Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 11/02/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Beck Defends Opposition To Using 'Exploratory' Science For EPA Rules
Nov 1, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Nancy Beck, the former chemical industry toxicologist who is currently the top Trump toxics appointee at EPA, is defending her approach to regulation that critics have said favors weaker rules sought by industry, saying she focuses on using robust scientific studies for policies and not “exploratory” science to support costly rules. -
(ACC Mentioned) Regulations Are Meant To Be Improved, Not Erased
Nov 2, 2017 | The Suffolk Journal
By Kyle Crozier
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created with a simple and singular goal: to protect human health and the environment. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Chief Pruitt’s Halloween Trick Will Scare The Health Out Of You
Nov 2, 2017 | Huffington Post
By Elliott Negin
On Halloween, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt gave Americans the equivalent of an apple filled with razor blades. -
US CPSC Nominee Sidesteps Conflict-Of-Interest Concerns
Nov 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
Dana Baiocco, the lawyer nominated to fill a vacancy on the US Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), declined to pledge that she would recuse herself from participating when the body considers issues of importance to her former corporate clients. -
Grant Recipients Barred As U.S. EPA Advisers
Nov 1, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
In an unprecedented shift, panels that provide science advice to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will have fewer academic scientists and more industry experts and state regulators. -
US Retailer Home Depot Announces Chemicals Management Measures
Nov 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The US home improvement retailer Home Depot has announced the phase out of certain chemicals of concern from the paints, flooring and insulation it sells. -
Retailers’ Path Eased to Comply With EPA Wood Glue Emissions Rule
Nov 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Furniture retailers such as Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams and Room and Board will have more time and a potentially easier path ensuring that their supply chains sell wood products that comply with a glue emissions rule by a Dec. 12, 2018, deadline, following changes EPA recently made to the rule. -
US Researchers Link Disinfectant To Hospital Staff Health Problems
Nov 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
US researchers have warned that cleaning products, containing a mixture of hydrogen peroxide (HP), peracetic acid (PAA) and acetic acid (AA), can trigger eye irritation and breathing problems, even at low exposure levels. -
New Jersey Advances New Limit for Chemical in Drinking Water
Nov 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Herzfeld
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection said it has accepted a state scientific panel's recommendation for setting a standard for drinking water contamination from PFOA and a related chemical compound. -
Committee Prepares For Hearing On Pesticide Study
Nov 2, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar
The House Science, Space and Technology Committee is preparing to hold a hearing on the International Agency for Research on Cancer's controversial determination that the widely used herbicide glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic." -
Exclusive: Congressional Committee Questions Operation Of WHO Cancer Agency
Nov 2, 2017 | Reuters
By Kate Kelland
Two influential U.S. Congressmen have asked the World Health Organization’s cancer agency to get ready to testify about its work assessing if substances cause cancer, citing concerns about its “scientific integrity”. -
UK ‘Not Winding Down’ EU Chemicals Policy Work
Nov 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
With less than 18 months to go before the UK leaves the EU, the government’s role in the Union’s chemicals policy is not diminishing, the Health and Safety Executive and UK REACH Competent Authority’s Andrew Smith has said. -
REACH Review Report Publication Pushed Back To 2018
Nov 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Commission's report on the second five-year evaluation of REACH has suffered another delay of three months and is now due to be published by January 2018, a Commission source has said. -
Trade Body Welcomes Final EU Opinion On Aluminium In Toys
Nov 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Trade association Toy Industries of Europe (TIE) welcomed the European Commission's final Opinion on the tolerable intake of aluminium, with regards to adapting the migration limits in toys. -
(ACC Mentioned) How Shale Gas Extraction Is Fueling a Manufacturing Renaissance
Nov 2, 2017 | Chief Executive Group
By Craig Guillot
The growth of shale gas extraction across the United States is offering a big boost to the plastics manufacturing sector. Ethane, a by product from shale gas, is used as a building block for many plastics products, and the growing supply is making the U.S. an attractive source for plastic resin sourcing. -
Three LNG Export Terminal Authorizations Upheld in D.C. Circuit
Nov 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Energy Department authorizations of liquefied natural gas export terminals in Louisiana, Maryland, and Texas were upheld Nov. 1 by a federal appeals court, which rejected the Sierra Club's petitions alleging the department didn't do enough to assess indirect environmental impacts of the projects. -
DC Court Again Rejects Sierra Club’s Challenges to LNG Exports from Cove Point, Sabine Pass, Corpus Christi
Nov 1, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
A federal appeals court on Wednesday tossed lawsuits brought by the Sierra Club to thwart liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from projects in Maryland, Louisiana and Texas from moving forward. -
Agency Hit By Cybersecurity 'Incident'
Nov 1, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sam Mintz and Blake Sobczak
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission experienced a recent cybersecurity "incident," according to a new report from the Department of Energy's inspector general. -
Bolster Cyber Defenses With Streamlined Regulation
Nov 1, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr
Cyber crime is now a bigger criminal enterprise than the global narcotics trade. The financial services industry is a top target facing tens of thousands of attacks each day. -
Large Fire Contained At Exxon Mobil Refinery
Nov 2, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
A large fire filled the sky overnight at Exxon Mobil's Baton Rouge refinery in Louisiana before being contained this morning. -
EPA Won't Expand Region Required to Reduce Ozone Pollution
Nov 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
Central states will not have to install more rigorous pollution controls for ozone-forming emissions that contribute to neighboring states’ ozone problems, the EPA said. -
EPA Gives Final Thumbs-Down To Ozone Proposal
Nov 1, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
Almost four years after getting the request, U.S. EPA has rendered its verdict on Northeastern states' proposal for a historic expansion of a regional ozone control program: No. -
ECOS, EPA Eye Metrics To Reduce State Program Reviews, Boost Flexibility
Nov 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Todd Parfitt, president of the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), says the group of state environmental regulators is working with EPA to craft metrics for reducing agency reviews of state programs in order to free up limited resources and bolster agency Administrator Scott Pruitt's goal of delegating more environmental protection work to states with increased flexibility in how states achieve those goals.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
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) Beck Defends Opposition To Using 'Exploratory' Science For EPA Rules
Nov 1, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Nancy Beck, the former chemical industry toxicologist who is currently the top Trump toxics appointee at EPA, is defending her approach to regulation that critics have said favors weaker rules sought by industry, saying she focuses on using robust scientific studies for policies and not “exploratory” science to support costly rules.
At the start of a Nov. 1-2 meeting of EPA's Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) in Arlington, VA, Beck argued that environmental regulations can have “extremely high benefit” for human health and the environment, but also impose “very expensive” costs on industry.
She drew a distinction between “exploratory research” that is necessary for setting future research priorities and investments, and the studies that support agency regulation, which must be vetted through a transparent process that considers studies' methodology and objectivity, as well as input from outside experts and the public.
Referring to exploratory science, Beck said, “This is extremely important research, I don't want anyone to think I underestimate its value.” But she contrasted such research with studies that form the basis of agency policies, saying the latter must be “robust enough to support scientific risk assessment."
“The costs of getting it wrong are just too high,” Beck said. “We need to follow the rule of law and ensure that we rely on the strongest scientific evidence to support our programs."
Beck, who previously worked for the American Chemistry Council, also highlighted her public sector experience, including past work at EPA, and a decade serving at the White House Office of Management and Budget. Beck noted that she has worked for four different presidential administrations, including Clinton, Bush, Obama, and now the Trump administration.
Beck's broad defense of her approach to regulatory science follows an Oct. 21 article in the New York Times in which former EPA staff portrayed Beck as rewriting several framework rules for implementing the recently-updated Toxic Substances Control Act, along industry talking points and against the advice of other EPA officials.
Former EPA officials told the Times that Beck rewrote the Obama administration's proposed TSCA implementation rules to give the agency greater discretion to narrow the range of chemical "uses" that it will consider when assessing and regulating industrial chemicals, an issue that is already being litigated, among other concerns.
"Everyone was furious . . . Nancy was just rewriting the rule herself. And it was a huge change," Betsy Southerland, formerly with EPA's water office, told the Times.
Beck's Defense
Beck, the principal deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, recently told Inside EPA that implementing TSCA is the “biggest challenge” her office faces -- though her comments were before the Times published its story.
Beck declined to comment for the Times' story, and she and the agency have been similarly reticent to address concerns over her status at the agency. Critics have questioned Beck's hiring under a special statutory provision for “administratively determined” selections that provided her with waivers from the Trump administration's ethics requirements.
Meanwhile, at the PPDC meeting, Beck said that she is “a stickler for time lines,” specifically noting those that EPA pesticides officials must meet under the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA). Since 2003, PRIA has allowed industry fees to fund more efficient EPA pesticide reviews, and also allocated money for farmworker protection programs.
Her remarks came at the outset of a meeting where numerous environmentalists and public health officials who serve on the PPDC expressed strong disappointment in EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's March decision to reverse the Obama EPA's proposed ban on the use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos on food.
The Obama EPA in 2015 proposed the ban under pressure of a court-ordered deadline and in response to environmentalists' long-standing petition for a ban, arguing that chlorpyrifos poses neurodevelopmental risks to children.
Pruitt reversed course with the March 29 order and denied the advocates' petition for a ban, citing uncertainty in scientific data on the substance's risks. Pruitt said EPA would continue to assess risks of chlorpyrifos as part of its Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act registration review scheduled for completion by October 2022.
The New York Times reported that agency career staff received orders from Trump officials to reverse the chlorpyrifos decision prior to Beck's arrival at the agency.
Several PPDC members portrayed the decision not to ban chlorpyrifos in favor of further study as political and not based on scientific research, though a PPDC member who recently retired as head of the pesticide industry trade association CropLife America argued that the chlorpyrifos decision is based on a complex nexus of federal laws as well as science and that the proposed ban did not make sense.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/beck-defends-opposition-using-exploratory-science-epa-rules
-
(ACC Mentioned) Regulations Are Meant To Be Improved, Not Erased
Nov 2, 2017 | The Suffolk Journal
By Kyle Crozier
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created with a simple and singular goal: to protect human health and the environment.
The EPA’s reach extends to the public and private sector, as they are intended to remain unbiased in that pursuit of health. This pursuit has been poisoned by the inclusion of an open member of the chemical industry into a new position at the EPA, and humans’ health will see a decline because of it.
Dr. Nancy Beck worked for five years as an executive at the American Chemistry Council, the primary trade institution for American chemical companies. Her position came to an end this year, after being appointed in May to one of the key regulatory positions of the EPA where the decision is made on which chemicals will be considered too risky for the public.
If this does not seem like a clear and almost blatant conflict of interest, it is hard to identify what the definition of conflict must be for President Donald Trump and his cabinet. The mission as set out by her new department is to, “protect you, your family and the environment from potential risks from pesticides and toxic chemicals.”
In her time in the new position, Beck has already slashed more than a dozen regulations on various chemicals that had been previously deemed unsafe, making these chemicals much more difficult to regulate despite their proven negative effects.
Some of these chemicals include, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) that has been linked to birth defects, immune system disorders, kidney cancer, and was once used in non-stick pans, food packaging, stain-resistant carpeting and a number of industrial processes. These findings were the result of a large study completed more than two years ago of several peer-reviewed studies concerning the chemical.
President Donald Trump’s pick for Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, has shown how reliant a government agency like the EPA is on having administrators who are working in tandem with the goal of the agency. Instead of continuing the long history of ensuring a betterment of the environment and human health, Pruitt has taken measures to retract steps forward in the battle to lessen the emissions of carbon.
With his withdrawal from the Clean Power Plan (CPP), Pruitt stated that he believed this plan was not meant to reduce carbon emissions, but rather it was a plan that the Obama administration was using, “to pick winners and losers and how we generate electricity in this country.” Pruitt’s opinion comes in spite of the EPA’s estimation that the CPP could have prevented 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children.
This new movement of rolling back safety measures put forward by a government agency created solely to ensure public health is so far removed from the best interest of American citizens that it is almost malicious.
The issue of an EPA that is acting against its own ideals creates a difficulty to imagine dichotomy. An agency that was endowed with legislative strength in order to defend the health of people and the environment is being used for third parties to profit at the expense of those citizens it was created to protect.
Government agencies cannot be allowed to turn their back on citizens just so that private companies can have more room for profit in the future.
The damage that this kind of administration could cause is catastrophic, as it takes much more time to put legislation in place than it does to tear it down.
https://thesuffolkjournal.com/24237/opinion/regulations-are-meant-to-be-improved-not-erased/
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Chief Pruitt’s Halloween Trick Will Scare The Health Out Of You
Nov 2, 2017 | Huffington Post
By Elliott Negin
On Halloween, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt gave Americans the equivalent of an apple filled with razor blades.
Instead of picking the best experts for his agency’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) to protect public health, Pruitt appointed candidates who oppose the very laws the EPA is supposed to enforce.
To make matters worse, Pruitt did not renew terms for a number of respected members and even dismissed several independent scientists before their terms were up. All told, Pruitt shrunk the SAB from 47 to 42 participants and more than doubled the number of its polluter-friendly members.
Undermining the SAB’s integrity might make sense to a former Oklahoma attorney general who openly promotes the interests of the fossil fuel industry. But doing so jeopardizes the independent science the agency needs to protect American health and safety.
Pruitt’s Ill-Advised Appointments
The Science Advisory Board was established by Congress nearly 40 years ago as an impartial reality check. As Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), recently explained, the board “doesn’t make policy recommendations or decisions. It holds no veto power. It should exist as a check on anyone with an agenda, from environmentalists to oil companies. If the science is on your side, the board validates it. If you make unsupportable claims, the board calls you out.”
The SAB’s role as “arbiter of scientific fact” has proven to be invaluable. Over the last five years, for instance, the board provided the EPA recommendations for integrating science more effectively into its decision making process; advised the agency on the best model to use when evaluating the health threats posed by perchlorate, a likely carcinogen; and determined that the EPA’s preliminary finding that the hydraulic fracturing drilling process has not led to “widespread, systemic impacts” on drinking water resources was not supported by the best available science. The final version of the fracking study, released in December 2016, correctly concluded that the technique has indeed contaminated some drinking water supplies across the country.
As reconstituted by Pruitt, however, the SAB is more likely to come down in favor of industrial polluters than public health.
Take the new board chairman, Michael Honeycutt, who directs the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s toxicology division. Over the last decade, Honeycutt rolled back the state’s protections for 45 toxic chemicals, including arsenic, benzene and formaldehyde. He also attacked EPA rules for ground-level ozone (smog), which aggravates lung diseases, and particulate matter (PM) (soot), which has been linked to lung cancer, cardiovascular damage, reproductive problems and premature death. Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence linking fine soot particles to premature death, Honeycutt testified before Congress that “some studies even suggest PM makes you live longer.”
Many of Pruitt’s other appointees to three-year terms on the SAB share a similar disregard for established science.
· Kimberly White is senior director of chemical products at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the country’s largest chemical manufacturing trade association. Representing the interests of 155 corporate members, including BP, Dow, DuPont and ExxonMobil, the ACC has delayed, weakened and blocked science-based health, environmental and workplace protections at the state, national and even international levels.
· Samuel Cohen, a professor at the University of Nebraska College of Medicine, produces industry-friendly papers and testimony for chemical companies and trade groups, including the American Chemistry Council. He has downplayed the risks of monosodium methanearsonate (MSMA) for the arsenic-based weed killer’s manufacturers and testifiedon behalf of Dupont during a kidney cancer trial involving perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), the main ingredient in Teflon.
· Economist John D. Graham, who ran the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for five years during the George W. Bush administration, has a long history of emphasizing industry’s costs to reduce pollution, while discounting scientific evidence of exposure risks and ignoring the benefits of a cleaner environment.
· Anne Smith, a senior vice president at NERA Consulting, is another economist with a pronounced corporate bias. Over the past few years, NERA has written reports for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and other industry trade groups arguing that the EPA underestimates the cost of its rules, including ones designed to lower mercury emissions and reduce ground-level ozone. In February 2015, Smith testified before Congress against the Clean Power Plan to curb coal-fired power plant carbon emissions.
· Donald Van der Vaart, former secretary of North Carolina’s Department of Environmental Quality, was the agency’s point man against federal air quality rules, including a cap on nitrogen oxide emissions, a major component of ground-level ozone. Last November, he sent a letter to then President-elect Trump denouncing “federal overreach” and asking him to all but eliminate the EPA. “By returning responsibility for implementing these laws to the states,” Van der Vaart wrote, “your administration can avoid the agenda-driven federal regulatory process that has stifled our country’s competitiveness.”
Pruitt also enlisted Richard Smith and S. Stanley Young to serve on the board. The two statisticians co-authored an August 2017 study claiming there is “little evidence” of a connection between fine particulate pollution and premature death, ignoring established scientific understanding of air pollution and health risks. Three other appointees, meanwhile, directly represent the energy industry: Merlin Lindstrom is vice president of technology at Phillips 66, Robert Merritt was a geology manager at Total, and Larry Monroe was the chief environmental officer at Southern Company.
Independent Scientists Shut Out
Perhaps most shocking, Pruitt upended four decades of precedent by banning scientists who have received EPA grants from serving on the SAB or any other agency advisory panel. Why? In Pruitt’s estimation, they have a conflict of interest. He followed through by kicking at least a half-dozen EPA-funded scientists off the SAB before their terms were over.
Pruitt’s attack on EPA grantees particularly rankled Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS and a former regional administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service.
“The suggestion that federal research grants would conflict with advisory board work is frankly dishonest,” Rosenberg said. “Pruitt is turning the idea of ‘conflict of interest’ on its head by claiming that federal research grants should exclude a scientist from an EPA advisory board while industry funding shouldn’t. The truth is, EPA grants don’t come with strings. They’re meant to help promote the best independent science.
“Independent science is absolutely critical to making good policies that keep our air and water clean and our communities safe,” he added. “But this administration — particularly Administrator Pruitt — seems to have taken every opportunity to cut science out. Pruitt’s Halloween announcement is a blatant effort to stack the board and put narrow industry interests ahead of public health and safety. We will pursue all legal options available to us to prevent any scientist ban from remaining in place.”
Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/epa-chief-pruitts-halloween-trick-will-scare-the-health_us_59f9d70ae4b0b7f0915f632f
-
US CPSC Nominee Sidesteps Conflict-Of-Interest Concerns
Nov 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
Dana Baiocco, the lawyer nominated to fill a vacancy on the US Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), declined to pledge that she would recuse herself from participating when the body considers issues of importance to her former corporate clients.
She was speaking at a 1 November hearing on her nomination. Ms Baiocco, a Boston-based attorney at the firm Jones Day, has specialised in defending companies against product liability claims.
Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) asked Ms Baiocco specifically if she would agree to recuse herself from issues relevant to Mattel, Yamaha or RJ Reynolds.
"I think before I can make that decision, I need to know what is before the Commission, whether I have any conflict regarding that issue," she responded.
Regarding Mattel, Ms Baiocco said she was "part of a very large team" and the work concerned "a narrow issue."
"I don’t have in my head any information that is before the CPSC," she said.
Ms Baiocco was one of the lawyers representing Mattel in lawsuits and regulatory actions regarding a voluntary recall of toys that contained lead-based paint.
She said her work in defending RJ Reynolds against lawsuits from smokers isn't relevant because the CPSC does not regulate tobacco. But Senator Blumenthal noted that the company "has been advocating the use of flame retardants" due to their interest in preventing fires caused by cigarettes.
The CPSC voted in September to ban the use of organohalogen flame retardants in furniture and several other household product categories. Whether concerns about the chemicals should outweigh their usefulness in preventing fires was one issue raised during the Commission's deliberations.
When the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee met to consider several pending nominations, including that of Ms Baiocco, virtually all of the attention fell on the controversial nomination of Jim Bridenstine, a Republican congressman from Oklahoma, to head NASA.
But on 31 October, Frank Pallone Jr (D-New Jersey), the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois), the top Democrat on its Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, sent a letter to the Senate panel outlining concerns about Ms Baiocco's record. They asked that she commit to recusing herself from matters involving not only her former clients, but also her lawyer husband Andrew Susko's clients.
Should Ms Baiocco be confirmed by the Senate, she will change the balance of power on the commission, as she will replace Democrat Marietta Robinson, whose term expired in October.
By law, the five-member CPSC cannot have more than three commissioners of the same party. The importance of who holds the majority was made clear recently when the commission voted 3-2 not only on organohalogens but also on banning five phthalates in children's products.
Ms Baiocco's nomination was announced in September, but Ms Robinson can continue to serve until the full Senate confirms her successor. And former Republican Commissioner Joseph Mohorovic left the CPSC in October, in the middle of his term. This means the commission currently has a 3-1 Democratic majority and the administration will have to get a second new commissioner confirmed to give Republicans control of the panel and the agency it leads.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60722/us-cpsc-nominee-sidesteps-conflict-of-interest-concerns
-
Grant Recipients Barred As U.S. EPA Advisers
Nov 1, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
In an unprecedented shift, panels that provide science advice to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will have fewer academic scientists and more industry experts and state regulators.
Under an Oct. 31 directive from EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, people will no longer be able to serve on three scientific advisory boards while they receive EPA research funding. Dozens of academics have historically served as external EPA advisers, along with a smattering of scientists from industry and state regulators.
Pruitt says the move will ensure that the advisers are financially independent from the agency.
The changes “suggest a profound misunderstanding of how scientific grants are awarded and how science is conducted,” says Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Chemistry Caucus. “To suggest that academic scientists personally profit from grants they receive to conduct research while representatives of regulated industries do not benefit from how regulations are implemented is extremely disingenuous.”
“Leading scientific experts who are conducting environmental science research should not be prohibited from participating on EPA science advisory boards and committees if they have met the appropriate financial conflict of interest policy,” says the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
But Republican leaders in Congress applaud Pruitt’s action. They include Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, chair of the House of Representatives’ Science, Space & Technology Committee, who has long supported legislation to forbid grant recipients from serving as EPA advisors.
As of September, 22 of the 47 members on the agency’s flagship Science Advisory Board (SAB) had received EPA grants at some time in the past, although not all of them currently receive EPA research funds, according to an analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists. SAB provides advice on a broad array of issues including chemical safety, water pollution, and cleanup of contaminated land.
Pruitt says the members of the agency’s advisory boards will now be chosen to reflect geographic diversity. In contrast, technical expertise was the primary concern in EPA’s choice of advisers for decades under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
To chair the SAB, Pruitt tapped Michael E. Honeycutt, who directs the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s toxicology division. Honeycutt has long criticized EPA’s scientific assessments of chemicals as too stringent. Under Honeycutt’s leadership, the Texas agency has conducted its own assessments of chemicals, many of them air pollutants, and concluded that the substances are less toxic than EPA determined. Honeycutt endorsed the concept of barring EPA grant recipients from serving on the SAB in a 2013 testimony before Congress.
Pruitt selected Tony Cox, who runs a Denver business analytics consulting company to chair the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Board, which focuses on air pollution issues. Paul Gilman, chief sustainability officer of Covanta, a waste management and incineration firm, is the new chair of the Board of Scientific Counselors, which reviews EPA’s in-house research. Gilman headed EPA’s Office of Research & Development for two years during the administration of President George W. Bush.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i44/Grant-recipients-barred-US-EPA-advisers.html
-
US Retailer Home Depot Announces Chemicals Management Measures
Nov 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The US home improvement retailer Home Depot has announced the phase out of certain chemicals of concern from the paints, flooring and insulation it sells.
The announcement came in its recently released 2017 sustainability report. However, it says it has been working with its suppliers on the phase out of certain substances for several years, such as orthophthalates in vinyl flooring in 2015.
Home Depot started work on a restricted substances list (RSL) seven years ago for the three product categories. The RSL is made up of "suspect chemicals" identified through its own analysis of the latest science and discussions about chemicals of concern with non-profit groups, such as the Healthy Building Network and Cradle to Cradle. Once established, the list was shared with its suppliers and then implemented across the selected categories.
"Some of the substances on the list were already phased out of all products, some were out of certain products and others, such as NPEs and APEOs, are going to take us a couple of years to eliminate," vice president of merchandising and sustainability, Ron Jarvis, told Chemical Watch in an interview following the release of the report.
The report says that by December 2019, alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEOs) and nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) will be phased out of all interior and exterior latex, water-based wall paints. It has phased out the following substances from its wall paints in US and Canadian stores:triclosan, used for its material preservative properties. Last year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the substance from antibacterial soap because manufacturers haven't proven that it is safe for daily use over a long period of time. However, there is no ban on its use in other products, including paints; isocyanates, used to improve the durability and finish of painted surfaces. According to the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha), they can cause occupational asthma, irritation of the skin, eyes, nose and throat, and cancer;formaldehyde, which the EPA says can cause irritation of the skin, eyes, nose and throat and high levels of exposure may cause some types of cancers; andlead/heavy metals. The UN's Global Alliance to Eliminate Lead Paint is targeting an end to the use of lead paint around the world by 2020. Lead has been banned in household paint in the US since 1978.
The report also updates on the company's position on methylene chloride in paint stripper. The US EPA is moving forward with a restriction on the use of the substance in paint removal applications.
Methylene chloride, says the company's report, has historically been the most effective product option in this category. But it says it is "committed to working with suppliers and the EPA to identify alternatives with comparable efficacy that do not pose risks to human health and the environment". It adds that it does offer "several alternatives to methylene chloride-based removers".
In April, the Mind the Store campaign – run by the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition – urgedHome Depot to halt the sale of paint strippers containing methylene chloride.
From its wall-to-wall carpets, the company has phased out some chemicals of concern, including PFOA and PFOS, triclosan, orthophthalates and NPEs. And, from its fibreglass insulation, it has removed brominated and halogenated flame retardants, antimony trioxide, formaldehyde and added heavy metals.
"The power of the purchase order can be extremely persuasive when suggesting product categories and chemicals to eliminate," said Mr Jarvis.
Home Depot plans to expand its chemicals policy across more product categories.Rankings
In last year's Mind the Store retailer 'report card' – where the NGO grades the largest retailers in the US on their chemicals management efforts – Home Depot came fifth with a D+ grade, and was labelled a "middle-of-the-road performer".
On the company's recent announcement, Mind the Store campaign director, Mike Schade, told Chemical Watch: "As the world's largest home improvement retailer, Home Depot's new strategy can help transform the building products industry by eliminating known bad actor chemicals like flame retardants, phthalates and NPE's.
"We urge Lowe's and Ace Hardware to join Home Depot in developing safer chemical policies to restrict a broader universe of chemicals in building products." This year's report card will be released later this month.
Since January, Best Buy, Costco, CVS, Target and Walmart have announced new initiatives to address hazardous chemicals in products.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60717/us-retailer-home-depot-announces-chemicals-management-measures
-
Retailers’ Path Eased to Comply With EPA Wood Glue Emissions Rule
Nov 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Furniture retailers such as Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams and Room and Board will have more time and a potentially easier path ensuring that their supply chains sell wood products that comply with a glue emissions rule by a Dec. 12, 2018, deadline, following changes EPA recently made to the rule.
“The emissions limits haven't changed” but what companies must do to prepare to meet those limits has been made more workable, Mark Duvall, an attorney representing the Retail Industry Leaders Association, told Bloomberg Environment.
Still, the 759,000 retailers that the Environmental Protection Agency estimated will be affected by the rule have a lot of work ahead and a lot to learn about their obligations, Steve Bruton, director of administration at Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams, which imports dining room, bedroom and other furniture, told Bloomberg Environment.
Retailers have labeling, record-keeping and other obligations if they sell or import furniture, musical instruments, mobile home components, or other products made with engineered woods.
The glues used to make particleboard, some plywood, and other composite wood can release formaldehyde. The chemical irritates the eyes, nose and throat, and—if concentrations are high enough and exposure long enough—can lead to other respiratory symptoms and a risk of cancer, according to the EPA.
Retailers must ensure foreign and domestic suppliers provide compliant products by the rule's first deadline, Dec. 12, 2018—a year later than the agency initially required.
“We've got about 13 months,” Bruton said. “We'll be reaching out to our Asian suppliers to find out where they are with their testing,” he said. He referred to tests that composite wood panel producers conduct to determine whether their panels comply with the EPA's limits.
Lawsuit
The Sierra Club challenged in a federal district court Oct. 31 the EPA's decision in September to give companies more time to comply with its requirements. The plaintiffs argue the delay “violates and exceeds EPA's statutory authority.”
Duvall hadn't seen the lawsuit, but said retailers—the largest industry group to be affected by the EPA's rule—should continue to prepare to comply with EPA's rules as issued. Many lawsuits are filed, he said. Rules, primarily, are altered by court decisions or agency actions, he added.
The EPA revised the rule governing formaldehyde emissions from composite wood in July, September, and October. The goal was to help companies make the changes needed to comply, Duvall and Jackson Morrill, president of the Composite Panel Association, told Bloomberg Environment.
Steve Freeman, vendor resource manager with Room and Board, said that company has complied for years with similar formaldehyde emissions limits that California's Air Resources Board began to phase in in 2008. EPA's labeling and some other requirements are slightly different, but shouldn't be a problem, he said.
But retailers that import composite wood panels or products will have a harder time, Freeman said. They have to make sure their suppliers are being honest and sending genuinely compliant products, he said.
Bruton—whose retail chain imports furniture made with composite wood—said he has heard some foreign suppliers use tricks to temporarily comply with California's standards when, in fact, they don't. Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams has staff in Asia and routinely visits its suppliers to maintain oversight of product quality, he said.
Global Supply Chain
Duvall and Morrill said there were technical, but important, problems with the EPA's December 2016 rule that would have made it challenging for the global supply chains to comply with the EPA's original requirements.
For example, retailers such as Inter IKEA Systems B.V., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Target Brands, Inc.—which import furniture and other products some of which may contain composite wood—need to make sure they bring compliant products into the U.S.
Yet one specific labeling requirement in the EPA's original rule would have made it impossible for composite woods, or goods made with them, to be labeled properly if they were shipped prior to the original 2017 compliance date but arrived after it, Duvall said. The rule required one label when the goods were being loaded onto the ship, but a different one when the same ship was offloaded.
Three Core Changes
The EPA eliminated that provision in a direct final rule issued in July that went into effect Aug. 25. That rule allows products that comply with the EPA's limits to be labeled as meeting them before the deadline.
In a separate Sept. 25 rule, which became effective Oct. 25, the EPA also gave businesses throughout the supply chain additional time to make sure they comply with the emissions standards, labeling, record-keeping, import certification, and other requirements.
A direct final rule the EPA issued Oct. 25 would allow third-party certifiers to use small or large chambers to test composite wood panels to make sure they meet the EPA's limits, Morrill said.
That final rule will be effective Dec. 11, unless the EPA receives adverse comments by Nov. 9. If it receives such adverse comment, the EPA would have to withdraw the direct final rule and issue it as a proposed rule for public comment.
Being able to use small chambers is important, because most of the third-party certifiers have them, Morrill said. California allowed small or large chambers, and many companies chose to use the small chambers because they allow for higher throughput, he said.
The certifying infrastructure around the world reflects California's approach, Morrill said.
Many third-party certifiers approved by California are located in China, Malaysia, and other parts of Asia, Duvall said.
Nearly one million businesses around the world will be affected by the EPA's rule, Underwriters Laboratories, officially UL LLC, wrote in a white paper about the regulation.
The net result of the changes the EPA has made to its formaldehyde rule are good news for companies up and down the supply chain that need to comply, said Duvall, who works in the Washington office of Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. They have more time and a smoother path to make sure compliant products are in the pipeline before the deadline, he said.
Proving Compliance
Companies that make composite wood, turn that wood into finished goods, import those goods, and distribute them—along with retailers that sell them—should use the extra time to take reasonable precautions to comply, he said.
“The bottom line is that retailers could simply wait for the compliance date and hope suppliers send compliant products. Or they may want to reach out and get assurance,” said Duvall, who advises retailers.
Getting assurance from foreign suppliers is particularly important, because unlike domestic ones, the 2010 Composite Wood Products Act that required EPA to issue national standards doesn't apply to foreign companies, he said.
Retailers also “will want to make sure they have paperwork that shows they're in compliance,” he said.
$2.5 Million Mistake
Lumber Liquidators learned the paperwork lesson the hard way, and its experience offers lessons to other businesses preparing for the EPA's rule, Melanie Turner, a press officer for the California Air Resources Board, told Bloomberg Environment.
In 2016, Lumber Liquidators agreed to pay $2.5 million to settle California Air Resources Board (CARB) allegations that the company had sold wood flooring that released formaldehyde emissions above the state's limits.
California and federal EPA have similar requirements directing companies to take “reasonable prudent precautions” to comply, Turner said. However, Lumber Liquidators had no records of having taken any precautions, she said.
Lumber Liquidators spokesman Steve Calk told Bloomberg Environment the company now complies with all regulatory requirements and has internal management programs to maintain that compliance.
He declined to discuss CARB's past allegations that the company failed to take reasonable prudent precautions to ensure its flooring met the state's formaldehyde emissions limits.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123261981&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123261981&jd=123261981
-
US Researchers Link Disinfectant To Hospital Staff Health Problems
Nov 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
US researchers have warned that cleaning products, containing a mixture of hydrogen peroxide (HP), peracetic acid (PAA) and acetic acid (AA), can trigger eye irritation and breathing problems, even at low exposure levels.
Their study observed chronic health problems in cleaning staff at a US hospital, where a new sporicidal product containing the three substances was introduced 16 months prior.
It linked acute nasal and eye irritation with increased exposure to a mixture of HP and PAA, as well as the total mixture of HP, PAA and AA. Shortness of breath when hurrying on level ground or walking uphill was also associated with increased exposure to the mixture.
Cleaning and disinfecting products, consisting of a mixture of HP, PAA and AA, are widely used as sporicidal agents in healthcare, childcare, agricultural, food service and food production industries.
HP and PAA are strong oxidants and their mixture is a recognised asthmagen. However, few exposure assessment studies to date have measured HP, PAA and AA in a healthcare setting.
The paper is a follow-up to a report into the three compounds, published by the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Niosh) last year. The report was meant to share preliminary results from a survey of chronic symptoms, reported by healthcare staff.
The recent paper included more detail, says corresponding author, Brie Hawley. It features additional analyses of symptoms, reported specifically by cleaning staff as occurring during their shift, and any associations with the full-shift exposure measurements.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60728/us-researchers-link-disinfectant-to-hospital-staff-health-problems
-
New Jersey Advances New Limit for Chemical in Drinking Water
Nov 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Herzfeld
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection said it has accepted a state scientific panel's recommendation for setting a standard for drinking water contamination from PFOA and a related chemical compound.
The standard would make New Jersey the first state to set formal maximum contaminant levels requiring statewide testing of public drinking water systems for perfluorooctoanic acid (PFOA) and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), Bob Martin, who heads the department, said in announcing the step Nov. 1.
The department acted on the recommendation of the New Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute, an advisory panel appointed by Gov. Chris Christie (R) and state legislative leaders, for a drinking water standard of 14 parts per trillion for PFOA. The institute reviewed state monitoring data and concluded that PFOA was “found in samples from approximately 60 percent of the 80 New Jersey Public Water Supplies tested.”
In August, the department also proposed a drinking water standard of 13 ppt for PFNA.
The New Jersey step marked the latest response by state governments to growing evidence of drinking water contamination from PFOA, PFNA, and related compounds, used in nonstick coatings, stain-resistant fabrics, firefighting foam, and industrial processes. The persistent contamination has sparked class action lawsuits in New Jersey and elsewhere around the U.S.
The current state lifetime maximum contaminant level for PFOA of 40 ppt was adopted in 2007. It is lower than the federal agency's 70 ppt health advisory for lifetime and short-term exposure issued in May 2016.
The New Jersey DEP, in its announcement, said “a growing body of studies suggests PFOA and PFNA may impact liver and immune system function, increase blood cholesterol levels, and cause delays in growth and development of fetuses and infants.” PFOA may also increase the risk of certain types of cancer, the state said.
Monitoring Requirements
New Jersey's water systems have cooperated in testing for PFOA, PFNA, and other chemicals classified as contaminants of emerging concern but not regulated with maximum contaminant levels, the state said. The adoption of formal MCLs, it said, will require water companies and utilities to routinely monitor supplies and take needed corrective actions.
A spokeswoman for the environmental group Delaware Riverkeeper, however, faulted New Jersey for what the group sees as the slow pace of its regulatory actions. It took the state two years to issue the PFNA proposed rule after the advisory panel's recommendation, and the outlook for the formal PFOA rule process remains unclear, the group's deputy director, Tracy Carluccio, told Bloomberg Environment.
The new limit for PFOA was recommended in February, she said in an email message. “So what is the holdup? Every day the rule is further delayed is another day people are drinking water polluted with PFOA.”
PFOA, PFNA, and related compounds, she said, “even in tiny amounts can have devastating health effects, especially for fetuses, infants, and children.”
New Jersey Sierra Club Director Jeff Tittel similarly complained that the state had acted “finally, after seven years of delay.” In a statement, he urged a PFNA limit of 3 ppt to 5 ppt and 1 ppt to 6 ppt for PFOA.
The New Jersey plan, Tittel said in a statement, is “a step in the right direction,” but the state “could be doing more to protect our drinking water.”
Federal Process Faulted, Defended
Carluccio also faulted the U.S. EPA for inaction at the federal level.
“Under the current federal administration's anti-regulation stance, we don't think it is likely or reasonable to expect a federal maximum contaminant level to be set for any polyfluoroalkyl chemical in the foreseeable future,” she said. “This leaves the states to carry forward the establishment and implementation of MCLs to provide safe drinking water for residents.”
But Dan Hartnett, director of legislative and regulatory affairs at the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, told Bloomberg Environment that the organization believes the EPA should follow the guidelines of the Safe Drinking Water Act for setting a maximum limit for PFOA, “regardless of what the states are doing.”
He questioned “encouraging different speeds for different contaminants based on outside factors,” adding: “Otherwise you risk getting into a situation where a certain contaminant gets attention in the media and then there's a push to regulate differently than how [the SDWA] process lays it out.”
In New Jersey, 12 public water systems have detected PFOA at concentrations above the state's advisory level in recent years and have responded with treatment systems, increased monitoring, or taking wells out of service, the state DEP said.
Chambers Works Pollution
New Jersey joined with the U.S. EPA in investigating PFOA contamination near the DuPont Chambers Works plant along the Delaware River in Pennsville, N.J., following reports of elevated concentrations of the chemical West Virginia. The compound was found in drinking water sources adjacent to a DuPont facility in Parkersburg, W.Va. and that probe led to a statewide review.
At Pennsville, DuPont successor Chemours Co. is installing a containment wall to prevent the spread of PFOA contamination and other chemicals from groundwater to the river, and augmenting a pump-and-treat system that has been in operation for many years, the DEP said.
Other steps include treatment systems at dozens of off-site private wells and similar precautions at public municipal wells, it added.
In December, Carneys Point Township, N.J., sued DuPont for chemical releases including PFOA from the Chambers Works plant, seeking more than $1.1 billion for cleanup costs from decades of chemical production and releases.
—With assistance from David Schultz
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123261979&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123261979&jd=123261979
-
Committee Prepares For Hearing On Pesticide Study
Nov 2, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar
The House Science, Space and Technology Committee is preparing to hold a hearing on the International Agency for Research on Cancer's controversial determination that the widely used herbicide glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic."
In a letter sent yesterday to the head of the World Health Organization's cancer agency, committee leaders requested the names and contact information of IARC-affiliated individuals responsible for editing its study on glyphosate, which is known as a monograph.
Those individuals could "serve as potential witnesses for this hearing," wrote Reps. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), who are respectively the chairmen of the full committee and the Environment Subcommittee.
Separately, the chairmen yesterday also asked Eric Hargan, the acting secretary of Health and Human Services for "all documents and communications between or among members of the IARC monograph program and any research institutes or agencies within HHS." The agency, Smith and Biggs noted, has provided more than $48 million to the IARC since 1985.
The potential hearing and related committee inquiries were prompted, the letters said, by a recent Reuters investigation.
That story found IARC omitted evidence in its review of glyphosate — the main ingredient in Monsanto Co.'s Roundup weedkiller — that went against the agency's conclusion that the chemical likely causes cancer in humans (Greenwire, Oct. 20).
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is also looking into the role U.S. agencies may have played in the IARC monograph on glyphosate (Greenwire, Aug. 9).
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/11/02/stories/1060065403
-
Exclusive: Congressional Committee Questions Operation Of WHO Cancer Agency
Nov 2, 2017 | Reuters
By Kate Kelland
LONDON, (Reuters) - Two influential U.S. Congressmen have asked the World Health Organization’s cancer agency to get ready to testify about its work assessing if substances cause cancer, citing concerns about its “scientific integrity”.
Their letter to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), seen by Reuters and sent on Wednesday, is part of ongoing investigations by two Congressional committees into IARC that were fueled by the agency’s review of glyphosate, the primary ingredient of Monsanto Co’s weedkiller Roundup.
A letter to IARC director Chris Wild from the Republican chairmen of the House Committee on Science and the Subcommittee on Environment said they are “concerned about the scientific integrity” of IARC’s “monograph” program, which assesses whether various substances can cause cancer in people.
IARC, a semi-autonomous part of the WHO based in Lyon, France, has in recent years assessed whether substances as diverse as coffee, mobile phones and processed meat cause cancer - reports that have all caused controversy.
A spokeswoman for IARC said she could not immediately comment on whether the letter had been received.
IARC says its methods are scientifically sound and its monographs are “widely respected for their scientific rigor, standardized and transparent process and ... freedom from conflicts of interest”.
In a second letter seen by Reuters, the Congressmen, Lamar Smith and Andy Biggs, expressed concern that IARC’s assessment meetings, deliberations and drafts are not made public.
“It is an affront to scientific integrity to keep ‘confidential’ a scientific process that directly influences policy and individual taxpayers,” Smith and Biggs wrote.
“With United States’ taxpayer dollars funding (part of the monograph program), it is this (Science) Committee’s duty to ensure sound science and transparency within the agency.”
Citing data from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), the letter to Wild said that since 1985, IARC has received more than $48 million from NIH, more than $22 million of which went to the monographs program.
It added that Smith’s Committee on Science, Space and Technology may soon hold a hearing to receive testimony from IARC on how it conducts its reviews. It asked Wild to provide “names and contact information of IARC-affiliated individuals who would serve as potential witnesses for this hearing”.
The second letter, sent on Wednesday to acting U.S. Health Secretary Eric Hargan, asked his department to provide “all documents and communications between or among members of the IARC monograph program and any research institutes or agencies within HHS.”
In this letter, the lawmakers said their aim was to understand the extent to which the taxpayer-funded National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Institutes of Health are involved with IARC’s monograph process.
This is “to ensure scientific integrity and an honest use of taxpayer dollars”, the letter said.
In an assessment in 2015 that put it at odds with many government regulators, including those in the United States, Europe and Japan, IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic”.
A Reuters investigation in October found that a draft of a key section of IARC’s assessment of glyphosate underwent significant changes before the report was made public.
Reuters also reported in June on how the chairman of the IARC glyphosate panel was aware of new data showing no link between the weed-killer and cancer in humans, but the agency did not take it into account because it had not been published.
The Congressional committee letters cited these Reuters investigations as well as other media reports, saying they revealed “troubling evidence” about the way IARC operates.
In the letters, Smith and Biggs asked IARC to respond by Nov. 8, and the department of Health and Human Services to respond by Nov. 15.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-who-congress-exclusive/exclusive-congressional-committee-questions-operation-of-who-cancer-agency-idUSKBN1D15TU
-
UK ‘Not Winding Down’ EU Chemicals Policy Work
Nov 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
With less than 18 months to go before the UK leaves the EU, the government’s role in the Union’s chemicals policy is not diminishing, the Health and Safety Executive and UK REACH Competent Authority’s Andrew Smith has said.
Echa is "keen" to work with the UK on regulatory and science policy "for as long as possible", Mr Smith told a meeting of the UK Chemicals Stakeholder Forum (UKCSF) this week. The UKCSF is the UK environment department’s stakeholder group on chemicals policy and includes representatives from government, business and civil society groups.
At the moment, he said "no one is trying to kick us out the door" and the UK is viewed as "very much" part of the EU. "Our work is not winding down – quite the opposite, they are trying to squeeze us as much as they possibly can before we leave."
James Dancy, from the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), told the UKCSF that the UK is "not taking our eye off the ball" and it continues to play "a full and active part" in European Commission and Echa activities.
He called for more evidence from UK industry to help inform the government’s understanding of the concerns the chemicals sector has over Brexit. The government, he said, has taken stock of the recent feedback given to a consultation by the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) on the government’s responses to its Brexit chemicals inquiry report.
Industry said the government "fails to recognise the unique nature of the regulatory issues", while an NGO said options being explored are "fundamentally flawed". Speaking at the UKCSF meeting this week, Mr Dancy said Defra is "still listening to what people are saying".Future options
Asked at the meeting whether the UK would explore a third-party agreement to continue working with Echa, Mr Dancy said: "Yes potentially. It’s not off the table." And to the question of whether an only representative should register in the UK or now in another member state, he said: "That is what you need to know from us. Both are an option."
Speaking in September, the Only Representative Organisation (ORO) said it is sticking to its position that a ‘defensive switch’ – where companies with an only representative (OR) based in the UK should consider moving to one based elsewhere in the EU following Brexit – is not necessary.
On the topic of UK companies submitting REACH 2018 registration dossiers, Mr Smith told the forum: "It is important" that companies go ahead. "If you want to import after next June, you will need to have a registration; it is as simple as that." He added it is "difficult to imagine" a scenario where UK REACH registrations made before March 2019 "are scrapped and worthless".
https://chemicalwatch.com/60715/uk-not-winding-down-eu-chemicals-policy-work
-
REACH Review Report Publication Pushed Back To 2018
Nov 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Commission's report on the second five-year evaluation of REACH has suffered another delay of three months and is now due to be published by January 2018, a Commission source has said.
The delay is due to "workload and time issues", the source said, and added there are "no problems or disagreements" on the content of the report.
Work on the REACH Refit evaluation is "now entering its final phase and adoption is expected at the latest by January 2018", they said. "The work is well on track."
The Commission had initially aimed to conclude the review in June, before it was delayed until October due to "internal procedures beyond our control".
The report on the first five-year REACH Review was delayed by eight months and finally published in February 2013.
This second review, the last before the 2018 registration deadline, is particularly significant because this year marks the tenth anniversary of REACH.
The review is carried out under the EU’s Better Regulation agenda, which considers criteria such as efficiency and effectiveness, and can lead to implementing regulations to amend specific provisions in REACH, and changes in Echa’s guidance.
An online public consultation, which ran from 28 October 2016 until 28 January this year, received 455 comments from NGOs, industry associations and member states.
Many stakeholders flagged inefficiencies and gaps, for example, concerning articles containing harmful substances imported from non-EU countries.
The report of a parallel review on the regulatory fitness of European chemicals legislation, excluding REACH, is expected to be published by the middle of 2018, Björn Hansen, Echa's newly appointed head, told European Parliament's Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (Envi) last month.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60725/reach-review-report-publication-pushed-back-to-2018
-
Trade Body Welcomes Final EU Opinion On Aluminium In Toys
Nov 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Trade association Toy Industries of Europe (TIE) welcomed the European Commission's final Opinion on the tolerable intake of aluminium, with regards to adapting the migration limits in toys.
The Commission and its Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (Scheer) Opinion recommends a tolerable daily intake of aluminium, including from sources other than toys, of 0.3mg/kg of body weight per day.
TIE director general Catherine Van Reeth told Chemical Watch that the change in migration limit will only impact "a small number of pigments used in colouring pencils." Manufacturers are evaluating whether they can find alternatives that meet the new standards.
The change to the aluminium migration limit was, she said: "a good example of how the toy safety Directive responds effectively to new scientific evidence."Calculation
The committee calculated the resulting migration limits for aluminium from toys according to the recommended tolerable daily intake and the Scheer Opinion of 2010. This recommended allocating 10% of the tolerable daily intake to toys, as follows:2,250mg aluminium/kg of dry, brittle, powder-like or pliable toy material;560mg aluminium/kg of liquid or sticky toy material; and28,130mg aluminium/kg of scraped-off toy material
A public consultation on a scientific opinion was opened on the website of the non-food scientific committees from 7 July to 10 September 2017.Confidence
"In the case of aluminium, chronic sources of exposure, in particular through children's diet, have also been taken into account," Ms Van Reeth said. "This means that consumers can be confident that toys sold on the EU market are amongst the safest in the world."
Last year, the Commission asked Scheer to review data on the toxicity of aluminium in response to the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) and the joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (Jecfa) establishing notably lower tolerable intake levels than those used in the EU’s toy safety Directive.
It recommends that, considering that the exposure from other sources, such as food, may already exceed the tolerable intake values derived by both Efsa and Jecfa, the additional exposure to aluminium from toys should be minimised.
Nine contributors from industry and public institutes participated in the public consultation. Scheer said that each submission was carefully considered, but it did not consider it necessary to make any changes to the final opinion.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60702/trade-body-welcomes-final-eu-opinion-on-aluminium-in-toys
-
(ACC Mentioned) How Shale Gas Extraction Is Fueling a Manufacturing Renaissance
Nov 2, 2017 | Chief Executive Group
By Craig Guillot
The growth of shale gas extraction across the United States is offering a big boost to the plastics manufacturing sector. Ethane, a by product from shale gas, is used as a building block for many plastics products, and the growing supply is making the U.S. an attractive source for plastic resin sourcing.
The Plastic Industry Association’s 2016 Size & Impact Report said the availability of large amounts of natural gas is quickly turning the U.S. plastics industry from one of the highest to lowest-cost producers in the world.
Bill Carteaux, president and CEO of the Plastics Association, said the plastics industry will be an important part of the effort to support job growth in manufacturing going forward. He said plastics are now the third-largest manufacturing sector behind oil and gas extraction and automobiles.
“Things have been on the increase the last few years….There’s lots of reasons for optimism in manufacturing right now,” he said.
“THERE ARE A LOT OF REASONS FOR OPTIMISM IN MANUFACTURING RIGHT NOW.”
The report noted strong growth in plastics processor investment in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin and Texas. Regions that have big shale operations are already seeing new investments as plastics manufacturers aim to capitalize on lower-cost materials.
Prospect to Enhance Pennsylvania’s Opportunities in Petrochemical Manufacturing, a report compiled by IHS Markit, said that by 2030, production from the Macellus and Utica Shale reserves is expected to account for nearly 40 percent of U.S. production. It could be especially beneficial for places like Pennsylvania which has an existing plastics manufacturing base, a strong transportation infrastructure and two of the country’s top plastics engineering platforms. Shell Chemical Co. is currently constructing a petrochemicals plant in Pittsburgh that would produce more than 3 billion pounds of annual PE production.
Chemical companies also are investing billions to construct ethane cracker facilities in other states, including Louisiana. Hank Torbert, President of Alta Max, LLC, a specialty packaging manufacturer in New Orleans, said growing production of low costs of plastic resins in the state could offer new opportunities for plastics manufacturing in the region. “New Orleans-based manufacturers could produce packaging, automotive components, household items, electronic components, etc…Several existing factors make this an optimal choice of expanding our local economy,” Torbert said.
Cal Dooley, President and CEO of the American Chemistry Council, said the U.S. is in the midst of a “once in a lifetime opportunity” to further expand its base by capitalizing on gas formations. “We’ve got a competitive advantage globally, and the nice thing about the Appalachia region is that it’s close to the manufacturing center of the U.S., including the auto sector and the upper Midwest,” Dooley said.
https://chiefexecutive.net/how-shale-gas-extraction-is-fueling-a-manufacturing-renaissance/
-
Three LNG Export Terminal Authorizations Upheld in D.C. Circuit
Nov 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Energy Department authorizations of liquefied natural gas export terminals in Louisiana, Maryland, and Texas were upheld Nov. 1 by a federal appeals court, which rejected the Sierra Club's petitions alleging the department didn't do enough to assess indirect environmental impacts of the projects.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's Nov. 1 judgment (Sierra Club v. Dep't of Energy, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1186, 11/1/17) on three LNG export facilities was in line with the reasoning the court laid out in a similar Aug. 15 ruling related to the Freeport LNG terminal in Texas. The court in the August case found that the department was not required to “foresee the unforeseeable” when it came to assessing indirect environmental impacts of the project.
This judgment means the Sierra Club has lost all four petitions in the D.C. Circuit filed against the Energy Department related to environmental assessments for LNG facilities, just as it lost its four petitions against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's approval of the four LNG projects. The D.C. Circuit ruled in the FERC cases that the indirect environmental impacts of LNG exports would be better addressed by the Energy Department, which led the Sierra Club to sue the department.
The court denied the Sierra Club's petitions on Dominion Resources Inc.'s Cove Point LNG facility on the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland; Cheniere Energy Inc.'s Corpus Christi LNG facility in San Patricio County, Texas; and Cheniere's Sabine Pass LNG terminal in Cameron Parish, La. The Louisiana facility opened and began exports in 2016. Dominion expects its Cove Point facility to be operational the fourth quarter of 2017, and Cheniere expects its Corpus Christi facility to be operating in 2018.
The Sierra Club claimed in its lawsuit that the Energy Department didn't assess the indirect effects of LNG exports, including the impacts of a likely increase in natural gas production and usage that will result from the export authorization.
The four-page judgment said the department's finding of no significant impact and its conclusion that an environmental impact statement (EIS) was not needed for the Cove Point and Sabine Pass projects were neither arbitrary nor capricious. The court said it will overturn an agency decision on an EIS only if it is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
The judgment also said the Energy Department, when authorizing the three LNG terminals, found that the exports weren't inconsistent with the public interest when it comes to the distributional impacts of the increased natural gas production. This adequately addresses the Sierra Club's concern that the Energy Department consider the distributional impacts, it said.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg L.P. Bloomberg BNA is an affiliate of Bloomberg L.P.
Next Steps for Sierra Club
“DOE is tasked with determining if proposed exports are in the public interest, and it is disappointing that the court has declined to hold the agency accountable for doing a real analysis that takes the costs for American communities into account,” Nathan Matthews, the Sierra Club staff attorney who worked on the cases, said Nov. 1. “We will continue to work to protect communities from the threats of fracked gas pollution,” he said.
Matthews said the Sierra Club is still assessing its next steps in the legal process. “For these particular approvals, we will carefully review the decision and whether to seek rehearing” with the D.C. Circuit, he told Bloomberg Environment Nov. 1.
He said the environmental group is continuing to fight LNG exports on numerous grounds, “including the direct impacts of the infrastructure itself, rather than the indirect effects that were the issue in these cases.” For instance, he said the group filed a protest last week with FERC about a renewed application by Canadian energy company Pembina Pipeline Corp. for its Jordan Cove LNG project in Port of Coos Bay, Ore. FERC denied the company's LNG permit in March 2016, and it is reapplying.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123261976&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123261976&jd=123261976
-
Nov 1, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
A federal appeals court on Wednesday tossed lawsuits brought by the Sierra Club to thwart liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports from projects in Maryland, Louisiana and Texas from moving forward.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (DC) Circuit struck down legal challenges to federal approvals for the Dominion Energy Cove Point LNG LP facility in Maryland, scheduled to begin exports this month; Cheniere Energy Inc.’s operating Sabine Pass LNG facility in Louisiana; and Cheniere’s Corpus Christi, TX, export project, due to ramp in 2018.
Sierra Club, as it has before, challenged Department of Energy (DOE) authority to approve LNG exports under the Natural Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Natural Gas Act. The case decided Wednesday is Sierra Club v. U.S. Department of Energy, No. 16-1186.
The three-judge panel followed its recent decisions for a series of lawsuits filed by environmental groups to prevent LNG export project approvals by DOE and FERC.
The same DC circuit court in August -- for the same reasons --rejected Sierra Club’s challenge to the DOE’s approval for worldwide gas exports from Freeport LNG on Quintana Island, TX.
“In a very recent case, Sierra Club v. U.S. Department of Energy (Freeport), this court denied a petition by Sierra Club challenging, under the same two statutes, the DOE approval of an LNG export application from a fourth facility,” wrote Judge David Tatel and Senior Judges Harry Edwards and David Sentelle.
The panel, in a four-page brief, sided with the DOE on the three issues raised in the lawsuit. Sierra Club questioned whether DOE should have conducted an environmental impact statement rather than an environmental assessment for Cove Point and Sabine Pass. It also claimed DOE ignored environmental information about how gas is produced onshore, often using hydraulic fracturing (fracking), and it said DOE had not properly weighed public interest of the three export projects.
“The court’s decision in Freeport largely governs the resolution of the instant cases,” said the judges. None of the additional issues raised by Sierra Club were convincing, the court said.
Environmental groups have challenged not only DOE but also Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority to approve LNG projects, which also have been rejected by the DC panel.
The Center for Liquefied Natural Gas’ Charlie Riedl, executive director, said Wednesday the group was “not surprised that the DC Circuit Court has again upheld DOE, further cementing its opinion earlier this year that the existing rigorous DOE review process appropriately considers the environmental impacts of these projects.
“We hope today's decision will put an end to the unnecessary and costly challenges by Sierra Club that delay LNG projects. The facts are clear and the court agrees: the regulatory review process for U.S. LNG projects provides a thorough review of both operational and environmental impacts before being approved."
Sierra Club attorney Nathan Matthews also responded to the court’s rejection.
“DOE is tasked with determining if proposed exports are in the public interest, and it is disappointing that the court has declined to hold the agency accountable for doing a real analysis that takes the costs for American communities into account," he said "We will continue to work to protect communities from the threats of fracked gas pollution."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/112300-dc-court-again-rejects-sierra-clubs-challenges-to-lng-exports-from-cove-point-sabine-pass-corpus-christi
-
Agency Hit By Cybersecurity 'Incident'
Nov 1, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sam Mintz and Blake Sobczak
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission experienced a recent cybersecurity "incident," according to a new report from the Department of Energy's inspector general.
The report provides no details about what systems or data at the agency may have been affected or when specifically the incident occurred.
The IG wrote that during testing of FERC's unclassified cybersecurity program in fiscal 2017, it "became aware of a recent security incident."
"Upon learning of the incident, Commission officials initiated action to identify the cause of the incident, determine its impact, and implement corrective actions, as necessary," the IG wrote.
The IG commended FERC for its response to the incident, but the watchdog said it remains "concerned that certain controls may not have been in place that could have potentially prevented the incident. At the time of our test work, the Commission was still in the process of determining the impact of the incident."
The report recommended that FERC "ensure that the analyses related to the cyber incident ... are completed in a timely manner and that any remaining corrective actions related to implementation of preventative controls are appropriately prioritized."
Patrick Miller, managing partner at Archer Energy Solutions, who closely tracks grid security issues at FERC and related agencies, pointed out that while FERC doesn't manage grid operations, "they do have a significant store of potentially sensitive information about the grid."
For example, an unclassified but sensitive FERC study leaked to The Wall Street Journal three years ago identified 30 critical substations that could be targeted in a coordinated attack (Energywire, March 14, 2014). That study reportedly claimed that disabling nine of those substations could bring down the entire U.S. power grid.
There is not yet any indication, however, that the cyber incident disclosed today released any information that sensitive — or leaked any data at all.
"FERC, along with virtually all US government agencies, are required to track and report security events," Miller said via a Twitter direct message. "This includes everything like run of the mill 'drive by' malvertising and antivirus hits on corporate systems.
"Some issues are of more concern than others, and some agencies are better than others at detection," he added.
FERC and the inspector general both declined to comment.
FERC said in a written response to the watchdog that the agency is "currently working with DOE to continue the analysis of the impact of the security incident."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/11/01/stories/1060065341
-
Bolster Cyber Defenses With Streamlined Regulation
Nov 1, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr
Cyber crime is now a bigger criminal enterprise than the global narcotics trade. The financial services industry is a top target facing tens of thousands of attacks each day. While regulation and supervision of cyber preparedness has an important role in the collective cyber defense effort, the current landscape of duplicative, redundant and overlapping requirements of multiple regulators can lead to a suboptimal balance of industry resources devoted to compliance versus security.
October marked National Cybersecurity Awareness Month, a prime opportunity for the industry and regulators alike to have assessed how cyber defense and response policies and protocols can be improved to protect our nation’s critical infrastructure, including the financial markets. Enhanced harmonization of regulatory standards and supervision would improve the efficient use of critical cyber resources. In simple terms: financial institutions shouldn’t have to devote limited resources to redundant regulatory and supervisory requirements at the expense of actual security-based activities.
In fact, large financial institutions report that approximately 40 percent of corporate cybersecurity activities are compliance-oriented rather than security-oriented.
Consider that for the financial services industry there are no fewer than 11 federal agencies that impose some form of cybersecurity requirements. This is in addition to individual states’ requirements and those of self-regulatory organizations such as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the National Futures Association. These rules and guidelines are further layered with standards developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the International Organization for Standardization, which guide financial institutions in setting cybersecurity standards and measuring the adequacy of cybersecurity programs. Large financial institutions may also be subject to additional or different cyber regulations in each region where they conduct business.
Make no mistake, both the industry and our regulators are in complete agreement that cyber security and resiliency are and should be a top priority. And our collaboration with regulators on the matter has never been greater. Regulators could help enhance defense and resiliency by establishing a unified cyber assessment framework and common set of controls across financial services regulatory bodies. The use of consistent language and terminology in regulations, guidance, rules and examinations would go a long way in promoting efficient cybersecurity spending. The cybersecurity standards developed in 2014 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology could form the basis of this common framework.
To their credit, regulators should be recognized for making strides towards harmonization, including the formation of a Regulatory Harmonization Working Group. The industry also welcomed the President’s May 2017 Executive Order calling for a comprehensive review of cybersecurity efforts across all government agencies.
Cybersecurity is truly a shared objective where the interests of the government and private sector are fully aligned. We are all targets and the industry remains vigilant to confront this risk every day.
For our part, the securities industry is constantly working to improve cyber defenses, resiliency and recovery through massive monetary investment in technology and personnel, regular training, industry exercises, and close coordination between the financial sector and the government, including our regulators. This is a C-Suite and Board-level issue and has been a top industry priority for several years. A strong collaboration between the government and private sector is key to success. Continued work to streamline regulation would strengthen this partnership and help to better protect investors.
Mr. Bentsen is President and CEO of SIFMA. Mr. Bentsen is also Chairman of Engage China, a coalition of 12 U.S. financial services trade associations united in support of high-level engagement with China. Bentsen is SIFMA president and CEO. From 1995 to 2003, Bentsen served as a member of Congress from Texas, where he sat on the House Financial Services Committee (and its predecessor House Banking and Financial Services Committee), and separately on the House Budget Committee.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/358065-bolster-cyber-defenses-with-streamlined-regulation
-
Large Fire Contained At Exxon Mobil Refinery
Nov 2, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
A large fire filled the sky overnight at Exxon Mobil's Baton Rouge refinery in Louisiana before being contained this morning.
No injuries were reported at the nation's fourth-largest oil refinery, where a fire ignited at about 2:30 a.m. Wednesday and was contained after 5 a.m., said Exxon Mobil spokeswoman Charlotte Huffaker.
Internal air monitoring didn't detect emissions rising above any short-term limits for health risks, she added. Exxon Mobil is starting an investigation into the cause of the fire, Huffaker said.
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Large-fire-contained-this-morning-at-Exxon-Mobil-12322799.php
-
EPA Won't Expand Region Required to Reduce Ozone Pollution
Nov 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
Central states will not have to install more rigorous pollution controls for ozone-forming emissions that contribute to neighboring states’ ozone problems, the EPA said.
The Environmental Protection Agency denied a petition from nine northeastern states seeking new air pollution controls to prevent ozone precursors from Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia, and areas of Virginia from worsening air quality in downwind states.
The petition sought to add those nine upwind states to the Ozone Transport Region. States within that region, which currently runs down the Eastern seaboard from Maine to Washington, D.C., are required to submit an ozone pollution control plan and impose pollution controls on industrial facilities, even in areas that are in compliance with all national ozone standards.
“It would get at more sources than have been specifically addressed under transport rules,” Paul Miller, deputy director and chief scientist of Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, told Bloomberg Environment.
This would include upwind pollution from smaller power plants in rural areas that don't have poor air quality and don't have to control their pollution as rigorously, he said. Ozone, a pollutant linked to respiratory disease, is formed when combustion byproducts react in the presence of sunlight.
However, the EPA said in a final rule released Nov. 1 that existing pollution control requirements as well as its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which controls air emissions from power plants that cross state lines, are sufficient.
Air agencies representing the Great Lakes area and southeastern states could not immediately be reached for comment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=123261974&vname=dennotallissues&fn=123261974&jd=123261974
-
EPA Gives Final Thumbs-Down To Ozone Proposal
Nov 1, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
Almost four years after getting the request, U.S. EPA has rendered its verdict on Northeastern states' proposal for a historic expansion of a regional ozone control program: No.
The final decision, contained in a rule signed late last month by EPA chief Scott Pruitt, rejects the December 2013 petition by Connecticut and eight other states to add all or part of another nine states as far west as Illinois to the Ozone Transport Region.
The final rule follows the Obama-era draft issued in January, which concluded that there are more efficient ways to deal with ozone-forming emissions that add to compliance challenges in downwind states (E&E News PM, Jan. 13).
Pruitt signed the rule, now awaiting publication in the Federal Register, in time to meet a court-ordered deadline. Publication will open the 60-day window for the filing of any legal challenges to the decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, is a lung irritant linked to asthma attacks in children and worsened breathing problems in people with long-term respiratory diseases. It is formed by the reaction of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides in sunshine. The Ozone Transport Region, created by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, currently encompasses all or part of a dozen states and the District of Columbia; members are supposed to take extra steps to reduce the spread across state lines of ozone and the pollutants that create it.
In its 2013 petition, the nine-state coalition had argued that emissions from areas outside the region were undercutting its ability to meet EPA's 2008 ozone standard of 75 parts per billion. At an April public hearing, regulators from New York, Connecticut and Delaware had all urged EPA to grant the petition (E&E News PM, April 13).
In the final rule, however, federal officials largely stuck to their initial position, pointing to relief that's potentially available through "good neighbor" requirements that give regulators flexibility to target polluters that contribute to interstate ozone problem and other mechanisms. Use of those remedies will allow states to meet the 2008 standard "without the need to implement the additional requirements that inclusion in the OTR would entail," the rule said.
The rule also cited a Clean Air Act provision that allows states to petition EPA to crack down on individual pollution sources outside their boundaries that are contributing to ozone compliance issues.
A top Delaware regulator has called EPA's record in addressing those petition "abysmal." Maryland and Connecticut are both suing the agency for failing to act on their petitions by a statutory deadline. New York last week formally threatened EPA with another lawsuit for allegedly missing a separate deadline to require Virginia and four other states to come up with final good neighbor plans (E&E News PM, Oct. 26).
EPA representatives have declined to comment on active or possible litigation. While implementation of the 2008 ozone standard is continuing, EPA in 2015 tightened it to 70 ppb.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/11/01/stories/1060065345
-
ECOS, EPA Eye Metrics To Reduce State Program Reviews, Boost Flexibility
Nov 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Todd Parfitt, president of the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), says the group of state environmental regulators is working with EPA to craft metrics for reducing agency reviews of state programs in order to free up limited resources and bolster agency Administrator Scott Pruitt's goal of delegating more environmental protection work to states with increased flexibility in how states achieve those goals.
In an Oct. 31 interview with Inside EPA, Parfitt -- who is also the director of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality -- says state regulators and Trump EPA officials are meeting to advance their shared goal of cooperative federalism.
Parfitt said EPA and ECOS are seeking metrics to ensure that state environmental efforts are achieving intended outcomes. He described state and EPA meetings on cooperative federalism as ongoing and said the meetings are focusing on compliance, EPA oversight of state programs, and on research and development.
The effort to better measure success is part of a new audit approach for EPA review of state programs, an ECOS priority that EPA officials have suggested they may adopt.
“It's not so much looking at how many permits we have issued or getting into those kinds of details. It's more importantly, are we seeing the results in environmental protection and having the results that we intended?”
Parfitt described improved communication with state officials as a hallmark of Pruitt's tenure so far and said that the ongoing discussions should yield increased efficiencies that will help states better address environmental challenges in a time of limited resources.
“I would view cooperative federalism as how EPA is engaging the states with their oversight, and when you streamline that process and right-size that process so everybody is staying in their lanes, you're more efficient and you have more resources that you can put toward environmental programs rather than addressing oversight issues which might be either redundant exercises or just inefficient,” he said.
The focus on determining how EPA reviews and measures success of state environmental programs is part of ECOS' recent paper Cooperative Federalism 2.0, which outlines principles for redefining state and federal roles for overseeing pollution control requirements.
EPA strongly backed state regulators' call to give them greater autonomy in implementing federal environmental laws in its Fiscal Year 2018-2022 Draft Strategic Plan, which the agency sought public comment on through Oct. 31. The draft calls for a renewed focus on core agency priorities, defined as ensuring clean air, land and water, as well as bolstering EPA's cooperation with states and a focus on statutory obligations.
Budget Cuts
But the promise of increased state flexibility for meeting environmental goals comes as the Trump administration and House lawmakers have proposed major cuts to EPA, which provides funding through grant programs that cover an average of between one quarter and one third of funding for states' environmental programs.
The House in September approved an FY18 spending bill that would cut EPA's budget by hundreds of millions of dollars below FY17 levels, though the Trump administration initially floated even greater cuts estimated at 31 percent.
In the interview with Inside EPA, Parfitt said that ECOS has told the Trump administration that continued funding for states' core environmental programs is “a critical need,” though he balked at criticism that the Trump EPA is shifting away from environmental protection, describing the new leadership as bringing a “recalibration” of priorities.
Parfitt argued that EPA's strategic plan calls for a return to core principles of providing clean air, land and water, priorities he said he backs. He also said he supports Pruitt's renewed emphasis on speeding cleanup of contaminated sites and improving infrastructure.
While acknowledging that Trump administration rollback of Obama-era rules, such as those bolstering EPA's Risk Management Plan facility accident prevention and pesticide farmworker protection standards, as well as the Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule, create some uncertainty for states, he said the revision processes will allow states greater opportunity for input.
“What we're seeing is that this administration and Scott Pruitt are looking at those particular issues and making sure that they're being implemented in accordance with the law and following a process where states actually have adequate input into what the final rule looks like,” Parfitt said.
He also downplayed EPA's omission of any reference to climate change from the draft strategic plan, saying that EPA's plan lays out core principles but “doesn't exclude anything necessarily.” He said that Pruitt has discussed a repeal and replacement of the Clean Power Plan through a process that would allow states the opportunity to comment.
He also said that the budget forecast remains uncertain, but that depending on the outcome of the federal appropriations process, some states may have to pull money from their general fund or set up fee systems to help cover the cost of environmental programs.
Parfitt described the most notable change in Trump's EPA as a greater focus on communicating with states.
“What's been the most identifiable under Scott Pruitt has been communication and looking at the relationships with the states and trying to enhance those relationships,” Parfitt said. “We have pretty good access to leadership at EPA.” -- Dave Reynolds
https://insideepa.com/interview/ecos-epa-eye-metrics-reduce-state-program-reviews-boost-flexibility
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
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