Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 8/18/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) East Hartford And Shop Rite Push Plastics Recycling
Aug 17, 2017 | Hartford Courant
By Jesse Leavenworth
The town and a local supermarket have partnered to increase proper recycling of plastic bags and wrapping. -
Panel to Build on Ideas to Ease Chemical Data Requirements
Aug 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A panel that included manufacturers agreed Aug. 17 to flesh out four ideas to simplify EPA requirements companies face when providing information about chemicals in waste streams they recycle. -
The TSCA Inventory Reset Begins: Toxic Substances Control Act
Aug 17, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Ryan J. Carra, Mark N. Duvall and Timothy M. Serie
Virtually all manufacturers and importers of chemicals for the past 11 years are now subject to a new TSCA reporting requirement known informally as the TSCA Inventory Reset. Reports are due by February 7, 2018. -
Potential Health Effects of Gas Additives Divide EPA Board
Aug 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
EPA scientists could not definitively conclude this week whether two widely-used gasoline additives cause health problems, delaying potential regulation until the agency can address questions in its research. -
Brazilian Blowout Day: We’ll Celebrate When the FDA Bans Formaldehyde
Aug 17, 2017 | Environmental Working Group.
By Monica Amarelo
A ridiculous and completely unofficial website that tracks made-up holidays says Monday is Brazilian Blowout Day. The National Day Calendar suggests you celebrate by going to a hair salon for a blowout. I sure hope you don’t. -
Study: Women of Color Exposed to More Toxic Chemicals in Personal Care Products
Aug 18, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Nneka Leiba and Paul Pestano
Women of color use more beauty products and are disproportionately exposed to worrisome chemicals compared to white women, according to a new study. -
Label Salon Products To Disclose Risks
Aug 18, 2017 | San Francisco Chronicle
By David Klein
Imagine that your favorite hair product’s label read, “Warning: may cause infertility,” or listed “formaldehyde,” a cancer-causing embalming fluid, as an ingredient. Whatever our products contain, you and I remain blissfully ignorant of our exposure and risk because professional cleaning and salon products often do not label their ingredients (although our hair probably looks fabulous). -
Blackstone's New Pipeline Asset Is Wreaking Environmental Havoc
Aug 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik and Catherine Traywick
In the energy business, it's one of the biggest projects going today: construction of a 710-mile pipeline to transport natural gas from America's most prolific shale deposit in the eastern U.S. to consumers in the Midwest and Canada. Even Blackstone Group LP has agreed to take a sizable stake. -
The Gas Tankers Lurking at Sea Looking for a Better Deal
Aug 17, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Anna Shiryaevskaya
When the tanker Provalys left Louisiana for Chile last month with a full load of U.S. liquefied natural gas, it sailed around South America instead of taking a shortcut through the expanded Panama Canal. Not only may the route be cheaper without canal transit fees, but advances in technology mean less of the fuel would end up lost at sea during the journey. -
(ACC Mentioned) CSX, Customers And STB: The Letters Keep Flying
Aug 17, 2017 | RailwayAge Magazine
By William C. Vantuono
According to numerous observers, CSX service continues to deteriorate, threatening to affect other railroads and, by extension, the economy. -
Campaign Targets Bid To Regulate Spokane Oil, Coal Trains
Aug 17, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Nick Sobczyk
The fight is heating up over a ballot measure in Spokane, Wash., that would regulate trains transporting oil and coal through the city. -
Sunstein, Obama's Regulatory Czar, Praises Trump Infrastructure Order
Aug 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
Cass Sunstein, who led the White House Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) during President Barack Obama's first term, is praising President Donald Trump's new executive order (EO) seeking to speed infrastructure development by streamlining environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). -
Oil, NatGas Supports California Cap-Trade Extension; Enviros Balk
Aug 18, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
While political leaders are hailing it as a bipartisan accomplishment, environmental groups are critical of California's recent extension to 2030 of the state's precedent-setting cap-and-trade program, which the oil/natural gas industry has supported.
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
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) East Hartford And Shop Rite Push Plastics Recycling
Aug 17, 2017 | Hartford Courant
By Jesse Leavenworth
The town and a local supermarket have partnered to increase proper recycling of plastic bags and wrapping.
Mayor Marcia Leclerc joined other town and state officials and business representatives at the Shop Rite supermarket on Main Street Thursday to announce the initiative, part of a state and national campaign called Wrap Recycling Action Program (WRAP).
"We're proud to partner with Shop Rite to increase public awareness of the types of plastic wraps and bags that can be recycled, and where to recycle this material," Leclerc said. "Many people may not be aware that they can't place these plastics in their blue recycling bins, and our goal is to raise awareness and divert 100 percent of plastic film from curbside bins by 2020."
A recent survey showed about half of Connecticut residents were unaware that certain plastic items should be taken to grocery and retail stores to ensure proper recycling, Sarah Lindsay of the American Chemistry Council said at the news conference. The Washington, D.C.-based trade group represents many plastic makers in the nation.
The survey, Lindsay said, also revealed that only 20 percent of state residents could correctly identify plastic items that can be recycled, including grocery and retail bags, newspaper bags and bread and food storage bags.
Also included are plastic wraps for napkins, paper towels, toilet paper and diapers and bags inside cereal boxes. All bags and wrapping should be clean and dry when dropped off for recycling. East Hartford's initiative includes new bins placed at the entry to Shop Rite and other participating stores.
Properly recycled wrap is used for making building materials such as low-maintenance decks and fences and even new plastic bags.
"These plastics are too valuable to waste," Lindsay said.
On the other hand, flexible wrap placed in curbside recycling bins gums up machinery, raises costs and decreases production at recycling plants, officials said.
Besides Shop Rite of East Hartford, Price Chopper and Adams Markets also are participating in the local WRAP campaign, Leclerc said. The Connecticut Food Association, representing grocery stores across the state, is a partner in the effort. For a full list of participating stores, visit www.plasticfilmrecycling.org.
The WRAP campaign is part of the state's "comprehensive materials management strategy," which seeks to divert 60 percent of the current volume of trash from the waste stream by 2024, Sherril Baldwin, an environmental analyst with the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, said at the news conference. Meeting the goal, Baldwin said, requires working more closely with municipal partners to increase access to recycling.
The strategy does not include a proposed 5-cent plastic bag tax that some state legislators were pushing for earlier this year. The proposal has faded from the General Assembly's agenda.
Advocates for a cleaner environment say too many plastic bags end up littering the state's land and waters. In 2009, Westport became the first community in Connecticut to ban single-use plastic bags. Other cities around the nation, including Los Angeles and San Francisco, also have banned or taxed single-use shopping bags.
http://www.courant.com/community/east-hartford/hc-east-hartford-plastic-wrap-0818-20170817-story.html
-
Panel to Build on Ideas to Ease Chemical Data Requirements
Aug 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A panel that included manufacturers agreed Aug. 17 to flesh out four ideas to simplify EPA requirements companies face when providing information about chemicals in waste streams they recycle.
Before its next meeting Sept. 13-14, the Environmental Protection Agency advisory committee—which includes makers of glass, metal, electronic parts and other products—will discuss strategies to:
• clarify existing exemptions in a chemical rule that allow some manufacturers to not have to give the EPA details about certain chemicals in their waste;
• give manufacturers the option of reporting some chemicals as groups rather than individual substances;
• simplify the requirements of a specific section of a form manufacturers must submit to the EPA; and
• clarify two industry proposals addressing certain wastes, such as metal catalysts, that get refreshed and reused many times by the same manufacturer that originally purchased them.
By October, the committee must decide whether it can recommend regulatory changes to ease manufacturers’ burdens. Those recommendations would be the foundation of regulatory changes the EPA would propose to make to its Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule.If the committee doesn't reach consensus, its members can put forward ideas most of the members support and the objections of others. The EPA would then decide how to proceed.
The congressionally mandated committee consists of officials representing the EPA, manufacturers, recyclers, states, tribes and environmental health groups. Congress ordered the EPA to establish the committee when lawmakers amended the Toxic Substances Control Act in 2016.
Industry and recycling representatives outnumber state, tribal and environmental health groups on the committee, so the majority report in the committee's final recommendations would be likely to reflect industry's ideas.Despite strong disagreements at times, all of the committee members said Aug. 17 they remain committed to trying to work towards a consensus set of recommendations. The diverse groups on the committee seemed unlikely, however, to ever agree on reducing the amount of information such manufacturers provide the EPA.
Focus: Inorganic Byproducts
Committee members are discussing whether there are ways to make it easier for glass, metal, petroleum and other manufacturers to provide the EPA information about chemicals in “inorganic byproducts”—mostly metal-containing ash, dust, sludge and liquid—that get recycled or reused. The EPA and state, tribal and other non-industry groups want to be sure, however, that the agency gets enough information to understand whether some of these reused wastes end up harming people or the environment.
Lynn Vendinello, deputy director of EPA Chemical Control Division, told the committee the agency can't estimate exactly the volume of inorganic byproducts reported by manufacturers, because the reporting form doesn't distinguish them from other chemicals. However, the agency estimates that about 382 billion pounds of 463 inorganic chemicals are reported annually on average.
Fern Abrams, regulatory affairs director for the IPC-Association Connecting Electronics Industries and committee member, described the core problem during the Aug. 16-17 meeting. Manufacturers have found many different niche uses and markets for what used to be wastes, she said.
Yet the diversity of the byproducts and their uses make it so complicated to comply with the Chemical Data Reporting rule that the regulation becomes a disincentive to recycling, Abrams told Bloomberg BNA.
Manufacturers don't want to dispose of their byproducts, but sometimes that seems like the easier option, she said.
States Concerned
The CDR rule requires that chemical manufacturers report production volume, worker exposure and other information to the EPA every four years. Many different offices within the agency use that information to answer lots of different questions, according to information the agency prepared for the meeting.
Byproduct production counts as a form of chemical manufacture when it has commercial value. For example, platinum and other metals can be reused again and again as catalysts to make other chemicals.
Cement kiln dust can be used in roadway construction, according to the Department of Transportation.
Some uses of waste materials, especially ones with metals, are worrisome and potentially harmful, said John Gilkeson, a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency official representing the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), David Lennett, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, and other non-industry committee members.
Metal-containing wastes burned as fuel, for example, can spew toxic compounds into the air people and animals breath, the water they drink and the soil on which food grows, Amy Kyle, with the Sierra Club and Communities Against Toxics, told Bloomberg BNA. The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the majority owner of Bloomberg L.P., an affiliate of Bloomberg BNA.
Ironite® was once a fertilizer ingredient, but made with mine tailings, Lennett said. The result: Arsenic, lead and other metals leached into the soil, he said. States individually rushed to prevent continued contamination, Lennett said.“The scenario where people put metals onto land isn't a fantasy. It's happened,” he said. “That's one reason states are concerned.”
Work groups established at the meeting's end will refine ideas and present strategies to the committee at its next meeting on Sept. 13-14. The panel's last meeting is scheduled for Oct. 25-26, according to a Federal Register notice to be published Aug. 18.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=119158716&vname=dennotallissues&fn=119158716&jd=119158716
-
The TSCA Inventory Reset Begins: Toxic Substances Control Act
Aug 17, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Ryan J. Carra, Mark N. Duvall and Timothy M. Serie
Virtually all manufacturers and importers of chemicals for the past 11 years are now subject to a new TSCA reporting requirement known informally as the TSCA Inventory Reset. Reports are due by February 7, 2018. All processors of chemicals have an opportunity and an incentive to report as well, and may do so by October 5, 2018. The final Inventory Reset rule was published on August 11, 2017,[1] and is effective immediately. The final rule is available here, and will be codified as 40 C.F.R. Part 710, Subpart B.
Unlike the other framework rules under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that EPA published on July 20, 2017,[2] the Inventory Reset rule (known formally as “TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive Requirements)”) imposes immediate reporting obligations on all manufacturers and importers of chemical substances in the United States. It may affect almost all companies across the manufacturing supply chain. This article lays out the basic Inventory Reset framework, explains what information must be reported to EPA and by whom, and provides recommendations for what companies can do to make sure they meet their compliance obligations. The TSCA Inventory Reset Framework
Inventory Reset was a key feature of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (LCSA), the sweeping legislation enacted last year overhauling TSCA. As amended, TSCA section 8(b) requires EPA to determine which of the 85,000 chemicals substances on the TSCA Inventory are actually active in commerce. To achieve this end, the Inventory Reset rule sets forth a process to designate chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory as either “active” or “inactive” based on notifications from manufacturers and processors over the course of the next 14 months. After the initial Inventory Reset is complete, companies that intend to manufacture or process an inactive substance must notify EPA prior to commencing manufacturing or processing.A. The Reset: Retrospective Reporting
The rule requires manufacturers, which term includes importers, to notify EPA regarding the manufacture or import of chemical substances for non-exempt commercial purposes during the 10 years prior to enactment of the LCSA, i.e., from June 21, 2006 to June 21, 2016 (known as the “lookback period”).[3] Manufacturers are required to report this information to EPA within 180 days from publication of the final rule in the Federal Register (February 7, 2018). After the reporting period for manufacturers has ended, EPA will release a draft version of the TSCA Inventory that identifies those chemical substances on the list that are considered to be active chemical substances. For chemical substances on the confidential portion of the Inventory, the draft will identify those PMN numbers and Accession Numbers which are considered to be active chemical substances.
The rule allows, but does not require, processors to notify EPA regarding chemical substances that they processed for non-exempt commercial purposes during the lookback period within 420 days of publication of the final rule, or no later than October 5, 2018. The proposed rule would have only given processors 360 days to report,[4] but EPA extended this timeframe by 60 days in the final rule to give processors sufficient time to review the listings of active chemical substances on the draft Inventory to reduce duplicative reporting.
The rule requires manufacturers, and those processors who choose to report, to report the chemical identity of each chemical substance being reported, except as noted below.[5] For chemical substances being reported that are on the confidential portion of the Inventory, they must also indicate whether they seek to maintain an existing claim to protect the chemical identity from disclosure as confidential business information (CBI). They must report to EPA electronically through a Notice of Activity Form A (EPA Form No. TBD-1).[6] Notably, EPA dropped the other, more-burdensome reporting elements from the proposed rule that would have required reporting the type of commercial activity (e.g., whether the chemical substance was manufactured domestically, imported, and/or processed), and date range of manufacture for non-exempt commercial purposes during the 10-year lookback period.
The rule establishes a joint submission procedure for situations where a manufacturer, importer, or processor cannot provide the specific chemical identity of a reportable chemical substance to EPA because the information is claimed CBI by a supplier. If a submitter knows the accession number and generic name of a chemical substance, but not its CAS number due to a supplier’s CBI claim, the submitter may notify EPA simply using that information. Otherwise, under these circumstances, the submitter is required to ask the supplier to provide the CBI chemical identity information directly to EPA in a joint submission.[7]
B. After reporting is completed, EPA will designate all chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory as either active or inactive, based on the notifications it receives during the retrospective reporting period. Note that a substance is not designated as an “inactive substance” until 90 days after EPA has identified the substance for inactive designation. After the Reset: Forward-Looking Notification
Once EPA has completed its final active/inactive substance designations and the TSCA Inventory has been formally “reset,” no one will be permitted to manufacture, import, or process an inactive chemical substance without first submitting a notification to EPA. Anyone who intends to manufacture or process an inactive substance must submit a notification within the 90-day period before the anticipated date of manufacturing or processing.[8] (This implies that the notification could be as late as the day before the anticipated date of manufacture or processing.) The proposed rule would have required companies to submit the notification within only 30 days of the actual date of manufacturing or processing. Under the final rule, companies now have additional time (i.e., 90 days instead of 30 days) and are no longer bound to a specific date to commence commercial activity. The notification must include the chemical identity and anticipated date of manufacture or processing.
This information must be submitted electronically through the use of a Notice of Activity Form B (EPA Form No. TBD-2).[9] Upon receiving notice, EPA will change the designation of the chemical substance from inactive to active, and manufacturing or processing may commence.What Chemical Substances Must Be Reported?
The final rule only requires reporting of “reportable chemicals.” These include “chemical substances subject to commercial activity designation,”[10] chemical substances added to the confidential portion of the Inventory before the LCSA was enacted, and inactive substances, after EPA has updated the Inventory with designations for active and inactive substances. Inventory Reset reporting covers chemical substances that are listed on the Inventory that were manufactured for non-exempt commercial purposes, including chemicals on both the confidential and non-confidential portions of the Inventory. Chemical substances that have not been added to the Inventory are therefore not subject to the reporting requirements.
The Inventory Reset rule excludes certain other types of chemical substances and listed activities from the notification requirements. For example, naturally occurring substances are excluded from the reporting requirement provided the manufacturing or processing of such chemical substances meets certain criteria under the regulations. “Naturally occurring” is a defined term that excludes certain methods of manufacture or processing.[11] Substances that have not been added to the Inventory because they are manufactured solely under a TSCA exemption – such as the low-volume, polymer, research and development, or test marketing exemptions – would also not be subject to the reporting requirements.[12] Further, substances that were manufactured or processed for exempt commercial purposes are not subject to the reporting requirements either. These include impurities and byproducts that have no separate commercial purpose, and substances that are imported or processed solely as part of articles.[13]
One of the more important aspects of the rule is an exemption from the retrospective reporting requirement for circumstances in which EPA has already received equivalent notification that a chemical substance is being manufactured for a commercial purpose. The rule describes three circumstances in which EPA has already received equivalent notification:
· Substances that were reported under the Chemical Data Reporting rule in 2012 or 2016. All chemical substances that were reported to EPA under the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule during the 10-year lookback period are exempt from the retrospective reporting requirements. The chemicals reported for 2012 or 2016 will be included in the interim active substances list, which will be available on EPA’s website. Companies should review this list as they prepare for reporting. However, a company that seeks to maintain an existing CBI claim for specific chemical identity for a chemical substance reported under CDR cannot take advantage of the exemption and must submit a Form A.
· Substances that were added to the Inventory during the 10-year lookback period. All chemical substances for which a Notice of Commencement was received by EPA during the 10-year lookback period (former PMN chemicals) will be considered active substances and are therefore exempt from the reporting requirements.[14] However, a company that seeks to maintain an existing CBI claim for specific chemical identity for such a substance cannot take advantage of the exemption and must submit a Form A.
· Substances that have already been reported to EPA by another manufacturer. As explained in the preamble, a manufacturer is exempt from the reporting requirements for a particular chemical substance if the manufacturer has evidence in the form of a CDX receipt documenting EPA’s receipt of a Notice of Activity Form A from another manufacturer.[15] This exemption was not in the proposed rule. Stakeholders raised concerns regarding the amount of duplicative reporting that would be required for companies that manufacture the same chemical substance, and this new exemption is a direct response to those concerns. This exemption presents an opportunity for manufacturers to collaborate in submitting notifications and reducing their collective burden.What Level of Diligence is Expected?
The rule requires information that is “known to or reasonably ascertainable by” the manufacturer or processor to be reported.[16] The rule defines the term “known to or reasonably ascertainable by” to mean “all information in a person’s possession or control, plus all information that a reasonable person similarly situated might be expected to possess, control, or know.” The rule further defines the term “possession or control” as information that is in the possession or control of the company, or its subsidiary, parent company, or partner if they are involved in the research, development, test marketing, or commercial marketing of the chemical substance in question. Under this definition, information is in the possession or control of a person if it is in the company’s files; in a commercially available data base to which the company has access; or maintained in the files of other agents of the person.
The preamble makes it clear that if the information is in a company’s possession or control, or the company actually knows the information, then the information is considered to be known or reasonably ascertainable and thus subject to reporting. EPA acknowledges, however, that prior loss of records due to document retention policies, for example, is relevant for determining what information is known or reasonably ascertainable. This recognizes that a company may not currently possess documentation regarding the previous manufacture or import of a chemical substance dating back to 2006. If this information is no longer “known or reasonably ascertainable,” a manufacturer would not be responsible for reporting.
EPA has relied on the concept of “known or reasonably ascertainable” information in the past for other reporting under TSCA, such as the CDR, and EPA has provided useful prior guidance regarding this standard.Protecting Confidential Business Information
Companies should be aware that they must protect their CBI when notifying EPA under the rule. One of the goals of Inventory Reset is to remove from the confidential portion of the Inventory chemical substances for which there is no more need for protection from disclosure. Companies that submit notifications during the retrospective reporting period and forward-looking period thereafter for substances on the confidential Inventory must claim protection for those chemical identities or such protection will be lost. If no manufacturers or processors claim CBI protection for the identity of a particular substance, EPA will move the substance from the confidential to the non-confidential portion of the Inventory. At that point, anyone will be able to learn the substance’s specific identity.
Notifications to EPA may contain two different types of CBI claims: claims to protect the chemical identity itself, and claims to protect information other than the chemical identity. The rule requires submitters to indicate whether they seek to protect the specific chemical identity of the chemical substance, but does not require mandatory substantiation at this time. EPA will conduct a separate rulemaking in the future to establish a review plan that includes mandatory substantiation requirements for specific chemical identities. For CBI claims related to information other than the specific chemical identity, companies are required to provide a CBI certification statement and supporting substantiation, if substantiation is required, at the time of submission.What’s Next
The 180-day countdown for manufacturers and importers to report has begun. Here is what a company can do to ensure it meets its compliance obligations under the Inventory Reset.
1. Consider its role in the supply chain. Companies should consider whether they manufacture, import, or process chemical substances to determine their compliance obligations under the rule. Companies that do not traditionally view themselves as chemical manufacturers, but that import chemical substances for their use, may be surprised to learn that they are considered “manufacturers” under TSCA and have mandatory compliance obligations.[17] Companies that use chemicals, even in a limited way, may be “processors,” and should ensure the chemicals they use are notified to EPA during the Inventory Reset.
2. Start due diligence. The rule requires a company to provide information that is known to or reasonably ascertainable by the company. This requires due diligence. Companies should identify the chemicals they manufactured and imported during the 10-year period stretching back to 2006, and any chemicals they currently process. After compiling an internal inventory, companies should review EPA’s initial interim active list, and consider any applicable exemptions to determine their reporting obligations.
3. Communicate with its supply chain. Supply chain communication will be crucial to avoid disruption as a result of the Inventory Reset. Manufacturers, importers, and processors down the manufacturing supply chain should communicate to ensure that chemicals they manufacture, import, use, or incorporate into their products are notified to EPA and are designated as active on the TSCA Inventory. Importers should communicate with their foreign suppliers to understand the chemicals they import, and file joint notifications jointly with their foreign suppliers if necessary. Companies that process chemicals may want to report those chemicals or request assurances from their upstream suppliers that the chemicals they use will be notified to EPA.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/tsca-inventory-reset-begins-toxic-substances-control-act
-
Potential Health Effects of Gas Additives Divide EPA Board
Aug 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
EPA scientists could not definitively conclude this week whether two widely-used gasoline additives cause health problems, delaying potential regulation until the agency can address questions in its research.
The Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board considered the potential of cancer and other health effects from exposure to ethyl tertiary butyl ether and tert-butyl alcohol at a meeting Aug. 15 to Aug. 17. The board's members—who provide scientific advice to the agency's administrator—must submit their recommendations to the EPA by Sept. 18.
Industry representatives, including the American Petroleum Institute and LyondellBasell, argued that the additives do not cause the health effects EPA had claimed, including kidney problems. Some advisory board members agreed, while others said the agency's evidence for those claims was too weak.
EthyI Tertiary Butyl Ether
EPA asked the board members to consider the agency's claim that ETBE exposure could pose a hazard to human kidneys. Members were split on the issue.
“There was a really quite deep divide here with many of the panelists not simply wondering whether the EPA analysis was full and sufficient, but thinking that there was evidence against the validity of this endpoint,” said board member Lorenz Rhomberg, principal at Gradient.
Ethyl tertiary butyl ether, also known as ETBE, was commonly added to gasoline to improve its efficiency. In 2006, the U.S. generally stopped using ETBE in gasoline, but still produces the chemical, according to EPA Office of Research and Development ETBE assessment manager Keith Salazar.
People could be exposed to the chemical if they live or work where ETBE is produced or if they drink water contaminated with the chemical.
Plastics, chemicals and refining company LyondellBasell produces ETBE. The company's representative, Marcy Banton, said during the meeting's public comment sessions that ETBE is not a cancer concern for humans and may be “low concern” in chronic exposure by inhalation and ingestion.
Some board members were uncomfortable making a decision on whether ETBE affects human kidneys without the expertise of a pathologist.
“There aren't any pathologists in this group, and I don't know that we are capable of distinguishing, on a fundamental basis, which is the correct [conclusion] here,” said Alan Stern, chief of the Bureau for Risk Analysis at the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
The EPA determined that both chemicals had “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential” in draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) toxicological reviews, released in June. The agency also found evidence for kidney problems after exposure to either chemical. These are the first IRIS assessments for these chemicals.
The terminology in the reviews suggests the chemicals could be a concern for humans, but the agency has not determined that the chemicals are carcinogenic.
Tert-butyl Alcohol
Tert-butyl alcohol, also known as tert-butanol or tBA, is a metabolite of fuel additives including ETBE. It is also used as a dehydrating agent and as a coating in metallic and paperboard food containers, according to Janice Lee, EPA Office of Research and Development tBA assessment manager.
People could be exposed to tBA if they work where it is produced, by eating food contaminated by tBA-lined containers, through leaking underground storage tanks, or by ingesting ETBE. The board agreed with EPA's claim that tBA has “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential” because it caused adenomas in mice.
Katy Goyak, a toxicologist at ExxonMobil, spoke on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute at the meeting. The institute's members include Bechtel, Chevron and Anadarko Petroleum.
Goyak said the EPA's IRIS assessments for ETBE and tBA are “inadequate,” and disagreed that ETBE has carcinogenic potential if ingested.
The effects of ETBE on rodent kidneys aren't relevant to humans and shouldn't be used in EPA's assessments of non-cancer effect, the American Petroleum Institute said. The institute also said the EPA uses too high of an inhalation dose to determine ETBE's cancer risk.
Board members said the EPA needs stronger, more well-developed evidence to make claims on the health effects of tBA and ETBE.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=119158713&vname=dennotallissues&fn=119158713&jd=119158713
-
Brazilian Blowout Day: We’ll Celebrate When the FDA Bans Formaldehyde
Aug 17, 2017 | Environmental Working Group.
By Monica Amarelo
A ridiculous and completely unofficial website that tracks made-up holidays says Monday is Brazilian Blowout Day. The National Day Calendar suggests you celebrate by going to a hair salon for a blowout. I sure hope you don’t.
EWG and Women’s Voices for the Earth are suing the Food and Drug Administration for failing to protect salon workers and consumers from the toxic formaldehyde fumes they’re exposed to by these popular smoothing treatments. Professional stylists and their clients need the FDA’s protection from these dangerous products, which the agency has known about since at least 2008.
In 2011, EWG petitioned the FDA to investigate more than a dozen companies for misrepresenting or hiding their products’ formaldehyde content. We asked the FDA to consider banning formaldehyde from hair straighteners and requiring manufacturers to put warnings on their labels that these products contain or release formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen and potent allergen.
But as more reports came in saying these treatments make salon workers and clients sick, the FDA did nothing.
This failure is the basis for EWG and WVE’s suit, which asks the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to set a deadline for the agency to respond.
These formaldehyde-laced hair straighteners – known as keratin treatments or by the brand name Brazilian Blowout – have been linked to injuries associated with formaldehyde exposure including massive hair loss, neck and face rashes, blistered scalps, nosebleeds, bleeding gums, eye irritation, nosebleeds, breathing problems, and loss of taste and smell.
Even the industry-funded Cosmetic Ingredient Review found the products unsafe to use, yet they remain common. The flagrant disregard for consumer and worker safety illustrates a larger problem: the need for strong federal oversight of the cosmetics industry.
Sens. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, recently introduced the Personal Care Products Safety Act, which would significantly strengthen the FDA’s authority to address health risks of cosmetics. The bill would update the archaic 1938 federal cosmetics law and require companies to report adverse events of customers to the FDA, as well as require companies to list ingredient information on their websites and on the products used by professionals and available to consumers online.
The bipartisan legislation also would require the FDA to regularly review the safety of cosmetics ingredients, including formaldehyde, and to require bans or special labeling of chemicals found to be harmful. The agency would have the authority to take these dangerous products off the market once and for all.
Hair loss, allergic reactions and other health problems are not things to celebrate. I’ll celebrate when the FDA finally bans formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals from hair straightening treatments. Until then, please stay away from them. It is flat-out too risky.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2017/08/brazilian-blowout-day-we-ll-celebrate-when-fda-bans-formaldehyde#.WZar2zMjEdU
-
Study: Women of Color Exposed to More Toxic Chemicals in Personal Care Products
Aug 18, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Nneka Leiba and Paul Pestano
Women of color use more beauty products and are disproportionately exposed to worrisome chemicals compared to white women, according to a new study.
The study, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, calls on health care providers to become more aware of how exposure to environmental chemicals may impact the reproductive health of vulnerable populations.
Ami R. Zota, an assistant professor of environmental and occupational health at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, and Bhavna Shamasunder, a scientist in the Urban and Environmental Policy Department at Los Angeles’ Occidental College, recommend further study into the potential effects of exposure to chemicals through beauty products. They also suggest this may be an important area of intervention, especially for women of color who are likely most affected by toxic ingredients in these products.
“Pressure to meet Western standards of beauty means Black, Latina and Asian American women are using more beauty products, and thus are exposed to higher levels of chemicals known to be harmful to health,” Zota wrote in a news release.
Women of color spend more on cosmetics that include skin-lightening creams, hair straightening and relaxing treatments, and feminine cleansing and hygiene products.
In 2015, the same researchers published a study in the journal Environmental Healththat found differences among races and ethnicities in both feminine hygiene practices and exposure to phthalates.
“Our findings showing that Black women may be at higher risk is important,” said Zota. “It shows that some subpopulations are disproportionately exposed and that personal care product use may be driving these exposure disparities.”
In December 2016, EWG assessed almost 1,200 products marketed specifically to Black women and concluded that fewer products made without hazardous ingredients are available for this group. According to market data, Black women buy and use more personal care products than other demographic groups.
Women of childbearing age should limit their exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals that can harm the reproductive system and fetal development. Preservatives like parabens have been linked to diminished fertility, lowered thyroid levels and other reproductive problems.
Some of the adverse reactions associated with exposure to toxic formaldehyde-releasing preservatives include hair loss, a blistered scalp, neck and face rashes, nosebleeds and other long-term health problems. In 2011, the U.S. government designated formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen.
Fragrance is by far the most widely used ingredient, found in more than half of the products EWG evaluated. Fragrance mixtures can be comprised of any number of more than 3,000 ingredients, and can trigger allergic reactions such as asthma, wheezing, headaches and contact dermatitis. Some of the ingredients used in these formulas mimic the hormone estrogen and are associated with harmful thyroid effects.
Obstetricians and gynecologists should consider environmental exposures to beauty products, and the disparities across racial and social demographics when providing treatment or counseling patients.
“Beauty product use is a critical but underappreciated source of reproductive harm and environmental injustice,” Zota said.
The Food and Drug Administration should be testing the ingredients used in all personal care products to ensure cosmetics are as safe and healthy as possible. Right now, there aren’t even basic safety assessments. And while some companies have voluntarily reformulated their products because of consumer feedback, much more work needs to be done.
Federal standards governing the safety of personal care products have not been updated since the 1930s. Sens. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, recently introduced the Personal Care Products Safety Act, which would significantly strengthen the FDA’s authority to address health risks of cosmetics.
The bill would require the FDA to regularly review the safety of cosmetics ingredients, and require bans or special labeling of chemicals found to be harmful. The agency also would have the recall authority to take dangerous products off store shelves.
“For women who live in already polluted neighborhoods, beauty product chemicals may add to their overall burden of exposures to toxic chemicals,” Shamasunder, coauthor of the new study, wrote in a statement.
There is much more work to be done. EWG agrees that the medical community should consider reframing the issue of harmful exposures from everyday use of personal care products as a health disparity for women of color.
EWG offers tools for women who wish to find healthier alternatives. When shopping for beauty products, use Skin Deep® to look up questionable ingredients. EWG’s Healthy Living app allows consumers to scan a product, review its rating and make healthier purchases. And EWG VERIFIED™, our new mark, was created to help shoppers quickly and easily identify products that meet EWG’s strictest health and transparency standards.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2017/08/study-women-color-exposed-more-toxic-chemicals-personal-care-products#.WZar4DMjEdU
-
Label Salon Products To Disclose Risks
Aug 18, 2017 | San Francisco Chronicle
By David Klein
Imagine that your favorite hair product’s label read, “Warning: may cause infertility,” or listed “formaldehyde,” a cancer-causing embalming fluid, as an ingredient. Whatever our products contain, you and I remain blissfully ignorant of our exposure and risk because professional cleaning and salon products often do not label their ingredients (although our hair probably looks fabulous).
The Legislature is debating AB1575 and SB258, two bills to improve labeling for salon-grade nail polish, shampoos and hair coloring, cosmetics and skin cleaning products, as well as toothpaste, household cleaning products and automotive industry cleaning products. If you or your loved ones use these products, you should ask your representative to ensure the bills pass. Let me tell you why.
Unlike medications, commercial chemicals undergo little, if any, testing before being introduced into our world. Currently, 9.5 trillion pounds of commercial chemicals pass annually through the United States: enough to dump a new 14-ton sack of industry-grade mystery dust on each American’s pillow each night of each year. Though some may temporarily irritate the skin and lungs, many are endocrine-disrupting chemicals like diethylstilbestrol, or DES, that disrupt our hormone systems and cause disease even in low doses.
The story of DES is one well-studied, notorious example of chemical harms. It was prescribed during the Baby Boom era to prevent pregnancy miscarriage, and is now linked to infertility, obesity and cancer in women who were exposed to this drug in the womb. New data suggest that even the grandchildren of women prescribed DES bear higher disease risks. Chemicals like DES can change the ways that inherited genes are turned on and off, their negative effects to ripple through our genes for generations.
Though industry does respond to public concern, poor transparency remains problematic. Take bisphenol A, or BPA. We know that BPA negatively affects adult fertility and babies’ neurologic development, so “BPA-free” stickers helped companies market their products to safety-aware consumers. While we were looking for stickers, BPA was merely replaced with similar chemicals.
Similarly, the so-called “Toxic Trio” (formaldehyde, toluene, dibutyl phthalate) found in numerous nail polishes prompted companies to claim their product was toxin free. A 2012 report by the California Environmental Protection Agency revealed that these claims were often false.
Some will complain that change is onerous. Surely, products often contain many ingredients, and chemical names read like over-hyphenated alphabet soup. It can be a confusing list. But this is not cause to conceal information. A legal requirement of disclosure will help to ensure the manufacture of safer, faithfully-labeled products.
Moreover, there are solutions. Small pictograms, such as a picture of a pregnant woman with an overlying “X,” will cut through the confusion and convey a message as clear as the modern skull and crossbones. In some cases, that may be appropriate too.
Keep our communities safe and informed. Tell your representative that you vote for transparency.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Label-salon-products-to-disclose-risks-11883071.php
-
Blackstone's New Pipeline Asset Is Wreaking Environmental Havoc
Aug 18, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik and Catherine Traywick
In the energy business, it's one of the biggest projects going today: construction of a 710-mile pipeline to transport natural gas from America's most prolific shale deposit in the eastern U.S. to consumers in the Midwest and Canada. Even Blackstone Group LP has agreed to take a sizable stake.
But it holds another, more dubious, distinction. The Energy Transfer Partners LP pipeline has racked up more environmental violations than other major interstate natural gas pipelines built in the past two years, according to a Bloomberg analysis of regulatory filings during that period. And that's all since U.S. regulators approved the $4.2 billion project in February.
“Not only is it a situation where there are probably more incidents and more headlines than any other pipeline, on a project basis it's a magnitude that we haven't seen in years,” said Kyle Cooper, director of research with IAF Advisors in Houston.
In Ohio, Energy Transfer has been cited for damaging protected wetlands and improperly disposing of wastewater, among other things. In West Virginia, a state regulator temporarily ordered the company last month to cease and desist activities after it inadvertently polluted streams.
And in Washington, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission halted horizontal drilling on certain segments of the pipeline, following a massive 50,000-barrel spill of diesel-tainted drilling fluid.
The Rover pipeline, running from the Marcellus shale deposit, is Energy Transfer's biggest project since its controversial Dakota Access oil pipeline. Chief Executive Officer Kelcy Warren said July 31 that he was “baffled” by regulators’ allegations. That same day, his company reached a deal to sell a 32 percent stake in the Rover unit to Blackstone for about $1.57 billion in cash. It's expected to close in the fourth quarter. Blackstone spokeswoman Paula Chirhart said the firm declined to comment.
“Rover will be built in compliance with all safety and environmental regulations, and in some instances we will exceed those requirements,” Energy Transfer spokeswoman Alexis Daniel said in response to Bloomberg's violation tally.
—With assistance from David Carey.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=119158721&vname=dennotallissues&fn=119158721&jd=119158721
-
The Gas Tankers Lurking at Sea Looking for a Better Deal
Aug 17, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Anna Shiryaevskaya
Less LNG evaporation means more flexibility to find best buyer
Gas market looking more like oil as ships become trading tools
When the tanker Provalys left Louisiana for Chile last month with a full load of U.S. liquefied natural gas, it sailed around South America instead of taking a shortcut through the expanded Panama Canal. Not only may the route be cheaper without canal transit fees, but advances in technology mean less of the fuel would end up lost at sea during the journey.
Gas is frozen into liquid for transport over long distances without pipelines, allowing surplus American reserves to be shipped to high-demand regions like Asia. Trouble is, some LNG evaporates on the voyage. A new generation of ships is reducing such losses, giving traders more flexibility to choose the scenic route in search of the highest prices.
Once a regional commodity, natural gas is becoming global. As new LNG export plants pop up from the U.S. to Australia, a glut has emerged and ships are becoming more than just transporters. They allow fuel to be stored until demand rises or a scheduled delivery window arrives. Oil markets have operated that way for decades, but it’s new for natural gas, which was historically dominated by long-term contracts to specific destinations.
“People use vessels more as trading vehicles,” said Paul Wogan, chief executive officer at shipowner GasLog Ltd. “And once you can get the newer ships out, you can use them almost as storage vessels” because improved insulation keeps the LNG in its liquid state for longer, he said.
New vessels allow for longer voyages because their rates of boil-off, or LNG evaporation, are about 0.1 percent, compared with 0.15 percent a decade ago, according to GasLog’s Wogan. Ships built from this year on will bring the rate down even more, he said.
The average distance for cargoes from the U.S., which have traveled as far as Thailand, has reached 7,500 nautical miles, about double the global long-term average, according to Wogan. The average voyage speed from Louisiana’s Sabine Pass terminal -- the first to ship U.S. shale gas -- has been 14.3 knots, compared with an average of 16 to 17 knots for other tankers over the past few years, he said.Bigger Profits
Longer routes allow U.S. exporters to nab bigger profits by selling to Asia -- where LNG prices in the Northeast part of the region recently rose to the highest since February -- and the Middle East, said Eric Bensaude, a managing director at Cheniere Energy Inc.’s marketing unit in London. Since modern ships have less boil-off, most vessels travel at “economical speed,” he said by email.
The Provalys is due to arrive at Chile’s Mejillones terminal Aug. 25, making the journey via Cape Horn, according to ship-tracking data on Bloomberg. An alternative route through the expanded Panama Canal would have seen it arrive about two weeks earlier and would have required paying tolls and securing a slot.
“The Panama Canal tolls are very expensive in relation to the current market freight rates, and LNG prices as well as fuel prices,” said Emilie Menard, a spokeswoman at Engie SA, which owns Provalys. “It is sometimes more attractive to travel the longer distance.”
The ship was delivered in 2006 and was one of the most efficient of her kind at the time. Short-term LNG shipping rates have been pressured over the past years but may rise this winter, according to GasLog.
Since the start of the year, four ships from Sabine Pass and nine vessels from Qatar, the biggest LNG producer, took longer routes to deliver their cargoes, according to Kpler SAS, a Paris-based ship tracker. Qatari vessels sometimes opt to go via the Cape of Good Hope instead of taking a quicker path through the Suez Canal, and the Symphonic Breeze with a cargo from Trinidad and Tobago, is taking a month-long trip around the cape to China.
The Provalys’s longer journey to Chile would increase shipping costs by about 10 cents per million British thermal units, or $350,000, at current freight rates, according to Sofia Kiriukhina, a market analyst at Kpler. But that may not matter to gas buyers like Engie and Royal Dutch Shell Plc, who often consider their long-term vessel charters a sunk cost. Thus, they’re less concerned about making a speedy delivery and releasing the vessel from charter, she said.
Shell, one of the buyers of Sabine Pass LNG, declined to comment.
Because U.S. LNG isn’t contractually bound for a specific destination -- a departure from traditional contracts -- ships carrying the nation’s gas can be diverted en route to get a better deal. Still most cargoes are sold to a particular buyer before they’re loaded, Cheniere’s Bensaude said.
Meandering journeys for LNG tankers will probably remain common as the gas market evolves, GasLog’s Wogan said.
“These vessels have been built in anticipation of the requirement to go at much slower speed,” Wogan said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-17/smarter-gas-tankers-earning-more-taking-scenic-routes-amid-glut
-
(ACC Mentioned) CSX, Customers And STB: The Letters Keep Flying
Aug 17, 2017 | RailwayAge Magazine
By William C. Vantuono
According to numerous observers, CSX service continues to deteriorate, threatening to affect other railroads and, by extension, the economy. Some customers have taken to giving rail traffic to competitor Norfolk Southern. Others, without any other rail options, have moved over to trucks. And some have petitioned the Surface Transportation Board and the House and Senate committees with responsibility for rail transportation to get involved. Letters from all sides have been circulating on Capitol Hill.
CSX responded to a large number of rail shipper associations on Aug. 16 with a strongly worded letter from President and CEO E. Hunter Harrison to the Rail Customer Coalition, which is comprised of 44 independent associations representing chemical and agricultural companies, steel and motor vehicle manufacturers, and beer producers and importers, among others. Harrison’s letter, directed to American Chemistry Council President and CEO Cal Dooley, was in response to the RCC’s Aug. 14 letters to the House and Senate Transportation committees detailing “chronic service failures.”
“This [situation] has put rail-dependent business operations throughout the U.S. at risk of shutting down, caused severe bottlenecks in the delivery of key goods and services, and has put the health of our nation’s economy in jeopardy,” the RCC said.
Harrison, in his response, began by stating that CSX “was greatly disappointed with your many unfounded and grossly exaggerated statements … related to the service experienced by some customers as we implement Precision Scheduled Railroading, which has a proven history and long track record of delivering superior transportation services for customers. Though you did not extend us the courtesy of discussing those concerns with us first, most likely because your statements were made to advance your longstanding attack on the balanced approaches of the Staggers Act, we wanted to respond directly, and set the record straight.”
“That opening is dreadful,” says one industry observer. “Harrison spits in the face of the Golden Rules of customer service. Rule No. 1: The customer is always right. Rule No 2: When the customer is wrong, refer to Rule No. 1.”
Harrison had earlier blamed CSX’s service problems on certain employees who he said “have pushed back” against the changes he is implementing.
The Surface Transportation Board on Aug. 16 updated its Congressional oversight committees—the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure—“on recent actions the Board has taken in response to service problems on [the] rail system. In addition to the ongoing weekly calls between CSX senior management and STB staff initiated late July, the Board advised the committees of the Acting Chairman’s direct communication with [Hunter Harrison] about service issues and the Board’s request that CSX provide specific performance data, which will be made publicly available, so that the Board and stakeholders can better monitor CSX’s recovery efforts.
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/freight/class-i/csx-its-customers-and-stb-the-letters-keep-flying.html
-
Campaign Targets Bid To Regulate Spokane Oil, Coal Trains
Aug 17, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Nick Sobczyk
The fight is heating up over a ballot measure in Spokane, Wash., that would regulate trains transporting oil and coal through the city.
Industry leaders and city officials today launched the Committee to Protect Spokane's Economy to campaign against the measure, known as Proposition 2.
The ballot measure, which would fine owners of rail cars carrying uncovered coal or oil that hasn't been treated to reduce flammability, has galvanized groups on both sides (Greenwire, June 15).
Spokane is a major juncture between coal mines and Bakken oil rigs in the West and export terminals along the Pacific coast. Foes of the initiative say it would cripple the city's economy.
The measure would fine rail car owners $261 per car for transporting uncovered coal and untreated oil, costing shippers thousands of dollars every time they route a train through Spokane, said Michael Cathcart, president of the business group Better Spokane.
"Such a fine would effectively ban the transportation of fossil fuels through the city," Cathcart said during a press call today. "The impact to the Spokane economy would be dire."
But Safer Spokane, the group that submitted petitions that put the proposal on the ballot, says railroads would not be hurt financially, as the measure imposes fines on the owner of the car, often the oil or coal company, rather than the company operating the train.
Should Spokane voters approve the measure, there could be legal issues as well. The federal government has broad legal control of rail transport under the Constitution's commerce clause and the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act.
The city dropped a similar proposal last year after warnings from legal experts.
Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich said today railroads are almost certain to seek an injunction against the city if the initiative passes.
Still, supporters of the ballot initiative have pushed forward with their campaign.
The new ballot measure attempts to remedy legal hurdles by focusing on the Federal Railroad Safety Act, which allows states to make regulations until the federal government steps in.
With railroads transporting coal and oil through the heart of the city, Safer Spokane says public safety is at stake.
"Crude oil and coal shipments provide zero jobs in Spokane, yet we take on all of the public safety, health, environmental and economic risks and costs," the group says on its website.
And environmentalists this week pointed to a coal train derailment in Montana last weekend as reason to curb rail transport of fossil fuels to export facilities on the coast (Greenwire, Aug. 15).
No one was injured in the Montana accident, but the train spilled coal into the Cabinet Gorge Reservoir of the Clark Fork River.
"Despite many track upgrades through Montana, coal trains still derail, and they still discharge their loads into our rivers and countryside when they crash," said Beth Kaeding, a spokeswoman for Northern Plains Resource Council. "Shipping coal to Asia comes with a high price that all of us must pay."
Cathcart, however, said that safety concerns are overblown and that trains are the safest way to transport fossil fuels. Safer Spokane, he said, is concerned with political environmental debates, rather than safety.
"Nothing about this measure has to do with safety," Cathcart said. "It just puts our community at risk for very expensive and avoidable lawsuits."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/08/17/stories/1060058916
-
Sunstein, Obama's Regulatory Czar, Praises Trump Infrastructure Order
Aug 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
Cass Sunstein, who led the White House Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) during President Barack Obama's first term, is praising President Donald Trump's new executive order (EO) seeking to speed infrastructure development by streamlining environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
In an Aug. 17 Bloomberg column, “Trump Did Something Good This Week,” Sunstein writes that the president “managed to take a significant an positive step this week” issuing an EO “designed to lower barriers to infrastructure projects, and to speed up and simplify the process for obtaining necessary permits.”
He says the action was obscured by Trump's “horrendous response” to the violence in Charlottesville, VA, because Trump made those remarks at the order's unveiling.
However, Sunstein downplays language in the order that revokes federal flood standards -- the action that has garnered the widest criticism including from many Republicans -- acknowledging it only in a footnote. “An unfortunate provision of Trump's order repeals an Obama administration effort to protect against risks from flooding, but that would require another discussion,” he writes.
Instead, he praises the Trump EO for calling for the tracking of every major project with public disclosure of deadlines, and says it is important that the administration will now require the cost of NEPA reviews to be disclosed.
Sunstein cites his own failed effort in 2009, while serving as OIRA administrator, to undertake similar reforms and calls the current permitting status “ridiculous,” comparing it to the supervillain the Blob, because it can take years and cost millions of dollars to “obtain environmental clearance for construction permits, even if the goal is to develop green infrastructure.”
He writes that one of the best provisions in the order “calls for 'one federal decision,' meaning there will be a lead agency. . . . Defeating the permitting Blob will require sustained follow-through from the executive branch. . . . But let's give credit where it's due. This week's executive order provides an excellent foundation for achieving that goal.”
While he praised the order, he also identified additional changes that should be made to address permitting delays, including overhauling NEPA. He says it is a “well-intended law with an important goal, but in some respects it’s also a case study in unintended consequences,” noting it results in lengthy, contentious and costly review processes that often drive agencies and developers to “just give up.”
He also says that when it comes to infrastructure permitting, too many agencies have veto power over projects and bureaucratic culture often tends to favor “delay, to require more documentation, or to just say no.”
He writes that the Obama administration sought to address some of these problems by increasing transparency, coordination and accountability.
“Building on Obama’s actions, Trump’s executive order calls for tracking every major infrastructure project, with public disclosure of deadlines and of whether they have been met, alongside potential penalties for poor performance. Importantly, it also requires measurement of the costs of environmental reviews,” Sunstein writes.
But he says that while the Trump reforms will help, more needs to be done, including providing more funding.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/sunstein-obamas-regulatory-czar-praises-trump-infrastructure-order
-
Oil, NatGas Supports California Cap-Trade Extension; Enviros Balk
Aug 18, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
While political leaders are hailing it as a bipartisan accomplishment, environmental groups are critical of California's recent extension to 2030 of the state's precedent-setting cap-and-trade program, which the oil/natural gas industry has supported.
Since Gov. Jerry Brown signed AB 398 into law last month, oil and natural gas industry representatives have backed the measure, but that has emboldened some environmental groups, who contend the industry got too much in the bargaining process.
While groups like Climate Hawks Vote are skeptical about the industry's influence in the drafting of AB 398, Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) representatives and industry executives have praised the measure, which they hope will be a cost-effective means of addressing climate change without shutting down the fossil fuel sector.
"The bipartisan cap-and trade package passed is the best, most balanced way for California to comply with state law requiring reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, " said Catherine Reheis-Boyd, WSPA president. R. L. Miller, president of Climate Hawks has called cap-and-trade legislation "a WSPA wish list."
California Resources Corp. CEO Todd Stevens, CEO recently praised the state's cap-and-trade as providing a needed "market-based solution that is much more predictable and stable than other alternatives."
Cap-and-trade was not the only proposed mechanism that could have been imposed to ensure California's compliance with the law, Reheis-Boyd said. "Much more expensive 'command and control' programs were also on the table, and these draconian programs would have forced businesses to make drastic changes, imposing strict regulations without any flexibility in implementation," she said.
According to WSPA's analysis, alternatives would have meant "skyrocketing prices for consumers, a stifled economy, and California jobs lost."
Originally established to run through 2020 in California's landmark 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act, cap-and-trade is now set to run until 2030, aiming to continue decreasing carbon emissions, cutting the use of out-of-state carbon offsets, and keeping the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as the lead state agency in administering the program and allocating its proceeds.
On Tuesday another quarterly cap-and-trade auction was held by CARB, the results of which will be made public Aug. 22. Earlier this year some $9.5 million of cap-and-trade proceeds supported 10 zero-emission electric buses and supportive infrastructure in Porterville, CA. Funding came from cap-trade support California Climate Investments.
A CARB-sponsored report in June found that fighting climate change can be good for economic growth. "The data shows once again that California's groundbreaking greenhouse gas emission-reduction programs are working as designed," said Mary Nichols, CARB chairman.
In signing the cap-trade extension, Brown referred to California as a "nation-state" that is having an impact beyond its borders related stopping climate change, "turning around a carbonized world into a decarbonized, sustainable future."
Miller countered Brown by contending that more than 65 environmental justice, climate, and progressive groups strongly opposed the cap-trade extension legislation. He criticized the governor for labeling opposition to AB 398 as "political terrorism."
"We are people who agree with him that climate change, caused by oil companies and other fossil fuel interests, is an existential threat to organized human existence," Miller said.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111439-oil-natgas-supports-california-cap-trade-extension-enviros-balk
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
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested