Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 23/06/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Pushes Actual Scientists Out The Door
Jun 22, 2017 | CleanTechnica
By Steve Hanley
The message to all federal employees is, if you haven’t drunk deeply of the Trump-inspired nonsense spewed by the putative president, America has no use for you. Scott Pruitt, chief defender of the faith at the agency formerly known as the Environmental Protection Agency, is on a mission to slash the agency’s staffing levels and budget. -
(ACC Blog) Happy Anniversary, Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act
Jun 22, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
One year ago, Americans witnessed something happen in Washington that they don’t get to see all that often—the enactment of significant legislation with strong backing from both parties. In fact, it was the first major environmental law to make its way through Congress since 1990. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Sets Rules To Regulate Toxic Chemicals Under 2016 Law
Jun 23, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Mathew Dalya
The Environmental Protection Agency issued new rules and other documents Thursday outlining how it will regulate toxic chemicals under a landmark law passed by Congress last year. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Releases New Chemical Testing Rules
Jun 22, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Eli Stokols
The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday released rules enabling the agency to prioritize the testing of certain chemicals used in consumer goods and other products while forgoing the testing of others, overturning more sweeping Obama-era procedures that the chemicals industry deemed overly burdensome. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump EPA Advances an Obama-Era Regulation
Jun 22, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Jennifer A Dlouhy
As the Trump administration works to reverse a slew of Obama-era regulations, it has decided to go ahead with at least one initiative: a mandated review of tens of thousands of chemicals, from those that deter flames to those that clean clothes. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Staffers, Trump Official Clashed Over New Chemical Rules
Jun 22, 2017 | Politico
By Annie Snider and Alex Guillén
The Trump administration appears poised to cement key rules that were heavily shaped by an expert who was a top official for the chemical industry's lobbying group. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Details New Oversight of Chemicals in Three Final Rules
Jun 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency released June 22 final rules establishing its first-ever, comprehensive regulatory strategy to evaluate—and regulate, if needed—chemicals in commerce. -
(ACC Mentioned) New Rules Mark TSCA Reform Anniversary
Jun 22, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
U.S. EPA today issued three new chemical rules and documents on the first 10 risk evaluations it will complete under the nation's new chemical safety law. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Unveils Highly Anticipated TSCA Framework Rules
Jun 22, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA has released its highly anticipated framework rules for implementing the revised Toxic Substances Control Act's (TSCA) provisions governing “existing” chemicals -- those that were in commerce before the law was originally enacted in 1976 -- meeting the new law's deadline for issuing the measures one year after its enactment. -
(ACC Mentioned)EPA Scales Back TSCA 'Framework' Rules, Drawing Threat Of Lawsuit
Jun 22, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has released the three “framework” rules to implement statutory changes to address “existing” chemicals under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), though the agency scaled back the final versions of the rules, underscoring industry's influence while drawing sharp criticisms from environmentalists, who suggested they will sue. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Proposal Puts Americans at Greater Risk from Toxic Chemicals
Jun 22, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
President Trump and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt have determined protecting the public from notorious cancer-causing chemicals like asbestos and 1,4-dioxane is far less important than coddling polluters, said EWG Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Scott Faber. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump EPA Weakens TSCA Rules to Favor Chemical Industry
Jun 22, 2017 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Jennifer Sass
The Trump-Pruitt Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a set of rules today that will make it easier to ignore chemical risks and disregard harmful exposures. -
Practitioner Insights: Prioritizing Health Was Intent of New Chemicals Reforms
Jun 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Senator Tom Udall
One year ago, Congress did what many thought was impossible: it passed and the president signed into law the most sweeping environmental reform legislation in 25 years and the first significant update of the Toxic Substances Control Act in 40 years -
US EPA Issues Final TSCA Framework Rules
Jun 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Three final framework rules under the new TSCA, as well as scoping documents for the first ten substances subject to risk evaluation, were due to be issued by the US EPA within a matter of hours as Chemical Watch went to press today. -
New Trump EPA Rules Put Chemical Industry Interests Ahead Of Public Health
Jun 22, 2017 | Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced final rules today that establish the framework for implementation of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA to Refine Initial Analysis of Pigment, Other Chemicals
Jun 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto and Catherine Douglas Moran
Lenox Corp., Tiffany & Co., 3M, BASF Corp. and Procter & Gamble Corp. are among the companies that eventually could be affected by the risk analysis plans that the EPA released June 22 for four chemicals. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Sets Out Parameters for Studying Asbestos Risk
Jun 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The EPA took an early step June 22 to lay out how it plans to evaluate the risk of asbestos, publishing an initial document on how it will review information on the substance. -
EPA Examining Worker Exposures to Solvents, Liver Damage
Jun 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Douglas Moran and Sam Pearson
The EPA will review whether five commonly used solvents may damage liver or kidney function or cause other harms in exposed workers, the general public or people living near sites where the chemicals are made or disposed, according to risk scoping documents the agency released June 22. -
Foster Wheeler Appeal Upends Asbestos Case Transfer
Jun 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
A federal district court in Maryland denied Foster Wheeler LLC its right to a federal forum when it transferred a worker's asbestos exposure case to state court, the Fourth Circuit ruled June 22 (Sawyer v. Foster Wheeler LLC, 4th Cir., No. 16-1530, 6/22/17). -
Dow, Koehler Create Thermal Paper That Doesn't Need Bisphenols
Jun 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Dow Chemical and German paper group Koehler have been jointly awarded a US EPA green chemistry challenge award for developing a thermal printing paper that does not need chemical developers, such as bisphenol A or bisphenol S. -
EU REACH Project Finds Companies Handling Banned Substances
Jun 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
A small number of companies in the European Union are flouting rules on substances phased out from use in the bloc under the REACH regulation, the European Chemicals Agency said June 22. -
MSC Seeks Detailed Information For Metabolite Read-Across Group
Jun 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr Emma Davies
Read-across cases for chemicals with similar metabolites need to have "a very good overview of possible metabolic routes and also have a very good data matrix", says Watze de Wolf, chair of Echa's Member State Committee (MSC). -
GOP Senators Look To Limit DOE Role In Export Approvals
Jun 23, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss and Hannah Northey
Senate Republicans have lost no time in embracing the Trump administration's message of "energy dominance" and this week floated legislation to fast-track exports of domestic U.S. gas. -
Trump Looks To Lift LNG Exports In US Trade Shift
Jun 22, 2017 | The Financial Times
By Barney Jopson and Demetri Sevastopulo and Ed Crooks
Donald Trump is engineering a sharp shift in US energy policy by using natural gas exports as an instrument of trade policy, championing sales to China and other parts of Asia to create jobs and reduce US trade deficits. -
Bills to Streamline Pipeline Approval Process Move in House
Jun 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
A House subcommittee advanced a bill that would formalize the way the federal government approves cross-border energy pipelines, a response to the at-times chaotic approval process for the Keystone XL pipeline. -
Big Oil, Business Leaders Advocate for U.S. Carbon Tax
Jun 22, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Some of the world’s largest oil and natural gas producers and influential corporate leaders on Tuesday joined a push to enact a U.S. carbon tax in an effort to slow climate change. -
Environmentalists, Unions Ask Court To Stay EPA's Delay Of RMP Rule
Jun 23, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmental and labor groups are asking a federal court to stay EPA's nearly two-year delay of an Obama-era rule strengthening the agency's facility accident prevention program, charging the delay is “plainly illegal” under the Clean Air Act and would irreparably harm their interests given past agency findings that chemical accidents continue to occur. -
Greens, Labor Union Ask Court To Reinstate EPA Chemical Facility Safety Rule
Jun 22, 2017 | PoliticoPro Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
A coalition of environmental groups and United Steelworkers, the U.S.'s biggest industrial labor union, today asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to reinstate an EPA chemical safety facility rule that the Trump administration delayed until 2019. -
Senators Urge Trump To Act On Russian Grid Threat
Jun 23, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Blake Sobczak and Geof Koss
A group of 19 Democratic senators are calling on President Trump to investigate the extent to which Russian hackers have invaded crucial U.S. energy networks. -
Rail Execs Laud Trump's Streamlining Goals, Blast Budget Plan
Jun 23, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Camille von Kaenel
Rail executives yesterday had a mixed message regarding President Trump's plans for infrastructure. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA's Superfund Reform Ideas Echo Industry Wish List
Jun 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
Companies, consultants, and industry associations involved with Superfund sites are calling for a swifter, leaner cleanup program, and the EPA is listening. -
Cement Plants to Get Extension for Alternate Emissions Tests
Jun 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Cement manufacturers should be authorized to continue using alternative methods to comply with federal hydrochloric acid emissions limits due to a shortage of materials used to calibrate required monitoring systems, according to the EPA. -
Carbon Caps for Refineries Delayed in San Francisco
Jun 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
A plan to cap greenhouse gas emissions at San Francisco Bay Area oil refineries is on hold, at least until September. -
Utilities, Environmentalists At Odds Over Novel Joint NOx-SOx-PM NAAQS
Jun 22, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Electric utilities and environmentalists are at odds over whether EPA should pursue novel combined national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) from nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx) and particulate matter (PM) instead of the existing separate standards for each, posing a test for the Trump EPA's NAAQS policy.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Pushes Actual Scientists Out The Door
Jun 22, 2017 | CleanTechnica
By Steve Hanley
The message to all federal employees is, if you haven’t drunk deeply of the Trump-inspired nonsense spewed by the putative president, America has no use for you. Scott Pruitt, chief defender of the faith at the agency formerly known as the Environmental Protection Agency, is on a mission to slash the agency’s staffing levels and budget.
Outrage At The EPA
The latest outrage is revealed in an email sent to EPA scientists that was obtained by the Washington Post. The EPA has decided not to renew the employment of any scientist working for the EPA’s Board of Scientific Counselors. Their terms expire at the end of August. The Board was created to make sure the actions of the Office of Research and Development are supported by a rigorous scientific foundation.
“The Board of Scientific Counselors was formed to make sure the EPA does the best possible scientific work with limited taxpayer dollars,” Ken Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement. “This independent advice is needed now more than ever. By sacking dozens of scientific counselors, Pruitt is showing that he doesn’t value scientific input and the benefits it offers the public.”No Scientists Need Apply
Scott Pruitt, who has made it his life’s mission to eviscerate the EPA, notified the 9 members of the Board in May that their terms would not be renewed when they expire later this year. Instead, Pruitt intends to stock it with fossil fuel industry toadies who will move to lower environmental regulations that impact their industry. Pruitt thinks the individual states should be allowed to make their own rules and regulations, an approach that worked pretty well during the Jim Crow era. Why mess with success?
Scott Openshaw, a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, says the dismissals would help address industry concerns that “EPA advisory boards did not include a diversity of views and therefore frequently presented a biased perspective on issues before them.” Yup, and the fox will do a good job of guarding the hen house too, Mr. Openshaw.
In all, 47 members of the board will be terminated in the next few months. None of its subcommittees has a chair or vice chair at the moment and all committee meetings scheduled for late summer and fall have been cancelled. “Pruitt has pulled off a devious process here. He’s signaled that he intends to dismiss experienced advisors whose terms are expiring over the next year and he’s using the fact that he’s dismissing them to immediately block them from doing any more work,” says Kimmell.
Pruitt’s false claims about climate change to CNBC in March are currently being reviewed by the EPA’s Scientific Integrity Officer, who better get on board the Trump bus PDQ if he doesn’t want to get fired by the alleged president.Letting The Fox Guard The Hen House
“The decision to suspend the EPA’s Board of Scientific Counselors and dismiss numerous scientists from its ranks is another brazen act of disregard for science by Scott Pruitt. I’m concerned that he may continue to replace scientists with industry insiders or simply leave the Board in limbo,” Congressman Don Beyer of Virginia, told Think Progress in an email. “Pruitt’s longstanding antipathy to the agency he leads and its mission of protecting clean air and water will become a greater menace to public health as he cedes more and more influence to industry at the expense of sound scientific advice.”
An administration official who spoke anonymously with the Washington Post hints that dismantling the Board of Scientific Counselors may be just the tip of the iceberg. (We will need to invent a new adage soon, as icebergs continue to disappear under the stewardship of Pruitt and his fossil fuel–sucking cronies.) The source says Pruitt is also considering replacing the members of the agency’s Scientific Advisory Board with industry flaks.
Welcome to the new, slimmed down, agile EPA, where actual scientists are despised and industry whores are welcome. What could possibly go wrong?
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/06/22/epa-pushes-actual-scientists-door/
-
(ACC Blog) Happy Anniversary, Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act
Jun 22, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
One year ago, Americans witnessed something happen in Washington that they don’t get to see all that often—the enactment of significant legislation with strong backing from both parties. In fact, it was the first major environmental law to make its way through Congress since 1990.
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (LCSA) was signed into law after passing Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support. The anniversary is worth commemorating because LCSA is vital to protecting human health and the environment while also ensuring that U.S. chemical manufacturers can maintain global competitiveness in the 21st century.
A true watershed moment, LCSA was the first comprehensive update to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) since the law’s enactment 40 years ago; the result of years of work and negotiations between lawmakers of both parties along with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and other stakeholders from industry, environment, public health, animal rights and labor organizations.
Key framework rules
Here we are one year later, and look how far we’ve come. Over the past year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been hard at work to meet the stringent but achievable statutory deadlines for completing several essential rulemakings, including today’s release of three key framework rules that establish a strong foundation for implementation of LCSA:Inventory Reset Rule – process for sorting the TSCA inventory so that EPA can focus on chemicals that are currently active in commerce.Prioritization Rule – process for designating low priority chemicals, as well as the high priority chemicals that will move to risk evaluation.Risk Evaluation Rule – process for conducting risk evaluations on high priority chemicals.
These three rules are central to the efficient, high-quality chemical risk evaluations envisioned under LCSA. Congress demanded these framework rules foster a national chemical management system focused on the high priority chemicals that are in commerce today and that require risk evaluations. The processes established by these rules are fundamental to EPA’s ability to quickly and efficiently assess chemicals and uses for their priority, evaluate priority risks and take action to manage risks where required, all while applying high quality, reliable and relevant scientific evidence to make decisions.
Good news: the president’s budget proposal would deliver increased resources to EPA to implement LCSA, and EPA Administrator Pruitt’s public commitment to the successful implementation of the Act as envisioned by Congress is to be commended. The on-time completion and delivery of these framework rules along with EPA’s release of the scopes of the risk evaluations to be conducted for the first 10 substances for review, are more signs that the Agency, under Administrator Pruitt’s leadership, is following through on those commitments.
Delivering results
Getting the framework rules in place is only the beginning, however. Truly successful implementation of LCSA goes beyond that. Our expectation isn’t that EPA simply meet the minimal requirements of the law; instead, it is our expectation that the rules clearly establish the framework for a modern chemical management system capable of meeting 21st century demands.
With appropriate resources, and by leveraging the experience of other governments (such as Canada and Australia), EPA can and should achieve a modernized TSCA under LCSA that is recognized as the new premier chemical regulation in the world.
At ACC, we will continue our constructive engagement with the Agency to ensure efficient and effective implementation of LCSA. Our goal is to make sure LCSA achieves what Congress intended: protect human health and environment; enhance public confidence in the federal chemical regulatory system; and enable our industry to continue to innovate, create jobs and grow the economy.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2017/06/happy-anniversary-lautenberg-chemical-safety-act/
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Sets Rules To Regulate Toxic Chemicals Under 2016 Law
Jun 23, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Mathew Dalya
The Environmental Protection Agency issued new rules and other documents Thursday outlining how it will regulate toxic chemicals under a landmark law passed by Congress last year.
The rules, issued on the one-year anniversary of the law's signature by President Barack Obama, set standards for how the EPA will identify and evaluate high-priority chemicals and impose reporting requirements for industry.
The new law regulates tens of thousands of toxic chemicals found in everyday products, from household cleaners to clothing and furniture. The EPA said last year it will review such common chemicals as asbestos and trichloroethylene that for decades have been known to cause cancer, yet have been largely unregulated under federal law.
Congress approved the Frank Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act last year in a bipartisan bid to clear up a hodgepodge of state rules governing chemicals and update the Toxic Substances Control Act, a 1976 law that had remained unchanged for 40 years.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said the rules issued Thursday demonstrate the Trump administration's commitment to providing "regulatory certainty to American businesses, while protecting human health and the environment."
"The new process for evaluating existing chemicals outlined in these rules will increase public confidence in chemical safety without stifling innovation," Pruitt said.
The EPA so far has identified 10 chemicals that will be studied to determine whether they present an "unreasonable risk to humans and the environment." The agency will then determine what steps, if any, should be taken to mitigate the risk through new regulations — including banning the chemicals from use in the United States.
Once the EPA completes its review of the initial 10 chemicals, studies will begin on dozens of other suspect chemicals. With tens of thousands of chemicals manufactured each year within the U.S. or imported from other countries, the EPA is prioritizing those that are the most dangerous and widely used, including asbestos.
Valued for its resistance to heat and corrosion, asbestos was widely used for decades in such products as building materials, pipe insulation and floor tiles before studies linked it to lung cancer and other diseases. The EPA first tried to ban the use of asbestos in the late 1980s, but a federal appeals court ruled the agency had exceeded its authority.
Though most domestic manufacturers voluntarily stopped using asbestos in commercial products, it can sometimes still be found in imported products such as automotive brake pads
The chemical industry has long lobbied for less-stringent scientific assessments for newer chemicals that companies are trying to get into the marketplace.
In a statement Thursday, the American Chemistry Council, an industry group, commended the EPA for meeting the one-year deadline. While it is still analyzing the new rules, the group said it expects the EPA will "establish the framework for a modern chemical management system capable of meeting 21st century demands."
Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., said changes made by the EPA since the law was approved appear to significantly weaken the law.
"It appears that Administrator Pruitt intends to ignore more chemical uses and exposures at every stage of the regulatory process" and label thousands of chemicals as safe in order to avoid review, Pallone said. "As someone who worked to strengthen this law, I'm deeply disappointed by these final rules."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/epa-sets-rules-to-regulate-toxic-chemicals-under-2016-law/2017/06/22/293ccf52-579c-11e7-840b-512026319da7_story.html?utm_term=.c7847452074a
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Releases New Chemical Testing Rules
Jun 22, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Eli Stokols
WASHINGTON—The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday released rules enabling the agency to prioritize the testing of certain chemicals used in consumer goods and other products while forgoing the testing of others, overturning more sweeping Obama-era procedures that the chemicals industry deemed overly burdensome.
Under the new rules, the agency will have more discretion to determine which chemicals and uses are evaluated for environmental and public health risks and which aren’t.
“Through the process of prioritization, EPA is ultimately making a judgment as to whether or not a particular chemical substance warrants further assessment,” one of the new rules states.
Deputy Assistant Administrator Nancy Beck, who has led the process to finalize the rules, called the existing directives unworkable because they required the agency to test every chemical for every potential use and misuse.
“Just because some people sniff glue, we’re not going to spend time testing for that,” Ms. Beck said. “We’re not going to focus on intentional misuse. We’re focusing on uses that may present the highest risk.”
The new rules and documents were required by the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act, which passed a year ago with bipartisan support and mandates the agency identify toxic chemicals used in commerce. The rules list the first 10 chemicals to be tested. They drew immediate criticism from environmentalists and consumer advocacy groups.
“We’re frankly very concerned about the general direction this administration is taking,” said Richard Denison, the lead senior scientist with Environmental Defense Fund.
“The notion that the EPA could simply set aside uses without strong evidence for doing so is really inconsistent with the law,” he said.
The law, the product of long and contentious negotiations among lawmakers, environmentalists and the industry, was an effort to clarify federal testing guidelines and restore consumer confidence in the government’s testing program.
The new rules lay out EPA procedures to determine which chemicals currently used in manufacturing and commerce need to be evaluated for dangers to consumers, and mandate that the best scientific practices are employed to assess those risks. The rules also include new procedures to distinguish between chemicals that have been made, sold or used in the last decade and others no longer used in commerce.
Another new rule demonstrates EPA’s commitment to “recognizing the value of designating chemicals as low priority when appropriate.”
“The new process for evaluating existing chemicals outlined in these rules will increase public confidence in chemical safety without stifling innovation,” said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in a press release.
The industry has long lobbied for less stringent scientific assessments for newer chemicals that companies are trying to get into the marketplace.
“If the public knows we have these procedures in place to evaluate chemicals, the public should have more trust about the safety of the products on the shelves,” said Ms. Beck of the EPA.
In a press release, the American Chemistry Council, an industry group, praised the new rules.
“Over the coming days, we will analyze the rules in detail,” the organization said. “It is our expectation that under these rules, EPA will not simply meet the minimal requirements of the law, but instead establish the framework for a modern chemical management system capable of meeting 21st century demands.”
Ms. Beck previously worked as a toxicologist for the American Chemistry Council. Environmental groups, many of which have expressed concern about Ms. Beck’s selection to implement TSCA rules, worry that the new rules will weaken environmental and consumer protections.
“TSCA was a really balanced law aimed at reassuring consumers,” Mr. Denison said. “If they see the pendulum swing back toward industry, it’s going to hurt that confidence.”
Corrections & Amplifications
Nancy Beck is a former toxicologist for the American Chemistry Council. Richard Denison is the lead senior scientist with Environmental Defense Fund. An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated Ms. Beck’s past position and misspelled Mr. Denison’s name. (June 22)https://www.wsj.com/articles/epa-to-unveil-new-chemical-testing-rules-1498141553
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump EPA Advances an Obama-Era Regulation
Jun 22, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Jennifer A Dlouhy
As the Trump administration works to reverse a slew of Obama-era regulations, it has decided to go ahead with at least one initiative: a mandated review of tens of thousands of chemicals, from those that deter flames to those that clean clothes.
The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday is rolling out three final rules on how it will evaluate risks, select chemicals for study and keep the information in a database. It also is set to unveil blueprints for assessing the first chemicals under the updated Toxic Substances Control Act that was passed by Congress and signed into law last June by former President Barack Obama.
That statute required the EPA to publish final rules by June 22, though it wasn’t always clear the agency would meet that deadline. The move dovetails with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s goal of refocusing the agency on some core priorities, including cleaning up toxic pollution and overseeing chemicals used in consumer products and at industrial facilities.
The actions demonstrate the administration’s "commitment to providing regulatory certainty to American businesses while protecting human health and the environment,” Pruitt said in an emailed statement. "The new process for evaluating existing chemicals outlined in these rules will increase public confidence in chemical safety without stifling innovation."
The assessments are a concern for both consumers worried about the safety of ingredients in the products they buy and manufacturers seeking swifter scrutiny of newly introduced chemicals.
An Obama administration proposal would have required that the EPA study chemicals under all conditions of use, including practices that are implausible or clearly unwise, but that approach ran the risk of overwhelming the agency, said Nancy Beck, an EPA deputy assistant administrator in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
"If you try to do everything, you’re going to end up doing nothing well," Beck said. "If things are no longer manufactured, produced or distributed, which would make it hard for us to regulate, why would we look at those uses, since they’re not in the flow of commerce?”
Under the final rules, Beck said the EPA administrator has the discretion to make decisions about which chemicals and uses are appropriate for risk evaluation.
Beck said that approach ensures the EPA’s resources are targeted on chemicals posing the greatest hazard. "We’re going to be focused on those conditions of use that are most likely to present risk," Beck said.
The final rules include some changes that could add clarity for businesses that manufacture and use chemicals. For instance, though the 2016 chemical law said the EPA must make decisions using scientific standards, basing its determinations on the "best available science" and the "weight of the scientific evidence," those terms were left undefined.
The new regulations, by contrast, specify that "best available science" must be "reliable and unbiased," involving supporting studies conducted with sound, objective practices and, when available, peer review.
Some environmental activists had warned that locking in definitions in a final rule could handcuff the agency, boxing it in to a specific approach. But EPA officials said the final rule provides them more flexibility, laying out a standard without tying their hands.
The final rules also create more openings for public comment.
Environmental groups have worried the final rules would tilt too far in favor of industry, partly because Beck’s previous employer before joining the EPA was the American Chemistry Council, an association that represents manufacturers such as the Dow Chemical Co. and DuPont.
Because "these rules may provide EPA with a lot more latitude and discretion" there needs to be oversight to ensure that flexibility isn’t abused, said Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund. "We have serious concerns about that, given Administrator Pruitt’s track record and given the agency’s budget being cut to the bone" and because "a political appointee who had a major influence over these rules is now in the driver seat to oversee the implementation of them."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-22/trump-epa-goes-ahead-with-one-obama-era-regulation-on-chemicals
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Staffers, Trump Official Clashed Over New Chemical Rules
Jun 22, 2017 | Politico
By Annie Snider and Alex Guillén
The Trump administration appears poised to cement key rules that were heavily shaped by an expert who was a top official for the chemical industry's lobbying group.
The Trump administration released the nation’s most important chemical-safety rules in decades Thursday — but only after making a series of business-friendly changes overseen by a former industry advocate who holds a top post at the EPA.
Career agency employees had raised objections to the changes steered by EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator Nancy Beck, who until April was the senior director of regulatory science policy at the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry’s leading lobbying group. Those include limits on how broadly the agency would review thousands of potentially hazardous substances, EPA staffers wrote in an internal memo reviewed by POLITICO.
Such limits could cause the agency to fail to act on potential chemical uses "that present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment,” EPA's top chemicals enforcement official argued in the May 23 memo.
The rules are meant to implement last year’s landmark rewrite of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, a major bipartisan achievement in a deeply divided Congress. Both parties agreed that the law needed an update — the original version didn't even allow EPA to ban asbestos, a known carcinogen, and some states had begun to step in and create their own patchwork of regulations for chemicals.
But the Trump administration’s steps to implement the law, and Beck’s role in particular, are drawing alarm from environmental groups and congressional Democrats.
Melanie Benesh of the Environmental Working Group called Beck the "scariest Trump appointee you've never heard of," and pointed to a 2009 Democratic congressional report that accused Beck of working to delay and undermine EPA's chemical studies during her previous tenure at the OMB.
New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, argued in a letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt on Wednesday that Beck's appointment "has the potential to undermine the scientific integrity of EPA's TSCA implementation and the consumer confidence we sought to build with a reformed TSCA." Pallone is seeking information about Beck's involvement with the chemicals rules and the issues she is ethically allowed to work on.
Beck told POLITICO that she has been "very involved" with the rulemaking for the past two months at EPA. She also defended the changes in the rules.
“The development of a rule when you go from proposal to final, or even as you develop a rule, it just evolves over time,” she said in an interview Wednesday, before the rules came out. “So I think that this has been a moving target, and will continue to be a moving target until it gets through the OMB review process.”
A statement from EPA's senior ethics counsel said Beck did not need to recuse herself from working on the TSCA rules because they are "matters of general applicability." The counsel added that Beck was cleared to consider comments her former employer had submitted.
The American Chemistry Council spent more than $9 million on lobbying last year, and its employees and PAC donated $541,000 to federal candidates in the 2016 cycle, giving Republicans 2½ times as much as it gave Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
EPA officials told POLITICO that the issues raised in the memo from the agency's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance were part of a typical intra-agency consultation process.
Jeff Morris, director of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics — the division charged with writing the rules implementing TSCA — said chemical safety officials met with the enforcement office "and talked through their comments, and based on that discussion, we moved forward with the rule. At the end of the day, OECA concurred on our approach."
That doesn't mean the final rules necessarily incorporated OECA's suggestions, he added, but in the end it produced a rule "that we could all support."
Thursday marked the anniversary of the 2016 revamp of the 40-year-old TSCA, which regulates the tens of thousands of chemicals used in the United States. It took Congress two years to hash out the compromise, ultimately winning support from chemical makers and some environmental groups for legislation that beefed up EPA's power to regulate harmful chemicals.
Rather than relying on EPA to prove that a substance was dangerous, the law shifted some of the burden to industry to show a chemical's safety. But TSCA alsogave EPA latitude to determine how to go about examining thousands of chemicals— effectively setting the scope of the review for substances ranging from corrosive chemicals used in refining to the paints and plastics in children's toys.
EPA's plans to implement TSCA came out Thursday in the form of three final regulations known as the "framework rules." One rule lays out how EPA will set priorities for its assessments of chemicals, dividing them into high- and low-risk categories. Another rule details methods for studying the health and environmental risks of each chemical. And the third culls from EPA's list any substances not used commercially since 2006.
That last change will ultimately shrink the inventory from 85,000 chemicals to around 30,000, once companies weigh in on which chemicals they still use, according to a recent estimate from Jim Cooper, a senior petrochemical adviser at American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers. Future use of those chemicals will be prohibited until the agency reviews them.
Pruitt has made TSCA a top priority under his "back to basics" strategy, which has been marked by the rollback of several Obama-era environmental regulations, especially major rules on climate change. Funding for TSCA implementation would be increased under the Trump administration's 2018 budget proposal, while other chemical safety programs and nearly every other aspect of EPA would be cut sharply.
“The activities we are announcing today demonstrate this Administration’s commitment to providing regulatory certainty to American businesses, while protecting human health and the environment,” Pruitt said in a statement releasing the rules.
EPA's political leaders have pressed the agency's staff to meet the law’s aggressive deadlines for writing new rules and evaluating individual chemicals, but environmentalists say they are more concerned with the substance of the implementation rules. Congressional Democrats and green activists were already worried about the approach an anti-regulatory administration might take to toxic substances, especially given President Donald Trump's past support for asbestos, which he once complained got a "bad rap."
Those fears rose with the arrival of Beck, who worked as an OMB analyst for a decade before joining the American Chemistry Council. She represented the council at a March Senate hearing where she criticized the Obama administration's proposed TSCA implementation.
EPA career employees, in turn, have expressed concern about the changes the implementation rules have taken since Beck arrived.
The staff memo reviewed by POLITICO was sent by the head of EPA's Waste and Chemical Enforcement Division to Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, the acting assistant administrator for EPA's chemical office, on the same day part of the final rules package was sent to the White House for review. It laid out a number of concerns about changes the Trump administration made to a section of the Obama EPA's January proposal governing which chemicals warrant the most thorough safetyevaluation.
Among those concerns was that EPA would consider only a limited set of uses for a chemical when deciding whether it warrants further scrutiny and then determining the risks to human health, rather than examining all the ways people could be exposed to it. For instance, while most Americans think of asbestos as a building material, its largest use by far in the U.S. today is in equipment used to make chlorine gas. Chemicals manufacturers have argued that that use needn’t be considered, saying humans are highly unlikely to come in contact with the asbestos during that process, but environmentalists contend that EPA shouldn’t ignore it when deciding how risky the chemical is for human health.
In an interview, Cleland-Hamnett said EPA is aiming to set the highest priorities for the chemical uses that present the greatest risk, and that it wasn't prohibiting a broader analysis.
"Not that those are the only uses we would evaluate, but we do want to make sure that we're evaluating those uses," she said. "So I think we've addressed the concern that we might not evaluate the uses that could prevent unreasonable risk."
This issue has been a chief sticking point among environmentalists, public health advocates and the industry. Chemical manufacturers may produce a substance for a specific use, said Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, but once it's put on the market, it can end up being used in a wide variety of ways.
"That chemical that the company may intend to use solely in industrial settings may very well be bought by another company that decides to put it in a consumer product that is sold at your local hardware store," he said.
But Mike Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, said the process should differentiate among various uses of each chemical to determine specific restrictions for each.
"Risks can be managed along a spectrum of measures, running from a ban at its most extreme, to things like labeling or warning requirements," he said. "So that risk-evaluation process is really critical."
EPA also released a decision on the scope of its first 10 chemical reviews, which include asbestos, several dry-cleaning chemicals and a purple dye thought to hurt fish and other aquatic life. Industry groups are closely watching whether EPA decides to review those chemicals for all possible exposures, or whether it will limit its review to narrow, specific uses. Further study of those chemicals will take years.
But even as greens have raised alarms about the efficacy of the new chemicals law under the Trump administration, both sides say industry has an interest in making sure it works. After all, it was lack of public trust in the old system that brought everyone to the table a year ago to fix it, said Dimitri Karakitsos, who negotiated the chemicals overhaul measure as a staffer for Senate Republicans.
"Industry and Republicans care very much about a credible system that works, and so does EPA," said Karakitsos, now a partner at the law firm Holland & Knight. "If implementation isn't happening, states ramp up activity again, and that can result in an inconsistent patchwork of regulations and significant impediments to interstate commerce."
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/22/trump-epa-energy-chemicals-clash-239875
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Details New Oversight of Chemicals in Three Final Rules
Jun 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency released June 22 final rules establishing its first-ever, comprehensive regulatory strategy to evaluate—and regulate, if needed—chemicals in commerce.
The agency also released guidance to help companies, trade associations, or other non-agency parties submit draft chemical risk evaluations for the EPA’s consideration.
Additionally, the agency released strategies, or “scoping documents,” to identify what uses of 10 chemicals it will evaluate, and information about how it will conduct those evaluations. The EPA invited all interested parties to submit information about those chemicals to help it evaluate their risks.
The new rules and other documents will affect not only chemical manufacturers but also airplane, auto, electronic parts, paint, and other manufacturers and their suppliers and customers. A variety of companies and trade associations commented on and met with the EPA during the development of the rules including the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, Auto Alliance, BASF Corp., Consumer Specialty Products Association, Dow Chemical Co., Procter & Gamble Co., and the Sustainable Furnishings Council, among others.
The release of these rules, guidance, and scoping documents marked the one-year anniversary of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, which overhauled the nation’s primary chemicals law. The agency, for the first time, is required by the amended Toxic Substances Control Act to examine the risks of chemicals in commerce by specified deadlines, do so using best available science, and consider the risks chemicals pose to vulnerable and particularly exposed populations.
Congress revised the original 1976 law to give the EPA greater authority to address public and scientific concerns about the ways commercial chemicals—depending on exposure and other considerations—may cause cancer, harm brain development, and contribute to other health and ecological problems. This prompted organizations including the AFL-CIO; California agencies; Environmental Defense Fund; Learning Disabilities Association of America; North America’s Building Trades Union; Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families; and many academic scientists to comment or meet with the agency.
The release of the rules, guidance, and scoping documents by the deadlines set by the Lautenberg Act demonstrate “this administration’s commitment to providing regulatory certainty to American businesses, while protecting human health and the environment,” EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a statement.
“The new process for evaluating existing chemicals outlined in these rules will increase public confidence in chemical safety without stifling innovation,” he said.
Three Final Rules
The three final rules set the procedures by which the EPA—working with information and perspectives provided by interested and affected parties—will: determine which chemicals have actively been in commerce over the last 10 years; select chemicals as high or low priorities for risk evaluation; and set out how the EPA will evaluate the risks of high-priority chemicals.
First Reactions
The American Chemistry Council praised the EPA for meeting the deadlines set by the Lautenberg Act.
“Congress demanded these framework rules work in tandem to foster a national chemical management system focused on the high priority chemicals actually in commerce that require risk evaluations,” it said in a statement.
“Over the coming days, we will analyze the rules in detail. It is our expectation that under these rules, EPA will not simply meet the minimal requirements of the law, but instead establish the framework for a modern chemical management system capable of meeting 21st century demands. The processes established by these rules are fundamental to EPA’s ability to quickly and efficiently assess chemicals and uses for their priority, evaluate priority risks and take action to manage risks where required,” the chemistry council said.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), however, voiced concern that a newly hired EPA manager with ties to the chemical industry is unduly influencing these and other agency regulations. Pallone sent a letter to Pruitt June 21 raising questions about Nancy Beck, a former American Chemistry Council policy analyst who now serves as EPA’s deputy assistant administrator in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
In her new job, Beck is helping develop rules that will regulate her former employers, he said.
“Her appointment has the potential to undermine the scientific integrity of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) TSCA implementation and the consumer confidence we sought to build with a reformed TSCA,” wrote Pallone, who led the House Democratic efforts to pass the Lautenberg Act last Congress.
Changes Since Proposal
The first regulation (RIN:2070-AK24), called the inventory update or reset rule, requires chemical manufacturers and importers—and allows chemical processors such as paint and cleaning product manufacturers—to notify the agency of compounds they’ve made, imported, or processed over the last 10 years.
The EPA said it responded to comments on its proposed rule by streamlining the reporting requirements for manufacturers and processors to make notification easier.
The final inventory update rule also allows companies to jointly notify the agency that a chemical has been active in commerce. This allows for the possibility, for example, that a cleaning product or paint manufacturer may not know the precise identity of one or more chemicals it purchases. In such a case, the processor and its supplier would jointly notify the EPA about the chemicals. Those chemicals would be listed on the active inventory, but the supplier would keep confidential the specific identity of what it sells.
Revised Prioritization Rule
The second regulation (RIN:2070-AK23), called the prioritization rule, establishes a sifting or screening process through which the agency will decide which chemicals raise enough red flags that the potential health or environmental harm they could cause makes them a high priority to evaluate.
The rule describes how the agency also will use that sifting process to determine which chemicals have sufficient information to conclude they are low priorities for risk evaluation. The EPA said its final rule provides more clarity than did its proposal about what constitutes the best available science it will use to make these decisions and how it will work with regulated industries, unions, and other interested parties.
It also establishes two opportunities for public comment, Beck told Bloomberg.
The final prioritization rule does not require a “pre-prioritization” phase envisioned in the agency’s proposed rule. The envisioned phase would have given the agency an undefined amount of time to collect information about a chemical before the EPA launched the formal prioritization period, which the statute says must be completed within one year.
The pre-prioritization state caused a great deal of confusion, Beck said.
“We’ll engage everyone later, probably in September, to talk about what that process should look like.”
The EPA received many comments supporting and objecting to the pre-prioritization phase. The agency responded by concluding it should flesh out the idea with interested parties.
“The agency will promptly initiate an additional stakeholder process, to include an additional public comment opportunity addressing EPA pre-prioritization activities,” the final rule says.
Risk Evaluation Rule
The final regulation, called the risk evaluation rule (RIN:2070-AK20), describes how the EPA will evaluate the risks posed by high priority chemicals. It describes opportunities interested parties will have to comment on those evaluations.
The EPA’s final rule says the agency has the authority to determine which of many potential uses of a chemical it will focus on during its evaluation.
“The proposed rule had talked about looking at ‘all’ conditions of use. When people saw the word ‘all,’ a lot of the public commenters freaked out, like how are you going to do that, you’re going to tie yourself in knots if you try to do everything, you’re going to end up doing nothing well,” Beck said.
The agency’s final rule also defines scientific terms used, but not defined, in the Lautenberg Act. These terms include: “best available science,” “reasonably available information,” “sentinel exposure,” and “weight of the scientific evidence.”
Jeffery Morris, director of the chemicals oversight office, told Bloomberg the final rule allows the EPA to make determinations on the risks—or lack of them—posed by chemicals at any time during the risk evaluation process. “If we identify early on that a chemical use does not present an unreasonable risk, we can make that determination,” Morris said. “Likewise, if we early on identify a use that does present an unreasonable risk, we can do that before the three years.” The Lautenberg Act gives the EPA three years, with a possible extension of six months, to complete its risk evaluation.
Regulating Risks
If the EPA concludes a chemical or certain uses of it pose an unreasonable risk, the statute requires the agency to reduce those risks.
“The agency must establish risk management measures, by rule, that ensure the safety standard is met under the conditions of use,” said the Senate report that accompanied its version of the law.
Meeting the law’s safety standard means the agency reaches a conclusion “without taking into consideration cost or other non-risk factors, that no unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment will result from exposure to a chemical substance under the conditions of use.” The agency would have to consider the costs of divergent options to control the risks, availability of alternative chemicals, and other issues as it decided how to manage the risks.
Chemicals Being Evaluated
The risk scoping documents are for the following 10 chemicals: asbestos; pigment violet 29, which is used to provide color to art, glass, and other decorative materials; 1,4-dioxane, an impurity that can occur during chemical manufacturing processes; the cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster of flame retardants called HBCD; carbon tetrachloride, which is used to make other chemicals; and 1-bromopropane, methylene chloride, n-methylpyrrolidone, trichloroethylene, and tetrachloroethylene, all of which are solvents.
-- With assistance from Jennifer Dlouhy (Bloomberg)
https://www.bna.com/epa-details-new-n73014460630/
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Rules Mark TSCA Reform Anniversary
Jun 22, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
U.S. EPA today issued three new chemical rules and documents on the first 10 risk evaluations it will complete under the nation's new chemical safety law.
"The activities we are announcing today demonstrate this administration's commitment to providing regulatory certainty to American businesses, while protecting human health and the environment," said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. "The new process for evaluating existing chemicals outlined in these rules will increase public confidence in chemical safety without stifling innovation."
On the one-year mark of President Obama signing the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, a reform to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, EPA finalized a rule to establish the process and criteria for identifying high-priority chemicals for risk evaluations, a rule to establish the process for determining if the chemicals present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment, and a rule to require industry reporting of chemicals manufactured or processed in the U.S. over the last 10 years.
Additionally, EPA released scope documents for the 10 initial chemicals it will evaluate. The chemicals include asbestos and trichloroethylene (E&E News PM, Nov. 29, 2016).
The American Chemistry Council said EPA was demonstrating a "good faith committment" to the law by releasing the documents and meeting its statutory deadlines.
Pruitt has promised that the agency will eliminate its backlog of new chemicals under review by the end of July. It plans to do this through "prioritizing and implementing process efficiencies," like grouping together similar chemicals for review (Greenwire, June 6).
Environmental groups have expressed concern at EPA's hiring of Nancy Beck, previously of ACC, to the office in charge of implementing the chemical law (Greenwire, May 10).
EPA also released guidance for external parties that are interested in submitting draft risk evaluations to the agency.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/06/22/stories/1060056471
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Unveils Highly Anticipated TSCA Framework Rules
Jun 22, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA has released its highly anticipated framework rules for implementing the revised Toxic Substances Control Act's (TSCA) provisions governing “existing” chemicals -- those that were in commerce before the law was originally enacted in 1976 -- meeting the new law's deadline for issuing the measures one year after its enactment.
While there had been some question about whether the agency would meet the deadline, a top EPA toxics office official said recently that the Office of Management and Budget had promised expedited review to ensure their timely release.
As Inside EPA's Maria Hegstad reported yesterday, the rules' release marks an early test for the new, bipartisan law, which still faces a host of legal, budgetary, political, technological and other challenges that will test its durability and future success.
Environmentalists are already criticizing the just-released rules, charging they do not allow for speedy enough reviews. “Toxic chemicals lurk in countless consumer [products] and threaten our health and well-being. We should be expediting review of such chemicals, not dragging our feet,” Jennifer Sass of the Natural Resources Defense Council said in a statement.
By contrast, the American Chemistry Council commended the rules' release. “It is our expectation that under these rules, EPA will not simply meet the minimal requirements of the law, but instead establish the framework for a modern chemical management system capable of meeting 21st century demands,” the trade association's statement says.
And Politico reported that EPA's enforcement office raised concerns that toxics office officials narrowed the scope of some chemicals “uses” that will be subject to review.
The framework rules include an inventory reset rule that will determine the universe of existing chemicals that will be subject to the new law's requirements; a prioritization rule describing how EPA will determine which of the thousands of existing chemicals will undergo risk evaluations and when; and another measure describing how EPA will evaluate the risks of existing chemicals.
In addition, EPA also released a guidance document for companies that want to conduct their own risk evaluations of chemicals for EPA to consider in addition to or rather than the agency performing the reviews.
The agency also released a series of scoping documents that will guide its assessment of the first 10 chemicals identified for priority review.
Check back for more on the framework rules and other TSCA implementation issues.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-unveils-highly-anticipated-tsca-framework-rules
-
(ACC Mentioned)EPA Scales Back TSCA 'Framework' Rules, Drawing Threat Of Lawsuit
Jun 22, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has released the three “framework” rules to implement statutory changes to address “existing” chemicals under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), though the agency scaled back the final versions of the rules, underscoring industry's influence while drawing sharp criticisms from environmentalists, who suggested they will sue.
“Changes have been made that significantly weaken the proposed rules, in some cases in ways that are contrary to the new law,” Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), said in a statement.
“Given that this is taking place in the most anti-environmental Administration we’ve faced in decades, the changes heighten our concern that the law will not be implemented in the coming years in a way that protects the public’s health,” he added.
Denison's threat of a lawsuit is directed at EPA's final risk evaluation rule, one of three framework rules the agency issued to comply with the law's June 22 deadline, where the agency narrowed the range of chemical “uses” it will consider in its assessments.
“EPA’s approach complicates and undermines the clear intent of Congress that EPA examine the full range of exposures to a chemical,” he said in the statement.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), one of the TSCA law's lead sponsors and ranking Democrat on the Senate appropriations panel that funds EPA, also warned that the rule may be unlawful. “The Trump administration must avoid the temptation to include giveaways that are not authorized. It is essential that we don't erode any of the provisions guaranteeing Americans' protection from dangerous chemicals, and I will be fighting hard, as the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee overseeing the EPA's budget, to ensure we do,” he said in a statement.
Press reports also indicate that EPA enforcement officials have also raised internal concerns over the change.
While Denison suggested the risk evaluation rule could be vulnerable to legal challenge, he also raised concerns over the two other framework rules the agency issued. For example, he said the agency's final prioritization rule, which dropped, for now, proposed provisions that allowed the agency to “pre-prioritize” chemicals to begin data gathering without triggering the law's strict deadlines for prioritizing chemicals, would “limit EPA’s ability to use its information-gathering authorities and be burdensome to the agency.”
And he criticized provisions in the inventory update rule, which eased manufacturers' requirements to notify EPA when they activate chemicals and to transfer confidential business information claims. The inventory rule “creates loopholes for companies that will limit the public’s ability to know what chemicals are on the market,” he said.
The early criticisms from Denison and others suggest a rocky road ahead for the bipartisan law's implementation in the Trump administration. Denison had already warned, in a blog posted earlier this week, that while the bipartisan law that requires EPA to issue the rules is “strong,” he is concerned about the Trump administration's de-regulatory approach and its selection of Nancy Beck, a former chemical industry official, as EPA's deputy toxics chief.
The law's “effective implementation in the near term is threatened on numerous fronts, unfolding as it is in one of the most anti-environmental and anti-regulatory climates this nation has faced in a long time,” he wrote.
Framework Rules
The three rules issued June 22 are intended to create a new framework for assessing and managing the risks of existing industrial chemicals -- those that were on the market when TSCA was first enacted in 1976 -- which were largely grandfathered under the original TSCA.
What was widely seen as the original law's failure in managing these chemicals was an important driver for reforming it.
In addition to the risk evaluation rule, the framework rules include the inventory reset to determine the universe of existing chemicals that will be subject to the new law's requirements and a prioritization rule describing how EPA will determine which of the thousands of existing chemicals will undergo risk evaluations and when.
Although the agency did not include the pre-prioritization process in the prioritization rule, the agency left the door open to doing so in the future. “EPA does not believe it would be appropriate to attempt to finalize a pre-prioritization process without further discussions with interested stakeholders. As such, EPA has determined to defer a final decision on the proposed preprioritization provisions as part of this rule, and finalize at this time only the prioritization process required under TSCA.”
The rule adds that EPA will “re-engage” on the topic as early as the fall. It indicates that the final outcome of the discussions could result in the creation of a separate rule on pre-prioritization or a guidance document.
In addition to the rules, the agency also released a guidance document for companies that want to conduct their own risk evaluations and a series of scoping documents that will guide its assessment of the first 10 chemicals identified for priority review.
Of the three rules, the risk evaluation measure is drawing the strongest criticisms after the agency narrowed the chemical uses it will consider in assessments.
The rule generally describes how the agency will determine whether a chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment -- the safety standard described in the reformed TSCA -- codifying how EPA will evaluate risk of existing chemicals in TSCA section 6.
While section 6 gives EPA authority to restrict or ban uses of these chemicals, the statutory language was considered ineffective after a federal court rejected EPA's attempt to ban asbestos in 1991. The case, and resulting concerns over what some saw as thousands of barely regulated chemicals, became a major driver in efforts to reform TSCA.
The reformed law requires that EPA considers the conditions of use of chemicals in its risk evaluation processes.
EPA's public draft of the risk evaluation rule -- issued in the waning days of the Obama administration -- proposed an approach where all of a chemical's uses, as well as reasonably foreseen uses, must meet the unreasonable risk standard in order for the chemical to be deemed low priority. Just one use not passing muster would flag a chemical as high priority.
The draft rule explained that “EPA interprets the amended TSCA as requiring that risk evaluations encompass all manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal activities that constitute the conditions of use within the meaning of TSCA section 3. That is to say, a risk evaluation must encompass all known, intended, and reasonably foreseen activities associated with the subject chemical substance.”
Environmental groups generally praised this proposed approach in comments to the agency, while industry groups protested it, arguing that it would be too cumbersome and time-consuming in practice.
More Constrained Approach
But the final version adopts a more constrained approach, interpreting new TSCA sections 6(a) and (b) “to focus on uses for which manufacturing, processing, or distribution in commerce is intended, known to be occurring, or reasonably foreseen to occur (i.e., is prospective or on-going), rather than reaching back to evaluate the risks associated with legacy uses, associated disposal, and legacy disposal.”
The rule points to language in TSCA section 6(b)(4)(D) that gives the agency authority to identify “the conditions of use that the Agency expects to consider in a risk evaluation,” arguing that “EPA is not required to consider all conditions of use. Consequently, EPA may, on a case-by-case basis, exclude certain activities that EPA has determined to be conditions of use in order to focus its analytical efforts on those exposures that are likely to present the greatest concern, and consequently merit an unreasonable risk determination.”
The final rule provides examples of elements that could be excluded, such as “uses that EPA has sufficient basis to conclude would present only 'de minimis' exposures. This could include uses that occur in a closed system that effectively precludes exposure, or use as an intermediate. During the scoping phase, EPA may also exclude a condition of use that has been adequately assessed by another regulatory agency, particularly where the other agency has effectively managed the risks.”
EPA also says it will generally eliminate from evaluation anecdotal or unsubstantiated indications of a potential chemical use or intentional misuse scenarios. The rule also argues that the TSCA reform law “is ambiguous as to whether the conditions of use identified by EPA should include the circumstances associated with activities that do not reflect ongoing or prospective manufacturing, processing, or distribution.”
EPA's approach echoes calls from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), which argued in comments that many uses should be excluded from EPA's consideration in risk evaluation.
In comments last spring, ACC argued that the statute requires EPA to scope evaluations before conducting them in order to select the chemical uses that should be evaluated. "EPA has a directive from Congress to narrow, not expand, the universe of all potential exposures to those that are most significant in terms of risk -- current conditions of use -- not obsolete ones," the group said.
The group's influence over the final rules has been a persistent concern, especially since Pruitt appointed Beck, a toxicologist most recently employed by ACC, to serve as the deputy assistant administrator of EPA's toxics office, where she is overseeing the law's implementation.
Because of her hiring status under special authority provided by the Safe Drinking Water Act, she is exempt from Trump administration ethics requirements and has so far failed to publicly recuse herself from the law's implementation.
But her role in developing the rule is sparking concerns within the agency too. Politico reported that EPA's top chemicals enforcement official warned in a May 23 internal memo that the narrower scope of the rule “may lead the agency to miss potential uses” that do not meet TSCA's safety standard, or may present present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment.
Beck told the publication that she has been “very involved” with the rulemaking since her appointment to EPA. --
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-scales-back-tsca-framework-rules-drawing-threat-lawsuit
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Proposal Puts Americans at Greater Risk from Toxic Chemicals
Jun 22, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
WASHINGTON – President Trump and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt have determined protecting the public from notorious cancer-causing chemicals like asbestos and 1,4-dioxane is far less important than coddling polluters, said EWG Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Scott Faber.
“Once again, Trump’s EPA has put polluters ahead of public health,” Faber said. “The toxic chemical rules released today by Trump’s EPA are carefully crafted to allow polluters to continue to poison our families with unsafe toxic chemicals. Of course, it’s no surprise that the chemical industry lobbyist now in charge of chemical reviews at the EPA would put corporate profits ahead of battling cancer. By forcing EPA to employ junk science, Trump’s lackeys will ensure that cancer-causing chemicals like 1,4-dioxane and asbestos continue to sicken and kill our friends and families. See you in court, Donald.”
Faber’s comments come in response to Pruitt’s decision to ignore federal requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act, which was strengthened last year to make the agency account for all uses of a particular chemical when making a risk assessment.
The rules released today instead allow the EPA to only look at a subset of chemical uses when assessing a chemical for safety. This means the agency could ignore potentially dangerous uses – including legacy contamination – and would not have an accurate picture of Americans’ likely exposure to a chemical. That could allow the EPA to underestimate risks like cancer, reproductive harms or neurotoxicity. The law directs the EPA to look at all chemical uses, including unintended but reasonably foreseeable uses.
Trump recently appointed Nancy Beck, a former lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council, to be the EPA’s Deputy Assistant Administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. When working on behalf of the chemical industry, Beck played a key role in drafting its positions on chemical legislation and EPA regulations. Now, she is in the powerful position of overseeing the EPA’s own chemical policy agenda.
http://www.ewg.org/testimony-official-correspondence/trump-proposal-puts-americans-greater-risk-toxic-chemicals
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump EPA Weakens TSCA Rules to Favor Chemical Industry
Jun 22, 2017 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Jennifer Sass
The Trump-Pruitt Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a set of rules today that will make it easier to ignore chemical risks and disregard harmful exposures. The final rules introduce loopholes that could allow EPA to ignore important exposure routes and chemical product uses. This opens the door for EPA to disregard exposures to the most vulnerable and susceptible populations such as pregnant women and children or highly-exposed workers, which the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA) had sought to protect.
These are the first rules released since a Chemical Industry lobbyist took charge of the EPA toxics office and its process for evaluating toxic chemicals.
The rules finalized today describe how EPA will evaluate the health threats from chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The prioritization rule codifies the general process by which EPA will sort chemicals into “high priority” and “low priority” buckets. High priority chemicals will move forward into the risk evaluation process, while low priority chemicals will not (though the classification can change based on new evidence). The risk evaluation rule codifies the general process by which EPA will assess a chemical’s hazards and exposures, then determine if the chemical poses an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment.
The draft version of these rules were the result extensive public consultation that including chemical industry manufacturers, retailers, health impacted groups, medical professionals, and public interest groups. They had bipartisan support from Congress and the Obama White House and were applauded by health experts for creating a rigorous process to identify and control harmful exposures to toxic chemicals linked to significant health threats link cancer, reproductive disease, and learning disabilities.
Unfortunately, the versions released today have been extensively tampered with outside of the public view by the Trump-Pruitt EPA with Nancy Beck at the helm of the agency’s toxics program—recently rotated in from the industry trade group the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
A report in POLITICO noted that Nancy Beck had been “very involved” with these rules since moving from the chemical industry ACC to the EPA, and that she did not recuse herself because the rules are “matters of general applicability”. Moreover, Beck was cleared to talk with her recent past employer, ACC, about the rules (Politico 6/21/2017 by Annie Snider and Alex Guillen).
Concerns about Beck’s obvious industry bias and conflicts of interest regarding her involvement in TSCA rules were raised by Representative Frank Pallone, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee (D-NJ). Beck now serves as EPA’s Deputy Assistant Administrator in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), and oversees finalizing the TSCA rules that she had lobbied on while at ACC. Rep. Pallone noted that, “the role she appears to be playing in finalizing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) framework rules threaten the success of the TSCA Reform legislation passed last year”. It seems that the threat has become a reality.
Sadly, the new rules on prioritization and risk evaluation have been weakened and are now much more favorable to the chemical industry than the versions agreed upon through the public consultation process.
The science is clear: exposures to toxic chemicals in the products we use every day are harming our health and contributing to disease. These rules will favor the continued use of chemicals that should be taken off the market. We will continue to hold EPA accountable to its job to protect public health.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/trump-epa-weakens-tsca-rules-favor-chemical-industry
-
Practitioner Insights: Prioritizing Health Was Intent of New Chemicals Reforms
Jun 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Senator Tom Udall
One year ago, Congress did what many thought was impossible: it passed and the president signed into law the most sweeping environmental reform legislation in 25 years and the first significant update of the Toxic Substances Control Act in 40 years. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act was written first and foremost to protect public health and safety by ensuring that the Environmental Protection Agency had the resources and the explicit direction to determine the safe use of all chemicals on the market, and to evaluate all new chemicals before they go to market.
Today, the new law is at a critical juncture. The EPA's first challenge was to implement enhanced requirements for the new chemicals program, which took effect immediately. That has meant a change in business as usual as the agency and industry groups grapple with reforms to the way new chemicals are reviewed and move to market.
It is understandable that this has caused growing pains for both the EPA and industry. But I want to address head on the claims by some that the EPA has misunderstood Congress’ intent and that its actions have caused unintentional challenges in the implementation of the new chemicals program. This claim is false. House and Senate negotiators debated this section at length, and the reforms to the new chemicals program need to be acknowledged for what they are—serious changes written expressly to better ensure the safety of new chemicals that are moving to market and the health of those who come in contact with them.
Prior to our reforms, several of my colleagues and I had almost no confidence that the EPA was giving new chemicals a robust and serious review. New chemicals went to market within 90 days regardless of whether there was adequate information or a safety determination by the EPA. While I have great admiration for the staff at the EPA and their work, I felt very strongly that this process—which prioritized speed of review—did not do enough to protect public health and safety. I did not write the section to safeguard the speed with which new chemicals would get to market. My goal was to ensure that the public could have confidence that the chemicals going to market are safe. As such, we added a great deal to raise the bar on the finding that the EPA needs to make for a new chemical to get onto the market.
I can appreciate that there are many in industry who balk at this change. But 90 days is not always enough time to ensure that sufficient information is available and to negotiate the conditions to mitigate potential risk. If industry needs to expedite the process, it should provide the health and safety information up front that will allow the EPA to make timely decisions.
Critically, Congress also required that the EPA evaluate new chemicals under their conditions of use, which the law defines to include those that are “reasonably foreseen” as well as intended. It is essential for the EPA to be required to examine such potential uses, as once a new chemical enters the market, companies can use it in ways other than those initially intended. Indeed, absent EPA action, once a chemical is on the market, any other company can use it in new ways not anticipated by the company that first made it.
Hence the law requires that EPA's review and determination on a new chemical notice expressly consider reasonably foreseen uses. Where concerns are identified or insufficient information has been provided by a company, the EPA must issue an order imposing conditions sufficient to ensure that the chemical can be expected to be safe if used in reasonably foreseen ways, even if those extend beyond those the company intends. It is not sufficient under the new law for the EPA merely to require notification of companies seeking to engage in reasonably foreseen uses, as was sometimes done under the old law.
These new requirements are significant: the EPA now has to be prepared to stand by its decision of safety, and pre-manufacture information must be robustly reviewed and analyzed and extend to uses beyond those identified by a company that can be reasonably foreseen. As a result, the EPA has had to add many new staff into the new chemicals program to address the flow and conduct the requisite enhanced review, including for the many chemicals that were pending when the reforms were passed into law. While the EPA bears a great deal of the burden of reviewing and processing these submissions, if we are to see an efficient process that is beneficial to their desired timeline, industry must listen carefully to what the EPA needs and adjust accordingly by providing more information in its initial submissions. The EPA has already acknowledged the need to provide additional guidance on the types of information, testing, and forms that should accompany pre-manufacture notices for new chemicals.
Passing TSCA reform was not easy, especially with a divided government. Implementing and adhering to the new reforms will not be easy either, but it is essential that we adhere to the balance we struck. Industry and its allies must avoid the temptation to pick up gains that were not part of the deal because of a new favorable political climate, whether in the new chemicals program or in other areas of the new law. TSCA reform was grounded in a delicate balance and we need to keep it that way.
Tom Udall is the senior senator from the state of New Mexico
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114763429&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114763429&jd=114763429
-
US EPA Issues Final TSCA Framework Rules
Jun 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Three final framework rules under the new TSCA, as well as scoping documents for the first ten substances subject to risk evaluation, were due to be issued by the US EPA within a matter of hours as Chemical Watch went to press today.
The release of the documents comes on the one-year anniversary of passage of the Frank R Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act – and on its statutory deadline for actions that must be completed within a year of the law’s passage.
The rules are the:prioritisation rule, which outlines the process by which the EPA will prioritise existing chemicals for evaluating their risks, including the criteria for designating chemical substances as high-priority or low-priority substances for risk evaluation;risk evaluation rule, describing how the agency will evaluate the risk posed by existing substances to determine whether they present an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment; and‘inventory reset’ rule, which lays out how the agency will designate substances on the TSCA inventory as ‘active’ and ‘inactive’.
Separately, it is issuing guidance for external parties interested in submitting draft risk evaluations to the agency for its consideration.
According to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, these activities "demonstrate this administration’s commitment to providing regulatory certainty to American businesses, while protecting human health and the environment".
"The new process for evaluating existing chemicals outlined in these rules will increase public confidence in chemical safety without stifling innovation," he added.Changes since proposals
The final rules follow a development process that took the greater part of a year and included multiple public hearings and comment opportunities.
In response to public comment, the EPA has made several modifications. These include:deleting the pre-prioritisation process, with plans to defer a decision on these provisions following further stakeholder dialogue;increasing public participation in identifying candidates for prioritisation, indicating a tiered approach to information gathering when filling data gaps, and striking provisions for a ‘default’ to a high-priority designation;not requiring all conditions of use to be considered in a risk evaluation, to "[ensure] that the agency’s resources are focused on those uses that may pose the greatest risk"; andmore clearly defining "important scientific terms" in its risk evaluation rule, while "retaining flexibility to allow for new scientific approaches to be incorporated as they are developed".
The agency also made efforts to "streamline" the inventory reset reporting requirements. Modifications include:expanding exemptions from retrospective reporting;removing the proposed requirements to report commercial activity type and date range;adding a 90-day transition period before a substance is officially designated as inactive; andextending to 420 days the period during which processors may optionally report.Scoping documents
In addition to the framework rules, ‘scoping documents’ for the first ten chemicals subject to risk evaluation under the new law identify the uses that will be assessed and how the agency will conduct its evaluations of the initial high-priority substances – which include asbestos, several chlorinated solvents, consumer products contaminant 1,4-dioxane and the flame retardant HBCD.
Given the six-month statutory window between identifying these substances and the deadline for finalising the scoping documents, the agency did not release draft scopes for public consultation. Instead, it consulted on preliminary use dossiers.
The breadth of uses the agency will consider in these bellwether evaluations divided stakeholders. Industry has advocated relying on actual exposure scenarios, while NGOs have urged consideration of all plausible uses and exposures, including trace presence of a substance, intentional misuses or from accidental releases.
Earlier this week, the agency opened a comment period for these first ten substances to solicit information to help it conduct the problem formulation – the next step in the risk evaluation process. Comments will be accepted through 19 September.Eyes to future
Even as the agency clears the hurdle of the major one-year deadlines under the new law, work continues on implementing TSCA.
Passage of the inventory reset rule sets in motion a 180-day countdown for manufacturers and importers to report on the substances they have used during the ten year ‘lookback’ period, ending 21 June 2016.
And the EPA must now turn its attention to year two mandates and key implementing activities that lack statutory deadlines. These include:publishing an alternative testing methods strategy, mercury use reporting rule, and guidance for generic names for confidential chemicals (required two years after Lautenberg);a rule for review and substantiation of confidential business information (CBI) (to be finalised one year after agency publishes list of active chemicals);a fees rule (no statutory deadline) .
The agency is also expected to continue its work on revising the small business definition, anegotiated rulemaking for reporting inorganic byproducts under the chemical data reporting (CDR) rule, and eliminating the backlog of new substance notifications under review.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57156/us-epa-issues-final-tsca-framework-rules
-
New Trump EPA Rules Put Chemical Industry Interests Ahead Of Public Health
Jun 22, 2017 | Safer Chemicals Healthy Families
Environmental health coalition disappointed by polluter-friendly rulesThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced final rules today that establish the framework for implementation of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act. Safer Chemicals Healthy Families Government Affairs Director Liz Hitchcock issued the following statement in response:
“We are profoundly disappointed that the rules issued today depart dramatically from EPA’s original proposal, following the wishes of the chemical lobby, and allowing EPA to disregard ways that the public is exposed to and potentially harmed by toxic chemicals.
The rules announced today are supposed to be the critical building blocks for how EPA will implement the Lautenberg Act to protect public health. When the draft rules were released six months ago, we were optimistic that they would require that EPA evaluate and protect the public from toxic chemicals for all conditions of use, just as the law requires. We were hopeful that the system for prioritizing chemicals for evaluation—among the thousands in commerce—would be efficient and transparent for industry and for the public. We hoped that the rule would support EPA’s ability to make thoughtful, high-quality, science-based judgments on individual chemicals.
In the multi-year effort to reform U.S. chemical policy, the goal has been to restore the public’s trust in the safety of the products on store shelves, and build our confidence that the EPA can protect our families from unsafe chemicals. These rules fail to accomplish that, and instead put chemical industry interests ahead of the health of our children and our families.”
http://saferchemicals.org/newsroom/new-trump-epa-rules-put-chemical-industry-interests-ahead-of-public-health/
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA to Refine Initial Analysis of Pigment, Other Chemicals
Jun 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto and Catherine Douglas Moran
Lenox Corp., Tiffany & Co., 3M, BASF Corp. and Procter & Gamble Corp. are among the companies that eventually could be affected by the risk analysis plans that the EPA released June 22 for four chemicals.
The risk evaluation strategies, or “scoping documents,” discuss how the agency will determine whether the four chemicals—a group of flame retardants, a pigment, a feedstock compound and a largely unintended byproduct of chemical production—pose an unreasonable risk to people or the environment. The scoping documents identify the uses of the chemicals the EPA will evaluate and discuss how its risk evaluations may proceed.
The agency intends, however, to refine its risk evaluation strategy, including potentially narrowing the uses it will consider, as it moves to the next step of its risk evaluation process—problem formulation.
These four scoping documents were among 10 risk analysis plans, three final rules and guidance the agency issued simultaneously to comply with requirements in the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, which in 2016 overhauled the nation's primary chemicals statute.
The risk scoping documents discussed below addressed four chemicals:
• pigment violet 29;
• 1,4-dioxane; which most commonly is a byproduct of or residue from chemical manufacturing, but also is used to make some medications and fine chemicals;
• hexabromocyclododecane (a group of flame retardants); and
• carbon tetrachloride, a feedstock used to make other chemicals.
Regulations May Follow
The EPA has up to three years to evaluate the risks of these four and the other six chemicals detailed in the scoping documents it released June 22. If during or at the end of that time, the agency concludes a chemical or certain uses of it pose an unreasonable risk, the statute requires the agency to reduce those risks.
An EPA conclusion that a chemical poses an unacceptable risk virtually guarantees that the agency will consider restricting some or all of its uses in some way.
The marketplace, too, will play a role as manufacturers that purchase or use the chemical and consumers that might have purchased products containing it use their power of the purse and stop buying the chemical or merchandise.
Initial Reaction
“With the release of its scoping documents for the initial 10 chemicals for risk evaluation, EPA has further demonstrated a good faith commitment to meeting the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act's statutory deadlines,” the American Chemistry Council said in a statement that immediately followed the agency's release of the material.
The trade association commended the EPA for accepting additional information that could affect its 10 risk evaluations. The agency invited interested parties to submit information by Sept. 19 in the respective dockets it set up for each of the 10 chemicals.
Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, said the agency had “handed in [its] homework on time, but what matters here is the content of the rules and how they will be implemented by this EPA.”
“We are going to be reviewing them very carefully to see if they meet what is outlined in the law and whether they will protect the public's health and environment. With respect to implementation, EDF has grave concerns given Administrator [Scott] Pruitt's track record of targeting environmental and health protections and supporting the gutting of the agency's budget,” Denison said.
Data Sources
Companies, unions and and other interested groups can submit additional information to inform the agency's risk assessments. That includes state public and environmental health laboratories.
Public health laboratories want to contribute to the EPA's risk assessment and chemical oversight efforts, Julianne Nassif, director of environmental health for the Association of Public Health Laboratories, told Bloomberg BNA.
“Many state public health and environmental laboratories have drinking water data from public water systems for seven of the 10 chemicals,” she said. Public health and environmental laboratories may have additional data from groundwater or soil tests, Nassif said.
It is unlikely that state public health and environmental laboratories have data for the flame retardants or pigment violet 29, because these chemicals are not commonly monitored by state public health and environmental laboratories, she said.Pigment Violet 29
Pigment violet 29 (CAS No. 81-33-4) is being evaluated by the EPA for reasons including potential to irritate skin and eyes and harm reproduction and development. The agency's risk scoping document, however, acknowledges the agency would like to receive more information on the chemical's hazard, uses and exposures.
The EPA expects to examine exposures to workers that could touch or otherwise be directly exposed along with other individuals where the pigment is used. The agency also may examine the exposures experienced by consumers and individuals who live or work near manufacturing, processing, use or disposal sites.
Sun Chemical Corp. was the only U.S. facility that reported manufacturing pigment violet 29 (CAS No. 81-33-4) to the EPA in recent years, according to the information submitted to the agency's Chemical Data Reporting, or CDR, rule in 2012 and 2016.
BASF SE, located in Germany, and Liaoning LianGang Pigment and Dyestuff Chemicals Company Ltd., located in China, also make or import the reddish-maroon shaded pigment, which is used to color plastics and is found in multiple industrial and commercial products. They include paints, coatings, pharmaceuticals, cleaning products, paper, sporting goods, and motor components, the EPA said.
The EPA withheld the total aggregate production and importation volumes for the pigment for 2013, 2014, and 2015, but said 520,916 pounds were made or imported in 2012.
Companies with “familiar names like Tiffany and Lenox, as well as many small mom-and-pop decorating entities” will be affected by the risk scoping, regulations and other actions the EPA is taking to implement efforts the amended chemicals law, the Society of Glass and Ceramic Decorated Products told the EPA in comments it submitted to the agency.
“Access to color palates and decorating products may be limited,” the society wrote. Pigment violet is commonly found in watercolor and acrylic paints for consumer use, EPA's scoping document said.
David Wawer, executive director of the Color Pigments Manufacturers Association, submitted comments as well. The pigment has been in commerce for more than 40 years because “there are no other comparable violet pigments,” he said.
1,4-dioxane
The EPA has classified 1,4-dioxane (CAS No. 123-91-1) as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans” by all routes of exposure, according to EPA's scoping document. Short-term exposure to high levels of 1,4-dioxane can result in nausea, drowsiness, headache, and irritation of the eyes, nose and throat, according to an agency fact sheet. Chronic exposure may result in dermatitis, eczema, drying and cracking of skin and liver and kidney damage.
The BASF Corp. has said it makes 1,4-dioxane, to aid in the manufacture of active pharmaceutical ingredients and fine chemicals.
Trace amounts of 1,4-dioxane occur in many different consumer, industrial and institutional products, because the chemical is an unintentional byproduct generated during the production of other chemicals.
Only one chemical manufacturer, which said to EPA its identity was confidential business information, submitted production or importation volume information for 1,4-dioxane to the EPA in 2016. Companies had to provide such information to the agency under the CDR rule.
The national production volume was 1,06 million pounds in 2015; 474,331 pounds in 2014; 1,04 million in pounds 2013; and 894,505 pounds in 2012, the EPA's scoping document said.
Hexabromocyclododecane
The primary use of hexabromocyclododecane, or the cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster of three chemicals (CAS Nos. 25637-99-4, 3194-55-6, 3194-57-8), is to slow down fires in building and construction insulating foams, the EPA's scoping document said. Minor uses of the flame retardants include in the electrical and electronic products, floor coverings, furniture, and textiles.
The flame retardants are highly toxic to aquatic organisms, the EPA said. They raise human health concerns based on animal test results indicating potential reproductive, developmental and neurological effects, the EPA said.
Scientists also are finding the flame retardants world-wide in the environment and wildlife, and they've been detected in human breast milk, adipose tissue, blood and hair. The chemicals have the potential persist in the environment, be transported far from where they were made or used and build up in the food chain, the EPA said.
The BASF Corp., Lanxess (formerly Chemtura Corp.), and the Albemarle Corp. were among the chemical manufacturers that produced or imported one or more of the flame retardants in in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. Their national aggregate production level ranged between 1 million and 50 million pounds during those years.
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbon tetrachloride (CAS No. 56-23-5) is used as a feedstock and processing aid to produce chemicals including chlorinated paraffins, perchloroethylene, fertilizers, and refrigerants, the EPA's scoping document said.
The chemical is an ozone depleter, so under the Clean Air Act, its use is allowed only if it is “used and entirely consumed (except for trace quantities) in the production of other chemicals.”
The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified carbon tetrachloride as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans” by all routes of exposure based on inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans, and sufficient evidence in animals by oral and inhalation exposure, the EPA said.
Short-term, high exposures and long-term, lower exposures carbon tetrachloride can damage liver and kidney function, according to the EPA. Other harmful effects of short-term, high exposures include headache, weakness, lethargy, nausea, and vomiting, according to the EPA.
The Dow Chemical Co., Ineos Chlor America Inc., the Occidental Chemical Corp. and Syngenta Crop Protection LLC were among the chemical manufacturers that provided the EPA production and importation volume information for carbon tetrachloride in 2016.
The total production and importation volume of the chemical was 129.1 million pounds in 2012, 116.6 million in 2013, 139.5 million in 2014 and 142.5 million in 2015, the EPA said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114763394&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114763394&jd=114763394
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Sets Out Parameters for Studying Asbestos Risk
Jun 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The EPA took an early step June 22 to lay out how it plans to evaluate the risk of asbestos, publishing an initial document on how it will review information on the substance.
The Environmental Protection Agency's scoping document sets out how it plans to evaluate asbestos under the new chemical safety law. The risk evaluation strategies, or “scoping documents,” explain how EPA will determine if asbestos poses an unreasonable risk to people or the environment, actions that could affect companies that use asbestos, such as Occidental Chemical Co., Axiall Corp. and Olin Corp.
What's In, What's Out
The Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, which updated the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, required EPA to publish the document within a year of its enactment.
The agency acknowledged it may change its risk-evaluation strategy in the next step of the process, problem formulation, including by removing uses it will evaluate. At the same time, EPA said it will not add new conditions of use to examine if it hasn't yet presented it.
What won't be examined is so-called “legacy uses” of asbestos, such as building materials that remain in place but are no longer produced for new construction, the document said, as the agency wants to focus on “uses for which manufacture, processing or distribution is intended, known to be occurring, or reasonably foreseen.”
The document will impact how EPA conducts its future risk evaluation of asbestos, which could impact users of the substance if it requires changes in how they operate. While asbestos is no longer mined in the United States, imported asbestos is contained in some brake pads and other products and is used in chloralkali plants operated by companies like Occidental Chemical Co., Axiall Corp. and Olin Corp.
Asbestos is a cancer-causing substance with a long history of attention from the agency.
While the EPA document acknowledged the chloralkali industry's asbestos use, it also noted exposure could be excluded on a “case-by-case basis” in situations such as “uses that occur in a closed system that effectively precludes exposure.”
The document came on the one-year anniversary of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, which updated the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976. Central to the legislation was the legacy of asbestos, which EPA failed to regulate under the old law when a federal court blocked its regulation on the substance.
Asbestos’ well-known connection to causing lung cancer, mesothelioma and other respiratory ailments combined with the EPA's inability in 1989 to craft a rule—capable of withstanding court scrutiny—restricting uses of the mineral made asbestos the poster child spurring calls to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act.
EPA also said it would evaluate research tying asbestos to cancer of the larynx and ovary and non-cancer hazards such as respiratory illnesses and immunotoxicity.
EPA noted the statutory deadline may have rushed development of the document, calling it “not as refined or specified as future scope documents are anticipated to be.”
Asbestos Use Continues in U.S
The asbestos evaluation is likely to focus on worker safety impacts because workers face the highest exposure to the substance, the EPA said. Under the law, workers can be considered a “relevant potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation” in the evaluation.
In the U.S., many specific existing uses have been banned, such as in pipe insulation, spray-on materials and other products.
Yet other uses of asbestos continue, for example in imported brake pads. The Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association has told EPA it is concerned about auto repair mechanics being exposed to asbestos through imported brake pads.
Cindy Sebrell, a spokeswoman for the group, said in an email to Bloomberg BNA June 22 the organization is still reviewing the document.
Few manufacturers that make chlorine and caustic soda using the “chlor-alkali process” constitute the largest users of asbestos, according to the U.S. Geological Survey's 2017 Mineral Commodity summary. http://src.bna.com/p2I They imported 340 tons in 2016, USGS said.
These companies, EPA said, include the Olin Corp. and Axiall Corp.. The Occidental Chemical Co. also uses the chloralkali process.
An attempt to examine the risk of asbestos in the chloralkali industry would be required prior to proposing a halt to the substance's use, but companies are likely to balk at being forced to modify plant operations with alternative materials.
Olin Corp. did not respond to a request for comment. Axiall Corp. could not be reached for comment. Eric Moses, a spokesman for Occidental, referred questions to industry trade organizations.
Reactions
Industry and public health organizations said they were still reviewing the document.
American Chemistry Council spokesman Jon Corley said in a statement June 22 the group “will review and analyze the scoping documents to ensure that they are based on best available, verified information as well as focused on the conditions of use that present the greatest potential risks so that the risk evaluations are protective and practical.”
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a co-sponsor of the new chemical safety legislation, said in a statement June 22 the document's release came at a “critical point for the new law.”
“There is a lot at stake and we must ensure that EPA acts as Congress intended—to prioritize safety, especially for pregnant women, infants, the elderly and chemical industry workers,” Udall said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114763396&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114763396&jd=114763396
-
EPA Examining Worker Exposures to Solvents, Liver Damage
Jun 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Douglas Moran and Sam Pearson
The EPA will review whether five commonly used solvents may damage liver or kidney function or cause other harms in exposed workers, the general public or people living near sites where the chemicals are made or disposed, according to risk scoping documents the agency released June 22.
Companies that made or used one or more of the five solvents include Arkema S.A., the BASF Corp., and the Occidental Chemical Corp.
The EPA has up to three years to complete its risk evaluations of these five solvents. If the agency determines at any time during those years that a chemical or a particular use poses an unreasonable risk to people or the environment, the agency will craft regulations or take other actions to prevent harm.
The five solvents are:• 1-bromopropane,
• methylene chloride,
• n-methylpyrrolidone,
• trichloroethylene, and
• tetrachloroethylene.
The EPA said it needed more time to refine its strategy to assess the risks of these chemicals. It invited interested parties to submit additional information on them through Sept. 19.“The activities we are announcing today demonstrate this administration's commitment to providing regulatory certainty to American businesses, while protecting human health and the environment,” EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a statement June 22.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114763395&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114763395&jd=114763395
-
Foster Wheeler Appeal Upends Asbestos Case Transfer
Jun 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
A federal district court in Maryland denied Foster Wheeler LLC its right to a federal forum when it transferred a worker's asbestos exposure case to state court, the Fourth Circuit ruled June 22 (Sawyer v. Foster Wheeler LLC, 4th Cir., No. 16-1530, 6/22/17).
The company was under the direction of the U.S. Navy when shipbuilder Joseph Morris made boilers for U.S. Navy ships from 1948 into the 1970s, and met all of the requirements for federal jurisdiction under the Federal Officer Removal Statute, the three-judge panel said.
The statute generally authorizes federal courts to hear cases like Morris's when a defendant's alleged conduct was taken under the direction of a federal officer.
Morris's widow, who claimed her husband's mesothelioma was caused by asbestos in the boilers, persuaded the district court that the case should be heard in state courts because the boilers were constructed off-site and without direct military supervision.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, finding Foster Wheeler acted under the authority of the Navy, had a valid claim of government contractor immunity from suit, and had no more knowledge of the dangers of asbestos than the Navy.
The federal contractor defense applies in failure-to-warn cases even if the federal government doesn't bar a contractor from providing additional product warnings, the court said.
The defense applies “so long as the government dictated or approved the warning that the contractor actually provided,” the court said.
Circuit Judge Paul V. Niemeyer wrote the opinion, joined by Judges Robert B. King and Allyson K. Duncan.
The law offices of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell represented Foster Wheeler.
The law offices of Peter G. Angelos represented Janya Sawyer and other plaintiffs.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114763420&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114763420&jd=114763420
-
Dow, Koehler Create Thermal Paper That Doesn't Need Bisphenols
Jun 23, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Dow Chemical and German paper group Koehler have been jointly awarded a US EPA green chemistry challenge award for developing a thermal printing paper that does not need chemical developers, such as bisphenol A or bisphenol S.
Current thermal papers, used for till receipts and labels around the globe, all use the developers. In the EU, BPA is banned in thermal paper from 2020 and manufacturers are working towards phasing out the chemical, said Dow.
When used in paper, BPA is present as a free monomer, which is more likely to be released than BPA polymerised into a resin or plastic, it added.
"No clearly safer thermal paper developers are available, with most alternatives having moderate or high hazard designations for human health or aquatic toxicity endpoints," said Dow in its EPA award nomination document.
The new technology creates images using a top layer of polymeric particles. When heated, these collapse to allow an underlying coloured layer to show through in selected areas.
Dow developed the technology in 2012 while Koehler optimised and field tested it. This year sees large-scale commercial roll-out.
The paper works in existing thermal printers and can be used directly in food contact materials, Dow said.
In April, the company received an Edison award in the US for its Canvera metal can coating. This offers a water-borne, spray-applied replacement for epoxy coating systems, "minimising" epoxy and bisphenol A and eliminating material that is of concern for many consumers, it says. For this, it applies a polyolefin dispersion to the interior metal surface of cans using existing equipment.
Last December, the European Commission confirmed the ban on BPA in thermal paper. After 2 January 2020, it can not be placed on the market in the paper at a concentration equal to or greater than 0.02% by weight.
Meanwhile, some BPA alternatives may also cause developmental effects, according to a recent Dutch study.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57151/dow-koehler-create-thermal-paper-that-doesnt-need-bisphenols
-
EU REACH Project Finds Companies Handling Banned Substances
Jun 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
A small number of companies in the European Union are flouting rules on substances phased out from use in the bloc under the REACH regulation, the European Chemicals Agency said June 22.
In a report on a coordinated enforcement project that involved authorities in 17 of the EU's 28 countries, the chemicals agency said 802 inspections turned up five companies that were illegally selling hazardous substances that have been banned under REACH since 2015, and five companies that were illegally using banned substances. The agency was unable to provide additional information on the countries where the companies operate and whether the same companies were involved in both offenses.
The companies were illegally trading in, or using, dibutyl phthalate, diarsenic trioxide, and hexabromocyclododecane, according to the report. The substances are listed in Annex XIV of REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals), meaning they cannot be sold or used in the EU without specific continued-use authorizations. To obtain authorizations, companies must apply to the chemicals agency.
Dibutyl phthalate is a plasticizer that's often added to adhesives and printing inks; diarsenic trioxide is a hazardous substance used at industrial sites and in manufacturing; and hexabromocyclododecane can be found in flooring, furniture, toys, and construction materials.
’Serious’ Offenses
Of the 802 companies inspected, 735 were not selling Annex XIV substances while 67 were, the agency said. Of the 67 that were, 16 had been granted authorizations, 16 had authorizations pending, and 30 were selling the substances for uses that are exempt from the authorization requirement.
In terms of use of the substances, 746 of the 802 companies inspected were not using Annex XIV substances, 38 were using them on the basis of an authorization or a pending authorization, and 13 were using them in situations that did not require an authorization, the chemicals agency's report said.
“Infringement of authorization provisions is considered a serious offence,” the chemicals agency said in a statement.
According to the report, enforcement authorities issued written or verbal warnings in most of the cases of noncompliance, but in two cases criminal proceedings were started. Under REACH, authorities in EU countries are responsible for enforcement and there is no standard enforcement regime.
National enforcement authorities “take appropriate measures they deem necessary to enforce breaches of the legislation and it is their judgement as to what measures are effective in enforcing compliance” ECHA told Bloomberg BNA in a June 22 email. The agency was unable to provide further details on the enforcement measures.
Theresa Kjell, a senior policy adviser with ChemSec, which campaigns for phasing out toxic chemicals, told Bloomberg BNA June 22 that the substances in Annex XIV of REACH were “the worst of the worst,” and enforcement of the REACH provisions in connection with authorization should be improved.
By highlighting that some illegal use of substances is happening, ECHA's report “can be one piece in the puzzle of improving the authorization process in general,” Kjell said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114763422&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114763422&jd=114763422
-
MSC Seeks Detailed Information For Metabolite Read-Across Group
Jun 22, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr Emma Davies
Read-across cases for chemicals with similar metabolites need to have "a very good overview of possible metabolic routes and also have a very good data matrix", says Watze de Wolf, chair of Echa's Member State Committee (MSC).
A compliance check discussion for butyl glycollate, at last week's committee meeting, revealed a complex read-across case involving chemicals with similar metabolites and decided that it was not fully complete.
"We needed to have information on the biotransformation pathways, on enzymes involved, on the rate of degradation for different enzymes, as well as some toxicity information on all of the metabolites and parent substances," Dr de Wolf told Chemical Watch, as well as kinetics, for example, whether certain enzyme systems are more important than others for the chemicals.
It will probably be possible for the registrant to provide all this, he added.
Echa's read-across assessment framework (Raaf) gives advice on such cases, he said, "but it is something that registrants would really need to spend time on".
Corap mode of action
Meanwhile, the committee is seeking more information on mode of action for some chemicals being evaluated under the Community Rolling Action Plan (Corap).
At the meeting, the debate centred on mutagenicity concerns for hexafluoropropene, following a positive in vivo test result. In a bid to rule out general cell toxicity, the committee agreed to a proposal to carry out a micronucleus in vitro test, which screens for genetic damage. A positive result would reinforce the case for mutagenicity and bring a need for further testing, said Dr de Wolf.
Hexafluoropropene is used in fire extinguishing substances and as a chemical intermediate for fluoro-based polymers.
The Italian competent authority, which is overseeing the evaluation, had asked for a carcinogenicity test for the substance but the committee decided against it for now. "There are some possibilities for read-across to other halogenated alkenes," added Dr de Wolf.
Peroxides
The committee also asked for similar micronucleus tests for a peroxide (di-tert-pentyl peroxide), which Italy is also evaluating. Discussions focused on the potential to group peroxides for read-across. "We may move into a category approach for the substances," said Dr de Wolf. "How far to cast the net – which substances to include – is up for discussion."
With Italy and the Netherlands evaluating different peroxides, "there may be some interest for further collaboration and coordination [between member states] on this," he added.
UVCB
A substance evaluation case for a UVCB (unknown or variable composition, complex reaction products or biological materials) called tetrapropylenebenzene requires a focus on particular fractions, the committee decided.
The Netherlands is responsible for the evaluation for possible persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity (PBT). The general strategy for PBT chemicals is to test for persistence, followed by bioaccumulation then toxicity. "For this specific case there is an exception," said Dr de Wolf, because there is an immediate risk concern for so-called secondary poisoning, when an organism eats another that has been exposed to the substance.
Being a UVCB, the testing is split. First, the committee agreed that a low alkyl chain (C9) fraction and a longer chain C12 fraction should be tested for persistency, bioaccumulation (secondary poisoning) and toxicity to invertebrates.
The tests will run in parallel. The registrant will then be able to identify the most toxic of the two fractions – either C9 or C12 – for further sediment toxicity or fish tests.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57143/msc-seeks-detailed-information-for-metabolite-read-across-group
-
GOP Senators Look To Limit DOE Role In Export Approvals
Jun 23, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss and Hannah Northey
Senate Republicans have lost no time in embracing the Trump administration's message of "energy dominance" and this week floated legislation to fast-track exports of domestic U.S. gas.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) introduced legislation yesterday that would largely scrap decades-old restrictions that require the federal government to sign off on exports of natural gas abroad.
The bill, dubbed the "License Natural Gas (LNG) Now Act," would remove provisions from the Natural Gas Act of 1938 that require federal approval to export natural gas abroad. Under the law, the Energy Department currently assesses whether such exports meet a "public interest" test, although nations that have free-trade agreements with the United States automatically qualify for exports.
Cassidy's bill would require the approval of exports "without modification or delay," but would retain authorities for the federal government to limit natural gas imports and exports during emergencies or disasters. It additionally would allow the federal government to restrict exports to "unfriendly" nations.
The bill also touts the potential for cleaner-burning natural gas to lower global greenhouse gas emissions — a point that Cassidy often notes.
In a statement, Cassidy's office said the bill "guarantees acceptance of export volume applications to the Department of Energy for export and import of natural gas without delay," criticizing reforms the Obama administration employed in response to criticism from industry that the application process was overly cumbersome.
"The previous administration created hurdles that stalled LNG projects that benefit the economy, environment and Louisiana workers." said Cassidy in a statement. "This legislation adds certainty to the approval process and brings investment, and better-paying jobs, to Louisiana."
His legislation would also require DOE to submit a report to Congress on actions that could be taken to boost exports of natural gas, as well as a list of regulations that are hampering the growth of the U.S. natural gas market. It would keep intact the separate liquefied natural gas export facility licensing process at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The bill, which is supported by the American Petroleum Institute, the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas and LNG Allies, highlights the changed political environment that has unfolded since the election of Donald Trump as president.
In the last Congress, both the House- and Senate-passed bills would have imposed a "shot clock" on DOE for making final decisions on export applications after receiving the final environmental reviews from FERC.
Those bills died after months of formal conference talks ended in the closing weeks of the session.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said this week that the shot clock would be included in a revised version of the bipartisan energy package that she and ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) are hoping to reintroduce in the coming weeks.
Key House advocates of LNG exports said earlier this month they were holding off on reintroducing bills to speed exports until DOE completes a review of the process (E&E Daily, June 8).
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) this week also introduced legislation to boost LNG exports.
Cruz's bill would amend the Natural Gas Act to create a process for expediting LNG exports. Cruz claimed that expanding such overseas sales "will lead to increased investment and development of domestic supplies of natural gas that will contribute to job growth and economic development."
Any nation subject to sanctions or trade restrictions would be exempt from the expedited process, according to the bill.'Energy dominance'
The Trump administration's message of "energy dominance" yesterday appeared to please ENR Republicans while riling up top Democrats.
Republican Sen. Steve Daines said he aligned with the administration's thinking and touted his home state of Montana's massive coal, oil and gas reserves that are balanced with hydropower and wind, adding he'd like to bring his state's energy approach to a "national scale."
Energy Secretary Rick Perry blamed federal regulations for stalling fossil fuels in states like Montana and said the president has given clear instructions to pull back such restrictions.
Perry added that countries like Ukraine attempting to buffer Russia's influence or India with booming, electricity-hungry populations could be critical consumers of the United States' oil, gas and coal.
"America, I don't think, has had a great opportunity in our history to be able to play a powerful role in securing our national defense, making sure economically we are a massive player in the global marketplace and having an impact on the environment," Perry said.
But Senate Democrats pushed back, with Cantwell saying the White House should be more focused on technologies like efficiency and clean energy than coal.
"We've heard a lot about the so-called energy dominance from this administration," Cantwell said. "I'd like to hear a lot less about exporting commodities that even nations like China are starting to have major blowback on."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/06/23/stories/1060056489
-
Trump Looks To Lift LNG Exports In US Trade Shift
Jun 22, 2017 | The Financial Times
By Barney Jopson and Demetri Sevastopulo and Ed Crooks
Donald Trump is engineering a sharp shift in US energy policy by using natural gas exports as an instrument of trade policy, championing sales to China and other parts of Asia to create jobs and reduce US trade deficits.
In a bid to unleash US energy, Mr Trump is trying to promote more liquefied natural gas exports to Asia while extending Barack Obama’s efforts to use LNG as a geopolitical weapon in Europe aimed at Russia.
The goal of the push is to help US LNG companies land sales contracts in energy-hungry nations across Asia, including Japan and India.
Charif Souki, the chairman of LNG company Tellurian and former chief executive of Cheniere, the only US business currently exporting LNG, said a perception that the Obama administration was not supportive of LNG exports was wrong. But he said the Trump administration was more vocal in its support for the industry because of the emphasis the president was placing on creating jobs across America.
“Mr Trump is not afraid to brag about the industry,” said Mr Souki.
When Mr Trump visits Warsaw in July before the G20, he is expected to tout the first Cheniere shipment of LNG to Poland, which arrived recently and has been billed as proof of the US’s ability to reduce eastern Europe’s dependence on Russian natural gas. But the most obvious shift in the US stance came during negotiations with China in which the US provided an explicit guarantee that Beijing wanted in order to entertain contracts with US companies. The Trump administration hopes the move will spur LNG exports to China and help address the $300bn trade deficit the US has with the country.
Wilbur Ross, commerce secretary, and Rick Perry, energy secretary, have both in recent weeks stressed the Trump administration’s desire to help find Chinese buyers for American LNG, shipped from multibillion-dollar terminals being built along the US Gulf coast.
Daniel Yergin, a veteran energy analyst, said: “The Obama administration was generally supportive of the development and export of LNG, but did not see it as a crucial element in trade strategy. The Trump administration, with its focus on bilateral trade deficits, sees LNG as a way to address them.”
While there were no special restrictions on LNG sales to China in the Obama era, an executive with Cheniere said political disputes over energy policy in Washington had made potential Chinese buyers jittery.
To soothe nerves, the commerce department in May issued a statement which said the US “welcomes China” as a buyer of US LNG and “treats China no less favourably” than other countries with equivalent trade status.
“The Chinese . . . were looking for that sort of reassurance that the US, the president, supports US energy exports, period,” said one White House official. “Given the shale revolution and the abundance of energy supply that we have now, we can meet not only our domestic needs here but we can also play a role in helping ensure a reliable and secure global supply.”
Mr Yergin, vice-chairman of IHS Markit, a research group, said the Trump administration may also find buyers in Japan, which has encouraged the US to use LNG to reduce trade deficits, and India, whose prime minister Narendra Modi is due to meet Mr Trump in Washington on Monday.
Mr Obama’s stance on natural gas production was often ambivalent, frustrating energy companies that complained about long waits for LNG facilities and export approvals.
One former Obama administration official said they had sought to tread a fine line, embracing jobs created by shale oil and gas while recognising concerns about the environmental impact of fracking, as well as the risk of LNG exports pushing up prices for domestic consumers.
Mr Trump is also eschewing the environmental concerns that made Mr Obama a hesitant supporter of LNG. The White House official said the president had no qualms. “We don’t buy [their] argument . . . so we’re moving forward at a very aggressive rate to increase LNG.”
Fracking involves pumping a high-pressure mixture of water, sand and chemicals into shale rock formations to create fissures that allow oil and gas to escape. Environmentalists say the process creates grave risks of local air and water pollution and seismic activity.
In addition to Cheniere’s active $11bn Sabine Pass export terminal in Louisiana, five other facilities are currently being built. A further four, all on the US Gulf coast, have been approved by the government but are not yet under construction.
LNG contracts are usually signed between private companies. But the US government can influence the market by easing the approval of export projects while also offering rhetorical support for US companies on the global stage, as the Trump administration is doing.
In Beijing this month, Mr Perry, the former Texas governor whose energy department decides whether LNG export applications are in the public interest, said: “My role is to make sure that the facilities are as operational and open for business as quickly as they can be.”
While Mr Trump wants to export more LNG, analysts say the main limitation today is a glut of supply in the international market, which is dominated by Qatar, Australia, Malaysia and Nigeria. IHS expects the global LNG market to be oversupplied until 2022-23.
The Trump administration has mimicked one Obama White House position — its interest in using LNG as a geopolitical weapon in Europe against Russia’s energy dominance — but with fewer apparent qualms.
On the first US LNG shipment to Poland, the White House official said: “There’s no question that in eastern Europe there’s a desire to purchase US gas to diversify supply.”
Asked about a potential glut of LNG, Anatol Feygin, Cheniere’s chief commercial officer, said: “Pundits tend to overstate supply and understate demand, because it’s easy to track the supply projects coming on line, but it’s hard to know when the projects that drive demand will come on line.”
https://www.ft.com/content/c5c1958c-5761-11e7-80b6-9bfa4c1f83d2
-
Bills to Streamline Pipeline Approval Process Move in House
Jun 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
A House subcommittee advanced a bill that would formalize the way the federal government approves cross-border energy pipelines, a response to the at-times chaotic approval process for the Keystone XL pipeline.
On a 19-12 vote, a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee approved the legislation introduced by Reps. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) and Gene Green (D-Texas). It would create specific steps the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must take when considering an international energy infrastructure project, a process that the executive branch and the State Department currently have wide discretion over.
After years of debate, the Keystone XL project was rejected by the Obama administration, only to be potentially revived by President Donald Trump.
“We've seen time and time and time again that the current process takes too long and is way too messy,” Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) said at the June 22 markup. “Death by review doesn't help anyone.”
Additionally, the subcommittee advanced a second bill that would expedite the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's consideration of natural gas pipeline permits. It was approved on a 17-14 vote.
Amendments Killed
The Energy Subcommittee also approved three other bills that address energy issues, including one that would widen the definition of renewable energy to include hydropower. After the vote, the bills will now move on to the full Energy and Commerce committee for consideration.
Democrats, led by the subcommittee's ranking member Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), submitted numerous amendments to the bills, but all were shot down on mostly party line votes.
Rush said the committee's Republicans had not given his caucus enough opportunity to review and consider the bills and also criticized the majority for not soliciting comments on the legislation from the heads of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior.
“Where are [they]?” Rush said. “We haven't heard a murmur from either.”
Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, told Bloomberg BNA he'd like to bring these bills up before the full committee “sooner rather than later” but didn't provide a timetable for doing so. He said there were “more discussions that needed to happen” before the bills moved forward.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114763427&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114763427&jd=114763427
-
Big Oil, Business Leaders Advocate for U.S. Carbon Tax
Jun 22, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Some of the world’s largest oil and natural gas producers and influential corporate leaders on Tuesday joined a push to enact a U.S. carbon tax in an effort to slow climate change.
ExxonMobil Corp., BP plc, Royal Dutch Shell plc and Total SA are among the corporate founders of the Climate Leadership Council, an advocacy group to replace some U.S. environmental regulations with a simplified carbon tax on businesses.
The “conservative climate solution” initially was launched earlier this year by GOP elder statesmen James A. Baker and George Shultz. The group’s plan would tax greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and return the money to taxpayers as a “climate dividend.”
Baker had met with White House officials at the time to advocate for the national carbon tax, but the proposal was considered a nonstarter.
The council’s plan involves eliminating nearly all of the Obama administration’s climate policies in favor for a rising carbon tax. The tax would start at $40/ton and be returned in the form of a quarterly check from the Social Security Administration to every U.S. citizen.
The council estimates that the carbon tax would raise more than $200 billion a year, with the rate increasing over time and depressing demand for fossil fuels. An average family of four would receive about $2,000 in the first year as a carbon dividend, according to the council.
ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods, who had used his first blog post in February to advocate for a revenue-neutral carbon tax, said Monday the council offers a “sensible” approach to cutting emissions without burdening the economy.
“We have been encouraged by the proposal put forth by the Climate Leadership Council as it aligns closely with our longstanding principles,” Woods said.
General Motors (GM), the largest U.S. automaker, also is a founding member of the council.
“We acknowledged long ago that climate change is real and that lowering emissions is both a social imperative and an economic opportunity,” said GM’s management. “Addressing climate change in an effective and sustainable manner requires a holistic approach involving all sectors of the economy.”
The council on Tuesday used a full-page advertisement in the Wall Street Journal to call on the United States to enact a consensus climate solution that "bridges partisan divides, strengthens our economy and protects our shared environment."
The underlying idea is that by making energy derived from fossil fuels more expensive, market forces would more quickly and effectively move toward renewable energy and low-carbon solutions. To protect U.S. companies, the plan recommends a border tax adjustment to increase the cost of goods arriving from nations that do not have a similar carbon tax.
According to the council, companies that emit GHG also should be protected from lawsuits over their contributions to climate change.
Members of the council include Michael Bloomberg, former Energy Secretary Steven Chu, astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, hedge-fund magnate Ray Dalio and Harvard economist Larry Summers, a former Obama economic adviser.
The Trump administration already has moved to gut the Obama administration’s environmental legacy, and last month announced its intention to withdraw from the Paris agreement, the climate accord reached by more than 190 countries.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110874-big-oil-business-leaders-advocate-for-us-carbon-tax
-
Environmentalists, Unions Ask Court To Stay EPA's Delay Of RMP Rule
Jun 23, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmental and labor groups are asking a federal court to stay EPA's nearly two-year delay of an Obama-era rule strengthening the agency's facility accident prevention program, charging the delay is “plainly illegal” under the Clean Air Act and would irreparably harm their interests given past agency findings that chemical accidents continue to occur.
“EPA’s Delay Rule is clearly unlawful and Movants need judicial action staying or vacating this rule to avoid irreparable harm,” the groups say in a June 22 motion filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The suit marks the second time environmentalists have sought to stay a Trump administration rule delaying an Obama-era measure, asking the D.C. Circuit earlier this month to block EPA's regulation delaying several provisions of the agency's rule limiting methane emissions from oil and gas facilities.
At issue is EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's June 14 rule delaying the effective date of the agency's Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility safety update rule from June 19 to Feb. 19, 2019 to revise the regulation.
Environmentalists, including Sierra Club and Earthjustice, earlier this month challenged the delay. Several labor unions have sought to intervene in the case in support of the underlying RMP update, arguing that the delay irreparably harms workers and that environmentalists may not fully represent workers, who have a “distinct perspective” on the facilities where they work.
While they are seeking to stay the delay, they argue in the alternative for summary judgment and vacatur of the Trump administration's rule. “EPA simply cannot do this. The Clean Air Act is explicit that reconsideration 'shall not postpone the effectiveness of the rule,' beyond a three month period,” which expired June 19.
The petitioners argue that EPA's delay violates Clean Air Act provisions that require that rules issued under the law prevent chemical releases “to the greatest extent practicable,” and have an effective date that assures “compliance as expeditiously as practicable.”
Additionally, the groups point to EPA data showing hundreds of accidental releases have occurred annually during the last decade, and argue that workers and residents near facilities will likely be injured or killed if the rule is delayed. They also argue that a stay would not cause harm and is in the public interest.
The Obama EPA's Jan. 13 final RMP update includes new auditing and hazard analysis requirements, as well as provisions bolstering release of facility data to emergency planners and the public, which have drawn strong opposition from industry groups as well as GOP state attorneys general, including Pruitt prior to his selection to lead EPA.
EPA June 14 issued a final rule delaying the RMP update and claiming broad authority for setting effective dates, and the need to review complex issues businesses have raised. The agency suggested significant changes are possible, saying the RMP rule is based on “policy preferences” that could vary between administrations, and that the agency intends to raise concerns with the rule not cited in industry petitions.
'Unexplained Reversal'
In their motion for stay, environmentalist and labor unions argue that the EPA's interpretation it may delay a final rule issued under the Clean Air Act for more than three months violates the law and is “an unexplained reversal of its prior position deserving no deference.”
The groups reiterate arguments filed in their comments last month opposing the proposed delay that the move violates the Clean Air Act, which requires that rules seek to prevent releases “to the greatest extent practicable.” And they cite language in the delay rule noting “policy preferences” that could vary between administrations as a factor in the decision.
“EPA asserts that 'to the greatest extent practicable’ does not prohibit ‘weighing the difficulties of compliance planning and other implementation issues,’ but that is not what the agency is doing,” advocates say. “EPA’s
delay is not due to practicability -- it is due to the agency’s unidentified, new 'policy preferences' and has nothing to do with what is practicable for sources to implement.”
Groups also contend that staying the delay is in the public interest and would not cause harm, while allowing the delay to remain in effect pending litigation would pose risks to workers and communities near facilities.
“Delaying the Chemical Disaster Rule means the extreme dangers EPA tailored the rule to prevent will
remain unaddressed for nearly two more years,” the groups say. “Accidents will continue to take lives and cause other irreparable yet preventable harm to workers and nearby communities.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-unions-ask-court-stay-epas-delay-rmp-rule
-
Greens, Labor Union Ask Court To Reinstate EPA Chemical Facility Safety Rule
Jun 22, 2017 | PoliticoPro Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
A coalition of environmental groups and United Steelworkers, the U.S.'s biggest industrial labor union, today asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to reinstate an EPA chemical safety facility rule that the Trump administration delayed until 2019.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said last week that an additional 20-month delay is needed while the Trump administration reviews the rule, and he dismissed concerns that the delay posed safety or environmental risks. A shorter, three-month delay expired on Monday.
"EPA simply cannot do this," the groups wrote, adding that the Clean Air Act allows EPA delays of only up to three months while reconsidering a rule.
Delaying implementation through 2019 could lead to more accidents and deaths, harm that cannot be remedied later, the groups added.
“EPA’s intention to perform reconsideration through 2019 and solicit comment ‘on any other matter’ regarding the Chemical Disaster Rule cannot nullify that rule now; only a new final action that lawfully changed course through reasoned decision-making could do so,” they wrote.
The rule, finalized in the last days of Barack Obama’s presidency, tightened safety and reporting requirements for a wide swath of chemical manufacturers, refineries, fertilizer plants and other industrial sites in the wake of several high-profile explosions.
WHAT’S NEXT: After EPA defends its implementation delay, the court will have to decide whether to reinstate the rule while litigation plays out.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Senators Urge Trump To Act On Russian Grid Threat
Jun 23, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Blake Sobczak and Geof Koss
A group of 19 Democratic senators are calling on President Trump to investigate the extent to which Russian hackers have invaded crucial U.S. energy networks.
"The threat Russia poses to our critical infrastructure has become increasingly clear," the lawmakers, led by Democratic Sens. Maria Cantwell of Washington and Ron Wyden of Oregon, wrote in a letter to Trump and Energy Secretary Rick Perry yesterday.
In March, Cantwell and Wyden had urged Trump to order an in-depth analysis of "the scope of Russian capabilities to use cyber-warfare to threaten our energy infrastructure," including the power grid, pipelines "and other important energy facilities." The senators recommended the Department of Energy take the lead on the review (E&E Daily, March 15).
The latest "follow-up" letter criticizes Trump's 2018 budget proposal for trimming funds to a key DOE cybersecurity department — the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability — by more than 40 percent compared with fiscal 2016 levels.
The missive also calls attention to a new threat to the grid — the "CrashOverride" malware specifically designed to disrupt electricity (Energywire, June 13).
"We are deeply concerned that your administration has not backed up a verbal commitment prioritizing cybersecurity of energy networks and fighting cyber aggression with any meaningful action," the lawmakers wrote.
A White House spokesman did not respond to requests for comment. Cantwell and Wyden reported never having received a response to their March request.
On Wednesday morning, President Trump met with cybersecurity and energy leaders at the White House to discuss evolving threats to the power grid (E&E News PM, June 21).
Last month, he signed an executive order on cybersecurity directing multiple agencies to review how they can support cyberdefenses at critical infrastructure companies like power and gas utilities. That effort will be spearheaded by the departments of Homeland Security and Defense.
By contrast, Cantwell, ranking member on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has supported a more prominent role for DOE, which President Obama set as the "sector-specific agency" for convening with power companies about cyberthreats.
In late 2015, Congress granted the agency additional authority to act in a presidentially declared grid emergency such as a major cyber event, though DOE has not clarified how it would exercise that power.
During yesterday's fiscal 2018 budget hearing with Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Cantwell noted that cyberattacks on the grid and related infrastructure doubled between 2012 and 2016.
"This threat to our grid is clearly growing," she said in her opening statement, reminding Perry that he promised to make cybersecurity a priority during his confirmation hearing. Cantwell called for "a larger investment in this very, very important area" of cybersecurity.Cyber turf wars
After the hearing, ENR Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) was noncommittal on the Democrats' letter but said she'd like to hold an oversight hearing on cybersecurity and the energy sector after finishing budget and nominations hearings.
She noted that the bipartisan energy bill that she and Cantwell passed through the Senate last year — which they plan to soon reintroduce — contained a "small cyber piece."
That bill would have provided DOE with new emergency authority to protect the bulk-power system, while also directing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to issue regulations on designating and handling critical electric infrastructure information.
The legislation would have codified DOE as the lead agency for cybersecurity in the energy sector, while directing the department to conduct a cybersecurity-related research and demonstration program.
Complicating efforts to legislate on cybersecurity is the fact that so many committees have jurisdiction over the subject, Murkowski added.
"When we bring up the issue of cyber, I think there's a recognition that there's not a discrete space for the energy piece of it," she told E&E News.
"It's tied up with all other aspects, and then of course you get into this jurisdictional [issue] of who is kind of leading on the issue of cybersecurity. I think that's been one of the reasons why you have not seen a big cyber bill kind of move forward at least historically."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/06/23/stories/1060056479
-
Rail Execs Laud Trump's Streamlining Goals, Blast Budget Plan
Jun 23, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Camille von Kaenel
Rail executives yesterday had a mixed message regarding President Trump's plans for infrastructure.
They called the Trump administration's approach flawed because the budget proposal slashes grants for public transit and support for long-distance Amtrak, but they applauded Trump's promises to cut red tape and limit the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act.
And Democrats slammed Trump's infrastructure vision, which aims to boost private, local and state spending on infrastructure while limiting federal grants.
"A lot of people living in smaller cities throughout the heartland of America are going to be a little surprised to wake up one day to see they have no air service, no rail service, but they can go on the newly tolled private interstate system," said Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), the ranking member on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
The industry representatives before the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials said they saw a bright spot in the administration's focus on rolling back regulations that aim to protect the environment but that slow down construction.
"The NEPA process remains a disincentive to the private sector," said Mike Reininger, executive director of Florida East Coast Industries. He said his company does not use any federal funding because of that.
Other project leaders who depend partly on funds from the federal government said they saw cash, not the environmental process, as key to an infrastructure package.
Charles "Wick" Moorman, the CEO of Amtrak, said of the president's proposal to slash federal support for long-distance routes, "If the funding for the long-distance network were withdrawn abruptly, we would lose all of the revenue." He added, "The net effect of something like that is we would essentially stop investing in the Northeast Corridor. We would just not have the cash."
He also said he has started an internal review to recommend to the administration regulations to reform or cut.
"We are very focused right now in terms of looking at where we can ask the federal government to help us do things more quickly," Moorman said.
John Porcari, interim executive director of the Gateway Program Development Corp. rebuilding the tangle of tunnels, bridges and rail tracks in New Jersey and New York, pointed out that the tunnel project had benefited from an expedited permitting process of two years instead of four or more, and that a draft environmental impact statement was expected within a month.
But Reininger complained that one of his company's projects had had to slog through more than two years of environmental reviews, and then more than four years of waiting for a final permit.
The last big infrastructure package — President Obama's 2009 stimulus bill — was also a point of contention.
"Each and every one of you at this table are representing thousands of people who are employed because of it," said Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Railroads.
Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.), the subcommittee chairman, called the government's approach to intercity rail "scattershot" coming out of the stimulus bill, which provided more than $10 billion for high-speed and conventional rail. He criticized the improvements as "incremental" and lambasted California's high-speed rail, a frequent target of his.
"Given the limited federal dollars available for intercity passenger rail projects, it is imperative that projects be better prioritized to accomplish specific national goals," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/06/23/stories/1060056490
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA's Superfund Reform Ideas Echo Industry Wish List
Jun 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
Companies, consultants, and industry associations involved with Superfund sites are calling for a swifter, leaner cleanup program, and the EPA is listening.
The specific goals Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt set for reviewing the Superfund program echo the regulatory reform wish lists that a handful of companies and associations submitted via public comment earlier this year.
The EPA said it is considering public comments about Superfund reform. The companies that submitted them are not, or declined to state, whether they are working with the agency on their specific requests.
Environmental groups and tribes that submitted comments to the EPA's docket on regulatory reform generally did not suggest changes to the existing Superfund program.
At the end of May, Pruitt formed a task force to make recommendations about changing the environmental contamination cleanup process.
Their recommendations to the administrator were due June 21, but according to the agency, the document containing them will not be made public because it is an internal report.
Industry's Wish List
Boeing Co. asked the EPA to modify the agency's National Remedy Review Board, which was formed in 1995 to help control remedial costs and promote consistent and cost-effective decisions at Superfund sites, according to EPA records.
In its comments, Boeing asked the EPA to “enhance” the board with more full-time members and experienced technical staff. The company also asked that the board review all proposed remedies estimated to cost more than $25 million.
Pruitt's instructions to the task force include “more effective utilization” of the National Remedy Review Board and streamlining the remedy development and selection process.
Boeing has paid for environmental cleanup at contaminated sites through previous settlements with the EPA. The company also has received cleanup funding from the federal government for sites where contamination accrued as a result of Boeing's federal contracts during World War II.
Katie Perdaris, a spokeswoman for Boeing, said the company had no further comment about its suggestions for Superfund reform beyond its public submission to the EPA.
The American Chemistry Council asked the EPA in its public comments to reduce oversight charges at Superfund sites for companies potentially responsible for contamination.
The council's members include the Chemours Co., Velsicol Chemical LLC, and Occidental Chemical Corp., which have been parties in Superfund cleanup settlements.
Pruitt asked the task force to find a way to “reduce the administrative and overhead costs” for potentially responsible companies.
Overseeing Megasites
The EPA announced in May that Pruitt would review cleanup plans for sites where remediation is expected to cost more than $50 million. These are known as “megasites” and often involve mining and sediment.
The National Association of Manufacturers suggested the megasites plan in its public comments to the agency. The association said moving the responsibility from region offices to the administrator's office would “promote consistency as well as consistently apply cleanup criteria.”
Similarly, Pruitt's memos about his authority over those decisions call for accountability and consistency in remedy selections.
The association was unable to comment by deadline for this story. It represents state and regional manufacturers’ associations.
Financial Assurance
According to the EPA, the task force also has been addressing financial assurance regulations, which the affected industries and some states generally have opposed, though the regulations aren't explicitly mentioned in Pruitt's memo.
The proposed regulations would require companies to have the financial means to pay for environmental cleanup in the event of contamination. The regulations also are intended to reduce the number of future Superfund sites.
Refineries, utilities, and hardrock mines would be subject to one proposed rule (RIN:2050-AG61), while other industries including chemical manufacturing, petroleum, coal, and electric power may be regulated at a later point.
Companies and associations, including Hecla Mining Co. and the American Iron & Steel Institute, said the financial assurance requirements would duplicate those already set at the state level and drain resources.
Bonnie Gestring, Northwest program director for nonprofit Earthworks, told Bloomberg BNA June 21 that those regulations have to be finalized.
“There's no better way to ensure that funds are there for clean-up than requiring independent financial assurance,” Gestring said. “That should be a starting point for the task force.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114763398&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114763398&jd=114763398
-
Cement Plants to Get Extension for Alternate Emissions Tests
Jun 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
Cement manufacturers should be authorized to continue using alternative methods to comply with federal hydrochloric acid emissions limits due to a shortage of materials used to calibrate required monitoring systems, according to the EPA.
The Environmental Protection Agency issued toxic pollutant emissions standards for Portland cement kilns in 2013 that require many of the facilities owned by companies such as Cemex and Ash Grove Cement Co. to continuously monitor their pollution. However, the test gases necessary to calibrate those monitoring systems are not widely available yet.
The agency in 2016 allowed the cement plants to use alternative measures to demonstrate compliance with the hydrochloric acid standards due to that shortage. That agency is now seeking to extend that option in a direct final rule (RIN:2060-AT57) to be published in the Federal Register June 22.
The extension will take effect July 5 unless the EPA receives adverse public comments on the direct final rule. If that happens, the EPA would proceed with the more time-consuming proposed rule process.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114763416&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114763416&jd=114763416
-
Carbon Caps for Refineries Delayed in San Francisco
Jun 23, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
A plan to cap greenhouse gas emissions at San Francisco Bay Area oil refineries is on hold, at least until September.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District governing board postponed a vote on a rule to set the first-ever local carbon dioxide emissions limits on refineries. More time is needed for board members, the public, and refineries to consider last-minute changes to the draft rule, the board said June 21.
Proposed Regulation 12 Rule 16 (Rule 12–16) seeks to establish firm, facilitywide annual limits for refineries operated by Chevron U.S.A., Shell Oil Products U.S., Tesoro Refining & Marketing Co., Valero Energy Corp., and Phillips 66 Co. beginning in 2018.
The rule is designed as a backstop to guard against any increase in greenhouse gas emissions at refineries while the California Air Resources Board develops a statewide rule for refineries, Eric Stevenson, the air district's director of meteorology, measurement, and rules, told Bloomberg BNA June 20. It also aims to ensure Bay Area refineries don't switch to heavier crude blends, like Canadian tar sands crude, which could increase greenhouse gas emissions, he said.
Late Changes Prompt Delay
However, the vote was postponed due to changes to the proposal, including increases to the refineries’ emissions limits to allow for modernization projects. Refineries account for about 16 percent of the Bay Area's greenhouse gas emissions and are the largest industrial source of the emissions.
“We are being asked to vote on a rule that has had four versions in three weeks,” said board member John Gioia, a Contra Costa County supervisor. Moving forward now could make the rule more vulnerable to legal challenges, he said.
The revised limits are “a massive increase in refinery emissions,” Jed Holtzman, a senior policy analyst at Bay Area 350.org, said at the public hearing in San Francisco.
Industry Opposes Rule
Oil companies, refinery workers, and multiple labor organizations said the proposed caps pose a threat to jobs.
“Local greenhouse gas caps are not the right approach because they undermine the state's ability to regulate greenhouse gases and are not the necessary,” Bob Brown, Western States Petroleum Association Bay Area director, told Bloomberg BNA in a June 20 email.
California's refineries are already regulated under the state's greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade program.
The California Air Resources Board's proposed refinery sector rule would be in addition to the trading program.
In the works for several years, the rule represents the air district's effort to tackle climate change as part of its duty to address regional air pollution. Rule 12–16 is among a suite of measures to tackle air pollution from refineries and among 85 proposed actions in the 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate, adopted in April.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=114763410&vname=dennotallissues&fn=114763410&jd=114763410
-
Utilities, Environmentalists At Odds Over Novel Joint NOx-SOx-PM NAAQS
Jun 22, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Electric utilities and environmentalists are at odds over whether EPA should pursue novel combined national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) from nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx) and particulate matter (PM) instead of the existing separate standards for each, posing a test for the Trump EPA's NAAQS policy.
The competing positions -- with power companies opposed to the concept but environmentalists welcoming it as more protective of the environment -- are detailed in recent comments filed on the Trump EPA's March 30 Federal Register notice seeking input on a draft integrated science assessment (ISA) on the “secondary” environment, or welfare, based NAAQS for all three pollutants. Secondary NAAQS aim to protect the environment, while primary standards protect public health, and EPA currently sets individual standards for NOx, SOx, and PM.
The ISA, synthesizing scientific evidence of pollutants' impacts on the environment, is a key step in the NAAQS review process that EPA must conduct every five years under the Clean Air Act.
EPA has previously studied the impacts of NOx and SOx together and considered proposing a joint NOx-SOx standard using a novel “form” to measure compliance based on deposition of air pollution into waterbodies, rather than concentrations of the pollutants in ambient air as has always previously been the case. Environmentalists backed creation of the joint standard, but the agency opted against it by citing scientific uncertainty.
The draft ISA maintains the same conclusions that exposure to these pollutants causes or may cause 14 specific types of environmental damage, echoing the findings in the last ISA for NOx and SOx from 2008.
However, it adds five categories of damage: A causal relationship for "nitrogen deposition and the alteration of the physiology and growth of terrestrial organisms and the productivity of terrestrial ecosystems;" for "acidifying nitrogen and sulfur deposition and the alteration of the physiology and growth or terrestrial organisms and the productivity of terrestrial ecosystems;" and for "sulfur deposition and changes in biota due to sulfide phytotoxicity including alteration of species physiology, species richness, community composition, and biodiversity in wetland ecosystems."
EPA staff in the draft ISA finds that for another new category, "nitrogen deposition and increased nutrient-enhanced coastal acidification," there is "likely" a causal relationship. For another, "nitrogen deposition and changes in biota including altered physiology, species richness, community composition, and biodiversity due to nutrient-enhanced coastal acidification," the evidence is "suggestive" of a causal relationship.
EPA reviewed the secondary NAAQS for NOx in 2012, retaining the annual limit of 53 parts per billion (ppb) of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) first set in 1971. The agency also reviewed the SOx secondary standard in 2012 and retained the limit of 50 ppb of sulfur dioxide (SO2) over three hours also set in 1971. EPA last reviewed the secondary standard for "coarse" PM (PM10) in 2012, leaving the limit at 150 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3), and for the smaller "fine" PM (PM2.5), leaving limits unchanged at 15 ug/m3 annually and 35 ug/m3 over 24 hours. EPA has therefore missed its five-year deadline to review NOx, SOx and PM secondary NAAQS.
Utilities' 'Concerns'
Environmentalists in their recent comments on the ISA -- which also includes an assessment of PM's ecological impacts in addition to NOx and SOx -- argue that the agency should now pursue a NAAQS for all three pollutants. But the electric utility sector warns that the approach would be legally and scientifically unsound.
In May 24 comments, the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), an industry body, says, “This review is focused on the effects of nitrogen (“N”) and sulfur (“S”) deposition, seemingly without regard to whether that deposition is the result of the presence of NOx, SOx, or PM in the ambient air. Many of the legal, policy, and scientific concerns that UARG expressed during . . . past reviews remain relevant to the current Draft ISA.”
Although evaluating the impacts of the pollutants jointly could in fact be an efficient approach, “The presentation of the science, however, suggests that EPA is again seeking to develop a single joint standard for multiple pollutants and, as UARG has explained before, that course would create serious legal and policy problems,” the group says. UARG doubts the legality of combined standards not based on concentration in ambient air.
Critics have previously charged that deposition-based standards would result in a NAAQS that is not truly uniform across the country, as required by the air law, and would instead produce regional variations based on the capacity of waterbodies in different regions to neutralize deposited pollutants.
EPA in its draft ISA expanded the list of ecosystem effects attributed to nitrogen or sulfur, and also folded PM into the same review document for the first time, prompting the debate over a triple NAAQS.
However, “most of the causality statements presented in the Draft ISA are based on 'alteration' or 'changes' in various public welfare endpoints that do not appear to take into account whether an effect is pervasive, the degree or severity of the effect, or even whether the effect has any positive or negative consequences,” UARG says.
“By setting the bar for its causality determinations so low, essentially allowing any response to N or S deposition to support a causality determination, EPA has in turn minimized the usefulness of its determinations.”
Scientific Uncertainties
Meanwhile, in May 24 comments, the Coarse Particulate Matter Coalition -- representing several industries -- faults EPA's treatment of PM health effects, most of which the group says are attributable to PM2.5 and not the larger PM10. The coalition includes the Corn Refiners Association, National Cotton Council, National Oilseed Processors Association, National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association and Rio Tinto Kennecott.
“The next draft of the ISA should contain a more detailed discussion of the differences between fine and coarse PM in the ecological studies, and should consider whether coarse PM should be excluded from the causal determinations for ecological effects, particularly where it is not dominated by urban road dust or industrial contaminants,” it says.
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), a utility sector body, in May 23 comments says that EPA's assessment is lacking analysis necessary to justify its causal determinations, which are based in part on the concept of “critical loads” of “criteria” pollutants, such as NOx, SOx and PM that produce ecological effects. EPRI also says EPA needs to do a better job of describing scientific uncertainties surrounding its causal findings.
“By limiting the analysis to identifying evidence of the potential or expected effects of increased loading of criteria pollutants, the ISA addresses just a small portion of the required assessment. The full determination of causality suggests the need to establish and evaluate detailed conceptual and predictive models that describe and provide a basis for evaluating the spatial, temporal and chemical factors that control the behavior and role (nutrient/pollutant) of the target chemicals in the terrestrial and aquatic environments,” EPRI says.
Novel NAAQS
Environmentalists in their comments are broadly supportive of EPA's conceptual approach, and argue for a new, novel secondary NAAQS for the three pollutants at issue.
In their May 24 comments, the Appalachian Mountain Club, Center for Biological Diversity and National Parks Conservation Association say, “This current document provides the basis to move forward with stronger standards. These welfare standards are extremely important to protecting unique and sensitive public lands including National Parks and Forests.”
The groups say the draft ISA reinforces the causal determinations for 14 specific endpoints from the last ISA conducted in 2008, but also that the five new effects identified since the prior review are “based on solid new scientific findings,” supporting their inclusion in the ISA.
They support the concept of critical loads “as an organizing principle to relate atmospheric deposition to ecological impacts,” and also “strongly support including particulate matter in this assessment.” They say, “Particulate phase nitrogen and sulfur compounds, largely derived from gaseous N and S emissions, contribute to total N and S deposition and have their own unique effects not fully considered in prior reviews.”
Also, “remaining uncertainties in the comprehensive scientific review presented in the ISA are well within usual scientific bounds for reasoned decision-making,” they argue.
In conclusion, “The science presented in this ISA clearly indicates the need to set a new, specific standard addressing the full range of adverse effects causally related to these pollutants rather than retaining the current NO2 and
SO2 secondary standard, which was set equivalent to the health-based standard nearly 50 years ago,” they say. --
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/utilities-environmentalists-odds-over-novel-joint-nox-sox-pm-naaqs
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested