Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 5/15/2017
-
Nomination Hearing of Mr. David Bernhardt of Virginia to Be Deputy Secretary of the Interior
May 18, 2017 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
366 Dirksen / 10:00 AM -
Leveraging Federal Funding; Innovative Solutions for Infrastructure
May 16, 2017 | Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
406 Dirksen / 3:15 PM -
Improving America’s Transportation Infrastructure: The Road Forward
May 17, 2017 | Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
By 406 Dirksen / 10:00 AM
-
Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America: Improving Water Quality through Integrated Planning
May 18, 2017 | House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
By 2167 Rayburn / 10:00
-
H.R.__, Drinking Water System Improvement Act and Related Issues of Funding, Management, and Compliance Assistance Under the Safe Drinking Water Act
May 19, 2017 | House Energy and Commerce Committee
By 2123 Rayburn / 9:30 AM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Letters: Recycling, Informed Voters
May 12, 2017 | Knoxville News Sentinel
By Judith Mallory
A recent letter writer was bemoaning the new garbage policy of the city of Knoxville, whereby residents have been issued humongous rolling garbage cans, each having a 95-gallon capacity. -
Trump Taps Bodine, An Experienced Hand, To Lead EPA Enforcement Office
May 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
President Donald Trump announced late May 12 his intent to nominate former EPA waste chief Susan Bodine to lead the agency's enforcement office, tapping a Washington policy expert to provide key experience to Administrator Scott Pruitt's team and help advance... -
Two EPA Science Board Members Resign in Protest
May 12, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Two members of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) science panel resigned Friday in protest after the agency dismissed other scientists from the board earlier this month. -
Trump Pick for Agency Deputy Gets His Day in the Sun
May 15, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar
President Trump's controversial pick for deputy secretary of the Interior Department is likely to face tough questions from senators this week about his work for energy industry clients and service at the agency during the George W. Bush administration. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Eyes Broader Exemption from TSCA Reporting for Small Businesses
May 12, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has extended the deadline for comments on its proposed definition of “small” businesses that are exempt from, or subject to less strict, Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) records and reporting requirements... -
Clarity on Horizon for New TSCA Law
May 12, 2017 | Rubber News
By Chris Sweeney
The Toxic Substances Control Act may have been reformed in 2016, but that doesn't mean the process is over. -
EPA Grants First ‘Conditional’ Approval Under New Toxics Law
May 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A new chemical additive has been approved for commerce by the EPA as long as the compound is made as a polymer which are too large to get into the body and create health issues. -
Week Ahead: Senators Weigh Bill to Rein in Costly Regs
May 15, 2017 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
Lawmakers are expected to debate a bipartisan proposal to reform the federal rulemaking process. -
Leasing Chemicals Model May Reduce Risks, But Face Hurdles: OECD
May 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
Chemical leasing and similar business service models are promising tools to help countries reduce use of hazardous chemicals, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said May 11. -
The U.S. Barely Regulates Personal Care Products, Despite the Many Chemicals They Contain
May 14, 2017 | Portland Press Herald
By Marina Schauffler
“Raise your hand if you’re SURE!” a deodorant ad once proclaimed, playing to widespread insecurities about appearance and body odor. -
Echa Publishes Updates on PACT Substance Assessments
May 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has provided updates on seven substances in its public activities coordination tool (PACT) for risk management option analysis (RMOA) or hazard assessment. -
US and China Agree Closer Cooperation on LNG Trade
May 12, 2017 | Platts
By Abache Abreu
The US and China have agreed to advance their economic cooperation in the energy sector, in a move aimed at improving access of US-based LNG exporters to the world's third largest consumer of the fuel. -
Trump's China Deal Gives U.S. LNG a Boost Without Changing Rules
May 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Christine Buurma, Naureen S. Malik and Ryan Collins
America's shale gas could soon head to China under long-term contracts for the first time, bolstered by a new trade deal that may not even change existing rules. -
Big Investors Urge Oil Companies to Tackle Methane Leaks
May 15, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By David Hunn
Thirty institutional investors managing more than $3 trillion in assets have announced a new initiative to encourage global oil and gas companies, including utilities, to measure, report and reduce methane emissions. -
The Methane Rule Canary
May 14, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Editorial Board
Republicans in Congress have repealed 13 Obama Administration regulations thanks to a potent tool known as the Congressional Review Act. But last week the Senate failed to kill a costly energy rule, and the defeat is a warning about the Trump Administration’s... -
Energy Industry Opposes Adding Some Natural Gas Facilities to EPA's TRI
May 12, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Energy groups are opposing an Obama EPA proposal to expand the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) environmental release reporting program to include some natural gas processing facilities, saying the rule would be at odds with President Donald Trump's executive order... -
As Prices Rise, Oil Companies Drill Down on Industrial Cyber Security
May 12, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Collin Eaton
In recent months, more U.S. oil company boards have demanded IT managers prove refineries and drilling rigs are protected against cyberattacks, the chief of a security firm says. -
Tanker Ban Could Affect Canada-California Relations
May 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Menyasz
A new Canadian proposal to ban large oil tanker traffic on the northern coast of British Columbia to better protect the fragile marine environment on Canada's West Coast could complicate relations with California, an environmental advocate said. -
(ACC Mentioned) Is Trump Stifling Science-Based Policy-Making at EPA?
May 13, 2017 | University World News
By Paul Basken
The Trump administration’s removal of several academic experts from a scientific advisory board at the United States Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, has renewed concern about the government’s commitment to fact-based policy-making. -
Pruitt Says Dismissed Science Panelists Can Reapply, Expects New WOTUS Rule by 2018
May 12, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt said the members of a key scientific advisory panel he dismissed last week can reapply to the panel, and he believes that in some cases they could be reinstated. -
Intelligence Agencies List Climate Change as Security Threat
May 12, 2017 | Inside EPA
Intelligence agencies have again listed climate change in their latest assessment of national security threats facing the United States, though in a change from the Obama administration, the report says that agencies do not “adjudicate” climate science.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Nomination Hearing of Mr. David Bernhardt of Virginia to Be Deputy Secretary of the Interior
May 18, 2017 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
-
Leveraging Federal Funding; Innovative Solutions for Infrastructure
May 16, 2017 | Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
-
Improving America’s Transportation Infrastructure: The Road Forward
May 17, 2017 | Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
By 406 Dirksen / 10:00 AM
-
May 18, 2017 | House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
By 2167 Rayburn / 10:00
Witnesses:
Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Mayor, City of South Bend, Indiana; on behalf of the U.S. Conference of MayorsHon. Johnny L. DuPree, Ph.D., Mayor, City of Hattiesburg, Mississippi; on behalf of the National League of Cities
Hon. Todd Portune, Commissioner, Hamilton County, Ohio; on behalf of the National Association of Counties
Mr. Craig Butler, Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency; on behalf of the Environmental Council of the States
Mr. William E. Spearman, III, P.E., Principal, WE3 Consultants, LLC; on behalf of the American Public Works Association
Mr. Lawrence Levine, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council
-
May 19, 2017 | House Energy and Commerce Committee
By 2123 Rayburn / 9:30 AM
-
(ACC Mentioned) Letters: Recycling, Informed Voters
May 12, 2017 | Knoxville News Sentinel
By Judith Mallory
A recent letter writer was bemoaning the new garbage policy of the city of Knoxville, whereby residents have been issued humongous rolling garbage cans, each having a 95-gallon capacity. This is expected to improve efficiency and decrease work-related injuries of the good people who have to collect waste. The writer stated that “the average residential home needs at least two of these containers.” He goes on to accuse Knoxville City Council of lacking common sense.
The writer is certainly free to purchase another container if he so chooses. However, there is no reason in this day and age to be producing that much garbage each week. Apparently, this gentleman has never considered the concept of recycling. A recent national survey of the American Chemistry Council found that half of Americans report recycling 75 percent of their recyclable items. This is up from 34 percent in 2012. Furthermore, it found that nearly two-thirds of Americans report recycling on a “regular basis.”
Residents of the city can simply wheel their free cart full of recyclables to the curb. All anyone needs to do is call 311 to request a container. One way to feel good about the environment we are leaving for our descendants is to be ecologically responsible by diverting as much waste from landfills as possible. If my 89-year-old father can do it, anyone can. Regardless of how one feels about their own personal responsibility, we will eventually run out of space for landfills. I am willing to place a bet that if the complainer would simply recycle, he will notice that his garbage takes up only a tiny amount of the 95-gallon can he is provided free of charge. And, for the record, I found the decision of our leaders to be infinitely sensible, making Knoxville an even better place in which to live.
Judith Mallory
http://www.knoxnews.com/story/opinion/readers/2017/05/12/letters-recycling-informed-voters/320152001/
-
Trump Taps Bodine, An Experienced Hand, To Lead EPA Enforcement Office
May 14, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
President Donald Trump announced late May 12 his intent to nominate former EPA waste chief Susan Bodine to lead the agency's enforcement office, tapping a Washington policy expert to provide key experience to Administrator Scott Pruitt's team and help advance several of Pruitt's priorities, including speeding Superfund cleanups and possibly returning some enforcement roles to agency program offices.
Bodine served as EPA waste chief under President George W. Bush and since January 2015 has been the chief counsel on the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee. Among Bodine's 29 years of environment law experience is her prior post at EPA, working at two law firms, and being the staff director and counsel for the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee's water panel.
Her lengthy experience appears likely to be key, given Pruitt and his team's relative lack of EPA and Washington experience and some of the struggles they have faced advancing their agenda.
In a May 13 statement, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), the environment committee chairman, praised Bodine and said that she would give the EPA “strong and experienced leadership.”
Vowing to hold a hearing on her nomination, Barrasso said that Bodine has extensive experience working both on Capitol Hill and previously in leadership at the EPA. “Susan is committed to finding commonsense ways to protect America’s land, air, and water. In this new role, I know that she will work to help communities and small businesses comply with the law, while holding polluters accountable,” he said.
Bodine has long been expected to win a significant role in the agency, though many believed she was in line to be selected as the agency's deputy administrator, a post that top White House officials have battled over and remains unfilled.
But her selection as assistant administrator for the agency's Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance (OECA), even before a deputy administrator is announced, suggests she will bolster Pruitt's priority of addressing Superfund cleanups.
Cleanups Priority
In a May 9 memo to the agency’s Office of Land and Emergency Response chief and regional administrators, Pruitt said he is seeking to revitalize cleanup sites while promoting accountability and consistency across regions, according to the memo.
Superfund and the agency’s land and water cleanup work “will be restored to their rightful place at the center of the agency’s core mission," he said.
But how the agency will be able to do that given administration plans to slash Superfund spending remains in serious doubt.
For instance, the administration's budget plan for fiscal year 2018 seeks to cut EPA's budget by 31 percent -- reducing its funding from roughly $8.1 billion to $5.7 billion -- would lower the Superfund cleanup program’s budget by 30 percent, which could complicate Pruitt's efforts to refocus the agency on prioritizing such cleanups.
That has already prompted concern from state regulators who say it would harm federal waste programs and “severely impact” environmental and public health protections and local economies, in some cases straining state programs so greatly that they risk returning delegated programs back to EPA.
If the Senate confirms Bodine, she will have to grapple with how to reconcile Pruitt's vowed push to address Superfund cleanups with the budget cuts for waste and enforcement spending.
In addition, the role of OECA remains unclear given reports that Pruitt is “seriously considering” shuttering the office and returning its functions to the program offices.
In addition, sources have said the budget cuts for EPA enforcement spending on delegated programs risk a race to the bottom on environmental compliance that could hamper state as well as federal enforcement and create competitive disadvantage for companies that comply with environmental law.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trump-taps-bodine-experienced-hand-lead-epa-enforcement-office
-
Two EPA Science Board Members Resign in Protest
May 12, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Two members of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) science panel resigned Friday in protest after the agency dismissed other scientists from the board earlier this month.
Carlos Martin and Peter Meyer said in a Friday letter that they would leave the Board of Scientific Counselors’ (BOSC) Sustainable and Healthy Communities subcommittee. In a letter Martin posted on Twitter, the scientists said their resignation stems from the EPA’s decision not to renew two other scientists’ positions within BOSC.
“The effective removal of our subcommittee’s co-chairs suggests that our collective knowledge is not valued by the current EPA administrators,” Martin and Meyer wrote.
“Like so many of our colleagues and the broader research community, we have deep concerns about the leadership at EPA and its continued obfuscation of scientific evidence and the research enterprise.”
EPA leadership said last week that it would not renew the positions for at least five academic members of one of its scientific review boards and instead consider replacing them with representatives from industries who are subject to the agency’s regulations.
Martin told CNN on Friday that he is worried the new members will not reflect his position on issues like climate change.
“I can't be part of what I see is likely to happen in the future,” he said. “I can't be a prop to bad science."
An EPA spokesperson said the agency receives “hundreds” of nominations for positions on its science advisory boards, and that the dismissed members are able to reapply.
“EPA’s Board of Scientific Counselors serve three-year terms and are reviewed every three years,” the spokesperson said.
“Because advisory panels like BOSC play a critical role reviewing the agency’s work, EPA will consider the hundreds of nominations through a competitive nomination process.”
Environmentalists, scientists and Democrats have criticized plans to include industry officials on the science boards that inform EPA regulations.
But Trump administration officials at the agency — and Republicans in Congress — have pushed to expand the voice of regulated industries in EPA scientific discussions.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/333203-two-epa-science-board-members-resign-in-protest
-
Trump Pick for Agency Deputy Gets His Day in the Sun
May 15, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar
President Trump's controversial pick for deputy secretary of the Interior Department is likely to face tough questions from senators this week about his work for energy industry clients and service at the agency during the George W. Bush administration.
David Bernhardt, who is currently chairman of the natural resources department at the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP, will appear before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Thursday morning.
If confirmed, Bernhardt would be in charge of the day-to-day operations of the department's 10 bureaus and 70,000 employees. He would also have a say in virtually every major policy and management decision at Interior.
Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, the panel's top Democrat, has already signaled her intent to closely examine his fitness to serve as Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's right-hand man.
"I am gravely concerned about Mr. Bernhardt's record of working on behalf of corporations at the expense of the environment, and his history at the Department of the Interior during years plagued by ethical scandals," she said soon after he was picked (E&E Daily, May 2).
Ethics disclosures Bernhardt made ahead of the confirmation hearing show that he was paid at least $80,000 last year by a host of energy and environmental interests (Greenwire, May 11).
Some of those companies, such as water project developer Cadiz Inc., have high-stakes business proposals pending before Interior (Greenwire, April 6).
If confirmed, Bernhardt promised to "not participate personally or substantially in any particular matter involving" his former clients or "specific parties in which I know the firm is a party or represents a party" for one year, unless he receives authorization to do so.
But Democrats are likely to ask how the nominee has sought to advance the interests of those clients during the transition at Interior, which he briefly led for Trump, and during the early months of the new administration.
They will also probably press Bernhardt to explain his role in a series of troubling incidents at Interior during the Bush administration, such as erroneous testimony about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that downplayed the risks that potential oil drilling there would pose to caribou.
Republicans, on the other hand, are likely to tout Bernhardt's knowledge of the agency and the issues it faces. They will probably note the support he has earned from Bush administration colleagues like former Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall, who is now CEO of Ducks Unlimited, a waterfowl conservation group.
Many Republican senators, including Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, have also benefited from his financial backing over the years. Bernhardt and his family have collectively donated more than $81,000 to GOP candidates or groups since 2009, according to campaign finance data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
Bernhardt was unanimously confirmed to serve as Interior's top lawyer in 2006, a position he held until 2009. He was the agency's deputy solicitor from 2005 until 2006 and also served as counselor and deputy chief of staff to former Interior Secretary Gale Norton and as director of the department's Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs.
Prior to joining the Bush administration, he worked on Capitol Hill as legal counsel to the House Rules Committee and as an aide to former Rep. Scott McInnis (R-Colo.).
Schedule: The hearing is Thursday, May 18, at 10 a.m. in 366 Dirksen.
Witness: David Bernhardt.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/05/15/stories/1060054527
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Eyes Broader Exemption from TSCA Reporting for Small Businesses
May 12, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has extended the deadline for comments on its proposed definition of “small” businesses that are exempt from, or subject to less strict, Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) records and reporting requirements, after the Small Business Administration (SBA) and industry parties suggested the agency broaden the factors it is weighing for its upcoming revisions to the definition.
Some industry groups are also suggesting the agency apply any new definition of “small business” across TSCA, including to the determination of which entities are entitled to reduced new fee requirements, established in the chemical safety reform bill that then President Barack Obama signed into law last June. Small businesses are generally subject to less stringent TSCA requirements than larger businesses.
But the state of Vermont is urging EPA to limit the scope of any small business exemption, saying it needs the data to address chemical risks and allocate resources.
The agency announced in a May 9 Federal Register notice that it is extending the comment deadline that ended in January through May 24. “The comment period is being reopened in order to allow the public to consider feedback received by EPA from [SBA] as a result of a consultation request on EPA's preliminary determination on whether revision to these standards is warranted,” the notice says.
EPA announced last December that it was considering whether to broaden its standards for determining the manufacturers and processors that qualify as “small businesses” for purposes of applying the reporting and recordkeeping rules under TSCA section 8(a). That includes the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rules, whose results EPA uses as a proxy for chemical exposure data in risk screening decisions.
The TSCA reform law enacted last summer requires that EPA review within 180 days of its enactment the adequacy of the standards for identifying small manufactures and processors, and determine whether revision is warranted.
The law also requires that EPA review the adequacy of the size standards, and to consult with SBA.
The agency missed a Dec. 19 deadline for deciding whether to revise the standards, but is seeking comment on its preliminary determination that revisions are necessary.
Specifically, EPA seeks comments on the adequacy of the current standards and whether revision of the standards is warranted, but not on what a revised standard should be. That is a decision EPA would make in a future rulemaking if it opts to issue revisions.
The existing definition, created in 1988, considers a manufacturer or importer “small” if its total annual sales are less than $40 million, or produces or imports a particular substance at a volume of more than 100,000 pounds. Manufacturers or importers whose total earnings are less than $4 million per year regardless of volume produced or imported are also considered small.
EPA, in its December notice, did not suggest a new approach but it indicated in its review of the existing definition that staff found a 129 percent increase in the Producer Price Index (PPI) for chemicals and allied products for the years since the current definition was promulgated.
As a result, as well as staff's view that its current annual sales standard is low compared with revenue-based size standards developed by SBA, EPA has “preliminarily determined” that a revision to the definition is necessary, though EPA did not say how it might seek to change the definition.
'Comprehensive Approach'
As part of its review, the agency also sought consultation with SBA on the issue, as required by the law.
SBA's undated letter responding to EPA, which the agency posted to its electronic docket May 9, agrees with the agency's preliminary conclusion that the definition should be updated. But SBA also urges EPA to overhaul it more broadly than simply increasing the thresholds in the current definition.
SBA's letter, addressed to former toxics chief Jim Jones, recommends the agency apply a “comprehensive approach” that not only evaluates inflation, as the agency did, but also other important factors, such as “the characteristics of firms and industries associated with manufacturing or importation of chemical substances and percentage of firms impacted by the rules, to determine whether or not a revision to the current size standards is warranted.”
“For its review of size standards, SBA evaluates a number of industry characteristics (e.g., average firm size, start-up costs and entry barriers, industry competition, and distribution of firms by various revenue and employment size groupings, etc.) when determining if an industry's current size standard is adequate or warrants an adjustment,” SBA says.
The document follows similar comments that EPA received from SBA's Office of Advocacy in January.
The Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA), which represents mostly small, specialty chemical businesses, also urges EPA to adopt a broader definition of “small business,” suggesting such an approach is needed to limit reporting and other burdens.
The group argues in its Jan. 17 comments that Obama EPA changes to the CDR rule have placed more reporting burdens on small businesses that are unprepared to do so. As a result, the group suggests EPA adopt a bifurcated approach for determining whether firms qualify for a reporting exemption that relies on both the revenue-based test as well as an additional test based on the number of employees.
“We believe the structure should also be updated to not only include revenue based standards, but also an employee based one,” the group said.
“A revenue-based standard inherently discriminates against companies -- like most SOCMA members -- that produce low-volume, high-value products. Importantly, such companies are not necessarily more profitable than manufacturers of low-value products,” SOCMA writes. “Accordingly, SOCMA urges EPA to propose a standard with two prongs, one based on gross revenues and one based on employment, with a company that meets either prong considered to be a small manufacturer.”
SOCMA also urges EPA to “apply the same standard to define small entities for all TSCA purposes, including, in particular, Section 26(b)(4),” new language inserted by the TSCA reform bill which allows EPA for the first time to charge manufacturers user fees to support its TSCA chemical reviews, as outlined in Section 26(b). Section 26(b)(4) addresses the “amount and adjustment” of these fees, and in particular, requires the EPA administrator to “prescribe lower fees for small business concerns.”
The complexity of setting up this fee rule has proven so great that EPA has yet to issue a proposal, despite admission from acting EPA toxics chief Wendy Cleland-Hamnett that her office needs more staff to address the increased workload already associated with implementing the changes that the TSCA reform law imposed.
Baseline Information
Calls from SBA, SOCMA and the American Chemistry Council for EPA to review and broaden its small business definition are, however, challenged in Jan. 17 comments from Vermont's Agency of Natural Resources (ANR). Vermont writes that it opposes broadening the small business definition, resulting in more businesses being exempted from CDR and other TSCA reporting.
“States need complete baseline information about chemical use (i.e. volume, location, toxicity) to effectively respond to emergencies and threats posed by chemicals of emerging concern, and to prioritize limited resources to address those chemicals that pose the greatest risk to citizens and the environment,” ANR writes, arguing that the data resulting from the CDR rule is essential to these purposes.
ANR adds that “If EPA ultimately decides to maintain an exemption for small manufacturers or other entities from the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of TSCA Section 8, such an exemption should be based on low levels of risk to human health and the environment associated with the chemical substances not being reported. Such an exemption would more closely track the intent and purposes of the Chemical Data Reporting Rule.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-eyes-broader-exemption-tsca-reporting-small-businesses
-
Clarity on Horizon for New TSCA Law
May 12, 2017 | Rubber News
By Chris Sweeney
The Toxic Substances Control Act may have been reformed in 2016, but that doesn't mean the process is over.
Not by a long shot.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act was signed into law by President Obama in June 2016. Now that the one-year anniversary is on the horizon, some key developments from the Environmental Protection Agency are set to take place.
Jamie Conrad, owner of Conrad Law & Policy Council, outlined some of the key things for adhesives producers to look for during an address at the Adhesive and Sealant Council's Spring Convention and Expo.
"There are things you can do now that can incrementally position your business to be a little better off than it would have otherwise been," Conrad said. "And that may make the difference as to whether your product succeeds or fails."
One key deadline built into the new law is coming up. Section 8, or inventory reset, allows EPA to make an active chemicals list, effectively splitting some 84,000 chemicals into two groups: active and inactive. The list is due by June and EPA had asked manufacturers to provide a list of chemicals manufactured within a 10-year window prior to the enactment of the new regulation. Those chemicals will go on the active substances list, the rest on the inactive list. Those on the inactive list cannot be manufactured unless EPA is notified to make them an active substance.
Once the rule goes final, companies have 180 days to tell EPA if they've manufactured the chemical within the last 10 years from enactment. Conrad said the biggest question is whether every company who manufactures the chemical must contact EPA about using it or if just one company reporting use will be enough to place it on the active list.
Even if something is not on the active inventory, Conrad said it's not a huge deal because companies just have to file a form to move the chemical from inactive to active. But companies now not only have to check the inventory, but whether it's an active substance.
Data set changes
Another big change to the new law is that companies succeeded in getting rid of a requirement that there'd be some comprehensive minimum data set. But Conrad said if a company wants to get a chemical approved, it should come up with as much basic data as possible.
"Don't let EPA fill that stuff in because they will fill it in using defaults and assumptions from bad analogs," Conrad said. "You really should invest some time and money to come up with as full of a data set as you can afford to do to the extent you're going to be basing that on analogous molecules you've already done testing on. Make sure you've thought through what that molecule is the best analog for what you want to get approved. EPA is going to have its own ideas, and they're almost certainly not going to be the ones that would give you the best results."
Any chemical submitted will be slotted into one of about 80 categories. Conrad said companies should already have the document outlining these and have figured out where it's going to fit and come up with arguments why it should be in one category instead of another.
EPA also offers the sustainable futures program that teaches companies how to use the computer models it uses to analyze molecules. Companies can run numbers and get a general idea of how its molecule will play out.
If a chemical is an improvement, safer to make or less polluting, there is a spot in the pre-manufacture notice to explain the environmental benefits of the chemical.
Conrad added that EPA might be levying more significant new use rules under the new law, which will require companies to dig deeper for information on chemicals they intend to use.
"Going forward it will be important to pay a lot of attention if you're developing a new formulation to really make sure you know whether any of those chemicals are subject to significant new use rules," Conrad said. "It's not always an easy thing to find out. You can't be certain just because there isn't something on Box 15 of a safety data sheet. There's going to be a lot of extra due diligence requirements on some folks to know the regulated status of some chemicals they might use."
Fee structure uncertain
Conrad said that until the new rules are released, the fees for submitting new chemicals are what they've always been. However, that is likely to change soon.
While the new law doesn't outline an explicit deadline for EPA to release the fee structure, Conrad said it cannot propose new fees until it writes the rules, which are projected to be released within the next month or so.
He's confident that they will be high, saying EPA has estimated that the cost of a risk evaluation per chemical will be $3.7 million. Fees for smaller businesses, anybody whose sales are $91 million or less, will be less. But Conrad said those fees are still projected to double because the producer price index has more than doubled over time.
"There's going to be tremendous argumentation," Conrad said of what entities will ultimately pay what fees. "I think it's going to be fascinating to see how they figure out who makes chemicals."
Conrad said that while President Trump has made statements about cutting the EPA, he does not anticipate those statements affecting the TSCA program because it passed nearly unanimously out of both houses of Congress and that the program is virtually self-funding.
http://www.rubbernews.com/article/20170512/NEWS/170519977/clarity-on-horizon-for-new-tsca-law
-
EPA Grants First ‘Conditional’ Approval Under New Toxics Law
May 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A new chemical additive has been approved for commerce by the EPA as long as the compound is made as a polymer which are too large to get into the body and create health issues.
The approval announced online May 12 marks the first time the EPA has approved a new chemical with a condition since the Toxic Substances Control Act was amended in June 2016.
However, the condition—that “the chemical must be manufactured such that it meets the polymer exemption criteria"—gives little insight into what other restrictions the agency may place on new chemicals as it reviews them in the future.
The manufacturer that sought to make the new additive, called generically 2–alkenoic acid, 2–alkyl–, alkyl ester, polymer with 2–alkyl 2–propenoate and a-(2–alkyl-1-oxo-2-alken-1-yl-[iquest]-alkoxypoly(oxy-1,2-alkanediyl), ester with a–2–alken–1–yl–[iquest]–hydroxypoly(oxy–1,2–alkanediyl), intended to make the chemical as a polymer a type of substance the agency typically considers low risk. The company's name is known to the agency, but can't be released, because its identity is confidential business information.
As of May 12, the EPA has allowed 44 new chemicals and 24 new microbes to enter commerce in the 11 months since TSCA was amended. That compares to the hundreds of new chemicals the agency typically reviewed and allowed into commerce each year prior to the law's revision.
EPA officials have repeatedly said at public meetings that they are working to address the logjam of hundreds of new chemical applications that has built up since last June, but no details have been forthcoming.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=111295541&vname=dennotallissues&fn=111295541&jd=111295541
-
Week Ahead: Senators Weigh Bill to Rein in Costly Regs
May 15, 2017 | The Hill - Regulation
By Lydia Wheeler
Lawmakers are expected to debate a bipartisan proposal to reform the federal rulemaking process.
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will be looking at the Regulatory Accountability Act during its Wednesday's meeting.
The bill, introduced last month by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), requires federal agencies to seek public input before proposing a major rule – one with an economic impact of $100 million or more – and adopt only the most "cost-effective" regulation.
To adopt a "less cost-effective" option, an agency must explain the additional benefits from that approach, and the costs.
The legislation also forces agencies to hold an administrative hearing with parties affected by billion‐dollar rules and automatically review rules once every 10 years.
The Environmental Defense Fund claims the bill contradicts legislation Congress passed last year to overhaul the nation's chemical safety rules.
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the group said EPA only has to "consider" and "factor in" cost when regulating harmful chemicals, but under the Regulatory Accountability Act cost would be a leading factor in deciding whether to regulate.
It will be a busy week both on Capitol Hill, where the House is returning after a short recess, and off.
On Monday, attorneys for the Trump administration head back to court to fight to defend the president's travel ban on nationals from from six majority-Muslim countries from entering the U.S. A three-member panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the government's appeal of a Hawaii district court's decision to block the revised order.
Last Monday, the administration argued before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for judges to lift another ban, following a Maryland district judge's decision to block the order nationwide.
Also in the coming week, on Tuesday, the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee will hold a hearing to consider the nominations of Sigal Mandelker to be Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Crime; Marshall Billingslea to be Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing; Heath Tarbert to be an Assistant Secretary, all at the Department of the Treasury; and Mira Radielovic Ricardel to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration.
On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider the nomination of Amul Thapar, Trump's first lower court nominee to fill a vacancy on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Meanwhile, that same day, a House Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions will hold ahearing to discuss regulatory barriers facing workers and families saving for retirement.
http://thehill.com/regulation/333165-week-ahead-lawmakers-to-debate-reg-reform-bill
-
Leasing Chemicals Model May Reduce Risks, But Face Hurdles: OECD
May 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
Chemical leasing and similar business service models are promising tools to help countries reduce use of hazardous chemicals, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said May 11.
Under the chemical leasing model, suppliers—which retain ownership of the chemical—and users collaborate on the common goal of cutting chemical use. Applications in Europe, the U.S. and elsewhere have help reduced chemical consumption, chemical handling and waste management, as well as environmental risks from chemicals, the OECD said in a new report.
In addition, chemical leasing could get a boost from countries’ recent legislative efforts, such as REACH in the European Union and the updated U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act, to improve public information on chemical use, the 58-page report said.
Chemical Collaboration
In one example the organization cited, a joint Austrian-German venture—formed by a company that specializes in making high-tech metal-cleaning machines and one that leases solvents, degreasing equipment and customized chemical services—had as its first customer an auto-parts maker that needed to clean parts. The parts maker benefited from chemical leasing by not having to invest in equipment or calling on experts to help it meet health, safety and environmental requirements.
During a two-year period, chemical leasing reduced the auto maker's part-cleaning costs by 50 percent for energy and solvent use by 71.7 percent, according to data provided by the chemical lease company.
In another example, oil companies including Statoil, Shell, BP, ExxonMobil and others lease cesium formate brines from U.K.-based Cabot Specialty Fluids, which charges clients by the number of days they use the chemicals. CSF's services reduce overall consumption of raw materials, energy and water, and recover 80 percent to 85 percent of the brine, the report said.
Among hurdles the report identified are waste regulations that don't take leasing models into account, liability risks and fears by companies that they could lose their own know-how for certain processes. In addition, companies may simply be unaware of the benefits of chemical leasing.
Governments and nongovernmental organizations could promote the chemical leasing business model by developing pilot projects that help identify national policies that are hindering its use, according to the OECD. They also could offer legal advice on drafting contracts, and implement reduced value added tax rates and other advantageous tax treatment for chemical leasing.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=111295539&vname=dennotallissues&fn=111295539&jd=111295539
-
The U.S. Barely Regulates Personal Care Products, Despite the Many Chemicals They Contain
May 14, 2017 | Portland Press Herald
By Marina Schauffler
“Raise your hand if you’re SURE!” a deodorant ad once proclaimed, playing to widespread insecurities about appearance and body odor. The promise of radiant confidence and magnetic appeal is what sells personal care products, generating U.S. manufacturers upwards of $60 billion a year.
Look past the advertising ditties, as director Jon Whelan does in his unsettling documentary “Stink!”, and you may feel markedly less sure.
Each day, the typical American woman slathers on a dozen lotions, creams, gels and cosmetics – exposing her body to an estimated 168 unique chemical ingredients, according to the Environmental Working Group. Men tend to use about half as many products with roughly half as many ingredients.
People assume these products are subject to governmental scrutiny, but what we routinely pour into our pores undergoes no systematic safety assessment. The personal care product industry is allowed to “self-regulate,” even though scientific research confirms that many of its product ingredients pose health risks.
Here are a couple facts more “clarifying” than any shampoo:
Manufacturers are legally permitted to keep fragrance ingredients a trade secret, and a single product’s fragrance may contain dozens of chemicals – including those known to harm human health.
Congress has not updated its cosmetics law since 1938.
Consumers cannot make informed choices when labels don’t reflect all product ingredients. As the law stands now, companies need not reveal what lurks beneath the umbrella term fragrance (or parfum) even if those chemicals are life-threatening.
“What type of proprietary information could be more important than the health of a child?” a distraught mother asks in “Stink!”, after her teenage son experiences anaphylaxis from exposure to the body spray Axe used by his peers at school.
Those who suffer from chemical sensitivities, asthma and allergies may be at highest risk, along with children, but the fragrances used in personal care products should concern everyone. These volatile or semi-volatile organic compounds vaporize readily and can persist in the air, provoking wheezing, migraines, seizures and longer-term concerns like cancer, reproductive disorders and learning disabilities.
Recognizing the threats posed by toxic chemicals, Congress recently updated the Toxic Substances Control Act (first written four decades ago) to impose stronger standards on chemicals used in consumer products. Yet another outdated law still permits the personal care products industry to function without careful oversight by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The European Union and Canada have banned upward of 1,300 chemical ingredients in personal care products due to evidence of health hazards, but with its limited powers the FDA has banned only 11 to date.
Senators Susan Collins and Dianne Feinstein are working to tame the Wild West of unregulated cosmetics with the bipartisan Personal Care Products Safety Act, which would finally give the FDA power to complete thorough safety reviews and ban chemicals that fail to meet a strict standard for human health. Both senators deserve credit for leading this effort, which could be passed into law later this year.
Under the proposed act, the FDA would require manufacturers to register their facilities and products and to maintain safety records. Companies would need to report problematic health effects to the FDA, and the agency could “recall a cosmetic that is likely to cause serious adverse health consequences,” according to the bill summary.
Michael Belliveau, executive director of the Environmental Health Strategy Center, is heartened by the “real prospect for federal reform of cosmetics safety in the near future” and believes this bill will provide significant improvements.
There are still a few provisions, though, that he and other consumer advocates hope to see addressed. The bill as written does not require full disclosure of chemicals on product labels – including all those masquerading as fragrance.
And the proposed act calls for the FDA to review “at least five cosmetic ingredients” each year. At that pace, the agency might compile a list as protective as the ones the European Union and Canada have right now – in 250 years!
Why not rely on their scientific research and start by restricting the 1,300-plus chemicals already known to be hazardous? Presumably, having consistent standards across international borders would be helpful for manufacturers as well as safer for consumers.
Now is a good time for concerned citizens to “raise their hands” and speak out for the safety they deserve in personal care products. Only major regulatory reform will provide us with true assurance.
Marina Schauffler is a freelance writer and editor whose work is online at www.naturalchoices.com.
http://www.pressherald.com/2017/05/14/the-u-s-barely-regulates-personal-care-products-despite-the-many-chemicals-they-contain/
-
Echa Publishes Updates on PACT Substance Assessments
May 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has provided updates on seven substances in its public activities coordination tool (PACT) for risk management option analysis (RMOA) or hazard assessment.
Three have been added for which EU and European Economic Area (EEA) countries are now starting RMOA. The chemicals and their suspected hazards or concerns are:
· 1,6,7,8,9,14,15,16,17,17,18,18-dodecachloropentacyclo [12.2.1.16,9.02,13.05,10] octadeca-7,15-diene – suspected of being persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT);
· terphenyl, hydrogenated – suspected PBT; and
· UVCB-diamines – suspected of specific target organ toxicity via repeat exposure (STOT RE).
Other European countries have conducted RMOAs on the following substances, both of which are suspected of being carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR) and a sensitiser, and have decided no further risk assessment action is necessary:
· nickel sulphide; and
· trinickel disulphide.
Hazard assessments of the final two substances have been postponed with no follow up suggested:
· 4,4'-(1,3-phenylene-bis(1-methylethylidene)) bisphenol – suspected endocrine disruptor and PBT; and
· 2,4,6-tribromophenol – potential PBT.
The countries that have or are carrying out work on their respective substances are Belgium, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Norway, Sweden and the UK.
In April, the agency included updates on 18 substances in PACT.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55826/echa-publishes-updates-on-pact-substance-assessments
-
US and China Agree Closer Cooperation on LNG Trade
May 12, 2017 | Platts
By Abache Abreu
The US and China have agreed to advance their economic cooperation in the energy sector, in a move aimed at improving access of US-based LNG exporters to the world's third largest consumer of the fuel.
The agreement on LNG is one of 10 initial actions, released by the White House Wednesday under the framework of the US-China Comprehensive Economic Dialogue, aimed at promoting economic engagement and cooperation between the two world powers in a range of issues including energy, agriculture, investment and finance.
"The United States welcomes China, as well as any of our trading partners, to receive imports of LNG from the United States," the release said.
"Companies from China may proceed at any time to negotiate all types of contractual arrangement with US LNG exporters, including long-term contracts, subject to the commercial considerations of the parties."It continued to say the US treats China no less favorably than other non-free trade agreement trade partners with regard to LNG export authorizations, but details on how cooperation was to move forward were scarce.
China is already an importer of US-sourced LNG, having received 212,000 mt in 2016 and 420,000 mt so far in 2017, according to Platts Analytics, through a combination of spot deals and long-term contracts with portfolio suppliers.
It imported its first LNG from the US in late August 2016, when state-owned CNOOC received a cargo from the Sabine Pass export facility in the US Gulf of Mexico aboard the LNG carrier Maran Gas Apollonia, cFlow, S&P Global Platts trade flow software, showed.
It was the first cargo from the Lower 48 States to reach Northeast Asia since Sabine Pass commenced operations in February 2016, and the first LNG tanker to transit the newly expanded Panama canal.
To date, the US Department of Energy has authorized 19.2 Bcf/d of natural gas to be exported to non-FTA countries.
China imported more than 25 million mt in 2016 and is expected to increase imports of the fuel to more than 40 million mt by 2020.https://www.platts.com/latest-news/natural-gas/singapore/us-and-china-agree-closer-cooperation-on-lng-21723266
-
Trump's China Deal Gives U.S. LNG a Boost Without Changing Rules
May 12, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Christine Buurma, Naureen S. Malik and Ryan Collins
America's shale gas could soon head to China under long-term contracts for the first time, bolstered by a new trade deal that may not even change existing rules.
Cheniere Energy Inc., the first exporter of natural gas from the lower 48 states, sees the agreement as “amplifying and accelerating conversations about new long-term contracts” with China, said Eben Burnham-Snyder, a spokesman for the Houston-based company. While the deal announced May 11 by President Trump's administration doesn't appear to alter access for Chinese companies to U.S. gas cargoes, it welcomes China to receive shipments and engage in long-term contracts with American suppliers.
Fifteen months after Cheniere shipped its first cargo of shale gas, putting the U.S. on course to become a net exporter of the fuel by next year, the agreement between the world's two largest economies may unleash even more American supply on a glutted global market.
The deal could pave the way for a second wave of investment in U.S. LNG terminals, connecting the fastest-growing supplier with the biggest growth market, according to Wood Mackenzie Ltd.
“In the last month, Cheniere has had extensive negotiations with several Chinese commercial entities and obviously with this agreement we expect this to continue and accelerate,” Burnham-Snyder said May 11 by phone.
While Cheniere shipped nine cargoes from its Sabine Pass facility in Louisiana to five terminals in China over the last year, according to Burnham-Snyder, those cargoes were sold on the so-called spot market for immediate delivery, rather than under long-term contracts.
The agreement clarifies, rather than changes, U.S. policy on LNG exports to China, Zach Allen, president of Pan Eurasian Enterprises Inc., a Raleigh, North Carolina-based tracker of LNG shipments, said in an email.
“It sounds like a re-iteration of pre-existing conditions,” Allen said. “I was not aware of any unusual barriers to U.S. LNG exports to China imposed by U.S. restrictions.”
Targeting China
U.S. LNG export terminal developers will now be able to target Chinese buyers directly, potentially helping the projects to secure financing, Massimo Di-Odoardo, an analyst at Wood Mackenzie, said May 12 in a note to clients. The deal could also support direct Chinese investment in the terminals, he said.
The China agreement is “certainly a positive statement from the Trump administration about the LNG industry,” Scott Atha, director of LNG marketing and commercial strategy for North American projects at Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd., said by phone. The company is developing the Magnolia LNG export terminal in Texas. “It provides us additional confidence that the Chinese market can be open to U.S. projects.”
American supplies accounted for almost 7 percent of China's total imports in March, customs data shows. Chinese companies already have long-term contracts with non-U.S. suppliers for more LNG than domestic demand requires through at least 2023, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
Cheniere rose as much as 4.9 percent to $49.465 at 1:33 p.m. in New York.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=111295528&vname=dennotallissues&fn=111295528&jd=111295528
-
Big Investors Urge Oil Companies to Tackle Methane Leaks
May 15, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By David Hunn
Thirty institutional investors managing more than $3 trillion in assets have announced a new initiative to encourage global oil and gas companies, including utilities, to measure, report and reduce methane emissions.
The initiative, coordinated by the Principles for Responsible Investment, a nonprofit supported by the United Nations, is another example of investor concern over the financial and environmental risks of methane leaks.
Methane is the main ingredient of natural gas and a potent polluter, with more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide. It is a product of oil drilling and often vented or flared as production companies pump oil. The Environmental Defense Fund says methane is responsible for one-quarter of global warming and that the oil and gas industry is among the largest man-made sources of methane.
“Companies tout gas as a clean, low-carbon fuel, ignoring the vast amounts of unburned methane escaping from their systems each year or the lack of transparency with regard to monitoring and reduction strategies,” the EDF recently said in a statement.
The asset managers in PRI’s methane initiative represent a dozen countries across North America, Europe and Asia-Pacific.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/05/12/big-investors-urge-oil-companies-to-tackle-methane-leaks/
-
May 14, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Editorial Board
Republicans in Congress have repealed 13 Obama Administration regulations thanks to a potent tool known as the Congressional Review Act. But last week the Senate failed to kill a costly energy rule, and the defeat is a warning about the Trump Administration’s ebbing political capital.
The Bureau of Land Management’s $1.8 billion rule is ostensibly about reducing methane on federal lands, not that the government needed to intervene: Methane emissions from venting and flaring have dropped 77% since 2011, while oil and gas exploration has boomed. BLM has no legal authority to issue the rule, one reason the rejection passed the House with relative ease.
But a procedural motion on Wednesday failed on the Senate floor, where the bill would have never arrived unless GOP leaders thought they had the votes. Three Republicans voted no: Susan Collins of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona.
Ms. Collins is a moderate from a swing state, and the climate-change lobby worked on Mr. Graham. Some sources say Mr. McCain was a surprise defector and voted no to register his unhappiness that Senate leaders stuck a waiver for U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer into the recent spending bill. The waiver overruled a ban on someone who has represented foreign governments serving as trade rep. Mr. McCain’s office called such allegations “ridiculous” and said he wants BLM to revise the regulation instead. A congressional review action prohibits an agency from issuing “similar” rules.
All 48 Democrats voted no, and apparently maintaining a 100% rating on the Trump Resistance Scorecard is more important than serving your constituents. North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp felt liberated to endorse a rule that will substantially raise costs for energy producers in her state. Great fodder for 2018 ads against Ms. Heitkamp and other energy-state Democrats like Joe Manchin of West Virginia.
The larger point is that all of these Senators felt they could oppose the measure without paying a political price. This is what happens when a President’s approval rating is close to 40%. Senators look out for themselves and governing becomes much harder.
The Interior Department, which oversees BLM, can withdraw or revise the methane rule, and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke should make that a priority. The GOP cannot afford similar failures on tax reform or health care.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-methane-rule-canary-1494796320
-
Energy Industry Opposes Adding Some Natural Gas Facilities to EPA's TRI
May 12, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Energy groups are opposing an Obama EPA proposal to expand the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) environmental release reporting program to include some natural gas processing facilities, saying the rule would be at odds with President Donald Trump's executive order (EO) that aims to limit the number of new rules agencies issue.
Environmentalists, however, are expressing support for the previous administration's proposal that would require the facilities to report their releases of pollutants into the environment as part of TRI, a program that annually publishes information about releases of certain environmental pollutants into the air, water and soil. EPA provides the information in a searchable database on its website and releases an annual report on it.
The agency took comment through an extended May 6 deadline on the plan, though it is unclear whether the Trump EPA will finalize it given the administration's goal of reducing regulatory burdens on the energy sector.
The proposal responds to a petition filed in 2012 by the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) and 16 other groups seeking to add oil and gas extraction to the inventory, arguing that technology advances have led to widespread use of hydraulic fracturing, and dramatically increasing the number of facilities and the volume of releases.
The groups sued the agency in 2015 to force a response to the petition. EPA rejected the groups' bid to expand the TRI rules to include oil and gas facilities and compressors but agreed in October 2015 to launch the rulemaking to add natural gas processing plants to those sectors required to report releases to the TRI.
Specifically, the agency is proposing to add processing facilities that primarily engage in the recovery of liquid hydrocarbons from the sector's gases to the already covered facilities that primarily recover sulfur from natural gas. This would largely exclude natural gas field facilities that only recover condensate from a stream of natural gas, lease separation facilities that separate condensate from natural gas, or natural gas pipeline compressor stations that supply energy to move gas through transmission or distribution lines into storage.
But the American Petroleum Institute in its May 6 comments on the TRI proposal argues that the rule is at odds with Trump's EO 13771, which requires that new rules be cost-neutral and mandates that agencies identify two existing regulations for possible repeal for every new rule that it finalizes.
EO 13771 “requires value to be demonstrated and cost burdens to be offset. Based on API’s analyses, EPA’s proposal does not show the value of adding [natural gas processing (NGP)] to TRI reporting but instead creates undue burden to the industry for little benefit,” the comments say. The TRI proposal is “inconsistent with the stated objectives of the current Administration’s overall objective of American energy independence and economic growth. API believes that if the rule is enacted, it will be a prime candidate for EO 13771 action.”
Industry's Objections
In other objections, API argues that EPA has “inadvertently overestimated the number of facilities which will report under TRI and the associated benefits to the program” by using Canada's equivalent to the TRI database as the basis for their estimate and underestimating the cost of the rule to industry. API says that its industry’s operations “cover vast geographical areas” which complicates the definition of facility, and collecting economic data for each to determine if it meets TRI's requirements “would be costly and impose a significant financial burden.”
API's concerns are echoed in comments filed by industry trade groups the Texas Pipeline Association (TPA) and the GPA Midstream Association. These groups add that TRI would request information of the NGP facilities that is redundant because it is already collected and in the public domain by other mechanisms.
TPA says that adding NGP is outside the scope of TRI's authorizing statute, the 1986 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). “A fundamental flaw in the current proposal is that it fails the Congressional test established for EPA to add new industrial sectors to the TRI program,” TPA writes in its May 4 comments. The group notes that Congress' action was in response to the 1984 tragedy in Bhopal, India, where the release of some 40 tons of a toxic gas from a pesticide plant resulted in at least 3,800 deaths and widespread injury of nearby residents. TPA argues that its members' facilities do not meet the Bhopal model of a large chemical facility in a densely-populated area.
“The handling of listed chemicals at scattered and relatively small [NGP] facilities does not present the type of risk to which Congress was responding when it enacted EPCRA,” the group argues.
GPA in its May 1 comments says that if EPA does not take its advice to withdraw the rule, it should consider changes such as reducing the number of chemicals that NGP have to report to TRI and allowing enough time for NGP to comply with a new rule.
Environmentalists' Support
Environmentalists, by contrast, argue that the Obama EPA offered strong support for the proposal and urge the Trump EPA to finalize it. EIP says that adding NGP to TRI meets the three requirements that EPA established when it last added new categories to TRI in 1996, while also meeting Congress' goals for the program.
“The addition of the natural gas processing facilities serves all three of these purposes in making the profile of toxic chemical releases and activities more complete, adding to the TRI database to make it all the more broad based, and in giving the public much easier access to the information on these releases than the existing data sources,” EIP's May 6 comments state.
To this, EIP adds “emissions data . . . that supports EPA’s proposed addition by demonstrating that natural gas processing facilities have reported emissions of enough TRI-listed chemicals to demonstrate that the facilities manufacture, process, and otherwise use chemicals above the TRI thresholds.”
Earthworks, another petitioner in the request to EPA to expand TRI to include the gas processing facilities, in its undated comments argues that “the proposed rule does not entirely capture the scope of NGP facilities that should report, nor the similar kinds of midstream facilities that clearly produce substantial toxic releases.”
Earthworks urges EPA to expand the finalized rule, saying, “A final rule with a slightly broader application will help ensure that regulated facilities cannot skirt their TRI reporting requirements by employing schemes that purport to change or recharacterize the facility’s permit status or function.”
Both groups argue that EPA has underestimated, not overestimated, the number of NGP processing facilities operating in the U.S. that would meet requirements for TRI reporting under the proposed rule.
“EPA has estimated between 282 and 444 NGP facilities would meet the basic criteria for reporting to the TRI,” Earthworks says. “Earthworks believes that the actual number of covered facilities under this proposal is very likely higher. The primary reason is that operators self-report the 757 Survey information at a given point in time. However, operators routinely expand facilities, change, and/or recharacterize their functions.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/energy-industry-opposes-adding-some-natural-gas-facilities-epas-tri
-
As Prices Rise, Oil Companies Drill Down on Industrial Cyber Security
May 12, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Collin Eaton
In recent months, more U.S. oil company boards have demanded IT managers prove refineries and drilling rigs are protected against cyberattacks, the chief of a security firm says.
Rising oil prices and increased awareness of industrial cyber threats seem to have spurred new corporate-level maneuvers this year to secure computer controls that run energy facilities, said Barak Perelman, chief executive of Israeli cyber security firm Indegy. At some oil companies, he said, chief information security officers now spend a quarter of their monthly security committee meetings discussing so-called industrial control systems, the devices that control oil and gas equipment.
“They’re being given budgets for industrial cyber security,” Perelman said on Friday. “In all my conversations, nobody has said ‘yes, but oil prices.’ I heard that a lot last year.”
Perelman, who moved from Israel to New York this year because of increasing demand for industrial cyber security in the United States, said he spends most of his time teaching IT professionals how to tackle the security of devices manufactured by Siemens, Honeywell and Emerson – so different from the Microsoft and Apple computers they know well.
Before 2017, “when we talked to oil companies in Texas, we were mainly talking with control systems engineers who understood the ins and outs of everything, but they didn’t care much about security,” Perelman said. “They didn’t have the budgets for it. It wasn’t their role. In the last few months, we’ve seen more IT corporate security get demands for proof the facilities are protected.”
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/05/12/as-prices-rise-oil-companies-drill-down-on-industrial-cyber-security/
-
Tanker Ban Could Affect Canada-California Relations
May 15, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Menyasz
A new Canadian proposal to ban large oil tanker traffic on the northern coast of British Columbia to better protect the fragile marine environment on Canada's West Coast could complicate relations with California, an environmental advocate said.
The legislation, if passed by the Canadian Parliament, would prohibit oil tankers carrying crude oil and other persistent oils as cargo from stopping, loading or unloading at ports or marine installations in northern British Columbia.
Greenpeace Canada spokesman Keith Stewart told Bloomberg BNA May 12 that the proposed legislation “is the final nail in the coffin” of the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline, “and that is to be celebrated.” The pipeline was planned to move oil from Alberta's oil sands to British Columbia's north coast, but Prime Minister Justin Trudeau killed the project last year.
“It's also going to make it hard for the Canadian government to lobby against similar legislation targeting oil tankers carrying bitumen that is currently being debated in California,” Stewart said. “If tar-sands oil is too risky for the Great Bear Rainforest, why is it safe enough for the Golden Coast?”
Ban Targets Crude, Persistent Oils
The Canada moratorium would apply to oil tankers carrying crude and other “persistent” oils in quantities greater than 12,500 metric tons. That includes products defined under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships, such as partially upgraded bitumen (produced from oil sands mines), synthetic crude oil, petroleum pitch, slack wax and Bunker C fuel oil.
The ban would not apply to other, more refined oil products, such as liquefied natural gas, gasoline, naphtha, jet fuel and propane. The legislation would also authorize the federal transport minister to exempt a specific vessel if that is deemed in the public interest.
Spokesman Kai Nagata of British Columbia's Dogwood Initiative wondered why the ban is needed after Trudeau killed the Gateway Project. At the same time, Trudeau approved Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline from the oil sands to Vancouver.
That pipeline means a significant tanker traffic increase through Vancouver's harbor.
Industry Disappointed
Canada's oil and gas industry is disappointed with the breadth of the proposed ban, which would cover a “vast swath” of Canada's western coastline and a broad range of products, Brad Herald, vice president of Western Canadian operations with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said May 12.
The ban is particularly disturbing because it would affect the ability to move products such as dilbit, or diluted bitumen, and light tight oil, which is light oil developed from shale rock formations, from Alberta's oil sands region to overseas markets, he said.
“There is burgeoning interest in these unconventional plays,” he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=111295546&vname=dennotallissues&fn=111295546&jd=111295546
-
(ACC Mentioned) Is Trump Stifling Science-Based Policy-Making at EPA?
May 13, 2017 | University World News
By Paul Basken
[This is an article from The Chronicle of Higher Education, America’s leading higher education publication. It is presented here under an agreement with University World News.]
The Trump administration’s removal of several academic experts from a scientific advisory board at the United States Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, has renewed concern about the government’s commitment to fact-based policy-making.
The advisory panel, known as the Board of Scientific Counselors, lost about half of its 18 members on 30 April as they completed the first of what is typically two three-year terms and were not reappointed.
The EPA said in a statement that it receives hundreds of nominations to serve on the board and that it wanted to provide "fair consideration of all the nominees". An EPA spokesman, JP Freire, said that means including more people "who understand the impact of regulations on the regulated community".
Some of the dismissed academic experts have criticised the move as part of an administration strategy to replace scientific judgment with political influence at the EPA. Rush Holt, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, called on the EPA to reconsider the dismissals, saying academic scientists "play a critical role in informing policy with scientific research results".
A more significant move against academic scientists may come this fall, when a larger and more structurally integral EPA advisory panel, known as the Science Advisory Board, faces the renewal – or not – of a third of its approximately 45 members.
Both boards are filled mostly by academic experts, along with some members from private interest groups and companies.
The Board of Scientific Counselors is a discretionary creation of the EPA that provides the agency with advice on technical and management issues of EPA research programmes. The Science Advisory Board, however, is created by law and charged with ensuring that the EPA uses the best possible science in making decisions. It reviews major EPA reports and has direct input into regulatory actions.
The current chairman of the Science Advisory Board is Peter S Thorne, a professor of toxicology at the University of Iowa, who is one of the members with terms expiring on 30 September.
Thorne is among those concerned by the direction of the EPA under its new leader, Scott Pruitt, the former Oklahoma attorney general known for waging legal battles with the EPA over its attempt to regulate such pollutants as mercury and smog.
Thorne is also concerned by a couple of moves in Congress that would affect scientific input at the EPA. One bill would pose a major hurdle for university scientists wanting to serve on the Science Advisory Board by barring anyone who held an EPA grant during the previous three years and making them ineligible for an EPA grant for three years after their service. People with corporate affiliations, however, would face no new restrictions.
Another bill, versions of which have been proposed for several years by House Republicans, would bar the EPA from developing new rules unless all the scientific justification involved studies for which all data were made publicly available. Given that many environmental impact studies involve the collection of personally sensitive data, the bill is regarded by its opponents as an attempt to broadly stifle EPA regulatory processes.
While opposed to both legislative initiatives, and strongly supportive of academic experts serving on EPA advisory panels, Thorne said corporate experts have played important and constructive roles on his panel and should continue to do so. In an interview with The Chronicle, he also discussed the challenge of finding the appropriate mix of affiliations on the Science Advisory Board.
A transcript of the discussion, edited for brevity and clarity, follows.
Q. Are you concerned about the future membership of your board?
A. Whoever serves on this board has to be an absolute expert in their area. Otherwise they’re just not going to be able to follow the complexity of the discussions. So to get that kind of scientific expertise, we have to get the best people in the country to serve, whether they come from an NGO like the Environmental Defense Fund or from the American Chemistry Council, or if they come from academia. The most important thing is that they have that expertise.
And there’s a lot of vetting that goes on to ensure that there are not conflicts of interest that are going to lead to a lack of impartiality or the impression of a lack of impartiality. It wouldn’t make sense to appoint someone to the board who would be conflicted on everything the board does, and therefore they would not really be able to participate meaningfully.
Q. Right now the membership is mostly university people. Is that the way it should be, and would there be anything wrong with adding a lot more people with corporate affiliations?
A. I would hate to see a board that didn’t have sufficient representation from academia, because academicians bring a level of scholarly rigour to this that is, I think, probably the highest level. Others also bring great expertise, from places that include the Environmental Defense Fund and the Dow Chemical Company. These are outstanding scholars, but I think, by and large, the academicians are oftentimes the ones who are at the leading edge of the research and have the greatest understanding of the underlying science.
Q. Why is that not true of somebody working for Dow Chemical Company or ExxonMobil?
A. Companies have great training, and they’re really top-notch scientists. But they have a different perspective, and oftentimes that perspective is more on implementation, or perhaps on best practices. They bring a lot of value to the table, as do the academicians. I’m not saying one is better than the other; I’m saying that having broad representation is a good thing, and we’ve enjoyed having that, and I don’t think we need to have specific quotas in order to have that.
Q. OK, but are you getting the even-handed assessment you seek if there’s an underrepresentation of corporate experts?
A. Before I was chair, in the first several meetings, I didn’t know what people’s day jobs were – whether they were from academia or not. I knew who was an expert in water quality, who was an expert on air pollution, who was an expert on decision science, who was a biostatistician. That’s the way we function – who’s got the expertise in what areas – because we’re not there representing our institutions.
Q. Yes, but you did say earlier that people from companies were more solutions-oriented and somehow viewing the world differently than an academic might.
A. I think it’s worked very well. They get good people to serve, people declare any conflicts of interest, and there’s a formal process for that before every meeting. I haven’t seen a situation I can think of where I thought, "OK, that person is saying that because he or she works at X or Y." I haven’t seen that kind of a circumstance.
Q. What’s your view on the bill pending in Congress aimed at putting more corporate representatives on your board?
A. The part of that bill that worries me somewhat is that it seeks to exclude anybody who had EPA funding, for three years. The people who know the science the best are often the people who are engaged in the type of research we do, and many people have had support from the EPA for that research.
I think it’s the case where any conflicts or the appearance of a conflict have been managed very well by the EPA staff and by the members themselves, and I don’t see that this bill would improve upon that.
Q. When someone declares a conflict, what happens?
A. EPA staff applies federal rules on whether they can participate. Oftentimes it means they would not participate.
One example: While I was serving, my father died, and I was poised to inherit some stock that, as a special government employee, I should not hold. So I had to divest of that before taking possession to avoid a conflict of interest. It was some stock he held in the oil and gas industry.
Q. How can it be an impermissible conflict of interest for you to hold oil stock while someone from ExxonMobil can be on your board?
A. Under federal rules governing the panel, they’re not representing ExxonMobil; they’re representing themselves.
Q. Does that make sense?
A. [Long pause.] I join a board, and I learn the rules of how special government employees are vetted and selected, and how we operate, and I do all the ethics training. And in some cases, it is what it is – we play by the rules.
Q. What’s your take on the bill requiring full disclosure of all data in scientific studies used by the EPA?
A. It seems to contradict the rules of human subjects protection of data. When we engage people in epidemiological studies, we promise them that we will try to protect their identity and their data. And I think there’s a misconception that makes the data somehow secret, just because a constituent of a congressman can’t go to the study and find out the names of the people from his neighbourhood that were in the study. That doesn’t make the science secret.
There’s as much transparency in the science we do as there possibly can be, but we need to protect the identity of human subjects because we have data about people’s health – about their incomes, whether they smoke or not, in some cases how many pregnancies they had, whether they breast-fed. There’s a lot of private data there that should not be disclosed, and most Americans don’t think that should be disclosed.
There are ways to ensure the integrity of the data without disclosing that level of detail, and we do that through peer review of the science. I think it represents a misconception of what human protections are, versus what is transparency in science.
Q. Is it just a misconception, or an ulterior motive?
A. I’d be reluctant to speculate on that.
Q. A lot of questions in environmental policy seem to come down to the question of putting a particular dollar value on a human life or a year of quality life. Doesn’t that mean the questions you face are really about values rather than science?
A. It is a very complex question you ask, because if you personalise it – what is the value of my life, and to whom? – then it cuts to the core of who we are and what we think about the value of a life.
But from a larger statistical standpoint – and I think this is the important differentiation – for a statistical life over all society, we can estimate how many more lives might be saved, or years of quality life might be saved, if we lower exposure to all of society to xenobiotic X by a certain amount. And it’s essential that we do that, so that we understand that we’re applying our regulatory actions and the dollars that that costs the regulated industry or society, to benefit in terms of saving the most lives and reducing morbidity and mortality to the greatest extent.http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20170512121456837
-
Pruitt Says Dismissed Science Panelists Can Reapply, Expects New WOTUS Rule by 2018
May 12, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt said the members of a key scientific advisory panel he dismissed last week can reapply to the panel, and he believes that in some cases they could be reinstated.
Meanwhile, Pruitt said he expects the agency will have a new rule defining what constitutes Waters of the United States (WOTUS) by either the end of the year or 1Q2018.
Pruitt reportedly began the process of dismissing several members of the agency's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) last Friday. But in a radio interview with Hugh Hewitt, Pruitt said "those same individuals can apply through the competitive process...
"These same individuals could very well be put back on the board. It's just simply a process to ensure that we have the type of representation, voices heard, so that we're informed as we do rulemaking."
Pruitt also disputed the notion that he fired the panelists. "There was no firing that took place," he said. "These individuals can apply -- will apply, I'm sure, in some instances -- and very well could be put back on the board. But it's the right thing to do to ensure transparency, its activity, peer-reviewed science and geographical representation on the board."
According to EPA's website, BOSC has approximately 20 members. Its mission is to advise EPA's Office of Research and Development on the technical and management issues related to its research programs.
Last March, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a pair of bills, along partisan lines, to change how EPA conducts its research. Neither bill has been introduced in the Senate.
Process to rescind Clean Water Rule started
Pruitt said he met with about 20 governors during his first week at the helm of EPA to discuss various issues, including WOTUS.
"When you look at WOTUS, land use decisions have historically, legally and otherwise been the province of the states, localities and private property owners," Pruitt said. "The past administration just disregarded that and created a definition that literally transformed dry creek beds, puddles across this country under federal jurisdiction.
"We're changing all that, as we should. [We want to get] the definition right. But we're partnering with those at the state level, governors and those that use private property, to say how do we work together to regulate water as opposed to work against each other."
During the Obama administration, EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jointly promulgated the Clean Water Rule (CWR) to define what waterbodies constitute WOTUS, and thereby deserve protection under the federal Clean Water Act. Last February, President Trump signed an executive order calling on EPA and USACE to review the CWR.
In a letter to state and local officials and various water associations about five weeks ago, Pruitt said EPA planned to initiate a two-step process over the CWR. He said EPA would first initiate a public rulemaking to rescind the rule and revert to laws governing water protection that were first enacted in 1986. The agency would then promulgate a revised definition of WOTUS. The first meetings were held in April.
"This federalism process that we're going through is very important," Pruitt said. "The comments we're receiving [will] help inform our decision. As far as the timing of the process, I anticipate and hope that by the end of the year or first quarter of 2018 that we'll have a final rule."
According to EPA, the currently proposed WOTUS definition would include all territorial seas, interstate waters and wetlands and all waters that are currently being used -- or which were used in the past or which may be susceptible for use in interstate or foreign commerce -- including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. It also includes certain impoundments, tributaries and adjacent waters, including wetlands.
Opponents of the rule worry that it is so broad that it could be used to include ditches and ruts in dirt roads that captured rainwater.
Shortly before his confirmation as EPA administrator, Pruitt vowedto quickly withdraw the CWR. Trump has also derided the rule as an example of federal regulatory overreach.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110439-pruitt-says-dismissed-science-panelists-can-reapply-expects-new-wotus-rule-by-2018
-
Intelligence Agencies List Climate Change as Security Threat
May 12, 2017 | Inside EPA
Intelligence agencies have again listed climate change in their latest assessment of national security threats facing the United States, though in a change from the Obama administration, the report says that agencies do not “adjudicate” climate science.
The change is consistent with the stance taken by other Trump administration officials, including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who have made comments casting doubt on mainstream climate science.
“We assess national security implications of climate change but do not adjudicate the science of climate change. In assessing these implications, we rely on U.S. government-coordinated scientific reports, peer-reviewed literature, and reports produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is the leading international body responsible for assessing the science related to climate change,” the report reads.
The discussion was included as part of the larger “Worldwide Threat Assessment,” presented to the Senate Intelligence Committee May 11 by Daniel Coats, director of national intelligence.
Nonetheless, the assessment presents the risks of a warming world and underscores that “the trend toward a warming climate is forecast to continue in 2017.” The report cites findings from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that 2016 was the hottest year on record, and it notes that global warming is expected to drive “more intense and frequent extreme weather events that will be distributed unequally in time and geography.”
In addition, the assessment notes the possibility of “public dissatisfaction” in the form of protests due to poor air quality, as well as potentially “heightened tensions over shared water resources” in some regions.
The report also says, “Global biodiversity will likely continue to decline due to habitat loss, overexploitation, pollution, and invasive species, according to a study by a nongovernmental conservation organization, disrupting ecosystems that support life, including humans.”
Prior intelligence community reports have characterized climate change as a national security threat, though the new assessment could be significant given the aversion to climate science and policy expressed by many in the Trump administration.
Linking climate change and national security has long been politically controversial. Democratic lawmakers like Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT) have often drawn the scorn of Republicans for referring to climate change as the “biggest threat” facing the United States.
Nonetheless, Defense Secretary James Mattis has said climate change poses a security threat and has pledged to continue the department's efforts to address climate impacts that affect resources and readiness.
“I agree that the effects of a changing climate -- such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others -- impact our national security situation,” he wrote in written responses during his Senate confirmation process. Mattis also committed to ensuring that the Defense Department (DOD) “continues to be prepared to conduct operations today and in the future, and that we are prepared to address the effects of a changing climate on our threat assessments, resources, and readiness.”
Despite Mattis' commitments, however, DOD is weighing whether to rescind or revise an overarching directive issued in early 2016 that guides the department's preparation for climate change impacts. But current and former government sources doubt that DOD will pull back from preparing for the consequences of climate change such as flooding or Arctic ice melt.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/intelligence-agencies-list-climate-change-security-threat
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested