Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 24/10/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Menendez Asks IG to Investigate Chemicals Office
Oct 24, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
Sen. Bob Menendez today asked U.S. EPA's inspector general to look into whether the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention is failing to protect public health. -
(ACC Mentioned) US September chemical production fell 1.4% on Hurricane Harvey - ACC
Oct 24, 2017 | ICIS
By Stefan Baumgarten
US chemical production fell by 1.4% in September from August on the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) US Chemical Production Regional Index (CPRI) because of Hurricane Harvey, the US chemical industry trade group said on Tuesday. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Press Office Tips Toward Hostility Under Pruitt
Oct 24, 2017 | Inside Climate News
By Georgina Gustin
As The New York Times readied a story on the Environmental Protection Agency for last weekend's front page, an agency spokeswoman ignored the reporter's questions and accused him of writing "elitist clickbait." -
(ACC Mentioned) NFI's Connelly: Seafood Industry Should've Seen Trump Trade Storm Coming
Oct 24, 2017 | Undercurrent News
By Jason Huffman
Nobody should be surprised by the tough stance President Donald Trump has taken in relation to trade, John Connelly, president of the National Fisheries Institute (NFI), said Monday. -
Dourson's Job Breaks Precedent, Raises Legal Questions
Oct 24, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey and Corbin Hiar
U.S. EPA is defending the hiring of Michael Dourson, the industry-tied toxicologist picked by President Trump to lead the agency's chemical safety program, as common practice for top nominees awaiting Senate confirmation. -
Uproar Over EPA's Plan to Ban Its Grantees From Science Committees
Oct 24, 2017 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
A forthcoming US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) directive that will ban scientists from serving on any of its scientific advisory committees if their research is funded by the agency could mean a decline in evidence led regulations, the academic research community is warning. Scientists have called the move ridiculous, adding that it is precisely because these scientists are working on EPA funded research that they are best placed to advise on regulatory issues. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry Takeover of EPA Toxics Office: NYT Report
Oct 24, 2017 | Natural Resources Defense Fund
By Daniel Rosenberg
EPA oversight and regulation of toxic chemicals has slackened since Nancy Beck, a recent chemical industry executive, took charge, and the New York Times has amassed alarming evidence of this in a story by Eric Lipton. -
Despite Worldwide Usage Decline, Asbestos Still Poses a Threat
Oct 24, 2017 | The Ecologist
By Charles Macgregor
The U.S. imported approximately 340 metric tons of raw asbestos into the country last year, according to the United States Geological Survey’s most recent report on asbestos. -
P&G, SC Johnson Back California Chemical Labeling Law
Oct 24, 2017 | Green Biz
By Anya Khalamayzer
In mid-October, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act, authored by Democratic Sen. Ricardo Lara. The law makes California the first state to require companies to disclose the chemicals present in both commercial and householder cleaning products through both packaging labels and online declarations, joining New York as one of just two states that regulate chemicals disclosure. -
Suit Seeks Damages After Bad Joists Contaminate 2,500 Homes
Oct 24, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
About 2,500 homes across the country have been inadvertently built with floor joists leaking formaldehyde, a carcinogen that can cause a variety of health problems. -
REACH 'Passport to Global Marketplace', CIA Head Tells Brexit Committee
Oct 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
REACH is "setting the bar" in terms of global standards and is "the passport to the global marketplace", the head of the Chemical Industries Association (CIA) has told a UK parliamentary inquiry. -
Echa Publishes Draft 2018-20 Corap List
Oct 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has drafted a list of 107 substances to be evaluated under the Community Rolling Action Plan (Corap) for the period 2018-20. -
Trump's 'Energy Independence' Order: Where Do Things Stand?
Oct 24, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer and Pamela King
Nine months into his presidency, Trump and his team have tossed reams of environmental standards in the trash, working to fulfill a promise to lighten the energy industry's regulatory burdens. -
EPA Poised to Issue New Measures Delaying Methane Rules
Oct 24, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA appears poised to soon issue new measures delaying the Obama administration's rules governing methane releases from new oil and gas drilling equipment after a federal appellate court earlier this year vacated an administrative stay that Administrator Scott Pruitt issued to stave off the requirements. -
In the Eagle Ford, a Battle Between Mining and Gas
Oct 24, 2017 | E&E Energywire
.A South Texas family's ranch is playing host to a legal battle that pits coal mining against the operators of a shale gas pipeline network. -
Law Firm in Flint Water Cases Suing Over Tainted NC River
Oct 24, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
A law firm fighting lawsuits for Flint, Michigan, residents over lead-tainted drinking water is filing the latest class-action case blaming a North Carolina chemical plant for releasing little-understood compounds into the water supply for hundreds of thousands of people. -
Burning Warehouse Has Long History of Enviro Violations
Oct 24, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
A massive industrial fire has been burning at a warehouse in Parkersburg, W.Va., since Saturday. -
Congressional Auditor Urges Action to Address Climate Change
Oct 24, 2017 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
Fires, floods and hurricanes are already costing the federal government tens of billions of dollars a year and climate change will drive those costs ever higher in coming years, a new federal study warns.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Menendez Asks IG to Investigate Chemicals Office
Oct 24, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
Sen. Bob Menendez today asked U.S. EPA's inspector general to look into whether the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention is failing to protect public health.
The New Jersey Democrat's request follows a New York Times investigation of the office and former chemical trade industry executive Nancy Beck, who is its deputy assistant administrator.
The investigation raised questions about revisions to two key chemical safety regulations and Beck's role in pushing those changes (E&E News PM, Oct. 23).
Menendez urged EPA's internal watchdog to investigate "the suppression of science relating to the public health impacts of toxic and dangerous chemicals" and "deference to industry requests, rather than scientific and technical analysis, in the context of the agency's rulemaking process."
The senator also raised concerns about the use of "administratively determined" hires. That designation allowed Beck to leave the American Chemistry Council and immediately begin working on issues she has previously been involved with at the trade group (Greenwire, Aug. 8).
Menendez wants investigators to determine the extent to which these hiring practices "are used to circumvent EPA's ethics or conflict of interest standards."
"The public has the right to know whether EPA employees are working on their behalf, or on behalf of the industries the agency purports to regulate," Menendez concluded.
New Jersey is home to many current and former manufacturing facilities where chemicals were produced or used. As a result, the densely populated state has been disproportionately affected by waste generated from those activities (Greenwire, Sept. 5).
EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman told the Times: "No matter how much information we give you, you would never write a fair piece. The only thing inappropriate and biased is your continued fixation on writing elitist clickbait trying to attack qualified professionals committed to serving their country."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/10/24/stories/1060064489
-
(ACC Mentioned) US September chemical production fell 1.4% on Hurricane Harvey - ACC
Oct 24, 2017 | ICIS
By Stefan Baumgarten
US chemical production fell by 1.4% in September from August on the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) US Chemical Production Regional Index (CPRI) because of Hurricane Harvey, the US chemical industry trade group said on Tuesday.
Harvey made landfall on 25 August over eastern Texas, knocking out chemical plants and refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast and impacting the wider North American chemicals industry.
"The steep decline in September reflected severe, but temporary, disruptions from Hurricane Harvey," ACC said.
During September, output declined in all regions except the west coast, which posted flat growth. For the US Gulf Coast, the index was down 4.5% from August.
September’s decline in the CPRI came after a 0.2% decline in August and 1.0% increase in July.
Compared with September 2016, the index was up 1.2% year on year.
For the three months from July to September, US chemical production was "mixed", ACC said.
Gains in the three-month moving average output trend of consumer products, pharmaceuticals, coatings, other specialty chemicals, industrial gases, fertilizers and pesticides were offset by declines in the output trend in organic chemicals, plastic resins, manufactured fibres, chlor-alkali, other organic chemicals, adhesives and synthetic rubber, the group said.
As nearly all manufactured goods are produced using chemistry in some form or another, manufacturing activity is an important indicator for chemical production, ACC said.
On a three-month-moving average basis, manufacturing activity edged lower by 0.1% in September, following a similar decline in August.
Production expanded in several chemistry-intensive manufacturing industries, including food and beverages, aerospace, construction supplies, fabricated metal products, computers and electronics, semiconductors, plastic and rubber products, as well as structural panels, the group added.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2017/10/24/10156892/us-september-chemical-production-fell-1-4-on-hurricane-harvey-acc/
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Press Office Tips Toward Hostility Under Pruitt
Oct 24, 2017 | Inside Climate News
By Georgina Gustin
As The New York Times readied a story on the Environmental Protection Agency for last weekend's front page, an agency spokeswoman ignored the reporter's questions and accused him of writing "elitist clickbait."
The jab, in an email that the newspaper quoted in its story, was just the latest in a series of attempts by the agency's press office to thwart reporters or attack their work—a strategy it appears to have adopted from Donald Trump's White House.
The approach is a "sharp departure" from past practice, said Dan Fiorino, who worked for the agency for more than 30 years and is now director of the Center for Environmental Policy at American University.
"It's trying to manipulate journalists and favor those who say the right things," Fiorino said. "Now, what we're seeing from EPA is pretty much what we're seeing from the administration. The press people are there to sell a very particular point of view. They'll limit access."
Regardless of whether the president was a Republican or a Democrat, or whether his regulatory agenda was friendly to environmentalists or to business interests, the agency's press office generally tried to appear neutral.
When the EPA was still relatively young, its administrator—William Ruckelshaus, who was on a mission to rescue the agency from its own missteps—issued what's become known as the "fishbowl memo."
The 1983 Reagan-era memo said the agency, long in the crosshairs of conservatives and regulated industries, would operate with as much transparency as it could to steer clear of controversy: "EPA will not accord privileged status to any special interest group, nor will it accept any recommendation without careful examination."
At the frontline of that effort was the agency's press office. But today, former employees say, that press office handles an agency that's less like a fishbowl than a dark-windowed SUV.Attempts to Stem Information Flow
The agency's brass-knuckle style comes at a time when it is under intense scrutiny for changing environmental and climate regulations in ways that favor coal and other fossil fuels. Among other things, it is swamped with demands for access to internal communications and other records.
From its first days in office, the Trump administration has tried to stem the flow of information from the agency to the public. The blockades began right away in January, with reports that EPA employees were being told to stop talking to the press. Reporters have been barred from events, and the agency has attacked journalists through press releases, while at the same time using press releases to promote its administrator.
"If you care at all about how the public views your work, you would try to communicate with the reporters, who are largely in charge of disseminating the information," said Monica Lee, a former spokesperson during the Obama administration. "Instead, this press office relies on [EPA Administrator Scott] Pruitt's comments, made to a very specific audience or to very friendly reporters."
This press office's efforts accompany a broader attempt at tamping down the work of climate scientists at the agency and stripping mentions of their work and of climate change from EPA websites. Earlier this year, the agency dismissed members of its Board of Science Counselors, and last week Pruitt said he would issue a directive to bar scientists who received EPA grants from serving on EPA advisory boards because he believed the grants represent conflicts of interest.Personal Attacks on Reporters
The latest in a string of controversies came this weekend when The Times ran a front-page story chronicling efforts by a top-level EPA appointee to downplay the risks of toxic chemicals. Before taking the job in May, the appointee, Nancy Beck, had been an executive for five years at the American Chemistry Council, which provides policy, communications and research for major chemical companies, including Arkema, DuPont and Monsanto.
Times reporter Eric Lipton asked the EPA and Beck for responses to a list of questions. EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman—who also worked at the American Chemistry Council, as director of issue and advocacy communications, before joining Pruitt's EPA—replied in an email: "No matter how much information we give you, you would never write a fair piece. The only thing inappropriate and biased is your continued fixation on writing elitist clickbait trying to attack qualified professionals committed to serving their country."
The response has shocked former press officers.
"Blatantly attacking reporters and giving responses that are incredibly critical personally—it may help your base and it may fire them up, but it in no way serves the broader American people," said Liz Purchia, who ran the press office under Obama.
A month earlier, the agency tore into an Associated Press reporter, Michael Biesecker, for a story he and a colleague wrote about Superfund sites being under water in Texas after Hurricane Harvey. Biesecker, the agency said in an official press release, "has a history of not letting the facts get in the way of his story." The story, written by reporters who visited the sites after the hurricane, was correct, and the EPA later acknowledged damage there.
The press office under Obama hewed to standards outlined in its scientific integrity policy, which refers to the "fishbowl memo," which has essentially guided conduct since its release 34 years ago.
"That is the ethos," Fiorini said.What's Required by Law?
By law, the EPA is required to have an Office of Public Affairs, which is "responsible for providing newsworthy information to the various communications media." Beyond that, an administration can release information how it wants, although it has to respond to requests for information by Congress or under the Freedom of Information Act.
"I'm not aware of any legal issues," Fiorini said, referring to the current press office. "But certainly, ethically and in terms of what you'd expect in a democracy, there are some real problems. This is a real sharp departure from what we've seen in the past."
The Obama administration's EPA press office got a rap on the knuckles from the Government Accountability Office in 2015 for a social media campaignto drum up support for a Clean Water Act rule. It was accused of violating propaganda and anti-lobbying rules.
"Historically, the press office at EPA, the public information people, get the information out there, and to some degree you want to put the administration, the people making decisions, in a good light," Fiorini said. "This administration is trying to create reality in a way that fits its view. That's really scary."
The EPA did not respond to questions for this story.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/24102017/trump-pruitt-epa-press-office-attacked-reporter-lipton-ap-harvey
-
(ACC Mentioned) NFI's Connelly: Seafood Industry Should've Seen Trump Trade Storm Coming
Oct 24, 2017 | Undercurrent News
By Jason Huffman
Nobody should be surprised by the tough stance President Donald Trump has taken in relation to trade, John Connelly, president of the National Fisheries Institute (NFI), said Monday.
“There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind about the attitude of president Trump … or his leaders that he has put into positions of authority,” Connelly told a large crowd at the Marine Ingredients Organization’s (IFFO’s) 57th annual conference, in Washington, DC. “President Trump campaigned on a very strong promise of promoting domestic production, domestic manufacturing, domestic coal, things like that, so the fact that he’s taking these steps should not be a surprise.”
Introduced as the speaker who best represents the local flavor of this year’s IFFO conference host city, Connelly clarified to the crowd that he was a lobbyist. His group is described as representing the US seafood industry, though given the high amount of seafood imported into the country, roughly 85% of it, its members include a fair number of companies with foreign interests.
Trump roiled much of the US agriculture industry when he withdrew the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership almost immediately after taking office, ending what had already been a tortured effort to get Congress’ approval of the 12-nation trade deal that the Barack Obama administration took seven years to negotiate. He has now set his sights on the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The US seafood industry got dinged, too, by the withdraw from TPP. It meant giving up an opportunity to reduce tariffs of 3% to 11% on Alaskan seafood exported to Asian countries, while also further opening the door for the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a competing trade deal involving China, India, Japan, South Korea and Australia among other Asian countries.
RCEP is seen as potentially facilitating the movement of Indian and Vietnamese shrimp to China, while stimulating some movement of further processing of seafood from China to Vietnam.
Meanwhile, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has acknowledged having an "unusual fixation" with the US seafood trade deficit, and many of the individuals named to operate many of the US agencies that are important to trade come with backgrounds in trade enforcement, Connelly said.
“Frankly, we wish he would concentrate more on exports in order to rebalance trade,” he said.
NFI, in particular, takes issue with the administration’s advancement of the Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP), a rule that takes effect in January and will require seafood companies to provide information detailing the kind of fish they’re importing into the US as well as where and how it was caught or farmed.
The federal government will start with a focus on 12 or 13 fish, Connelly said Monday, adding that “there is some push to include shrimp” in the program by January 2019.
“It’s going to be a very costly regulating program,” he said.
A federal judge, in August, threw out an effort by NFI, Trident Seafoods, Pacific Seafood Group, Fortune Fish & Gourmet and others to challenge the new SIMP regulation, which NFI has argued will cost the seafood industry $53 million in recordkeeping expenses while reducing seafood choices for the average American family.
Not the biggest protein source, but big enough
Connelly, who took the helm at NFI in early 2003 after 13 years at the American Chemistry Council and five years in the US Navy, spent a good bit of his presentation on Monday extolling the importance of the US as a buyer of seafood.
It's true that the US consumer ate only 15 lbs of fish per capita in 2016, with seafood accounting for only about 15% of the dollars spent on protein, according to a combination of federal data, Connelly conceded. By comparison, US consumers ate 64 lbs of poultry, 52 lbs of beef and 46 lbs of pork last year.
“But in a country with 325m people that means we have a fairly sizable market,” he said. “…We spend about $100 billion on seafood items. Even if that’s only 15 lbs per person, that’s still a lot of seafood sold in this country.”
The US is importing 40% of Chile’s farmed salmon, for example, he noted. It takes one in every five pounds of Chinese tilapia, he said.
Because so much of the seafood imported by the US is farmed, it’s “very important to have your governments communicate the steps they are taking to make sure they are [maintaining strong sustainability measures],” Connelly told the attendees reported to be from 15 foreign countries in the room.
Could tilapia, shrimp follow pangasius to USDA?
Another regulatory matter Connelly focused on Monday was labor issues. He noted how US Customs and Border Protection has asked companies to identify practices at Tier 4 and explained how that is a reference to workers at the very beginning of a product’s creation, such as fishing companies.
“Well, folks you are the Tier 4 suppliers,” he told attendees at the IFFO conference.
He also warned against becoming complacent with new requirements that moved the inspection of pangasius from the Food and Drug Administration’s jurisdiction to the US Department of Agriculture. Unlike FDA, the USDA requires other countries to maintain standards that are equivalent to the US, which NFI suggests is a non-tariff barrier against Vietnam and other major sources of pangasius .
It may not stop with pangasius, he said.
“Tilapia is a natural extension of this program,” Connelly said in his presentation.
Later, he added, “It sure would be a shame to have anyone expand the USDA supervision to shrimp.”
Tilapia is already facing “significant headwind” in the US due in large part to a rash of negative attention being received via social media, Connelly said, pointing to statistics that show it losing sales in the US in 2017.
https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2017/10/24/nfis-connelly-seafood-industry-shouldve-seen-trump-trade-storm-coming/#comments
-
Dourson's Job Breaks Precedent, Raises Legal Questions
Oct 24, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey and Corbin Hiar
U.S. EPA is defending the hiring of Michael Dourson, the industry-tied toxicologist picked by President Trump to lead the agency's chemical safety program, as common practice for top nominees awaiting Senate confirmation.
To bolster its claim, EPA sent reporters information last week on eight Obama-era EPA nominees who worked in advisory roles prior to getting a nod from the Senate (E&E Daily, Oct. 19).
But an E&E News analysis of that list and Trump EPA nominees serving as advisers shows Dourson is the only pick who wasn't already working at the agency or hadn't cleared the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The committee has scheduled a vote on Dourson for tomorrow morning.
Obama-era officials rejected the comparison to Dourson and questioned whether the Trump EPA's practices are legal in light of a March 21 Supreme Court decision that found the Federal Vacancies Reform Act bars a president from appointing a person who's been nominated for a Senate-confirmed post to serve on a temporary basis in the same role (Greenwire, March 21).
"The key difference that I see is that there is now a U.S. Supreme Court decision, right on all fours, making this practice much more questionable than it had been for a number of years before the Obama administration came in," said Karl Brooks, a Harvard Law School grad who spent six years at the Obama EPA. "I think the law was relatively unsettled then. It appears to not be unsettled now."
In their 6-2 opinion, the justices ruled the 1998 law bars nominated officials from serving in an acting position except when a person is nominated by the president for reappointment to another term in the same office.
EPA insists Dourson isn't crossing any ethical lines.
Dourson, like all EPA employees, received ethics briefings and "will continue to follow the guidelines set forth by EPAs ethics office with regard to recusals," spokesman Jahan Wilcox said in an email. He "is not 'performing the duties' of the [assistant administrator] for [the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention], which is what occurred in previous administrations."
Yet EPA declined to provide specifics on Dourson's role as a senior adviser to Administrator Scott Pruitt or how he may be interacting with Nancy Beck, the former chemical industry trade group executive who is currently serving as the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention's deputy assistant administrator.
Beck was the focus this week of a New York Times investigation examining her attempts to revise chemical safety standards. The news story prompted Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) to ask EPA's inspector general today to look into "the suppression of science relating to the public health impacts of toxic and dangerous chemicals" (see related story).
Norman Ornstein, a political scientist at the American Enterprise Institute, said EPA's handling of the chemicals office comes on top of questions about Pruitt's use of taxpayer dollars for chartered flights and soundproofing equipment for his office and reports about the agency barring its scientists from speaking about climate change.
"If this were being done in a different department, with a different Cabinet or Cabinet-level member, you might not look at it in quite the same way," Ornstein said. "There's smoke arising out of every corner of that building now."'Not appropriate'
Even if EPA's hiring of Dourson is legal, his adviser post appears to be a departure from the recent precedent the Trump administration used to justify its action.
An instructive example: Janet McCabe, who served as acting assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Air and Radiation under President Obama after years of serving as the office's deputy.
McCabe, who is now a senior fellow at the Environmental Law and Policy Center, noted she held that deputy assistant administrator position for more than four years before the president nominated her to the Senate-confirmable position of assistant administrator for air. Dourson, on the other hand, was working as an environmental health professor at the University of Cincinnati when the Trump administration asked him to join the agency as an adviser to Pruitt.
"It's not appropriate to compare my situation to Dourson's," she said. "They're not comparable."
Four others on EPA's list — Brooks, Stan Meiburg, Ann Dunkin and Jane Nishida — fit the same mold.
Meiburg began his career at EPA in the 1970s before retiring in May 2014, a decision that didn't last long.
Four months later, he was asked to return as a senior adviser, or "re-employed annuitant," when Obama designated him to serve as acting deputy administrator and submitted Meiburg's name to the Senate for confirmation.
Meiburg would never receive a confirmation hearing before the Republican-controlled Senate EPW panel. While he heard "paperwork" was an issue, Meiburg said no appointees were being confirmed at the end of the Obama administration and chalked it up to the environment committee's "general lack of interest" in scheduling and confirming the president's picks.
Meiburg continued to serve in the agency's second-highest post with the EPA general counsel's blessing. Years later, the authority Obama used for Meiburg's appointment was called into question in the Supreme Court case, but Meiburg said, "That wasn't true during the time I was in office."
The general counsel's office, he said, was careful to ensure he had the appropriate delegated authority. And as a longtime staffer at EPA, Meiburg said, he had no conflicts of interest to speak of.
Now the director of graduate programs in sustainability at Wake Forest University, Meiburg said his situation wasn't similar to Dourson's but declined to comment further.
He said, "It's in the public interest that appointees have a prompt hearing and a vote up or down."Out of committee
Unlike four Obama nominees on EPA's list — and even one of Trump's own picks for EPA — Dourson hasn't cleared the Senate environment committee.
That stands in contrast to Susan Bodine, Trump's choice for enforcement chief, whom Pruitt brought on as his special counsel on enforcement on Sept. 5 — nearly two months after the Senate panel had sent her nomination to the floor (Greenwire, July 12).
Dourson was hired days before his nomination was initially set for a vote. The committee delayed action at the last minute in part due to concerns about wavering Republican support for another EPA nominee on the docket, Bill Wehrum, the choice for air chief (E&E Daily, Oct. 23).
Obama-era officials on EPA's list — including Bob Perciasepe, Thomas Burke and Ken Kopocis — had also maneuvered the Senate committee.
Perciasepe, who declined to comment for this story, became an adviser at EPA in September 2009, about two months after his nomination to serve as the agency's No. 2 received EPW's endorsement.
Burke joined EPA as an adviser in January 2015, a year after the committee signed off on his nomination to serve as EPA's assistant administrator for research and development.
Fitting a similar mold is Kopocis, who worked 25 years on Capitol Hill as an attorney for a congressional committee before Obama nominated him to oversee EPA's water office in June 2011. Kopocis received a bipartisan stamp of approval from the Senate panel before joining the agency as an adviser.
Kopocis said he moved to EPA ahead of time — with the expectation he'd be confirmed by the year's end — to learn about his new role. Little did he know he'd wait four years and be nominated three more times without ever being confirmed, working first as an adviser and then as a political appointee at EPA through 2015.
"I joke I hold the Guinness Book of World Records [title] for futility," Kopocis said.
Kopocis hasn't forgotten the awkward and constricted position he was in as an adviser with no decisionmaking authority, unable to work on policy related to the job for which he was nominated. He remembers signing ethics agreements and carefully maneuvering the lines of what was appropriate for an adviser and nominee-in-waiting.
When asked whether his situation bore any resemblance to Dourson's, Kopocis disagreed.
"I tend to think of that as unusual," he said. "I would have been reported out of committee, I would have been pending on the Senate calendar before I went to the agency."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/10/24/stories/1060064495
-
Uproar Over EPA's Plan to Ban Its Grantees From Science Committees
Oct 24, 2017 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
A forthcoming US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) directive that will ban scientists from serving on any of its scientific advisory committees if their research is funded by the agency could mean a decline in evidence led regulations, the academic research community is warning. Scientists have called the move ridiculous, adding that it is precisely because these scientists are working on EPA funded research that they are best placed to advise on regulatory issues.
The controversy began on 17 October, when EPA head Scott Pruitt announced the new policy during a speech before the conservative Heritage Foundation thinktank in Washington DC. He called out the agency’s clean air scientific advisory committee as well as its science advisory board and board of scientific counselors (Bosc), saying that the scientists sitting on these panels have collected ‘substantial monies’ through EPA grants. ‘If we have individuals on those boards receiving money from the agency […] to the tune of tens of millions of dollars over time, that to me causes question on the independence and the veracity and the transparency of those recommendations that are coming our way,’ Pruitt said. He argued that it is crucial for the EPA to have scientific advisers who are ‘objective, independent-minded and provide transparent recommendations’.
Members of the review panels in question, as well as science advocates and environmental groups, balked at Pruitt’s announcement. ‘This is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to try to exclude sound scientific expertise from these advisory committees, and is consistent with efforts to pack these committees with non-science-based interests,’ says Mark Wiesner, a Duke University civil and environmental engineer who sits on the Bosc.
Earlier this year, the Trump administration’s decided not to renew the membership of half the scientists serving on the Bosc. At the time that decision was made, Pruitt argued that the committee should be filled with people who understand the impact of regulations on the regulated community.
Academics who have served on the EPA advisory committees told Chemistry World that it was hypocritical for the Trump administration to have pushed for more industry representation, but now argue that university researchers supported by government funding have unacceptable conflicts of interest.
Joel Rodricks, an expert in toxicology and risk analysis and a founding member of the environmental and health consulting firm Ramboll Environ, argues that excluding people who are funded by the EPA doesn’t make sense. ‘Those are the people who understand the science and are best able to judge the research,’ says Rodricks, who served on the Bosc until he was dismissed earlier this year. ‘My term was not even up, and I was told indirectly that I would not continue.’ Rodricks has reapplied to sit on the panel, and says he doesn’t know if he’ll be asked to serve again. ‘As far as I know, the entire Bosc no longer exists,’ he adds. He says the EPA never provided a complete explanation about why it essentially terminated all of those members and cancelled future meetings. The panel hasn’t met for about a year, according to Wiesner.
Similar sentiments are expressed by Wayne State University pharmacology professor Lawrence Lash, who is a member of an EPA chemical assessment committee. ‘Absolutely makes no sense whatsoever,’ he said in an emailed statement. ‘Pruitt would not know a conflict of interest if it slapped him in the face,’ he adds. ‘Having grant money from the EPA has absolutely nothing to do with advising the EPA on the underlying science.’
Lash adds that it’s simply not true that most scientists who serve on the scientific advisory boards receive at least some EPA grant support for their research. He himself last received EPA funding for his work in 1999.
Lorenz Rhomberg, a principal with the environmental and risk sciences consulting firm Gradient, agrees. ‘If you take too hard a line on this – like if you get an EPA grant you are excluded in a blanket way – it invites a hard line push on the other end and makes it hard to argue that people from industry can be on these advisory panels,’ cautions Rhomberg, who has worked at the EPA for 10 years doing quantitative risk assessment.
‘This move by EPA is a direct blow to the scientific integrity that the Agency has always previously valued,’ says Deborah Swackhamer, an environmental chemist from the University of Minnesota who served as the chairwoman of Bosc. ‘To simply disqualify a whole bunch of excellent scientists is throwing the baby out with the bath water. It guarantees a less qualified set of advisers, and is a clear attempt by the administrator to remould these boards to his own liking, so that they will support his deregulation agenda rather than provide objective advice.’
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/uproar-over-epas-plan-to-ban-its-grantees-from-science-committees/3008162.article
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry Takeover of EPA Toxics Office: NYT Report
Oct 24, 2017 | Natural Resources Defense Fund
By Daniel Rosenberg
EPA oversight and regulation of toxic chemicals has slackened since Nancy Beck, a recent chemical industry executive, took charge, and the New York Times has amassed alarming evidence of this in a story by Eric Lipton. He contrasts the conflicting views and career paths of Dr. Beck, who has spent her career working for chemical companies, with those of a recently-retired and well-regarded EPA career staffer, Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, who has spent her career in public service. Their story is a microcosm of the broader story of how chemical, coal and oil companies have taken over EPA, and the serious negative impact for human health and the environment that we can expect as a result.
Here’s a look at what the Times report reveals:Beck and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt are imposing policies to benefit chemical manufacturers and muzzling dissent by EPA experts.
The Times reports that, as EPA program offices reviewed changes to two key rules EPA’s toxics office was finalizing—the “Framework” rules for implementing the revised Toxic Substances Control Act—they were instructed not to object to the changes. Objections would have slowed and potentially derailed the process for forcing through the changes. Instead, they were told to “concur” with the final rules and include their objections as “comments.” Multiple offices, including EPA’s offices of Water, Enforcement, and its General Counsel submitted concurrence memos, detailing objections to changes that made the final rules inconsistent with the recently revised law. Those changes would likely prevent EPA from accurately or adequately assessing chemicals of concern. The comments were then ignored and the rules were finalized in accordance with industry’s preferences.
The objections by the Program offices are akin to those NRDC and others have raised in legal challenges to the final rules which are pending in federal court. Those objections are important: they go to the fundamental question of whether potentially important sources of exposure to toxic chemicals like perfluorinated chemicals, toxic flame retardants, and asbestos will be accounted for when EPA evaluates chemicals to determine whether they pose an unreasonable risk. It would benefit the industry if those sources of exposure weren’t considered, but it could eliminate important health protections.EPA is making its decisions based upon the preferences of the chemical industry, not “sound science.”
The Times piece also delves into an early, highly controversial action by EPA—Scott Pruitt’s decision not to implement a proposed ban on food uses of the pesticide chlorpyrifos. The Times describes how EPA’s career attorneys and scientists were pressured to reverse course, and to provide Pruitt with an alternative to granting the NRDC and Pesticide Action Network (PAN) petition. Pruitt’s Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson, according to notes of a conversation, said he did not want to be “forced into a box” by the NRDC/PAN petition. EPAs response to our petition was political—not based on science or law. EPA’s political priority was to please chemical manufacturers.
Chlorpyrifos is very toxic to children’s brain development, according to numerous studies. Exposure can increase the risk of learning disabilities. Before Pruitt arrived, the EPA had concluded that using chlorpyrifos in farming was risky to public health in two of its assessments. Last November, EPA found it was so toxic that there was no way to use chlorpyrifos safely. Its use results in exposures in our food and drinking water. It drifts into homes and schools in rural communities. And it poisons farmworkers in fields and people in surrounding areas. But it’s manufactured by Dow Chemical, and Dow has much better access to Scott Pruitt, and President Trump, than farmworkers and children in rural communities.EPA Toxics Appointee Michael Dourson has a record of downplaying health threats posed by chemicals.
This Senate is set to vote this week on the nomination of Michael Dourson to lead EPA’s Toxics Office as the Assistant Administrator. Nancy Beck is currently leading as Deputy Assistant Administrator, a position that did not require Senate confirmation. Dr. Dourson has a deeply troubling professional history. In working for the chemical industry, he produced evaluations of chemicals—including chlorpyrifos—that downplay their health risks. The Intercept recently reported on an industry-funded paper he wrote, arguing children are in some cases less vulnerable to chemicals than adults. That’s the opposite of the long-standing scientific understanding, endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). In his Senate confirmation hearing, Dourson refused to give straightforward answers to basic questions. Senators asked if he would recuse himself from matters related to chemicals he had previously assessed on behalf of chemical manufacturers? Whatever the chemical—toxic flame retardants, PFCs, 1-4 dioxane, “pet coke”—Dr. Dourson read from a script and dodged the question, refusing to commit to recusal.
Confirming Dr. Dourson would place another mill stone around the neck of EPA’s Toxics Program. Under the direction of Dr. Beck and Scott Pruitt its sole mission is undermining TSCA and the pesticide laws to please and benefit chemical manufacturers. If Congress cares about the people and communities being poisoned by toxic chemicals, it should reject Dourson’s bid to join Beck and Pruitt in their campaign to remake EPA in the image of Dow and Exxon.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/daniel-rosenberg/chemical-industry-takeover-epa-toxics-office-nyt-report
-
Despite Worldwide Usage Decline, Asbestos Still Poses a Threat
Oct 24, 2017 | The Ecologist
By Charles Macgregor
The U.S. imported approximately 340 metric tons of raw asbestos into the country last year, according to the United States Geological Survey’s most recent report on asbestos.
This is a far cry from the more than 800,000 tons imported into the U.S. in 1973, prior to regulations brought on by the passage of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 1976. But it displays the lingering difficulty the country has in terms of fully separating itself from the carcinogenic mineral.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently evaluating the risk asbestos poses to public health. Although a final ruling isn’t expected for some time, it’s important to take note of the impact asbestos has on the country and the world at large.
Temperatures and friction
The World Health Organization has suggested that asbestos-related diseases like mesothelioma and asbestosis are attributed to about 107,000 deaths around the world each year.
Despite dozens of countries taking actions to ban asbestos use and increased knowledge related to the dangers the mineral poses to human health, global production is expected to remain steady at about 2 million metric tons each year in the near future.
Global reliance on asbestos has declined somewhat, but countries like Russia, Brazil and China still make up the majority of worldwide asbestos exporters today.
Asbestos once played an essential role in home and building construction in the U.S. and was once included in hundreds of products and materials used throughout the industry.
The durable mineral also found a home in the shipbuilding and automotive industries, particularly in products and materials that would be subjected to high temperatures and friction.
Bans on asbestos
However, since the mid-1970s when regulations were handed down by the EPA, new technologies and safer alternatives have come onto the market and have helped reduce reliance on the mineral.
In 1989, the EPA had issued a final ruling that would eventually phase out the mineral’s usage, but it was overturned two years later. The results of that failed ban have had several consequences.
Nearly 3,000 people in the U.S. will be diagnosed with mesothelioma this year, and that number is expected to hold steady through the end of the decade.
The lack of a decrease can largely be attributed to the mineral’s widespread usage decades ago, as the latency period for mesothelioma and asbestosis can range anywhere from 10-50 years.
In countries like Sweden and the Netherlands, where asbestos bans have been in place for decades already, mesothelioma rates have been on the decline.
However, in developing countries, low-cost and readily-available asbestos is likely to contribute to rising mesothelioma rates in those countries for some time. Even in countries that have recently enacted bans on asbestos use, rates will take time to decline as a result of exposure decades ago.
Reap the rewards
There are a number of suitable replacements for asbestos in every application the mineral is used in, including the U.S.’s chlor-alkali industry, which relies on asbestos for the creation of semi-permeable diaphragms.
While certain materials on the market do cost more than asbestos, the potential health benefits provided by these substitutes are considered much greater than their additional costs.
Among the options available on the market now are steel, glass and ceramic fibers, calcium silicate and even perlite or silica in other applications.
The U.S. has already missed one opportunity to ban asbestos use, and has the opportunity to capitalize on its previous mistakes.
While the U.S. continues to drag its feet, other countries, including the entirety of the European Union, have already taken action and will eventually reap the rewards.
Now is the time for the global community to finally take action against the dangers associated with continued asbestos use and exposure.
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2989383/despite_worldwide_usage_decline_asbestos_still_poses_a_threat.html
-
P&G, SC Johnson Back California Chemical Labeling Law
Oct 24, 2017 | Green Biz
By Anya Khalamayzer
In mid-October, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act, authored by Democratic Sen. Ricardo Lara. The law makes California the first state to require companies to disclose the chemicals present in both commercial and householder cleaning products through both packaging labels and online declarations, joining New York as one of just two states that regulate chemicals disclosure.
Several consumer products companies and chemicals manufacturers backed passage of the California bill, working with NGOs to advocate for mandatory disclosure of their chemical formulations.
Under the new regulation, also known as SB-258, companies selling products in California will be required to list their ingredients online by Jan. 1, 2020, and include that information as part of on-package disclosures by Jan. 1, 2021. The bill text states that product labels and websites for "air care" (such as fresheners), automotive products, colorants, floor polish and cleansing substances used in janitorial, domestic or institutional cleaning processes must list intentionally added ingredients, including phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA), and known fragrance allergens. The bill does not, however, require manufacturers to disclose the weight or amount of these ingredients, which is protected as confidential business information (CBI).Avoiding 'toxic lockout'
If companies don't comply, they can't sell their products in the state, leading to what Richard Liroff, executive director of the Investor Environmental Health Network, calls a "toxic lockout" — exclusion from the marketplace as its needs evolve in favor of protecting consumer health.
While no provision in the bill requires enforcement by a state agency, the California Attorney General has the authority to enforce the law. What's more, the public relations fallout for violating the law will motivate manufacturers to comply, said Janet Nudelman, director of program and policy for Breast Cancer Prevention Partners.
"Similar California laws banning the use of certain phthalates in children’s toys and the use of bisphenol A in baby bottles similarly did not include a specific enforcement provision; yet, subsequent analysis showed compliance with the law," she said.
Another effect of SB-258 is that it will move companies towards disclosing their ingredients nationally because most won't create special labels for products sold just in California, Liroff said.
Indeed, some notable members of the corporate sector were on board before the legislation was passed: The California law was backed by companies including SC Johnson, Seventh Generation, Procter & Gamble and the Honest Company, along with the world's largest flavor and fragrance house, Givaudan. Environmental health advocates and nonprofit organizations Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Women's Voices for the Earth co-sponsored the bill.
Through Givaudan, even the notoriously tight-lipped fragrance industry stood in favor of moving towards increased disclosure.
"While the new bill does impact the confidentiality of our art work, it is considered a balanced measure to enable disclosure, while protecting critical CBI," said Greg Adamson, senior vice president of global regulatory affairs, product safety and sustainability in Givaudan's fragrances group. He told GreenBiz that complying with the bill won't affect the company's supply chain.
Although efforts for chemicals disclosure laws have been "percolating for years," said Deb Fiddelke, senior director of government relations at SC Johnson, what made this finally work is the cooperation of NGOs and industry players. She said that negotiations began in April and a final agreement was reached in July.
"This is the first bill that is workable for consumers and the industry," Fiddelke said.
Consumer demand has been a major driver in getting companies behind transparency legislation, said Jamie McConnell, director of programs and policy for Women's Voices for the Earth.
"Companies saw the writing on the wall and knew it was the right thing to do," she said. "We've been seeing companies creating voluntary disclosure policies on their own … Legislation helps level the playing field."A good business formula
As consumer awareness grows, companies and suppliers that take the initiative to disclose chemicals and allergens proactively could have a leg up on competitors. And the measure is becoming more common. This year, the world's largest retailer Walmart signed on to the Chemicals Footprint Project, which sets guidelines for companies to disclose and manage chemical inventories. Its supporters comprise investors with more than $2.3 trillion in assets under management.
Also in 2017, consumer products giant Unilever vowed to voluntarily disclose fragrance ingredients included in its U.S. and European market products, and mammoth retailer Target announced a push to achieve full visibility of the ingredients in all products on its shelves by 2020.
The business benefits of safer chemicals might include reduced operating expenses because hazardous chemicals no longer require special handling and management, wrote Libby Bernick, global head of corporate business at Trucost, part of S&P Dow Jones Indices.
It also could mean greater revenues from new products: The North American market for green chemistry (the area of chemical engineering focused on minimizing the use of hazardous chemicals) is projected to grow from $3 billion in 2015 to over $20 billion by 2020, according to Pike Research.
SC Johnson, which was at SB-258's negotiating table as part of the Consumer Specialty Products Association — a century-old consumer products trade association — has been a leader in disclosing chemicals of concern. It launched its Greenlist process in 2001, which rates the ingredients it uses with the goal of choosing formulas that don't negatively affect environmental and human health.
Another supporter, Seventh Generation, has been offering ingredient labels on product packaging since 2008.
"It's clear that people demand more and more transparency of all things they're bringing to their homes and families," said Joey Bergstein, CEO of Seventh Generation. The legislation reflects this trend, he said, and was successful because industry players and NGOs were able to come together to identify the level of transparency that customers are demanding.
"I don't think anyone has to scramble," Bergstein said, because the law has a long implementation period. "There's no unnecessary extra cost, as companies have time to manage the label transition process."
He does advise manufacturers to make the changes as quickly as "reasonably possible," which will take engagement between marketing, supply chain and research and development teams, although each company's situation will be unique to the organization.
California's chemicals disclosure bill was one of 118 bills that Brown signed of the 977 bills that came across his desk during the legislation session earlier this month. Other environmental laws adopted by the state included a $4 billion parks and water bond (Senate Bill 5) that boosts water recycling, stormwater capture and conservation infrastructure; and AB-262 (the Buy Clean California Act), the world's first legislative effort to address imported carbon emissions.
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/pg-sc-johnson-back-california-chemical-labeling-law
-
Suit Seeks Damages After Bad Joists Contaminate 2,500 Homes
Oct 24, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
About 2,500 homes across the country have been inadvertently built with floor joists leaking formaldehyde, a carcinogen that can cause a variety of health problems.
Weyerhaeuser Co., a lumber supplier based in Seattle, messed up a batch of joists last year and coated them with a resin that emits the chemical. It didn't disclose the mistake until months later.
The company says it has addressed the problem for about 1,800 of the affected homeowners, but a New Jersey couple is leading a class-action lawsuit seeking compensation.
Lou and Lisa Andreozzi had expected to move into their new Scotch Plains home this month but were told the house wasn't safe to occupy.
"Our top priority is to take care of every homeowner and builder affected by this situation," company spokesman Andrew Siegel said. "We deeply regret the disruption and inconvenience this has caused, and we're working diligently to resolve the situation as quickly as possible for everyone involved."
Shanon Carson, the attorney bringing the class-action lawsuit, said the problem is that the company might not know how many homes were affected and what the risk is.
The suit says the "remediation and replacement options are insufficient," and it wants Weyerhaeuser to replace the bad joists and give up all the profits it made from them.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/10/24/stories/1060064447
-
REACH 'Passport to Global Marketplace', CIA Head Tells Brexit Committee
Oct 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
REACH is "setting the bar" in terms of global standards and is "the passport to the global marketplace", the head of the Chemical Industries Association (CIA) has told a UK parliamentary inquiry.
During an evidence session on 18 October with the Committee on Exiting the European Union, Steve Elliott said the "vast majority" of SMEs want to remain within, or as close as possible to, REACH.
There is "increasing recognition" that the Regulation is a world leader in terms of protection for human health and environment related to chemicals, he said. Many regimes around the world are trying to mimic it, he added, and "the general direction of travel is towards a REACH-like compliance regime."
Last month, Mr Elliott said the CIA wants to remain within the Regulation "warts and all". However, he told the inquiry that some companies with concerns over REACH costs, and those with commercial exposure outside of Europe, would like the UK "to consider the attractiveness of other regulatory regimes as and when they are important for their products".
The CIA is doing some research "to understand better those regimes". Yet where there are opportunities for potential future diversion, he said, the UK could not risk losing access to the single market, which accounts for 60% of UK chemical exports and 75% of its chemical imports.
China, Korea, Turkey, Russia and Taiwan are the markets "that matter most" as they have "tended to respond to the requirements of REACH". The "significant" markets that are more risk-based rather than hazard-based would be the US, Brazil, Canada and – to an extent – Japan.
It is about "finding the right tipping point or balance" between ensuring market access to Europe, while further down the line "looking at the opportunities within those regimes for something that responds more favourably" to the needs of some UK SMEs.
At a recent Brexit conference organised by Chemical Watch, trade body techUK and NGO CHEM Trust said that businesses need to speak up for a better Brexit.Transition period
Industry has been very clear, Mr Elliott said, about the need for a transition period following the exit in March 2019. One less than two years would not enable industry "to do what might be necessary", he added, "but what might be necessary is still not clear".
"God forbid we end up duplicating every existing structure that we currently respond to in Europe," he said. To secure an arrangement that "moves closer to potential mutual recognition and a better understanding" would require the EU27 to cooperate – "so two years is a minimum".
The CIA is currently working with government departments to see how long it would need, "working back from a no-deal scenario". This involves the government department and a potential chemicals agency in the UK as well, Mr Elliott added.UK influence
Even before the UK’s exit, Mr Elliott said, there has been a "diluting of UK officials’ ability to influence" ongoing European dossier development. This is "disappointing" for industry, he added, because UK officials and regulators at the European level "are very much focused" on risk-based, pragmatic, practical outcomes. This is something Mr Elliott said he does not necessarily see among many of the EU27. "That is a concern going ahead, in terms of who might take the place of the UK."
It also links to how closely the UK can stay within or mirror REACH, he said, because there are "lots of supporting structures that will have an influence" on how it is able to produce and market its chemicals.
"I would like us as a UK authority to stay close to that influencing role, even if that might not mean having a vote as well. For industry, he added, implementation and enforcement are key."
https://chemicalwatch.com/60474/reach-passport-to-global-marketplace-cia-head-tells-brexit-committee
-
Echa Publishes Draft 2018-20 Corap List
Oct 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has drafted a list of 107 substances to be evaluated under the Community Rolling Action Plan (Corap) for the period 2018-20.
Ninety-one of these were on the adopted list covering 2017-19, which was released in October last year.
Of the 16 newly added substances, seven are potential endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). Many chemicals on the draft Corap list have more than one concern, such as carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR) and persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) properties.
The EDCs with the member state reviewing them and the planned year are:
· tetraphenyl mphenylene bis(phosphate) – France, 2019, also a suspected reprotoxic (R), PBT and very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) substance;
· triclocarban – France, 2020;
· benzyl salicylate – Germany, 2020;
· 2-ethylhexyl salicylate – Germany, 2020;
· acetic acid, oxo-, sodium salt, reaction products with ethylenediamine and phenol, iron sodium salts – Sweden, also a potential R and sensitiser;
· EDDHMAFEK – Sweden, 2020, also a potential R and sensitiser; and
· reaction product of phenol, formaldehyde, ethylenediamine diacetic acid, iron chloride and potassium hydroxide – Sweden, 2020, also a potential R and sensitiser.
Earlier this month, the European Parliament vetoed the European Commission's proposal for criteria to identify EDCs in biocides and pesticides and asked it to come up with a new proposal "without delay".
Of the new candidates, half have suspected PBT qualities. Overall, Belgium and Spain will each review one new substance during the period, Germany and Italy three, while France and Sweden will evaluate four respectively.
A total of 26 substances are expected to be evaluated in 2018; 37 in 2019; and 44 in 2020.
This year, the groups of structurally similar substances that potentially could be evaluated together are also marked in the plan, Echa says.
The draft plan has been submitted to the member state competent authorities and the Echa Member State Committee, which is expected to give its opinion in February 2018. The agency anticipates adoption of the final Corap update for 2018-2020 by the end of March next year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60486/echa-publishes-draft-2018-20-corap-list
-
Trump's 'Energy Independence' Order: Where Do Things Stand?
Oct 24, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer and Pamela King
President Trump's deregulatory agenda has been relentless.
Nine months into his presidency, Trump and his team have tossed reams of environmental standards in the trash, working to fulfill a promise to lighten the energy industry's regulatory burdens.
Many industry players have argued that President Obama and his Cabinet enlarged the administrative state by crafting layers and layers of new regulations, including fresh requirements for oil and gas development, power plant emissions and coal leasing.
The current administration has moved aggressively in the other direction, most notably with a March 28 "energy independence" executive order. In it, Trump plainly stated his objective: Revisit all federal regulations that fetter the operations of U.S. energy producers — especially those developing fossil fuels.
"I am going to lift the restrictions on American energy and allow this wealth to pour into our communities," Trump said in March.
So how much has the administration gotten done? It varies by issue, but agencies are quickly moving in on the order's targets.
This month, Trump officials hit two milestones in their wide-ranging examination of Obama-era rules for domestic energy production, electricity generation and greenhouse gas emissions.
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt formally proposed a repeal of the Clean Power Plan, after determining that the rule went beyond the agency's Clean Air Act authority. The rule aimed to cut carbon emissions from the power sector 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
EPA's proposal came just days after the Bureau of Land Management unveiled its plan to postpone key parts of a rule the Obama administration introduced to limit venting, flaring and leakage of natural gas from energy operations on public and tribal lands.
The rule was one of four Interior Department oil and gas regulations explicitly listed in Trump's executive order and a March 29 order from Secretary Ryan Zinke implementing the White House directive.
Zinke's order also instructed each bureau and office head to report to Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt all actions that could burden domestic energy production.
Wood Mackenzie analyst Matt Preston noted that many regulations targeted by the executive order have not yet taken effect, limiting the on-the-ground impacts.
"Most of the things that are being reversed now hadn't actually had an impact as of yet," he said. "So the fact that they could be reversed or replaced or repealed pretty much holds the status quo."
But environmental law experts warn that the scope of the president's directive is immense. Vermont Law School professor Pat Parenteau said the scale of the deregulatory effort was "greater than what I expected" but added that administrative and legal complications could ultimately keep the Trump administration from reaching its goals.
"One thing is, as bad as we thought it was going to be, it's worse — in terms of the assault," he said. "In terms of the actual effects? Too early to say."
Fossil fuel producers have roundly praised the administration's direction, calling it a much-needed effort to rein in numerous new rules instituted under Obama. Still, they acknowledge that the rollbacks will not happen overnight.
"It's like turning a large cargo ship — you can't just do it on a dime," said Dan Naatz, senior vice president of government relations and political affairs for the Independent Petroleum Association of America. "I know the administration's moving forward on a number of regulatory rollbacks or reforms or changes, and we're certainly engaged in that process, but that's going to take some time.
"The environmental [nongovernmental organizations] are going to fight it every step of the way," he added, "but we think it's well worth continuing that effort to move forward."
Here's where things stand on Trump's primary targets:Clean Power Plan
The Clean Power Plan has long been on the Trump administration's kill list. The president's executive order marked the first step toward rolling back the regulation, and EPA two weeks ago unveiled its formal plan to get rid of it.
The rule was stayed by the Supreme Court in 2016 and has never taken effect. Now its prospects are even dimmer. Pruitt's plan would roll back the regulation entirely, finding that it exceeded EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act. The agency has not committed to replacing it with any narrower standards.
A federal court considering challenges to the Obama rule has so far declined to weigh in on major legal questions that have swirled around the regulation. Supporters of the Clean Power Plan continue to hold out hope for a ruling. But they're also gearing up for the next battles: commenting on the Trump administration's repeal proposal and planning to file new legal challenges once it's finalized.
Trump's March order also calls out another power plant regulation: EPA's 2015 rule for carbon emissions from new and modified sources. Unlike the Clean Power Plan, the new source rule is in effect. EPA is reviewing it but has not announced a timeline for action (Climatewire, Oct. 11). Litigation over that measure is on hold.Social cost of carbon
One piece of the "energy independence" order that had immediate effects was a provision that called for scrapping the Obama administration's favored approach to measuring the cost of greenhouse gas emissions.
With the stroke of a pen, Trump disbanded an interagency working group that focused on the social cost of carbon and related tools that put a dollar amount on the impacts of carbon, nitrous oxide and methane. The group was charged with building a set of values to help agencies consistently weigh the benefits of reducing emissions.
Trump's order promptly killed the group and related technical documents that guided how federal agencies approached climate issues in cost-benefit analyses and environmental reviews. It also directed agencies to revert to an older method of weighing benefits from emissions reductions, focusing on domestic gains rather than global effects.
That U.S.-centric approach has already taken center stage in the rollback of the Clean Power Plan.
The Trump administration's proposal features a new regulatory impact analysis that revises the social cost of carbon calculation to focus on domestic benefits. Overall, the analysis projects annual climate benefits at about $20 billion less than Obama's EPA had contended. Similar revisions appeared in BLM's recent proposal to stall its methane rule.
But the social cost of carbon and related metrics won't disappear quietly, as courts have repeatedly pressed agencies to do some type of analysis reflecting those impacts (Greenwire, Sept. 1).
For example, a district court in Montana slammed the Interior Department in August for not weighing the cost of emissions related to coal mining when it had the social cost of carbon tool available. A week later, an appellate court in Washington, D.C., pressed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to explain why it opted not to use the metric when weighing the effects of natural gas pipelines.Oil and gas
When Trump handed down his executive order on energy, Congress appeared poised to single-handedly abolish BLM's 2016 Methane and Waste Prevention Rule, one of four Interior regulations set for the chopping block.
Six weeks later, the Senate failed to secure the support of a simple majority behind the Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution, and Interior turned to its instructions from the White House to "suspend, revise or rescind" the rule.
The department's systematic dismantling of the rule began in June, when BLM published a notice in the Federal Register indicating that it would excuse companies from complying with provisions of the rule that had yet to take effect.
A California district court later ruled that the delay was improperly executed.
The decision came the same day as BLM's formal proposal to postpone many of the rule's requirements to July 2019, giving the Trump administration more time to decide whether it should revise the rule or rescind it altogether.
EPA's attempt to roll back separate methane standards has also landed the agency in hot water. Pruitt moved to freeze New Source Performance Standards through a formal reconsideration process earlier this year but was blocked by a federal court in July. The rule is now in effect while the agency goes through a broader review of whether to keep it intact (Energywire, Aug. 22).
Efforts to roll back an Obama rule for hydraulic fracturing on public and tribal lands have taken their own strange turns. The regulation was struck down by a district court in 2016 and has never taken effect. Government lawyers appeared in a federal appeals court over the summer to defend the Bureau of Land Management's authority over fracking but urged the court to stay out of the issue while the agency reconsiders the standards.
A panel of judges took the government's advice — sort of. They agreed to toss litigation over the Obama rule without a decision, finding it unfit for a ruling given the new administration's review process. But they also scrapped the lower court's decision that sidelined the rule in 2016. The result? The fracking rule is set to take effect once the appeals court issues a formal mandate in the case.
To stop the Obama measure from taking effect, the Trump administration must finalize a rescission plan before that mandate issues. BLM has already circulated and received comments on a proposal and could issue a final plan any day. The court's mandate is expected by mid-November, but fracking rule opponents could persuade the court to hold off.
Action to repeal two other Interior rules listed in the executive order has lain dormant since the clock ran out on the CRA earlier this year.
Resolutions to scrap the Fish and Wildlife Service's "Management of Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights" and the National Park Service's "General Provisions and Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights" never reached a House vote. Repeal under the CRA would have required the backing of a simple majority in both chambers.
The power to propose changes or rescissions to those rules now rests squarely in Interior's hands.
There is no new information on those rules at this time, department spokeswoman Heather Swift told E&E News.Coal leasing
The Obama administration's moratorium on new federal coal leasing was another immediate casualty of the "energy independence" order. Zinke issued an order lifting the leasing freeze a day after the president's directive.
The revival of the coal leasing program hasn't yielded any major results so far. Interior has not held any auctions this year and has approved only one noncompetitive lease modification.
That's mostly because the coal industry isn't looking for new leases right now. Coal companies have backed away from five pending leases representing 874.9 million tons of coal since the moratorium ended and have only submitted one new application representing 4.1 million tons (Greenwire, Aug. 29).
Meanwhile, two related legal fights are moving forward. Environmentalists and tribal advocates are challenging the Trump administration for lifting the moratorium. They say Interior should have done an environmental review to study the impacts of restarting federal leasing. Green groups have also revived an old lawsuit that sparked the Obama-era moratorium in the first place.A far-reaching order
Every time the Trump administration weighs an energy-related issue — even one that is not specifically mentioned in the executive order — the document's commands loom large.
EPA has pointed to the president's directive in a number of proposals to scrap Obama-era regulations that weren't mentioned by name. Government lawyers told a federal court, for example, that it should freeze litigation over EPA's ozone standards while the agency undertakes a review pursuant to the executive order.
EPA cited the document again in seeking to delay a lawsuit related to the Obama administration's regulation for mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.
They pinpointed additional rules for repeal in a report submitted to the White House last month (Greenwire, Sept. 25). That review has not been made public.
Interior is also targeting regulations not called out in Trump's order. A rule to adjust oil, gas and coal royalty collection procedures in Interior's Office of Natural Resources Revenue wasn't listed as a target, but the agency announced a plan shortly after the order's release to review the regulation (Energywire, April 4).
Interior moved first to delay and then to ditch the ONRR rule. The delay effort was overturned by a federal court, but the repeal was finalized in August.
The executive order also colored discussions around Interior's national monuments review. For some, the order served as an indication that undoing or adjusting monument designations made under the Antiquities Act could create new avenues for energy development. But those lands aren't necessarily in high demand by industry (Energywire, Aug. 23).
Interior has declined to share its broader analysis of which agency rules impede domestic energy development. Swift said there were "no announcements" when asked if the department had conducted its review and shared the results with the White House — as the president instructed.
Even agencies not subject to the executive order have taken up its cause. FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee last week said the commission, which as an independent agency was not required to review its regulations to comply with the order, decided to take up a voluntary review "to identify actions that potentially burden domestic energy use and production." The review is in progress.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/10/24/stories/1060064381
-
EPA Poised to Issue New Measures Delaying Methane Rules
Oct 24, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA appears poised to soon issue new measures delaying the Obama administration's rules governing methane releases from new oil and gas drilling equipment after a federal appellate court earlier this year vacated an administrative stay that Administrator Scott Pruitt issued to stave off the requirements.
According to the Office of Management and Budget's website, White House officials approved a three-month stay of the rule, as well as a longer, two-year stay, on Oct. 23.
Once implemented, the two measures are intended to delay the Obama administration's first-time methane new source performance standards (NSPS) to give the administration time to rewrite the underlying regulations in response to a petition from the oil and gas industry.
But the new measures -- even though they have been subject to public notice-and-comment -- are likely to face stiff legal challenges from environmentalists, states and others, who have already charged that proposed versions of the delay suffer from the same “fatal defect” as the agency's administrative stay that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated.
Likely challengers include a coalition of state attorneys general, led by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D), which has charged that the proposed delay is “blatantly unlawful.”
A host of others have also charged that the proposed versions of the delay are unlawful. For example, the Environmental Protection Network, a group of more than 75 former EPA officials including political appointees from both parties, said in its comments that the proposal “fails to give adequate -- or really any -- reasonable justification or legal basis for its proposed delay.”
Industry officials who favor the delay have acknowledged potential legal pitfalls but offered EPA a series of comments aimed at shoring up the delays' legal foundation.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-poised-issue-new-measures-delaying-methane-rules
-
In the Eagle Ford, a Battle Between Mining and Gas
Oct 24, 2017 | E&E Energywire
.A South Texas family's ranch is playing host to a legal battle that pits coal mining against the operators of a shale gas pipeline network.
In McMullen County, the Wheeler family has brought a lawsuit seeking to invalidate a 1954 ranchland mining lease owned by the San Miguel Electric Cooperative Inc.
The cooperative is looking to mine more lignite coal it uses to fuel a nearby power plant. And it wants pipeline company DCP Midstream Partners LP, which owns an easement on the Wheelers' ranch, to relocate part of a system that carries Permian Basin and Eagle Ford natural gas to market.
"At first blush, this seems easy," said Owen Anderson, law professor at the University of Texas. "The coal lease or the coal rights were prior in time. It's of record. The [pipeline] easement is built later. So the coal operator wins."
The 1954 lease has no term. But that, added Anderson, could imply that the work should have been undertaken within a reasonable time window.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/10/24/stories/1060064395
-
Law Firm in Flint Water Cases Suing Over Tainted NC River
Oct 24, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)
A law firm fighting lawsuits for Flint, Michigan, residents over lead-tainted drinking water is filing the latest class-action case blaming a North Carolina chemical plant for releasing little-understood compounds into the water supply for hundreds of thousands of people.
The lawsuit filed Monday is at least the fourth case accusing The Chemours Co. of harm by dumping the chemical GenX and related fluorine-based products into the Cape Fear River. The Wilmington, Delaware-based company was spun off from DuPont in 2015 and both operate at a chemical plant near Fayetteville.
The lawsuit filed by attorneys from Cohen Milstein also targets DuPont.
A law firm fighting lawsuits for Flint, Michigan, residents over lead-tainted drinking water is filing the latest class-action case blaming a North Carolina chemical plant for releasing little-understood compounds into the water supply for hundreds of thousands of people.
The lawsuit filed Monday is at least the fourth case accusing The Chemours Co. of harm by dumping the chemical GenX and related fluorine-based products into the Cape Fear River. The Wilmington, Delaware-based company was spun off from DuPont in 2015 and both operate at a chemical plant near Fayetteville.
The lawsuit filed by attorneys from Cohen Milstein also targets DuPont.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/law-firm-in-flint-water-cases-suing-over-tainted-nc-river/2017/10/24/6941e384-b8c8-11e7-9b93-b97043e57a22_story.html?utm_term=.00ef6423fb69
-
Burning Warehouse Has Long History of Enviro Violations
Oct 24, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
A massive industrial fire has been burning at a warehouse in Parkersburg, W.Va., since Saturday.
The state has hit the facility with environmental violations multiple times over the past few years, including a ruling by the state Department of Environmental Protection in August that the owners broke a previous settlement with the state, agency officials said yesterday.
The owner, Intercontinental Export-Import Inc., was ordered to pay nearly $61,000 two months ago after the company did not file water pollution discharge disclosures.
The fine was part of a previous penalty. After discovering in 2011 that the company had not filed water pollution disclosures since 2009, the DEP fined it nearly $81,000 in 2015.
The company paid about $20,000 at the time, with the remainder "held in abeyance" for five years, pending regular filings.
"The company did not comply with the terms of the order to provide discharge monitoring reports, and WVDEP was in the process of pursuing payment of the remainder," DEP spokesman Jake Glance said.
DEP has also found that the company was improperly storing plastic materials and failing to protect groundwater.
The warehouse used to make tools. Local officials said products potentially inside included polyvinyl chloride, nylon, carbon black, titanium dioxide, fiberglass, formaldehyde, Teflon and Styrene.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/10/24/stories/1060064469
-
Congressional Auditor Urges Action to Address Climate Change
Oct 24, 2017 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
Fires, floods and hurricanes are already costing the federal government tens of billions of dollars a year and climate change will drive those costs ever higher in coming years, a new federal study warns.
The report by the Government Accountability Office, Congress’s auditing arm, urges the Trump administration to take climate change risks seriously and begin formulating a response.
The study, scheduled to be released Tuesday, says that different sectors of the economy and different parts of the country will be harmed in ways that are difficult to predict. But one estimate projects that rising temperatures could cause losses in labor productivity of as much as $150 billion by 2099, while changes in some crop yields could cost as much as $53 billion. The Southwest will suffer more costly wildfires, the Southeast will see more heat-related deaths and the Northwest must prepare for diminished shellfish harvests.
The report acknowledges that it is difficult to pinpoint the costs of disasters that can be directly attributed to climate change. And the projected fiscal burden remains less than 1 percent of the current $3.8 trillion federal budget.
But Senators Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington, and Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, who jointly requested the report, said between the lines of a conservative government audit was an urgent economic message that Washington should heed.
“The Government Accountability Office — if you will, the chief bean counter — is basically telling us that this is costing us a lot of money,” Ms. Cantwell said. “We need to understand that as stewards of the taxpayer that climate is a fiscal issue, and the fact that it’s having this big a fiscal impact on our federal budget needs to be dealt with.”
The report, two years in the making, comes as the Senate prepares to vote this week on a $36.5 billion disaster-relief package to fund hurricane relief, a flood insurance program and wildfire recovery efforts in the West.
Ms. Cantwell and Ms. Collins noted that the White House Office of Management and Budget had calculated that extreme weather events over the past decade cost the federal government $350 billion.
Both asserted that the study should help move Congress and the administration past partisan fights over the science of global warming and toward a search for solutions — something they said could be problematic given that the Trump administration is rolling back many of former President Barack Obama’s climate change initiatives.
“My hope is the administration will take a look at this report and realize there is an economic impact here that is significant,” Ms. Collins said. “We simply cannot afford the billions of dollars in additional funding that’s going to be needed if we do not take into account the consequences of climate change.”
The G.A.O. study draws on interviews with 26 scientific and economic experts and 30 studies, though it focuses most heavily on the only two national-scale studies analyzing the economic effects of climate change. One of them is an ongoing research project being produced by the Environmental Protection Agency, and the other is a study by several organizations led by the Rhodium Group that analyzed the potential costs associated with climate change in coastal property, health, agriculture, energy, labor productivity and crime.
Trevor Houser, a partner at the Rhodium Group, which led the American Climate Prospectus study, said the accounting was on the conservative side. The agriculture analysis, for example, looked only at how changes in temperature and precipitation would affect four commodity crops. It did not study the fiscal fallout of events like wildfires and did not take into account the costs of infectious diseases linked to climate change.
“Climate change is clear and present danger to the U.S. economy and the fiscal health of the U.S. government, and that risk is really unevenly spread,” Mr. Houser said. “It needs to be actively managed by the federal government.”
J. Alfredo Gomez, one of the lead authors of the G.A.O. study, said the federal government had identified climate change as a significant economic risk since 2013. This study, he said, asks the administration to use the detailed data to prepare for the inevitable.
Robert N. Stavins, an economist at Harvard University, said he doubted the study would convince either Republicans in Congress or the White House to act.
“The G.A.O. study is conservative, it’s not alarmist, it’s realistic and balanced and they go out of their way to point out all of the uncertainties involved,” Mr. Stavins said. “I don’t see any likelihood it’s going to be taken seriously.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/climate/gao-climate-change-cost.html
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested