclose that redacted information after a requester signs a confidentiality agreement.
The fear over compromised personal and business information would deter industry and academics from working with the agency, the comments say. That would all but eliminate EPA access in many cases to the highest-quality research, they add.
EPA, CBO Communication
The CBO estimate for the bill, published the same day the measure passed the House, says the agency could spend anywhere from a few million to more than $100 million annually on the new rules, but based on assurances from the agency the $1 million annual spending is a safe bet.
“EPA officials have explained to CBO that the agency would implement H.R. 1430 with minimal funding and generally would not disseminate information for the scientific studies that it uses to support covered actions,” the estimate says. “That approach to implementing the legislation would significantly reduce the number of studies that the agency relies on when issuing or proposing covered actions for the first few years following enactment of the legislation.”
That assurance, however, suggests EPA leadership discussed the consequences of the legislation with the CBO. The EPA official who helped craft the comments said lower-level staff is in the dark about how and when that information was communicated, in light of the apparent “no cost, no comment” response.
Konkus declined to comment on that communication, and a CBO spokeswoman didn't respond to a Bloomberg BNA request for comment.
Future of the Bill
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, which has jurisdiction over the bill, sponsored a previous iteration of the bill in the last Congress.
A spokesman for Barrasso, Mike Danylak, declined to comment on whether the committee aims to advance the measure in the foreseeable future. Danylak, however, indicated support. “The EPA's science should be open and transparent and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will continue to work to achieve these goals,” he told Bloomberg BNA.
Meanwhile, Kristina Baum, a spokeswoman for Smith, said her boss supports interaction between the EPA and the CBO, while also rejecting the concerns raised in the EPA staff comments.
“It is not accurate to say that there will be large amounts of studies that the EPA cannot use as the societal incentive is for researchers to make the science available for the benefit of its use for the good of the public,” she told Bloomberg BNA. The staff comments also pointed out the academic and industry drive to publicize research but indicated that incentive may be outweighed by concerns over compromised personal and business information.
But Barrasso's counterpart on the EPW Committee, ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.), hinted at opposition.
“Any efforts to suddenly limit the data the EPA uses to keep Americans safe is nonsensical and, frankly, irresponsible,” Carper told Bloomberg BNA in a statement.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=108484008&vname=dennotallissues&fn=108484008&jd=108484008

Return to headline | Return to top
Hazmat Birth Defect Claims Shipped to State Court

Apr 4, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Steven M. Sellers

Signetics Corp. must defend birth defect claims of New Mexico plaintiffs who say their mothers were exposed to toxic chemicals at the company's semiconductor plant, the District of New Mexico ruled March 31 (Bellman v. NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc., 2017 BL 105272, D.N.M., No. 16-cv-0113, 3/31/17).
Randy Bellman and six other plaintiffs plausibly alleged a New Mexico-based chemical supplier, Rinchem Corp., has some liability for their illnesses, defeating federal diversity jurisdiction, the court said.
The ruling rejected a litany of defense arguments that the Rinchem was added as a defendant only to derail the federal case.
Federal diversity jurisdiction requires proof that a minimum monetary threshold is at stake, and that no plaintiff shares citizenship with any defendant.
Bellman and the other plaintiffs claim three Signetics companies —NXP Semiconductors USA Inc., Philips Electronics North America Corp. and Philips Semiconductors Inc.—are liable for negligence, breach of warranty and other claims.
They say their health conditions, which include heart defects and tumors, stem from their mothers’ occupational exposures to chemicals used in manufacturing semiconductors at an Albuquerque plant where they worked two decades ago.
The companies countered that only Signetics—as a “sophisticated purchaser” of the chemicals Rinchem supplied—could have any duty of care to the plaintiffs, and that the case had been properly removed to federal court.
But it isn't clear New Mexico courts would apply that rule to users of the chemicals, here the plaintiffs’ mothers, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico said.
Because the Rinchem claims are “possibly viable,” a remand to the state courts was required, the court said.
U.S. District Judge James O. Browning wrote the opinion.
The law offices of Jaramillo Touchet represented Bellman and other plaintiffs.
Hinkle, Hensley, Shanor & Martin represented the Signetics defendants.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=108483999&vname=dennotallissues&fn=108483999&jd=108483999

Return to headline | Return to top
Exposure to BPA Substitute, BPS, Multiplies Breast Cancer Cells

Apr 3, 2017 | Science Daily

By Katie Aleck

Bisphenol S (BPS), a substitute for the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in the plastic industry, shows the potential for increasing the aggressiveness of breast cancer through its behavior as an endocrine-disrupting chemical, a new study finds. The results, which tested BPS in human breast cancer cells, will be presented Saturday at ENDO 2017, the Endocrine Society's 99th annual meeting in Orlando, Fla.
BPS is found in polycarbonate hard plastics, currency bills and thermal paper receipts as well as many products touted to be free of BPA, a known endocrine-disrupting chemical suspected of having multiple possible health risks.
"Despite hopes for a safer alternative to BPA, studies have shown BPS to exhibit similar estrogen-mimicking behavior to BPA," said the study's principal investigator, Sumi Dinda, Ph.D., associate professor at Oakland University School of Health Sciences, Rochester, Mich.
Their study confirmed that BPS acts like estrogen in breast cancer cells, Dinda said, adding, "So far, BPS seems to be a potent endocrine disruptor."
He and his colleagues studied the effects of BPS on estrogen receptor-alpha and the BRCA1 gene. Most breast cancers are estrogen receptor positive, and, according to the National Cancer Institute, 55 to 65 percent of women who inherit a harmful mutation in the BRCA1 gene will develop breast cancer.
Using two commercially available breast cancer cell lines obtained from women with estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer, the research team exposed the cancer cells to varying strengths of BPS or to an inactive substance as a control.
The investigators also treated the breast cancer cells with estradiol (estrogen) and found that BPS acted like estrogen in multiplying breast cancer cells, Dinda said. Compared with the control, BPS heightened the protein expression in estrogen receptor and BRCA1 after 24 hours, as did estrogen. After a six-day treatment with BPS, the breast cancer cells in both cell lines reportedly increased in number by 12 percent at the lowest dose (4 micromolars) and by 60 percent at 8 micromolars.
The research team then blocked the BPS-induced proliferation of breast cancer cells by treating the cells with anti-estrogen drugs, which are used to block estrogen's action onto estrogen binding proteins (estrogen receptors) in breast cancer cells.
Dinda said their findings suggest that BPS may cause breast cancer to become more aggressive. Although further study of BPS in breast cancer cells is needed for confirmation, he suggested that "if a woman has a mutated BRAC1 gene and uses products containing BPS, her risk for developing breast cancer may increase further."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170403140605.htm

Return to headline | Return to top
Flame Retardants, Other Factors Drive Thyroid Cancer Increase In The US

Apr 3, 2017 | Tech Times

By Kalyan Kumar

Thyroid cancer has been reported to be the fastest increasing cancer diagnosis in the United States. A new study says the annual growth in thyroid cancer incidence tripled between 1975 and 2013, with a majority of the new diagnoses being papillary thyroid cancer.
In recent years, epidemiologists have been attributing the surge in thyroid cancer to the broad detection of more cases. With advanced tools like fine-needle biopsies and ultrasound systems, doctors are now better equipped to diagnose thyroid cancer, including those with slow-growing nonmalignant symptoms.
"While overdiagnosis may be an important component to this observed epidemic, it clearly does not explain the whole story," said Dr. Julie Sosa, co-author and Duke University's head of endocrine surgery.Thyroid Cancer Rate Increase
From the database of National Cancer Institute, the researchers analyzed more than 77,000 cases of thyroid cancer reported between 1974 and 2013. Analysis showed a tripling of thyroid cancer cases from that period.
From 1994 to 2013, advanced thyroid cancer cases increased 3 percent annually, while the number of deaths increased by nearly 1 percent every year. Sosa said thyroid cancers are showing a marked increase despite the relatively less lethal nature of the disease.
The new study rules out the rising rates of thyroid cancer to an escalation in the detection of more cases, and attributes the increase in thyroid cancer incidence and mortality rates to many factors, including exposure to flame retardants.
The findings have been published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and the paper was presented at the Endocrine Society's meeting in Orlando recently.Environmental Impact From Flame Retardants
Flame retardants in home products are one of the causative factors of papillary thyroid cancer, according to the study.
Studies have shown that many flame retardants have endocrine-disrupting chemicals that interfere with thyroid homeostasis, so the researchers turned their attention to flame retardants to trace its relationship with papillary thyroid cancer.
"Our study results suggest higher exposure to several flame retardants in the home environment may be associated with the diagnosis and severity of papillary thyroid cancer," Sosa said.
Papillary thyroid cancer is exacerbated by polybrominated diphenyl ethers, which are pollutants present in home products, plastics, foodstuff, and pesticides.Number Of Americans Affected By Thyroid Cancer
According to the National Cancer Institute, more than 60,000 Americans are diagnosed with thyroid cancer a year. Of these, nearly 75 percent are women and 82 percent are white.
In another study, it was found that among the ethnic groups showing higher vulnerability to thyroid cancer are Hispanics and African Americans.
"Thyroid cancer incidence is leveling off in the United States. Our analysis, however, shows that the trend of deceleration mainly occurred in non-Hispanic Whites and in older populations, whereas the rate of thyroid cancer continuously increased among the young and the Hispanic and black populations," noted lead author Anupam Kotwal.Obesity Problem And Decreased Smoking Rate
Other reasons behind the increase in thyroid cancer are rising obesity rates and a decreasing number of smokers.
Obese adults in the United States have tripled between 1960 and 2012, with the highest growth in numbers recorded between 1980 and 2010.Another factor aiding the growth of thyroid cancer comes as a surprise - a decline in smoking.
Though smoking threatens the heart and lungs, it is associated with reducing the risk of thyroid cancer by 30 to 40 percent, added the study. However, this shouldn't be taken as a recommendation to smoke in order to prevent thyroid cancer, the researchers warned.
"It's just an interesting association that we see in our data, and it provides some clues to what factors are involved in thyroid cancer development," said NCI epidemiologist Cari Kitahara.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/203849/20170403/flame-retardants-other-factors-drive-thyroid-cancer-increase-in-the-us.htm

Return to headline | Return to top
EU Laboratory Calls for Input on Non-Animal Tests Recommendation

Apr 4, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Stephen Gardner

Comments can be submitted through April 16 on a draft European Union recommendation on the regulatory use of non-animal methods to test chemicals that might provoke allergic skin reactions.
The draft recommendation, prepared by the EU's in-house Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing, sets out how non-animal tests can be used in the context of EU legislation in areas such as cosmetics and industrial chemicals. The recommendation covers a number of non-animal approaches used to assess skin sensitization effects of chemicals.
Under a regulation published in September 2016, companies were given more leeway to use non-animal methods when testing substances for skin irritation and allergic reactions under the EU's REACH chemicals law (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals).
The draft EU Reference Laboratory recommendation, issued March 31, said that the revision of the REACH information requirements for skin sensitization was driven by progress on viable non-animal chemical tests in the past few years within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The recommendation would help underpin future OECD work, the laboratory said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=108483986&vname=dennotallissues&fn=108483986&jd=108483986

Return to headline | Return to top
New Version Of Qsar Toolbox Launched

Apr 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch

By Andrew Turley

The OECD has launched version four of its Qsar Toolbox, with some features designed specifically for companies looking to register substances under REACH ahead of the 2018 deadline.
According to 2014 figures for REACH registration dossiers, the Qsar Toolbox is the second most popular tool for Qsars after EPI Suite, including Ecosar. But their overall use remains low and strongly endpoint dependent, says Tomasz Sobański, project manager for the work at Echa. Qsars are more frequently used for fate and environmental endpoints and use for high tier human health endpoints is "marginal".
Furthermore, 65% of the time they represent only supporting evidence in, for example, weight-of-evidence justifications, rather than standalone evidence.
Mr Sobański and his team are finalising the figures for the 2017 report on "the use of alternatives to testing on animals for the REACH regulation". Publication is expected on 1 June. But based on the preliminary work he believes that use of Qsars and the Qsar Toolbox in registrations is rising.
The total number of registered users has grown steadily from about 2,000 in 2012 to more than 10,000 in 2016. Academia and industry each account for about a third of downloads, government bodies one tenth and IT companies less than one twentieth.Support
The scope of the tool has grown with the user base. The tool now comprises two million items of data for 80,000 substances over 49 independent databases.
The latest development was primarily funded by Echa, with contributions from the OECD, industry stakeholders and national governments.
The US EPA is sponsoring a project to incorporate into the tool a model for predicting cancer. This will run over the next biennium budget period.Features
The new version includes automated workflows for two hazard endpoints:acute toxicity for fish; andskin sensitisation.
These allow users to generate predictions by simply inputting the chemical structure of the substance.
The new version also includes a standardised workflow that proposes the best options for the endpoints and lets the expert choose from among them.
Others changes include:Iuclid 6 integration;improvements to the reporting function, so that outputs are now more customisable and reports organised so that the most important information – about for example the endpoint under consideration – is clearly visible at the start; andthe option to export the data matrix in the form of an Excel file.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54873/new-version-of-qsar-toolbox-launched

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

Blue States Sue Trump Over Delay of Energy-Efficiency Rules

Apr 4, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Erik Larson and Andrew Harris

Ten states led by Democrats and a handful of national environmental groups sued the Trump administration, claiming it's violating federal law by delaying energy-efficiency standards intended to save Americans almost $24 billion (New York v. Perry, 2d Cir., 17-00918, 3/31/17).
Six rules for ceiling fans, walk-in coolers and other consumer products that are being blocked by President Donald Trump have been projected to slash emissions of carbon dioxide by 292 million tons, according to a statement on April 3 by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. The rules created under former President Barack Obama's administration were to go into effect on March 20, but they were delayed until Sept. 30 without explanation.
“This is yet another example of how the Trump administration's polluter-first energy policy has real and harmful impacts on the public health, environment—and pocketbooks—of New Yorkers,” Schneiderman, who's leading the coalition suing the U.S. Department of Energy, said in the statement.
The lawsuit is the latest challenge to the Trump administration by groups of Democratic-led states seeking to slow the implementation of the president's policy initiatives. Trump has promised to cut regulations by as much as 75 percent to boost job growth.
The Justice Department didn't immediately reply to a request for comment. The Energy Department said it doesn't comment on pending litigation.
The Natural Resources Defense Council joined a separate lawsuit over the same delay to the rules (Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Perry, 2d Cir., No. 17-916, 3/31/17). The coalition filed a petition for review of the Energy Department's actions on March 31 in the federal appeals court in Manhattan.
“The Trump administration needs to do its job and follow the law on energy efficiency,” Kit Kennedy, a director at the NRDC, said in a statement. “These inexplicable delays are hurting the pocketbooks of America's families and businesses, and creating uncertainty for manufacturers.”
California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, Vermont and Washington, as well as the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the City of New York, also joined the litigation.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=108484001&vname=dennotallissues&fn=108484001&jd=108484001

Return to headline | Return to top
Blue States Ready To Battle Pruitt Over Emissions

Apr 4, 2017 | E&E Daily

By Hannah Hess

Democratic attorneys general from eight states and the District of Columbia yesterday urged U.S. EPA to reconsider its decision to stop collecting certain emissions information from oil and gas operators, and hinted at a legal battle.
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D) and the top lawyers from California, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont sent a letter to Administrator Scott Pruitt asking him to reissue information requests initiated by the Obama administration.
They also noted that EPA is legally required under the Clean Air Act to control oil- and gas-sector methane emissions from both new and existing sources.
The information request was part of the previous administration's plan to crack down on releases from existing oil and gas facilities as part of its broader Climate Action Plan. President Trump's "energy independence" executive order directed EPA to review the mandate.
In a notice appearing in today's edition of the Federal Register, EPA formally announces that it will review and, "if appropriate, will initiate reconsideration proceedings to suspend, revise or rescind this rule."
Healey and the other attorneys general wrote that their states would "strongly oppose" any such effort "and will vigorously pursue legal action" to ensure EPA complies with its legal obligation to regulate releases.
An EPA spokeswoman said the agency will "determine the best path to meet our obligations under the Clean Air Act through a thoughtful and deliberative process."
"We will work with all impacted stakeholders and look forward to engaging concerned parties," Liz Bowman wrote in an email yesterday to E&E News.
Eleven Republican state leaders, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, sent a letter in early March urging Pruitt to toss the information request (Energywire, March 2).
When Pruitt announced the controversial decision a day later, environmental groups decried the action as evidence the former Oklahoma attorney general was catering to outside influence. The Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council have requested all documents related to the decision.
"The public had no window into the basis for your decision, and no understanding of how it relates to EPA's obligation to protect public health and the environment," the attorneys general wrote, noting they too were "troubled" by the timing.
"Your arbitrary action demonstrates a disregard on your part for the mechanisms that ensure public participation in important governmental decision-making processes," the letter states.
Democrats on Capitol Hill have also criticized EPA for doing a favor to polluting companies despite the importance of the information to climate and air quality policy.
Reps. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.), top Natural Resources Committee lawmakers, sent Pruitt a letter urging him to reissue the request (E&E News PM, March 8).
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/04/04/stories/1060052532

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

(ACC Mentioned) Another Delay of Chemical Safety Rule Is Dangerous and Unwarranted

Apr 3, 2017 | Union of Concerned Scientists

By Kathleen Rest

Last week was just chock full of setbacks and assaults on our public protections coming out of Washington. You’ve probably heard about President Trump’s all-out attack on climate policy; EPA Administrator Pruitt got right on it. No surprise there. Then there was EPA’s decision not to ban a pesticide clearly linked to serious and long-term developmental effects on children’s brains and cognitive function. But you may not have noticed another harmful decision coming out of the EPA – this one about its Risk Management Program (RMP) rule.
Maybe you have been fortunate enough NOT to have to worry about an explosion, fire, or leak from the over 12,000 facilities that use or store toxic chemicals in the U.S. But many of our families and communities—especially communities of color or low income communities — are not so lucky.
In the last decade nearly 60 people died, approximately 17,000 people were injured or sought medical treatment, and almost 500,000 people were evacuated or sheltered-in-place as a result of accidental releases at chemical plants. Over the past 10 years, more than 1,500 incidents were reported causing over $2 billion in property damage. According to whom? The EPA. And these data don’t begin to capture the daily worry and anxiety of those living or working close to one of those facilities.
One would think that enhancing safeguards to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and manage risks of chemical accidents and releases from our nation’s most hazardous facilities would be a no brainer. It’s not like we haven’t seen or read about catastrophic chemical incidents. Like the Chevron Richmond Refinery fire in 2012 that sent 15,000 people to the hospital for emergency treatment. Or the deadly explosion at the West Fertilizer Company in West, Texas in 2013 that killed 15 people and injured 200 more. Or the 2014 chemical spill in West Virginia that left thousands of residents and businesses without clean water.
I suspect the American public assumes our government views reducing the risk of chemical disasters as a critical priority. And it was making some progress.
The good
For years, community groups, environmental organizations, and labor groups had pressed and petitioned the federal government to adopt stronger measures to prevent chemical disasters. Finally, and in the wake of several high profile incidents, President Obama issued an Executive Order (EO 13650) in 2013 directing the federal agencies to reduce risks associated with such incidents and to enhance the safety of chemical facilities. Updating EPA’s Risk Management Program rule (under the Clean Air Act’s chemical disaster provision) emerged as one of the top priorities for improving the safety of these facilities. The EPA then embarked on a multi-year and rigorous process of public outreach, stakeholder engagement, formal requests for information, and notice and comment periods. The outcome: an updated Risk Management Program rule that includes some common-sense provisions for covered facilities. For example,
·         Investigating incidents that resulted in or could have resulted in a catastrophic release
(a so-called “near miss”), including a root cause analysis;
·         Coordinating local emergency response plans, roles, and responsibilities, and conducting emergency response exercises;
·         Improving public access to chemical hazard information;
·         Engaging an independent third-party after a reportable accident to audit compliance; and
·         For three industries with the most serious accident records (oil refineries, chemical manufacturers, and pulp and paper mills), conducting a safer technology and alternative analysis to identify and evaluate measures that could prevent disasters.
The enhanced rule was scheduled to go into effect on March 14, 2017, with longer compliance periods for some provisions (as far out as 2022).
The bad
In March, the EPA issued a 90 day administrative stay – delaying implementation of the rule to June 19, 2017. This followed receipt of petitions by industry groups and several states requesting reconsideration of the rule. Who were these petitioners? Some pretty powerful stakeholders. The RMP Coalition whose members are … wait for it… the American Chemistry Council, the American Forest & Paper Association, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Utility Air Regulatory Group. Another petition came in from the Chemical Safety Advocacy Group (CSAG) – comprised of companies in the refining, oil, and gas, chemicals, and general manufacturing sectors. Then came a third petition from 11 states, including Texas and West Virginia.
The ugly
Stay it again. Attentive to these industrial interests, Mr. Pruitt’s EPA last week proposed a further delay to the effective date of the RMP amendments to February 19, 2019. So, having waited years for enhanced chemical safety and security safeguards, and after an already lengthy and extensive public process required for rule-making, communities and families at risk of chemical disasters will now have to wait almost another two years while the agency reviews and reconsiders the Risk Management Program amendments. This delay essentially buys the agency more time to figure out how to redo it or repeal it completely. Call me crazy, but I just don’t see the delay resulting in a rule that gets stronger and further strengthens public safety. The regulated community doesn’t want that to happen, and they have a bigger war chest and easier access to regulators and decision makers than public interest community does.
Unleashing the power of the (little) people
But here’s what we, the people, do have. We have voice. We have votes. We have on-the-ground stories to tell. We also have local leaders, emergency responders, workers, and school teachers who can attest to the dangers and the need.
The EPA is holding a public hearing as part of its reconsideration on April 19, 2017 in Washington, DC. And it is taking written comments until May 19, 2017.   No comment or story is too short or too unimportant to tell. And EPA has to consider all comments as it fashions its response. Tell them a further delay is dangerous, unnecessary, and unconscionable.
You can submit written comments electronically to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725 at http://www.regulations.gov. These written comments can be accompanied by multi-media submissions, (i.e., video, audio, photos — like maybe of your kids?). While you’re at it, send a copy of your comments to your federal representatives to let them know that you expect their support for strong chemical safety rules and resistance to any effort to roll-back these and other public protections.
One of the facilities in question may be in your neighborhood – or near those you love. You might not even know. But even if you’re fortunate enough to be some distance away and relatively safe from a chemical explosion, fire, or spill disaster, we all have a stake in public safety and health. And know that UCS will be there with you.

http://blog.ucsusa.org/kathleen-rest/another-delay-of-chemical-safety-rule-is-dangerous-and-unwarranted

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News

ACI Sides With Railroads Against Reregulation: Report

Apr 3, 2017 | RailwayAge

By William C. Vantuono

The American Consumer Institute (ACI), a 501c(3) non-profit educational organization with no direct ties to the U.S. freight railroad industry, is speaking out against what it calls “continued attempts to overregulate the freight rail sector.”
ACI has released “Reregulating Railroads Is the Wrong Track for Consumers,” a ConsumerGram Report (downloadable at the link below) “that provides in depth-analysis regarding the impact new regulations would have on consumers and the industry,” according to author Steve Pociask, President of ACI.
Pociask, an accomplished economist, “provides a comprehensive overview of the freight railroad regulatory framework and detrimental impact new regulations would create,” ACI says.
Citing historical information well-known to the industry and organizations like the Association of American Railroads but perhaps little-known to the public as well as many current legislators, Pociask recalls that in the 1970s, “the accumulated effects of unnecessary regulations nearly brought the rail industry to its knees as trains were forced to [operate on] out-of-date, inefficient rail networks, and collective ratemaking led to an average 2.42% rate-of-return on investment. Deregulation laws passed in 1976 and 1980 (Staggers Rail Act) led to unparalleled improvements, decreasing rail costs by half and tripling productivity. Transportation prices fell by 4% in the first two years, 20% in the first 5 years, and 44% in the first 10 years following legislation, leading to $10 billion in annual economic benefits for consumers.”
“Regulations currently on the table due to efforts by the U.S. Surface Transportation Board and Federal Railroad Administration, have the capacity to reverse recent gains for the industry through decreasing rail’s ability to reinvest and continue to improve, ultimately harming transportation infrastructure and consumers,” Pociask says in the report.
Commenting on reciprocal switching, Pociask, a member of the Federal Communications Commission Consumer Advocacy Committee, compares it to a similar effort to regulate the telecommunications industry. “Nearly 20 years ago, a similar regulation of sharing was attempted, where incumbent broadband services facilities (referred to as unbundled network elements) would be provided to their competitors at below-market prices,” he says. “However, prominent economic studies concluded that artificially low wholesale prices would produce devastating consequences for industry investment and consumers. Specifically, one study found that unbundled network element prices gave incumbent telecommunications operators only 42% of their normal retail revenues. And as other economists noted, it would take 20 years of productivity-based price reductions to match the one-time shift to lower wholesale prices. Because of the onerous cost of regulations, massive losses of earnings and the risk associated with renting facilities to competitors at bargain prices, incumbent operators were discouraged from investing in broadband services. In response, the regulations were revamped, and broadband investment almost immediately increased.
“Like economies of scale in broadband networks, railroads have high fixed costs and must invest heavily in their infrastructure to safely and efficiently move products, some of which are hazardous and therefore require extreme care. Achieving and maintaining a superior condition of rail infrastructure requires diligent investment and attention to safety. Incentives to reduce investments would only hinder shippers’ ability to move these goods. In fact, new analysis commissioned by proponents of 9reciprocal switching] shows local switching can result in significant delays and that the problem is likely to worsen. Recent, scholarly commentary argued that the proposed regulation was a subtle scheme to reduce rates for select railroad shippers at the expense of others. As the Phoenix Center’s George S. Ford concluded, ‘Reciprocal switching is regulatory activism, not competition policy.’”
“Government regulators have a tendency to ‘regulate first, fix problems later,’” Pociask tells Railway Age. He agrees that this approach is similar in intent to the old saw used to describe renegade law enforcement officers: “Shoot first, ask questions later.”
Pociask has been involved in consumer public policy research for more than 35 years. He has published numerous economic studies, including three books for the Economic Policy Institute, and policy studies for several independent nonprofit organizations. According to his bio on the ACI website, “Many of his research studies have focused on the consequences of public policies on consumer welfare.” Pociask has extensive experience in policy issues, including energy, insurance, consumer products, information technology and healthcare. He has conducted surveys of consumer opinion covering a wide variety of public policy issues, and has participated as a consumer advocacy representative for policymaker organizations. Pociask is a member of the FCC Consumer Advocacy Committee, including the Broadband, Privacy and Technology Transition Working Groups, the latter of which he chairs. He has also written reports for the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy, including one on small businesses’ telecommunications expenditures and use, and one on broadband use in rural America. From 1998 to 2000, Pociask served as Chief Economist and Executive Vice President for Joel Popkin and Co., an economic consulting firm in Washington, DC. Prior to that, he was Chief Economist for the Bell Atlantic Corp.
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/regulatory/aci-sides-with-railroads-against-reregulation-report.html

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

Groups Roll Out Plan To Green NAFTA

Apr 3, 2017 | E&E News PM

By Hannah Northey

Environmental groups today floated a wish list for greening the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as President Trump prepares to renegotiate the trade pact and follow through on a campaign promise.
More than a dozen groups, including the Sierra Club, 350.org, Friends of the Earth and the League of Conservation Voters, unveiled an eight-point platform that calls on the Trump administration to elevate the issues of climate change and environmental protection during the negotiations.
Topping off the list is a request to scrap a trade rule that allows private companies like Exxon Mobil Corp. to avoid U.S. courts.
The groups are also eager to insert strong and enforceable environmental and labor standards, overhaul a section of NAFTA that limits Canada's ability to restrict production of oil sands, and eliminate language that allows state clean energy goals and fuel standards to be challenged.
Addressing emissions from cross-border motor carriers and imported goods and protecting environmental and public policies are also part of the platform.
Yet House Democrats who in February issued their own list of principles for NAFTA discussions have all but acknowledged that the president is unlikely to give much credence to environmental protection or global warming (E&E Daily, Feb. 17).
The list of suggested changes to NAFTA, which Trump has repeatedly hailed as a "catastrophe" for the United States, arrives as news of the White House's plans begins to trickle out into the media.
CNN, Fox News and other media outlets last week reported that a leaked draft memo from Stephen Vaughn, the acting U.S. trade representative, shows that the president is keen on imposing tariffs on Mexican and Canadian goods, but not scrapping NAFTA altogether.White House spokesman Sean Spicer last week downplayed the significance of the memo, telling reporters on Thursday at a daily press briefing that the document did not represent administration policy.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/04/03/stories/1060052516

Return to headline | Return to top
Same Words, Two Meanings, Los Angeles Air District Says in Brief

Apr 4, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Carolyn Whetzel

Same words, two meanings.
Identical words used in two separate sections of the Clean Air Act may be interpreted differently if justified by context, according to Southern California air quality regulators South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, D.C. Ct. App., No. 16-1364, 3/31/17.
That argument is the South Coast Air Quality Management District's opening salvo in its lawsuit challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's final rule for implementing the national air quality standards for fine particulate matter, or PM 2.5.
Filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia March 31, the air district's opening brief called the rule “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” The August 2016 rule set requirements for state plans that polluted areas must submit showing how they will meet federal air quality standards.
At issue is whether the EPA erred in concluding that the Clean Air Act requires the term “in the area” be interpreted the same way for two separate provisions of state implementation plans: one requiring areas show “reasonable further progress” and the other requiring the use of “reasonably available control technology (RACT).”
The EPA rule limits the ability of areas violating standards for fine particulates to count emissions reductions from upwind areas when demonstrating progress, South Coast regulators said. Historically, the EPA has allowed credit for the upwind reductions, the air district said.
“While there is language in the Clean Air Act that expressly requires that RACT be imposed on sources ‘in the area,’ there is no such requirement for reasonable further progress,” the air district said.
The two Clean Air Act provisions “serve two different statutory purposes,” the air district said in its brief. The reasonable further progress provision requires areas that violate air quality standards to show annual incremental reductions in emissions while the other requires implementation of all reasonably available control measures as fast as possible, the air district said.
South Coast regulators oversee air quality in Orange County and urban areas of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties and the Coachella Valley, which is in a separate air basin. The EPA has designated the South Coast air basin as a “serious” nonattainment area for PM 2.5 and the Coachella Valley as “unclassifiable” for the pollutant.
In the past, the air district has been allowed to aggregate emissions from the South Coast and Coachella Valley air basins.
The two areas would now need to meet the reasonable further progress requirements separately, which could be challenging for the Coachella Valley because much of the valley's pollution comes from transported emissions and ozone from the Los Angeleas area, according to the air district.
The South Coast air district has a similar petition pending in the same court involving the EPA's ozone implementation rule.
The EPA must file its brief in the case by June 16.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=108484006&vname=dennotallissues&fn=108484006&jd=108484006

Return to headline | Return to top
IPCC Begins Early Work on New Climate Report

Apr 4, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Eric J. Lyman

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change formally began the process that will lead to the release of its Sixth Assessment Report on climate change at its 45th session that concluded March 31 in Guadalajara, Mexico.
Featuring nearly 350 representatives from more than 100 countries, the four-day session was the first multilateral climate gathering since the inauguration of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has vowed to roll back many domestic measures dedicated to climate change.
The IPCC is an autonomous intergovernmental scientific body that exists under the auspices of the United Nations.
Though the IPCC is traditionally apolitical, Trump's domestic actions attracted criticism in Mexico: Jorge Aristoteles Sandoval Diaz, governor of the Mexican state of Jalisco, which includes Guadalajara, used his opening remarks at the conference to criticize Trump for taking a “backwards step” on climate change.
In discussions over budget issues, delegates worried that the U.S.—the largest single financial backer of the IPCC—might decide to reduce or pull its funding for the intergovernmental panel.
The U.S. contributed nearly $2 million to the IPCC in 2016, by far the largest contribution from among 23 donor nations. Since the IPCC was founded in 1988, the U.S. has donated nearly $45 million to its budget, again, more than any other donor. Delegates in Mexico appointed a committee to seek new funding sources from among donor nations, UN agencies, and other multilateral sources.
Last year, the IPCC adopted a timetable for the Sixth Assessment Report, which summarizes the latest science related to climate impacts, including models for future climate impacts based on various scenarios. The report is scheduled to be completed in 2021 or 2022.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=108484005&vname=dennotallissues&fn=108484005&jd=108484005

Return to headline | Return to top
Pruitt Dodges On Health Impacts Of Killing Carbon Rule

Apr 3, 2017 | E&E News PM

By Rod Kuckro

You can't blame "Fox News Sunday" moderator Chris Wallace for trying.
Several times on yesterday's broadcast, Wallace tried to get U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to respond to the adverse health effects of withdrawing the Obama-era Clean Power Plan.
Pruitt repeated the Trump administration's argument that the plan, which aimed to reduce the rate of carbon emissions from power plants, was "regulatory overreach" and that President Trump was keeping a campaign promise to kill the plan.
"We have nothing to be apologetic about," he said.
"You're not giving me a health answer. You're giving me a political answer," Wallace replied, citing data that 166 million people in the United States live in places where the air is "unclean."
"One of the key priorities of the administration is to improve air quality," Pruitt said.
"The past administration just made it up. They reimagined authority under the [Clean Air Act]" when they developed the Clean Power Plan, he said.
As for the Paris climate agreement, Pruitt did not directly endorse continued U.S. involvement.
"Engagement internationally is very important. Those discussions should ensue. What Paris represents is a bad deal for this country. We front-loaded our costs; China and India backloaded theirs," he said.
The distinction is that unlike China and India, "we can burn coal in a clean fashion. We shouldn't have this commitment by the U.S. government to say that fossil fuels are bad, renewables are good," Pruitt said. "The U.S. EPA and the U.S. government should not pick winners and losers."
Wallace played a clip of a recent interview of Pruitt in which he said he did not agree that carbon dioxide is a "primary contributor" to climate change.
"There's a warming trend, the climate is changing and human activity contributes to that change in some measure," Pruitt said. "The real issue is how much we contribute to it and measuring that with precision."
"What if you're wrong?" Wallace asked.
No more federal implementation plan
EPA today will publish in the Federal Register its withdrawal of proposed rules issued Oct. 23, 2015, addressing a federal implantation plan if states failed to develop their own approach on how to comply with the Clean Power Plan.
The withdrawal is in direct response to the executive order on energy independence that President Trump signed on March 28.
The Federal Register notice also withdraws EPA's proposed model carbon trading rules and rules addressing the design of the Clean Energy Incentive Program that would have rewarded states that wanted to comply early with the CPP.
The notice said EPA plans to "use this time to re-evaluate these CPP-related proposals and, if appropriate, put out re-proposals or new proposals to ensure that the public is commenting on EPA's most up-to-date thinking on these issues."
In case you missed it
·         Pruitt told governors that they "have no obligation to spend resources to comply with a rule that has been stayed" (Climatewire, March 31).
·         Supporters of the Clean Power Plan are expected to file their formal opposition to the Justice Department's request to halt the litigation this week, while others are planning public protests (E&E News PM, March 29).
·         Neither Trump nor Pruitt mentioned climate change when unveiling the executive order to gut EPA's carbon rule. So what's next? (Climatewire, March 29).
·         Trump's sweeping renunciation of the Obama administration's environmental policies reduced the world's largest economy to one idea: Coal, burned cheaply and cleanly, will fuel American prosperity this century. There's ample evidence to the contrary (Energywire, March 29).
·         Trump's executive order aimed at scrapping Obama-era climate actions scrambles existing litigation and sets the stage for high-stakes courtroom battles to come (Energywire, March 29).
·         The attorneys general of 16 states and the District of Columbia signaled they will mount a court challenge to EPA's move to reverse the Clean Power Plan (E&E News PM, March 28).
http://www.eenews.net/interactive/clean_power_plan/column_posts/1060052477

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested