Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 5/2/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Global Chemical Production Ends Q1 with Slight Decline, ACC Says
May 2, 2017 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
The American Chemistry Council’s (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com) Global Chemical Production Regional Index (Global CPRI) shows that the first quarter ended on a soft note, with headline global production slipping back 0.1 percent in March, as measured on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC, EDF Agree on Need to Implement TSCA but Split on 'Burden' Order
May 1, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) are both calling on the Trump EPA to push ahead with implementation of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), but ACC says the agency must craft implementing rules that heed President Donald Trump's order on reducing regulatory “burdens.” -
Data on 8,556 Chemicals Sent to EPA in 2016 to Aid Risk Reviews
May 2, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA received production volume and other data for 8,556 chemicals from 2,482 chemical manufacturers or importers in 2016, an agency official said May 1. -
EPA Gets Earful at Listening Session on Toxics Rule Changes
May 2, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Tiffany Stecker and Sam Pearson
Yolanda Ferguson and her family drove 1,000 miles from Mississippi's Gulf Coast to plead for EPA not to roll back the nation's chemicals law. -
Industry Pressing Trump to Repeal EPA Reporting Rule for Nanomaterials
May 1, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Manufacturers that use nanomaterials in their products are urging the Trump administration to repeal the Obama EPA's Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rule that requires reporting on their use of the materials, charging it is burdensome and unclear and appears inconsistent with the EPA's plans for allocating limited resources and assessing risks under the revised TSCA. -
UN Toxics Regulators Ban Flame Retardants, Chlorinated Paraffins
May 2, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Bryce Baschuk
Parties to the Stockholm Convention agreed May 1 to phase out and eventually ban most uses of a pair of toxic substances. -
US FDA Defers Action on Dental Amalgam Petition
May 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
In an interim response, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says it has been unable to reach a decision on a petition to require warning against dental amalgam use in sensitive populations. -
EPA Hears Feedback on Potential Reg Rollbacks
May 1, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
U.S. EPA heard testimony today on potential rollbacks to its lead exposure regulations, following the Trump administration's executive order to agencies to limit burdensome regulations. -
23 Environmental Rules Rolled Back in Trump’s First 100 Days
May 2, 2017 | The New York Times
By Nadja Popovich and Tatiana Schlossberg
President Trump, with help from his administration and Republicans in Congress, has reversed course on more than a dozen environmental rules, regulations and other Obama-era policies during his first 100 days in office. -
Omnibus Winners and Losers
May 2, 2017 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink, Dylan Brown, Christa Marshall, Kellie Lunney, Ariel Wittenberg and Hannah Hess
Coming in at 1,665 pages, the fiscal 2017 omnibus package that Congress hopes to clear this week could be the biggest bill lawmakers move this year. -
Interior Secretary Calls for U.S. to Dominate Global Energy
May 2, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
The United States should dominate the global energy sector and produce more oil and gas on federal lands to help achieve that goal, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said Monday. -
Environmentalists Urge Independent Probe of Colorado Explosion
May 2, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Tripp Baltz
Environmentalists called for an independent investigation into an April 17 house explosion in Firestone, Colo., that killed two men and prompted the state's largest oil and gas company to shut down 3,000 vertical wells across the northeastern part of the state. -
Ore. Delegation Introduces Bill to Prevent Derailments
May 2, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sam Mintz
A year after a fiery oil train derailment in Oregon, a bipartisan group of lawmakers from that state are pushing legislation they say would protect communities from similar accidents. -
Cap-and-Trade Permit Prices Would Increase Under California Bill
May 2, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Carolyn Whetzel
Oil refiners, power plants and other industries regulated under California's carbon trading program would pay higher prices for emissions permits, or allowances, under legislation introduced May 1. -
EPA Website Retains Much Climate Data
May 1, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA's April 28 announcement that it is updating the climate change information on its website to better reflect the views of the climate-questioning Trump administration shows that many relevant pages and information remain live even while the main climate page has been taken down. -
New York Plan to Dump Chlorine Into Sewers Worries Environmental Advocates
May 1, 2017 | The New York Times
By Corey Kilgannon
Facing a chronic problem of raw sewage emptying into city waterways during rainfalls, and struggling to meet health regulations, New York City environmental officials are turning to a new method of treating bacteria in sewage: dumping chlorine into sewer pipes leading to the waterways.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Global Chemical Production Ends Q1 with Slight Decline, ACC Says
May 2, 2017 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
The American Chemistry Council’s (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com) Global Chemical Production Regional Index (Global CPRI) shows that the first quarter ended on a soft note, with headline global production slipping back 0.1 percent in March, as measured on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis. This follows a revised 0.1 percent drop in February and a revised 0.4 percent gain in January. During March, chemical production decreased in every region except Africa & the Middle East and Asia-Pacific. The Global CPRI was up 1.3 percent year-over-year (Y/Y) on a 3MMA basis and stood at 108.9 percent of its average 2012 levels in March.
During March, capacity utilization in the global business of chemistry slipped 0.2 percentage points to 78.0 percent. This is off from 79.4 percent last March and is below the long-term (1987-2016) average of 88.7 percent.
Results were mixed on a product basis during March, with gains in agricultural chemicals, bulk petrochemicals & organics, and plastic resins. Considering Y/Y comparisons, growth was strongest in plastic resins followed by coatings and inorganic chemicals.
ACC’s Global CPRI measures the production volume of the business of chemistry for 33 key nations, sub-regions, and regions, all aggregated to the world total. The index is comparable to the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) production indices and features a similar base year where 2012=100. This index is developed from government industrial production indices for chemicals from over 65 nations accounting for about 98 percent of the total global business of chemistry. This data are the only timely source of market trends for the global chemical industry and are comparable to the US CPRI data, a timely source of U.S. regional chemical production.
http://www.chemengonline.com/global-chemical-production-ends-q1-with-slight-decline-acc-says/?printmode=1
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC, EDF Agree on Need to Implement TSCA but Split on 'Burden' Order
May 1, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) are both calling on the Trump EPA to push ahead with implementation of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), but ACC says the agency must craft implementing rules that heed President Donald Trump's order on reducing regulatory “burdens.”
The groups raised implementing TSCA reform as a priority in their comments at a May 1 EPA Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics (OPPT) hearing on how the agency is working to meet Trump's Executive Order 13777 that requires EPA and other agencies to establish a regulatory reform task force to identify regulations for repeal or modification. The hearing is one of several that major EPA offices are holding on regulatory reform efforts.
ACC and EDF -- often at odds with each other in their positions on EPA toxics issues -- both said at the hearing that a regulatory priority for this year needs to be crafting the rules that will implement the updated TSCA.
The TSCA reform law gives EPA until June 22 to finalize several rules creating a framework for implementing the law that would create processes for taking inventory of chemicals in commerce, conducting risk evaluations on those chemicals, and outlining how the agency staff will prioritize chemicals for review as either high or low priority.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is “engaged” on implementing TSCA, according to remarks earlier this year from a top Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) career official -- though Trump is yet to name a nominee to head OCSPP, of which OPPT is a division.
But the chemical sector and environmentalists are split over whether EPA should craft the rules in line with EO 13777, which has the goal “to lower regulatory burdens on the American people by implementing and enforcing regulatory reform,” and directed agencies to set up the regulatory reform task forces.
EPA's notice for the OPPT hearing asked for input on several questions including whether there are rules that may be appropriate for repeal, replacement, or modification to reduce burdens on the regulated community; whether EPA can adopt “innovations” to reduce regulatory burdens while protecting the environment; and whether specific provisions of some rules are now unnecessary because they have achieved their original objective.
At the hearing, ACC's Karyn Schmidt urged OPPT to consider Trump's EO in advancing the TSCA framework rules. “There are ample opportunities for improving the efficiency of the framework rules themselves,” she said.
Specifically, Schmidt argued significant room exists for improving efficiency in the agency's proposed prioritization plan, as well as other changes that could reduce the burden of TSCA oversight on industry in the long run.
Additionally, she pressed EPA to meet a June deadline for advancing the rules, and to adhere to statutory requirements for implementing the new process, including issuing policies, procedures and guidance for implementation.
Lindsay McCormick of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) faulted ACC's request, in an interview with Inside EPA on the sidelines of the hearing, arguing that the TSCA framework rules are inappropriate for a regulatory review effort aimed at reducing existing regulatory burdens, in part because they are still-pending.
Additionally, she noted that Congress mandated the implementing rules in the recently-revised TSCA, and she said EPA has already established a process for seeking public input on the rules.
TSCA Reform
ACC's push for EPA to consider Trump's deregulatory order in advancing the TSCA framework rules, came amid far-reaching debate at the hearing between industry and environmentalists on EPA's implementation of the new law generally, including EPA's new chemicals reviews and efforts to ban uses of certain substances under TSCA section 6 authority.
Groups including EDF, Natural Resources Defense Council and the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition (SCHF) argued that Congress enacted the revised TSCA, because greater EPA oversight of chemicals is needed. Weakening oversight before the new law so soon after Congress gave EPA new authorities and set deadlines for greater oversight does not make sense, they argued.
“EPA needs to focus limited resources on implementing the new law,” SCHF's Bob Sussman said. “The worst thing it could do is divert those resources to a futile search for deregulatory opportunities under a program that is grossly under-performing, and that has demanded too little of industry, not too much."
EDF's Richard Denison argued that the chemical sector worked hard to reform TSCA, but is now creating an inaccurately bleak picture of EPA's implementation efforts.
He argued that EPA's backlog of new chemicals requiring review is shrinking, and said that will continue if the agency focuses on implementing the new law and increasing staff.
“We are deeply concerned about [regulatory reform] in the TSCA sphere where under-regulation, not over-regulation is the problem,” Denison said. We urge “you to continue focusing on implementing the Lautenberg act as” the law requires.
But Uni Blake with the American Petroleum Institute (API) argued that EPA has unilaterally changed its new chemicals review process in ways the recently-revised TSCA did not intend, and that the changes have brought the agency's new chemicals reviews to a virtual standstill.
Blake said that EPA is now initiating regulatory action on more than 80 percent of chemicals under review at a significant cost to industry. That number was 5 percent under the old law, Blake said.
On the sidelines of the hearing, ACC's Schmidt, in an interview with Inside EPA, faulted Denison's assertion that EPA's backlog of new chemicals requiring review is shrinking to any significant degree, and said industry is not seeing enough progress in implementing the TSCA law since it was enacted a year ago.
Meanwhile, Jim Cooper of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers in his remarks at the hearing called for EPA to move forward with TSCA implementation efforts, but to strictly adhere to statutory requirements of the revised law, including those requiring robust science and public transparency.
“We know the administration's interest [in regulatory reform], we all fought hard for TSCA reform, and we all want EPA to keep moving forward,” Cooper said. “But things have to be done right. Please keep it moving forward but do it right.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/acc-edf-agree-need-implement-tsca-split-burden-order
-
Data on 8,556 Chemicals Sent to EPA in 2016 to Aid Risk Reviews
May 2, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA received production volume and other data for 8,556 chemicals from 2,482 chemical manufacturers or importers in 2016, an agency official said May 1.
Meredith Comnes, an environmental specialist with the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, spoke during an agency webinar that offered the first public glimpse of the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule information EPA received last year. An EPA spokesman previously told Bloomberg BNA the agency will release the CDR data by the end of May.
The production volume, chemical use, worker exposure and other information the EPA receives in response to the reporting rule provides exposure-related data the agency uses to put hazard data into context for chemical policies and regulations it develops, Comnes said.
For example, the agency intends to use CDR information as it decides which chemicals are high or low priorities for risk assessments. The Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016 required the EPA to prioritize chemicals.
The May 1 webinar was designed to let agency staff hear from chemical manufacturers and the attorneys and consultants that help them with CDR submissions about the companies’ experiences submitting the required data. The agency will use that experience to try and make the future submissions processes easier, Comnes said.
Required Information
The types of chemicals that must be reported, the production volumes that trigger reporting, and the frequency of reports have varied over the years.
In 2016, chemical manufacturers generally were required to provide the EPA information about chemicals they made or imported in volumes of 25,000 pounds or greater at a single site—if they hit that threshold in calendar years 2012, 2013, 2014 or 2015. A lower reporting threshold applied for some chemicals regulated under certain TSCA provisions such as if the chemical was subject to a significant new use regulation.
Chemical manufacturers that were required to report had to provide the EPA annual production volume data for 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. They had to provide processing and general use information for 2015.
That meant in 2016 the agency received more information than it ever has under the Chemical Data Reporting rule or its predecessor, called the Inventory Update Rule. In previous years, companies had to submit information only for the calendar year that preceded the year the reports were due.
Barring changes to the CDR, the next reports will be due in 2020 covering years 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019.
Vexed
Few webinar participants complained about the rule in general. Several participants did, however, voice vexations regarding the software the agency uses for the reports and the procedures companies have to follow to submit them.
The EPA's software should make it easier for chemical manufacturers to upload their data into the agency's electronic form, called “Form U,” that they file to comply with the agency's rule, several webinar participants said.The EPA's software also should make it easier to reuse information from a previous year's submission, several participants added.
Some participants also urged the agency to allow lower level company staff to download the Form U and begin to fill it out.
Currently, only the authorized official, which the participant said was a senior manager at her firm, can download the form. If lower level staff could do the initial work, the authorized official could still complete and submit the form, the participant said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110578502&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110578502&jd=110578502
-
EPA Gets Earful at Listening Session on Toxics Rule Changes
May 2, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Tiffany Stecker and Sam Pearson
Yolanda Ferguson and her family drove 1,000 miles from Mississippi's Gulf Coast to plead for EPA not to roll back the nation's chemicals law.
Ferguson is the wife of a netmaker, who she said became sick from exposure to corexit, a chemical dispersant used for the cleanup of the 2010 British Petroleum oil spill. He can no longer work to make and repair the trawls for commercial fishing boats because of his illness, Ferguson said. His weight plummeted from 260 pounds to 120 pounds. He shakes uncontrollably and urinates blood.
When she sought more information on the dispersant, Ferguson said she was told it was confidential business information. With money raised from collecting cans, she came to Washington, D.C., to speak at the EPA's listening session on regulatory reform, in which members of the public can weigh in on President Donald Trump's executive order to reverse regulations.
The agency's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics held a hearing May 1 on last year's reforms of the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Toxic Release Inventory, and rules on formaldehyde, asbestos and nanoscale materials.“
I'm concerned they are going to change that up and make it all toxic again,” Ferguson told approximately 50 people at the session, with many more listening remotely. “I want them to not take the Lautenberg Act away,” she later told Bloomberg BNA.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182) amended the 1976 TSCA to require the EPA to screen new chemicals and evaluate the safety of existing chemicals on the market. It also makes it harder for companies to hide chemical information that may be considered confidential.
Ferguson, a short, fast-talking Southerner, came with her 17-year-old daughter, who had blue hair and wore a Batman shirt. The two represented a rare show of private citizens among the list of industry and environmental group representatives slated to speak at the session.
Pruitt ‘Like Steinbrenner in Charge of the Red Sox’
President Trump's Executive Order 1377, requires each agency to create a Regulatory Reform Task Force to evaluate existing regulations.
Some speakers questioned the exercise of collecting comments to remove rulemakings, rather than adding them. Others criticized the appointment of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who sued the agency numerous times before heading it.
Pruitt at the EPA “is like putting George Steinbrenner and his minions in charge of the Boston Red Sox,” said Daniel Rosenberg, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, a reference to the late New York Yankees baseball team owner and the rivalry with the Boston baseball team.
Industry representatives were supportive, but cautious in encouraging the EPA's continued work on regulations.“
Please keep this moving forward, we all support it,” said Jim Cooper, a senior petrochemical adviser for the American Fuels and Petrochemical Manufacturers. “But do it right.”
“Things have to be done right so we don't have to revisit them five years from now,” he added, citing a negotiated rulemaking on inorganic byproducts that EPA announced in Dec. 2016. The new rule has to encourage recycling of chemicals, he said.
Nanochemicals, Formaldehyde at Forefront
President Barack Obama's administration rushed in several final rules concerning chemicals, including one Dec. 12, 2016, to lower formaldehyde emissions in composite wood. The push also involved a Jan. 12 rule requiring companies to report nanochemicals for the first time.
Several trade associations balked at the strain the nanomaterials rule (RIN:2070-AJ54) would impose on manufacturers, with Raleigh Davis of the the American Coatings Associations citing a $1.5 million price tag for industry. The rule is set to go into effect on May 12, although makers of the miniscule materials have pushed for a delay. Nanotechnology is prized for its industrial and biomedical applications, but those chemicals have raised concerns because they are more readily absorbed by the human body.
The EPA underestimated the burden for companies when it assumed it would take 175 hours to gather information for reporting on nanomaterials, said Irene Hantman, a chemicals attorney at Verdant Law PLLC in Washington, D.C., told the EPA.
The effective date for EPA's rule on formaldehyde emissions (RIN:2070-AJ44) has been delayed until May 22. It is similar to a California Air Resources Board regulation that has been on the books since 2008. But unlike the California rule, it does not exempt all makers of laminated wood products. Some laminated wood includes glue with high concentrations of formaldehyde, which raises emissions. These manufacturers have seven years to meet the emissions limits.
Niche corners of the construction industry said that the rule would create ripple effects. Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association CEO Betsy Natz said it would force cabinet distributors to recall products if the manufacturer failed to pass the emissions tests, a move that could harm a company's reputation, trigger litigation and cause disruptions in the supply chain.“
It makes no sense to apply it to finished goods,” she said.
But Tom Neltner, chemicals policy director for the Environmental Defense Fund, said a delay was inappropriate for such a new regulation.
“Let's not take our time to get this rule implemented,” he said.
Lead Program at Risk
Construction contractors, training companies and public health groups also weighed in on EPA's lead renovation, repair and painting rule. Under Trump's budget request, the EPA would eliminate its lead risk reduction program, cut $2.3 million from the Office of Children's Health Protection and more than $82 million in cuts to research at the Office of Research and Development.
EPA issued the lead renovation regulation in 2008 and amended it six times since. The rule requires contractors to be trained in lead abatement requirements and have the training renewed every five years.
Zachary Rose, the CEO and founder of Zack Academy, said contractors who take lead certification courses sometimes balk at first but often find them valuable. He said changing the requirement that they complete courses would be an “absolute disaster” for families and homeowners.
Brian McCracken, the president of All American Painting Plus Inc. in Reston, Va., said training companies were protecting “their own self interests.”
Lead exposure is “not our problem,” McCracken said. “It's a personal responsibility for the homeowner. When you buy a home, you need to know the hazards of it.”
Neltner called on the agency to toughen its lead regulations, not relax them.
Several participants also asked the EPA not to clamp down on the 1986 Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, which requires local education agencies to makes detailed asbestos emergency plans to prevent children's exposure to the mineral.
Cutting certification requirements would only hinder efforts to remove absestos in old buildings, said Stephanie Isaacson, a businesswoman who owns properties with asbestos.
“If we take away the need to inspect,” she said, “it doesn't make any sense, especially since it doesn't create jobs to take it away.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110578515&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110578515&jd=110578515
-
Industry Pressing Trump to Repeal EPA Reporting Rule for Nanomaterials
May 1, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Manufacturers that use nanomaterials in their products are urging the Trump administration to repeal the Obama EPA's Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rule that requires reporting on their use of the materials, charging it is burdensome and unclear and appears inconsistent with the EPA's plans for allocating limited resources and assessing risks under the revised TSCA.
The Nanomanufacturing Association (NMA), an alliance of companies and trade associations that advocate on policies addressing products in which nanomaterials play a role, recently submitted comments that urged the Department of Commerce (DOC) to recommend EPA's Jan. 12 TSCA section 8(a) reporting rule for repeal under the Trump administration's deregulatory efforts.
The group said the rule exceeds agency authority under TSCA, imposes unnecessary burdens, and fails to provide adequate information for implementation such as how to identify reportable substances. “The rule goes well beyond the information collection authorized in section 8(a) of the statute to create a de facto permitting program,” NMA says. “NMA asks that Commerce include in its Report to the President a recommendation that the TSCA Section 8(a) Reporting Rule for Nanomaterial be repealed.”
An attorney that represents companies that use nanomaterials says industry groups are planning to send similar requests to EPA, which is seeking comment on existing rules its should consider for repeal or modification.
The Obama EPA spent years crafting the rule that it said would provide data to inform future EPA and Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulation of the novel substances, some of which labor unions and health and safety advocates have argued pose risks to workers.
EPA's rule generally requires manufacturers and processors of nanomaterials to report identifying information on those substances as well as other reasonably ascertainable data.
James Votaw, of Keller and Heckman, LLP, says President Donald Trump's plans for cutting EPA's budget 31 percent suggests that the agency will lack resources for evaluating the large swath of data the rule would generate.
He notes that a nano-specific reporting rule appears to contradict the Trump EPA's recently-stated approach of considering all of a substance's uses when conducting reviews under the new TSCA. “The agency is now slated to be under considerable pressure to both downsize and find a way to still meet its statutory obligations,” Votaw says. “It's not clear there are going to be staff and resources in order to do this special reporting program.”
Votaw added that industry groups are likely to call for the rule's repeal in comments to EPA's docket seeking advice on rules for repeal or modification. The agency's docket comes in response to Trump's Executive Order (EO) 13777, which requires EPA and other agencies to identify existing regulations for repeal or modification.
EPA's docket is open for comment through May 15.
Comprehensive Reviews
In the pending requests to EPA's Regulatory Reform Task Force, Votaw says companies will likely also argue that a reporting rule targeting nanomaterials is inconsistent with the Trump EPA's recently-stated approach of evaluating all of a substance's uses during reviews under the revised TSCA law.
In a Feb. 27 denial of environmental and health and safety advocates' petition seeking a TSCA section 6 ban on drinking water fluoridation, EPA argued that evaluating that single use of fluoride is inconsistent with the agency's obligation under the updated TSCA to conduct comprehensive reviews of specific chemicals.
Environmental groups sued EPA over the denial April 18 in federal court in California, charging that the agency's denial is based in part on an inaccurate reading of the updated TSCA, enacted last June.
Votaw says the agency's approach outlined in the denial of assessing risks from all uses of a single substance is inconsistent with seeking data to support nano-specific reviews.
“Now with TSCA amended, EPA has a process by which chemicals of concern are evaluated for further controls,” Votaw says, adding that any risks from a nanomaterial would be assessed during the review of the larger substance.
Federal regulators have been struggling for years to assess whether novel properties that allow nanoscale materials to advance technology, such as in textiles and medical technologies, also bring new risks to human health and the environment.
EPA's rulemaking stalled for years as the nano industry wrestled with White House officials on the scope of the rule.
In the final rule, EPA retained a controversial requirement for future reporting on manufacturing or processing, though the agency softened its proposed 135-day notification period after industry urged the agency to scrap the provision altogether, arguing it was unnecessary and would delay production.
Industry has weighed a legal strategy for challenging the reporting rule, though companies have until 60 days from the rule's May 12 effective date to challenge it in federal court. The legal strategy would hinge on arguments that EPA failed to seek public input on certain information in the final version, such as a definition of unique and novel properties.
NMA raises similar claims in March 31 comments to DOC calling for “either elimination or significant revision” to the final rule. The group argues that nanotechnology-enabled products contribute significantly to economic growth, and that since 2001, federal agencies have invested more than $23 billion in nanotechnology research, development and commercialization.
Additionally, NMA argues that the rule includes duplicative reporting requirements because it requires data from both manufacturers and processors, imposes significant costs on small businesses, and fails to provide industry with a clear understanding of reportable substances.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-pressing-trump-repeal-epa-reporting-rule-nanomaterials
-
UN Toxics Regulators Ban Flame Retardants, Chlorinated Paraffins
May 2, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Bryce Baschuk
Parties to the Stockholm Convention agreed May 1 to phase out and eventually ban most uses of a pair of toxic substances.
The first substance—decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE)—is a flame retardant widely used in electronic products.
The second substance—short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs)—is used as a component of lubricants and coolants in metal cutting and metal forming operations.
On May 1, negotiators meeting in Geneva agreed to list both substances in Annex A of the Stockholm Convention, which requires parties to eliminate their production and use.
More than 150 nations have ratified the Stockholm Convention, which was created under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program and seeks to curb the production, use and trade of certain persistent organic pollutants.
‘Extraordinary Loopholes’
But an environmental group, the International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN), criticized the Stockholm Convention parties for granting “extraordinary loopholes” that it said will permit the continued use of decabromodiphenyl ether and short-chain chlorinated paraffins for decades.
“Today's decisions guarantee harmful worker exposures, poisonous children's toys, contaminated recycling streams, and more waste dumping,” said IPEN senior adviser Mariann Lloyd-Smith.
DecaBDE Exemptions
Parties to the Stockholm Convention agreed to phase out the use of DecaBDE in new cars and spare parts until 2036. The European Union also secured an exemption for DecaBDE in legacy spare parts for cars and aircraft.
“The language permitting DecaBDE in aircraft cleverly hides the fact that manufacturing will likely continue until 2050 and use until 2100,” IPEN said.
India obtained exemptions for DecaBDE use in new car parts and textile products that require anti-flammable characteristics—excluding clothing and toys.
Other exemptions for the substance include its use as additives in plastic housings and parts used for heating home appliances, irons, fans, immersion heaters and in foam for building insulation.
DecaBDE is classified persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic and has the potential to cause irreversible long-term harm to the environment. The largest producers and suppliers of decaBDE in the U.S. agreed to stop production, importation and sale of decaBDE in 2013.
SCCP Loopholes
Stockholm Convention parties granted several loopholes for short-chain chlorinated paraffins, which are persistent pollutants that are bioaccumulative in wildlife and humans and toxic to aquatic organisms.
China secured exemptions for SCCP use as additives in lubricants, tubes for outdoor decoration bulbs, and waterproof and flame-retardant paints.
India obtained SCCPs exemptions for adhesives, metal processing and secondary plasticizers in flexible polyvinyl chloride—except in toys and children's products.
Other exemptions include: additives in the production of transmission belts, spare parts of rubber conveyor belts in the mining and forestry industries, and for leather fatliquoring.
The Ohio-based Dover Chemical Corp.is the sole U.S. manufacturer of chlorinated paraffins and several American companies import SCCPs.
Hexachlorobutadiene Listing
Stockholm parties successfully listed hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD) to Annex C of the convention, which requires members to reduce its unintentional release during certain industrial and combustion processes.
The substance is a chemical byproduct in rubber manufacturing which is linked to hypotension, myocardial dystrophy, nervous disorder, liver function disorders and respiratory tract lesions.
Though the U.S. has never specifically manufactured HCBD as a commercial product, the substance is domestically generated in “significant quantities” as a waste by-product from the chlorination of hydrocarbons, according to the EPA.
Toxic to Recycling?
Stockholm parties agreed that governments should be permitted to recycle materials that contain toxic flame retardants—pentabromodiphenyl ether (Penta-BDE) and octabromodiphenyl ether (Octa-BDE).
IPEN criticized this decision because such products have been detected in recycled products like children's toys.
“How can countries continue a policy that potentially poisons children?” said IPEN science and technical adviser Joe DiGangi. “Recycling materials that contain toxic chemicals contaminates new products, continues exposure, and undermines the credibility of recycling.”
Parties to the Rotterdam Convention, which addresses the importation of hazardous chemicals, previously agreed to control the international trade of Penta- and Octa-BDE in 2013 and are now subject to the prior informed consent (PIC) procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110578507&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110578507&jd=110578507
-
US FDA Defers Action on Dental Amalgam Petition
May 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
In an interim response, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says it has been unable to reach a decision on a petition to require warning against dental amalgam use in sensitive populations.
The 1 November petition, filed by NGO Consumers for Dental Choice, flagged up concern with the risk that mercury amalgam poses for foetuses and young children.
It requested the agency:
issue a safety communication warning dentists, parents, and dental consumers against amalgam use in children, pregnant women, and other sensitive populations;
require manufacturers to distribute patient labelling that includes such warnings; and
develop and implement a public relations campaign to inform the public of the concern.
But the FDA said it has been unable to reach a conclusion, because the petition "raises issues requiring further review and analysis by agency officials".
It said it will further respond to the petition as soon as it has reached a decision on the request.
Last month, the European Council adopted an amended EU mercury Regulation that includes a ban on the use of dental amalgam for children under 15, and pregnant or breastfeeding women, unless medically necessary.
NGOs have urged dentists to implement the ban immediately, ahead of its 1 July 2018 effective date.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55528/us-fda-defers-action-on-dental-amalgam-petition
-
EPA Hears Feedback on Potential Reg Rollbacks
May 1, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
U.S. EPA heard testimony today on potential rollbacks to its lead exposure regulations, following the Trump administration's executive order to agencies to limit burdensome regulations.
Industry officials did not support blanket rollbacks to all lead regulations.
EPA asked stakeholders to focus the testimony on the implementation of the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) Rule; Lead Abatement Program; Residential Lead-Based Paint Disclosure Rule; and Residential Hazard Standards for Lead in Paint, Dust and Soil.
Most of the industry officials testified on specific rollbacks to the RRP, which requires firms working with lead-based paint in homes, child care facilities and pre-schools built before 1978 to be certified by EPA or use contractors approved by EPA.
Industry groups like the Painting and Decorating Contractors of America suggested limiting the RRP to homes and facilities built before 1960 because they say that very little evidence links 1960-1977 houses to lead-based paint exposures.
Environmental groups and a few other contractor groups testified that the current regulations are not overly burdensome.
"We have something here that works, and I think the most effective thing you can do is not repeal something that works," said Ruth Ann Norton, president and CEO of the Green & Healthy Homes Initiative.
Tom Neltner, the Environmental Defense Fund's chemical policy director, testified that mean blood lead levels in children dropped by more than 50 percent from 1999 to 2014. Rolling back regulations would reverse this progress, he said.
A recent study found that exposure to lead as a child can mean a future loss of intelligence and social status (Greenwire, March 29).
Deron Lovaas of the Natural Resources Defense Council suggested EPA hold stakeholder hearings on regulatory rollbacks in the communities it would affect the most. He told EPA the hearings should be after typical work hours and not held in "spiffy" federal buildings.
Earlier today, EPA held a public hearing on potential regulatory rollbacks to the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (Greenwire, May 1).
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/05/01/stories/1060053859
-
23 Environmental Rules Rolled Back in Trump’s First 100 Days
May 2, 2017 | The New York Times
By Nadja Popovich and Tatiana Schlossberg
President Trump, with help from his administration and Republicans in Congress, has reversed course on more than a dozen environmental rules, regulations and other Obama-era policies during his first 100 days in office.
Citing federal overreach and burdensome regulations, Mr. Trump has prioritized domestic fossil fuel interests and undone measures aimed at protecting the environment and limiting global warming.
OVERTURNED
1. Approved the Dakota Access pipeline. Feb. 7
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Republicans in Congress criticized Mr. Obama for delaying construction of the pipeline — which they argued would create jobs and stimulate the economy — after protests led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Mr. Trump ordered an expedited review of the pipeline, and the Army approved it.
2. Revoked a rule that prevented coal mining companies from dumping debris into local streams. Feb. 16
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? The coal industry said the rule was overly burdensome, calling it part of the war on coal. Congress passed a bill revoking the rule, which Mr. Trump signed into law.
3. Cancelled a requirement for reporting methane emissions. March 2
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Republican officials from 11 states wrote a letter to Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, saying the rule added costs and paperwork for oil and gas companies. The next day, Mr. Pruitt revoked the rule.
4. Approved the Keystone XL pipeline. Mar. 24
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Republicans, along with oil, gas and steel industry groups, opposed Mr. Obama's decision to block the pipeline, arguing that the project would create jobs and support North American energy independence. After the pipeline company reapplied for a permit, the Trump administration approved it.
5. Revoked an update to public land use planningprocess. March 27
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Republicans and fossil fuel industry groups opposed the updated planning rule for public lands, arguing that it gave the federal government too much power at the expense of local and business interests. Congress passed a bill revoking the rule, which Mr. Trump signed into law.
6. Lifted a freeze on new coal leases on public lands.March 29
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Coal companies weren't thrilled about the Obama administration’s three-year freeze on new leases on public lands pending an environmental review. Ryan Zinke, the interior secretary, revoked the freeze and review, though he promised to set up a new advisory committee to review coal royalties.
7. Rejected a ban on a potentially harmful insecticide.March 29
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? The company that sells the insecticide, Dow Agrosciences, strongly opposed a risk analysis by the Obama-era E.P.A., which found that the insecticide Chlorpyrifos poses a risk to fetal brain and nervous system development. Mr. Pruitt rejected the E.P.A.’s previous analysis and denied the ban, saying that the chemical needed further study.
8. Overturned a ban on the hunting of predators in Alaskan wildlife refuges. April 3
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Alaskan politicians opposed the law, which prevented hunters from shooting wolves and grizzly bears on wildlife refuges, arguing that the state, not the federal government, has authority over those lands. Congress passed a bill revoking the rule, which Mr. Trump signed into law.
9. Withdrew guidance for federal agencies to include greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews. April 5
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Republicans in Congress opposed the guidelines, which advised federal agencies to account for greenhouse gas emissions and potential climate impacts in environmental impact reviews. They argued that the government lacked the authority to make such recommendations, and that it would be impossible to plan for the uncertain effects of climate change.
UNDER REVIEW
10. Ordered review and "elimination" of rule that protected tributaries and wetlands under the Clean Water Act. Feb. 28
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Farmers, real estate developers, golf course owners and many Republicans opposed this clarification of the Clean Water Act, arguing that it created regulatory and permitting burdens. Mr. Trump called it a "massive power grab" by the federal government and instructed the E.P.A. and the Army to conduct a review.
11. Reopened a review of fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. March 15
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Automakers said it would be difficult and costly to meet fuel economy goals they had agreed upon with the Obama administration and noted rising consumer demand for sport utility vehicles and trucks. A standards review had been completed by the Obama administration before Mr. Trump took office, but the auto industry argued that it was rushed. The E.P.A. and Department of Transportation have reopened the review.
12. Ordered "immediate reevaluation" of the Clean Power Plan. March 28
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Coal companies and Republican officials in many states strongly opposed the plan, which set strict limits for carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal- and gas-fired power plants. Republicans argued the plan — Mr. Obama’s signature climate change policy — posed a threat to the coal industry, and had mounted a legal challenge. Mr. Trump signed an executive order instructing the E.P.A. to review and reevaluate the rule. An appeals court recently approved the Trump administration’s request to put the lawsuit on hold during the review process.
13. Rolled back limits on toxic discharge from power plants into public waterways. April 12
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Utility and fossil fuel industry groups opposed the rule, which limited the amount of toxic metals — arsenic, lead, and mercury, among others — power plants could release into public waterways. Industry representatives said complying with the guidelines would be extremely expensive. The E.P.A. has delayed compliance deadlines while it reconsiders the rule, which had been challenged in court.
14. Ordered review of rule limiting methane emissions at new oil and gas drilling sites. April 18
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Lobbyists for the oil and gas industries petitioned Mr. Pruitt to reconsider the rule, which went into effect last August, limiting emissions of methane, smog-forming compounds, and other toxic pollutants from new and modified oil and gas wells. They argued the rule was technologically infeasible.
15. Ordered review of national monuments created since 1996. April 26
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Congressional Republicans said the Antiquities Act, which allows presidents to designate national monuments on federal land, had been abused by previous administrations. Mr. Obama used the law to set aside more than 4 million acres of land and several million square miles of ocean for protection.
16. Ordered review of offshore drilling policies and regulations. April 28
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Lobbyists for the oil industry were opposed to Mr. Obama’s use of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently ban offshore drilling along the Atlantic coast and much of the ocean around Alaska, as well as regulations around oil rig safety.
IN LIMBO
17. Withdrew a rule that would help consumers buy more fuel efficient tires. Jan. 26
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? The rule required tire manufacturers and retailers to provide consumer with information about replacement car tires. The tire industry opposed several aspects of the rule, but had been working with the government to refine it. The Trump administration withdrew the proposed rule from consideration, but has not confirmed whether it may be reinstated.
18. Voted to revoke limits on methane emissions on public lands. Feb. 3
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? The oil and gas industry said that the rule, which required companies to control methane emissions on federal or tribal land by capturing rather than burning or venting excess gas, would have curbed energy development. The House voted to revoke the rule under the Congressional Review Act, and Senate Republicans have until May 8th to take action.
19. Postponed reforms to how oil, gas and coal from federal lands are priced. Feb. 22
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry said the reform, meant to ensure fair pricing on oil, gas and coal on federal or tribal land and reduce costs, was redundant since the government already has the power to impose penalties. They also argued that it created a lot of uncertainty in the market.
20. Delayed a rule aiming to increase safety at facilities that use hazardous chemicals. March 13
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Chemical, agricultural and power industry groups said that the new rule, a response to a 2013 explosion at a fertilizer plant that killed 15 people, did not increase safety and would have undermined oversight. The rule is delayed until June 19, and industry groups have said that they may sue.
21. Delayed rules increasing energy efficiency standardsfor some appliances and some federal buildings. March 15
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Republicans in Congress opposed the rules, which applied to ceiling fans, heating and cooling appliances and other devices, as well as residential buildings owned by the federal government, saying that they would place an unfair cost on consumers.
22. Delayed rules modernizing the federal highway system, including environmental standards. March 15
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? The trucking industry supported the changes for bridge and pavement condition guidelines, but strongly opposed measures aimed at environmental sustainability and mitigating climate change.
23. Delayed a lawsuit over rule regulating airborne mercury emissions from power plants. April 18
WHO WANTED IT CHANGED? Coal companies, along with Republican officials in several states, sued the government over this rule, which regulated the amount of mercury and other toxic pollutants that fossil fuel-fired power plants can emit into the air. They argued that the rule helped shutter coal plants, many of which are already compliant. Oral arguments in the case were scheduled for May 18, and the court has not yet approved the motion to delay.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/02/climate/environmental-rules-reversed-trump-100-days.html?_r=0
-
May 2, 2017 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink, Dylan Brown, Christa Marshall, Kellie Lunney, Ariel Wittenberg and Hannah Hess
Coming in at 1,665 pages, the fiscal 2017 omnibus package that Congress hopes to clear this week could be the biggest bill lawmakers move this year.
The House Rules Committee is meeting to discuss it later today, with the full House likely to vote as soon as tomorrow. The Senate would take it up soon after.
The legislation offers some good news for environmentalists, energy research and bipartisanship, but it also sends a warning to the Trump administration and reflects continuing Republican antipathy toward the Paris climate deal.
Here are some winners and losers:
Winners
Greens: Environmentalists celebrated because lawmakers rejected President Trump's proposed cuts to U.S. EPA and some federal climate change efforts and urged Congress to put up a fight against future anti-environment riders. "The worst parts of Trump's proposals have been fended off thanks to massive public pressure on Congress that culminated in hundreds of thousands marching in D.C. and across the country on Saturday," said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune. The group said the spending deal still favored polluters, but it may be the best it could have gotten under Trump and a Republican Congress.
Sen. Joe Manchin: After a six-year fight, the United Mine Workers of America and its congressional allies secured more than $1 billion for health care coverage for more than 20,000 retired miners and widows. Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, was the measure's loudest champion and is certain to tout the victory as he fights for re-election in 2018. Manchin, however, has been unable to secure a similar pension rescue, and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) cheered potential Senate hopeful Rep. Evan Jenkins (R-W.Va.) for his work on the issue.
Appropriators: After months of promising they could reach a bipartisan deal, and amid calls from conservatives and the president for deep cuts, appropriators delivered a bill with fresh spending for numerous agencies. That'll be a tough act to repeat for fiscal 2018, with the White House expected to be more aggressive in pushing its priorities. But in an era of intense partisanship, they showed there is still room for deal making.
Biomass: Environmentalists were frustrated with the inclusion of a provision that would allow forest biomass to be considered carbon-neutral, a move long supported by paper and wood manufacturers. Backers call the rider a key step toward biomass gaining acceptance as a renewable energy. Critics warn it emits high levels of carbon and encourages deforestation.
DOE boosters: Several Energy Department research efforts would see modest funding increases for the coming year. Despite calls by the White House for its eventual elimination, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy would get a $15 million boost to $306 million. The Office of Science, the main source of funds for the national laboratories, would get a small increase to $5.4 billion. And energy efficiency programs would get a $40 million boost to $761 million.
Great Lakes: Congress is not interested in ending the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative program that the Trump administration believes would be better left to states. The program received level funding of $300 million with support from a large bipartisan group of Great Lakes lawmakers. They are likely to keep the program under federal control for the foreseeable future.
Payments in lieu of taxes: Negotiators provided a modest boost to $465 million for the federal payment program that is popular with Western lawmakers who use the aid to help shore up state and local budgets. Trump has said he wants the plan scaled backed, but Congress seems unwilling to give up the popular perk.
Losers
President Trump: The self-proclaimed master negotiator, who wrote a book called "The Art of the Deal," came up short in his first round of spending talks with Congress. He dropped his demand for border wall money and saw his push for steep domestic cuts ignored, and in the end lawmakers largely shut him and his agenda out of the talks. Congressional leaders seemed eager to send the White House a message: They still control the federal pursue strings.
Paris Agreement: The deal does not include any money for the United Nations' Green Climate Fund, but advocates noted it would not explicitly prohibit such spending. It's an indication that Trump and the Republican Congress intend to honor the Paris Agreement and climate pledges "only in the breach," said Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton White House aide who is now a senior fellow on energy at the Progressive Policy Institute. While the United States may be "staying in," it may not do much to comply.
Energy tax breaks: Democrats made a late push to include orphaned renewable energy tax credit extensions in the omnibus, but that effort came up short as it did two years ago on another wrap-up spending bill. Talk of incentives may return if Congress makes good on its promise for a broad rewrite of the federal tax code this year.
Land conservation: The Interior Department's Land and Water Conservation Fund took a $50 million cut over current funding to $400 million. While the LWCF has enjoyed some bipartisan support, the reduction could embolden critics who want an overhaul of the program before they agree to extend it when its current authorization runs out at the end of fiscal 2018.
Fusion: Funding for DOE's fusion energy office would fall by about 40 percent, to $380 million. Appropriations for construction of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor — an international project with more than 30 countries under construction in France to demonstrate fusion at scale — would fall by more than half, from $115 million to $50 million.
Sanity and sleep: Why is it that these budget deals and their multiple pages of provisions are always announced after midnight?
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/05/02/stories/1060053884
-
Interior Secretary Calls for U.S. to Dominate Global Energy
May 2, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
The United States should dominate the global energy sector and produce more oil and gas on federal lands to help achieve that goal, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said Monday.
Zinke, who also oversees agencies such as the National Park Service, which are responsible for protecting wildlife, marine life and natural resources, signed secretarial orders to review opening more offshore areas to oil and gas drilling during an appearance at the Offshore Technology Conference at NRG Park. Zinke said he values not just American energy independence, but "dominance" to create economic checks and balances on other oil-producing nations.
The nation's dependence on foreign oil for much of the past half-century has given those producers leverage over the U.S. - the 1973 Arab oil embargo and 1979 Iranian Revolution led to severe fuel shortages and price spikes - and shaped U.S. foreign policy.
"Dominance is what America needs," Zinke said. "If you're in the oil and gas and energy segment in this society, the stars have lined up" under the Trump administration.
President Donald Trump has taken several steps to unshackle the energy industry from regulations adopted under former President Barack Obama. Trump last week signed an executive order seeking to expand offshore oil and gas production through a review of the existing five-year leasing program.
The effort is expected to lead to the openings of offshore tracts in the Atlantic and Arctic to potential oil and gas drilling, which was blocked by the Obama administration.
A separate order by Trump last week permits the review of some national monument designations on federal lands to possibly allow for oil and gas production.
In his former position as a Republican congressman from Montana, Zinke fought many environmental regulations and pushed for greater state control of federal lands. He has long supported opening up more federal territory to oil and gas production.
Zinke said he supports "reasonable regulation," but wants the Interior Department to generate more federal revenue from oil and gas. He also cited the potential to expand offshore wind production along the Eastern Seaboard.
Zinke said he wants to reorganize the Interior Department to allow for more state and local control. Houston and Seattle, for instance, have differing views of energy development and those differences should be recognized in policies, rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all model for his department. He said he plans to release a reorganization plan by the end of the summer.
He added that he's open to sharing more federal revenues from oil and gas drilling with states with oil and gas money. He specifically mentioned Louisiana as having a legitimate argument for more revenue sharing from oil and gas produced off of its coastline.
Zinke was also careful to credit his inspiration for balancing public and private use of the lands, or a "multi-use" policy, to President Theodore Roosevelt, who expanded the national parks and championed conservation.
But Zinke's views don't quite match Roosevelt's, said Martin Nie, a professor of natural resources policy at the University of Montana.
Roosevelt was a progressive, who favored a bigger government control that kept public lands out of the reach of corporate interests, Nie said.
"I have heard the secretary invoke Roosevelt since his confirmation hearing over and over again," said Nie. "I just think there are some huge inconsistencies and misunderstandings."
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/Interior-Secretary-Ryan-Zinke-calls-for-U-S-to-11113251.php
-
Environmentalists Urge Independent Probe of Colorado Explosion
May 2, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Tripp Baltz
Environmentalists called for an independent investigation into an April 17 house explosion in Firestone, Colo., that killed two men and prompted the state's largest oil and gas company to shut down 3,000 vertical wells across the northeastern part of the state.
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is “untrustworthy” and incapable of being impartial because of its close ties to the industry, witnesses said during a public testimony period of the commission's May 1 meeting.
“We are going to call for an independent investigation into the Firestone explosion,” said Wes Wilson, a former Environmental Protection Agency scientist and a member of the group Be the Change. “It wasn't until a week later until we knew there was a possible link between the explosion and oil and gas activity.”
Wells Shut Down
Wilson and other witnesses also complained that the commission did not require Anadarko Petroleum Corp. and other producers to shut down operations in the area near the explosion, located about 26 miles northeast of Denver. The company voluntarily shut down all 3,000 of its vertical wells in the Denver-Julesburg region following the fatal explosion “in an abundance of caution,” it said in an April 26 announcement.
Additionally, the state agency has not taken the lead in the investigation of the incident, leaving that job to the Firestone-Frederick Fire Protection District, which is made up “mostly of volunteers with no oil and gas expertise,” Wilson said.
The fire protection district has a mix of paid and volunteer personnel.
Commissioners did not respond to environmentalists’ calls for an independent probe. Commission staff are providing district officials with technical support and have been on site every weekday since the day after the explosion, Matt Lepore, director of the commission, said May 1.
Commission field staff also have conducted mobile methane monitoring and soil vapor sampling and have determined there are no fugitive emissions, which include leaks, in the Oak Meadows neighborhood where the explosion occurred.
Impacts ‘Very Local’
The preliminary results of a soil vapor survey showed “only very localized environmental impacts” at the address of the destroyed house as well as the house next door, he said.
“We do continue to believe there is no immediate threat to the surrounding homes and neighborhoods,” he said. The commission will continue its “environmental investigation,” he added.
Wilson told Bloomberg BNA his group would request funding from the Colorado General Assembly for an independent investigation of the incident to be done by Colorado State University or another academic institution.
During the hearing, several witnesses called on the commission to halt the issuance of any new drilling permits to oil and gas producers until it could be determined that drilling activity is not a threat to public health, safety and the environment. At one point a witness led members of the audience in a loud chant of “no more wells,” spurring commission member Tommy Holton, who is mayor of Fort Lupton, Colo., to shout over them, “Mr. Chairman, this is not a circus. This is a hearing.”
Debate Over Setbacks
The Firestone explosion has fueled the ongoing debate in Colorado over setbacks, the minimum distance between oil and natural gas wells and occupied buildings such as homes, schools and hospitals.
Representatives of Adams County Communities for Drilling Accountability Now noted there was a vertical well 178 feet from the home, highlighting “the need for safe setbacks to be established and consistently enforced statewide either by COGCC or legislated by the state legislature.”
The commission should not abdicate that responsibility to local governments, the group said. “Local governments do not have the knowledge, expertise or resources to determine and set safe setbacks. It is COGCC's responsibility to protect the public health, safety and environment in the realm of oil and gas.”
Older Well
The nearby well was drilled in 1993, but it has not been determined it was leaking or connected to the explosion. Witnesses raised concerns that the cause of the explosion may have been a gas gathering line running near or underneath the home. The location of many such gas lines are unknown, as they are largely unmapped and unregulated, falling outside the purview of state and federal regulatory authority.
“How is the COGCC going to prevent another tragedy like the one that just happened?” said Lauren Petrie, Rocky Mountain Region director at Food & Water Watch. “Do you understand now why people don't want to live near oil and gas activity?”
Commission rules prevent the issuance of a new well less than 500 feet from an occupied structure, but the setback rule does not apply to old wells, and there is no rule barring developers from building homes closer to wellheads, Lepore said.
LaSalle Explosion
Wilson told the commission an explosion in LaSalle, Colo., in 1984 was thought to be caused by a rush of natural gas into an abandoned water well that sparked a fire and destroyed a lumberyard and showroom. How the natural gas got there remains unexplained to this day, he said.
“We don't know what happened in that explosion, but this time, we're not going to wait another 33 years,” he said.
The commission was “untrustworthy” given its ties to oil and gas producers, and if an independent inquiry is not done, “we might not find out the cause of this one, either,” Wilson told Bloomberg BNA.
In addition to Anadarko, a second producer, Great Western Oil and Gas Co. in Denver, announced April 27 it shut down 61 natural gas wells with gas flowlines within 250 feet of occupied buildings in northeastern Colorado. Like Anadarko, Great Western said it was taking the step “in an abundance of caution.” The company was not directed to do so by regulators, and it reiterated that no cause had been determined for the explosion and fire in Firestone.
The company said it would conduct testing with air pressure on all 61 lines, and the wells would be brought back into service only after passing the pressure test.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110578516&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110578516&jd=110578516
-
Ore. Delegation Introduces Bill to Prevent Derailments
May 2, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sam Mintz
A year after a fiery oil train derailment in Oregon, a bipartisan group of lawmakers from that state are pushing legislation they say would protect communities from similar accidents.
H.R. 2223, also called the "Community Protection and Preparedness Act," would create a fund for emergency response and cleanups in case of rail accidents involving flammable liquids like crude oil and ethanol.
A fee on companies using outdated DOT-111 tank cars would feed the fund. The newer and safer cars, called DOT-117s, are more expensive, so shippers have been slow to upgrade (Greenwire, March 16).
The legislation would require the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to finalize a rule on oil spill response plans. It would also authorize the Federal Railroad Administration to hire two extra track safety specialists per region and order the Department of Transportation to study certain track inspections and regulations.
Several bill sponsors referred to the June 2016 derailment in Mosier, Ore., which forced 100 people to evacuate their homes and exhausted the town's water supply (Energywire, June 6, 2016).
"Seeing our beautiful Columbia Gorge on fire last summer was an eye-opener for everyone on the dangers of how we transport oil and other hazardous materials. We must do more to minimize the risk of future incidents like the Mosier oil train derailment and make sure communities are better prepared to respond," said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D).
The bill's lead sponsor is Rep. Peter DeFazio (D), ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
"Every day, thousands of rail tank cars carrying toxic, hazardous materials crisscross the country," he said. "The communities along these train routes shouldn't be on the hook for cleanup or damages after an accident and spill occurs."
Reps. Greg Walden (R) and Suzanne Bonamici (D) are also backing the measure.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/05/02/stories/1060053876
-
Cap-and-Trade Permit Prices Would Increase Under California Bill
May 2, 2017 | BNA Daily
By Carolyn Whetzel
Oil refiners, power plants and other industries regulated under California's carbon trading program would pay higher prices for emissions permits, or allowances, under legislation introduced May 1.
Senate Bill 755 aims to extend the state's economywide cap-and-trade program past 2020, but it proposes revisions to provide a more reliable stream of revenue from the sale of permits.
While the bill would boost prices for allowances, it also would establish a hard price ceiling. Introduced by State Sen. Bob Wieckowski (D) and backed by Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon (D), the bill would end the distribution of free allowances, which the state now provides to ease compliance with the program, and regulated entities no longer would be allowed to use emissions offsets.
Another provision would return most of the revenue raised through cap-and-trade auction to consumers through dividends to help defray the increased energy costs that may result from the program, Wieckowski said at a news conference. The remaining revenue would be invested in clean energy infrastructure and research, he said.
Three Bills to Help Emissions Goal
S.B. 755 is one of three bills now pending that would allow the cap-and-trade program, or other market-based measures, to be used to help the state achieve the ambitious goal it set last year to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
A.B. 191 basically would continue the program as designed, but A.B. 378 would tie any market-based measures to reducing emissions of other air pollutants.
Launched in 2013, the trading program sets a statewide emissions cap for 85 percent of the state's carbon emissions, including electricity generators, oil refineries and distributors of transportation, natural gas and other fuels. Covered entities buy allowances, or permits, to meet declining annual emissions caps, or sell excess permits. It also allows the use of a limited amount of offset credits, which are derived from projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
“From what we have heard, this proposal is tantamount to a complete overhaul of the cap-and-trade program after 2020,” Environmental Defense Fund attorney Erica Morehouse told Bloomberg BNA in a May 1 email. “The current cap-and-trade program is working to reduce climate pollution while the economy continues to thrive and add jobs faster than the national average. Rather than scrapping the current system and starting over with an unproven approach, the state should build on success, keeping what is working well while strengthening the program.”
The setting of a hard ceiling on allowances prices, absent a provision that ensures that California would meet its climate targets, opens a loophole that could jeopardize the environmental integrity of the program, Morehouse said.
“It's a progressive proposal,” Dallas Burtraw, an environmental economist at Resources for the Future, said of S.B. 755's plan to return much of the auction revenue to consumers. Burtraw was among the economic advisers California consulted in designing the initial trading program.
With S.B. 755, carbon prices would drive emissions reductions more so than the other climate measures California has implemented, Burtraw told Bloomberg BNA May 1. The trading program is among a suite of climate policies, including the renewable energy standard and low carbon fuel standard the state has implemented.
All three bills are still in the early stages. Gov. Jerry Brown (D), however, has asked for legislation extending cap-and-trade to be passed by June 1.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=110578514&vname=dennotallissues&fn=110578514&jd=110578514
-
EPA Website Retains Much Climate Data
May 1, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA's April 28 announcement that it is updating the climate change information on its website to better reflect the views of the climate-questioning Trump administration shows that many relevant pages and information remain live even while the main climate page has been taken down.
For example, while the link to the Clean Power Plan (CPP) page that once contained the regulatory text of the existing power plant greenhouse gas reduction rule has been replaced by an announcement of the rule's review, as required by President Donald Trump's March 28 executive order, many other CPP pages remain live.
That includes a link to the original Regulatory Impact Analysis of the rule; an analysis of the rule including modeling runs and a transcript of a Nov. 21 speech by former Administrator Gina McCarthy at the National Press Club touting the rule in the days after Trump won the White House.
Additionally, the Climate Change Indicators page remains live and warns: “Many of these observed changes are linked to the rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, caused by human activities.”
EPA said in a statement issued late April 28 that it was kicking off website updates and that the site “is undergoing changes that reflect the agency's new direction” under Trump and Administrator Scott Pruitt that will include “updating language to reflect the approach of the new leadership” and “is intended to ensure that the public can use the website to understand the agency's current efforts.”
The statement also notes that the site includes a screen shot of the Obama administration's website as of Jan. 19.
EPA spokesman J.P. Freire said in the statement that the intent was to “eliminate confusion by removing outdated language first.”
The link to the main EPA climate page says, “This page is being updated.”
Freire could not be reached for comment about the timing of the removal or when the update would be made public, and an air office spokesman was not sure when a new version would go live.
The main climate page was taken down on the eve of the People's Climate March and Trump's 100th day in office, but an energy lobbyist who has previously discussed expected changes to the site -- first reported by Inside EPA just ahead of the inauguration -- said May 1: “I don't think the timing was intentional. But I enjoyed it anyway.”
The administration had agreed Jan. 25 to “stand down” from plans to remove the main climate page over legal concerns that were being reviewed by the Office of General Counsel. But EPA did remove some climate information as of Jan. 24, including references to non-regulatory climate information such as former President Obama's 2013 Climate Action Plan and a link to a March 2016 press release on a voluntary oil and gas methane strategy.
The legal concerns related to the stand down remain unclear, and it is not known if they were resolved. EPA's statement says that the changes “will comply with agency ethics and legal guidance, including the use of proper archiving procedures.”
The specter of such removals has prompted many groups to take steps to download information and to force EPA to preserve the materials through Freedom of Information Act requests.
Criticizing the climate information removal, John O'Grady, president of the American Federal of Government Employees Council 238 which represents 9,000 EPA employees, said in a statement that, “The book burning has commenced!”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-website-retains-much-climate-data
-
New York Plan to Dump Chlorine Into Sewers Worries Environmental Advocates
May 1, 2017 | The New York Times
By Corey Kilgannon
Facing a chronic problem of raw sewage emptying into city waterways during rainfalls, and struggling to meet health regulations, New York City environmental officials are turning to a new method of treating bacteria in sewage: dumping chlorine into sewer pipes leading to the waterways.
The city’s Department of Environmental Protection has long tried to mitigate the pollution and health risks from the estimated 20 billion gallons per year of untreated sewage that flow into city waterways when treatment systems are overwhelmed during a rainfall.
In recent years, the city has promoted projects like new retention tanks and has planted patches of greenery to lessen the runoff during rainstorms.
But some environmental advocates claim that details have been scant on the city’s plan to disinfect wastewater by chlorinating it inside pipes just before the waste discharges into three bodies of water in Queens and the Bronx.
“They’re using the most worrisome and unproven technique that we have in our toolbox,” said Sean Dixon, a staff lawyer at Riverkeeper, a group that seeks to protect the Hudson River and its tributaries. “It’s like they’re grabbing the last straw and using the cheapest and least effective method.”
In response to this and other water-quality concerns, a coalition of local environmental groups announced recently that they intended to sue the United States Environmental Protection Agency, saying the agency had not adequately protected water quality in New York City’s waterways under the federal Clean Water Act.
Federal officials said they would not comment on the allegations and directed questions regarding the chlorination to New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation, which is responsible for enforcing federal regulations and standards that the city must follow.
The city’s plan includes locations and budgets for chlorination facilities to be built to serve three waterways: Alley Creek and Flushing Creek in Queens and the Hutchinson River in the Bronx.
Chlorination is commonly done in the more controlled setting of wastewater treatment plants, rather than in sewer pipes flowing directly into waterways.
Advocates called the chlorination plan, while comparatively small in such a vast sewage system, an unusual initiative that they worry might be expanded to other areas of the city. They cited a separate pilot program that the city has underway to add chlorination to a sewer pipe in Spring Creek, a neighborhood in Brooklyn.
A spokesman for the city’s Department of Environmental Protection, Ted Timbers, said there were currently no other approved plans that included chlorination in sewer pipes.
Mr. Timbers said that the chlorination would run from May through October and that the sewage would undergo a dechlorination process before being discharged into the waterways.
He called chlorine “the most widely used disinfectant for water and wastewater treatment in the U.S.” and said the plan had been discussed with the public at neighborhood meetings.
And, Mr. Timbers said, “New York Harbor is cleaner and healthier today than it has been in more than a century.”
Sean Mahar, a spokesman for the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation, said the state would continue to hold the city’s Department of Environmental Protection accountable “for extensive monitoring” and press it “to routinely report data to the state to ensure compliance with our strict standards to protect public health and the environment.”
Much of the advocates’ outrage was spurred by plans released last month outlining how the city aimed to address sewer overflow in the years to come.
Larry Levine, a senior lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council, faulted the plans for failing to call for major reductions in untreated wastewater outflow, describing it as an example of city and state officials failing to meet federal health standards.
As the city’s population increases, much of its sewer system remains antiquated, and updating it is complicated and expensive. City officials say the system treats about 1.3 billion gallons of city wastewater on a dry day and can handle twice that amount during moderate rainfall.
But because most of the city’s 305 square miles are impenetrable surfaces like rooftops, roadways and playgrounds — city officials estimate 72 percent — torrents of runoff rainwater flood storm drains and sewers that also handle output from sinks and bathrooms in homes and businesses.
When this combination is beyond the capacity that a local treatment plant can handle, the excess bypasses processing plants to avoid backing up the systems and flows untreated into the city’s waterways, often causing pathogen levels to rise.
The city has managed to drastically improve water quality in recent decades, turning many dismal waterways into spots that are now swimmable and brimming with aquatic life.
Mr. Timbers said New York City had the largest environmentally sustainable infrastructure program in the country and had invested significant amounts of money to build retention tanks and curbside gardens to reduce runoff into sewers.
The city has a long-range plan to invest $1.5 billion by 2030 on environmentally sustainable infrastructure and has over the last decade invested more than $10 billion to upgrade wastewater treatment plants and improve water quality. In January, the city agency announced that nitrogen levels had declined in city waterways as a result of $1 billion in upgrades at four wastewater treatment plants.
The agency also plans on building a 25-million-gallon storage tunnel — estimated to cost at least $1.2 billion — to reduce outflow into Flushing Bay.
Mr. Dixon, of Riverkeeper, hailed those projects but called some strategies shortsighted, such as the chlorination of sewage in pipes, which he said often failed to completely disinfect the material and did not treat certain toxins in the runoff. In addition, Mr. Dixon said, residual chlorine can devastate marine life and hinder water quality testing.
Timothy Eaton, a hydrologist at the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Queens College, said that while chlorine was an effective disinfectant in controlled settings like swimming pools, using it in outflowing sewer pipes was “a very different ballgame.” Unpredictable and constant changes in the volume of sewage flow can complicate the dechlorination process by creating uncertain dosages and residual chlorine, he said.
“It’s very difficult to predict the amount of water you’re going to get at any period of time,” he said. “If you overdose it, you’re basically treating Flushing Creek and Flushing Bay like swimming pools.”
The chlorination plan would not remove floating debris or prevent oxygen depletion in the outflow, said Mr. Eaton, who with another hydrologist at the school, Gregory O’Mullan, has spoken out against the chlorination.
Mr. O’Mullan called it a “Band-Aid” treatment that gives the chlorine limited contact time to disinfect.
“This is low-level treatment,” he said, adding that it was the kind of approach that would have been used decades ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/nyregion/new-york-chlorine-sewers-environment.html
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested