Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 8/1/17
-
EPA Issues Three Final TSCA Framework Rules
Jul 31, 2017 | The National Law Review
By John McGahren and Sean J. Radomski
The final rules establish procedures to identify high-risk chemicals, conduct risk evaluations, and reset the TSCA Inventory. -
Webinar: TSCA Hot Topics
Aug 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Bloomberg BNA and Bergeson & Campbell PC present a free webinar, “TSCA Hot Topics: Inventory Reset and Strategies for Complying, and Update on Section 5,” with a panel of former EPA officials and seasoned regulatory professionals discussing how to prepare for TSCA Inventory Reset deadlines and an update on the agency's progress regarding the pre-manufacture notification decision backlog. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA’s Regulatory Agenda Lists Proposed and Final Pesticide Rulemakings
Jul 31, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Lisa M. Campbell, James V. Aidala, Lisa R. Burchi
On July 20, 2017, the Trump Administration released its 2017 Unified Regulatory Agenda. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Agency Rule Listincluded several pesticide rulemakings in the proposed rule stage, as well as the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rulemaking that is in the final rule stage. The five items in the proposed rule stage are: -
How to Save Your Sperm
Jul 31, 2017 | The New York Times
By Evan Hepler-Smith
Is humanity killing itself off? In a study published last week, a team of epidemiologists found that sperm counts among men in the United States, Europe and Australia have declined by more than 50 percent between 1973 and 2011. -
Army Trucking Chemical Wastewater from Colorado to Texas
Aug 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Wastewater from a U.S Army chemical weapons stockpile near Pueblo, Colo., will be temporarily transported to a treatment facility in Texas due to a backlog at an on-site processing facility. -
Disinfectant Mix in Cleaning Products Linked to Birth Defects in Lab Animals
Jul 31, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Samara Geller
Exposure to a mixture of chemicals commonly found in household and commercial cleaning products can lead to birth defects in laboratory animals that can last for generations, according to a new study by Virginia Tech and Washington State University researchers. -
Science Advisers Question California AA Guidance Lack Of Specificity
Aug 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Several members of an advisory group to California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) agree with industry representatives that guidance for conducting alternatives analysis under the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme lacks specificity. -
Battling Over #Glyphosate In Brussels
Aug 1, 2017 | Eureporter
By Colin Stevens
The long-running saga around glyphosate, the active ingredient in popular weed killers like RoundUp, will likely continue to roil Brussels through the German elections in September. -
Dutch Firm Appeals Against Echa Decision On Disodium Molybdate
Aug 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Chemicals producer, Climax Molybdenum, has asked Echa's Board of Appeal (BoA) to annul an agency ruling that requested further data on the substance disodium molybdate under a REACH compliance check. -
Trump Team Wants Fracking Rule to Come Before Court Opinion
Aug 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
States and energy companies complain that federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing could drive up costs and discourage oil and gas production on government lands, but a trio of appeals court judges could upend the Bureau of Land Management's plan to revisit its own rules. -
Natural Gas Council Urges Large-Volume Customers to Secure Firm Transportation Contracts
Jul 31, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The U.S. trade associations that comprise the Natural Gas Council (NGC) said Monday industry practices contribute to the reliability and resiliency of natural gas, but if large-volume customers want undisrupted service and continuity they should enter into firm transportation contracts. -
Cheniere Liquefying Natural Gas Fuel at Fourth Plant
Aug 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik
Cheniere Energy Inc., the only company sending America's shale gas overseas, has begun liquefying the fuel at a fourth plant, keeping the company on a track that will double its export capacity this year. -
In Symbolic Move, California To Submit Final CPP Compliance Plan To EPA
Jul 31, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
California has approved its state compliance plan for EPA's Clean Power Plan (CPP) greenhouse gas rule for existing power plants, a largely symbolic step though officials say it nonetheless shows other states that cutting power sector GHGs is achievable under the stayed rule that the Trump administration is expected to soon propose to repeal. -
Harcros Agrees to Do Chemical Safety Audits After Violations
Aug 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Harcros Chemicals, a Kansas firm that manufactures and distributes specialty chemicals, will pay nearly $1 million in fines and conduct wide-ranging audits of its various facilities after reaching an agreement with the Department of Justice, according to a July 31 EPA court filing. -
Manufacturer Agrees To Fine, Upgrades After Violations
Aug 1, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
A chemical manufacturer has agreed to pay a $950,000 penalty and take action to prevent accidental releases under a settlement with the Justice Department and U.S. EPA. -
Was The ATF Wrong When It Cited Arson In The West Fertilizer Explosion?
Aug 1, 2017 | Chron
By Mark Collette
When the ATF held a press conference in West, Texas more than a year ago to announce a big finding in the 2013 fertilizer plant explosion, there was a lot riding on it. -
Divided D.C. Circuit Issues Mandate To EPA For Reinstating Methane NSPS
Jul 31, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
A majority of the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has granted a request from some states and environmentalists to issue its mandate vacating the agency's 90-day pause of key requirements in its methane rule for new oil and gas sources, putting the rule back into effect -- though two judges opposed the decision. -
Scientists Ask Pruitt For Sit-Down On Climate Debates
Aug 1, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell
Leaders of top science organizations today requested a meeting with U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to discuss his proposal for staging debates over human contributions to climate change. -
Wisconsin May Waive Environmental Rules for $10B Foxconn Deal
Aug 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
Foxconn wouldn't have to comply with several Wisconsin environmental standards if legislation to facilitate its deal to invest $10 billion in a proposed manufacturing plant is approved.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
EPA Issues Three Final TSCA Framework Rules
Jul 31, 2017 | The National Law Review
By John McGahren and Sean J. Radomski
The final rules establish procedures to identify high-risk chemicals, conduct risk evaluations, and reset the TSCA Inventory.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently issued three final framework rules implementing the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which was enacted in June 2016 and reformed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). These rules include (1) the TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Rule (the “Inventory Rule”); (2) Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for Risk Evaluation Under TSCA (the “Prioritization Rule”); and (3) Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under the Amended TSCA (the “Risk Evaluation Rule”) (collectively the “Final Framework Rules”).
These three rules, which establish the procedures by which EPA will identify and regulate high-risk chemicals, are of vital importance to manufacturers, processors, and the public at large. This LawFlash will discuss the highlights of these rules, identify key differences between the draft and final rules, and forecast likely next steps for the EPA.
Inventory Rule
Issued on June 22 (but not yet published in the Federal Register), the Inventory Rule establishes the procedures by which EPA will “reset” the TSCA Inventory to identify chemical substances that are “active” and “inactive” in commerce. The rule relies on two types of industry reporting to establish which chemicals should be designated as active. First, through retrospective reporting, manufacturers (including importers) that manufactured or imported a chemical substance for a nonexempt commercial purpose during the 10-year period ending June 21, 2016 may notify EPA that the chemical should be designated as active. Manufacturers must report to EPA no later than 180 days after the final rule is published in the Federal Register. Approximately 60 days after the close of this 180-day period, EPA will issue a draft version of the revised Inventory. Following the issuance of this draft, processors will have an additional 180 days to identify any chemical substances that manufacturers failed to designate as active.
During this retrospective reporting period, companies must use a Notice of Activity (NOA) Form A to electronically submit this information. Any chemical not designated as active will receive an inactive designation. Furthermore, any company reporting a confidential substance that wishes to maintain the substance’s Confidential Business Information (CBI) designation must indicate so on the NOA Form A. If a company does not do so, the substance will be listed as active on the public inventory. Because TSCA, as amended (“new TSCA”), requires EPA to review CBI claims within five years after the Inventory is reset, companies seeking to maintain CBI designations during the retrospective period are not required to substantiate their claims when submitting the NOA Form A.
Once the final reset inventory is published, manufacturers and processors may designate chemicals as active through a second mechanism—prospective reporting. This mechanism allows companies to notify EPA that they intend to begin manufacturing/importing/processing an inactive chemical, so that EPA can change the designation from inactive to active. Such notice should be submitted using an NOA Form B and must be given no less than 90 days before the anticipated date of manufacturing/importing/processing. If a company wishes to assert a CBI claim through an NOA Form B, it must substantiate its claim within 30 days or else the substance will be listed on the Inventory’s public portion.
The Inventory Rule does provide a number of exemptions from the reporting requirement, including reporting based on the low volume and polymer exemptions, for naturally occurring substances and for substances added to the Inventory since June 22, 2016. Substances that were reported in response to the 2012 or 2016 Chemical Data Reporting rule, which appear on the interim list of active substances described in new TSCA § 8(b)(6), will be automatically designated as active. Finally, a manufacturer that has evidence documenting EPA’s receipt of an NOA Form A is exempt from reporting. This exemption represents a compromise between EPA and industry. During the comment period on EPA’s proposed Inventory Rule, industry groups suggested that EPA maintain a “rolling” active list that would allow for “one-and-done” reporting, whereby one company’s submission of an NOA Form A for a certain substance would give notice of the active designation. The thought behind this approach was that such a dynamic list would reduce duplicative reporting, cut costs, and ease compliance. EPA ultimately rejected this approach as overly burdensome and instead established this exemption in a nod to industry concerns about cost. This exemption, however, is not without its perils, as manufacturers relying on this exemption bear the risk that the other manufacturer will later withdraw its notice, leading to the substance being designated as inactive.
The final rule contains an important change from the draft rule. Under the draft Inventory Rule, companies making an active designation would have been required to include the activity type and dates of activity. In the final rule, however, EPA removed the requirement to include activity type and dates of activity, acknowledging that doing so was burdensome on industry and that many companies may lack records for historical uses.
Prioritization Rule
Issued on June 22 and published in the Federal Register on July 20, the final Prioritization Rule establishes the risk-based screening process EPA will use to determine which chemicals are deemed “high priority” (for which a risk evaluation will be conducted) versus “low priority” (for which no risk evaluation is needed). This final rule sets forth a three-step process that EPA will follow for prioritizing chemicals: Initiation Proposed designation Final designation
Once it is formally initiated, TSCA mandates that this process last between nine to twelve months.
The “initiation” stage begins when EPA announces in the Federal Register that a substance is a candidate for prioritization. The public will then have 90 days to submit relevant information about the substance, and EPA can extend this comment period for up to an additional three months in order to receive additional information. After this public comment period, EPA will screen the substance against several criteria outlined in TSCA:
· The chemical’s hazard and exposure potential
· The chemical’s persistence and bioaccumulation
· Potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations
· Storage of the chemical near significant sources of drinking water
· The chemical’s conditions of use or significant changes in conditions of use
· The chemical’s production volume or significant changes in production volume
· Other risk-based criteria that EPA determines to be relevant
Based on the results of this screening, EPA will issue a “proposed designation”—either high or low priority. The public will have an additional 90 days to comment on the proposed designation, after which EPA will issue its “final designation,” announced via the Federal Register.
A major change from the draft rule is that the final Prioritization Rule does not include an initial “pre-prioritization” step that was to occur before “initiation.” The draft rule proposed that, before initiating the screening process, EPA apply the preferences of TSCA § 6(b)(2) to narrow the pool of potential candidates and identify a substance or category of substances to screen against the criteria in § 6(b)(1)(A). In response to stakeholder comments, EPA deleted this step from the final rule and instead indicated that it will be taking further comments regarding how EPA will identify candidates for prioritization.
The most contentious aspect of the final Prioritization Rule will likely prove to be its approach to the concept of “conditions of use,” which TSCA and the rule define as the circumstances “under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of.” The Prioritization Rule clarifies that early in the prioritization process, EPA will identify the “circumstances” that constitute the conditions of use for each chemical and determine which conditions of use would be considered in the prioritization process. When a high or low priority designation is made, EPA also will identify which conditions of use were the central bases for its priority designation. This determination will then be subject to public comment. In effect, this will lead to EPA considering these “circumstances” on a case-by-case basis, rather than considering all potential uses.
The controversy arises because certain stakeholders, particularly environmentalists, contend that TSCA requires EPA to consider all potential uses of a chemical and that the final rule is crafted to favor industry over the public. Specifically, they take issue with EPA’s determination not to evaluate intentional misuses, associated disposal, or legacy disposal of a substance. If EPA is not considering any of these uses of a substance, it will identify such uses in its draft scoping document. Now that the Prioritization Rule has been published in the Federal Register, a number of groups are considering filing legal challenges to this provision.
Risk Evaluation Rule
Once a chemical has been designated as high priority, EPA will follow the procedures in the Risk Evaluation Rule to determine if the chemical presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. TSCA requires such evaluations to be completed within three years, with the possibility for a six-month extension. Issued on June 22 and published in the Federal Register on July 20, the Risk Evaluation Rule outlines the following aspects:
· Scope of evaluation
· Hazard assessment
· Exposure assessment
· Risk characterization
· Peer review
· Final risk determination
Within six months of initiating the risk evaluation, EPA must define the scope of the evaluation. The scoping document for each chemical will identify the conditions of use, potentially exposed or susceptible populations EPA expects to consider, ecological receptors, and hazards to human health and the environment that EPA plans to evaluate. The scope also will outline a plan for peer review of EPA’s risk characterization. Once the scoping document identifies this information, EPA will conduct a hazard assessment to identify the types of adverse human health or environmental effects that can be caused by exposure to the chemical. EPA’s exposure assessment will take into account the likely duration, intensity, frequency, and number of exposures under each condition of use. This assessment will also examine the size, nature, and types of populations potentially exposed to the substance.
Once the hazard and exposure assessments are complete, the risk characterization will integrate them into quantitative and/or qualitative estimates of risk for the identified populations and conditions of use identified in the scope. Importantly, new TSCA prohibits EPA from considering costs or other non-risk factors. Once the risk characterization is complete, it will be subject to peer review before EPA makes its final risk determination. Should EPA determine that a chemical presents an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment, it will promulgate a rule to manage the risk of the chemical so that it no longer presents the unreasonable risk.
In addition to applying to substances designated as high priority, the procedures in the Risk Evaluation Rule also will apply to manufacturer-requested risk evaluations. This procedure, available upon payment of its associated fee, allows manufacturers to request an evaluation based on only the conditions of use that are of interest to the manufacturer. Manufacturers may benefit from this procedure because EPA has indicated that it will give preference to requests where the manufacturer can produce evidence that restrictions imposed by at least one state have the potential to significantly impact interstate commerce, health, or the environment. All other requests will be taken on a first-come, first-served basis.
Judicial Review
Stakeholders dissatisfied with an EPA determination may only challenge final agency actions. A low priority designation is a final agency action that can be appealed. However, if EPA determines that a chemical is high priority, this determination is not a final action, as a risk evaluation will then be conducted. If the risk evaluation determines that a chemical does not pose an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment under its conditions of use, this determination is a final, appealable action. However, if a risk evaluation determines that a chemical does pose an unreasonable risk, this determination still is not a final action. Following such a determination, EPA will issue a rule to manage the risk of the chemical so that it no longer presents the unreasonable risk. This risk management rule will constitute the final action subject to judicial review.
Implications of the Final Rules and Future Steps
Although the Inventory Rule has yet to be published in the Federal Register, EPA’s July 20 publication of the Prioritization and Risk Evaluation Rules means that they will become effective on September 18, 2017. Going forward, we can expect EPA to use the Risk Evaluation Rule procedures to conduct evaluations for the first 10 chemicals it selected for risk evaluations from its Work Plan chemicals list in November 2016: Asbestos 1-bromopropane Carbon tetrachloride 1, 4 dioxane Cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster (HBCD) Methylene chloride N-methylpyrolidone Perchloroethylene Pigment violet 29 Trichloroethylene
EPA recently issued prepublication versions of the scoping documents for these chemicals. New TSCA mandates that, by December 2019, EPA must designate at least 20 substances as both high and low priority. The new statute also mandates that at least 20 substances be undergoing risk evaluations at any time.
For these reasons, now that the Final Framework Rules are in place, we can expect EPA soon to initiate screening processes to meet TSCA’s deadlines.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-issues-three-final-tsca-framework-rules
-
Aug 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
Bloomberg BNA and Bergeson & Campbell PC present a free webinar, “TSCA Hot Topics: Inventory Reset and Strategies for Complying, and Update on Section 5,” with a panel of former EPA officials and seasoned regulatory professionals discussing how to prepare for TSCA Inventory Reset deadlines and an update on the agency's progress regarding the pre-manufacture notification decision backlog. Bergeson & Campbell speakers include managing partner Lynn Bergeson; Charles M. Auer, senior regulatory and policy adviser; and Richard E. Engler, senior chemist; along with Jeffery Morris, director of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics at the Environmental Protection Agency. The webinar is Aug. 2, from noon to 1:30 p.m. More information is available at https://www.bna.com/tsca-hot-topics-m73014461608/.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=117992509&vname=dennotallissues&fn=117992509&jd=117992509
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA’s Regulatory Agenda Lists Proposed and Final Pesticide Rulemakings
Jul 31, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Lisa M. Campbell, James V. Aidala, Lisa R. Burchi
On July 20, 2017, the Trump Administration released its 2017 Unified Regulatory Agenda. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Agency Rule Listincluded several pesticide rulemakings in the proposed rule stage, as well as the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rulemaking that is in the final rule stage. The five items in the proposed rule stage are:
RIN 2015-AA00: Revision of Procedural Rules for Hearings on Cancellations, Suspensions, Changes in Classifications, and Denials of Pesticide Registrations. The agenda states that this proposed rulemaking is a “revision of the Rules of Practice governing the conduct of licensing adjudications under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).” The issuance of the proposed rule is scheduled for January 2018.
RIN 2070-AK00: Pesticides; Technical Amendments to Data Requirements. The agenda states that to satisfy one of the commitments in a settlement agreement reached with the American Chemistry Council (Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0110-0139), EPA is proposing a correction pertaining to the 200 parts per billion (ppb) level described in 40 C.F.R. Section 158.2230(d) that was originally used by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration with respect to the “concentration of residues in or on food for tiering of data requirements for indirect food use biocides.” Through this rulemaking, the agenda states that EPA intends to “clarify that the 200 ppb level is based on total estimated daily dietary intake for an individual and not on the amount of residue present on a single food.” The issuance of the proposed rule is scheduled for July 2017.
RIN 2070-AK06: Pesticides; Procedural Rule Amendment; Requirement for Certain Pesticide Actions to Publish Notices in the Federal Register. In the agenda, EPA states that as the as the Federal Register is “no longer the most cost effective or efficient way for providing notice or sharing information with the public,” it is considering changing the way that it provides notice on or shares information with the public -- specifically, by no longer publishing certain information in the Federal Register, but instead providing the same information on a consolidated website which the agenda states “will be more accessible to the public and other interested parties, as well as a more cost effective and efficient mechanism for providing timely updates.” The agenda lists the following kinds of notification it is considering making this change regarding: (1) reregistration of a pesticide product with a new active ingredient or new use; (2) announcing approvals of specific, quarantine and public health exemptions; and (3) Summaries of certain state registrations. For Registration Review, the agenda state that EPA “intends to announce availability of the documents that are currently announced in the Federal Register on the EPA's Registration Review Website.” For notices of availability announced in the Federal Register, the agenda states that “EPA intends to direct the public to a case-specific docket on Regulations.gov to view pertinent registration review documents and provide comment.” The issuance of the proposed rule is scheduled for April 2018.
RIN 2070-AK40: Extension of Compliance Date(s); Agricultural Worker Protection Standard. As reported in our memoranda summarizing the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) final rule, EPA Publishes Worker Protection Standard Final Rule, the WPS final rule was issued on November 2, 2015, but has not yet been made effective. More information on the delay of its effective date is available in our blog item EPA to Delay Agricultural WPS Indefinitely; Cites Issues with Guidance and Training. This proposed rulemaking will adjust the compliance date. The issuance of the proposed rule is scheduled for July 2017 and the issuance of the final rule is scheduled for November 2017. RIN 2080-AA13: Updates to 40 C.F.R. § 26 Subpart K to reflect recent changes to 40 C.F.R. Subpart A (The Common Rule). As reported in our blog item Federal Agencies Announce Revision to Modernize Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, on January 19, 2017, EPA, together with a host of other federal agencies, released a final rule to modernize, strengthen, and make more effective the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects that was originally promulgated as a Common Rule in 1991, and is now codified in 40 C.F.R. § 26, Subpart A. These revisions, scheduled to become effective on January 19, 2018, will create a conflict within some of the EPA-specific subparts, in particular, Subpart K of 40 C.F.R. 26 (Basic Ethical Requirements for Third-Party Human Research for Pesticides Involving Intention Exposure of Non-Pregnant, Non-Nursing Adults) which regulates third party pesticide research. The agenda states that this proposed rulemaking is “intended to resolve proposed rulemaking discrepancies created by the recent revision to Subpart A, and will not alter the fundamental protections for human subjects, including vulnerable populations.” The issuance of the proposed rule is scheduled for January 2018.
The two items in the final rule stage are: RIN 2070-AJ20: Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators. As reported in our memoranda summarizing the Certification of Pesticide Applicators’ final rule, Final EPA Rule Requires Stronger Standards for Applying Riskiest Pesticides, the final rule was issued on January 4, 2017. More information on the delay of its effective date is available in our blog item EPA Delays Effective Date of Certification of Pesticide Applicators Final Rule. On June 2, 2017, a Federal Register publication was issued that delayed the effective date until May 22, 2018.
RIN 2070-AK13: Procedural Rule to Remove Obsolete Information. The agenda states that this final rule will remove information from EPA’s existing pesticide regulations that is now out of date or obsolete and will “provide clearer and more reliable information to those seeking to register a pesticide product.” The agenda further states that as rulemaking is intended to be a non-substantive, procedural rulemaking “since the EPA does not intend to make any substantive changes to the existing requirements,” EPA is considering issuing this as a final rule and not going through the notice and comment period. The issuance of the final rule is scheduled for January 2018.
Commentary
Much of the work noted emphasizes potential procedural efficiencies and clarifications. The potential move to more announcements on the websites and away from the Federal Register is, at least in part, likely intended as a cost-saving measure. It is also a change that will be closely watched. For example, in recent years, EPA has seen registrations challenged based on assertions of an alleged lack of appropriate notice concerning the receipt or processing of registration applications, and these past challenges will likely influence any new procedures that EPA may adopt.
Of more interest is the new Administration’s call for suggestions of what rules or policies should be changed as part of a broader push for economic growth and less regulatory costs, which may result in more substantive regulatory changes and some likely controversial decisions about what rules or programs will be modified or eliminated -- but that exercise is not part of this announcement. The delay in the compliance date for the WPS regulation is more substantive, but changes that may be proposed have not yet been announced.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-s-regulatory-agenda-lists-proposed-and-final-pesticide-rulemakings
-
Jul 31, 2017 | The New York Times
By Evan Hepler-Smith
Is humanity killing itself off? In a study published last week, a team of epidemiologists found that sperm counts among men in the United States, Europe and Australia have declined by more than 50 percent between 1973 and 2011. Alongside the deleterious effects of cigarette smoke, especially during critical stages of prenatal development, the authors of the study point out that exposure to certain synthetic chemicals has been associated with decreased fertility.
“Men residing in Western countries over the last decades were exposed to new manmade chemicals during their life course, and there is more and more evidence that these chemicals hurt their reproductive function,” one of the study’s authors said in an interview. The authors insist that their findings should drive further research aimed at determining ways to stem the decline, including regulating the chemicals that are contributing to it.
Sounds reasonable. But synthetic chemicals have long been subjects of research and attempted regulation. Beginning in the 1960s, thanks to the efforts of scientists, activists and regulators, chemical products from the pesticide DDT to the all-purpose industrial materials PCBs to the plastics additive BPA, previously understood as unalloyed technological boons, were identified as hazards and partially or fully phased out of use.
Yet even in the rare instances where chemicals are banned outright, they are often replaced by alternatives subsequently found to be just as worrisome. Meantime, more and more synthetic chemicals continue to hit the market. They may draw the most attention when they show up in places like children’s pajamas or macaroni and cheese, but in reality, they are everywhere. Laws such as the recently revised Toxic Substances Control Act in the U.S. give regulators tools to grapple with these substances, but they also highlight the tens of thousands of chemicals that still await assessment.Continue reading the main story
Why are chemicals studied and phased out at great cost in scientific, advocacy and legal efforts, only to be replaced by alternatives that are just as hazardous?
The problem is twofold. First, there’s the phenomenon called substitution, a basic feature of the science of chemistry itself. For close to two centuries, organic chemists have studied and manipulated the molecular world by swapping chemical groups for each other along the perimeter of carbon-based compounds, like differently shaped and colored Lego blocks. Second, there’s the nature of the chemical industry. Since the early 20th century, American chemical firms have drawn on raw materials derived from oil and natural gas. These were particularly good starting materials for producing things like lubricants, solvents, plastics, fibers — products in high demand from the military, the auto industry and the burgeoning midcentury market for consumer conveniences. Firms made enormous investments in refineries to make oil and gas into certain chemical ingredients, and in factories to convert those ingredients into certain kinds of products. With these expensive, large-scale facilities in place, chemical firms used the magic of substitution to turn out myriad varieties of these basic chemical products to be used in myriad applications.
This way of doing science and doing business was well established by the time toxicologists and environmental activists began to worry about the consequences of synthetic organic chemicals. When they raised the alarm about a particular chemical, chemical entrepreneurs did what the market incentivized and their training equipped them to do: find a slightly different molecule that could do the same thing. As techniques of testing for the presence of chemicals and understandings of their complex, interacting effects have become more sophisticated, the number of individual chemicals of concern has multiplied. Meanwhile, low-cost oil and gas from shale drilling has led to a new boom in chemical production, especially in plastics.
What can be done? Some environmental toxicologists and activists have begun to push for a more categorical approach to safer chemicals, drawing attention to entire classes of chemicals that might be better avoided, as opposed to focusing on particular chemicals whose substitutes might be just as bad.
This would require a whole new way of doing chemistry — not just making safer chemicals, but making safer kinds of chemicals, possibly using entirely new starting materials and processes.
The good news is that some chemists and chemical firms have already begun to push for this under the banner of “Green Chemistry.” Pressure from consumers and retailers for safer products, along with government incentives, have helped to make this a potential path toward a profitable as well as a safer future. But this effort is just the beginning. Old habits, familiar products and existing industrial infrastructure die hard.
Chemists have more than a century of experience in making ingenious use of specific raw materials and in tailoring chemical substances to narrow specifications for desirable products. Can they adapt to a new set of constraints that put long-term safety and sustainability front and center? It is a tall order, but then so was creating the pesticides, plastics, drugs and other chemical building blocks of the modern world. The health of humanity — not just your sperm count — is at stake.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/opinion/sperm-count-decreasing-west.html?_r=0
-
Army Trucking Chemical Wastewater from Colorado to Texas
Aug 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Wastewater from a U.S Army chemical weapons stockpile near Pueblo, Colo., will be temporarily transported to a treatment facility in Texas due to a backlog at an on-site processing facility.
The first two of an estimated 65 truckloads delivering about 250,000 gallons of wastewater were preparing to leave the Pueblo Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant July 31, according to Sandy Romero, spokeswoman for Bechtel National, Inc., the contractor at the pilot plant.
The plant, which is working to neutralize more than 2,600 tons of mustard agent in artillery projectiles and mortar rounds from the U.S. Army's Pueblo Chemical Depot, currently faces a backlog because of two problems that cropped up in November, Romero said.
Leak, Rainwater
“We had a leak from the agitator seals in one of the 30-day tanks, and, second, rainwater accumulated in the lining of the pad in the brine concentrator feed tank storage area,” she said. The temporary solution will last about 3-4 weeks, she said.
Some 780,000 total rounds of chemical weapons were stockpiled at the Pueblo Chemical Depot during and after World War II and must now be neutralized. After being neutralized, the weapons sit in a storage tank for 30 days, and then go to biotreatment, she said.
After the weapons are eliminated, the plant will be closed in an environmentally friendly manner, according to the Bechtel Pueblo Team, which includes Bechtel, URS, Battelle Memorial Institute, and Parsons Infrastructure and Technology. Bechtel is also building the Blue Grass Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant in Richmond, Kentucky.
Destroyed by Incineration
The wastewater is a byproduct of the neutralization and treatment process. It will be trucked some 1,400 miles away to Veolia North America in Port Arthur, Texas, where it will be destroyed in an incinerator. Veolia, a French water company, has similarly processed chemical weapons from Newport Chemical Depot in west central Indiana, according to Denisse Ike, spokeswoman for the company in Houston.
Veolia was sued by Michigan for its role in the drinking water crisis in Flint, Mich.
The wastewater from Pueblo is essentially salt water containing no mustard agent, Romero said. It could irritate skin because of the chemicals use to neutralize the agent, she said.
After the end of the shipments, Bechtel anticipates treating all wastewater on-site at the Pueblo pilot plant.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=117992511&vname=dennotallissues&fn=117992511&jd=117992511
-
Disinfectant Mix in Cleaning Products Linked to Birth Defects in Lab Animals
Jul 31, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Samara Geller
Exposure to a mixture of chemicals commonly found in household and commercial cleaning products can lead to birth defects in laboratory animals that can last for generations, according to a new study by Virginia Tech and Washington State University researchers.
The study, led by Terry Hrubec and Patricia Hunt, is particularly significant because it marks the first known investigation of the impacts of any combination of quaternary ammonium compounds, or quats, on the development of embryos or fetuses. The health impacts were found whether the exposure was through ingestion or inhalation of the chemicals. In an earlier study, the same researchers reported that mice exposed to the quats mixture also had impaired fertility, and lower sperm concentration and mobility.
Quats are widely used in cleaning, disinfection, laundry and personal care products as antimicrobial and fabric-softening agents, or preservatives. They have been classified as asthmagens, capable of causing asthma or worsening existing asthma, and as severe skin and eye irritants. According to EWG’s Guide to Healthy Cleaning, the quats evaluated in both studies – alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride and didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride – were found in more than 170 products. This is a conservative estimate given that many manufacturers may not list these ingredients at all.
For the most recent study, the researchers fed mice the combination of quats and, in many cases, also exposed them to airborne levels and surface residues of disinfectant mixtures resulting from routine cleaning of the labs and cages. The result was a 150 percent increase in the rate of neural tube defects, a type of fetal abnormality that can occur in rodents and people. Neural tube defects are the second most prevalent form of birth defects in humans, and most frequently manifest as spina bifida, a condition often associated with nerve damage; muscle weakness; and walking, learning, bladder and bowel problems.
The scientists found that ambient exposure to the chemicals – in air and clinging to surfaces – not only caused an increase in neural tube defects, but had an even greater impact on the occurrence of these defects than deliberate feeding. They also noted that ambient exposure could cause transgenerational effects – defects that persisted through subsequent generations of mice that had never been directly exposed to the chemicals.
The study also assessed the relative parental contribution to the development of the malformations and found that male exposure alone was adequate to pass on the defects.
The latest findings add to the growing body of evidence that quats are generally unsafe. Though the degree to which human health and development may be damaged is unclear, the findings by Hrubec and Hunt’s team raise concern.
They demonstrate that developmental harms may result from environmentally relevant doses of these chemicals – doses people could be exposed through cleaning our homes with products containing this mixture of ingredients. Given the potential implications for people, especially workers who frequently handle quat-based cleaners in institutional settings, the study authors are sounding the alarm for further study of quats’ effects on humans.
Visit EWG’s Guide to Healthy Cleaning to find general cleaners, disinfectants and fabric softening solutions that don’t include these hazardous substances and are fully transparent regarding product contents.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2017/07/disinfectant-mix-cleaning-products-linked-birth-defects-lab-animals#.WYAsWvmGOUk
-
Science Advisers Question California AA Guidance Lack Of Specificity
Aug 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Several members of an advisory group to California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) agree with industry representatives that guidance for conducting alternatives analysis under the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme lacks specificity.
Members of the Green Ribbon Science Panel (GRSP) – which met 17 and 18 July – also expressed concern that the AA process will run up against legal issues. But others argued that making the requirements too specific could stifle the innovative thinking the programme is meant to foster.
The GRSP provides technical expertise and recommendations on chemicals policy – including the SCP – with members from industry, NGOs and regulatory agencies, as well as academia.
Under the SCP, manufacturers of products designated by the agency as priority products must develop an alternatives analysis (AA). Completed analyses will inform the DTSC's regulatory response. A final version of guidance for completing an AA was released in June.
But as manufacturers gear up for the first round of AAs, GRSP members echoed industry concerns that the DTSC's guidance may be too open-ended.
"Is it a quasi permitting process or a regulatory process or just a reflective process that gets people to think about it?" asked Timothy Malloy, a professor at the UCLA School of Law. "I would like to know what it's going to be before I write mine."
"Can DTSC give metrics of the volume they are seeking?" asked Michael Caringello, director of regulatory affairs at SC Johnson. "This person sent me 400 pages, this person sent me two, how am I going to evaluate them?"
He suggested the agency come up with a specified format for first-stage AA submissions and part of that submission could describe the "second-stage format" the company plans to use.
Helen Holder, head of the global environmental materials team at Hewlett-Packard, described a project she worked on where an open-ended process was by necessity amended to a uniform one. "It paid off a hundredfold," she said, as review time for submissions "went from weeks to hours."
"Tell people what they need to do it right," said Jack Linard, head of personal care regulatory affairs at Unilever. "Do I need a toxicologist, a microbiologist, a formulator?"
UCLA's Mr Malloy added the DTSC will eventually have to explain how to weight the relative importance of human health and environmental impacts.
But other panel members said more specific requirements will further discourage creativity.
The guidance says AAs should not be limited to chemical alternatives, said Kelly Moran, president of TDC Environmental. "It is hard for me to picture how that translates into an actual requirement where DTSC rejects an analysis if it includes only chemical alternatives."Business concerns
Mr Linard raised the issue of patents. "If I see the obvious alternative is something that has been patented, what am I expected to do? ... I would like to use it but I can't. Does this end up favouring the company with the patent?"
Mr Malloy also flagged up situations where there is a known safer alternative that, for whatever reason, a company is unable to use. "You have admitted there are safer alternatives out there. It's ripe for a lawsuit," said the professor.
Mr Caringello also questioned whether the DTSC would inform the marketplace if one company comes up with a particularly good alternative – even if it may cost that company a competitive advantage.
"When I hear 'get everyone in a room,' I cringe because I think about antitrust," Mr Linard added.
Meredith Williams, deputy director of the SCP programme, acknowledged the concerns around competitive advantage, but said "if someone comes to us with a great alternative we can't pretend it didn't happen."
"This programme is disruptive," said Dr Williams. "There is going to be someone who comes to us, who has thought out of the box, and it is going to cause market disruption. We simply cannot act as if we don't know."Priority products
The first priority product was formally designated this month: children's sleeping items containing the flame retardants TDCPP or TCEP. The designation was effective 1 July, and manufacturers have 60 days from that date to register with the department and begin the analysis to determine if a safer alternative is possible.
"We will be monitoring that closely in next couple of weeks to see that those who should be notifying have done so," Karl Palmer, SCP branch manager, told the GRSP.
The public comment period on the second priority product – spray polyurethane foam (SPF) containing MDI – ended on 6 June. Regulations to list paint strippers containing methylene chloride are also under development.
Mr Palmer said the next product in line is likely to be perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in carpets and upholstery, or chemicals used in nail salons. Both were subject of workshops earlier this year.
A workshop was also held on triclosan, but Mr Palmer said "we put that on the back burner because it may be taken care of" by federal action.
He said the DTSC is also evaluating whether lead acid batteries fit into the framework.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57992/science-advisers-question-california-aa-guidance-lack-of-specificity
-
Battling Over #Glyphosate In Brussels
Aug 1, 2017 | Eureporter
By Colin Stevens
The long-running saga around glyphosate, the active ingredient in popular weed killers like RoundUp, will likely continue to roil Brussels through the German elections in September. Commissioner for Health and Food Safety Vytenis Andriukaitis has demanded a qualified majority vote on whether to extend the licence for the chemical, despite the fact that all of the major regulatory bodies that have studied glyphosate have found it to be safe for human use. Despite the weight of scientific evidence, the EU has never been able to reach the necessary majority in a vote because of political pressure exerted by environmental groups – writes Colin Stevens
Commissioner Andriukaitis has himself stated that he knows glyphosate to be safe. For the Lithuanian former heart surgeon, the decision to kick the issue into the long grass of a qualified majority vote is a way of avoiding a potential headache for the Commission. By forcing the key member states in question, France and Germany, to come off the fence and take responsibility for the decision, Andriukaitis and his colleagues wants to avoid an outcome where the Commission becomes a sacrificial lamb and takes the brunt of environmentalist criticism for an otherwise routine reauthorisation. Unfortunately, Angela Merkel and Germany will almost certainly continue to abstain despite her vocal support for continued use, and the validation of glyphosate’s safety by BfR.
What could be causing both Brussels and Berlin to equivocate on science and their own better judgement? One non-regulatory agency that has muddied the waters on glyphosate safety. In 2015, an analysis by the International Agency for Research on Cancer found that glyphosate, which has been used by farmers and gardeners as a weed killer since the 1970s, was “probably carcinogenic”. Environmental campaigners quickly pounced on the finding, making it the touchstone for their anti-chemical campaign.
IARC’s controversial finding has pitted the agency, which operates under the aegis of the World Health Organisation and is based in Lyon, against 30 years of scientific consensus that has found no causal relation between glyphosate and cancer in humans. What led IARC to a conclusion that puts it at odds with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the European Food Safety Authority, the European Chemicals Agency, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency, New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Authority, Japan’s Food Safety Commission, and its own colleagues in the World Health Organisation?
As Reuters and the American investigative media site Mother Jones revealed in a bombshell story last month, vital scientific data was withheld from the study. Since then, the revelations have cast serious doubt on the validity of its conclusions.
Since 1993, the Agricultural Health Study in the United States has been conducting a study of 89,000 agricultural workers and their spouses in Iowa and North Carolina – a convincing sample size which has revealed no link between the weed killer and cancer. However, the AHS report was not taken into accountbecause it hadn’t yet been published at the time of the IARC review. When asked whether IARC’s findings would have been different had the AHS data been included, Aaron Blair (who chaired the IARC group but also worked on the AHS study) admitted that it would have been.
According to Blair, IARC’s stipulations regarding unpublished studies prevented him from bringing to the group’s attention. Other scientists have criticised IARC’s refusal to consider the data and questioned why the panel of scientists, who possess the expertise necessary to review and evaluate the evidence available to them, would decline to do so. While the NIH has vowed to ensure the AHS report does get published this year, the damage has already been done. IARC’s report made headlines, emboldening activist groups to pressure governments into banning one of the world’s best-selling and most effective weed killers.
With Angela Merkel facing re-election this year, her likely abstention is predicated entirely on avoiding damage to prospects of a potential coalition with Germany’s Green Party. Were glyphosate reauthorisation to ultimately fall through, the cost of this political expedience would be severe for farmers across the EU. Research in Great Britain has estimated that a ban on glyphosate could result in losses of £940 million and 20 percent drop in wheat production in the UK alone.
Even more importantly, the damage to Europe’s regulatory institutions could be immeasurable. The glyphosate controversy, and accusations by activists that the European food and chemicals safety agencies were working in coordination with industry, have already undermined the public’s trust in the agencies tasked with ensuring the safety of European citizens. The back and forth of letters from academics on either side of the debate urging each other to reconsider their positions, has only served to confuse Europeans about the quality of the scientific advice they receive. Having found a blueprint for throwing the safety of any product into doubt, anti-glyphosate campaigners are hardly likely to make glyphosate the last issue they turn into a regulatory hot potato.
If the glyphosate ban does go ahead, it could result in a similar outcome to what happened when Bisphenol A, a chemical used in the manufacture of plastics, was outlawed over similar fears. Manufacturers substituted it with Bisphenol S, which is nearly identical but less thoroughly tested and understood. Losing glyphosate would not end farmers’ need for an effective weed killer. It would simply force them to use a different, less well-tested alternative, doing precisely nothing to advance the cause of environmentalism.
https://www.eureporter.co/environment/2017/08/01/battling-over-glyphosate-in-brussels/
-
Dutch Firm Appeals Against Echa Decision On Disodium Molybdate
Aug 1, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Chemicals producer, Climax Molybdenum, has asked Echa's Board of Appeal (BoA) to annul an agency ruling that requested further data on the substance disodium molybdate under a REACH compliance check.
The Dutch company was asked to submit a prenatal developmental toxicity study by 20 March 2018.
Its registration dossier already contains such a study but Echa claims that it does not meet OECD testing guidelines.
Climax Molybendum disagrees and wants the existing study to be be accepted as valid in its dossier, as per the OECD mutual acceptance of data (MAD) scheme. The agency was wrong to say it does not meet OECD guideline specifications, the company says.
And it erred in requesting a higher dose for the new test, which would cause excessive toxicity and sacrifice too many animals, it claims.
Disodium molybdate is commonly used in anti-freeze products, heat transfer fluids, fertilisers and water treatment chemicals.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57999/dutch-firm-appeals-against-echa-decision-on-disodium-molybdate
-
Trump Team Wants Fracking Rule to Come Before Court Opinion
Aug 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
States and energy companies complain that federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing could drive up costs and discourage oil and gas production on government lands, but a trio of appeals court judges could upend the Bureau of Land Management's plan to revisit its own rules.
While the Trump administration is arguing that the BLM has the authority to regulate fracking, which has traditionally been left to states, it also wants to revise the rules its predecessor issued in 2015. However, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court Appeals for the Tenth Circuit appeared skeptical July 27 of the government's request that they delay a court fight over whether the federal government has any legal authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing while the Interior Department agency completes its review (Wyoming v. Zinke, 10th Cir., No. 16-8068, argued 7/27/17).
States for decades have taken the lead in regulating fracking and many of the other technical elements of oil and gas exploration and production, and states and companies have been resistant to the idea of a new overlay of federal regulations.
“It would be a big deal for the industry if the BLM entered that space,” Matthew Douglas, a partner in law firm Arnold & Porter LLP's Denver office, told Bloomberg BNA.
If the judges go ahead and rule on the case rather than holding it in abeyance as the Trump administration has requested, the ruling could make a substantial difference in how oil and gas companies are regulated on federal and Indian lands.
The BLM's 2015 fracking rule was struck down in 2016 when a district court agreed with Wyoming and other states that federal law did not give the agency authority to regulate fracking. The rule applied to the many operations on federal and Indian lands in the West and would have affected many adjacent operations as well.
Trump Team Wants Crack at Rule
Despite the ruling that it lacks the authority to regulate fracking, the Bureau of Land Management wants to revisit its regulations. It has asked the Tenth Circuit to postpone any decision on the federal government's underlying authority to regulate in the first place until that process is complete.
“How can you proceed with rulemaking when the district court told you you have no authority?” Judge Mary Beck Briscoe asked Justice Department attorney Andrew Mergen during oral arguments July 27.
Mergen said he could not know what regulations the Trump administration might write to replace its predecessor's regulations, nor could he know how quickly the work would be done.
“I'm a little concerned about the notion or the precedent that we would be setting in allowing this executive branch to sort of jerk around our docket and tell us to hold something in abeyance for what could be forever,” Judge Jerome Holmes said.
Why Delay Decision?
Briscoe asked why the court should not go ahead and rule on the issue of BLM authority, which had been fully briefed. “Shouldn't we proceed to determine if you have the authority?” she asked.
Waiting for a new rule would be more pragmatic than issuing a decision affirming BLM's regulatory authority only to see that case return to the district court to air other challenges to the rule, Mergen said.
Judge Harris Hartz asked whether the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act provided a regulatory system that precluded any agency other than the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing regulations to protect drinking water, including groundwater sources.
Mergen and Earthjustice attorney Michael Freeman both argued that the BLM had been regulating federal lands in a similar fashion for about a century. More specifically, Freeman cited a 1982 rule that encompassed fracking. The 2015 rule was only a regulatory update, Freeman said.
Mark Barron, a Baker & Hostetler LLP attorney representing the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Western Energy Alliance, told the court the 1982 BLM rule made only a vague reference to fracturing and has never been enforced, as all parties admitted.
The EPA has exercised exclusive authority over underground injection of fluids since 1974, he argued.
While the fracking rule was still at a proposed stage, the American Petroleum Institute said the rule would cost industry anywhere from $30 million to $2.7 billion a year, and the Independent Petroleum Association of America released a study saying the cost per well would be $96,913, not the $3,138 to $5,011 that the BLM estimated.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=117992502&vname=dennotallissues&fn=117992502&jd=117992502
-
Natural Gas Council Urges Large-Volume Customers to Secure Firm Transportation Contracts
Jul 31, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
The U.S. trade associations that comprise the Natural Gas Council (NGC) said Monday industry practices contribute to the reliability and resiliency of natural gas, but if large-volume customers want undisrupted service and continuity they should enter into firm transportation contracts.
In a 27-page report, "Natural Gas Systems: Reliable and Resilient," the NGC said large-volume customers -- such as industrial and commercial users, power generators and local distribution companies -- should contract for firm transportation services, since pipelines may not have spare transportation capacity without them. Capacity availability would be even scarcer on peak days during the winter heating season.
"While the natural gas industry is committed to continuing its high level of reliability, there is an equally important component of assuring continuity of service that remains the responsibility of large-volume customers," the NGC said. "These customers should contract for the appropriate level of firm transportation service they require to ensure reliable service. Together, these two components -- operational reliability and contractual continuity of service -- make natural gas a secure, reliable and resilient choice for customers."
The NGC also touted natural gas as being relatively immune to weather-related events. Case in point, fewer than 100,000 U.S. gas customers experienced a service disruption in 2016. By comparison, 8.1 million Americans experienced power outages last year.
However, the council said that despite the low threats from weather, the industry is committed to cyber and physical security of its infrastructure. Physical security includes routine patrol and continuous monitoring of fenced-in infrastructure above ground, as well as regular industry briefings and workshops to discuss security concerns.
On cybersecurity, the NGC said the federal government has been partnering with the industry and states through the use of three Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISAC) to share a comprehensive analysis of the threats in the energy sector -- the Downstream Natural Gas ISAC, the Oil & Natural Gas ISAC, and the Electricity ISAC.
"The natural gas industry is not susceptible to widespread failure from a single point of disruption in the same manner as the electric system because of the dispersion of production and storage, its redundant characteristics from the extensive integrated pipeline and distribution network, and its low vulnerability to weather-related events," the NGC said. "The natural gas industry also has in place robust cyber and physical security protocols to minimize disruptions from man-made or computer threats, and has a resilient, interconnected system that allows it to come back online quickly in the rare case of a disruption."
The NGC includes the American Gas Association, the American Petroleum Institute, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Natural Gas Supply Association (NGSA).
The white paper was originally produced to provide answers for a special assessment conducted by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. The assessment examined the potential risks to the reliability of the electric grid from a single point of disruption on major natural gas infrastructure facilities -- including storage facilities, pipelines and liquefied natural gas terminals.
“Natural gas continues to experience such tremendous growth, both in supply and demand, that there’s tremendous thirst for knowledge from our customers about how we achieve reliability,” said NGSA CEO Dena Wiggins. “As an industry, we are proud of what we consider a remarkable record of reliability and wanted to produce a resource that explains the physical characteristics, operational practices and contractual obligations that make that record possible, along with information about programs underway to further strengthen our systems.”
INGAA CEO Don Santa concurred, adding that America’s natural gas pipelines “are the envy of the world.”
“The physical characteristics of both the natural gas resource and the pipeline delivery infrastructures make our nation’s natural gas system uniquely reliable,” Santa said. “In the aggregate, the United States’ many natural gas transmission pipelines comprise an interconnected, nationwide network that offers multiple pathways for rerouting deliveries in the event of a disruption.”
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111258-natural-gas-council-urges-large-volume-customers-to-secure-firm-transportation-contracts
-
Cheniere Liquefying Natural Gas Fuel at Fourth Plant
Aug 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik
Cheniere Energy Inc., the only company sending America's shale gas overseas, has begun liquefying the fuel at a fourth plant, keeping the company on a track that will double its export capacity this year.
The plant at Cheniere's Sabine Pass complex in Louisiana is chilling and condensing gas into a liquid so it can be loaded onto tankers, according to a person familiar with the situation who asked not be identified because the information isn't public. The Houston-based company is currently producing liquefied natural gas from three plants at the terminal and is working to bring the fourth fully into service by the end of the year.
The startup of the fourth plant stands to unleash even more U.S. gas into a worldwide market awash with supplies. Since beginning operations early last year, Cheniere has sent cargoes of shale gas to about two dozen countries from Chile to China. That's delivered some relief to U.S. gas drillers that are looking abroad for more sources of demand and bolstered domestic gas prices this year.
Cheniere declined to comment. The company said in a June 9 presentation that it expected the fourth plant to be substantially complete in November.
Pipeline deliveries of natural gas to the Sabine Pass terminal this year are more than double what they were in 2016, according to ABB Inc. data compiled by Bloomberg. Cheniere is taking about 2 billion cubic feet a day out of the U.S. market.
The fourth plant still has to be commissioned—when Cheniere's contractor hands over operations to the company. That process, which can take months, is a key step in beginning the energy company's 20-year supply contract with Gail India Ltd.
The first three trains at Sabine Pass are contracted to Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Spain's Gas Natural SDG SA, and Korea Gas Corp.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=117992515&vname=dennotallissues&fn=117992515&jd=117992515
-
In Symbolic Move, California To Submit Final CPP Compliance Plan To EPA
Jul 31, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
California has approved its state compliance plan for EPA's Clean Power Plan (CPP) greenhouse gas rule for existing power plants, a largely symbolic step though officials say it nonetheless shows other states that cutting power sector GHGs is achievable under the stayed rule that the Trump administration is expected to soon propose to repeal.
The move also is another form of push-back against Trump EPA efforts to target the CPP and other Obama-era climate rules, according to officials with the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
“This is a plan that the federal government doesn't really want to receive but we want to send it to them anyway,” said CARB Chairwoman Mary Nichols during a July 27 board meeting. “We think the regulation it was developed under was a good regulation.”
Although California's CPP compliance strategy was initially considered highly influential, the Supreme Court's February 2016 stay of the rule and the subsequent election of President Donald Trump has significantly hobbled implementation of the EPA regulation.
Attention now is keenly focused on whether the current administration's forthcoming plan to rescind the rule will ultimately survive legal scrutiny. Even if it does not, the rule's compliance deadlines might need to be postponed, and the CPP compliance targets likely will have been nearly achieved by market-driven shifts to lower-carbon power.
But CARB officials noted the prospect of major federal climate regulation from a future administration, arguing that submitting their CPP compliance strategy to EPA now could inspire other states to do the same.
The compliance plan's submission can show that “action on climate mitigation can benefit the states and make them well positioned to comply with future federal climate action,” CARB Executive Officer Richard Corey said at the meeting.
The plan -- which is similar to state implementation plans to achieve national air quality standards under the Clean Air Act -- “explicitly demonstrates how a cap-and-trade system could be utilized for Clean Power Plan compliance purposes,” Corey added.
State Programs
California's plan relies on the CPP's provisions allowing states to use “state measures” to achieve the rule's targets. In the Golden State's case, that means it largely relies on its economy-wide cap-and-trade system to show that the power sector's GHGs will be reduced to the federal targets, according to a CARB staff summary.
However, state officials project that actual emissions will fall below the CPP targets, in part due to the state's aggressive climate policies. All of the rule's targets are “well above” power plant emissions today and “will remain well above them” in the foreseeable future, one CARB staffer said at the meeting.
Nevertheless, EPA required California to include a “backstop” provision in its CPP plan in the event that the state policies did not meet the rule's targets. That backstop would take the form of an additional trading-based program focused only on the power sector. The staffer described the backstop as “extremely unlikely” to be triggered.
The staffer said that litigation over the rule -- which is on hold while EPA determines how to proceed on a new regulation to scrap the CPP -- “should not deter California from being compliance ready.”
Further, the final plan shows that “compliance with the CPP is appropriate and doable.” --
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/symbolic-move-california-submit-final-cpp-compliance-plan-epa
-
Harcros Agrees to Do Chemical Safety Audits After Violations
Aug 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Harcros Chemicals, a Kansas firm that manufactures and distributes specialty chemicals, will pay nearly $1 million in fines and conduct wide-ranging audits of its various facilities after reaching an agreement with the Department of Justice, according to a July 31 EPA court filing.
As a part of the agreement, Harcros will conduct more audits at 29 of its facilities and correct any problems that arise as a result of these reviews. It will also spend nearly $2.5 million on foam fire suppression systems at eight of its facilities (U.S. v. Harcros Chemicals Inc., D. Kan., No. 2:17-cv-02432, consent decree proposed 7/31/17).
The Environmental Protection Agency said the company conducted an audit last year that found multiple violations of federal air pollution laws that require companies to develop emergency plans for dealing with the release of hazardous chemicals. According to the agency's court filing, the company notified the EPA of these violations.
“It is a priority for EPA to ensure that companies properly manage risks posed by chemicals in a way that protects communities from accidental releases,” Larry Starfield, the acting head of the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, said in a statement.
Harcros could not be reached for comment in time for this story.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=117992508&vname=dennotallissues&fn=117992508&jd=117992508
-
Manufacturer Agrees To Fine, Upgrades After Violations
Aug 1, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
A chemical manufacturer has agreed to pay a $950,000 penalty and take action to prevent accidental releases under a settlement with the Justice Department and U.S. EPA.
Under the proposed settlement, Kansas-based Harcros Chemicals Inc. has also agreed to conduct audits at most of its facilities, the Trump administration announced today.
The settlement would resolve violations of chemical safety requirements at the manufacturer's facilities.
"Today's action shows that DOJ and EPA are serious about enforcing compliance with the Clean Air Act and protecting American workers and their communities from risks associated with accidental releases of hazardous substances," said Jeffrey Wood, acting head of DOJ's Environment and Natural Resources Division.
Harcros manufactures and distributes a variety of chemicals, including hazardous substances, at a total of 31 facilities in 19 states.
According to the federal government, three "pilot" audits conducted at company facilities in the summer of 2016 in Louisiana, Alabama and Kansas revealed "deficiencies" in the company's compliance with EPA chemical safety regulations.
The audits showed that the facilities hadn't taken all the steps necessary to prevent releases of unsafe chemicals, DOJ and EPA said.
Under the consent decree's terms, Harcros would be required to audit for compliance with chemical safety requirements at 28 of its facilities and correct deficiencies where necessary. Several of the company's facilities would be required to reduce on-site chemicals to below levels stipulated in the risk management program.
Harcros also agreed to spend $2.4 million to install a foam fire suppression system at eight of its facilities to help prevent the spread of chemicals and fires.
The company "cooperated fully" with the federal government in the negotiation of today's consent decree, according to today's joint DOJ-EPA statement.
The decree was lodged today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and is subject to a 30-day public comment period.
Today's announcement comes after the Trump administration decided to delay by nearly two years an Obama-era regulation to update chemical safety requirements. The rule aimed to protect emergency responders from chemical exposure, prevent accidents at plants and help facility operators learn from accidents that do occur.
The Obama EPA issued the regulation, which covers more than 12,000 facilities, after several high-profile incidents, including the 2013 explosion at the West fertilizer facility in Texas that killed 15 people.
Several states, environmentalists and labor unions have filed lawsuits against the Trump administration over the delay (E&E News PM, July 24).
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/07/31/stories/1060058171
-
Was The ATF Wrong When It Cited Arson In The West Fertilizer Explosion?
Aug 1, 2017 | Chron
By Mark Collette
When the ATF held a press conference in West, Texas more than a year ago to announce a big finding in the 2013 fertilizer plant explosion, there was a lot riding on it.
Hundreds of lawsuits had been filed against the fertilizer manufacturer. Much further reaching, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was working on a rewrite of one of two major sets of federal rules governing chemical plant safety.
So when ATF Special Agent in Charge Robert Elder declared the deadly blast, which leveled much of the town and exposed gaping holes in chemical storage and processing regulations, an act of arson, the plaintiffs' lawyers weren't the only ones getting nervous.
Safety advocates feared the ATF ruling would kill the momentum that President Barack Obama's administration had gained on chemical plant reforms after he attended memorials for the fallen firefighters of West. If it had been deliberately set, then what's the point of new rules?
Their fears appear to have come true.
Last month, the EPA announced it was delaying issuance of risk management rules for chemical plants by an additional 20 months, putting them on track to be two years late overall, and raising the prospect that they will be completely gutted. Environmental groups immediately sued.
In justifying the delay, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said the industry and other stakeholders hadn't had time to take into account the arson finding, and since the new rules heavily cited the West disaster, the agency needed more time to consider.
But how the fire started has nothing to do with why the plant exploded.
As the U.S. Chemical Safety Board noted in its exhaustive report, a fire of any source was a problem at the plant because the ammonium nitrate fertilizer was stored in flammable wooden bins, and was likely adulterated in a way that made it more prone to detonate. Likewise, the source of ignition was unrelated to the problems emergency responders had: lack of training and communication, and a dearth of knowledge about the materials stored at the plant. Not to mention that the town had grown too close to the plant to withstand a fiery blast of any cause.
The EPA rules touch on those topics. They recognize that no amount of security at a plant matters if the plant is inherently unsafe to start with. And that any fire, accidental or otherwise, will become a catastrophe if a town isn't prepared for it. The Chronicle's Chemical Breakdown project found Houston lacking in these areas.
And what if, after all this, the ATF was flat-out wrong?
That's what the former No. 2 OSHA official under Obama thinks.
In his workplace safety blog, Jordan Barab contends that the ATF arrived at its arson finding only because investigators could find no evidence to support another ignition source.
The standard-setter in the fire investigation business finds this method dubious, Barab notes.
The process of elimination is known among investigators as "negative corpus."
"The negative corpus process is not consistent with the scientific method, is inappropriate, and should not be used because it generates untestable hypotheses, and may result in incorrect determinations of the ignition source and first fuel ignited," says the National Fire Protection Association in its guidance on fire investigations.
It's been more than a year since the ATF news conference, with the announcement of a $50,000 reward, and the agency has been silent. A spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.
Because of the ATF's West findings, Barab said, the conversation has shifted from how to make plants safer to how to guard them better, and how to keep chemical plant information out of the hands of the communities that need it most, ostensibly in the name of anti-terrorism.
"Why," Barab asks, "should a violation of the scientific method stand in the way of eliminating protections for people living in the shadow of a chemical plant?"
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Was-the-ATF-wrong-when-it-called-the-West-11720837.php
-
Divided D.C. Circuit Issues Mandate To EPA For Reinstating Methane NSPS
Jul 31, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey
A majority of the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has granted a request from some states and environmentalists to issue its mandate vacating the agency's 90-day pause of key requirements in its methane rule for new oil and gas sources, putting the rule back into effect -- though two judges opposed the decision.
In an order issued late July 31, the court en banc directed its clerk to issue the mandate from a three-judge panel's ruling earlier this month that scrapped the Trump EPA's stay of the rule. Circuit Judges Janice Rogers Brown and Brett Kavanaugh objected to issuing the mandate, according to the order.
The decision is a victory for supporters of the Obama EPA's first-time rule limiting emissions of the greenhouse gas methane from new oil and gas drilling, and reinstates various deadlines for complying with several provisions of the rule, including requirements for companies to submit leak detection surveys.
Environmentalists and several states earlier July 31 filed motions with the court urging it to issue the mandate, which is the formal step of implementing the three-judge panel's ruling from July 3 that vacated a Trump EPA rulemaking that had stayed the new source performance standards (NSPS) rule. The court in its prior ruling said that the stay violated the Clean Air Act by improperly using section 307(d)(7)(B) to delay the rule.
The three-judge panel consisted of Circuit Judges David Tatel, Robert Wilkins and Brown, with the first two judges ruling at the time to immediately issued a mandate that EPA lift the stay.
Brown dissented, arguing the court lacked authority to review the stay because it was linked with the Trump EPA's reconsideration of the NSPS and thus was not a final action subject to judicial review.
EPA subsequently asked the panel to recall its mandate, arguing that the agency should be afforded the standard time to evaluate options for appeal before the mandate is issued. Federal agencies are allowed 45 days to petition for panel rehearing, rehearing en banc or for writ of certiorari at the Supreme Court, and EPA argued that the court typically does not issue its mandate until one week after that deadline passes. The agency's request also said the immediate mandate placed the oil and gas industry at risk of noncompliance.
The court temporarily recalled the mandate, and several industry groups and some states then filed petitions for rehearing of the three-judge panel by the full D.C. Circuit, although EPA did not file such a request.
Environmentalists and other states then filed their July 31 motions claiming that the en banc rehearing requests were an unfair attempt to further delay implementation of the NSPS, asking the court to instead issue the recalled mandate.
The court's July 31 order issuing the mandate also says that responses to the petitions for rehearing of the decision by the full court should be filed no later than 4 p.m. on Aug. 2, with replies to those responses due no later than 4 p.m. on Aug. 3.
The order was reviewed by the full D.C. Circuit consisting of Chief Judge Merrick Garland and Circuit Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson, Judith Rogers, Tatel, Brown, Thomas Griffith, Kavanaugh, Sri Srinivasan, Patricia Millett, Cornelia Pillard and Wilkins. The order notes that only Brown and Kavanaugh “would not issue the mandate forthwith.”
Although the court's July 3 ruling vacated EPA's stay of the NSPS, the agency is also pursuing rulemakings to codify pausing the regulation for up to two years. Observers say EPA likely will not be in a position to finalize those proposals until the end of August at the earliest. The deadline to file comments on the measures is Aug. 9.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/divided-dc-circuit-issues-mandate-epa-reinstating-methane-nsps
-
Scientists Ask Pruitt For Sit-Down On Climate Debates
Aug 1, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell
Leaders of top science organizations today requested a meeting with U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to discuss his proposal for staging debates over human contributions to climate change.
In a letter to Pruitt, 16 scientists said the evaluation and review climate science undergoes are rigorous.
"The peer review process itself is a constant means of scientists putting forth research results, getting challenged, and revising them based on evidence," they wrote.
"Indeed, science is a multi-dimensional, competitive 'red team/blue team' process whereby scientists and scientific teams are constantly challenging one another's findings for robustness."
The letter was signed by former Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Robert Gropp of the American Institute of Biological Sciences, Christine McEntee of the American Geophysical Union and Ellen Bergfeld of the American Society of Agronomy, among others.
Scientists have been seething since Pruitt suggested the formal initiative to challenge mainstream climate science with a "back-and-forth critique" by government-recruited experts (Climatewire, June 30).
The current understanding of climate change, the scientists wrote, is the result of decades of such work from scientists both in the United States and internationally.
"Given your interest in the state of climate science, we would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to better understand your perspective and rationale for the proposed activity; and to discuss climate science, including which areas are at the frontiers of scientific knowledge and which are well-established because of thousands of studies from multiple lines of evidence," they wrote.
How the debate comes together remains to be seen. Pruitt has suggested a televised debate between the two sides. He's reportedly looking to employ a former Obama administration official to lead the effort (Greenwire, June 24).
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/07/31/stories/1060058172
-
Wisconsin May Waive Environmental Rules for $10B Foxconn Deal
Aug 1, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
Foxconn wouldn't have to comply with several Wisconsin environmental standards if legislation to facilitate its deal to invest $10 billion in a proposed manufacturing plant is approved.
The Wisconsin legislature could hold its first hearings by Aug. 4 to consider a bill that would change state laws to approve the construction project by Taiwan-based Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd., more commonly known by its exchange-trading name, Foxconn Technology Group.
At stake is the single largest economic project in Wisconsin's history and the largest greenfield company investment from a foreign-based company in U.S. history measured by jobs, Gov Scott Walker (R)said July 26 at the White House. The investment will build a facility to manufacture liquid crystal display screens among other products, and would create about 10,000 construction jobs, along with 13,000 direct permanent jobs and an additional 22,000 indirect and induced jobs, Walker said.
Republicans control both Wisconsin legislative chambers, and state Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R) will push to introduce and hold hearings on the bill no later than Aug. 4, Kit Beyer, a Vos spokeswoman, told Bloomberg BNA.
In addition to various tax provisions, the legislation bill would ease environmental regulations on the manufacturing giant. Under the legislation, Foxconn would not be required to obtain permits from the state's Department of Natural Resources to discharge dredged material into wetlands, construct an artificial water body that connects with an existing navigable waterway, or change the course of a navigable stream.
Despite those concessions, environmental groups told Bloomberg BNA the legislation will likely be approved in some form.
“My guess is it will pass, and pass quickly,” Bill Davis, Sierra Club Wisconsin chapter director, told Bloomberg BNA in an email. The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg L.P. Bloomberg BNA is an affiliate of Bloomberg L.P.
Though the bill proposes to waive state environmental rules, all federal permitting and water quality statutes and regulations would apply to the manufacturing facility and its construction.
Tony Palese, spokesman for state Senate minority leader Jennifer Shilling (D), told Bloomberg BNA Democrats continue to have questions about the proposed legislation, the cost to taxpayers, and the impact of possibly borrowing money to improve roadways in southeastern Wisconsin.
No Impact Statements
The bill would create an “electronics and information technology manufacturing zone” and allow the state to provide up to $2.8 billion in tax credits, plus a sales and use tax exemption for the sale of building materials, supplies, and equipment used to construction projects within the zone.
The bill would essentially exempts the company from being subject to rules requiring state agencies to prepare environmental impact statements. It would also allow—contrary to typical state regulatory practice—Foxconn to discharge dredged or fill material into federal or nonfederal wetlands located in the zone without a state-issued permit.
Wisconsin also would waive state water quality certification within the zone, as well as not require a permit if the company wants to:
• construct or maintain a bridge on or over navigable waters;
• dredge or enlarge any artificial water body that connects with an existing navigable waterway; or
• grade or move topsoil from the bank of any navigable water where the area exposed by the grading will exceed 10,000 square feet.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=117992498&vname=dennotallissues&fn=117992498&jd=117992498
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested