Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 6/1/2017

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) The 2017 Washington Forum: A New Atmosphere
Jun 1, 2017 | Products Finishing Magazine
By Jeff Hannapel and Christian Richter

... Even with a deregulatory agenda informing the agency, EPA is still expected to implement major chemicals regulations in the coming year since proposed by Congress last year under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

LCSA News

Nanomaterials Users Fault Draft EPA Reporting Guide, Call For Rule Repeal
May 31, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds

Nanomaterials users and producers are faulting EPA's draft guidance for implementing its nano reporting rule for failing to clarify which substances are covered by the regulation, vowing to highlight their concerns in comments on the policy but also renewing their push to repeal the entire rule either administratively or through litigation.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) California Senate Passes Ingredient Disclosure Bill
Jun 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin

California's Senate has passed a bill that would require increased disclosure of ingredients in cleaning products.
(ACC Mentioned) In California Battles Over Product Labels, Industry Usually Wins
Jun 1, 2017 | CALmatters
By Laurel Rosenhall

Nail polish and hair dye. Cleaning products. Plants and flowers for the garden. All of these could get new labels under proposals being considered by California lawmakers, triggering an annual conflict in the state Capitol over how much to tell people about what they buy at the store or use at work.
How Household Chemicals Can Hurt Young Girls' Health
May 31, 2017 | TIME
By Alexandra Sifferlin

A new study shows that early-life exposure to certain phthalates — a group of chemicals found in a wide variety of household items including shampoos, perfumes, nail polish, plastic toys, house building materials and more — is linked to lowered thyroid function in young girls.
Companies Should Take Charge of the Potential Toxins in Common Products
May 31, 2017 | Phys.Org
By Dana Cordell, Dena Fam And Nick Florin

Every year thousands of new contaminants enter the market in common consumer products and are washed down our drains without treatment.
Occidental Didn't Report Asbestos Imports, Groups to Claim in Suit
Jun 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

Three public health organizations are threatening to sue the Occidental Chemical Corp. for allegedly failing to report to the Environmental Protection Agency its importation and use of nearly 900,000 pounds of asbestos.
BPA Alternatives In Thermal Paper May Cause Developmental Effects
Jun 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch

Some bisphenol A (BPA) alternatives used in thermal paper may have the potential to cause developmental effects, according to a Dutch study.
Court Revokes US EPA Approval Of Nanosilver Product
Jun 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger

A California federal appeals court has revoked the US EPA's conditional approval of a product containing nanosilver because it could not confirm that its use was in the public interest.
Safety of Nike Field Renovation Questioned
May 31, 2017 | Fairfax Connection

Fairfax County is moving forward with plans to convert a grass field at the Great Falls Nike Park into a turf field and add lighting, but a handful of concerned citizens have problems with the idea.
UK Intends to Propose Dechlorane Plus for Candidate List
Jun 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch

The UK authorities have submitted an intention to propose adding 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 (dechlorane plus) to the REACH candidate list of SVHCs.

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) Trade Group Pitches Appalachian Region As New Petrochemicals Hub
May 31, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish

The Gulf Coast has long reigned supreme as the top region for petrochemicals in the country. Now, a report released by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) argues that the Appalachian region could be developed into the country’s No. 2 location.
EPA Methane Regulations Officially on Hold
Jun 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz

An Obama-era EPA rule designed to limit methane leaks from oil and gas wells is officially on hold, as the agency's new leadership begins the formal process of weighing whether to repeal it altogether.
USGS Study: Fracking Not A Significant Chemical Risk For Drinking Water
May 31, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

Hydraulic fracturing is not a significant source of dangerous chemicals in drinking water wells, a new U.S. Geological Survey study released today shows.

Chemical Security News

Trump Must Not Block Efforts to Prevent Chemical Disasters
May 31, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Pam Nixon

Millions of Americans live near chemical plants and are vulnerable if disaster strikes, yet the Trump administration stopped new important safety measures from taking effect any time soon.
Key Requirements for Employees Transporting Hazmats
Jun 1, 2017 | Occupational Health & Safety Online
By Karen D. Hamel

Between OSHA and EPA's training requirements, employees who handle hazardous materials in their workplace should be very familiar with the hazards presented by any of the chemicals they work with daily.
US OSHA Seeks Input On Positions For UN GHS Conference
Jun 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch

The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) is to hold a public meeting to discuss proposals in preparation for the 33rd session of the United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (UNSCEGHS).

Transportation News

Railroads Get Federal Funds to Install Train Safety Tech
May 31, 2017 | The Hill - Transportation
By Melanie Zanona

More than a dozen rail systems around the country have received federal funding to help speed up their efforts to install a major train safety technology that many railroads have struggled to adopt.
Rail Systems Get Millions to Improve Safety
May 31, 2017 | The Sacramento Bee
By Jessica Campisi

Seventeen of the nation’s commuter and intercity railroads will get millions from the federal government to beef up safety with automatic systems aimed at slowing down trains in dangerous situations.

Environment News

EU, China to Reaffirm Paris Agreement Commitment, as U.S. Wavers
Jun 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner

The European Union and China will reaffirm their commitment to the United Nations Paris Agreement on climate change during a June 1–2 summit in Brussels, despite uncertainty about continued U.S. participation in the deal.
Musk Leads CEOs’ Full-Court Press on Paris as Trump Weighs Exit
Jun 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy

As Donald Trump nears a final decision on the Paris climate agreement, top corporate executives are mounting a last-minute push aimed at persuading the president that the U.S. has more to lose from abandoning the accord.
How Bannon And Pruitt Boxed In Trump On Climate Pact
May 31, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Andrew Restuccia and Josh Dawsey

Donald Trump’s chief strategist and EPA administrator maneuvered for months to get the president to exit the Paris climate accord, shrewdly playing to his populist instincts and publicly pressing the narrative that the nearly 200-nation deal was effectively dead — boxing in the president on one of his highest-profile decisions to date.
Exxon Investors to Company: Make Climate Curb Fallout Public
Jun 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joe Carroll

Exxon Mobil Corp. investors, in a split with the company, urged the explorer to publish a detailed analysis next year on how carbon curbs could affect the value of its oil fields, refineries and pipelines.
A New Proposal on California's Cap-and-Trade Program Emerges as Vote is Delayed
May 31, 2017 | Los Angeles Times
By Chris Megerian, Liam Dillon and Melanie Mason

A coalition of business-friendly Democrats is detailing their own ideas for cap and trade, a centerpiece of California's fight against global warming, the latest bid in a crowded field of efforts to extend the program.
Eying Planned Budget Cuts, States Identify Dozens Of EPA Rules To Scrap
Jun 1, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Amanda Palleschi

State officials are urging EPA to “repeal, replace or modify” scores of federal rules, steps that if adopted would ease states' abilities to implement federal requirements as they weigh plans to slim their programs to absorb the Trump administration's proposed budget cuts in fiscal year 2018.
EPA Allows Obama-Era Air And Enforcement Rules To Take Effect
Jun 1, 2017 | Inside EPA

EPA has allowed an air emissions modeling rule and administrative rules governing enforcement actions, both finalized in the last weeks of the Obama administration, to go into effect after initially delaying their effective date to give the Trump administration time to review the policies.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) The 2017 Washington Forum: A New Atmosphere

Jun 1, 2017 | Products Finishing Magazine

By Jeff Hannapel and Christian Richter

Attendees at this year’s Forum met in an atmosphere distinctly different from recent industry meetings in Washington. Coinciding with President Trump’s first 100 days in office, the event hosted national figures from both parties and gave industry leaders the chance to discuss pertinent issues in surface finishing.
Successes and Predictions: Deregulation, NAFTA, Taxes and Others
Attendees heard contrasting perspectives on the President’s agenda from former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. Lewandowski, who continues to be a close outside advisor to the President, offered insight into Trump’s freewheeling campaign and governing style, his early success for business on deregulation, and the far-reaching impact of Supreme Court appointments.
Politico magazine founder and media entrepreneur Jim VandeHei also addressed attendees. VandeHei, who recently launched the new political media company Axios, highlighted the President’s risks and vulnerabilities as well as issues surrounding the “super polarization” in U.S. politics and media, a trend he argued will make the nation worse before it gets better.
On automotive issues, Ann Wilson, senior vice president of the Motor Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA), noted that NAFTA is more than 20 years old and an update is appropriate. She highlighted concerns suppliers have about the unintended consequences for the automotive industry if the White House and lawmakers on Capitol Hill aren’t careful in tackling the issues.
Economist Peter Morici and Washington trade counselor Skip Hartquist both noted that the U.S. could benefit from minimal changes to NAFTA and that the U.S.-China trade relationship needed much more attention going forward. Returning keynote Andy Friedman of “The Washington Update” rounded out the discussion with a review of tax and budget policy. He pointed to the economic benefits of deregulation and how potential tax reform changes could benefit small and medium sized U.S. manufacturers.
NASF Reception with Guest U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth
U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Illinois) told the Forum’s Capitol Hill reception attendees of her aim to tackle workforce quality and training needs for manufacturers. Her comments echoed the remarks on rebuilding small manufacturing from speaker Tom Sullivan, vice president of Small Business Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
In introducing Duckworth, NASF Government Advisory Committee Chairman Rick Delawder noted that the association is always ready to work with both sides of the aisle to get the right things done for the industry. He highlighted the recent NASF Job Shop survey showing workforce availability as the top issue for member companies in the first quarter of 2017.
Environmental, Health & Safety Developments: U.S. and Europe
Some of the best news at the Forum included the release of a recent NASF case study on the industry’s wastewater treatment trends. The findings show a major environmental success story for finishing. John Lindstedt of Advanced Plating Technologies in Wisconsin, who oversaw the study with the NASF Government Advisory Committee and NASF headquarters, summarized the changes made by the industry on wastewater control trends.
The study gives the EPA more data to help decide this summer on whether to propose a new round of potentially more stringent federal surface finishing effluent regulations under the Clean Water Act. NASF presented the study to EPA water officials later in the week following the Forum.
Even with a deregulatory agenda informing the agency, EPA is still expected to implement major chemicals regulations in the coming year since proposed by Congress last year under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill want to ensure the agency is carrying out the law, which includes identifying a list of high priority chemicals that will be selected from a longer existing list that includes several metals, including nickel. David Fischer, a senior director at American Chemistry Council, briefed attendees on which TSCA provisions to watch in the coming months.
On the health and safety front, David Sarvadi of Keller & Keckman gave an overview of the key policy reversals so far at the Department of Labor, including OSHA’s injury and illness reporting rules, the overtime rule, and other pending changes. Sarvadi noted that the new leadership likely to take the helm soon at OSHA will take a markedly different approach to the workplace than those in the previous administration.
Dr. Hudson Bates, head of the Nickel Producers Environmental Research Association (NiPERA), gave a global update and pointed to California, Oregon and other states as sources of more stringent air regulations for finishing in the coming months. NASF’s Christian Richter and Jeff Hannapel confirmed the industry would see more regulatory action from certain states and noted that NASF headquarters will be joining Southern California finishers for meetings in the coming weeks on a precedent-setting air emissions rule in Los Angeles.
Because Europe and the states also remain in the regulatory mix, NASF hosted both new and familiar speakers to the Forum. Rainer Venz, President of the German Electroplaters Association, gave a European policy update to the Forum. He pointed to European Union regulatory actions under the REACh chemicals framework, some of which could affect North American finishing.
The Plating Shop Closest to the White House
Attendees got a break from policy matters to hear from Steve Olszowy, plate making supervisor at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Olszowy introduced the crowd to his work in producing and plating the plates that print U.S. currency.
He walked through each step of the process, including nickel and chrome plating, where a printing plate is coated with a thin layer of chrome that contains the currency image in recessed grooves only 0.002" deep. The plating shop and related production processes are just across the Mall from the Washington Monument.
NASF Industry Advocacy in Congress and at EPA
Several NASF state delegations went to Capitol Hill on the last day of the Forum to visit House and Senate representatives. They shared the industry’s priorities on regulation, trade and taxes with members and legislative staff. Representatives of the NASF Government Advisory Committee—John Lindstedt, Becky Bennett (Precision Plating Company) and Rick Delawder (SWD Inc.)—joined NASF’s lobbying team, Christian Richter and Jeff Hannapel, for meetings with EPA on the agency’s upcoming decision on whether to revise the finishing industry’s existing effluent guidelines.
Bob Sica Receives NASF Taormina Award
One of the top highlights of the Forum was the presentation of the Taormina Award to Bob Sica of New Brunswick Plating in New Jersey. NASF president, Paul Brancato, who introduced Bob, noted the effectiveness and consistency of Bob’s leadership and contributions over time to the industry, the association, his business and his family. Bob expressed with heartfelt gratitude how thankful he was to be a part of the industry for many years and for his opportunity to give back for the greater good of the association. Bob was joined by his wife, Doff, and other family members and friends for a truly memorable moment.
http://www.pfonline.com/articles/nasf-report-june-2017

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

Nanomaterials Users Fault Draft EPA Reporting Guide, Call For Rule Repeal

May 31, 2017 | Inside EPA

By Dave Reynolds

Nanomaterials users and producers are faulting EPA's draft guidance for implementing its nano reporting rule for failing to clarify which substances are covered by the regulation, vowing to highlight their concerns in comments on the policy but also renewing their push to repeal the entire rule either administratively or through litigation.
EPA is taking comment through June 15 on its “Draft Guidance on EPA’s Section 8(a) Information Gathering Rule on Nanomaterials in Commerce.” Industry officials, who argued that the Obama administration rushed out the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a) reporting rule without addressing their criticisms of a proposed version, now say the guidance also fails to provide sufficient information for companies to comply.
James Votaw, of Keller and Heckman, LLP, who advises nanomaterials producers and users, said in a May 26 interview that EPA's May 16 draft guide fails to adequately define terms, such as “unique and novel properties,” meaning companies still do not know what substances to report. This confusion means that the agency could end up receiving large swaths of unnecessary data from companies, he said.
“The draft guidance, in a lot of ways, only repeats what's already in the preamble” to the final rule, Votaw said, adding that while the draft includes helpful details, roughly half of it offers nothing new. “It's not clear, which are the properties that really matter and what they want to see reported."
A second industry source agrees, saying the draft guide fails to clarify critical terms, including the definition of a solid, and also introduces new terms like “surface treatment” in place of “coating,” creating further confusion.
Both sources said they are pleased that EPA has delayed the rule's effective date from May 12 to Aug. 14, and is taking comment on strengthening the guide, and that they will be filing comments.
But if EPA fails to address their concerns by revising the final version of the guidance, they said companies could file a lawsuit challenging the rule's enforcement, arguing that the agency failed to provide adequate clarity for a company to know whether or how they needed to comply. The legal deadline for challenging the rule itself has passed.
Despite potential problems surrounding the rule's implementation, the sources differ on industry's prospects for scaling back or repealing the reporting rule under the Trump administration's deregulatory efforts.
Votaw said that the Trump administration provided narrow windows for the public to provide input on rolling back numerous Obama era regulations, and for agencies to compile a plan for repealing and replacing controversial rules. Although he said that industry could argue that the nano reporting rule is unwieldy and not required TSCA, and so is a strong candidate for repeal, the limited time frame poses a challenge for the agency.
It is not clear “how an agency can, in a responsible way, go through 85,000 comments and give them any sort of thoughtful consideration,” Votaw said. “It's very hard to come up with thoughtful reform alternatives under those short time frames.”
Regulatory Review
But the second industry source argues that given that the nano reporting rule imposes significant burdens on small businesses and is not required under TSCA, rolling it back under President Donald Trump's deregulatory orders remains a possibility. The source cited that option as a reason why industry did not challenge the rule in federal court.
“One of the reasons why industry chose not to use the leverage available through the courts is because of the leverage that became available under the new administration taking a hard look at regulations,” the source says. “We consider it still to be very much a viable option.”
EPA's Jan. 12 final rule established reporting and recordkeeping requirements for certain substances manufactured or processed at the nanoscale, as defined in the final rule. 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 issued the rule, after years of wrangling with the nano industry, including repeated calls for the agency to withdraw its April 6, 2015, draft rule and issue a revised version after further consultation with industry.
The Nanomanufacturing Association (NMA), an alliance of companies and trade associations that advocate on policies addressing products in which nanomaterials play a role, in March comments urged the Department of Commerce to recommend EPA's nano reporting rule for repeal under the Trump administration deregulatory efforts.
The group argued that the rule exceeds EPA authority under TSCA, imposes unnecessary burdens, and fails to provide adequate information for implementation such as how to identify reportable substances. NMA reiterated that call in April 25 comments to an EPA public meeting on regulatory reform.
“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. “The TSCA Section 8(a) Reporting Rule for Nanomaterials was issued as a discretionary action that EPA was not required to take under TSCA and it will not adversely impact environmental protection to eliminate this paperwork reporting rule."
The industry groups submitted both comments in response to Trump's Executive Order (EO) 13777, which requires EPA and other agencies to identify existing regulations for repeal or modification.
While the agency may face significant time constraints for forwarding to White House officials recommendations of rules to repeal under that order, the second industry source says that another Trump EO, 13771, which calls for repealing two rules for every new one, does not impose tight deadlines on agencies.
And while industry officials have raised concerns that a lack of political appointees confirmed at EPA may mean that agency staff may lack the political leadership for tough deregulatory decisions, the source says that EPA Deputy General Counsel David Fotouhi recently told an American Bar Association meeting that agency leadership is cooperating with agency toxic officials to advance the administration's deregulatory agenda.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/nanomaterials-users-fault-draft-epa-reporting-guide-call-rule-repeal

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) California Senate Passes Ingredient Disclosure Bill

Jun 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch

By Kelly Franklin

California's Senate has passed a bill that would require increased disclosure of ingredients in cleaning products.
The Cleaning Product Right to Know Act (SB 258) says such items must bear a label listing ingredients and 'contaminants of concern', plus pictograms communicating potential health concerns. Manufacturers would also have to provide a website where additional information could be found.
Like a similar measure that failed to clear the Assembly last year, the bill is opposed by major industry groups, including the American Chemistry Council (ACC), American Cleaning Institute (ACI) and Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA). However, dozens of NGOs and manufacturers of products that already disclose their ingredients support it.
The bill passed the Senate by a thin margin, with one vote more than the 21 minimum needed to clear the chamber. Fifteen senators voted against it.
Its approval comes just before the 2 June deadline for bills to pass out of their chamber of origin. It will now move to the Assembly, where negotiations on controversial aspects are expected to continue.
In floor remarks, the bill's author, Senator Ricardo Lara (D), called for its approval to "allow us to continue the work we are doing with industry and other stakeholders" to reach an agreement on complexities presented by the bill.
Addressing industry concerns, he said he completely agreed that "it doesn't make sense to disclose everything on the physical label itself". And, he added, the legislature needs to "provide businesses with the mechanism by which they can protect their proprietary information and trade secrets."
A working group has been convened to reconcile these differences, he said. "Both sides are diligently working to reach an agreement that balances the interests of the industry and the needs of employers and the health and safety of consumers and workers to know what is in the products they are using."Assembly advances additional measures
California's Assembly has also seen a flurry of activity in advance of the June legislative deadline.
It unanimously approved an industry-backed bill regarding private enforcement of Proposition 65 (AB 1583). This would mandate the attorney general, after reviewing a certificate of merit made by a person alleging a violation of Prop 65 warning requirements, to serve a letter to the notifying party and the alleged violator if it is believed the action does not have merit.
The chamber also passed a bill to address childhood lead poisoning. This had originally called for all children to be screened for blood lead levels, but has since been amended.
As approved by the Assembly, AB 1316 would direct the health department to revise its regulations for the childhood lead poisoning prevention programme to redefine the risk assessment to include significant risk factors beyond living in a building constructed since 1978.
Votes are also expected before the week's end on two additional measures:AB 958, to ban all long-chain perfluorinated and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS), including PFOA, from commerce and take action on short-chain versions in food packaging; andAB 1575, to require professional cosmetic products to be labelled for all ingredient, to protect worker health.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56214/california-senate-passes-ingredient-disclosure-bill

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) In California Battles Over Product Labels, Industry Usually Wins

Jun 1, 2017 | CALmatters

By Laurel Rosenhall

Nail polish and hair dye. Cleaning products. Plants and flowers for the garden.
All of these could get new labels under proposals being considered by California lawmakers, triggering an annual conflict in the state Capitol over how much to tell people about what they buy at the store or use at work.
The bills reflect a recurring tension in the statehouse: Environmentalists and consumer advocates argue that people have a right to know what’s in everyday products, while industry lobbyists say putting too much information on a label could harm sales by creating unfounded fear. In most cases, industry wins.
Already this year, the Democratic-controlled Legislature sidelined a bill to label soda and other sugary drinks with warnings that they contribute to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay – a proposal lawmakers have rejected for the last few years. They also killed a different bill that would have added warning labels to foods containing synthetic dyes. In past years, lawmakers rejected bills to label genetically-engineered foods and require ingredients to be listed on the labels of cleaning products.
“You’re fighting the manufacturers, the retailers, the chemistry industry and a long list of business groups who are probably irrelevant with the general public but are highly relevant within the Capitol,” said Richard Holober, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California, which supports more information on labels. “It’s almost always an uphill battle.”
Business groups that oppose such bills work to influence the process in ways big and small. They donate to political campaigns, hire well-connected lobbyists and provide goodies to lawmakers and their staffs. As Pepsi-Co lobbied against the soda-labeling bill this year, it donated more than $3,800 worth of products to fundraising parties for four lawmakers – including $442 to an event for Sen. Ed Hernandez, chairman of the health committee in which the bill stalled.
The Personal Care Products Council, which opposes legislation to list ingredients on beauty products, hosts an annual reception for lawmakers and their staffs. Thirty of them attended last year’s event at a swanky restaurant near the Capitol, and the group gave gift bags to an additional 145.
The business groups also make persuasive arguments about the downsides of slapping products with new labels: The supply chain becomes complicated if one state requires labels different from others, label requirements create the potential for new lawsuits and consumers could become confused by label information without much context.
“If you say there’s a chemical in something, the connotation is that it’s bad, when in reality chemicals serve a number of valuable purposes,” said Michael Shaw, a lobbyist for the California Manufacturers and Technology Association.
“It creates concerns about the product that aren’t necessarily legitimate concerns.”
The possibility that new labels could change what people buy is exactly why these bills remain a perpetual battleground in Sacramento. Here are a few bills still pending that would require new product labels:
What’s in that window cleaner?
Senate Bill 258, by Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens), would require that cleaning products carry labels listing all ingredients and a pictogram illustrating their potential health effects. Environmentalists, health advocates and a union representing janitors support the bill, arguing that it would allow people to avoid products that may cause them harm.
“I have seen firsthand how chemicals have impacted my coworkers through breathing problems or exposure to the skin,” janitor Marvin Mugallo testified at a hearing in March.
The chemical industry, as well as groups representing manufacturers and retailers, are fighting the bill. They say disclosing ingredients could give away trade secrets and listing potentially hundreds of chemicals on a label is impractical for companies and unhelpful to consumers.
“Just because a product might contain a certain chemical, it would be inappropriate to send a message that that product may somehow be harmful to human health and the environment,” said Tim Shestek, a lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council.
Lawmakers killed a similar proposal last year.
Hair dye and health concerns
Beauty products sold at the retail level already must list their ingredients. Assembly Bill 1575, by Assemblyman Ash Kalra (D-San Jose), would put a similar requirement on cosmetics used in beauty salons. The bill is supported by many groups that advocate for women’s health; their position is that hair stylists and nail salon workers are exposed to harsh chemicals on the job.
“At work, I often experience headaches and skin rashes that I believe may be related to the products I used. Many of my coworkers experience similar symptoms,” nail salon worker Kathy Pham testified.
The Personal Care Products Council opposes the bill, saying it already lists cosmetic ingredients on information sheets that salons are required to make available to their employees.
“Our companies often provide [this] information in multiple languages – not just English – in recognition of the diversity of the workplace professionals that use our products,” said Thomas Myers, a lawyer for the group.
Could your daisies hurt bees?
Advocates who want to stem the ongoing decline in the population of bees have proposed Senate Bill 602, filed by Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), which would add a new label to flowers and plants that have been treated with certain pesticides. Nursery shoppers would see a label that says, “State of California Safety Warning: May harm bees,” on plants and seed packets treated with a class of chemicals known as neonicotinoids.
Those chemicals have been found in tomato plants, salvias and daisies and remain in the plant long after the initial application, said Paul Towers, organizing director of the Pesticide Action Network, which supports the measure. Labels would help consumers, he said, because many “don’t have any knowledge that products they’re purchasing may in fact harm bees or kill them outright.”
Numerous agricultural groups and gardening stores oppose the bill. Their lobbyist, Louis Brown, Jr., challenged the value of a new label, saying it “informs consumers of very little.”
“In our mind,” he said, “warning without context is nothing but… instigating fear to keep people from buying products.”
https://calmatters.org/articles/california-battles-product-labels-industry-usually-wins/

Return to headline | Return to top
How Household Chemicals Can Hurt Young Girls' Health

May 31, 2017 | TIME

By Alexandra Sifferlin

A new study shows that early-life exposure to certain phthalates — a group of chemicals found in a wide variety of household items including shampoos, perfumes, nail polish, plastic toys, house building materials and more — is linked to lowered thyroid function in young girls.
The new study, published in the journal Environment International looked at 229 women during pregnancy and 229 children who were three years old. The researchers found that exposure to a common group of phthalates in childhood was associated with lower levels of active thyroid function in 3-year-old girls. In general, phthalates are thought to be endocrine disruptors, which means they interfere with the body's hormones. Thyroid function is important because thyroid hormones help control proper brain development.
"I think the message to consumers is be careful of the products they use," says study author Pam Factor-Litvak, a professor of epidemiology at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health . "Depressed thyroid hormones are associated in many studies with feelings of depression, anxiety and behavior problems in children as well as metabolic issues later in life."
The researchers did not find the same connection between phthalates exposure and lower thyroid function among boys, or the same effects from prenatal exposures. Factor-Litvak says that thyroid-related problems are more common among women than men, and that girls may be more susceptible to chemicals' effects on thyroid function, though that is still speculative. In past studies, researchers at the Columbia University have linked phthalates exposure to lower IQ at a young age, asthma during childhood and mental development issues.
Avoiding phthalates exposure can be tough because it's not currently required that they be listed on product labels, but products that list “fragrance" tend to contain them. While many companies are replacing p hthalates in their products, Factor-Litvak says there's still concern about what the replacement ingredients might be, and whether they are safer. To better understand how exposure could impact thyroid function, Factor-Litvak and her colleagues plan to continue to study the children as they grow older.
http://time.com/4799330/household-chemicals-phthalates-thyroid-girls/

Return to headline | Return to top
Companies Should Take Charge of the Potential Toxins in Common Products

May 31, 2017 | Phys.Org

By Dana Cordell, Dena Fam And Nick Florin

Every year thousands of new contaminants enter the market in common consumer products and are washed down our drains without treatment. They end up in the water we drink, the fish we eat, and other marine life. These contaminants are lawfully produced and sold by the chemical, pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries.
Contaminants can range from microbeads and nanoparticles in cosmetics, to microthreads or cancer-causing NPEs and pthalates in synthetic clothing and flame retardants. They can also be antimicrobials and endocrine disruptors from our medication.
Regulations are unable to keep up with the barrage of potentially dangerous contaminants entering the market. Instead, we believe companies should take more responsibility for the damage they cause our environment and public health, by making sure their products aren't toxic before they hit the market.
Tens of thousands of contaminants
Contaminants in common products like shampoos, toothpaste and makeup are almost impossible to manage once they hit our shelves. Once sold, they almost inevitably end up washed down the drain, where the burden of dealing with them falls largely on the taxpayer-funded wastewater system.
US researchers have identified some 80,000 chemical contaminants in wastewater sludge, while the European Union has identified at least 140,000. It is hard to say how many exist in Australian wastewater, but given that Australian consumers buy and use similar products to Americans and Europeans, we can safely assume broadly similar levels.
This makes for a vast range of substances for regulators to consider. Furthermore, restricted pollutants, such as bisphenol A (BPA), can be substituted with compounds that haven't attracted the same level of scrutiny. Current guidelines mostly focus on a narrow list of "mainstream" contaminants, such as heavy metals like lead and mercury.
The environmental risk is increased by the changing ways we manage solid waste and wastewater, especially as waste is increasingly diverted for use in energy and food production. We need to act on the potential threat of chemical compounds in our wastewater that don't break down or become concentrated in higher quantities as they move up the food chain. And wastewater contaminants are typically much harder than solid waste to trace back to their original source.
The potential impacts on the environment, human health and infrastructure are broad and in many cases unknown. Some contaminants can exert their toxic effects in local aquatic ecosystems very quickly. An example is the impact of oestrogen on the feminisation of fish.
While other countries have begun regulating these hazardous compounds, we are falling behind. A Greenpeace report, Toxic Threads, singled out Australia as at risk of becoming the dumping ground of the Western world.
Presently, much of the burden to manage these risks falls on wastewater service providers, environmental protection authorities, regulatory bodies and ultimately ratepayers. However, we have the opportunity to transform how we manage tens of thousands of emergent and existing contaminants. We have the potential to involve the companies that produce these contaminants in their responsible life cycle management to ensure environmental and public health is maintained.

Extending responsibility to producers
These companies can take a lesson from the solid waste sector. A good example is the EU, where manufacturers of everything from cars to carpets can be legally required to take back their products at the end of their life. This is known as "extended producer responsibility", or product stewardship.
A UN project, Chemicals in Products, helps fill in knowledge gaps along product supply chains to ensure potentially hazardous chemicals can be traced back to their source. In Australia, more than 20 predominantly voluntary industry-led initiatives promote active responsibility for products across their lifespan, including after they have been discarded.
These schemes can help to drive innovations in product and process design, such as building computers and refrigerators for easy disassembly and reuse. Currently, such rules only apply to solid waste products, but the federal government's Product Stewardship Act (2011) is soon to be reviewed. There's an opportunity to expand this type of extended producer responsibility approach to a broader range of products and contaminants that end up in wastewater to better share management and the burden of clean-up among manufacturers, retailers, waste service providers and consumers.
Transforming our approach
Given the rate at which new contaminants of unknown toxicity enter our cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and cleaning products (and end up in our waterways), the precautionary principle may need to apply.
For example, companies could be required to prove their new chemical compounds have a benign effect on the environment and human health before being released onto the market.
This precautionary principle, which puts the burden of proof on companies, was first applied to hazardous chemicals introduced to the European market. This pre-market approach has since been implemented in California and China.
Mitigating risks of individual contaminants will require a range of possible policy, industry and consumer responses. In the case of microbeads, for example, consumers can choose to avoid buying such products, and governments can and are banning microbeads.
Extended producer responsibility provides an incentive for industry to avoid contaminants altogether at the product design stage. In the pharmaceutical industry there are examples of companies adopting "green chemistry" approaches that avoid the use of hazardous ingredients in the production of medicines and the need for downstream waste treatment. Either way, questions about the potential risks and environmental impact of the different approaches taken will need to be answered.
However, managing unknown risks of thousands of emergent contaminants in wastewater for which there is little traceability – and hence accountability – may require an integrated and precautionary approach. But the question still remains: whose responsibility?
https://phys.org/news/2017-05-companies-potential-toxins-common-products.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Occidental Didn't Report Asbestos Imports, Groups to Claim in Suit

Jun 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

Three public health organizations are threatening to sue the Occidental Chemical Corp. for allegedly failing to report to the Environmental Protection Agency its importation and use of nearly 900,000 pounds of asbestos.
The company, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum Corp., failed to report its importation and use of asbestos in 2013, 2014 and 2015 as required by the EPA's Chemical Data Reporting rule, the coalition said in May 30 letters to the chemical corporation and to EPA. The letters were sent by the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization; Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families; and the Environmental Health Strategy Center.
Occidental denied any wrongdoing.
“The claim has no merit. OxyChem complied with environmental regulations that allow reporting exemptions for some naturally occurring chemical substances (“NOCS”),” Occidental said in a statement emailed to Bloomberg BNA. The Chemical Data Reporting rule includes an exemption for naturally occurring chemical substances, it said.
The primary commercial chemicals law in the U.S., the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), authorizes citizens to file civil actions aimed at compelling a company, organization or the EPA to comply with the statute. Section 20 of TSCA requires citizens to give the parties they intend to sue and the agency 60 days notice of their intent to litigate, Robert Sussman, an attorney working for the coalition, told Blomberg BNA. The coalition's letters constitute that 60-day notice, he said.
An EPA spokesman declined to comment, citing the agency's longstanding policy of not discussing ongoing or potential litigation with the media.
Making Chlorine, Other Chemicals
Occidental Chemical Corp., or OxyChem, manufactures chloralkali products such as chlorine and caustic soda, commodity chemicals used for water treatment, paper production, and other purposes. The chloralkali industry uses a wet process to transform the dry asbestos shipments it receives into a diaphragm. That diaphragm is designed to prevent dangerous chemical reactions during the chlorine and caustic soda manufacturing process.
The U.S. Geological Survey estimated U.S. usage of asbestos in 2016 to be about 340 tons. The chloralkali industry's use “likely accounted” for 100 percent of that total asbestos imported, USGS said in its 2017 Mineral Commodity Summaries.
Occidental's alleged failure to report its asbestos use to the EPA deprived the agency of information it needs as it prepares to assess the risks of asbestos, the coalition wrote in a press release announcing its threatened lawsuits. Asbestos is among the first 10 chemicals the EPA is evaluating under the 2016 overhaul of TSCA.
Two other companies—Axiall Corp. and Olin Corp.—reported their imports of asbestos to the EPA during its 2016 Chemical Data Reporting submission period, the EPA said in a Preliminary Information on Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution, Use, and Disposal report issued in February.
“The imported amounts cannot be disclosed due to company claims of Confidential Business Information (CBI),” EPA said.
EPA will combine Chemical Data Reporting rule and data from many other sources in a risk assessment of asbestos it has undertaken. The 2016 TSCA amendments direct the agency to publish the scope of that risk assessment, and those for nine other chemicals it is assessing by June 19.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=113106623&vname=dennotallissues&fn=113106623&jd=113106623

Return to headline | Return to top
BPA Alternatives In Thermal Paper May Cause Developmental Effects

Jun 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch

Some bisphenol A (BPA) alternatives used in thermal paper may have the potential to cause developmental effects, according to a Dutch study.
Structural analogues to BPA are widely used as alternatives, but little is known about their possible toxic effects, says a team from Vrije University.
The researchers screened 100 cash receipts and 41 other paper products including cinema tickets and boarding passes. As well as BPA and BPS, they found a range of structurally related chemicals, including Pergafast 201, D-8, D-90, TGSA and BPS-MAE, some of which have not been reported before.
Around half of the receipts from The Netherlands, Sweden and Norway contained Pergafast 201 and D-8. Although Pergafast 201 has a more complex structure than BPS, D-8 is very similar, with one additional alkyl group.
The team's tests on zebrafish embryos suggest that D-8 and TGSA (which has one more benzene ring than BPS) may have similar "abnormal developmental effects" to BPA.
The researchers also used an in vitro bioassay to gain some insight into possible oestrogenic effects. The results indicate very low or no oestrogenic activity for Pergafast 201, D-8, D-90, TGSA and BPS-MAE compared with BPA and BPS.
"I think it is necessary to check the toxicity of all these chemicals carefully with different bioassays, since they seem widely used and our results on toxicity are only preliminary and limited," said lead researcher Ana Ballesteros-Gómez.
Meanwhile, as an analytical chemist, she is focusing on uncovering the presence of emerging contaminants in other products, such as plastics, cosmetics or textiles.
The study is published in Science of the Total Environment.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56220/bpa-alternatives-in-thermal-paper-may-cause-developmental-effects

Return to headline | Return to top
Court Revokes US EPA Approval Of Nanosilver Product

Jun 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch

By Vanessa Zainzinger

A California federal appeals court has revoked the US EPA's conditional approval of a product containing nanosilver because it could not confirm that its use was in the public interest.
The agency had temporarily registered the product "Nanosilva" under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticides Act (Fifra), arguing that it had the potential to reduce the amount of silver released into the environment.
Fifra allows temporary registrations where products do not have enough supporting data to determine their long-term use is safe. But the EPA must first agree that use of the product is in the public interest.
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the agency's conditional approval of Nanosilva was based on two "unsubstantiated assumptions". The EPA had argued that current users of conventional silver biocides would replace them with Nanosilva, and that the product's incorporation into new products would decrease the amount of silver released into the environment.
According to the court the agency cites no evidence to support these assumptions. It merely argued that substitution would occur as a "logical matter".
If the EPA's assumptions are wrong, Nanosilva may in fact increase the amount of silver released into the environment, the court concluded.
It said the core flaw in the EPA's public interest findings is that it "assumed, without citing evidence, that [Nanosilva] would be used enough by some, but not too much by others, to reduce the amount of silver released into the environment."
Meanwhile, the court agreed with the EPA's findings that Nanosilva uses less silver and is less likely to release it into the environment than conventional silver biocides.
The EPA's arguments were disputed by the three NGOs who mounted the legal challenge to the EPA's conditional approval of Nanosilva, in 2015. They had argued that the increased toxicity of nanosilver outweighs any benefits gained from a lower application rate. And they claimed that the agency's findings relied on deficient studies.
The Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the NGOs behind the legal challenge, says the court's decision is "an important victory for public health".
"Nanosilver is known to be highly toxic to aquatic life, and may be hazardous to people. EPA rushed to judgment by approving it, leaving consumers to be guinea pigs. Now the agency must take a closer look at its potential to cause harm," says NRDC senior scientist, Jennifer Sass.
Nanosilva is a materials preservative used in a range of products, such as furniture, shower curtains, wall coverings and sportswear.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56221/court-revokes-us-epa-approval-of-nanosilver-product

Return to headline | Return to top
Safety of Nike Field Renovation Questioned

May 31, 2017 | Fairfax Connection

Fairfax County is moving forward with plans to convert a grass field at the Great Falls Nike Park into a turf field and add lighting, but a handful of concerned citizens have problems with the idea.
#During a public information meeting about the $1.25 million project at the Great Falls Grange on Thursday, May 25, county employees were met with criticism.
#Amy Stephan, a Great Falls resident and advocate with the Safe Healthy Playing Fields Coalition, spoke against converting the Bermuda grass of the field to synthetic turf.
#The plan is to use a turf that uses a three-layer infill system with a top layer of crumb rubber, according to David Bowden, director of the Fairfax County Park Authority Planning and Development Division.
#“These materials that are used in Fairfax County are toxic,” Stephan said during the meeting. “This material breaks down into a fine dust … and creates acute and low-dose exposures [of carcinogens] in every single contact on the field,” she added.
#Last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Consumer Product Safety Commission launched a multi-agency “Federal Research Action Plan on Recycled Tire Crumb Used on Playing Fields and Playgrounds” to study environmental and human health concerns around artificial turf.
#The agencies have not published any findings yet. However, a status report was released on Dec. 30, 2016, that identified chemicals found in tire crumb.
#Chemicals of concern used in tire manufacturing range from polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in carbon black to zinc oxide (ZnO), which is used as a vulcanizing agent and could contain trace amounts of lead and cadmium oxides, according to the status report.
#In the meantime, research continues and the agencies are collecting and analyzing samples of tire crumb material collected from tire recycling plans and synthetic turf fields around the country.
#“This is not a joke,” Stephan said.
#“Our county executives reviewed this with our director of our health department and they made a determination that they are fine with us using crumb rubber on fields in Fairfax County,” Bowden said during the meeting.
#Stephan then quickly rebutted by saying that the statement was “very different from saying they’re safe.”
#“I didn’t say they were safe,” Bowden replied. “I said our county executive with review of our health department has made a decision that it’s OK for us in Fairfax County to … proceed using crumb rubber.”
#“No, what … you’re saying that we’re operating without information on the toxicity,” she fired back.
#“I’m not saying that at all,” he said. “You can interpret what I’m saying however you feel.”
#Bowden also said that the county is participating in the federal artificial turf study.
#“They have used our fields for sampling and if you want to follow along, that’s the best resource I know,” he said.
#Though meeting attendees were told that the LED lighting technology for the field would prevent light from spilling 150 feet outside of the property line, lighting and noise was also a concern for several abutting homeowners.
#The county could schedule the field until 11 p.m., seven days a week, once the lights are installed. The curfew on some of the other fields in the park that have lights is 9 p.m.
#“This is going to be 100 feet from my house and I have two little kids that go to school and you’re going to light it up until 11 o’clock at night,” Joe Dupelle, who lives next to the field on Utterback Store Road, said during the meeting. “Is there anything you’re going to do about noise?”
#Dupelle requested that this new field also have a curfew, which county staff said they would look into implementing.
#Construction is scheduled to begin on the rectangle field No. 7 in the park in late June and is expected to be complete in early September in time for the fall soccer season.
#The Fairfax County Park Authority Board approved a $20,000 grant for the project that will be combined with an $855,000 contribution from the Great Falls Soccer Club and $125,000 from the Neighborhood and Community Services Synthetic Turf Development Mini-Grant Program, and $250,000 from the 2012 Park Bond.
#“I let my kids play on these things a lot before I knew,” Stephan said. “Parents have to wake up and say to [Dranesville Fairfax County Board Supervisor] John Foust and say to their sports groups that they care.”
#Including Stephan, there were only a handful of people at the meeting.
#“It looks like they don’t care,” she said.
http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/news/2017/may/31/safety-nike-field-renovation-questioned/

Return to headline | Return to top
UK Intends to Propose Dechlorane Plus for Candidate List

Jun 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch

The UK authorities have submitted an intention to propose adding 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 (dechlorane plus) to the REACH candidate list of SVHCs.
The UK says the substance, used as a chlorinated flame retardant, is suspected of having very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) properties.
Submission of the proposal is expected by 7 August. It covers any of the substance's individual isomers or any combination.
Dechlorane plus was added to ChemSec's Substitute It Now (SIN) list in 2014 and NGOs say they support its inclusion on the candidate list.
CHEM Trust's Ninja Reineke says dechlorane plus is still widely used, despite concern about its persistent and bioaccumulative properties and its detection in the environment around the globe.
Adding the substance to the candidate list will ensure regulatory measures to protect human health and the environment from its "worrying toxic properties", Health and Environmental Alliance's (HEAL) Natacha Cingotti says.
Meanwhile, ChemSec's Theresa Kjell says more substances should be added to the candidate list as the process has been "much slower than anticipated".
In the US, NGO Toxic Free Future has called on Washington state's Department of Ecology to add dechlorane plus to its chemicals of high concern list (CHCC).
https://chemicalwatch.com/56227/uk-intends-to-propose-dechlorane-plus-for-candidate-list

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) Trade Group Pitches Appalachian Region As New Petrochemicals Hub

May 31, 2017 | Chem.Info

By Meagan Parrish

The Gulf Coast has long reigned supreme as the top region for petrochemicals in the country. Now, a report released by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) argues that the Appalachian region could be developed into the country’s No. 2 location.
The potential plan was presented earlier this month by ACC CEO, Cal Dooley, to lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Dooley expressed the ACC’s support for the Appalachian Ethane Storage Hub Study Act of 2017, a bipartisan bill Dooley said is aimed at “efforts to maximize America’s domestic energy and manufacturing potential.”
“The Appalachian region has distinct benefits that could make it a major petrochemical and plastic resin-producing zone,” Dooley said. “Proximity to a world-class supply of raw materials from the Marcellus/Utica and Rogersville shale formations and to the manufacturing markets of the Midwest and East Coast has already led several companies to announce investment projects, and there is potential for a great deal more.”
Shell, for example, has announced that it plans to build a $6 billion Appalachian petrochemical plant with an annual production capacity of 1.6 million tons of polyethylene.
ACC’s hypothetical plan would supplement projects like Shell’s plant, which take advantage of abundant, low-cost natural gas to produce chemicals. The proposal calls for a new storage hub for natural gas liquids and chemicals, a 500-mile pipeline distribution network and the development of other needed energy infrastructure.
If implemented, ACC estimates that it would create 100,000 permanent jobs by 2025, including 25,700 new chemicals and plastics manufacturing jobs, along with $2.9 billion each year in federal and local taxes revenue.
“Uncertainty around financing is a key barrier to the development of energy infrastructure in the Appalachian region,” Dooley said. “As Congress and the Administration consider infrastructure modernization legislation, the Appalachian Hub should be a priority. And a timely and efficient regulatory permitting process is essential.”
https://www.chem.info/news/2017/05/trade-group-pitches-appalachian-region-new-petrochemicals-hub

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Methane Regulations Officially on Hold

Jun 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By David Schultz

An Obama-era EPA rule designed to limit methane leaks from oil and gas wells is officially on hold, as the agency's new leadership begins the formal process of weighing whether to repeal it altogether.
The Environmental Protection Agency is reconsidering the methane rule because it says the final version of the rule, which came out last summer, diverged too far from a draft version, preventing the public from fully weighing in, according to a notice scheduled to be published in an issue of the Federal Register. The Obama administration had included this rule as a part of its Climate Action Plan because methane is a potent greenhouse gas.
In addition to beginning the reconsideration process, the EPA is pushing back some of the rule's upcoming compliance deadlines by 90 days. Had the agency not done this, oil and gas drillers would have had to start complying on June 3 with these parts of the rule, which deal with gas leak monitoring and pneumatic pump standards.
Within hours after the EPA announced its move, both the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund said they would file lawsuits against the agency to try to stop it from rolling back the methane rule.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=113106631&vname=dennotallissues&fn=113106631&jd=113106631

Return to headline | Return to top
USGS Study: Fracking Not A Significant Chemical Risk For Drinking Water

May 31, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

Hydraulic fracturing is not a significant source of dangerous chemicals in drinking water wells, a new U.S. Geological Survey study released today shows.
USGS said the study looked at an incomplete but significant section of oil and gas production areas in Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas, including the Eagle Ford and Haynesville shale formations. It did not take into account areas of the Marcellus Shale, a huge natural gas reservoir in the northeast.
The study found low concentrations of benzene but in relatively high frequencies, which could mostly be attributed to natural sources, the USGS said.
While the new study is the first to systematically determine the presence of benzene and methane in drinking water near the well sites, more study is needed to fully determine the long term effects, the USGS said.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

Trump Must Not Block Efforts to Prevent Chemical Disasters

May 31, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By Pam Nixon

Millions of Americans live near chemical plants and are vulnerable if disaster strikes, yet the Trump administration stopped new important safety measures from taking effect any time soon.

I live in area with a high number of facilities with dangerous chemicals known as “Chemical Valley” in West Virginia. Multiple times during my 65 years of living here, I’ve had to shelter in place — tape up windows and huddle inside my home — when nearby plants have experienced explosions or chemical leaks.

More than 30 years have passed since a chemical release at a Union Carbide here that sent hundreds of workers and residents to the hospital, yet people are still being exposed to toxic chemicals during the frequent incidents at chemical plants in West Virginia and elsewhere. In 2008, an explosion at the former Union Carbide plant — then owned by Bayer CropScience — killed two people and injured eight more.

In 2010 at the DuPont plant in Belle , there was a series of accidents including the release of highly toxic phosgene, a gas which was used during World War I as a choking agent. Among the chemicals used in the war, phosgene was responsible for the large majority of deaths. The release exposed a worker at the plant, and resulted in his death one day later. In a 33 hour period this plant had a total of three different releases of dangerous chemicals including one that was not detected for three days.

After three decades of asking for better protections many safety advocates were hopeful when the EPA was making some progress on new rules to prevent these types of accidents. But that elation was short lived, because one of the first things the new EPA chief Scott Pruitt announced was to halt these much needed protections for nearly two years while it “reconsiders” the wisdom of providing Americans with basic safeguards from chemical disasters. There’s no question he intends to kill it as he vigorously opposed the rule during his tenure as Oklahoma’s Attorney General.

Not only that, but President Trump has proposed eliminating the Chemical Safety Board —an independent review board modeled after the National Transportation Safety Board — in his budget. The Board plays a vital role by investigating and recommending actions to prevent future disasters.

This has all led to constant stress and worry about what could happen next in communities like mine.

The EPA’s rule that is now being delayed and reconsidered is known as either the Risk Management Program rule or the Chemical Disaster Rule. The rule requires oil, gas and chemical facilities to analyze potential hazards and consider whether there are safer alternatives that could be feasibly implemented. It will also result in better community planning and preparedness, increase information sharing with emergency planning committees like the one I am a member of, and improve coordination with local first responders so they can more safely and effectively respond to disasters.

It’s a rule we need, and it is long overdue.

As a member of a Local Emergency Planning Committee that develops emergency response plans to reduce danger to communities, I know it is crucial for first responders to have information about which hazardous materials are being used at local chemical plants and other industrial facilities. These facilities must work to put in place safer processes wherever possible, using less dangerous materials whenever feasible. I also know how hard it is for us to access that information right now.

This rule should not be delayed any further. It most certainly should not be killed. And the Chemical Safety Board should be strengthened, not eliminated. People in the communities like mine near these plants need these safeguards desperately.

EPA’s new protections would give me and others living in Chemical Valley — and hundreds of other communities across the nation — the tools we need to protect our own health, and would require our dangerous neighbors to adopt a few simple best practices to keep our workers and first responders safe.

These chemical plants — like other polluting facilities — tend to be disproportionately located near low-income and minority communities. Perhaps that’s because the companies that run them don’t think our voices will be heeded by the government. We can let that happen.

Pam Nixon retired as Environmental Advocate for the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection in 2014. She is president of People Concerned About Chemical Safety and the Board of Directors with Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition (OVEC).
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/335836-trump-must-not-block-efforts-to-prevent-chemical

Return to headline | Return to top
Key Requirements for Employees Transporting Hazmats

Jun 1, 2017 | Occupational Health & Safety Online

By Karen D. Hamel

Between OSHA and EPA's training requirements, employees who handle hazardous materials in their workplace should be very familiar with the hazards presented by any of the chemicals they work with daily. But when hazardous materials leave the facility in the form of a finished product, OSHA and EPA training is not enough.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), which is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), requires every person who is involved in the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce to receive specific training to understand how their actions affect transportation safety. Any facility that offers a hazardous material for transportation is a "hazmat employer" and must properly train its "hazmat employees."
Hazmat Employees
Hazmat employee training isn't just for commercial drivers or facility representatives who sign manifests. While DOT's definition of "hazmat employee" certainly does include those individuals, many more require hazmat employee training, including employees who:load, unload, or handle hazardous materials;test, recondition, repair, modify, mark, or otherwise represent containers or packages that qualify for transporting hazardous materials;prepare or offer hazardous materials for transportation;design, manufacture, or test packaging used to transport hazardous materials; orare otherwise responsible for the safety of transporting hazardous materials.
Unlike some regulations that exempt small employers, the training requirements for hazmat employees apply to every facility that is involved with the shipment of hazardous materials, even if they are self-employed. (49 CFR 171.8)
Like OSHA and EPA chemical safety trainings, DOT training helps hazmat employees to recognize and identify hazardous materials and learn how their functions ensure that those materials can be transported safely. Training includes several different aspects and must be completed within 90 days of employment or on the first day of a change in job function.
Employees must be tested at the completion of training and be able to demonstrate their knowledge. Until an employee can be trained, they must work under direct supervision of a person who has been trained.
General Awareness Training
All hazmat employees must receive general awareness training. This training is similar to OSHA's hazard communication training and in many cases can be combined with hazard communication training, as long as the required DOT elements are covered. General awareness training is designed to help employees recognize, identify, and classify hazardous materials. It also teaches employees the general requirements of DOT's hazardous materials regulations. This includes skills such as using the hazardous materials table, how to mark and label packages, and how to prepare shipping papers. (49 CFR 172.704)

Function-Specific Training
Because hazmat employees perform a diverse set of tasks before and during transportation, function-specific training is also required. This training provides targeted education on the specific function(s) that a hazmat employee will perform. For example, if a hazmat employee is filling packages, function-specific training may include how to close the package properly so that it will not leak or fail during shipment. Function-specific training for anyone signing manifests would include choosing a proper shipping name and other procedures specific to that task.
For some employees, function-specific training may include tasks required by International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Codes, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Technical Instructions, or other procedures to fill the requirements specific to the mode of transportation or ultimate destination.
Safety Training
Like general awareness training, safety training that meets OSHA and EPA regulations may be used to satisfy the safety training requirements for a hazmat employee if the DOT requirements are also met. Training must specifically cover situations that a hazmat employee may encounter while handling a hazardous material.
Some of the topics that may be applicable are safe handling, bulk delivery, and closing containers when they are not in use. Hazmat employees also should be aware of emergency action plans, spill response procedures, fire prevention plans, and any other procedures that are in place to help prevent injury while preparing or transporting a hazardous material.
Security Awareness Training
Preparing hazardous materials for shipment and transporting them can present security risks. Hazardous materials can also present health, safety, and property risks when they are transported.

All hazmat employees must be aware of the security plan and be able to identify these types of risks before or during transportation. They also need to be trained to respond to possible security threats, which could include threats to a company or unexpected circumstances during transportation.
Hazmat employees who are responsible for implementing a security plan and those who perform regulated functions within the security plan must receive in-depth security training. The content will be specific to the facility and will address specific risk and threats that may be encountered.
Training must include a detailed understanding of the security plan, including objectives, organizational security structure, procedures, employee responsibilities, and actions to be taken in the event of a security breach.
Retraining and Recordkeeping
Every three years, hazmat employees must be retrained. The training should not be a brief refresher or solely an update; it must be compliant with current rules and include all of the same elements that were included in the original training. [49 CFR 172.704(c)(2)] Additionally, if a hazmat employee’s job duties change, he or she must receive function-specific training and any other required training prior to performing those new duties without supervision.
DOT takes this retraining very seriously. Like training for a new hazmat employee, recurrent trainings must include testing following the completion of the training. And employees who are not retrained within three years may not perform hazmat employee functions until they are retrained.
When DOT adds or revises rules that affect a hazmat employee's functions, they must receive retraining "prior to performance of a function affected by the new or revised rule." This training may not be delayed until the employee’s three-year training cycle is due.
Employers are responsible for keeping training records for each hazmat employee. Complete records include the employee's name, the date of the most recent training or retraining, a description or copy of the training materials used, and the name and address of the person providing the training. Each hazmat employee must have a document certifying that he or she has been trained and tested as required. Training records must be kept for the entire duration of the three-year training cycle and for 90 days after an employee leaves.

Just as OSHA and EPA regulations protect employees from the dangers of hazardous chemicals in the workplace, DOT's hazmat employee rules protect transporters and communities when hazardous materials are on the road, in the water, or in the sky. Identifying hazmat employees and providing them with the proper training helps to ensure that hazardous materials are kept safe at each step in the process.
https://ohsonline.com/Articles/2017/06/01/Key-Requirements-for-Employees-Transporting-Hazmats.aspx?admgarea=news&Page=4

Return to headline | Return to top
US OSHA Seeks Input On Positions For UN GHS Conference

Jun 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch

The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) is to hold a public meeting to discuss proposals in preparation for the 33rd session of the United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (UNSCEGHS).
The 20 June meeting will be at the Department of Transportation headquarters in Washington, DC.
Osha, along with the US Interagency GHS Coordinating Group, plans to consider comments and information from the meeting when developing the government positions for the UN session.
It will also give an update on the Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC), the Federal Register notice says.
The UNSCEGHS session will be held between 10 and 12 July in Geneva.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56204/us-osha-seeks-input-on-positions-for-un-ghs-conference

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation News

Railroads Get Federal Funds to Install Train Safety Tech

May 31, 2017 | The Hill - Transportation

By Melanie Zanona

More than a dozen rail systems around the country have received federal funding to help speed up their efforts to install a major train safety technology that many railroads have struggled to adopt.

The Department of Transportation announced Wednesday that it doled out nearly $200 million in grants to assist commuter railroads in implementing positive train control (PTC).

The technology, which will eventually be required by law, automatically slows a train that is going over the speed limit and can prevent derailments, collisions and improper track switching.

The Transportation Department said that 17 projects in 13 states were awarded federal funding after the agency received requests totaling $455 million — more than double what was authorized by lawmakers. Congress created the grants in the 2015 highway bill.
"The number of passengers depending on rail has increased dramatically, which means PTC is needed now more than ever," Patrick Warren, executive director of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), said in a statement.

"This funding will get us closer to PTC implementation on some of the most significant railroads in the country that transport several million passengers to and from work every day."

The grant recipients include the Florida Department of Transportation, Illinois Metra Rail and New Jersey Transit — where a deadly train crash took place last year that put the lack of PTC technology in the spotlight.

“Implementation of Positive Train Control is a vital step in ensuring our rail systems are as safe and reliable as possible,” Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) said in a statement.

“Metra plays such an important role in the Chicagoland region, and this much-needed funding will help guarantee that one of the busiest commuter rail systems in the nation continues to provide for residents.”

Congress originally gave commuter and freight railroads until the end of 2015 to install the technology. But as railroads struggled to meet compliance deadlines, lawmakers pushed back the PTC implementation date to at least Dec. 31, 2018.

One of the chief obstacles for rail systems is the cost of implementing the technology. The federal government has kicked in over $800 million in federal grants to assist passenger railroads with installing the technology, as well as provided a $1 billion loan to the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Railroads have slowly been making progress, but the latest data from the FRA shows that some are still lagging behind. Seven railroads also missed their self-planned deadline for having PTC fully implemented by December 2016, though two of them were noted as being very close.
http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/335783-railroads-get-federal-funds-to-install-life-saving-technology

Return to headline | Return to top
Rail Systems Get Millions to Improve Safety

May 31, 2017 | The Sacramento Bee

By Jessica Campisi

Seventeen of the nation’s commuter and intercity railroads will get millions from the federal government to beef up safety with automatic systems aimed at slowing down trains in dangerous situations.
The U.S. Department of Transportation announced the $197 million in funding after the rail systems waged a lengthy struggle to meet deadlines for implementing the system, called positive train control.
Congress had mandated the system in 2008 and set a 2015 deadline. But as commuter rail systems lacked the funding to meet the deadline, it was extended until the end of next year. The new money should expedite the process.
The South Florida Regional Transportation Authority will receive up to about $31.6 million – the second-highest funding allocation for one group – to install its PTC technology. The Florida rail’s 72-mile-long Tri-Rail commuter line runs through Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties, operating 50 weekday and 30 weekend passenger trains for more than 14,000 passengers daily.
The Florida Department of Transportation will get up to $1.84 million for its Central Florida Rail Corridor.
Two California systems will be receive a total of $25 million for Caltrain, a commuter rail line on the San Francisco Peninsula and in the Santa Clara Valley, as well as rail in the Greater Los Angeles region.
The Missouri Department of Transportation will receive up to about $12 million for the Kansas City Terminal Railway, which hosts several Amtrak trains.
Four of the nation’s major commuter railroads were determined to be unable to meet the 2018 deadline, with three of the largest U.S. freight railroad systems deemed unable to complete the task until 2020, according to Federal Railroad Administration reports filed earlier this month.
Federal Railroad Administration Executive Director Patrick Warren said Wednesday that these funds would assist “some of the most significant railroads in the country that transport several million passengers to and from work every day,” according to the news release.
Last September, a train crashed into a Hoboken, New Jersey, station, killing one person and injuring more than 100. The train was traveling twice as fast as it should have been, and the crash could have been prevented with a positive train control system.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article153664979.html

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

EU, China to Reaffirm Paris Agreement Commitment, as U.S. Wavers

Jun 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Stephen Gardner

The European Union and China will reaffirm their commitment to the United Nations Paris Agreement on climate change during a June 1–2 summit in Brussels, despite uncertainty about continued U.S. participation in the deal.
An EU official involved in summit preparations, and who is not authorized to speak on the record, told Bloomberg BNA May 31 that one of the main conclusions of the summit will be a statement setting out the intention of the two major economic powers to implement their pledges under the Paris Agreement, which was agreed at the end of 2015 and is intended to keep global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels.
“This agreement stands whether another major emitter pulls out or not,” the official said. The EU-China summit will emphasize the “global responsibility” of the two powers in the context of the lack of clarify about the US's intentions, the official added.
China and the EU both have ratified the Paris Agreement and pledged to tackle greenhouse gas emissions in line with nationally determined contributions, or promises submitted to the U.N. The EU said it will reduce emissions by 40 percent by 2030 compared to 1990, while China said its emissions will peak by 2030 at the latest, and has made pledges on renewable energy and afforestation.
There is “much stronger expectation” from countries around the world that “Europe should assume leadership” in the effort to tackle global warming, and the EU was ready to lead, said Maros Sefcovic, European Commission vice president for Energy Union. The commission is the EU's executive arm.
Detail on Cooperation
The EU official said the summit statement will give “considerable detail” on how the EU and China will work together to fulfill their Paris pledges, for example by cooperating on renewable energy. It also will emphasize implementing existing pledges, rather than offering new pledges to deepen emissions cuts, according to the official.
“One of the new qualities of our relationship is that we don't just comment together, but we act together,” the official said, adding that clean energy for Chinese cities would be “a key area of cooperation between us.”
President Donald Trump has caused consternation in the EU about possible U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. EU leaders at a Group of Seven summit in Italy May 26–27 pushed Trump to respect the Paris deal on climate change, but concluded the U.S. was “not in a position to join in the consensus” on the implementation of the global deal.
During the June 1–2 summit, the EU will be represented by Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, and by Jean-Claude Juncker, president of European Commission. State Council Premier Li Keqiang will head the Chinese delegation.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=113106629&vname=dennotallissues&fn=113106629&jd=113106629

Return to headline | Return to top
Musk Leads CEOs’ Full-Court Press on Paris as Trump Weighs Exit

Jun 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Jennifer A. Dlouhy

As Donald Trump nears a final decision on the Paris climate agreement, top corporate executives are mounting a last-minute push aimed at persuading the president that the U.S. has more to lose from abandoning the accord.
The appeals from chief executives such as Tesla Inc.’s Elon Musk, Tim Cook of Apple Inc. and Dow Chemical Co.’s Andrew Liveris come as Trump's advisers also present him with closing arguments on the potential risks and rewards of remaining a party to the global pact. Trump also got an earful from foreign leaders and Pope Francis urging him to stay in the agreement during his first international trip as president.
Cook placed a call to the White House on May 30 to urge the president to keep the U.S. in the agreement, according to a person familiar with the move. Liveris was the driving force behind a letter from 30 major company executives backing the deal. And Musk tweeted May 31 that he has “done all I can to advise directly to” Trump. If the U.S. leaves Paris, Musk said he would drop participation in White House advisory councils.
Corporate leaders “are continuing to try to get through to the White House in any and every way they can,” said Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres, the non-profit sustainability advocacy that works with investors. They “are particularly important stakeholders for this president,” she said.
The executives are trying to capitalize on Trump's “America first” ideology by warning that a withdrawal would put the U.S. at a disadvantage in a global race to develop and deploy clean-energy technology, potentially ceding that market opportunity to China, the world's top emitter of greenhouse gas emissions.
A television advertisement that began running May 31 cites 10 of “America's biggest CEOs,” including JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s Jamie Dimon and General Electric Co.’s Jeffrey Immelt, as backing the climate pact “because it will benefit American manufacturing and generate jobs.“
Trump tweeted May 31 that he would announce his decision on the Paris accord “over the next few days.” While Trump is leaning toward exiting the pact, according to people familiar with the White House deliberations, the situation remained fluid amid intense last-minute lobbying. The people requested anonymity because Trump's decision has not yet been officially announced.
The president's verdict will be driven by “what's best for the United States,” said Gary Cohn, his top economic adviser, during Trump's recent trip abroad.
Twenty-five companies, including Intel Corp., Microsoft Corp. and PG&E Corp., have signed on to a letter set to run as a full-page advertisement in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal on June 1 arguing in favor of the climate pact.
“By expanding markets for innovative clean technologies, the agreement generates jobs and economic growth,” the open letter says. “U.S. companies are well positioned to lead in these markets. Withdrawing from the agreement will limit our access to them and could expose us to retaliatory measures.“
Some companies that favor continued U.S. involvement in the deal stand to benefit directly from greater worldwide demand for lower-emission technology and energy sources, such as natural gas and renewable power. For instance, natural gas producers Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell Plc and BP Plc have endorsed the pact, as has Cheniere Energy Inc., which exports liquefied natural gas.
Campaign Issue
Not all corporations are in line on the Paris agreement. Some coal producers, including Murray Energy Corp., vociferously oppose the pact.
Robert E. Murray, the founder and chief executive officer of the mining company, told Bloomberg Television on May 30 that Trump has a responsibility to fulfill his campaign pledges and jettison the agreement. The president should “listen to those who voted for him,” Murray said.
Others warn that U.S. companies could face repercussions globally, including consumer-driven boycotts of their products.
“The business community has spoken with a loud and clear voice that if the decision is to leave Paris it not in line with the thinking of the vast majority of mainstream business in the United States,” said David Stearns, communications director for The B Team, a group of corporate leaders urging sustainable practices. “If you look at every sector -- financial, banking, major employers, high-tech, oil and gas, coal companies -- they've all been saying that staying in Paris makes sense from a number of perspectives.“
--With assistance from Alex Webb.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=113106636&vname=dennotallissues&fn=113106636&jd=113106636

Return to headline | Return to top
How Bannon And Pruitt Boxed In Trump On Climate Pact

May 31, 2017 | PoliticoPro

By Andrew Restuccia and Josh Dawsey

Donald Trump’s chief strategist and EPA administrator maneuvered for months to get the president to exit the Paris climate accord, shrewdly playing to his populist instincts and publicly pressing the narrative that the nearly 200-nation deal was effectively dead — boxing in the president on one of his highest-profile decisions to date.
Steve Bannon and Scott Pruitt have sought to outsmart the administration’s pro-Paris group of advisers, including Trump’s daughter Ivanka, who were hoping the president could be swayed by a global swell of support for the deal from major corporations, U.S. allies, Al Gore and even the pope. But some of that pro-Paris sentiment wound up being surprisingly tepid, according to White House aides who had expected that European leaders would make a stronger case during Trump’s trip abroad earlier this month.
Those who want Trump to remain also faced an insurmountable hurdle: The president has long believed, rightly or wrongly, that the U.S. is getting a raw deal under the accord, and it proved nearly impossible to change his mind.
The internal reality show will culminate Thursday when Trump finally announces his decision, after a rush of leaks Wednesday from administration officials saying he was on the verge of pulling the plug on U.S. participation in history’s most comprehensive global climate agreement.
"I will be announcing my decision on Paris Accord, Thursday at 3:00 P.M.," Trump tweeted Wednesday night, without revealing the outcome. "The White House Rose Garden. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
Some White House aides held out the prospect that the president still might take the middle course that Ivanka Trump and others had advocated — staying in the deal while drastically scaling back the Obama administration's non-binding carbon cleanup promises. But three White House officials said Wednesday that they expect Trump to make a clean break by withdrawing from the agreement, though they noted it's possible the president changes his mind at the last minute.
In recent months, Pruitt and Bannon made sure Trump heard from a parade of conservative leaders and Republican lawmakers who raised concerns that the deal would hobble his pro-fossil-fuel energy agenda.
"We made very much the economic message argument," said Club for Growth President David McIntosh, whose group wrote letters to the White House and spoke to senior staff. "It was bad for the U.S. economy. It would stifle economic growth and the United States should withdraw."
As the news of the impending decision spread Wednesday, White House chief of staff Reince Priebus began calling and fielding calls from lawmakers, indicating that the U.S. was unlikely to stay in the agreement, one person familiar with the conversations said.
If he withdraws, Paris’ foes will have Pruitt and Bannon to thank.
One Republican close to the White House called it the “classic split” and said conservative activists had flooded the White House in recent weeks, after seeing increasing chatter that Trump may stay in. This person said Bannon and Pruitt worked quietly to make sure Trump was hearing their side and touched base occasionally on political strategy to woo him.
“You had the New Yorkers against it, and all the campaign loyalists for it,” this person said, referring to the push to withdraw. “When the New Yorkers get involved, it gets complicated for Trump and everyone else around him.”
Pruitt and Bannon have told others repeatedly for months that Trump will pull out of the agreement, as they aggressively pushed a narrative that they hoped would prove to be true, even as White House aides continued to debate the issue.
“Some of the debate was for show to help the moderates feel like they had their say,” said one person who has spoken to Pruitt. “Pruitt has believed all along that this was never in doubt.”
Pruitt, who frequently attacked the EPA's regulations in court when he was Oklahoma’s attorney general, used his new post as EPA administrator to orchestrate an aggressive campaign to marshal conservative opposition to the Paris agreement.
He bashed the deal during a closed-door April meeting of the National Mining Association’s executive committee, telling the group that the agreement would hurt the economy. Pruitt’s staff also urged lawmakers and conservative groups to publicly criticize the agreement, sources familiar with the issue told POLITICO, which had the effect of increasing public pressure on Trump.
Bannon similarly argued in meetings with Trump and his team that the president would be breaking his campaign promise to “cancel” the agreement if he decided to remain. And he argued that the accord is a bad deal for the United States because other countries aren’t doing enough to curb their emissions.
Pruitt and Bannon’s anti-Paris campaign was meant to counter a separate offensive by members of the administration who supported staying in the pact, including Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner.
In recent months, Ivanka Trump set up a process in which the president would regularly hear from people who supported remaining in the agreement, according to administration officials.
The remain camp believed, perhaps naively, that Trump could be influenced by the support the Paris deal has received from major corporations, including Exxon Mobil, which Secretary of State Rex Tillerson led for more than a decade.
“Ivanka is doing what she can to get him to stay," one official said. "But that doesn't mean he's going to do it."
White House aides outlined a plan to remain in the agreement while weakening former President Barack Obama’s pledge to cut domestic greenhouse gas emissions. They made the case that Trump could use the good will generated from remaining to negotiate better economic incentives for fossil fuels, and they even won the buy-in of several coal companies that detested Obama’s climate policies.
They hoped European leaders could persuade Trump he would risk damaging diplomatic relations if he withdrew. Ivanka Trump also brought Gore to Trump Tower to try to sway her father’s mind during the presidential transition, and Pope Francis handed the president a copy of his papal encyclical on climate change when the two men met at the Vatican last week.
Trump took calls from a parade of business leaders and foreign leaders in recent weeks, most pressing him to remain, according to a senior administration official — and the calls continued on Wednesday.
“He had tremendous pressure from international leaders, from members of his own Cabinet and advisers in the international sphere not to pull out of the accord because of the perceived loss of face,” said McIntosh, the Club for Growth president.
But while the leaders of G-7 nations all pressed Trump to remain in the agreement during last week’s summit in Italy, Paris supporters in the White House have privately groused that they didn’t make an aggressive enough case.
European officials countered they tried not to push Trump too much during the meetings, believing that a hard-sell could backfire. And they were buoyed by early signals from White House officials ahead of the summit that Trump was open to remaining.
Indeed, European officials received a series of mixed messages from Trump’s team during the summit. National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, a Paris supporter and the only U.S. official permitted to attend meetings with G-7 leaders, told reporters that Trump was “evolving” on climate change, which many interpreted to mean that he would remain.
White House officials chalked up Cohn’s comments to Trump’s habit of echoing the perspective of the last person he talked to. By that time, Bannon and other opponents of the agreement had returned the United States. But Trump’s decision to delay a final verdict on the agreement gave Pruitt and Bannon a final opportunity to make their case. Pruitt met with Trump to discuss Paris on Tuesday.
Most European officials were unwilling to comment about the prospect that Trump will withdraw, as they have not yet received official word from the White House and they are still holding out hope that the president will change his mind.
The officials have already begun looking to other countries for support on climate change, with the European Union set to promise deeper cooperation with China. Some officials have even adopted a new informal nickname for the major remaining countries that support action on climate change: the G-6.
Some Trump administration officials were reeling on Wednesday after the news first broke that Trump was prepared to withdraw.
Trump had not officially told his entire team of senior aides he was considering leaving the agreement Wednesday when news leaked out. “Everyone assumed that’s what was going to happen, but we weren’t called all in and told, ‘Oh, we’re putting this story out today,” one person said.
Having learned a lesson after Trump changed his mind about pulling out of NAFTA, administration officials cautioned against definitive reporting, warning that the president is notoriously fickle. As administration officials began tamping down reports that Trump’s decision was final, White House aides were swamped with calls, emails and texts from lobbyists and diplomats seeking clarification.
Officials close to Trump sometimes leak information before it is final — hoping to back him into a corner, or believing that comments during a private meeting represent his ultimate view. White House officials put out word in April that he was pulling out of NAFTA, even though Trump had not made up his mind, and news leaked during the campaign that he would pick Mike Pence as his running mate even as he weighed other candidates.
"Sometimes people close to Trump put things into the media environment to see how he'll react to it," one adviser said. "If your idea gets good coverage, it's likely to help him decide to go with what you're saying."
One of the biggest lingering questions: If he withdraws, how will Trump do it?
He could abide by the formal procedures in the underlying text of the agreement, which mandate that a formal withdrawal will not go into effect until at least Nov. 4, 2020. Or he could pull out of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the underlying 1992 treaty that governs the negotiations, which would allow for a speedier pullout — a far more radical step that would see the U.S. abstain from the entire climate negotiating process.
He could also declare that the agreement is a treaty, which would require a two-thirds-majority ratification vote in the Senate that would certainly fail.
Whatever he does, supporters of the climate agreement expect a harsh reaction from the United States’ friends if the country pulls out.
“I think the diplomatic backlash will be worse than it was when the U.S. rejected Kyoto,” said Susan Biniaz, the State Department’s longtime former climate change lawyer, referring to the George W. Bush administration’s decision to spurn the 1997 Kyoto climate agreement.
One former U.S. official agreed: “Will global leaders trust the U.S. to negotiate a climate treaty ever again? After Kyoto and Paris, who will trust us to keep our word as a nation? Our credibility is gone."
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/05/how-bannon-and-pruitt-boxed-in-trump-on-climate-pact-157517

Return to headline | Return to top
Exxon Investors to Company: Make Climate Curb Fallout Public

Jun 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Joe Carroll

Exxon Mobil Corp. investors, in a split with the company, urged the explorer to publish a detailed analysis next year on how carbon curbs could affect the value of its oil fields, refineries and pipelines.
The non-binding measure, backed by investors including the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the Church of England investment fund, comes amid reports President Donald Trump may soon abandon the 2015 Paris Climate Accord. More than 60 percent of voters approved the resolution during Exxon's annual general meeting in Dallas.
While Exxon's management opposed the measure, Chief Executive Officer Darren Woods said he remains committed to the Paris pact's goals and methods. Even with that agreement in place, he said, oil demand will grow in the coming decades, particularly in underdeveloped regions of the world.
“Energy needs are a function of population and living standards,” Woods said in his first annual meeting since becoming chief executive officer on Jan. 1. “When it comes to policy, the goal should be to reduce emissions at the lowest cost to society.”
Population growth and a desire for higher living standards will increase usage of petroleum-derived fuels, especially for transportation, because there are few widely-available alternatives, according to Woods. There's a huge untapped energy market among the 1 billion people who currently have no access to electricity and the 3 billion who don't use modern cooking fuels, he said.
“It's going to take a global solution” to limit greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change, Woods said.
The remarks come amid news reports that Trump is on the verge of pulling the U.S. out of the Paris agreement. On May 31, Trump tweeted he would announce his decision within days.
Woods said his forecast assumes governments adhere to the strictures of the Paris pact, which calls for limiting emissions to prevent global temperatures from exceeding pre-industrial levels by 2 degrees Celsius.
Woods has been a staunch advocate for keeping the U.S. in the Paris group, as was his predecessor Rex Tillerson, who is now Trump's secretary of state. In his first blog post after becoming CEO, Woods advocated low-emission fuels, carbon capture and biofuels as tools for meeting the goals of the Paris agreement.
In May 2016, the proposal received a 38 percent “yes” vote after the company said it already disclosed ample data about emissions and risk management. As a result of this year's 62 percent “yes” vote, the board will reconsider its opposition.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=113106633&vname=dennotallissues&fn=113106633&jd=113106633

Return to headline | Return to top
A New Proposal on California's Cap-and-Trade Program Emerges as Vote is Delayed

May 31, 2017 | Los Angeles Times

By Chris Megerian, Liam Dillon and Melanie Mason

A coalition of business-friendly Democrats is detailing their own ideas for cap and trade, a centerpiece of California's fight against global warming, the latest bid in a crowded field of efforts to extend the program.
Cap and trade requires polluting companies to buy permits to release greenhouse gas emissions, and lawmakers have been considering a push from Gov. Jerry Brown to extend the program beyond 2020.
The new plan would force the program to sunset in 2025, earlier than previous proposals from other lawmakers. It would also direct revenue from the program toward improving air quality and helping agricultural and trucking companies lower their emissions by replacing aging equipment.
The plan is also aimed at keeping costs down for industries regulated by cap and trade, allowing them to support green projects known as offsets instead of reducing their own emissions.
“California must continue to lead the world by implementing a strong climate policy that ensures both a healthy environment for future Californians and growth in all sectors of our economy," Assemblyman Adam Gray (D-Merced) said in a statement.
The pro-business Democrats' plan is the fourth such effort announced by various factions within the state's ruling Democratic Party this year with two others emerging from the Assembly and one from the Senate. The plans offer varying degrees of changes to the existing program, either to prioritize pollution reductions in disadvantaged communities or eliminate offsets. Republican lawmakers also have said they want to be part of the cap-and-trade debate.
Brown has pushed for a two-thirds supermajority vote of the Legislature to extend the program by the state budget deadline next month. But Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) said at a Wednesday news conference that that wasn't going to happen.
"Cap-and-trade is a very complex issue," De León said. "It's very arcane. We want to make sure we get it right."
De León said he hoped for a deal by the end of the year.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-a-new-proposal-on-california-s-primary-1496257421-htmlstory.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Eying Planned Budget Cuts, States Identify Dozens Of EPA Rules To Scrap

Jun 1, 2017 | Inside EPA

By Amanda Palleschi

State officials are urging EPA to “repeal, replace or modify” scores of federal rules, steps that if adopted would ease states' abilities to implement federal requirements as they weigh plans to slim their programs to absorb the Trump administration's proposed budget cuts in fiscal year 2018.
In comments submitted to EPA earlier this month, state regulators and attorneys general charged that many of the rules they identified for overhaul are duplicative of existing state requirements, outdated, unclear, hinder infrastructure development or hamper state flexibility, among other things.
“As states have daily experiences with the complexity of the federal environmental regulatory system, we are well positioned to offer suggestions for regulatory reform, modernization, and streamlining,” Alex Dunn, executive director of the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), said in May 15 comments to EPA.
ECOS and other state officials submitted the comments to an EPA regulatory reform task force that is reviewing existing rules for overhaul. The task force was created in response to President Donald Trump's Executive Order (EO) 13777, which is broadly intended to enforce the administration's deregulatory agenda.
In addition to identifying existing rules for overhaul or rescission, the administration is also proposing to slash EPA's budget by more than $2 billion or 31 percent in FY18. This includes a reduction in categorical grants for states to implement federal programs from $1.08 billion in FY17 down to $597 million, a cut of $482 million.
The agency's budget justification says it plans to “eliminate or substantially reduce federal investment in state environmental activities that go beyond EPA's statutory requirements.”
In response, state officials are signaling a willingness to cut or significantly scale back their environmental programs in order to absorb EPA's proposed cut, with some states even weighing returning delegated EPA programs back to the agency.
Cuts to categorical grants would “have some profound impacts” on implementation of Clean Air Act programs in particular, Delaware's environment secretary Shawn Garvin told a May 23 event hosted by the American Bar Association.
In addition to cutting their own programs, state officials are also identifying a host of EPA rules for overhaul that would further help them as they scale back their environmental programs.
ECOS, for example, identified 19 rules or policies across the spectrum of EPA's authorities for overhaul -- the majority of which it asks EPA to consider eliminating due to overlapping state requirements.
Many call for eliminating requirements, particularly administrative reporting requirements, that ECOS says are tasks states are already completing.
For example, ECOS asks EPA to eliminate reporting requirements for the Superfund program's cooperative Agreements for Superfund Response Actions in state contracts. ECOS says that that the regulation “contains detailed requirements for the content of these reports” and that “state staff are already in regular communication with EPA staff on the work being done under these grants and agreements, making these detailed reports unnecessarily burdensome.”
RCRA Requirements
The group makes a similar case for state hazardous waste programs under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), saying that EPA should reevaluate the program's permit modification classification limits, since current limits require a facility to hold a public meeting and provide opportunity to comment on proposed modifications -- yet states report that the public rarely takes advantage of such meetings: “Based on state experiences, the public almost never attends these public meetings on proposed class 2 modifications and the states rarely receive public comments. The meetings end up being a waste of time and resources.”
“ECOS believes that many modifications could be assigned a lower classification, making the permit modification process more efficient, timely and responsive to facility needs,” the group writes, but adds that EPA could include a RCRA provision that instead requires public hearings only when the public requests it.
And states complain that state duplication is an issue in EPA review of underground injection control (UIC) regulations for certain wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). ECOS recommends that EPA review the rules because before they were promulgated, “some states had already prioritized types of UIC wells that pose the most significant risk to groundwater sources of drinking water.”
“Now, many of the provisions of the federal regulations are duplicative of state programs, particularly the inventory requirement.”
Other requirements ECOS calls “burdensome or unclear” -- and ripe for removal -- in its comments include the SDWA Total Coliform Rule, SDWA Consumer Confidence Reports, the Clean Air Act's “once in, always in” policy, the Clean Water Act (CWA)'s sewage overflow regulations, RCRA authorization of state waste programs and its hazardous waste rules and regulations.
Rules ECOS classifies as “opportunities to modify requirements” and “advance state flexibility” include: state assumption of 404 permitting authority under the CWA; SDWA's disinfection byproducts rule; SDWA's maximum residual disinfectant level reporting; SDWA's lead and copper rule, CWA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting program's electronic reporting rules; RCRA's Underlying Hazardous Constituent Land Disposal Restriction Regulations, and the Clean Air Act's maintenance area monitoring requirements program.
The group also asks EPA to work with congressional appropriators to eliminate “set-asides” in the state and tribal assistance grants (STAG) funding program, “unless the set-asides are made with state concurrence and support joint priorities.”
“Set-asides of existing funding reduce the ability of states to continue to implement environmental programs in the manner in which they deem appropriate.”
Several other states, as well as many state attorneys general, identified many of the same rules as ECOS.
For example, state attorneys general from Michigan, South Carolina, Oklahoma and Louisiana, in a joint letter, recommended that EPA “review and streamline” the CWA section 404 program, and “review and revise” regulations to improve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) approval process, particularly for their state's attainment of Clean Air Act National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
And Wyoming's Department of Environmental Quality also recommends that EPA rework its selenium water quality criteria and remand its uranium criteria.
The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality targets EPA's Disinfection Byproducts rule, its effluent limitation guidelines for dental amalgam, and what is known as the “sensitive scientific method rule” -- which it says requires “more state and private laboratory involvement” prior to rulemaking.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/eying-planned-budget-cuts-states-identify-dozens-epa-rules-scrap

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Allows Obama-Era Air And Enforcement Rules To Take Effect

Jun 1, 2017 | Inside EPA

EPA has allowed an air emissions modeling rule and administrative rules governing enforcement actions, both finalized in the last weeks of the Obama administration, to go into effect after initially delaying their effective date to give the Trump administration time to review the policies.
“EPA has taken no additional action and the rules are effective,” an EPA spokesperson told Inside EPA in a May 30 email.
The Trump EPA on March 20 extended the effective dates of the two policies and three other Obama-era final rules to May 22, citing a lack of political appointees in key roles to review them.
In addition to the air quality modeling guidelines for ozone and particulate matter and the revised administrative rules governing civil penalties, compliance orders and permit revocations or terminations, EPA also delayed rules that allow Superfund sites to be listed based solely on the presence of “subsurface intrusion,” set formaldehyde emissions standards for composite wood products, and govern certification procedures for pesticide applicators.
Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt announced May 11 the agency is postponing by 12 months the implementation date of the pesticide applicators rule, saying states need more time and resources to ensure growers are prepared to comply with the regulation and that states are prepared to enforce it.
And in the May 24 Federal Register, EPA announced it is delaying the effective date of select provisions in the rule setting formaldehyde emissions limits on composite wood products by several months in order to give industry more time to comply.
The remaining three rules, including the Superfund rule, took effect May 22, the EPA spokesperson said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-allows-obama-era-air-and-enforcement-rules-take-effect

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested