Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 8/22/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Industry Seeks to Retain NAFTA’s Investment Provision
Aug 20, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
Chemical manufacturers and drugmakers are urging the Trump Administration to maintain investment protections in the North American Free Trade Agreement. -
(ACC Mentioned) While Industry Is Encouraged by Regulation Postponements, DEQ Fears Funding Cuts Might Slow Permitting
Aug 22, 2017 | Greater Baton Rouge Business Report
By Sam Barnes
The person leading the EPA’s Region 6 in Dallas is nearly as important to Louisiana industry and the state’s Department of Environmental Quality as the appointment of Scott Pruitt to the agency’s top administrative post. After all, that’s who they typically deal with on a day-to-day basis. -
(ACC Mentioned) 5 Ways You’re Losing Money Without Even Realizing It
Aug 22, 2017 | The Motley Fool
By Maurice Backman
We all work hard for our money, so the last thing we want to do is throw any of it away. Yet a surprising number of us are kissing countless dollars goodbye due to ignorance or poor spending habits. -
White House Adviser Tapped for Chief of Staff
Aug 22, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sam Mintz
A White House senior adviser and former Pennsylvania state lobbyist will become Federal Energy Regulatory Commission chief of staff, an agency spokesman confirmed today. -
Pruitt Picks Ex-Alabama Regulator for Regional Chief
Aug 21, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has appointed a former Alabama environmental regulator as the agency's Region 4 Administrator, EPA announced today. -
TSCA Reform: Less Backlog But Greater Regulatory Burden
Aug 21, 2017 | Law 360
By Robert DeMott and Gavin Thompson
On Aug. 7, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued an announcement stating that the backlog of TSCA new chemical reviews resulting from the agency’s suspension of reviews, after the signing of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (LCSA)... -
EPA and SBA to Hold Public Workshop on Methylene Chloride in Furniture Refinishing
Aug 21, 2017 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On August 18, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it would be holding a public workshop on the use of the paint remover methylene chloride in furniture refinishing on September 12, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. -
(ACC Mentioned) Monsanto Calls for Investigation into WHO Agency for Ignoring Scientific Studies
Aug 22, 2017 | RT
Monsanto is calling for an investigation into a World Health Organization agency that found one of its largest weed killers was carcinogenic. -
Monsanto GMO Guru Attacks EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce
Aug 22, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis and Bill Walker
We’d like to thank Rob Fraley, chief technology official at Monsanto, who’s largely responsible for introducing genetically modified foods to the U.S. and Big Ag’s surge in pesticide use that ensued. -
EPA Advisors Split on ETBE Risk Estimates, Raising Doubts on Completion
Aug 22, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
A panel of science advisors conducting peer review of EPA’s draft assessments of the human health risks of exposure to two petro-fuels chemicals is struggling to reach consensus, and appears that it will be unable to do so on risk estimates... -
California: Regulators Eye Tighter Restrictions on Chlorpyrifos Use
Aug 22, 2017 | Inside EPA
Months after EPA reversed an Obama-era plan to ban chlorpyrifos, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Aug. 18 announced a multi-agency effort to bolster health protections on the pesticide, one of the most widely used agricultural chemicals in the nation. -
Can Low Doses of Chemicals Affect Your Health? A New Report Weighs the Evidence
Aug 21, 2017 | San Francisco Chronicle
By Rachel Shaffer
Toxicology’s founding father, Paracelsus, is famous for proclaiming that “the dose makes the poison.” This phrase represents a pillar of traditional toxicology: Essentially, chemicals are harmful only at high enough doses. -
Atlantic Governors Seek Continued Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Ban
Aug 22, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) is urging federal regulators to continue the current ban on oil and gas drilling off his state's coast, joining Republican and Democratic governors in East Coast states who don't want the Atlantic included in the government's next five-year drilling plan. -
West Virginia Lawmakers Exploring Ways to Expand Shale Gas Development
Aug 21, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Republican leaders in the West Virginia legislature have formed an interim committee to explore more ways the state can attract and increase shale gas development. -
Texas Sees Mexico as Important Gas Export Market
Aug 22, 2017 | UPI
By Daniel J. Graeber
The state economy for Texas is capitalizing on cross-border movements of natural gas to Mexico, a director at a state energy regulator said. -
Federal Redo of Leave Rules May Implicate Chemical Safety Board
Aug 22, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
A pending Office of Personnel Management regulation could shake up a long-running personnel dispute at the Chemical Safety Board, potentially freeing up more resources for ongoing investigations or internal reforms impacting oil, chemical... -
Feds Say Brake Problems Preceded Derailment in Pennsylvania
Aug 21, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Mark Scolforo
Crews encountered air brake problems before a 178-car freight train derailed in Pennsylvania earlier this month, causing hazardous material to ignite and forcing nearby residents to evacuate, federal investigators said. -
Trump Administration Disbands Climate Advisory Panel
Aug 22, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven Gibb and Amena H. Saiyid
The Trump administration has disbanded a broad federal advisory panel formed to critique the government's National Climate Assessment. -
EPA's Push to Delay Texas Haze Plan Spurs Environmentalists' Criticisms
Aug 21, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is asking a federal district court to delay from Sept. 9 this year until Dec. 31, 2018, a legal deadline for issuing a plan to reduce regional haze in Texas, spurring criticisms from environmentalists who say that the significant delay would worsen air quality... -
Despite Vacatur, HFC Rule Backers Find Silver Lining in EPA Climate Finding
Aug 22, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Despite an appellate court vacating Obama EPA limits on high global warming potential (GWP) hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants, supporters of the rules are claiming a smaller victory because the ruling upheld the agency's finding that substitute chemicals... -
California Can Prove a Clean Energy Economy Is a Strong Economy with SB 100
Aug 21, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Lauren Navarro |
The California State Assembly faces an enormous opportunity when they come back from summer recess today: to drive the state towards 100 percent clean energy by 2045.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Industry Seeks to Retain NAFTA’s Investment Provision
Aug 20, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
Chemical manufacturers and drugmakers are urging the Trump Administration to maintain investment protections in the North American Free Trade Agreement. The U.S., Canada, and Mexico began talks on Aug. 16 to renegotiate and modernize NAFTA, which took effect in 1994. In a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Robert E. Lighthizer, more than 100 business groups voiced support for retaining and strengthening NAFTA’s provision that protects foreign investors. It allows companies investing in another . . .
...U.S. industry seeks to retain NAFTA’s investment provision. —U.S. industry seeks to retain NAFTA’s investment provision “” Chemical manufacturers and drugmakers are urging the Trump Administration to maintain investment protections in the North American Free Trade Agreement. The letter’s signatories include two chemical manufacturers groups—the American Chemistry Council and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates—as well as the Biotechnology Innovation Organization and Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America...
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i33/US-industry-seeks-retain-NAFTAs.html?type=paidArticleContent
-
Aug 22, 2017 | Greater Baton Rouge Business Report
By Sam Barnes
The person leading the EPA’s Region 6 in Dallas is nearly as important to Louisiana industry and the state’s Department of Environmental Quality as the appointment of Scott Pruitt to the agency’s top administrative post. After all, that’s who they typically deal with on a day-to-day basis.
While Sam Coleman is current acting administrator for the region—comprised of Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico—no announcement has yet been made about a permanent replacement. DEQ Secretary Chuck Carr Brown says that’s not unusual. “That has been the talk of everyone in this industry,” Brown says, “but the administrator [Pruitt] is not far behind when it comes to appointments, from a historical perspective.”
Meanwhile, Brown is glad Coleman remains in place. “He and I go back to pre-Katrina days, so we’ve got a great working relationship, and to be honest with you Louisiana has his ear. We’ve had some good interactions with him with requests, clarifications or assistance in certain areas.”
State leaders from the Region 6 states are scheduled to meet with the acting regional administrator—whomever that might be at the time—in August.
Brown hopes to maintain a close relationship with Region 6 leadership, but much is in limbo as an environmental paradigm shift in Washington begins to impact regional offices. Some EPA actions have already ruffled the feathers of environmental groups. On June 9, Pruitt’s EPA delayed the effective date of the agency’s Risk Management Plan (RMP) Rule until Feb. 19, 2019. The rule, one of the agency’s last actions under President Obama, requires facilities to develop and submit an RMP every five years and was meant to address issues raised by a June 2013 explosion at Williams Olefins in Geismar and an April 2013 Texas fertilizer plant explosion.
The EPA says the rule’s postponement was necessary to review objections raised by petitioners to the final rule and to consider other issues.
Louisiana Chemical Association President Greg Bowser says the RMP rule’s postponement is a good thing, adding that future regulations should be based upon science rather than emotion. “The greatest concern is that we end up proposing rules that are not necessarily science-based,” Bowser adds.
“I think there must be a dialogue, and we should go where science takes us. When you start getting these emotional reactions and there’s no reason to do it other than to appeal to a certain constituency, I think that creates a problem. Not just for our industry, but for business in general.”
The EPA’s Clean Power Plan also took a hit recently, when Pruitt asked judges to postpone deliberations on the plan’s legitimacy until the agency could determine how to move forward. In 2015, 29 states—including Louisiana—sued the EPA following the plan’s promulgation, prompting the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a stay of its implementation pending a judicial review.
The Clean Power Plan calls for electrical generators to cut CO2 emissions by 30% by 2030. While it is typical for the EPA to regulate a pollution source, the Clean Power Plan goes a step further, mandating that electrical generators increase their emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable energy. Industry has long asserted that power plants will eventually turn to natural gas regardless of government involvement.
A MINDSET CHANGE
While DEQ’s Brown is wary of the impact that changes in Washington will have on environmental funding and processes, he agrees with local industry that some regulations should undergo a cost-benefit analysis before implementation. “There are some regulations where you spend a lot of money to meet those goals, but the amount of environmental benefit is negligible,” Brown says. “I think that’s where you have to have a common-sense approach to environmental oversight.”
He points to the EPA’s stance on ozone attainment as an example. Despite significant strides made by the Baton Rouge area in reducing ozone levels in the last decade, Brown says the agency “keeps moving the bar.” He therefore supports the EPA’s recent decision to postpone the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)—reducing acceptable ground-level ozone to 70 parts per billion—until Oct. 1, 2018.
“We’re breathing the cleanest air in the five-parish area around Baton Rouge since the Industrial Revolution, and then they make another adjustment to the standard,” Brown adds. “To achieve [the new standard], how much would have to be invested? It’s unclear how much environmental gain you get.” At present, the Baton Rouge area meets the 2008 standard of 75 parts per billion.
According to a statement released by the EPA, the additional time will allow it to evaluate the role of background ozone levels; develop additional flexibilities for states to comply; consider designation recommendations provided by state governors, including exceptional events impacting designations; and provide new agency officials time to review the new standard.
HITTING THE BRAKES
Lee Vail, an attorney at Kean Miller LLP in New Orleans who assists clients with environmental compliance, expects the EPA to continue putting the brakes on other regulations. Prior to becoming an attorney, Vail worked for more than 26 years at Murphy Oil. “If you’re a facility and you need to get a permit, you’ll still go through the same process you would’ve gone through last year,” Vail adds. “The difference is that the EPA has put a lot of stays on rule changes. The question will be, is it warranted to slow these things down? That’s going to be determined on a case-by-case basis.”
Another change Vail sees coming: The EPA will not bend as easily to the will of environmental groups. “There was an old practice where the environmental groups would sue the EPA. Then these groups and the EPA would settle that lawsuit, with the EPA committing to do something. Why does an environmental group need to sue them to get them to do their job? Then everyone else is outside of the discussion.”
Only time will tell how much, fundamentally, will change at the agency. “It’s sort of like hitting the brakes on a train,” DEQ’s Brown says. “It’s going to take a mile or two before it stops and then if you try to go backward, it’s going to take even longer. Then the next thing you know, we’ll be in election season again. It just doesn’t happen that quickly.”
LCA’s Bowser expects the current EPA administration to more closely review emergency provisions that were put in place under the previous administration, but he doesn’t expect a massive rollback of regulations as feared by environmental groups.
COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM
Brown says he’s concerned about the “cooperative federalism” rhetoric coming out of Washington, fearing it could lead to significant funding cuts and permitting delays.
“They want the states to do more regarding environmental oversight,” he explains. “That’s fine until the budget gets cut. The president’s initial budget cuts 21% out of the EPA’s budget—almost $2.3 billion and 3,200 people. He’s also making cuts to the states’ performance grants. So, the EPA is saying we’ve got to handle air and water permitting, and the oversight of hazardous waste, but they’re going to cut the budget by 45%.” Since the Louisiana DEQ currently receives about $18 million annually from the EPA, that creates an $8 million funding gap.
“We can’t take that kind of cut in a state where we don’t get general funds. We generate all of our operating funds through fees.” Should cuts impede DEQ’s ability to function, there would likely be negative repercussions for industry, most significantly through a slowdown in permit reviews and approvals. “It’s going to have a domino effect, I can tell you that.”
Brown remains hopeful that federal aid will be restored. If not, “it’s either going to be people or programs that will suffer.”
Gifford Briggs, vice president of the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association, says oil and gas industry concerns about a ban on hydraulic fracking have virtually disappeared under the new EPA. “We’re no longer under the constant threat that we’re going to wake up tomorrow and the most important factor in industry is going to be banned or outlawed,” Briggs says. “We’re no longer under attack on a daily basis.”
These days, the oil and gas industry is more focused on offshore regulations—particularly the tougher bonding, financial assurance and risk management requirements imposed in 2016 by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
“We’ve been closely eyeing the BOEM appointment in D.C.,” Briggs says. “We’re optimistic that we’re going to see some real reform in the Gulf of Mexico that could have the potential to allow for some exploration to happen.”
The chemical industry is equally hopeful. Speaking at the Downstream Engineering, Construction & Maintenance Conference in New Orleans June 15, American Chemical Council President and CEO Cal Dooley said the U.S. chemical industry stands to reap significant benefits from the new regulatory environment.
“We have never had a political environment more sensitive and supportive of the regulatory policy needed to maximize the competitive advantage in the U.S.,” he said.
https://www.businessreport.com/business/industry-encouraged-regulation-postponements-deq-fears-funding-cuts-might-slow-permitting
-
(ACC Mentioned) 5 Ways You’re Losing Money Without Even Realizing It
Aug 22, 2017 | The Motley Fool
By Maurice Backman
We all work hard for our money, so the last thing we want to do is throw any of it away. Yet a surprising number of us are kissing countless dollars goodbye due to ignorance or poor spending habits. Here are a few common sources of wasted money many of us inevitably fall victim to.1. Unused gym memberships
Countless Americans are drawn to the gym, particularly around the new year. But that resolution to finally trim down or bulk up might not only mess with your brain, but also your wallet. While gym prices can vary depending on the type of facility you join, there's a good chance you'll end up throwing your money away on that membership. Gyms, after all, only anticipate that 18% of members will actually use them consistently, so if you're paying $50 a month for a gym that you use a handful of times a year, at best, you're essentially wasting $600 a year.
Before you sign up for a gym membership, think about how often you'll actually use it and whether there's a low-cost (or better yet, free) alternative. If you own a bike, for example, riding it to work will serve as a form of exercise and, as an added bonus, save you some money on your commute. And if you're already paying a monthly fee to a gym you're rarely utilizing and you're not locked into a contract, cancel that membership, or inquire about purchasing daily passes at a fraction of your monthly cost. This way, you'll only pay for the services you're actually using.2. Wasted food
Whether it's excess produce from the local market or that bulk jar of cashews you were convinced you'd consume before its expiration date, wasting food has become such a common occurrence that many folks don't realize the extent to which they're doing it. It may therefore surprise you to learn that the average U.S. household throws out $640 of food each year, according to the American Chemistry Council.
If you'd rather not toss all that food and money down the drain, make a point of creating weekly grocery lists before you hit the supermarket, and do a regular fridge, freezer, and pantry inventory to see what you already have lying around. Also, be careful when buying in bulk. Even shelf-stable items don't last forever, so limit those mass quantities to items you know you consistently use.3. Overspending on restaurant meals
It's one thing to enjoy the occasional meal out, but if you're not careful, eating at restaurants too often could result in a serious waste of money. In 2015, the average American household spent a total of $3,008 dollars on food away from home, or so reports the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But since food establishments typically charge a 300% markup on the items they serve, for every $3,000 you spend, you're paying $2,000 extra compared to what those same meals would cost you to make at home.
If you're currently throwing away loads of money on restaurants and takeout, consider scaling back, especially if you're struggling to save, or have other pressing financial goals to meet. You don't need to go cold turkey, but if you cut your three typical restaurant meals a week down to two, you'll avoid wasting hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars.4. Retirement-plan fees
If you're saving for retirement in an IRA or 401(k), you're doing a smart thing for your future. But there's a drawback to these plans -- particularly the latter -- and it's the fees that come along with them. In fact, a whopping 92% of Americans don't even know how much money they're losing each year to 401(k) fees, according to a recent NerdWallet study.
What many savers may not realize is that not all investments are created equal, and some are costlier than others. But if you're not careful, you could end up losing thousands of dollars in your lifetime to fees alone. Believe it or not, the average American worker who begins earning a median salary at age 25 will lose a total of $138,336 to 401(k) fees alone. To avoid falling victim to that same trap, pay attention to your investments and opt for lower-cost options, like exchange-traded funds (ETFs), as opposed to actively managed mutual funds.5. Sluggish investment growth
Just as it's essential to limit your investment fees, so, too, is it critical to put your money into vehicles that are likely to generate growth. It's estimated that 60% of Americans wind up investing too conservatively for retirement and, as such, lose out on sizable gains.
Imagine you're able to set aside $300 a month for retirement starting at age 25, with the goal of retiring 40 years later. Here's what your total might look like based on the investment strategy you adopt:
In the above scenario, limiting yourself to safer, low-yield investments could cause your nest egg to fall up to $715,000 short. Yikes!
On the other hand, if you're willing to sink the bulk of your portfolio into stocks, which is a reasonable risk to take on if you start saving in your 20s, you stand a good chance of bringing in an average yearly 8% return, which is just below the market's average. And that could work wonders for your nest egg, as the above table highlights.
Nobody wants to lose money for no good reason. Be aware of these cash-zapping traps, and steer clear of them at all costs. Your finances depend on it.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/08/22/5-ways-youre-losing-money-without-even-realizing-i.aspx
-
White House Adviser Tapped for Chief of Staff
Aug 22, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sam Mintz
A White House senior adviser and former Pennsylvania state lobbyist will become Federal Energy Regulatory Commission chief of staff, an agency spokesman confirmed today.
Anthony Pugliese has been a senior White House adviser since January, according to his LinkedIn profile. He previously worked for Pugliese Associates, a Harrisburg-based lobbying firm started by his father, Rocco Pugliese, that focuses on regulatory and legislative consulting.
He worked for then-state Attorney General Tom Corbett and then for the Republican's successful 2010 gubernatorial campaign and transition team.
The 2009 graduate of West Chester University of Pennsylvania also has political ambitions of his own. He's run twice for a seat in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, losing in the Republican primaries.
Commissioner Neil Chatterjee, who's serving as FERC chairman until Jones Day lawyer Kevin McIntyre is confirmed, picked Pugliese as chief of staff. Agency spokesman Craig Cano said the chief of staff serves at the pleasure of the chairman, "so I can't speculate on what might happen with a new chairman."
Along with Pugliese, the newly confirmed Chatterjee has also brought on policy adviser Andrea Spring, legal adviser Mindi Sauter and technical adviser Eric Vandenberg, all of whom have held previous positions at FERC. Sauter was a legal and policy adviser to former Commissioner Tony Clark, according to her LinkedIn profile.
Rounding out Chatterjee's staff are confidential assistant Tracy Adamsky and executive assistant Michelle Brown.
Also staffing up is another new FERC commissioner, Robert Powelson. The former commissioner on the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission pulled staffers both from FERC and from his old job. April Ballou, one of his two legal advisers, was Powelson's counsel and later chief of staff on the PUC.
But FERC is also not new territory to Ballou, who was formerly an attorney in the Office of the General Counsel working on energy market issues from October 2016.
Powelson's other legal adviser is Brett Rendina, most recently an associate with the law firm McGuireWoods. From August 2013 to September 2015, he was counsel to Powelson at the PUC.
Powelson has also named Meghan Estenson, a FERC program analyst, as his confidential assistant.
The agency is back to a quorum after being unable to approve major decisions for more than six months after the February resignation of Chairman Norman Bay. Along with McIntyre, one other nominee awaiting for Senate confirmation to return the agency to full strength is Democratic Senate aide Richard Glick.
Reporter Rod Kuckro contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/08/21/stories/1060059011
-
Pruitt Picks Ex-Alabama Regulator for Regional Chief
Aug 21, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has appointed a former Alabama environmental regulator as the agency's Region 4 Administrator, EPA announced today.
Trey Glenn was director of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management from 2005 through 2009. For the last eight years, Glenn has owned an engineering consulting firm in Birmingham.
Glenn “will help us carry out President Trump’s vision of creating a more streamlined and efficient EPA that focuses on the Agency’s core mission, while also providing more regulatory certainty to our nation’s businesses,” Pruitt said in a statement.
Alabama's ethics commission in 2007 found "probable cause" that Glenn, in his prior job as director of the state Office of Water Resources, may have violated ethics laws to land the ADEM position. But a grand jury in 2009 concluded there were no "provable violations,” according to local news reports.
EPA's 10 regional administrators are political appointees but do not require Senate confirmation. EPA's Region 4 covers Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
TSCA Reform: Less Backlog But Greater Regulatory Burden
Aug 21, 2017 | Law 360
By Robert DeMott and Gavin Thompson
On Aug. 7, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued an announcement stating that the backlog of TSCA new chemical reviews resulting from the agency’s suspension of reviews, after the signing of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (LCSA), has been eliminated.
Termed a “review reset,” the program-wide delay on submissions that had already been under review was an outcome of LCSA in the summer of 2016 that generated uncertainty for producers and distributers of chemicals and criticism for the agency.
With the review pipeline essentially plugged, subsequent submissions built an increasing backlog over the ensuing months and corresponding delays. In 2017, the agency promoted efforts to bring down the backlog and review time for new chemicals. With updated information now posted through the end of July 2017, the EPA’s statistics show 382 cases of the major types of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) submittals for new chemicals under review, and that the normal active workload for the program is 300 cases.
Since this corresponds to an approximately 25 percent higher than normal backlog, is it a matter of the agency being generous in interpreting its own progress, or is there more to the story? What the numbers actually illustrate is more interesting long-term implications of TSCA reform, and the new reality of increased burdens for the agency and submitters under the LCSA.
There are structural aspects of the updated TSCA program — and the EPA’s interpretation and implementation of the LCSA — that now create more extensive demands on submitters and reviewers. Working through the reset backlog will not, in and of itself, relieve the pressure on the agency’s review process.
A fundamental aspect of TSCA reform was to change from a system where the agency was being “notified” about commercial distribution of chemicals to a system where the agency must make an affirmative determination, an official “approval,” allowing specific chemical uses. In LCSA terminology, the agency must determine that the proposed use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.
There are two aspects of this that result in more, and more in-depth, reviews being needed: the need for multiple determinations for substances with multiple uses, and the tendency of reviewers to request supplemental information in more situations since their formal approval is being sought.
Use-by-Use Decisions Mean More Submittals
Under LCSA provisions, the agency is directed to make determinations specifically on a use-by-use basis for a chemical substance. Accordingly, their approvals will necessarily be limited to use(s) described in a particular submission. And where multiple uses are described in a submission, the agency must consider each separately.
Where the agency reaches different determinations about uses proposed within the same submission, i.e., does not want to approve all of them, supplemental information and protracted review may be needed, or a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) may be promulgated by the agency structured such that approved uses are tightly defined.
The agency has acknowledged that the LCSA requirement to reach affirmative determinations on all submissions is expected to result in more consent orders — between the agency and the original submitter — and SNURs — to which all manufacturers, importers and processors are subject — and this has already been the experience for submitters.
In the acronym soup that is TSCA, SNURs beget SNUNs (Significant New Use Notices) and preclude LVEs (Low Volume Exemptions), both outcomes resulting in increased regulatory submissions and burdens.
Once a SNUR is in place for a chemical substance, a SNUN must be submitted by manufacturers or processors pertaining to any additional use. The more tightly constrained the initial use approval determination by the agency, the broader the requirements and definition of what constitutes new uses captured by the corresponding SNUR, and the more SNUNs must subsequently be submitted to open up additional uses.
Since SNUNs require a similar level and scope of documentation as a Pre-Manufacturing Notice (PMN), the regulatory burden corresponds roughly to the agency having to perform multiple PMN reviews for the same chemical substance and to manufacturers or processors having to prepare multiple PMN-scale submittals.
Low Volume Exemptions Less Likely
As discussed below, some experiences with the agency during this first year of LCSA implementation and the updated new chemicals review process suggest that small volume producers/users increasingly are losing the ability to make use of the LVE option to obtain an exemption from a full-scale PMN submittal.
Absent the PMN/SNUR, manufacturers of chemicals produced at less than 10,000 kilograms/year could take advantage of the LVE provisions providing not only for streamlined submittals, but also an exemption from the cost of TSCA user fees and a more expedited agency review timeline.
The proliferation of SNURs after TSCA reform — apparently driven by the LCSA requirement for an affirmative determination by the EPA — will limit opportunities to use the LVE option, as a PMN/SNUN-scale submittal would then be required by the agency to address the requirements of making a determination for each new use. Again, this creates a shift toward additional reviews for the agency and additional, more in-depth documentation packages for submitters.
Our experience with LVEs over the last year illustrates another aspect of TSCA reform creating pressure toward more and more in-depth agency submittals. Related to the agency’s obligation to affirm that proposed chemical uses are not a risk for human health and the environment, the EPA recently required supplemental evaluation and documentation in several cases.
We have worked through situations where what would have been previously routine LVEs were not granted. The chemical substances were pushed into the PMN process so that supplemental toxicity testing information could be incorporated into the submitted documentation.
In another situation, LVEs were conditionally granted, but the corresponding conditions amounted to a backdoor approach to pushing the chemicals into PMN submission. The conditions included that the LVEs expired in less than a year and that PMNs would be required within that timeframe to keep the chemical substances in use.Increased Focus on Factors Beyond Toxicity
In both of these cases, the agency was applying a specific scoring metric to apparently address their consideration of the threshold criterion of whether there could be risk to human health or the environment. Scoring systems based around the separate characteristics of a chemical’s persistence in the environment, potential to bioaccumulate (i.e., be retained and build up in living organisms) and potential toxicity have been used to characterize chemical hazards for various specific purposes and programs.
The LCSA includes provisions pertaining to existing chemicals specifically requiring the agency to evaluate a certain number of chemicals classified as Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT). But, the TSCA reform provisions regarding new chemical reviews do not specify PBT scoring as a metric for reaching determinations regarding unreasonable risk.
However, in multiple cases since the passage of the LCSA, the agency has cited a PBT score in both requiring the conversion of LVE submissions to PMNs and in delaying approval and requesting supplemental testing for PMNs. From our view, the agency appears to be increasing the level of testing and documentation required to become comfortable with getting to affirmative determinations constituting agency approval.
Further suggesting shifting evaluation criteria, in the majority of cases where we encountered requests for additional testing and documentation, it was not the toxicity of the chemical substances and corresponding risks to humans that was the trigger, but solely the substance’s potential persistence in the environment that triggered requests for additional testing to be conducted and submitted.
This suggests the agency is considering the type of determination criteria already common in Europe, where persistence and bioaccumulation potential is sufficient to prioritize chemicals even when the toxicity and health risk is low — including cases of a low volume chemical. It will be interesting to monitor over time the extent to which TSCA reform supports a shift from traditional U.S. risk-based approaches toward EU regulatory strategies.
Summing up, the new chemicals review backlog resulting from the “regulatory reset” triggered by the LCSA does appear to be working its way through the system, reflecting extensive effort by the EPA to complete delayed reviews. However, a more telling statistic may be that having gotten back to what the agency has portrayed as baseline conditions, the case load of active reviews underway at the agency is around 25 percent higher than before TSCA reform. And the most telling statistic will be what percentage of PMNs result in SNURs in 2017 compared to pre-LCSA years.
We have detailed some of the structural factors in these reforms that expand and drive up the number of regulatory submittals for new chemicals under the TSCA and corresponding reviews the agency must complete. The updates incorporated in TSCA reform do move the U.S. toward newer models for chemical product regulation, including more focused consideration of specific uses and the corresponding exposures for humans and the environment.
However, more in-depth review and use-by-use regulation should be expected to yield higher regulatory burdens under TSCA reform, for both agency reviewers and submitters under the program.
Robert P. DeMott, Ph.D., DABT, is a principal toxicologist at Ramboll Environ in Tampa, and directs hazard and risk evaluations of ingredients in toys and apparel, building materials and pesticide formulations. Gavin Thompson, Ph.D., is a principal consultant at Ramboll Environ in Phoenix, and advises manufacturers, distributors and industry associations on characterization of chemical exposures from industrial feedstocks, consumer products, food ingredients, food contact materials and cosmetics.https://www.law360.com/articles/955726/tsca-reform-less-backlog-but-greater-regulatory-burden
-
EPA and SBA to Hold Public Workshop on Methylene Chloride in Furniture Refinishing
Aug 21, 2017 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On August 18, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it would be holding a public workshop on the use of the paint remover methylene chloride in furniture refinishing on September 12, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EDT) at its Region 1 Headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts. It is holding the workshop in collaboration with the Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Advocacy. The meeting aims to “facilitate an exchange of information on existing use practices and furniture refinishers’ experience, in general, with paint removal products and methods.”
EPA’s January 19, 2017, proposed rule proposed to prohibit the manufacture (including import), processing, and distribution in commerce of methylene chloride for consumer and most types of commercial paint and coating removal under Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA states that this workshop will allow “[f]ederal and state governments, industry professionals, furniture refinishing experts, non-government organizations, and academic experts, among others, [to] discuss the role of methylene chloride in furniture refinishing, potential alternatives, economic impacts, and other issues identified in EPA’s January 2017 proposed rule on methylene chloride,” and information learned from this workshop will allow it to “better understand current work practices and obtain additional information on the economic considerations involved in selecting chemical products for paint and coating removal in the furniture refinishing sector.”
EPA will open a docket at www.regulations.gov in Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0139 upon publication of the notice of the meeting in the Federal Register, and will be accepting comments until November 12, 2017. Registration for the meeting is available online. Registrants can choose to attend in-person, via webinar, or via phone.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-and-sba-to-hold-public-workshop-methylene-chloride-furniture-refinishing
-
(ACC Mentioned) Monsanto Calls for Investigation into WHO Agency for Ignoring Scientific Studies
Aug 22, 2017 | RT
Monsanto is calling for an investigation into a World Health Organization agency that found one of its largest weed killers was carcinogenic. The controversial agricultural giant argues that they ignored two major studies that found no link to cancer.
Monsanto is fighting an assessment from the World Health Organization (WHO) that classified glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s non-selective herbicide Roundup, as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
As a result, the state of California announced in June that Monsanto will be required to put a label on its products that warns customers if it contains cancer-causing chemicals.
So far, more than 900 people who have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in the US have sued Monsanto, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for wrongful death and personal injuries based on the WHO assessment, according to Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, the law firm representing the plaintiffs in the case.
However, St. Louis-based Monsanto is fighting back, arguing that the IARC was an “outlier” in finding a link between glyphosate and cancer.
In May, Charles William Jameson, a scientist who sat on the IARC’s Monograph working group that evaluated glyphosate, was questioned by lawyers representing Monsanto. According to his deposition, Jameson said that he never received nor consulted data from the two studies that found no link between glyphosate and cancer.
First, Monsanto argues that IARC did not consider a study from Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), which concluded in 2015 that “glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans.”
The agro-business giant also said IARC disregarded another study from German scientist Helmut Greim, who evaluated 14 separate carcinogenicity studies on rats and mice, and found that “glyphosate's carcinogenic potential is extremely low or non-existent.”
Jameson said he did not receive the data from the BfR study at all and only received Greim’s study when he arrived at the working group.
“I did not see the Greim paper until I got to the IARC meeting,” Jameson said in the deposition.
“There was a lot of discussion around the table about if this publication should be even looked at, because it was not received in the time identified in the announcement for submission of data that IARC had for this particular monograph meeting.”Jameson said that the amount of data in the Greim study was “overwhelming” and they would not have been able to review it during the meeting. However, he agreed that the information in the study was “relevant to the question of whether glyphosate can cause cancer in animals.”
According to Politico, the IARC received data from the BfR a month before they began their assessment. They also claim that the IARC received the full set of data from Greim’s peer-reviewed study in February, a month before the working group made its conclusion.
The IARC told Politico that any data was not withheld from Jameson and all data it receives is distributed “via shared electronic resources, to which the entire Working Group has simultaneous access.”
Ivan Rusyn, another member of the IARC working group, said he did receive Greim’s study, but told the IARC in an email that the data “fell in a pretty wide gray zone,” since it did not contain certain data.
“This is an interesting polemical piece,” Rusyn told Politico. “It does not surprise me that when under pressure the industry can ‘muster’ a relevant publication that goes from submission to acceptance in as little as 7 weeks.”
In response, Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president of strategy, told Politico that there needs to be an external investigation into the IARC, which he said “was corrupted apparently with individuals who have an agenda.”
“When an organization such as IARC is given authority, with that comes a responsibility … to be objective, transparent, thorough and fair,” Partridge told Politico in an interview. “IARC has violated each and every one of those responsibilities and that should be troubling to anyone who is interested in preserving sound science.”
In a Thursday press release, Cal Dooley, the president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), said that the IARC working group “intentionally omitted” the data from the two studies.
“This information could have significantly influenced the findings of the Monograph working group, making it more likely that IARC would have concluded that glyphosate is safe, as has every other regulatory body that has evaluated the substance,”Dooley said.
Dooley also urged Congress to investigate the IARC, which he said, “suffers from a lack of transparency, conflicts of interest, and is beholden to the agenda of those seeking specific outcomes.”
Glyphosate's license for use in the European agriculture sector is set to expire by the end of 2017.
https://www.rt.com/usa/400461-monsanto-refutes-iarc-glyphosate/
-
Monsanto GMO Guru Attacks EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce
Aug 22, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis and Bill Walker
We’d like to thank Rob Fraley, chief technology official at Monsanto, who’s largely responsible for introducing genetically modified foods to the U.S. and Big Ag’s surge in pesticide use that ensued.
We aren’t thanking him for that catastrophe, but for his recent Huffington Post attack on EWG and our Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in ProduceTM, which he called propaganda. (At least he didn’t say fake news.)
So Fraley, the guy behind the explosion in the use of glyphosate – the key ingredient in Roundup, which California just added to its official list of carcinogens – slams EWG for alerting Americans to toxic chemicals on produce? Sometimes the enemies you make say as much about you as your friends.
Our annual Shopper’s Guide list of conventional fruits and vegetables with the highestand lowest residues of pesticide – after they’ve been thoroughly washed – comes from Department of Agriculture data.
There’s really nothing complicated about the list. Some crops, like strawberries, apples and peaches have far more pesticide residues than others like sweet corn, avocados and cauliflower. Since most people would rather not eat a bunch of potentially toxic chemicals along with their produce, and some may not be able to afford an all-organic diet, researchers at EWG analyze the USDA tests and publish a free, up-to-date list each spring.
Fraley’s blog makes much of the fact that both conventional and organic farmers use synthetic and natural pesticides to grow food. True.
But there’s one thing Fraley and other critics always leave out when they scold us for telling consumers about pesticides on the food they grow: At least 50 synthetic pesticides once approved for use in conventional agriculture have since been banned by the Environmental Protection Agency, or phased out because of risks to health and the environment. Others are still used, despite growing evidence of their health and environmental hazards.
Case in point: chlorpyrifos, which has been shown to cause brain damage in young children – even at trace levels like the residues the USDA finds on some fruits and vegetables popular with kids.
Recently, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt halted an expected ban of chlorpyrifos from use on food, without any valid scientific reason. His decision came shortly after he met with the CEO of Dow Chemical, which makes chlorpyrifos. Dow also gave President Trump $1 million to spend on his inauguration celebration.
Draw your own conclusions.
So what about those “natural” pesticides approved for use on organic crops Fraley referenced? How many of those been banned or phased out over risks to human health?
Exactly one: rotenone, derived from the roots of tropical plants. Unlike chemical agriculture interests, who fight to the end when regulators propose restricting use of a dangerous pesticide, organic growers stopped using rotenone after studies began showing potential health and environmental risks.
There are a number of significant differences between organic and chemical agriculture, and their respective impacts on health and the environment. You can read more about those here.
Fraley goes on to cite research funded by the chemical agriculture front group, the Alliance for Food and Farming, or AFF, which has an entire website dedicated to attacking the Shopper’s Guide. Twisting the findings of the AFF-funded report by researchers with the Illinois Institute of Technology, he falsely claims the Shopper’s Guide is the reason “poor and working class people” aren’t eating enough fruits and vegetables.
In fact, the study surveyed lower-income shoppers and found that after hearing about the Shopper’s Guide, they were actually more likely to buy fruits and vegetables. This pie chart shows more than half said the guide would make them more likely to buy produce and a third said it wouldn’t affect their purchases. Only 15 percent said they’d be less likely to buy produce.
Public transparency on the chemicals it makes has never been Monsanto’s strong suit.
There’s growing evidence of the company’s likely collusion with industry-friendly EPA officials to suppress information over the health risks of glyphosate. Monsanto’s rebranded itself as an agricultural conglomerate, but decades ago it made PCBs, cancer-causing industrial chemicals that continue to pollute rivers and bays, and lurk in more than 25,000 U.S. schools.
Here’s the story of how Monsanto’s manufacture of PCBs contaminated Anniston, Ala., and how the corporation tried to cover it up. You can also see the incriminating documents and internal Monsanto memos, housed in perpetuity in EWG’s Chemical Industry Archives, which ultimately helped lead to the corporation’s $700 million settlement with the people of Anniston.
Consider Monsanto’s sordid history and its shady practices today, and EWG’s 25 years of work to tell Americans the truth about hazardous chemicals in food, water, air and consumer products. Who do you trust to tell the truth about pesticides on your food?
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2017/08/monsanto-gmo-guru-attacks-ewg-s-shopper-s-guide-pesticides-produce#.WZv7Pz4jHIU
-
EPA Advisors Split on ETBE Risk Estimates, Raising Doubts on Completion
Aug 22, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
A panel of science advisors conducting peer review of EPA’s draft assessments of the human health risks of exposure to two petro-fuels chemicals is struggling to reach consensus, and appears that it will be unable to do so on risk estimates and underlying health effects that EPA used to estimate the chemicals’ potency.
Lack of consensus in Science Advisory Board (SAB) peer review panels is both unusual -- the panels strive for consensus -- and problematic, as lack of uniform responses to charge questions and recommendations will challenge EPA’s ability to finalize the assessments.
Industry representatives at the meeting appeared pleased, as members of the panel raised questions about some of EPA’s conclusions in ways that aligned with industry critiques.
The fuels and chemical industries have argued that the assessments are too conservative, misinterpreted data and that neither chemical should be a priority for an assessment by the agency’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), because ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE) was not used in the United States and and tert-butanol, also known as tert-butyl alcohol (TBA), is a chemical intermediate to which there is not broad exposure.
TBA, however, is a metabolite of ETBE as well as another fuel oxygenator, methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), which was widely used in the United States in the 1990s to meet Clean Air Act standards. Groundwater contamination from leaking fuel storage tanks prompted dozens of states to ban MTBE’s use in gasoline and liability concerns caused refiners to stop using it in the 2000s.
As a result, a delay in the assessments could also slow decisions to strengthen MTBE cleanups as well as those addressing ETBE, which has also been found at cleanup sites and in some groundwater sources, though not nearly as frequently as MTBE.
IRIS officials after discussions with colleagues in other EPA offices, concluded that there was a need for the assessments and they should go forward.
The panelists appeared generally in agreement in their recommendation to EPA that the agency’s Risk Assessment Forum (RAF) should review chronic progressive nephropathy (CPN), a biological mechanism which can cause lesions in the kidneys of lab rodents after exposure to certain chemicals. Some pathologists consider CPN-caused lesions to be irrelevant to human health hazard because they consider the mechanism to occur in rodents but not humans, while others believe that the effects should be considered in assessments of human health risks.
The issue affects both the ETBE and TBA assessments, as EPA assumed an adverse human effect and based its non-cancer risk calculations for both chemicals, as well as its cancer risk calculations for TBA, on it.
EPA’s RAF has considered such questions with other biological mechanisms in the past, producing guidance documents that are relied on agency-wide. EPA’s existing guidance for kidney lesions is from 1991. But waiting for a new RAF document addressing CPN would significantly delay the ETBE and TBA IRIS assessments.
And the group’s call for RAF review may well be difficult for the forum to address. The group, made up of volunteer experts from across the agency, has operated with a small staff and coordinator for years. None of its members have full-time assignments to RAF, limiting the group’s ability to work quickly, particularly on complicated issues. RAF has also released ever-fewer publications in recent years for various reasons.
Panel's Conclusions
Discussing the panel’s conclusions at the end of a three-day meeting Aug. 15-17 in Arlington, VA, panelist James Bruckner said, “I’m really troubled with giving recommendations … given the difference of opinion after hearing a lot of detailed information. ... I guess my recommendation is that EPA actually take a much harder look at this perhaps with a panel of experts who are more expert than we are in this group.”
Bruckner, a toxicology professor at the University of Georgia, was referring to pathology expertise -- as the disagreement in how to view kidney lesions related to CPN is a disagreement among pathology experts. No members of the SAB peer review panel are pathologists.
The panel chairwoman, Janice Chambers, a professor at Mississippi State University’s veterinary school, said she believes there was more disagreement about this charge question than others.
Another panelist, Alan Stern, a risk analysis branch chief with New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, said that it was his “impression, and I may not have gotten it right, that EPA did work with their pathologist in coming up with this. If that was the case, I’m not sure what we’re saying by asking them to go back and work with a pathologist. … Are we asking them to come up with a different conclusion?”
Stern added that “there is a fundamental disagreement between two schools of pathological thought,” and EPA relied on a pathologist leading one of those camps, Ron Melnick, retired from the National Toxicology Program. “There are not any pathologists in this group,” Stern noted. “In the absence of any clear indication of error, we have to give EPA their due.”
Stern and Harvey Clewell, a panelist and a senior scientist with ScitoVation, also called for the RAF to be called in to consider the issue. “The agency, the government pathologist said this is the way things are, and some other pathologists came up with a different opinion … One of the things that became obvious was that there needs to be a formal analysis of this CPN business,” Clewell said.
Clewell said such an analysis is too involved to be determined within any one assessment or EPA office. “It’s too big for us to say that in this assessment it needs to formally be done by the EPA Risk Assessment Forum for this particular disease issue.”
Non-Cancer Risks
Beyond that recommendation, it appeared that the panel would not be able to reach consensus on what to advise EPA regarding the chemicals’ non-cancer risks.
Because EPA used the kidney effects as the basis for its non-cancer oral and inhalation risk calculations, concerns about the underlying effect led to lack of consensus about the calculations. Panelists suggested that EPA had done the calculations correctly if reviewers agreed with EPA’s conclusion that the kidney lesions are human relevant.
The panel also struggled to reach consensus on EPA’s conclusion in its draft ETBE assessment that the chemical shows suggestive evidence of being a human carcinogen, and its proposed calculations for oral and inhalation cancer risk estimates.
EPA based its ETBE cancer risk assessment on liver tumors, which again some panelists questioned the human relevance of, though some panelists suggested that based on EPA’s cancer risk assessment guidelines, EPA must include the tumors in its assessment. But the panel struggled again to reach consensus over EPA’s decision to calculate cancer risk estimates for ETBE -- which the agency generally does not do for chemicals deemed to have only suggestive evidence.
One panelist noted that an EPA speaker to the panel explained that there is a need within the agency for a number on which to base risk management decisions. “There is a need for some kind of quantitative value there,” the panelist noted. “There are also ways to describe the value with high, medium or low confidence.”
Another panelist agreed that EPA should calculate values, but others argued that the study EPA used didn’t provide sufficient data to model oral or inhalation potency values. “I don’t believe this is an appropriate study to do a value on. My problem with the need to create a value, is we don’t know what its meaning is,” said panelist Hugh Barton, an associate research fellow at Pfizer, Inc. “No matter what words you put around the numbers, the numbers are going to drive things. … It doesn’t help the situation to have numbers that are that uncertain.”
Regarding TBA, the metabolite, the panel again struggled to reach consensus on the relevance to human health of kidney tumors following TBA exposure. The panel appeared to conclude that there was greater evidence to support EPA’s conclusion of risk based on thyroid tumors, with early draft text indicating that the panel felt EPA’s “conclusion that thyroid follicular cell tumors in mice are relevant to humans to be scientifically supported.”
The panel will continue to craft their report over the coming weeks.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-advisors-split-etbe-risk-estimates-raising-doubts-completion
-
California: Regulators Eye Tighter Restrictions on Chlorpyrifos Use
Aug 22, 2017 | Inside EPA
Months after EPA reversed an Obama-era plan to ban chlorpyrifos, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Aug. 18 announced a multi-agency effort to bolster health protections on the pesticide, one of the most widely used agricultural chemicals in the nation.
The effort includes release of a new draft risk assessment that CalEPA says could lead to “increased restrictions on chlorpyrifos statewide,” as well as a plan to list the compound on the state's Proposition 65 list of reproductive toxicants, which likely will trigger intense opposition by chemical manufacturers and the agriculture industry.
California's actions come several months after EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a controversial March 29 orderreversing an Obama administration proposal to ban the use of chlorpyrifos on food. Pruitt, as justification, cited a need for further review of complex science during the agency's Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act registration review scheduled for completion by October 2022.
Pruitt's decision has drawn strong criticism from environmentalists and Democrats, though chemical and other industry groups have welcomed the action.
But California's effort to regulate the substance could mark a new phase in the battle, especially given that an estimated 20 percent of all U.S. chlorpyrifos use occurs in the Golden State.
However, some environmentalists and equity advocates argue that California's effort is too weak, and note that the state's health risk exposure limits for chlorpyrifos are actually many times weaker than current EPA standards.
“DPR chooses to use levels of concern much lower or less health-protective than EPA for chlorpyrifos,” says one advocate. “DPR's acute level for toddlers and pregnant women is more than 92 times greater than EPA's and the four-week (subchronic) safety level for pregnant women is more than 400 times greater than EPA's.”
Further, “What's already clear is that California officials are choosing to ignore the science of neurotoxicity of chlorpyrifos, including EPA's analysis, and failing to protect our most vulnerable populations, particularly pregnant women and children,” the source adds. “Pesticide regulators need to create a clear timetable for getting brain-harming chlorpyrifos out of our fields rather than further delay."
As part of its announcement, CalEPA's Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) released Aug. 18 an updated draft risk assessment on chlorpyrifos for public comment. This action could lead to “increased restrictions on chlorpyrifos statewide,” CalEPA says in the announcement. DPR is currently developing interim restrictions on use of the pesticide and recommendations will be made to county agricultural commissioners next month.
After DPR's 45-day written public comment period on the draft risk assessment, the proposal will go before an independent panel of nine scientists known as the Scientific Review Panel (SRP). This process may conclude in December 2018.
The state's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is referring chlorpyrifos for potential listing as a developmental toxicant under Prop. 65, the release says. OEHHA Aug. 18 posted an announcement that the state’s Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee will consider the listing of chlorpyrifos at its next public meeting scheduled for Nov. 29.
If listed, businesses that knowingly cause exposures above minimum levels must provide a Prop. 65 warning on products and to workers.
“While chlorpyrifos has been protecting crops for more than 50 years, new information in the scientific community leads us to believe the level of risk it poses is greater than previously known,” said CalEPA Secretary Matthew Rodriquez. “We need to better understand the science to ensure our actions protect public health. The actions we are taking today reflect our commitment to the health and safety of all Californians, and the environment.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/california-regulators-eye-tighter-restrictions-chlorpyrifos-use
-
Can Low Doses of Chemicals Affect Your Health? A New Report Weighs the Evidence
Aug 21, 2017 | San Francisco Chronicle
By Rachel Shaffer
Toxicology’s founding father, Paracelsus, is famous for proclaiming that “the dose makes the poison.” This phrase represents a pillar of traditional toxicology: Essentially, chemicals are harmful only at high enough doses.
But increasing evidence suggests that even low levels of “endocrine disrupting chemicals” can interfere with hormonal signals in the body in potentially harmful ways.
Standard toxicity tests don’t always detect the effects that chemicals can have at lower levels. And, even when the data do suggest such effects, scientists and policymakers may not act upon this information in a timely manner.
Recognizing these challenges, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asked a committee of scientists to study the issue in detail. How can we better identify whether chemicals have effects at low doses? And how can we act on this information to protect public health?
After several years of work, the committee’s report was released by the National Academy of Sciences in July. This landmark report provides the EPA with a strategy to identify and analyze data about low-dose health effects, as well as two case study examples. It is an evidence-based call to action, and scientists and policymakers should take notice.
What exactly is a “low dose”? The committee defined this as “external or internal exposure that falls with the range estimated to occur in humans.” That covers any level of chemical exposure that we would encounter in our daily lives.
Adverse health effects, as defined by the committee, can include any biological change that impairs a person’s functional capacity or ability to handle stress, or makes her more susceptible to other exposures.
To help the EPA better identify whether chemicals can have adverse effects at low doses, the committee developed a three-part strategy. First, actively collect a wide range of data with participation from stakeholders and the public. Then, analyze and integrate the available evidence in a systematic way. Finally, act on this evidence to improve risk assessments and toxicity testing.
To put this strategy into practice, the committee conducted a systematic review of two endocrine-disrupting chemicals. This involved assessing the relevant data from human, animal and cell-based lab studies. Each of these approaches has different strengths and weaknesses, so examining the evidence together offers insight that a single approach could not provide.
The first case study looked at phthalates, chemicals that increase the flexibility of plastic products such as shower curtains and food wrapping.
The committee found that diethylhexyl phthalate and other selected phthalates are associated with changes in male reproductive and hormonal health. Overall, the data were strong enough to classify diethylhexyl phthalate as a “presumed reproductive hazard” in humans.
The second case study focused on polybrominated diphenyl ethers, flame retardants used for over 30 years. Though they are now being phased out, these chemicals remain a concern for humans. They are still present in older products and can persist in the environment for many years.
Based on data showing the impact of these chemicals on learning and IQ, the panel concluded that developmental exposure is “presumed to pose a hazard to intelligence in humans.”
During its review, the committee encountered a variety of barriers that could impede similar investigations into specific chemicals.
First, when reviewing evidence, it’s important to assess any systematic errors – also known as biases – that might have lead to incorrect results. These errors can arise from study design flaws, such as failure to properly blind the researchers during analysis.
Some journals have strict guidelines for reporting details related to bias, but many do not. Better adherence to reporting guidelines would improve scientists’ ability to assess the quality of evidence.
Second, the committee noted a discrepancy between the concept of doses used in human and animal studies. This made it difficult to compare data from different sources.
For example, most toxicologists simply report the dose that they delivered to animals. But some of that administered dose might not actually be absorbed. The actual internal dose of chemical circulating in the body and causing harm may differ from the amount that was administered.
By contrast, epidemiologists usually think about dose as the level of chemical they detect in the body, but they may not know how much of the chemical an individual was actually exposed to.
Biological modeling techniques can help scientists draw the connection between administered and internal doses and more closely compare results from animal and human studies.
Finally, many toxicology studies focus on only a single chemical. This is a valuable way to identify how one chemical affects the body. However, given that we are all exposed to chemical mixtures, these procedures may be of limited use in the real world.
The committee suggested that toxicologists incorporate real-world mixtures into their studies, to provide more relevant information about the risk to human health.
This report demonstrates the challenges facing the field of toxicology and environmental health: How well can existing and emerging laboratory techniques predict adverse outcomes in humans?
Traditional animal experiments usually use high doses, which don’t necessarily reflect the real world. These studies can be an important first step in identifying health hazards, but they cannot accurately predict how or at what levels the chemicals affect humans. The committee noted that more relevant doses and better modeling could help mitigate this problem.
Emerging high-throughput testing techniques use cell-based methods to detect how a chemical changes specific molecular or cellular activities. These newer methods are increasingly used in toxicology testing. They have the potential to quickly identify harmful chemicals, but have yet to be fully accepted by the scientific community.
For these two case studies, the committee noted that high-throughput tests were not particularly helpful in drawing conclusions about health effects. Many of these studies are narrowly focused – looking at, for example, just a single signaling pathway, without indicating a chemical’s overall influence on an organism. Nevertheless, these methods could be used to prioritize chemicals for further in-depth testing, since activity in one pathway may predict a chemical’s capacity to cause harm.
Despite the imperfections of our testing methods, there’s already ample evidence about low-dose effects from many chemicals. The EPA should implement this new strategy to efficiently identify and act on problematic endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Only through such strong, science-based efforts can we prevent adverse effects from chemical exposures – and allow everyone to live the healthy lives that they deserve.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article here: http://theconversation.com/can-low-doses-of-chemicals-affect-your-health-a-new-report-weighs-the-evidence-82132.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Can-low-doses-of-chemicals-affect-your-health-A-11946656.php
-
Atlantic Governors Seek Continued Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Ban
Aug 22, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) is urging federal regulators to continue the current ban on oil and gas drilling off his state's coast, joining Republican and Democratic governors in East Coast states who don't want the Atlantic included in the government's next five-year drilling plan.
All governors in the mid-Atlantic region for the Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)—a region which along with North Carolina includes Maryland, Virginia and Delaware—have said they oppose Atlantic drilling. South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster reportedly has opposed drilling off his state in the past, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) voiced strong opposition to the potential inclusion of the waters off New Jersey's coast in any leasing plan.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is developing plans for leasing under its National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2019 through 2024. A ban on Atlantic leases was imposed in the Obama administration.
Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal (R) and Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) have not expressed a position, and their spokesmen did not respond to Bloomberg BNA's requests for information.
North Carolina's governor announced Aug. 18 he had submitted formal comments to the Interior Department, citing the significant environmental and economic threat that oil and gas leasing poses to the state. The governor and state's Department of Environmental Quality said in the comments, dated Aug. 17, that North Carolina has comparatively minimal offshore oil and gas resources and a unique coastal environment that relies heavily on tourism.
Previous Plans Dropped
Previous BOEM plans to offer leases for offshore oil and gas drilling were dropped last year in the face of Southeast communities’ opposition about the impacts on fishing, tourism, and shipping activities.
Virginia's Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), also recently submitted comments opposed to offering leasing off his state's coast, and focused on a lack of federal plans to include a revenue sharing agreement. Delaware Gov. John Carey (D) issued a statement of opposition in April after President Donald Trump signed an executive order April 28 that among other things called for a review of oil and gas leases for the Mid- and South Atlantic.
David McGowan, executive director of the North Carolina Petroleum Council, said his group opposes Cooper's stance, as offshore operations can create jobs and boost the economy while safely co-existing with North Carolina's tourism and fishing industries.
Developing “abundant offshore energy resources in the Atlantic is a critical part of an energy policy that will secure our nation's energy future, advance our national security interests, protect the environment, and help meet the energy needs of the consumers and businesses of North Carolina,” McGowan said in a statement emailed to Bloomberg BNA Aug. 18.
Meanwhile, the Southern Environmental Law Center praised the governors’ positions, saying that the “Southeast coast is built around a thriving tourism industry that attracts visitors from around the world to the pristine beaches, picturesque coastal communities, and beautiful waters that could be devastated with a single major oil spill.”
—With assistance from Renee Schoof.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=119336047&vname=dennotallissues&fn=119336047&jd=119336047
-
West Virginia Lawmakers Exploring Ways to Expand Shale Gas Development
Aug 21, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Republican leaders in the West Virginia legislature have formed an interim committee to explore more ways the state can attract and increase shale gas development.
The Joint Committee on Natural Gas Development is scheduled to meet for the first time on Tuesday to better understand issues facing the industry and discuss ways to help solve them. A leading topic is likely to be efforts by shale drillers to get some kind of pooling law on the books that would make it easier to gather landowners into large tracts to better block-up acreage positions for horizontal drilling.
The oil and gas industry has tried for years to enact forced pooling with no success, as lawmakers have rejected legislation over property rights concerns. Last year, the industry opted instead to try for co-tenancy and joint development.
The 2016 legislation would have required a producer to obtain a simple majority agreement from mineral rights owners within a proposed tract rather than the current 100%. But the proposal would have prevented operators from forcing a co-tenant into a tract if the landowner owned at least 25% of the mineral rights. Under joint development, operators would be able to integrate older leases executed before the shale era into large tracts.
“It’s time to stop letting the minority hold back the will of the majority,” said West Virginia Oil and Natural Gas Association Executive Director Anne Blankenship. She welcomed the formation of the committee and said its goals provide an opportunity to advance the state’s economy.
The state Senate passed the co-tenancy/joint development bill earlier this year, but there wasn’t enough time before the regular session ended in April for the House to act on it.
Senate President Mitch Carmichael (R-Jackson County) and House Speaker Tim Armstead (R-Kanawha County) formed the committee to hear more from the industry about best practices, opportunities for economic expansion and more ways to compete for investment capital with Pennsylvania, Ohio and other producing basins across the country.
Mineral efficiency legislation in the state has been a top priority for years. West Virginia is one of only three producing states without a comprehensive pooling law.
EQT Corp. recently suspended its deep Utica Shale test program in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and management said the Marcellus Shale is more economic. The company also said it wants more time to lobby for co-tenancy and joint development.
“That would be a big improvement for West Virginia lateral lengths,” CEO Steven Schlotterbeck told financial analysts during the company’s second quarter earnings call last month. “The economics will make West Virginia more competitive in certain areas with our Pennsylvania opportunity.” EQT has been focused on consolidating acreage across Appalachia to increase lateral lengths and gain more efficiencies.
Eighteen House and Senate lawmakers are on the committee. The legislature meets in interim sessions before the regular session begins in January.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111468-west-virginia-lawmakers-exploring-ways-to-expand-shale-gas-development
-
Texas Sees Mexico as Important Gas Export Market
Aug 22, 2017 | UPI
By Daniel J. Graeber
The state economy for Texas is capitalizing on cross-border movements of natural gas to Mexico, a director at a state energy regulator said.
Texas Secretary of State Rolando Pablos served as the moderator of a bilateral energy forum that counted members of a Mexican energy trade association and Mexico Energy Regulatory Commissioner Guillermo GarciaAlcocer among its panelists.
The panel came one month after Mexico's government held its first auctionto access capacity to natural gas infrastructure as part of the country's sweeping energy reforms. Those reforms could bring in up to $415 billion in investments over the next 20 years as the country establishes links to the rest of the world.
Ryan Sitton with the Texas Railroad Commission, the state's energy regulator, said high U.S. natural gas production and Mexican energy sector reforms were opening economic doors.
"Right now, Mexico imports 60 percent of its natural gas from the U.S., most of which comes from Texas," he said in a statement. "By 2019, U.S. natural gas exports to Mexico will double, and that means more money for our schools, roads, hospitals and economy."
Sitton's comments come as U.S. President Donald Trump worked to renegotiate the terms of the 23-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said the "new NAFTA" would ensure his country doesn't face unfair subsidies or market-distorting practices by state-owned enterprises.
The Mexican energy reform program is meant to open the country up to outside oil investment for the first time since 1938, when the Mexican government took control of the country's oil industry and sidelined foreign investments. State-controlled Petróleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, had a monopoly over the sector before reforms were initiated in 2014.
https://www.upi.com/Texas-sees-Mexico-as-important-gas-export-market/1511503397596/
-
Federal Redo of Leave Rules May Implicate Chemical Safety Board
Aug 22, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
A pending Office of Personnel Management regulation could shake up a long-running personnel dispute at the Chemical Safety Board, potentially freeing up more resources for ongoing investigations or internal reforms impacting oil, chemical and mining companies that could be subject to agency probes.
OPM's proposed regulations (RIN:3206-AN49) would cap at 10 days per calendar year federal agencies’ use of administrative leave for employees accused of misconduct or performance concerns.
The changes could allow CSB to free up resources for other agency priorities, or save money if it helps it resolve the case of its managing director, Daniel Horowitz, who has been on paid administrative leave since June 2015 due to allegations of mismanagement and leadership failures. Horowitz has remained on the payroll since.
CSB operates on a $11 million budget, and doesn't investigate all accidents within its statutory mandate. In 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency Inspector General suggested CSB conduct more, and faster investigations by “reprioritizing its resources.” Agency leaders have also said decisions to deploy to new investigations are based in part on fiscal considerations.
It's hard to say if paying Horowitz's salary has had an impact at CSB, Michael Wright, health and safety director at the United Steelworkers union, told Bloomberg BNA. But the funds are a significant amount of the agency's small budget.
“I have no idea why it has gone on as long as it has,” Wright said.
Mark Farley, a partner at the law firm Katten Munchin Rosenman LLP, told Bloomberg BNA a new managing director, rather than investigative spending, would help CSB succeed. However, Farley said, CSB senior adviser Thomas Zoeller, who started in January 2017, appears to be performing many of Horowitz's former duties.
The paid leave situation “hinders the chairperson's ability to bring about the reforms that she has prioritized for the agency,” Farley said. “Being able to name an individual to that slot would likely enable Chairperson [Vanessa] Sutherland to reform the agency more quickly.”
The new law, originally known as the Administrative Leave Reform Act, was included in the fiscal 2017 defense authorization measure, which President Barack Obama signed last year.
The issue gained traction in Congress after a 2014 Government Accountability Office report found 57,000 federal employees were on paid leave for at least a month between 2011 and 2013, with agencies having spent $3.1 billion on paid administrative leave for all employees during this time.
After the proposed 10-day cap, agencies could issue paid “investigative leave” in 30-day increments while an investigation continued. Every 90 days, agencies would have to tell Congress why the employee was still on administrative leave, but not other types of leave such as notice or investigative leave. Agencies would have to comply 270 days after OPM publishes a final rule.
Other Leaves Could Be Unlimited
Sutherland told Bloomberg BNA in July Horowitz's status with the agency had not changed.
Jeff Ruch, who represented Horowitz as director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), said in an email to Bloomberg BNA the changes won't do much for Horowitz's situation.
Horowitz earned a salary of $158,700 during fiscal 2015 and took home $160,300 in fiscal 2016, according to a database of federal employee salaries. At that rate, Horowitz has earned more than $330,000 during the time he has been on administrative leave.
“Under these regulations, CSB could take Dr. Horowitz off administrative leave and instead place him on notice leave for an unlimited period,” Ruch said.
Ruch said in 2016 the removal was never finalized by the board, leaving Horowitz unable to formally dispute the personnel action. Horowitz declined to comment to Bloomberg BNA.
CSB Hasn't Addressed Regulation
While the law came after reports of excessive use of administrative leave, critics say the proposed rule may not go far enough to crack down on wasteful pay.
Dozens of federal agencies, employee unions and advocacy organizations weighed in on the proposal during the comment period that ended Aug. 14, but no comments from CSB were available and the board didn't respond to Bloomberg BNA's request for comment.
Judy Galat, assistant general counsel at the American Federation of Government Employees, said in public comments OPM should make it easier for agencies to place employees on telework instead of administrative leave.
“This is consistent with the statutory goals of limiting the amount of time that an employee who is under investigation is in a leave status and not performing work for the agency,” Galat wrote.
Ruch's organization, PEER, said in public comments the changes would not do enough to address the problem.
The group said often “employees are left in lengthy leave-limbos because agency management finds the employee inconvenient, an irritant, or a political threat but lacks grounds to justify removing him or her.”
OPM should also do more to call out managers who abuse paid leave categories, PEER said, such as identifying them in mandated congressional reports or subjecting the managers to discipline.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=119336050&vname=dennotallissues&fn=119336050&jd=119336050
-
Feds Say Brake Problems Preceded Derailment in Pennsylvania
Aug 21, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Mark Scolforo
Crews encountered air brake problems before a 178-car freight train derailed in Pennsylvania earlier this month, causing hazardous material to ignite and forcing nearby residents to evacuate, federal investigators said.
The National Transportation Safety Board’s preliminary report issued Monday said a crew stopped the CSX Transportation train before the Aug. 2 wreck, applied 58 hand brakes and recharged the air brakes.
After that crew’s shift ended, a second crew thought the train might still have air brake problems and kept the hand brakes on but wasn’t able to move the train down a hill near the borough of Hyndman, the report said.
The engineer switched from locomotive power to dynamic braking three times before one car derailed nearly 2 miles (3 kilometers) before the larger derailment and fire, the agency said.
“NTSB is investigating many factors into the cause of the derailment, including the length, makeup, and operation of the train, as well as the condition of the rail cars and track,” the report said.
The derailed car moved further off the track while crossing a highway, triggering the full derailment in Hyndman, a town near the Maryland border about 100 miles (161 kilometers) southeast of Pittsburgh.
Investigators found that several rail car wheels near the derailed section showed signs of wear, indicating the hand brakes did not allow the wheels to rotate, as well as evidence of brake pad friction.
A car that contained molten sulfur failed, releasing its payload and starting a fire that raged for more than 48 hours.
Another car let out propane gas, which also burned for about two days. A third car released asphalt, which pooled and solidified.
Thirty-three cars in all derailed, and about a thousand people were evacuated. There were no injuries, but one house was nearly cut in two and a garage caught fire.
The train had been going from Chicago to Selkirk, New York.
As a result of the crash, Amtrak had to suspend train service between Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C.
Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/feds-say-brake-problems-preceded-derailment-in-pennsylvania/2017/08/21/f9916eb4-86c8-11e7-96a7-d178cf3524eb_story.html?utm_term=.a4456429b5bb
-
Trump Administration Disbands Climate Advisory Panel
Aug 22, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven Gibb and Amena H. Saiyid
The Trump administration has disbanded a broad federal advisory panel formed to critique the government's National Climate Assessment.
The panel, created in August 2015, provided advice to scientists who are due this fall to release a national assessment of climate change impacts such as flooding and severe weather events. The report is considered useful for local and regional planners and businesses who need to plan and anticipate for climate-induced events.
The panel was set up by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to advise the interagency climate change research program. NOAA confirmed the panel's charter expired Aug. 20, with no indications that it would be renewed.
Administration officials are reviewing a research report that provides the scientific evidence to back up the the National Climate Assessment. Known as the Climate Science Special Report, it's crafted by researchers from 13 federal departments and estimates that human activity increased global temperatures by 1.1 to 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit between 1951 and 2010.
‘A Key Priority’
Despite the expiration of the panel's charter, “this action does not impact the completion of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, which remains a key priority” for the agency, NOAA spokeswoman Julie Roberts wrote in an email.
Comments on the report were due Aug. 18. The scientists who wrote the report are currently reviewing the comments to see if revisions are warranted, after which another panel of scientists will review the revised document and send it off for eventual release this fall.
The climate assessment's staff works hard to summarize climate risks, Baruch Fischhoff, an engineering and public policy professor at Carnegie Mellon University who was part of the effort, told Bloomberg BNA.
“People with lives and property at stake are accustomed to making decisions under conditions of uncertainty,” he said. “They will read the report and factor it into their decision making. I imagine that most will decide that the risks of climate change, sea-level rise, less predictable weather, etc., are certain enough to affect their choices. People who want to make political statements are working a different problem, and can afford to demand certainty.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=119336046&vname=dennotallissues&fn=119336046&jd=119336046
-
EPA's Push to Delay Texas Haze Plan Spurs Environmentalists' Criticisms
Aug 21, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is asking a federal district court to delay from Sept. 9 this year until Dec. 31, 2018, a legal deadline for issuing a plan to reduce regional haze in Texas, spurring criticisms from environmentalists who say that the significant delay would worsen air quality in national parks and increase public health harms from haze-forming pollutants.
“We will strongly oppose any more delay in protecting these majestic places from power plant pollution. EPA has had more than enough time to finalize the proposal,” said senior Earthjustice attorney David Baron in an Aug. 18 statement on an agency legal filing the same day in which it asks for the lengthy deadline delay.
The agency's filing asks to have until the end of next year to either impose on Texas an EPA-crafted federal implementation plan (FIP) detailing the haze-reducing steps the state must take, or to approve a revised Texas state implementation plan (SIP). Environmentalists sued EPA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia claiming the agency was behind schedule in imposing a FIP on the state, and the Obama administration in 2012 then entered into a consent decree with the plaintiffs setting the Sept. 9 deadline for a decision on Texas' FIP.
But EPA under the Trump administration now wants more time to work with the state on crafting a SIP it could approve, according to the agency's filing in the deadline suit, National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), et al. v. EPA, et al.. “Circumstances have changed significantly over the past several months and weeks as EPA and Texas have engaged in a productive level of dialogue that has not occurred in many years,” the agency says.
The Obama administration fought with Texas environmental regulators and Texas industry over controls for regional haze and other clean air programs, clashing over the perceived lack of stringency in some Texas air permits, regulatory exemptions for industry, and in particular emissions controls for some older coal-fired power plants.
After EPA missed statutory deadlines to impose FIPs on states that lacked SIPs to impose haze controls including best available retrofit technology (BART) -- a level of emissions control required for haze-producing sources -- the agency in 2012 entered into a consent decree to issue the required federal plans.
Most of the sources at issue are electrical generating units (EGUs) at power plants. Parties to the decree have already agreed to extend deadlines for EPA to act on multiple occasions.
Texas' Plan
After President Donald Trump took office, EPA Region 6 under acting Administrator Sam Coleman has been working with Texas on how to craft a SIP that the agency could approve.
EPA says it reached a memorandum of understanding [MOA] with TCEQ Aug. 14 “to develop an approvable SIP to address BART for EGUs that would be more consistent with the [Clean Air Act's] preference for cooperative federalism, and would produce a plan that more effectively addresses concerns raised by the State.”
The MOU requires Texas to submit to EPA by Oct. 31, 2018, a plan to satisfy BART, which the state says it intends to do by means of an “intrastate” emissions trading program. EPA says it will be able to approve the program by Dec. 31, 2018, by “parallel processing” that would see Texas and EPA review the proposed trading plan in tandem.
Co-operative federalism is the Clean Air Act's division of labor between federal regulators who set federal rules, and state and local regulators who largely implement them. Trump EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt sued the agency on several occasions in his previous capacity as attorney general of Oklahoma, on the premise that the Obama EPA overreached its powers, notably by failing to defer to states on the content of SIPs.
“The commitments in the MOA are an outgrowth of a year of 'concerted effort' between EPA and Texas to develop a SIP revision to address these requirements, including BART for EGUs. These discussions were redoubled in Spring 2017 and then began to yield fruit and ultimately culminated in the MOA. Allowing time for this process to be completed will promote federalism consistent with the [Clean Air Act] and should more effectively accomplish the goals of the regional haze program,” EPA says.
BART Controls
The Obama EPA in January proposed a FIP that would have imposed source-specific BART on Texas power plants, provoking criticism from Texas and industry groups that argued EPA was simply trying to apply tough controls on the same plants that it had attempted to impose by other means.
However, the Trump EPA indicates it will take a different path and not finalize that proposal. “While Congress did provide for the promulgation of FIPs, it is plain that FIPs are intended to be a back-stop, to be used only when the state in question is unwilling or unable to submit a SIP that can be approved.”
Here, Texas is willing to submit the required SIP, and EPA encourages it to do so using emissions trading as a BART alternative, saying it “has long supported many states’ efforts to rely on trading programs and other alternatives.”
EPA is currently awaiting a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on whether states can rely on the agency's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule emissions trading program as an alternative to source-specific BART, in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA. The case is fully briefed but has yet to go to oral argument. Environmental groups in general oppose emissions trading as a means to achieve haze reductions, as this can allow individual sources to avoid reducing emissions by instead buying emissions allowances instead.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epas-push-delay-texas-haze-plan-spurs-environmentalists-criticisms
-
Despite Vacatur, HFC Rule Backers Find Silver Lining in EPA Climate Finding
Aug 22, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Abby Smith
Despite an appellate court vacating Obama EPA limits on high global warming potential (GWP) hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants, supporters of the rules are claiming a smaller victory because the ruling upheld the agency's finding that substitute chemicals with a low GWP are friendlier to the environment.
The court's blessing of that finding could aid the agency if it tries again to limit HFCs, which are potent greenhouse gases, or promote climate-friendly alternatives in the future, sources say.
“Importantly, the decision upheld EPA's determination that these next-generation solutions present less adverse effects on human health and the environment than HFCs,” a spokesperson for the chemical company Honeywell, which intervened to support EPA's rule, tells Inside EPA.
The spokesperson adds: “The court also upheld the EPA's ability to make future replacements for ozone-depleting substances with [hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs)] or other [low-GWP] materials for environmental or human health reasons.”
However, those aspects of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's Aug. 8 ruling were overshadowed by its primary holding that the rule limiting HFCs' adverse climate impacts under the agency's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program used improper statutory authority.
In the ruling, the majority of the three-judge panel found EPA lacks authority under Clean Air Act section 612, which authorizes the SNAP program, to limit HFCs, because the section is intended only to reduce ozone-depleting substances (ODS). HFCs are generally not considered ODS. The 2015 rule vacated by the court was also the underpinning of a second SNAP rule further limiting HFCs, promulgated by the Obama EPA in 2016.
As a result, EPA will likely have to address similar legal flaws in its 2016 rule.
The D.C. Circuit's ruling also poses challenges to the United States adoption of an international deal struck last year that sets a global phasedown of HFCs. The so-called Kigali Amendment was crafted as an amendment to the Montreal Protocol, the 1987 treaty created to phase out ODS.
Much of the refrigeration and chemical industry, along with environmentalists, support the Kigali deal, and refrigeration industry sources caution that if the court's ruling stands, the Senate would not only have to ratify the global deal but the full Congress would also have to amend the Clean Air Act to give EPA authority to fully implement it.
But while the D.C. Circuit's decision in Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA turned on whether EPA has section 612 authority to regulate HFCs under the SNAP program, the three judges also unanimously rejected challenges from petitioners that EPA's underlying determination to remove HFCs from a list of acceptable alternatives was arbitrary and capricious.
Instead, the court upheld EPA's determination that other alternatives, including HFOs, are better for human health and the environment, based on a range of factors including GWP.
“The arbitrary and capricious standard requires that a rule be 'reasonable and reasonably explained.' . . . EPA must 'examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action.' . . . Applying that deferential standard, we reject all of Mexichem and Arkema's arbitrary and capricious challenges,” the court writes.
Silver Lining
Mexichem and Arkema, the petitioners in the case, had raised a number of issues with EPA's determination, including the agency's use of GWP, its comparison of substances' risks, its alleged failure to consider data on the overall amount of each substitute and its alleged failure to properly account for both energy efficiency and transition costs, among others. The court dismissed all such challenges, finding EPA's determination reasonable.
Industry and environmentalist intervenors likely will appeal the panel majority's holding that EPA lacks authority to regulate HFCs using the SNAP program. The Honeywell spokesperson says the company is “closely reviewing the decision” and is “likely to pursue an appeal.” The Natural Resources Defense Council, which also intervened to back the EPA rule, said in a statement shortly following the ruling it is “exploring all options for appeal.”
The Trump administration's position on the ruling, however, is largely unclear. The litigation was the first climate case to move to oral argument after President Donald Trump took office, and the Department of Justice defended the Obama EPA's position. But the administration has said little on the issue to indicate policy direction.
Supporters of the HFC regulations could face an uphill battle to overturn the panel's vacatur of the rule -- particularly if the Trump EPA were to decline to pursue an appeal.
Nonetheless, supporters of the rule see a silver lining in the portion of the ruling rejecting Mexichem and Arkema's arbitrary and capricious challenges. They say the unanimous decision on that front largely settles any issues with EPA's determination to remove HFCs from the list of acceptable alternatives under SNAP.
One environmentalist tells Inside EPA the court's rejection of the arbitrary and capricious challenges “legitimizes” the use of GWP as a basis for regulating HFCs, as well as backs the agency's broader framework for deciding lower-GWP alternatives are better for human health and the environment.
Mexichem and Arkema, for example, had charged EPA should not have relied as heavily on GWP to assess the environmental and public health impacts of HFCs and other alternatives, a claim the court rejected.
“But as EPA has explained, that is the tool preferred by leading scientists for analyzing the effects of greenhouse gases,” the court wrote, adding that EPA “reasonably relied” on GWP in its determination.
One industry attorney tells Inside EPA that the court's rejection of such challenges means EPA's determination “isn't in dispute.” That suggests any appeal of the case will focus predominantly on the question of EPA's statutory authority.
EPA's determination to remove HFCs from the acceptable alternatives list “won't be in dispute moving forward,” the source says, adding the panel's rejection of the arbitrary and capricious challenges “reaffirms the policy grounds that HFOs are the next wave and clearly are better for human health and the environment.”
Broadly, the environmentalist says it is “definitely a good sign” that petitioners' claims regarding EPA's determination “were all categorically rejected” -- though the source also notes such claims were “a bit more far-fetched,” and thus it is not surprising that the court dismissed them.
The rejection of the claims, nevertheless, is part of the broader tone of the majority's ruling, written by Judge Brett Kavanaugh. In the ruling, Kavanaugh and Judge Janice Rogers Brown outline several potential legal and regulatory avenues EPA could pursue to limit HFCs -- including using a different legal rationale to attempt to justify the substantially similar SNAP rules on remand, as well as crafting HFC limits under other air act sections.
“Although we understand and respect EPA's overarching effort to fill that legislative void [left by Congress' failure to address climate change] and regulate HFCs, EPA may only act as authorized by Congress,” Kavanaugh wrote. “Here, EPA has tried to jam a square peg (regulating non-ozone-depleting substances that may contribute to climate change) into a round hole (the existing statutory landscape).”
During his discussion of other potential options for regulating HFCs, Kavanaugh adds, “Our decision today does not in any way cabin those expansive EPA authorities.”
The majority is “saying [to EPA], 'What you did was not right. You're going towards what might be a worthy and proper goal but you need to take another approach,'” the environmentalist says. “I don't think that would have been the case had any of [petitioners' claims about EPA's determination] been found to be arbitrary and capricious.”
“It's basically the court saying the building blocks of this regulation were not erroneous, but the framework EPA used to promulgate [the rule] presented a problem in the majority opinion,” the environmentalist adds, though noting a personal belief that EPA's approach was legal and well-founded.
High Bar
Observers say, despite the plan to appeal the panel ruling, supporters of the HFC limits could face a high bar to persuade the full D.C. Circuit or the Supreme Court to reverse it.
But rule backers might face a more favorable court makeup if the full D.C. Circuit agrees to consider the case, given that Kavanaugh and Brown are two of the more conservative judges on the court and Brown retires at the end of the month.
Supporters of the rules would likely rely heavily on Judge Robert Wilkins' dissent, which sharply criticized the majority's interpretation of the limits of EPA's section 612 authority.
“The dissent took a more holistic view of section 612 . . . rather than just the narrow view of the term 'replacement'” taken by the majority, the industry attorney says. The source says Wilkins' dissent is also “more consistent with the overall purpose and structure of [section] 612.”
The environmentalist also praised Wilkins' dissent, calling it “just about as good as it could be.” The source cites as particularly strong Wilkins' rejection of the majority's holding that section 612's use of “replace” is fixed in time, allowing EPA to replace substances only once. The majority argued this meaning of replace is unambiguous in the statute, but Wilkins disagreed.
Wilkins' argument that EPA's interpretation of its replacement authority deserves Chevron deference from the court is “on the money,” the source says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/despite-vacatur-hfc-rule-backers-find-silver-lining-epa-climate-finding
-
California Can Prove a Clean Energy Economy Is a Strong Economy with SB 100
Aug 21, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Lauren Navarro |
The California State Assembly faces an enormous opportunity when they come back from summer recess today: to drive the state towards 100 percent clean energy by 2045.
It comes in the form of SB 100, a bill that would accelerate the state’s current Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirement from 50 percent to 60 percent by 2030 and set a statewide policy to get to 100 percent clean energy by 2045. In the wake of recent legislation to extend a cap and trade system for greenhouse gases, this effort will help us to reduce climate and air pollution from the electricity sector.
California is already ahead of schedule in reaching its goal of 50 percent renewables by 2030. In fact, according to the California Public Utilities Commission, utilities are already on contract for an average of 43 percent renewable energy by 2020 – a huge accomplishment worthy of applause.
The difficulty is that once these targets are met, we anticipate clean energy development and installation will slow, meaning fewer clean energy jobs and less investment in California. We need SB 100’s ambitious goal of 100 percent renewables to keep up economic growth.
Clean energy’s economic benefits
Right now, the RPS is responsible for the following economic benefits:
· Jobs: Solar employs over 100,000 people in the state and wind directly employs up to 4,000 people from development and installation. Solar alone added almost 25,000 jobs in California in 2016.
· More jobs: Once you include direct, indirect, and induced jobs, solar employs nearly 250,000 Californians. These jobs paid more than $16 billion in salaries, wages, and benefits and produced $47.9 billion in total economic activity for California in 2016.
· Investment: California is home to 12 wind manufacturing facilities with $12.5 billion in total capital investment.
· Local benefits: The RPS has created 29,000 direct jobs and $12 billion total economic activity in the Inland Empire and 31,000 direct jobs and $11.6 billion in total economic activity in the San Joaquin Valley.
It’s clear the RPS supports clean energy businesses, jobs, and investment in California. We don’t want this development to slow down, especially when clean energy technologies are already cost competitive with their fossil fuel counterparts and wind and solar costs are dropping dramatically, seemingly every day. What’s more, Californian’s bills are actually lower than those in most other states – meaning, although the price per unit of electricity may be higher, we pay less for electricity overall per month.
Using all our clean energy tools
At the same time, we need to think about how a variety of clean technologies will work together, especially at higher levels of renewables on the grid. This is why SB 100 includes two critical components:
1. It broadens the technologies that qualify as “renewables” to include “zero-carbon” resources – a larger array that includes more options like existing large hydropower.
2. It requires the state agencies in charge of implementation to report back to the legislature every two years on progress and potential issues.
In addition to these steps, it is important that the agencies and the legislature take into account other tools that complement renewables on the grid, while creating jobs and new business opportunities. For example, we should continue to promote demand response, large and small scale energy storage, and smart electric vehicle charging. The California Public Utilities Commission should ensure the utilities develop balanced portfolios of diverse clean technologies like these during their planning and resource procurement processes.
Finally, our electric grid operator needs to be able to more easily trade clean energy resources across the Western U.S. when we produce more power than we need. Creating a larger market will help ensure the extra electricity doesn’t go to waste and California benefits from it economically, while helping other states run on more renewable electricity.
As California’s Assembly members return to Sacramento this week and start the hard work of finishing out this legislative session, we urge them to take action on SB 100 to continue the state’s clean energy leadership. Aiming for 100 percent renewables will continue to show the nation and the world what a strong, clean economy looks like.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2017/08/21/california-can-prove-a-clean-energy-economy-is-a-strong-economy-with-sb-100/
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested