Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 8/8/17
-
(ACC Blog) Issues around Listing Chemicals under Prop 65
Aug 8, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
In 1986, California voters passed the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, most commonly referred to by its ballot title, “Prop 65.” Prop 65 is a statewide “right-to-know” act that prohibits businesses from exposing California citizens to carcinogens and reproductive toxicants without clear and reasonable warning, except when there is no significant risk of exposure to such chemicals. -
(ACC Mentioned) Not Bound by Ethics Order, EPA Official Vows to Avoid Industry
Aug 8, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus and Corbin Hiar
The top political official at U.S. EPA's chemical safety program, who hasn't been required to sign President Trump's ethics pledge, has nevertheless promised to keep her distance from her former employer, the powerful American Chemistry Council. -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic: Who Is Stephen B. King?
Aug 8, 2017 | AllGov
By Steve Straehly
Stephen B. King, a long-time Wisconsin Republican operative, was nominated on July 11, 2017, to be the next ambassador to the Czech Republic. King has no diplomatic experience. -
(ACC Mentioned) Experts Criticize EPA's New Chemical Approval Process as a Handout to Industry
Aug 8, 2017 | ThinkProgress
By Natasha Geiling
Industry is once again cheering Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, this time for clearing a backlog of some 600 chemicals that had previously been waiting for approval. -
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Announces End of PMN Backlog
Aug 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA says it has eliminated the backlog of new chemical cases that had grown since TSCA reform went through last year, and has committed to a "more predictable and transparent process" for making determinations. -
Court Strikes Down EPA Limits on HFCs
Aug 8, 2017 | Politico Pro Energy Whiteboard
By Eric Wolf
A federal court today struck down EPA's attempt to ban a powerful heat-trapping gas under its authority to regulate substances that deplete the ozone layer. -
Danish Testing Finds Suspected EDCs in Pushchairs
Aug 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Tests carried out on pushchairs in Denmark have found carcinogenic and suspected endocrine disrupting chemicals in more than half of the products, according to the Danish Consumer Council's Think Chemicals initiative. -
Cheniere Reports Net Loss as It Nears Completion of 4th LNG Unit
Aug 8, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
Houston's Cheniere Energy said Tuesday it's nearing completion of its fourth liquefied natural gas unit at its massive Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana near the Texas border. -
BP Finds Prolific Shale Gas Source in New Mexico
Aug 8, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Collin Easton
BP believes it has found a fertile new source of shale gas in New Mexico, on land it bought from a U.S. shale driller two years ago. -
Oil Pioneer Puts Money on Gas Demand
Aug 8, 2017 | E&E Energywire
Harold Hamm, one of the pioneers of the U.S. shale oil boom, is increasing his investment in gas ahead of an expected surge in U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas. -
California Tightens Safety Regulations for Refineries
Aug 8, 2017 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
California is requiring its 15 refineries to adopt comprehensive new requirements to improve safety for workers and communities around the facilities. -
Climate Study Quietly Underway Warns of Severe U.S. Impacts
Aug 8, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
A report currently being developed by federal scientists warns of dire consequences from climate change, conflicting with public statements from officials in the Trump administration about the severity of rising greenhouse gas emissions. -
Haley: No Reason for Trump Administration to Reject Climate Change Report
Aug 8, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Savransky
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley in an interview early Tuesday said she doesn't see any reason for the Trump administration to reject a new report from government scientists on climate change's impact.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) Issues around Listing Chemicals under Prop 65
Aug 8, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
In 1986, California voters passed the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, most commonly referred to by its ballot title, “Prop 65.” Prop 65 is a statewide “right-to-know” act that prohibits businesses from exposing California citizens to carcinogens and reproductive toxicants without clear and reasonable warning, except when there is no significant risk of exposure to such chemicals. California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has since been charged with the responsibility of implementing Prop 65.
One contentious issue presented by Prop 65 is the “authoritative body mechanism” by which chemicals may be listed as carcinogens and reproductive toxicants. This mechanism is one of four that OEHHA may employ when listing a chemical, and it is used often. Through the “authoritative body mechanism,” a chemical may be listed as a carcinogen or reproductive toxicant if it is deemed so by a designated agency, outside of California State government.
OEHHA has identified several agencies as authoritative bodies, including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and the National Toxicology Program’s Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (NTP-CERHR). If one of these agencies makes a determination that a chemical is a carcinogen or a reproductive toxicant, OEHHA will then conduct a limited evaluation to determine whether that chemical should be listed under Proposition 65.
Once a chemical is listed, businesses may be subject to the warning requirement if their product will expose a consumer to the chemical. To assist businesses in determining whether they are subject to the warning requirement, OEHHA may issue regulatory safe harbor levels for each chemical. For products containing chemicals known to cause cancer, this means that a business must give clear and reasonable warning (generally on the product’s label) to that effect unless the exposure level is below the “no significant risk level” (NSRL). For products containing chemicals listed as reproductive toxicants, a business must give clear and reasonable warning unless the exposure level is below the “maximum allowable dose level” (MADL).
While Prop 65 does not require OEHHA to issue safe harbor levels (i.e., NSRLs, MADLs), OEHHA may, and they are often helpful. Without regulatory safe harbor levels on which to rely, businesses often choose to include a Prop 65 warning on their products even if there is little or no exposure to the Prop 65 listed chemical so that they can be certain to avoid any risk of litigation.
OEHHA ironically discourages businesses from expounding on the content of product labeling, and so Prop 65 warnings often lack the specificity necessary to ensure the public receives useful information about potential risk from exposures. As a result, these warnings steer the consumer to focus more on identifying potential hazards without the necessary information to understand the actual risk of harm from exposure so that they make informed purchasing decisions. Hazard based warnings thus leave consumers confused. However, with proper safe harbor levels to guide businesses, some of this confusion can be eliminated.
As helpful as issuing safe harbor levels can be, OEHHA often issues them inconsistently, and rarely at the same pace as it lists chemicals. As of January 27, 2017, 970 chemicals have been listed under Proposition 65 since its enactment in 1986, and most of these chemicals were listed before 1991. Yet, only about 32% of these chemicals have regulatory safe harbor levels.
In the last 10 years, 134 chemicals were listed, but less than 10% have corresponding regulatory safe harbor levels. During this time period, it took on average approximately 16 months to issue a regulatory safe harbor level from the time the chemical was listed, but in some instances, it took 3 years to issue a regulatory safe harbor level.
Seemingly, in an effort to pick up the proverbial slack in assigning safe harbor levels to chemicals listed under Prop 65, OEHHA has issued safe harbor levels for at least six chemicals in the past two months. However, at least two of these chemicals, glyphosate and ethylene glycol, should not have been listed in the first place because their determinations under the authoritative body mechanism were flawed, thus raising the question:
Is OEHHA wasting valuable time and state resources by listing chemicals that are overwhelmingly recognized as safe? The answer is a resounding YES.
Glyphosate
OEHHA recently added glyphosate, the single most used chemical in agriculture and the main ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, to its list of chemicals “Known to the State to Cause Cancer.” Using the authoritative body mechanism, OEHHA based this decision on a monograph published by IARC. On the same day as its listing, OEHHA also proposed to adopt a safe harbor level for the chemical.
IARC is the only known scientific organization to conclude that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic” to humans. Organizations such as the United States EPA, New Zealand EPA, German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to the European Chemicals Agency, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the European Food Safety Authority, the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority have concluded that glyphosate is not a carcinogen.
In listing glyphosate, OEHHA cedes too much authority to IARC. The monographs that OEHHA may ultimately rely on for a listing under Proposition 65 are developed by an IARC Monographs Programme “Working Group” — a small group of scientists, hand selected by IARC itself through a “call for experts” — that summarize existing scientific studies and mechanistic data to determine whether an agent (including chemicals) is carcinogenic to humans. Based on this determination, the agent is assigned one of five categories. This approach lacks transparency, and provides limited opportunity for stakeholder engagement.
Furthermore, when relying on IARC Monograph program designations, OEHHA only invites comments that address “whether IARC has identified the specific chemical or substance as a known or potential human or animal carcinogen.” This means that it offers no administrative recourse to challenge the scientific basis of IARC’s conclusions on glyphosate, effectively allowing a completely foreign body to determine California state law.
Because of this, a business could be subject to labeling in California for a Proposition 65 cancer listing despite never having an opportunity to submit scientific data or comments to OEHHA refuting IARC’s cancer classification decision. This procedural deficiency is particularly striking in the case of glyphosate because the overwhelming scientific evidence supports the safety of glyphosate. If the public cannot offer evidence to dispute the studies considered by IARC, then why have a process for notice and comment at all?
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene glycol (EG) was also listed under the authoritative body mechanism, though as a reproductive toxicant (by ingestion). OEHHA announced its intent to list ethylene glycol in 2014 based on the conclusions of a 2004 NTP-CERHR report that evaluated EG. It was officially listed in 2015, and two years later, was assigned a regulatory safe harbor level.
NTP-CERHR initially evaluated EG because: (1) “it is high production volume chemical,” (2) “there is widespread human exposure,” and (3) “the toxicology database on ethylene glycol includes recent data on its mechanism of action and occupational exposure information.” Ultimately, NTP-CERHR concluded that there is “negligible concern” of adverse reproductive toxicity in humans exposed to EG. However, because NTP-CERHR also concluded that “oral exposure to high doses of EG can adversely affect development in mice and rats,” OEHHA listed EG as a human reproductive toxicant.
Since the 2004 NTP-CERHR report, there have been at least 11 studies that demonstrate the flaws in relying solely on the mice studies reviewed in 2004. In sum, the studies show that there are not enough toxicokinetic similarities between mice embryos and humans to conclude that ingestion of ethylene glycol can cause reproductive toxicity in humans. The 11 more recent studies instead use other animals (namely rabbits and rats), and in vitro testing. These studies show that, rabbits, rats, and likely humans, are “less sensitive to adverse developmental outcomes.”
OEHHA was made aware of these studies, as well as determinations from Environment Canada that developmental toxicity has never been reported in human exposure. However, OEHHA dismissed evidence that suggested humans are less sensitive than rodents to the developmental toxicity of ethylene glycol. Moreover, most products with the potential to contain ethylene glycol have only trace amounts of EG that do not pose a risk to humans. These products therefore would likely never need to have an EG Prop 65 warning. Even for EG-based antifreeze and other coolants that contain relatively high levels of ethylene glycol, any adverse developmental effects in humans would only occur after ingestion of a lethal dose.
Data from the American Association of Poison Control Centers National Poison Data System show that nearly every instance of oral exposure to ethylene glycol is intentional, i.e., the result of suicide or attempted suicide. It follows that such exposure will likely not be abated by warning that ingestion of the substance may result in reproductive effects (which is all that Proposition 65 requires), since a lethal dose would have to be ingested for any reproductive effects to present themselves. Requiring a warning that ingesting antifreeze could cause reproductive harm therefore provides no public health benefit.
Finally, federal law already requires labeling of products containing significant amounts of ethylene glycol; any product containing 10% or more by weight of ethylene glycol (antifreeze typically has 50% ethylene glycol by weight) must be labeled with the signal “warning” and the statement “harmful or fatal if swallowed.” This requirement should be sufficient because, as stated above, reproductive effects would only occur if a lethal dose was ingested.
In adding glyphosate and EG to the Prop 65 list, OEHHA expended valuable resources on pointlessly listing two chemicals that do not pose any real threat to public health. Instead, OEHHA should develop regulatory safe harbor levels for the many Prop 65 chemicals already listed.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2017/08/issues-around-listing-chemicals-under-prop-65/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Not Bound by Ethics Order, EPA Official Vows to Avoid Industry
Aug 8, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus and Corbin Hiar
The top political official at U.S. EPA's chemical safety program, who hasn't been required to sign President Trump's ethics pledge, has nevertheless promised to keep her distance from her former employer, the powerful American Chemistry Council.
Nancy Beck, the principal deputy assistant administrator at the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, has filed a recusal statement with the agency. In the statement, dated June 9, which was obtained by E&E News, Beck said she has always understood that she is subject to conflict-of-interest laws pertaining to executive branch employees.
"I have understood that I have a 'covered relationship' with my former employer, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), and have recused myself from participating personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which ACC is a party or represents a party," Beck said.
Beck said she understood that she cannot participate in "any specific party matter" involving the chemical industry trade group during her cooling-off period, which ends on April 21, 2018.
But Beck has been advised by EPA's ethics staff that she can participate in "particular matters of general applicability," like rulemaking, even if the chemicals trade group has an interest in the proceeding. In addition, she can attend meetings where ACC is present or represented as long as the meeting is about "a matter of general applicability."
Beck also doesn't have to sign Trump's ethics pledge, given how she was hired by EPA. Brought in by Administrator Scott Pruitt without specific White House consent, Beck is not considered a political appointee as defined by the executive order that laid out the ethics standards, which are intended to limit appointees' interactions with their former employers.
"Because I am in an Administratively Determined position, I have been advised by the Office of General Counsel/Ethics (OGC/Ethics) that I am not subject to Executive Order 13770 and therefore not required to sign the Trump ethics pledge," said Beck in her recusal statement.
In a separate memo sent to Beck and also obtained by E&E News, acting EPA General Counsel Kevin Minoli told the chemicals official that she would have to seek permission from him if she wants to participate in "any specific party matter" involving ACC.
"From one year from the time you resigned from ACC, absent an impartiality determination from me, you cannot participate in any specific party matter in which ACC is a party or represents a party if that matter is likely to have a direct and predictable financial effect upon the ACC or if the circumstances would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to question your impartiality," Minoli said in the memo, dated June 8.
In addition, Minoli warned Beck to avoid meetings and discussions that center on ACC actions.
"While you can ethically work on rulemaking in general, you have been advised — and understand — that you cannot participate in any meetings, discussions or decisions that relate to any individual ACC comment nor attend any meeting at which ACC is present," Minoli said.
When asked about Beck's ethics documents, the EPA said agency staff are committed to be fair in their service.
"We take our ethics responsibilities seriously; all political staff have had an ethics briefing and know their obligations. Each of us has committed to serve in a fair and professional way," said EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman.
Beck is set to take an even bigger role at the chemical safety office later this month when the acting boss, Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, plans to retire (Greenwire, July 14).Reaction
Public health and government watchdog groups said the ethics documents, which haven't been previously reported, would do little to prevent Beck from doing the bidding of her former employer.
"The [nongovernmental organization] community is very concerned about Nancy Beck's serious conflicts of interest and noncompliance with ethical requirements," said Bob Sussman, counsel for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families and a former top EPA official in the Obama and Clinton administrations. "We believe the public interest in protection from unsafe chemicals will be poorly served if a leading advocate for the chemical industry is allowed to be the decision-maker on the very issues on which she lobbied the agency."
Sussman's public health group earlier this year sent a letter asking Pruitt for a list of EPA-related matters Beck handled at ACC and urging the agency to make public any steps taken to ensure that "EPA's science and policy decisions affecting chemicals will remain unbiased and free from improper industry influence" (Greenwire, May 10).
Scott Amey, general counsel of the Project on Government Oversight, questioned the judgment of the EPA ethics officials.
"I think the agency made a mistake and at worst should have expended restrictions to all ACC member companies and at best left the one-year cooling-off period," he said. "I doubt that someone from that industry will be impartial and that the interest of the government outweighs the conflict of interest."
Amey added that "unfortunately, this is what happens when you take the opposite approach to draining the swamp and instead fill it with people from the industry that they are assigned to regulate."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/08/08/stories/1060058526
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic: Who Is Stephen B. King?
Aug 8, 2017 | AllGov
By Steve Straehly
Stephen B. King, a long-time Wisconsin Republican operative, was nominated on July 11, 2017, to be the next ambassador to the Czech Republic. King has no diplomatic experience.
King was born July 4, 1941, in Indianapolis. His uncle, Robert A. Grant, served as a Republican congressman from Indiana from 1939 to 1949, and beginning in 1957 as a federal judge. King went to Western Illinois University, earning a B.S. in social science in 1963 and an M.A. in political science in 1967. After earning his undergraduate degree, King served as a social science teacher in Rushville, Illinois, while he worked on his master’s degree.
In 1967, King joined the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a special agent investigating civil rights violations in the South. He was transferred to Washington in 1969 and left the bureau the following year to become an assistant to Sen. Edward Gurney (R-Florida) on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, where he looked into cost overruns for the F-111 fighter/bomber and black-market activities in Army-Air Force Exchanges in South Vietnam.
King moved to the Agriculture Department in 1972, working as a special assistant to Secretary Earl Butz as a liaison to congressional agriculture committees. He left in 1976 to become director of development at his alma mater, Western Illinois, but stayed in that job only a year. In 1977, King moved to Wisconsin as general manager of woodworking company Carlson’s Miniatures. Two years later, he bought part ownership of Tomah Products, which manufactures cleaning chemicals. King was also chairman of the legislative affairs group of the Board of Governors of the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association and a member of the board of directors and executive committee of the American Chemical Council. Tomah was sold to Exxon Chemical in 1984, but in 1994 King led a buyout of the company and was president and CEO until it was finally sold in April 2006.
King then joined the board of directors of Pilot Chemical Corporation.
King served as supervisor in Walworth County, Wisconsin, from 1981 to 1985. In 1985, he was elected Wisconsin Republican Committee chairman. He resigned from that post in 1988 to run in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in Wisconsin, but was defeated by Susan Engeleiter, who eventually lost in the general election to Democrat Herb Kohl. Future House Speaker Paul Ryan, who like King is from Janesville, Wisconsin, was a volunteer for King during that campaign.
King founded venture capital firm King Capital in 2006 and has continued to be active in Republican politics, running the unsuccessful campaign of Paul Bucher for Wisconsin Attorney General. For the 2016 Republican National Convention, King was a delegate bound to Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and served as chairman of the Committee on Arrangements for the gathering. In 2009, he was chosen as a member of the board of directors of the Boy Scouts of America, and became vice-president in charge of supply and president of the Central Region.
King and his wife, Karen, married in 1963. They have three adult children: Kristen, Stephen Jr. and Russell. The Kings have a vacation home in North Carolina’s Outer Banks. King is a co-owner of the Janesville Jets ice hockey team of the North American Hockey League.
http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/us-ambassador-to-the-czech-republic-who-is-stephen-b-king-170808?news=860270
-
(ACC Mentioned) Experts Criticize EPA's New Chemical Approval Process as a Handout to Industry
Aug 8, 2017 | ThinkProgress
By Natasha Geiling
Industry is once again cheering Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, this time for clearing a backlog of some 600 chemicals that had previously been waiting for approval. But environmental experts worry that Pruitt is using the chemical backlog as a smokescreen to streamline the agency’s chemical approval process at the behest of industry — and at the expense of public health and safety.
In an press release issued on Monday, the EPA announced that it had eliminated a backlog of nearly 600 chemicals; the substances had been waiting in the approval process since the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which had not been updated since it was passed in 1976, was finally amended in 2016. The 2016 amendment, known as the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, mandated that the EPA take additional steps to ensure chemicals were safe for public use before approving them for market, including making an affirmative safety determination that the new chemical does not pose a threat to public health and the environment. (Before the amendment, the EPA could only deny approval if it found that the chemical posed a threat to public health and the environment; the agency didn’t actually have to prove that the chemical was safe.)
Because the amendment went into effect immediately after passing, the EPA — which normally has about 300 chemicals waiting for review and approval at any given time — suffered from a temporary backlog in the approval process, as new and pending chemicals had to go through more rigorous testing.
In announcing that the backlog had been cleared, however, Pruitt also announced that the EPA would be making some changes to the ways that the way that the EPA evaulates new chemicals — changes that experts worry undercuts the integrity of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act.
“In the name and under the cover of this commitment that Pruitt made a few months ago to eliminate the backlog, he’s actually making wholesale changes that have nothing to do with the backlog, and that are going to weaken the new chemical review process,” Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the
Environmental Defense Fund, told ThinkProgress. “The announcement yesterday is, in our view, contrary to what the law requires, and is really an effort to reset the clock back to a broken system that was widely agreed to be in need of a major overhaul.”Under the EPA’s newly announced approval process for chemicals, the agency will only look at “intended uses” of a particular chemical, meaning the uses that the manufacturer identifies in its initial application to the agency. While the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act requires that the EPA also look at “reasonably foreseen uses” — the idea that a common industrial chemical could reasonably be used in domestic situations, for instance — Pruitt announced that the EPA would address foreseeable uses through a separate rule-making process, meaning a chemical could go to market even if the agency had concerns about uses other than the one initially highlighted by manufacturers.
Bifurcating the approval process into intended uses and reasonably foreseen uses, Denison worries, will allow chemical companies to resist or slow-walk EPA attempts to limit uses of chemicals that are already allowed on the market.
“That disincentive the companies have is of concern, given the anti-regulatory climate that is going on and the many ways industry has found to slow down regulation,” he said.
The EPA’s changes to how it evaluates new chemicals comes just months after it announced changes to the ways it will evaluate existing chemicals, a decision that was heavily criticized by environmental groups and career scientists as an example of agency capture by industry. The changes, which also limit the scope of evaluation by the EPA, were spearheaded by EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator Nancy Beck, who came to the agency from the American Chemistry Council, the leading lobbying group for the chemical industry.
“Basically, this is a handout to the American Chemistry Council,” Katie Tracy, a policy analyst with the Center for Progressive Reform, told ThinkProgress of the agency’s new processes for evaluating both existing and new chemicals.”
Beck’s appointment, and the EPA’s new streamlined process for approving chemicals, add to the criticism Pruitt has faced for catering to industry preference over public health. In March, Pruitt decided not to ban a commonly-used pesticide known as chlorpyrifos, despite EPA scientists linking the pesticide to brain damage in children. Later, it was revealed that Pruitt met with the chief executive of Dow Chemical, the primary manufacturer of chlorpyrifos, a few weeks before making his decision.
In July, President Trump also announced his intention to nominate Michael Dourson to lead the EPA’s chemical and pesticides office. Dourson, who founded the nonprofit Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, has produced reports aimed at minimizing concerns about the safety of chemicals produced by companies like DuPont, Dow, and Boeing. As head of the EPA’s chemical and pesticides office, he would oversee the agency’s regulation of industrial chemicals and pesticides — the same companies that funded much of Dourson’s private-sector work.
https://thinkprogress.org/experts-criticize-epas-new-chemical-approval-process-as-a-handout-to-industry/
-
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Announces End of PMN Backlog
Aug 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA says it has eliminated the backlog of new chemical cases that had grown since TSCA reform went through last year, and has committed to a "more predictable and transparent process" for making determinations.
The announcement follows the agency's commitment to bring down the number of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) under review to 300 – its typical baseline for substances in the queue – by the end of July. The pledge came amid mounting discontent from industry over the slow pace of reviews.
The EPA says it has reduced its caseload from 443 in late May to 382 at the end of July. But it says that the latter includes 74 cases in which the submitters are developing information; subtracting these, the number under active review is "now consistent with the normal active workload", it says.
"I am happy to report that the backlog of new chemical reviews is eliminated," said EPA administrator Scott Pruitt. "Our goal is to ensure a new chemicals programme that is both protective of human health and the environment, while also being supportive of bringing new chemicals to market."Measures to 'strengthen' new chemicals programmes
The EPA also detailed the ways in which will undertake "new measures to strengthen" its review of new substances.
Several of these relate to its treatment of reasonably foreseen uses of a chemical – a subject that has been a source of frustration for many in industry.
The agency said that in situations where it has concerns with a reasonably foreseen use – but not with the intended use described in a PMN – then it can generally address those concerns through a significant new use rule (Snur). This contrasts with its more recent practice of issuing consent orders in these cases.
It also says that identification of a reasonably foreseen use will be "fact-specific" – that is, if facts suggest the activity is "not only possible, but … probable".
Where intended uses raise risk concerns, the agency says it will work with submitters to amend PMNs to address those, and will make its determinations based on the amended submission.
And it says that section 5 testing orders will be used "to reduce uncertainty in regard to risk".
Beyond these 'operating principles', the agency has also pledged to:
· redeploy staff working on the new chemicals programme;
· institutionalise a voluntary pre-submission consultation process;
· increase transparency through the release this autumn of consultation documents to "provide the public with more certainty and clarity" regarding how it makes its determinations, and what external information it is seeking to inform these.NGO criticises 'improvements'
Richard Denison at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said that the EPA's press release "makes clear" that it is adopting changes that "circumvent the law's requirements in the name of increasing the programme 'throughput'".
The NGO raised concerns that the agency will no longer be imposing conditions on new substances that pose potential risks or lack sufficient information, but instead will simply promulgate Snurs.
“The EDF raised concerns that the EPA will no longer be imposing conditions on new substances that pose potential risks or lack sufficient information, but instead will simply promulgate Snurs. It also questions whether the agency will be moving away from 'rigorously' reviewing both intended and reasonably foreseen uses of a new chemical, and whether it will only require testing to address risk concern.”
It also questions whether the agency will be moving away from "rigorously" reviewing both intended and reasonably foreseen uses of a new chemical, and whether it will only require testing to address risk concerns. The latter, says Dr Denison, recreates a 'Catch-22' issue under the pre-reformed TSCA, where the agency could only require testing where it already had evidence of risks.
The agency's new changes follow "relentless pressure" from the chemicals industry, as well as from "new industry-friendly senior management" within the agency, said Dr Denison. And the EPA's approach of developing these changes only with new chemical submitters is "highly disturbing, and further undercuts public confidence" in the agency's implementation of the new law.
There has been widespread criticism among consumer advocacy groups at the industry ties ofappointees to leadership roles in the EPA's chemicals office, including those of Nancy Beck and Michael Dourson.Industry seeks increased transparency
The American Chemistry Council commended the agency for its "real and deliberate progress" toward eliminating the backlog. But it said work remains to "completely clear the backlog and prevent it from reoccurring".
Speaking to Chemical Watch last week, the ACC's Mike Walls said that more transparency is needed around how the agency is calculating its caseload.
For example, when the EPA issues a draft consent order, it counts that PMN as "complete", Mr Walls said. But negotiating those can take well over a year in some circumstances, during which time the new substance still cannot come to market.
Mr Walls said that ACC is encouraged by the agency's attention to new chemicals, but there needs to be a return to the cooperative approach to the programme as was seen prior to TSCA reform.
"We need to get back to a situation where the submitters can have a complete understanding of what, why and how they can satisfy EPA's requirements while not unduly burdening the introduction of new chemistries into the marketplace."
https://chemicalwatch.com/58101/us-epa-announces-end-of-pmn-backlog
-
Court Strikes Down EPA Limits on HFCs
Aug 8, 2017 | Politico Pro Energy Whiteboard
By Eric Wolf
A federal court today struck down EPA's attempt to ban a powerful heat-trapping gas under its authority to regulate substances that deplete the ozone layer.
The D.C. Circuit said EPA could not force manufacturers that had replaced ozone-depleting chemicals with hydrofluorocarbons to stop producing them. The Obama administration in 2015 said the high global warming potential of HFCs justified removing them from a list of acceptable replacements for chlorofluorocarbons, which are being phased out to protect the ozone layer in conjunction with the 1992 Montreal Protocol.
The court, in a 2-1 decision, said EPA too broadly interpreted its authority under the Clean Air Act in trying to ban HFC production altogether. However, Judges Janice Rogers Brown and Brett Kavanaugh said EPA could still bar the use of HFCs by companies that had not yet replaced their ozone-destroying coolants and that EPA could still potentially regulate HFCs under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Judge Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee, dissented from the decision, saying EPA's interpretation of its authority was reasonable.
The decision is a victory for French chemical manufacturer Arkema and Mexico-based Mexichem, both of whom make HFCs. It's a blow to U.S. manufacturers of coolants who dominate the market in next-generation chemicals that have much lower global heating potential. It also raises questions about the U.S. ability to implement an amendment to the Montreal Protocol that would curtail worldwide use of HFCs.
WHAT'S NEXT: The court remanded the rule back to EPA for reconsideration.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Danish Testing Finds Suspected EDCs in Pushchairs
Aug 8, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Tests carried out on pushchairs in Denmark have found carcinogenic and suspected endocrine disrupting chemicals in more than half of the products, according to the Danish Consumer Council's Think Chemicals initiative.
Substances such as chlorinated paraffins, the flame retardant TCPP, and the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) naphthalene were found in the handles or seats of six out of 11 pushchairs tested, it said.
Although not banned in baby products, naphthalene is classified as possibly carcinogenic, while chlorinated paraffins are on the Danish EPA's list of unwanted substances and a suspected EDC. TCPP is banned in the EU in toys for children up to three years old due to its carcinogenic properties.
Think Chemicals said exposure from a single product is "not necessarily problematic in itself", but it contributes to children's combined exposure to hazardous chemicals from different sources.
The following pushchairs were found to have harmful substances:
· Britax Smile 2 (chlorinated paraffins in the handle);
· Cybex Balios M (chlorinated paraffins in the handle and seat);
· Gb QBIT Plus (chlorinated paraffins in the handle);
· Maxi Cosi Stella (chlorinated paraffins and naphthalene in the handle);
· Mutsy Nexo (TCPP in the seat); and
· Phil and Teds Smart (chlorinated paraffins in the handle and naphthalene in the seat).
Smaller amounts of chlorinated paraffins were found in the handle of the Hauck Rapid 4 pushchair.
In three other products only very small amounts of PAHs were present in the handle. These are:
· Baby Jogger City Premier;
· Basson Baby Uno; and
· Joie Litetrax 4.
The Britax B motion 4 Plus pushchair performed best in the test with the least amount of harmful chemicals present.
The test also examined the content of phthalates in the pushchairs, but none were found.
Earlier this year, Dutch pushchair company Bugaboo said it was developing a restricted substances list (RSL), to be implemented and communicated to the public in early 2018.
Other pushchair manufacturers have also introduced RSLs. Norwegian manufacturer Stokke said it reviews its lists regularly, while the UK's Mothercare said it has an RSL in place for all the products it sells.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58077/danish-testing-finds-suspected-edcs-in-pushchairs
-
Cheniere Reports Net Loss as It Nears Completion of 4th LNG Unit
Aug 8, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
Houston's Cheniere Energy said Tuesday it's nearing completion of its fourth liquefied natural gas unit at its massive Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana near the Texas border.
Cheniere said it is raising its earnings guidance going forward because its construction projects are ahead of schedule, bringing on LNG trains faster than anticipated.
Cheniere, which became the nation's first LNG exporter early last year, turned its first quarterly profit at the end of 2016. Despite the growth in second-quarter revenue, Cheniere reported a net loss Tuesday.
Cheniere would have had a small $21 million profit, but the company paid $306 million to debt holders and investors, creating an overall net loss of $285 million.
The third LNG unit came online in March with the fourth tentatively slated for the fall. A fifth is expected to be finished in 2019, while the sixth doesn't yet have a timeline. Each train has the capacity to process 4.5 million metric tons of LNG a year.
Cheniere's Corpus Christi LNG project also is expected to come online in 2019. The first two Corpus trains are more than 50 percent complete. A third doesn't have a timeline, while Cheniere also is planning two more trains.
Cheniere shipped out its 100th LNG cargo in early April and exceeded the 160 cargo mark by the end of July.
The company signed a 20-year contract in June to supply the Korea Gas Corp., called Kogas, with LNG.
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Cheniere-Energy-nears-completion-of-next-LNG-unit-11741568.php#item-38488
-
BP Finds Prolific Shale Gas Source in New Mexico
Aug 8, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Collin Easton
BP believes it has found a fertile new source of shale gas in New Mexico, on land it bought from a U.S. shale driller two years ago.
The British oil major said Monday one of its natural gas wells in the Mancos Shale reached the region's highest production rate in 14 years, pumping 12.9 million cubic feet of gas a day in an initial 30-day period.
By comparison, horizontal gas wells in the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas produce some 8 to 12 million cubic feet of gas a day, according to energy research firm Wood Mackenzie.
"It exceeded their expectations," said Linda Htein, senior research manager of Wood Mac's upstream research team. "But it's still early days."
Dave Lawler, head of BP's shale gas unit, said the discovery means the Mancos Shale – part of the San Juan Basin, which stretches across New Mexico and Colorado – could become one of the nation's top shale plays.
"This result supports our strategic view that significant resource potential exists in the San Juan Basin, and gives us confidence to pursue additional development of the Mancos Shale," Lawler said.
But it's going to take more than one prolific well to convince the U.S. oil industry the Mancos Shale is the next hotspot for shale gas.
"The next test now will be showing some repeatability," Htein said. "Will they be able to repeat these results in another five wells? They think there's potential for scalability here."
In late 2015, BP had snagged 33,000 acres in the San Juan Basin from Devon Energy, a year after announcing plans to formed a self-contained U.S. shale segment that was first headquartered in Houston. BP plans to open a new headquarters for the unit in Denver next year.
BP said its gas well in the Mancos Shale was drilled sideways 10,000 feet in a U.S. government-owned region called the Northeast Blanco Unit, in San Juan and Rio Arriba counties. The company had originally estimated it could drill some 1,600 wells with 5,000-foot lateral sections across the San Juan Basin.
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/BP-finds-prolific-shale-gas-source-in-New-Mexico-11739361.php
-
Oil Pioneer Puts Money on Gas Demand
Aug 8, 2017 | E&E Energywire
Harold Hamm, one of the pioneers of the U.S. shale oil boom, is increasing his investment in gas ahead of an expected surge in U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas.
Continental Resources, the exploration and production company where Hamm is chief executive, last month added an extra rig to drill for gas in Oklahoma.
Hamm, who is a close ally and adviser to President Trump, is also positioning himself to be an advocate for curbing greenhouse gas emissions and highlighting the advantages of substituting gas for coal.
"We're an opportunistic entity: We're not devoted only to oil," Hamm told the Financial Times. "A lot of our exploration effort is going toward natural gas."
The company runs nine rigs drilling wells mostly for gas production, and about 10 primarily for oil.
Gas is typically less lucrative than crude, but Hamm sees potential long-term growth in global gas demand (Ed Crooks, Financial Times, Aug. 6). — CS
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/08/08/stories/1060058478
-
California Tightens Safety Regulations for Refineries
Aug 8, 2017 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
California is requiring its 15 refineries to adopt comprehensive new requirements to improve safety for workers and communities around the facilities.
Regulations that the state issued on Aug. 4 call for refineries to adopt inherently safer designs and systems to the “greatest extent feasible” and increase employer responsibility for the safety of refinery equipment. Those rules authorize workers to shut down equipment in the event of unsafe conditions and allow anonymous reporting of safety hazards to state officials. They also require root cause analysis when an incident results in a major accident or near miss.
The regulatory changes sprang from a state review of refineries after a 2012 accident at a Chevron refinery in Richmond, Calif., at the northern tip of the San Francisco Bay. The accident sent plumes of smoke and particles into the air and led 15,000 residents to seek medical aid.
“These are landmark changes,” says Erika Monterroza, spokesperson with the California Department of Industrial Relations, of the new regulations. She explains that the state created a broad task force made up of community members, workers, and industry, state, and local agencies to develop the regulations.
Three years after the state began its regulatory review, another accident, this one at the ExxonMobil refinery in southern California, increased the state’s focus on refinery safety. The second accident, in Torrance, sent debris into the community and involved a close call with a storage tank filled with toxic hydrofluoric acid.
Like many of California’s 15 refineries, the Richmond and Torrance facilities are located in densely populated areas, where houses abut the refinery fence lines. The Richmond and Torrance accidents resulted in detailed and controversial reports by the federal Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). CSB Chairperson Vanessa Allen Sutherland applauds the new regulations and notes that they include many board recommendations.
However, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, says, “Our members’ commitment to improving refinery process safety has made refineries in California the safest and cleanest in the world. The new regulations ignore that fact and were developed with little consideration of the impacts on our state’s economy or workforce.”
In announcing the regulations, the state also said it is beefing up the number staffers who conduct process safety management reviews from 10 to 24. California will have 19 process safety management inspectors, 10 of whom will focus only on refineries. Formerly, the state had but seven of these inspectors for 1,940 facilities, including the 15 refineries.
In the past, California regulators conducted two to three refinery inspections annually, each taking a single inspector 80 hours to complete. It will now deploy four to five inspectors for four inspections per year and increase time allocation to 2,000 hours per planned inspection, says Monterroza. Also the state plans to invest 900 hours on average for start-up inspections after a process shutdown, which can be particularly problem prone.
Some of the new requirements are similar to final federal risk management planmodifications that the Obama Administration issued last December and the Trump Administration suspended in March.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/web/2017/08/California-tightens-safety-regulations-refineries.html
-
Climate Study Quietly Underway Warns of Severe U.S. Impacts
Aug 8, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
A report currently being developed by federal scientists warns of dire consequences from climate change, conflicting with public statements from officials in the Trump administration about the severity of rising greenhouse gas emissions.
A scientist from one of the 13 agencies working on the study leaked a draft copy to The New York Times out of fear that the Trump administration would hide the results. The report informs the National Climate Assessment, a major summary of the causes and impacts of climate change on the United States.
"Evidence for a changing climate abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans," the draft says. "Thousands of studies conducted by tens of thousands of scientists around the world have documented changes in surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; melting glaciers; disappearing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea level; and an increase in atmospheric water vapor."
The draft adds: "Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate changes."
Its pages, numbering more than 500, are filled with contrasts to what President Trump and other administration officials have claimed about global warming. Trump and several members of his Cabinet, including U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, have downplayed the human impact on the climate.
Whether the Trump administration alters or nixes the study remains to be seen. The process for developing the 2018 report started under the Obama administration and has continued quietly during the first months of the Trump presidency.
When contacted by E&E News on Monday, NASA spokesman Steve Cole said he was aware of those studies but had "no info on status or target release dates."
The National Climate Assessment is a sweeping summary of the impacts of climate change on the United States. It's produced every four years by more than 300 scientists and is overseen by a federal advisory committee consisting of about 60 experts.
Congress requires the report, but the White House greatly influences how much fanfare attends its release, said Paul Bledsoe, a climate adviser under President Clinton who is now a lecturer at American University's Center for Environmental Policy.
"Administrations have huge latitude on how they handle seemingly technical climate reports, which can make all the difference," he said. "Trump's high-profile climate denial and the startling pace of warming together have compelled scientists themselves to take matters into their own hands."
Even if emissions were to cease immediately, there are enough heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere to raise global temperatures another 0.5 degree Fahrenheit by century's end, the draft report found. It also says it's possible to connect some extreme weather events to climate change, a distinction climate scientists have traditionally avoided for singular events.
The draft report says temperatures globally have risen 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit since the mid-1800s. Much of that increase — 1.2 degrees — has occurred since 1951. Of that warming, the draft says, there is at least a 95 percent likelihood that more than half could be attributed to human activity. It says there's at least a 66 percent likelihood that all of it was caused by people.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/08/08/stories/1060058498
-
Haley: No Reason for Trump Administration to Reject Climate Change Report
Aug 8, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Savransky
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley in an interview early Tuesday said she doesn't see any reason for the Trump administration to reject a new report from government scientists on climate change's impact.
Haley was asked on NBC's "Today" show whether she thinks the Trump administration would embrace the report, given that the U.S. just withdrew from the Paris climate agreement.
"Just because we pulled out of the Paris accord doesn't mean we don't believe in climate protection," Haley said.
"I think we're very aware that we need to do that. What we're saying is, we're not going to sell out American businesses to do that."
When pressed on whether the administration would embrace the results of the report — which was drafted by scientists from 13 federal agencies — Haley said she hasn't seen it.
"But I don't see any reason why they wouldn't," she said.
"We're not saying that climate change is not real. It is real. It's how do you have that balance between making sure you've got jobs and businesses moving and then also making sure you protect your climate," she continued.
"That answer's in the middle."
The New York Times obtained a copy of the report, which finds the U.S. already feeling the effects of climate change.
It also says it is "extremely likely" that the majority of global temperature increases in the past 60 years are partially due to human influence.
“Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are primarily responsible for observed climate changes in the industrial era,” the report, which has not yet been made public, says.
“There are no alternative explanations, and no natural cycles are found in the observational record that can explain the observed changes in climate.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/345699-haley-no-reason-to-think-trump-administration-wont-accept-climate
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested