Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 12/7/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Hawaii Lawmakers Used To Hearing About Potential Conflicts
Dec 7, 2017 | AP (In Midland Daily News)
By Audrey Mcavoy
Hawaii lawmakers are used to hearing the criticism that they often vote in their own interests. Most work outside jobs, and bills often come up that could benefit their sources of income. -
Trump Pick to Head Consumer Safety Board Is Seen as Too Close to Industries
Dec 7, 2017 | The New York Times
By Sheila Kaplan
Ann Marie Buerkle, a commissioner at the federal agency charged with protecting consumers from hazardous toys and products, has seldom voted for a mandatory recall, a maximum fine or a tougher safety standard. -
EPA Chief Says Agency Scientists Are Free to Present Their Work Publicly
Dec 6, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Brady Dennis
The Environmental Protection Agency will not block its scientists from freely discussing their work in public, Administrator Scott Pruitt promised lawmakers this week, in the wake of a recent incident in which researchers were barred from presenting findings on climate change at a conference. -
Pruitt to Tout 'Back to Basics'
Dec 6, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt will highlight his plans for the agency on Capitol Hill today. -
It’s Time To Renegotiate NAFTA
Dec 7, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rep. Kurt Schrader
Our neighbors to the north are our best friends and allies. We have so much in common, not just geographically. -
(ACC Mentioned) The Hazardous Nominee Who Could Lead The EPA's Chemical Safety Program
Dec 6, 2017 | CNN
By Bonnie Lautenberg
As a Senator, my late husband, Frank Lautenberg, made it his mission to fight for the health of Americans -- especially kids. He fought to protect them from exposure to toxic chemicals in our air, water, consumer products and cigarette smoke. -
OPPT Hedges On TSCA Rules For Legacy Uses Of Persistent Chemicals
Dec 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA officials are undecided on whether to assess exposures to, and manage risks of, legacy uses and disposal of persistent and biaccumulative chemicals under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), opening the door to a limitation that is already a feature of litigation over the Trump administration's rules governing TSCA assessments and chemical prioritization processes. -
Citing Efficiency, EPA Defends Strategy For Some 'New' TSCA Chemicals
Dec 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA officials are defending the agency's latest strategy for regulating some “new” chemicals that the agency reviews before they can enter the marketplace from environmentalists' concerns that the Trump EPA's decision to drop use of enforcement orders to limit the chemicals' uses before rules are finalized is not health protective. -
EPA Extends Comment Period for PBT Chemicals
Dec 6, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On December 6, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it was extending the public comment period to receive information on the five persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals that are subject to Section 6(h) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) which requires EPA to take expedited regulatory action to address risks from certain PBT chemicals. -
US EPA Announces 'Cross Agency' Initiative On PFAS
Dec 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US EPA has announced "a cross-agency effort to address per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)," including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), as well as GenX, a substance developed as a replacement for the older chemicals. -
EPA Group Plans New PFAS Test Methods As Labs Grapple With Demand
Dec 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA has created a new intra-office work group that is developing more validated test methods to address a wider array of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) than is currently available, an effort that could aid laboratories that face an increasing demand to conduct sampling analysis since the agency issued drinking water advisories for two such substances in 2016 but which are facing backlogs and limited funds. -
P&G Becomes Improbable Supporter of Ingredient Disclosure Rule
Dec 7, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Lauren Coleman-Lochner
It took more than a decade, but California has a new law requiring extensive labeling of ingredients in cleaning products, and it got support from what might seem the unlikeliest of advocates: product manufacturers themselves. -
Amazon, Walgreens Take Baby Steps On Chemical Safety
Dec 7, 2017 | Greenbiz
By Anya Khalamayzer
Chances are you don't prioritize your holiday wish list based on the chemical composition of the products on it. But informed shoppers are increasingly scrutinizing the items they're bringing into their homes with an eye to whether they include chemicals harmful to human health. -
ECHA, EFSA Consult on Draft EDC Criteria Guidance
Dec 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa and the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) are seeking public views on the draft guidancedocument for the identification of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) under EU legislation for pesticides and biocides. -
Downstream Users Urged To Act On EU Antimony Evaluation
Dec 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Nick Hazlewood
Downstream users of antimony and its compounds have been urged to start preparing the information needed for an EU substance evaluation in March 2018. Lack of data could have serious consequences, speakers at a recent Brussels conference said. -
Canada Criticises EU Action On Endocrine Disruptors
Dec 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Canada has joined the US and Australia in complaining to the WTO that hazard-based EU proposals to regulate endocrine disrupting substances (EDCs) in biocidal and plant protection products, will harm international trade. -
Permanence Within EU Chemicals Agency, REACH Key For UK Industry - Labour MP
Dec 7, 2017 | ICIS
By Jonathan Lopez
-It will be vital for the UK’s chemical industry to remain within the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) after the country leaves the EU in order to keep regulatory convergence intact, according to a member of parliament (MP) from the opposition Labour party. -
Dominion Introduces Feed Gas at Cove Point LNG Facility
Dec 6, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Dominion Energy Cove Point LNG LP said it introduced feed gas Tuesday into its new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility on the Chesapeake Bay in Lusby, MD, as it moves closer to commencing commercial production. -
Nominee Backs Faster Pipeline Permits
Dec 7, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Ariel Wittenberg
President Trump's pick to lead the Army Corps of Engineers expressed support yesterday in his Senate confirmation hearing for streamlining the permit process for natural gas pipelines. -
CHP No Longer Perceived Negatively by Utilities
Dec 6, 2017 | Power Engineering
By Diarmaid Williams
Attitudes to combined heat and power technology have transformed, according to speakers at the world’s largest electric power conference. -
3 Hurt in Chemical Explosion at Southeastern Arkansas Plant
Dec 7, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
Three workers performing maintenance duties at a chemical plant in southeastern Arkansas were injured when a decomposing product exploded. -
Officials Hold Meeting On Contaminated Water At Wurtsmith Air Force Base
Dec 7, 2017 | WNEM Saginaw
By James Felton
As the city of Flint continues to climb out of the devastating water crisis, another Mid-Michigan community is hoping to avoid a crisis of their own. -
Rail Regs In Crosshairs After Emergency Brakes Rule Repeal
Dec 7, 2017 | Law 360
By Linda Chiem
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s repeal of a 2015 rule requiring trains carrying crude oil, ethanol and other flammable liquids to be outfitted with advanced braking technology underscores that Obama-era regulations viewed as anti-business won’t survive the Trump administration’s relentless deregulatory push. -
Oil Train Safety Rules Getting Rolled Back By Trump Adminstration
Dec 6, 2017 | OPB
By Courtney Flatt
The Trump administration is rolling back a requirement for trains carrying highly explosive liquids — like the oil trains that run through the Columbia River Gorge en route to Northwest refineries. -
Panel Sends Clean Air Carve-Out Bills to House Floor
Dec 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Lee
Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent seven environmental bills to the House floor Dec. 6. -
EPA Schedules 3 Public Listening Sessions
Dec 6, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell
U.S. EPA intends to hold three additional public listening sessions on the proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan, the agency announced today. -
SAB Members Mull Asking EPA To 'Ground Truth' Air Toxics Rule Reviews
Dec 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) members are mulling recommendations over the extent to which the agency should “ground truth” its risk screening methods used to review existing air toxics rules, fearing EPA may be using overly conservative assumptions that increase its workload by suggesting a need for further analyses. -
Full House Energy Committee Approves Four EPA Air Bills
Dec 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
The House Energy & Commerce Committee has approved four primarily GOP-backed bills aimed at easing regulatory compliance with Obama-era EPA air rules governing brick manufacturing, waste coal combustion, wood stove manufacturers and modification of racing cars with emissions control “defeat devices." -
States Sue EPA Over Missing Ozone Designations
Dec 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
States have followed environmental groups in suing EPA over the agency's failure to designate areas attainment with the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), after the agency in November issued only a partial list of designations. -
UN Leaders Tackle Air Pollution, Call It Globe's Greatest Threat
Dec 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Wachira Kigotho
Pollution accounts for 12.6 million deaths each year, in addition to causing other human suffering and the destruction of ecosystems, Edgar Gutierrez, the president of the 2017 United Nations Environment Assembly, told more than 4,000 delegates in Nairobi, Kenya.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Hawaii Lawmakers Used To Hearing About Potential Conflicts
Dec 7, 2017 | AP (In Midland Daily News)
By Audrey Mcavoy
HONOLULU (AP) — Hawaii lawmakers are used to hearing the criticism that they often vote in their own interests. Most work outside jobs, and bills often come up that could benefit their sources of income.
Even comedian John Oliver noticed.
A few years ago, Oliver ran a segment on his HBO show highlighting how Rep. Joe Souki disclosed he was a consultant for the American Chemistry Council just before the House voted on a bill the trade group opposed. The legislation would have imposed a fee on plastic bags.
The House's presiding lawmaker told the Maui Democrat there was no conflict, and Souki voted against the bill.
Oliver's studio audience scoffed and laughed. But lawmakers argue there are good reasons to vote even in such circumstances.
Souki, who was House speaker from 1993 to 1999 and again from 2013 until last May, said leaders have long been relatively liberal in allowing votes amid potential conflicts. It's better to have lawmakers on the record for or against legislation, he said.
"The bottom line is that we are a part-time legislature," Souki said. "People work and they're going to have potential conflicts because of their job."
The Hawaii Constitution wants members to vote — "to be transparent and not to hide behind recusal," Souki said.
House Speaker Scott Saiki said lawmakers have a duty to represent their constituents, which includes voting. Disclosure requirements act as a check, Saiki said.
Senate President Ronald Kouchi said if the definition of conflict was too broad, "you can almost conflict everybody out of voting and not be able to conduct business."
In a nationwide review, the Center for Public Integrity and The Associated Press found that at least 76 percent of state lawmakers reported outside income or employment in 2015. While that might give lawmakers expertise in certain policy areas, many of those income sources are directly affected by the actions of the legislatures.
The review was based on an analysis of disclosure reports from 6,933 lawmakers in the 47 states that required them. It found numerous examples of state lawmakers who have introduced and supported legislation that directly and indirectly helped their own businesses, their employers or their personal finances. The practice is enabled by limited disclosure requirements for personal financial information and self-policing that often excuses seemingly blatant conflicts.
Under Hawaii Senate rules, lawmakers shouldn't vote if they have a conflict. If they're unsure, they must notify the Senate president, who will determine if there is one. House rules are similar.
In multiple cases this year, Hawaii lawmakers voted on legislation potentially affecting their employers.
State Rep. Linda Ichiyama sponsored and voted for a bill that would have allowed a dispute between condominium owners and a board or management company to go to arbitration if the parties failed to agree during mediation.
That's even though Ichiyama is an attorney for a Honolulu law firm that frequently represents condominium associations. Christian Porter, one of the firm's partners, submitted testimony supporting the legislation.
The Democrat representing Salt Lake and Moanalua didn't return phone messages seeking comment. But Souki said Ichiyama reported her conflicts to him and he ruled there was no conflict. The bill died after the House and Senate couldn't agree on its content.
Sen. Michelle Kidani sponsored and voted on condo-related legislation even though she's a community affairs manager for Associa, a company that manages condominiums on behalf of associations.
The Mililani Democrat also served on a committee that worked out House and Senate disagreements on condominium and other bills.
Kouchi said he doesn't recall Kidani asking him to rule on possible conflicts during the past session.
Kidani, in an emailed statement, said she follows Senate rules including when she votes on bills related to her work outside the Legislature. She said bills are carefully read to determine whether there may be any conflicts of interest.
Condo owners said they feel outgunned at the Legislature in part because Kidani and Ichiyama are helping draft legislation.
"We don't know how to write our own bills or measures. So we ask legislators to do so, but they turn around and ask the condo industry for help in drafting it," said Lila Mower, who owns two condos in Honolulu. "So we never get the bills we want."
Another example: Rep. Sylvia Luke, an attorney for a prominent Honolulu personal injury law firm, voted for a bill that would have required the state to defend county lifeguards against lawsuits and allowed lifeguard immunity protections to expire. Ige vetoed the bill. Luke, a Democrat representing Makiki and Nuuanu, didn't return phone and email messages seeking comment.
Corie Tanida, executive director for Common Cause Hawaii, a watchdog group, said information on conflicts should be more accessible.
Lawmakers declare their income sources to the Hawaii State Ethics Commission, which posts them online. But the public must watch hearings and floor sessions, or review lengthy records, to learn whether lawmakers disclosed potential conflicts before a vote.
"We shouldn't have to go through journals, we shouldn't have to go through hours of footage to see if this conflict of interest was declared," Tanida said. "It's all about fostering the public's trust."
http://www.ourmidland.com/news/article/Hawaii-lawmakers-used-to-hearing-about-potential-12410130.php
-
Trump Pick to Head Consumer Safety Board Is Seen as Too Close to Industries
Dec 7, 2017 | The New York Times
By Sheila Kaplan
Ann Marie Buerkle, a commissioner at the federal agency charged with protecting consumers from hazardous toys and products, has seldom voted for a mandatory recall, a maximum fine or a tougher safety standard.
In more than four years on the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Ms. Buerkle has opposed limiting dangerous carbon monoxide emissions in portable generators; resisted requiring safety technology on table saws; and disagreed with the other Republican commissioner on the five-member board by rejecting fines against companies that delayed reporting hazards to the agency, as required by law.
As President Trump’s nominee to head the agency, she is drawing criticism for her positions. Like some Trump administration officials, Ms. Buerkle is an unabashed supporter of voluntary regulations, and believes that collaboration with manufacturers, rather than levying fines or imposing recalls, is the fastest way to get dangerous products off the market. “My top goal, of course, is safety,” said Ms. Buerkle, the agency’s acting chairwoman, in an interview.
But she elaborated that in her view, the agency had become too emotionally reactive under the Obama administration. “The agency is supposed to be data-driven and science-driven,” she said. “It’s not supposed to be emotional.”
A 66-year-old former nurse, lawyer and member of Congress, Ms. Buerkle is very likely to be confirmed soon by the Republican-controlled Senate, but her record has spurred opposition from Democrats and some consumer advocates. The Senate will also vote on another Trump nominee for the agency, Dana Baiocco, who has long worked as a lawyer defending companies against liability claims.Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGEProduct Recalls Rise With Better Detection and Fewer Suppliers MAY 29, 2016Chemical Industry Ally Faces Critics in Bid for Top E.P.A. Post SEPT. 19, 2017Fire Risk Prompts Safety Agency to Recall Some Hoverboards JULY 6, 2016Galaxy Note 7 Is Not Samsung’s Only Problematic Product OCT. 12, 2016Ikea Recalls 29 Million Chests and Dressers After 6 Children Die JUNE 28, 2016
The emergence of Ms. Buerkle, Ms. Baiocco, and the newly appointed general counsel, Patricia Hanz, in leadership roles represents a major shift in the tiny agency, which had in recent years taken a tougher stance against companies manufacturing toxic toys, flammable pajamas, exploding batteries and other household hazards.
Consumer groups are raising concerns about potential conflicts as officials and board members join from industries under agency scrutiny or leave to work in them. Another commissioner, Joseph Mohorovic, left to join a law firm that represents the portable generator industry, which is fighting restrictions on their products.
Ms. Buerkle defended her philosophy of seeking cooperation with companies. “Not only do I think consensus standards are more effective, easier to change and to implement, but it’s also what Congress had directed us to do in the statutes,” she said.
The law does direct the commission to seek voluntary standards or recalls unless they would not sufficiently protect the public, or would not be followed.
Determining when voluntary agreements are insufficient is at the crux of the agency’s mission, and highlights competing interests.
“Ann Marie Buerkle’s record shows she is not the right person to chair the C.P.S.C.,” said Pamela Gilbert, a lawyer who was executive director of the agency from 1995 to 2001. “All too often, she follows the industry’s wishes at the expense of consumer safety. She opposes meaningful penalties when companies flout the law and she refuses to support regulations that prevent injuries and save lives.”
Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, and chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which vets nominees to the commission, said both Ms. Buerkle and Ms. Baiocco had outstanding credentials.
“As most recalls are voluntary, their experiences as lawyers — and for Ms. Buerkle also as a former nurse and member of Congress — are invaluable for expeditiously addressing consumer safety issues,” Mr. Thune said.
The agency’s jurisdiction is vast, with oversight of more than 15,000 types of products, from children’s clothing and toys to lawn mowers and all-terrain vehicles. In recent years, this portfolio has stretched to include nanotechnology, toxic chemicals and magnetic balls.
In 2008 and 2011 Congress increased the agency’s authority, in particular over children’s toys and cribs. Since then the agency had stepped up enforcement, overseeing a record number of recalls or fines and adopting stricter standards for items like garage openers, strollers and window blinds.
Ms. Buerkle, however, has voted against 16 of 21 proposed settlements; in numerous cases, she argued that they should be lower than the amount the businesses had already agreed to. “Congress in 2008, raised the fines for a reason, and it did so to give the C.P.S.C. more of an ability to deter corporate wrongdoing,” said William Wallace, a policy analyst for Consumers Union, an advocacy group.
As a sign that Ms. Buerkle is too close to industry, opponents point to her hiring of Patricia Hanz as the agency’s general counsel. Ms. Hanz was a lawyer for Briggs & Stratton Corp., the world’s largest producer of gasoline engines for power equipment and a leading maker of power generators. The Milwaukee-based company has been fighting the agency’s push to require reduction of the generators’ carbon monoxide emissions, to lower the risk of poisoning associated with using the products indoors. Ms. Hanz was also vice president of the board of directors of the Portable Generator Manufacturers’ Association.
Ms. Buerkle was the only commissioner who rejected a proposal to force the manufacturers to cut carbon monoxide emissions, which have been responsible for 849 non-fire deaths from 2005 through 2016, according to the agency.
Ms. Buerkle defended her vote, saying that she believed the industry’s proposed voluntary standard could be adopted faster than a formal rule. In a striking departure for an agency chief, she suggested punting the issue to the Environmental Protection Agency.
And emails obtained by The New York Times show that Mr. Mohorovic, who stepped down in October, has since been lobbying against the proposal for voluntary standards that were under consideration by members of the Underwriters Labratories that votes on safety recommendations.
In the email, Mr. Mohorovic included a link to his agency biography, and contended that the Underwriters Laboratories proposal did not deal sufficiently with carbon monoxide problems and other potential generator hazards. The Underwiters Lab is a separate entity from the agency, although a commission member is among its dozens of members.
Asked for comment, Mr. Mohorovic sent an email to The Times that included the ethics rules on revolving door practices, which prohibits former officials from lobbying for one year before their agency.
Ms. Baiocco, the other nominee, helped settle cases involving toys with lead paint and defended Yamaha against lawsuits regarding rollovers of some off-road vehicles. By June 2009, the consumer agency reported nearly 60 fatalities involving three models of the Yamaha Rhino; along with amputations and other serious injuries. The agency announced that Yamaha was offering free vehicle repairs and a helmet to all owners of the three models.
Ms. Baiocco is married to Andrew Susko, who represented Ikea in one lawsuit over its dresser that tipped over and killed a child. His firm continues to represent the furniture giant. The C.P.S.C. has struggled since 2015 to reduce the risk of tip-over deaths from the dressers. Initially, the agency allowed Ikea to supply customers with brackets to secure the dressers to a wall. After more deaths occurred, Ikea agreed to a recall that offered customers a refund, or repair services. Ms. Baiocco did not respond to a request for an interview.
At Ms. Baiocco’s confirmation hearing, Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, asked her if she would recuse herself from matters involving another former client, the tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds. When Ms. Baiocco responded that cigarettes were outside the agency’s jurisdiction, Mr. Blumenthal disagreed. “R.J. Reynolds is among the tobacco industry representatives that have been instrumental in encouraging the extensive use of flame retardant chemicals in upholstered furniture to deflect pressure on cigarette makers to make a fire-safe cigarette,” he said.
Marietta S. Robinson, a Democratic commissioner whose term ended last month, also took issue with Ms. Hanz’s role. “She and Ann Marie were talking about her future employment as general counsel while she was lobbying the C.P.S.C. staff, and me and my staff, not to proceed with the rule-making — without telling anyone, including her employer, of her conflict of interest,” Ms. Robinson said. “It did not even raise a red flag in her mind.”
Ms. Buerkle and Ms. Hanz each denied any impropriety. Ms. Hanz wrote in an email sent via the public affairs office that she would not have any involvement with issues related to any members of the portable generator industry. She also said, “An independent lawyer whose expertise is Wisconsin ethics law, as well as my former employer, reviewed all details and both found no conflict of interest existed.”
In the field of environmental health, it is often difficult for scientists and regulators to agree on which chemical compounds pose the most serious threats. One exception has been fire retardants. More than 20 years have elapsed since researchers at the E.P.A. and the National Institute of Environmental Health and Sciences declared that these chemicals, used to reduce the chance of fire in furniture, clothing, electronics and other consumer goods, can interfere with fetal development, alter brain function, and raise the risk of cancer and reproductive problems.
California and 12 other states have restricted certain types of flame retardants, but studies have shown that the substitutes marketed by the industry pose similar hazards. A petition by a coalition of consumer groups spurred the commission to develop a rule restricting the use of a broad class of flame retardants in children’s products, as well as mattresses, furniture and casings for electronics.
At a September meeting, Ms. Buerkle voted with Mr. Mohorovic, her former Republican colleague, against limiting flame retardants, despite testimony from Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program.
“Every chemical tested in this class has adverse effects,” Dr. Birnbaum said. ‘‘Unfortunately, scientific research cannot keep pace with the flood of chemicals in commerce.”
On this matter, as in the case of the generators, Ms. Buerkle wants to defer to the E.P.A. She also disagreed with Dr. Birnbaum about the weight of evidence.
“For me, it was a situation where my colleagues jumped before they asked questions,” Ms. Buerkle said. “ It’s not that there may or may not be a problem with flame retardants. It’s what is the best way to get to the solution and to get the information we need? We need to look at them one at a time. Let’s look at the chemicals individually, rather than in this broad class.”
Dr. Birnbaum, however, called that idea impossible.
In late October, Ms. Buerkle was the lone commissioner who dissented in part from a decision to recall all Zen Magnets, the small but very strong rare earth magnets that can be shaped together, but can also separate. They are made for adults, but very young children can and do swallow the separated magnets, and if more than one is swallowed, they can cling together in the intestines cutting off the blood flow to the stomach and be lethal. In her opinion, Ms. Buerkle wrote that she would support only a limited recall — not the entire product class that the majority wished to take off the market, upsetting consumer advocates.
“She wrongly thinks we cannot protect children from dangers that result from their ‘foreseeable misuse’ of products,’’ Ms. Robinson said.
Retailers and manufacturers are eager for Ms. Buerkle’s promotion to commission chairwoman. Lisa Casinger, government relations liaison for the home furniture industry, wrote in a blog this year that she welcomed her approach to oversight.
“While other commissioners have called for changes to the voluntary standard,” Ms. Casinger wrote, “Buerkle’s view, which the HFA and industry share, is to gather and study data to see if the standard is working before proposing changes. This is a positive step for the furniture industry.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/health/consumer-safety-buerkle-gop.html?_r=0
-
EPA Chief Says Agency Scientists Are Free to Present Their Work Publicly
Dec 6, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Brady Dennis
The Environmental Protection Agency will not block its scientists from freely discussing their work in public, Administrator Scott Pruitt promised lawmakers this week, in the wake of a recent incident in which researchers were barred from presenting findings on climate change at a conference.
In a letter to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and other members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Pruitt did not explain why the EPA had instructed two of its scientists and one contractor not to speak as planned at an Oct. 23 scientific meeting in Providence, R.I. The agency had previously said only that it was “not an EPA conference.”
But Pruitt did write that such action would not happen again.
“Procedures have been put in place to prevent such an occurrence in the future,” he noted in his letter, which was first obtained by the New York Times. And, he continued, he has assured senior leaders in the agency’s Office of Research and Development “that they have the authority to make decisions about event participation going forward.”
“As always, [agency] scientists are asked to speak directly to the science in their presentations, leaving policy statements to the relevant EPA programs,” Pruitt wrote. “Additionally, I am committed to upholding EPA’s Scientific Integrity Policy, which ensures that the agency’s scientific work is of the highest quality, is presented openly and with integrity, and is free from political interference.”
The EPA’s decision to not allow the researchers to present at the State of Narragansett Bay and Its Watershed program in October angered academics and congressional Democrats such as Whitehouse. The conference marked the culmination of a three-year study on the status of the bay, New England’s largest estuary, and the challenges it faces. Climate change featured as a significant factor in the 500-page report.
For about six years, the agency has provided about $600,000 annually for each of more than two dozen national estuaries, including the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, the conference’s host. Meeting organizers were told by the EPA that the keynote speaker, division research ecologist Autumn Oczkowski, and another colleague, Rose Martin, would not be able to make presentations there. An EPA contractor who had contributed to two chapters of the report, Emily Shumchenia, also was told not to speak.
In prohibiting the scientists from presenting their work, the EPA gave the event a much higher profile. Protesters showed up outside the venue, and angry lawmakers and academics openly criticized the move.
“This type of political interference, or scientific censorship — whatever you want to call it — is ill-advised and does a real disservice to the American public and public health,” Sen. Jack Reed (D), Rhode Island’s senior senator, said at a news conference that day. “We can debate the issues. We can have different viewpoints. But we should all be able to objectively examine the data and look at the evidence.”
In his letter this week, Pruitt said the EPA will continue to collaborate on work to improve the quality of Narragansett Bay.
Whitehouse and a group of nearly a dozen lawmakers welcomed Pruitt’s assurances that the agency would not block scientists from presenting their work, though they stressed that they intend to make sure he follows through.
“After the EPA’s reckless and shortsighted decision to muzzle its own scientists from presenting to the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, we appreciate Administrator Pruitt’s commitment never to let this happen again,’’ the lawmakers said in a statement Wednesday. “We will hold him to that commitment.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/12/06/epa-chief-says-agency-scientists-are-free-to-present-their-work-publicly/?utm_term=.656b9ea11050
-
Pruitt to Tout 'Back to Basics'
Dec 6, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt will highlight his plans for the agency on Capitol Hill today.
In his written testimony for the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environmenthearing this morning, Pruitt will echo the three themes of his approach to the agency that have been prevalent since his confirmation hearing this past January: "core mission," "cooperative federalism" and "rule of law."
The three concepts make up Pruitt's "Back to Basics" agenda for EPA, which Democrats are itching to pick over, along with the administrator's other actions at today's hearing.
It will be Pruitt's first time back before Congress since he testified before House and Senate appropriations subcommittees in June.
The EPA chief has often disparaged the agency's work under the Obama administration as he has sought to roll back several of its significant regulations, including the Clean Power Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.
He has run into opposition from environmental groups and Democrats on the Hill who question his ties to industry as he seeks to reshape the agency.
In his statement for the subcommittee, Pruitt said EPA has set priorities in "its core mission areas" — land, air, water — as well as chemicals.
That will include speeding up the cleanup of toxic waste sites under the Superfund program and the review of states' air quality attainment plans, as well as implementing the chemical safety reform law passed last year.
Pruitt also said EPA must create "a sense of shared accountability" and be "a better partner to the states." He noted he has traveled to more than 27 states as part of redoing the Obama-era water rule.
"During this process, I am thankful to have had the blessing of learning about the unique challenges faced by each region, and the one-size-fits-all mentality of the previous administration. This type of top-down regulation does not foster a cooperative relationship with the states that Congress intended in the Clean Water Act," Pruitt said.
The EPA chief also touted his memo to curb agency settlements with environmental groups, including blocking any attorneys' fees from being included in any deals, that are called "sue and settle" agreements by their critics.
"Over the years, outside the regulatory process, well-funded special interest groups have attempted to use lawsuits to force federal agencies — especially EPA — to issue regulations that advance their priorities," Pruitt said. "This will not continue at EPA, which is why on October 16th of this year, I signed a memorandum ending the practice."
In addition, Pruitt said EPA is now ending "an attitude and approach" under the Obama team "that one can simply reimagine authority under statutes."
"As an Agency, we must ensure that we are acting within parameters which Congress has laid out for us. For too long, EPA has failed to provide the regulatory consistency and certainty the regulated community needs," said the administrator's remarks.
According to a background memo prepared by the committee's Republican staff, lawmakers may ask Pruitt about realigning the agency with "Back to Basics."
In addition, Pruitt could be asked about metrics he uses to measure progress for EPA programs, as well as what "statutory changes" are needed for EPA to fulfill its mission.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/12/07/stories/1060068323
-
It’s Time To Renegotiate NAFTA
Dec 7, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rep. Kurt Schrader
Our neighbors to the north are our best friends and allies. We have so much in common, not just geographically. Our diverse cultures, our political issues and of course our economies are inextricably intertwined. Earlier this fall, I had the honor of joining a bipartisan delegation to Ottawa for an agriculture and trade discussion related to the NAFTA renegotiations. On my mission to Ottawa all of our commonalities were apparent. It was also apparent that Canada has grown a lot — economically and culturally — over the past 70 years since gaining its independence from Great Britain.
Our deferential relationship of the last century needs to be replaced with a mutual respect that recognizes a new world order. This includes a rising middle class overseas, the new global commerce —which includes the ability to buy and sell from the comfort of your sofa — and the number of nations who have, essentially, caught up with the U.S. The 20th-century need for U.S. protection or subsidization around the globe has nearly disappeared.
Many of our treaties and agreements with Canada originated in the 20th century. The Columbia River Treaty which impacts those of us in the Pacific Northwest was first signed in 1964; the Pacific Salmon Treaty was first signed in 1985 and renegotiated in 1998; and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is nearly a quarter-century old. All of these were written well before the rapid rise of the internet and the growing global economy of today. It’s time to renegotiate.
In the Pacific Northwest, this starts with: revisiting the way we manage of our Pacific fisheries; opening up the softwood marketplace to real competition; updating the Columbia River Treaty; bringing fairness to the supply management of dairy; and allowing American wheat and winemakers to fairly compete.
Unfortunately, however, the outdated terms of these agreements are extremely favorable to our friends to the north. My visits with the foreign ministry, members of Parliament and the Ministry of Agriculture made it clear that Canada prefers the status quo. And from their perspective, I can see why; there is little motivation or incentive for them to update the terms.
It’s clear that a harder line needs to be taken. The current administration, for all its faults, at least recognizes this and is willing to play hardball.
The best, if not the only, way to get our Canadian friends to come to the table on the Columbia River Treaty is to issue a notice to terminate now. The termination would still take 10 years to go into effect; however, issuing the notice now would signal the seriousness with which we take this. That we still pay full freight on flood control improvements from 60 years ago, from which both sides continue to benefit, is just foolish on our part.
The current state of our wheat trade is patently unfair, and even Canadian agriculture associations and processors acknowledge that fact. The Canadians also concede that there exists a strong demand for our Oregon wine. These are the easier discussions to have. The hardest nut to crack, however, will be dairy subsidies. Less than 8 percent of Canadian farmers own the dairy quota across Canada so their stronghold enables them to jack prices up 160 percent for consumers. There’s so much room for competition here, if only negotiations allow us the opportunity to crack this monopoly.
Our two economies are deeply intertwined. And to be clear, that is as it should be. But it’s never been more apparent than it is today that the younger sibling has grown up and can now pull its weight. It is time for our two great countries to acknowledge that we’re standing on equal footing. For the benefit of our shared North American leadership around the globe, it’s time to bring these treaties into the 21st century.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/363484-its-time-to-renegotiate-nafta
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Hazardous Nominee Who Could Lead The EPA's Chemical Safety Program
Dec 6, 2017 | CNN
By Bonnie Lautenberg
(CNN)As a Senator, my late husband, Frank Lautenberg, made it his mission to fight for the health of Americans -- especially kids. He fought to protect them from exposure to toxic chemicals in our air, water, consumer products and cigarette smoke.
Frank's passion for defending the most vulnerable of Americans came from his father -- a Polish immigrant who worked in silk mills. As an adult, Frank's dad took great pride in his own personal health. Yet he only lived to the age of 43, dying of colon cancer after years of working in the silk mills.
Frank's final fight during his last year in Congress was to ensure strong public health protection would guide our decisions about chemical safety. To do this, he sought to fix the nation's badly broken chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Inspired by Frank's vision, his colleagues continued working towards a bipartisan solution -- culminating in 2016 with the signing of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act into law. The Lautenberg Act aimed to plug the holes in our chemical safety net, to better protect Americans from toxic chemicals tied to cancer, infertility, learning disabilities and other serious health impacts.
But today that progress is endangered. Michael Dourson, President Trump's nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) chemical safety program, has made his living helping the chemical industry in its efforts to weaken safety standards for their chemicals. If confirmed, he would be in charge of reviewing the safety of chemicals that our kids have exposure to.
The Lautenberg Act requires the EPA to evaluate chemicals using the "best available science," but Dourson has made a career practicing what has been called "mercenary science." Over and over again, through his consulting company, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA), Dourson downplayed the health threats of his clients' products.
For example, in a study funded by the American Chemistry Council, Dourson has argued for a safe exposure level of the carcinogen trichloroethylene (TCE) that is up to 15 times higher than the EPA's recommended level. He did similar work on PFOA, a chemical that was used to make Teflon, 1,4-dioxane, a frequent drinking water contaminant -- and many more.
But it isn't just unfamiliar chemicals with confusing names -- all of us are familiar with tobacco and its dangers. The health impacts of secondhand smoke were already on Frank's radar as far back as 1987, when he worked to ban smoking on airplanes. Yet Michael Dourson was working with a tobacco industry front group as recently as 2001 -- helping it downplay the dangers of its products.
Dourson is certainly not unique in doing this kind of work: There are plenty of scientists who worked for big tobacco, and more recently the chemical industry. But why on earth should someone with that background oversee our federal chemical safety program? How could anyone trust Dourson to put public health before the interests of the clients he has spent decades defending?
Senators acted to pass the Lautenberg Act because toxic chemicals pose a threat to all of our families. And clearly President Trump cares deeply about his own children and grandchildren. I'm surprised any of them would entrust the safety of their loved ones to Dourson.
Michael Dourson will only serve to undermine Frank's legacy and threaten the safety of families and children across our country. Now it's up to members of the Senate to recognize this and keep our health out of his hands.
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/06/opinions/chemical-safety-opinion-lautenberg/index.html
-
OPPT Hedges On TSCA Rules For Legacy Uses Of Persistent Chemicals
Dec 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA officials are undecided on whether to assess exposures to, and manage risks of, legacy uses and disposal of persistent and biaccumulative chemicals under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), opening the door to a limitation that is already a feature of litigation over the Trump administration's rules governing TSCA assessments and chemical prioritization processes.
"The best I can say is that a decision hasn't been made" on whether to consider legacy uses, Cindy Wheeler, attorney advisor to the Chemical Control Division within EPA's toxics office, told the agency's Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) during a Nov. 29 meeting in Washington, D.C.
Section 6 (h) of the new law directs EPA to identify persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals and, after conducting an exposure assessment, impose risk management actions in an expedited time frame. If exposure is shown, EPA can proceed to risk management -- without conducting a risk evaluation. The statute allows EPA three years to complete its exposure analyses.
But in implementing other portions of the law, such as in its framework rules governing TSCA risk evaluations and prioritization, the Trump administration has generally declined to address legacy uses, an issue that environmentalists are already raising in their litigation over the rules.
The agency did so by precluding legacy uses from the "conditions of use" the rules consider in most cases. EPA's decision to limit legacy uses and disposal from its general risk evaluations of most industrial chemicals led to controversy, as the decision was a reversal of the draft rules, proposed shortly before the Obama administration left office.
At the CHPAC meeting, Tom Neltner, chemicals policy director with the Environmental Defense Fund and a member of the panel, asked EPA's Wheeler whether the exposure analyses for PBTs includes legacy or existing uses, or just new uses.
But Wheeler hedged. She noted that in the case of the evaluation rule, issued under TSCA section 6 (b), "we're in general not going to look at legacy uses -- things that are no longer being manufactured but are still in use." Wheeler gave as examples asbestos pipes and lead based paint.
However, she suggested that because Congress was specifically "interested in" the PBT issue, the agency may want to "depart" from the approach the agency took in the risk evaluation rule, though she added that "we're still gathering information on that."
"We are basically approaching them as, 'we'll just look at exposure and then we'll reduce exposure to the extent practicable," she added.
PBT Reviews
EPA is targeting five persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals (PBTs) for expedited review and control to reduce risks from exposures using its new TSCA section 6(h) authority.
The new law's expedited risk process allows the agency to conduct a streamlined evaluation that only involves use and exposure to the substances without conducting a full blown risk evaluation. EPA must then take steps to impose limitation sufficient to reduce exposure to the "extent practicable" within three years of the law's effective June 22 date.
The five chemicals are: Decabromodiphenyl ether (Deca), used as a flame retardant in textiles, plastics and polyurethane foam; Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD), used in the manufacture of rubber compounds and lubricants and as a solvent; Pentachlorothio-phenol (PCTP), used as an agent to make rubber more pliable in industrial uses; Tris (4-isopropylphenyl) phosphate, used as a flame retardant in consumer products and other industrial uses; and 2,4,6-Tris(tert-butyl)phenol, used as a fuel, oil, gasoline or lubricant additive.
Sources suggested last year that EPA's decision to include Deca among the list of substances may pose an early test for the new law's provisions governing chemicals in "articles," or finished products. An industry source told Inside EPAlast year that EPA's inclusion of Deca could revisit issues the agency grappled with in its controversial 2012 proposed significant new use rule (SNUR) targeting most uses of Deca, particularly in products. The SNUR spurred debate over EPA's ability to regulate articles, and those disputes could rise again.
CHPAC's Discussion
The articles issue came up during CHPAC's discussion as well, with one CHPAC member, Deanna Scher an epidemiologist with Minnesota's Department of Health, questioning Deca's inclusion on the list for expedited action. Scher noted that a number of states have already regulated or otherwise sought to phase out that chemical. "The tide has already turned on that one," she noted.
Wheeler agreed but explained that "what we're trying to get a handle on is articles with Deca." She pointed to one environmental group in Washington state, Toxics Free Future, which she said has tested television sets and has found two models to contain Deca. "That's what we're trying to get a handle on," she said.
Another CHPAC member, Mark Miller, questioned whether the concern with Deca is about its disposal. Wheeler replied that "we haven't decided yet," whether disposal will be included in the exposure evaluation. Similarly, she said, recycling of plastics could also be up for consideration.
CHPAC's chairwoman, Barbara Morrissey, a toxicologist with Washington State's Department of Health, also questioned Wheeler about how impurities are dealt with within section 6(h) analyses. Again, Wheeler said that "specifically for [section] 6(h) [chemicals] we haven't made a decision as far as that goes."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/oppt-hedges-tsca-rules-legacy-uses-persistent-chemicals
-
Citing Efficiency, EPA Defends Strategy For Some 'New' TSCA Chemicals
Dec 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA officials are defending the agency's latest strategy for regulating some “new” chemicals that the agency reviews before they can enter the marketplace from environmentalists' concerns that the Trump EPA's decision to drop use of enforcement orders to limit the chemicals' uses before rules are finalized is not health protective.
Jeff Morris, director of EPA's toxics office, told a Dec. 6 public meeting on the agency's new chemicals program that the approach the agency is taking -- where officials drop use of enforcement orders -- is intended to be more efficient while still providing equivalent health protections.
Under the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA is required to make a definitive finding regarding the safety of each “new” chemical that it reviews and approves in a premanufacture notice (PMN), a change from the prior version of the law where EPA could allow some chemicals to enter the market without commenting upon them.
It also introduces a new concept, conditions of use, under which chemicals’ risks are to be evaluated, including in the PMN program. The law also requires that EPA consider “reasonably foreseeable” uses -- such as uses of the chemical that are not included in a PMN application but could transpire once a chemical is added to the TSCA inventory.
Because PMNs apply to specific uses, agency officials as recently as last summer also planned to write some voluntary consent orders, under which manufacturers agreed to limits on “new” chemical uses or additional environmental safety and health testing until the agency finalized significant new use rules (SNURs), formal regulations that can require lengthy notice-and-comment rulemakings.
The new TSCA law took effect in June 2016 without any transition period for the changes to the new chemicals program, a move that may have led to a significant backlog in EPA approvals. EPA's Office of Pollution, Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) has sought to address some of these issues by establishing a new framework for the new chemicals decision making process and crafting a new “points to consider” document to assist companies that are submitting applications for new chemicals. The two documents are a major focus of the Dec. 6 public meeting.
But EPA’s former acting toxics chief, Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, who retired from the agency last summer, also said before her retirement that the agency was then using a two-step process to approve some new chemicals, including combining a consent order and a SNUR that limits approval to certain uses and requires approval for any future additional uses.
Cleland-Hamnett called the consent orders and “follow up” SNURs “a big piece of helping us get out our goal of eliminating our backlog by the end of July.”
But the agency has since decided to drop the two-step approach, eliminating in some cases its use of consent orders, which had been intended to limit future uses until a SNUR was issued.
Morris told attendees at the Dec. 6 meeting that “we're looking at those cases now . . . where we only have concerns with the reasonably forseen uses, to see if they would be amenable to a SNUR. We are looking at that and we haven't yet landed on a specific set of cases to land on promulgation.”
'Daunting And Probably Impossible Task'
The change has drawn criticism from environmental groups, who charged it would limit health protections. In an October letter, they charged that attempts by EPA to complete SNURs within 180 days of approving the chemicals' uses, the statutory deadline, is “a daunting and probably impossible task," and urged the agency to resume its use of enforcement orders as an interim approach.
But OPPT's Morris told the meeting that using both SNURs and enforcement orders is not always the most efficient way to proceed. “There have been cases where we issued a consent order . . . [but] we were only binding the submitter. Therefore we needed to go out with a SNUR anyway,” Morris said. “In our view this particular approach allows us to go from those two actions, issuing the order, followed by the SNUR . . . which we believe would accomplish the same objective.”
Morris acknowledged that he had received numerous comments regarding EPA's decision to move directly to issuing SNURs rather than the two-step approach starting with a TSCA section 5(e) consent order.
“That was an important comment I got -- 'Is there a distinction between issuing an order and going to a SNUR, or just issuing a SNUR?' We believe [the approaches are] equally protective but just eliminate that one step,” Morris said.
But Bob Sussman, counsel to Safer Chemicals Healthy Families (SCHF) and a former top EPA official in the Obama and Clinton administrations, questioned Morris at the Dec. 6 meeting about the time line between EPA making a determination that there are concerns with a new chemical's reasonably foreseen uses and the issuance of a final SNUR to control those concerns.
Morris described such concerns as “an area of active discussion.”
He said that in such cases of new chemical applications where EPA determines that the application's uses meet the TSCA risk standard but other reasonably foreseen uses may not, EPA is following “the SNUR path. One of the things that we're still working out is the time provision, the proposed and final SNUR. Those are important considerations.”
Morris added that there are “a number of issues at play here. Wanting to get a SNUR . . . in place so everyone else is held to those conditions and we also have the statutory [new chemical] review period, which is 90 days with the agency's discretion to increase up to 180 days but that's it.”
Environmentalists' concerns about the new chemicals process have expanded since the October letter, and several speakers at the Dec. 6 meeting raised concerns that EPA's new approach of avoiding the use of consent orders will reduce EPA's ability to order testing for additional information on chemicals it has insufficient information to evaluate in the new chemicals program, and charges that it is not consistent with the revised TSCA.
“TSCA does not allow EPA to avoid issuing a section 5(e) order for a new chemical substance based on a SNUR; if a chemical substance may present a risk or if EPA has insufficient information on the substance, the plain text of TSCA requires that EPA issue a section 5(e) order,” argued Robert Stockman, an attorney with Environmental Defense Fund.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/citing-efficiency-epa-defends-strategy-some-new-tsca-chemicals
-
EPA Extends Comment Period for PBT Chemicals
Dec 6, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On December 6, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it was extending the public comment period to receive information on the five persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals that are subject to Section 6(h) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) which requires EPA to take expedited regulatory action to address risks from certain PBT chemicals. Comments were initially due on December 9, 2017; they are now due on January 12, 2018. EPA states it is interested in information from the public about these chemicals, including uses, products containing these chemicals, exposed populations, and alternatives to these chemicals. Very few comments have been filed regarding these chemicals thus far. The chemicals and corresponding docket numbers are:
· Decabromodiphenyl ethers (DecaBDE), used as a flame retardant in textiles, plastics and polyurethane foam -- Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0724;
· Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD), used in the manufacture of rubber compounds and lubricants and as a solvent -- Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0738;
· Pentachlorothiophenol (PCTP), used as an agent to make rubber more pliable in industrial uses -- Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0739;
· Phenol, isopropylated, phosphate (3:1), used as a flame retardant in consumer products and other industrial uses, Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0730; and
· 2,4,6-Tris(tert-butyl) phenol, used as a fuel, oil, gasoline or lubricant additive -- Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0734.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-extends-comment-period-pbt-chemicals
-
US EPA Announces 'Cross Agency' Initiative On PFAS
Dec 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US EPA has announced "a cross-agency effort to address per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)," including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), as well as GenX, a substance developed as a replacement for the older chemicals.
However, the agency did not promise to take regulatory action.
The EPA's announcement could be related to the pending nomination of Michael Dourson to lead the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Two Republican senators whose opposition threatens the nomination based their decision substantially on controversy over pollution of the Cape Fear River by GenX – a chemical Dr Dourson evaluated for corporate clients.
In a press release, the EPA pledged to: identify a set of near-term actions to help support local communities;enhance coordination with states, tribes and federal partners to provide communities with critical information and tools to address PFAS;increase ongoing research efforts to identify new methods for measuring PFAS and filling data gaps; andexpand proactive communications efforts regarding PFAS and their health effects.
The effort is to involve the agency's research, water and chemicals offices, as well as its regional offices.Non regulatory action
The controversial chemicals are surfactants that have been used in a variety of consumer products, such as carpets, textiles, non-stick cookware and food packaging.
The EPA has published drinking water health advisories for PFOA and PFOS, but has not formally regulated them.
Instead, the agency took the approach of working with industry to phase out their use under a stewardship programme that should have been completed by 2015. It proposed a significant new use rule (Snur) to codify the voluntary phase out and apply it to manufacturers who were not party to that agreement, but the Snur has not been finalised.
In a new 'fact sheet', the EPA characterised the non-regulatory advisory as providing drinking water system operators and state, tribal and local officials "who have the primary responsibility for overseeing these systems" with information that allows them to "take the appropriate actions to protect people".
In November, California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) listed PFOA and PFOS as developmental toxicants under Proposition 65, requiring warnings if the public or workers are exposed to the substance. The action was based on the EPA's findings, and industry groups protested against taking that action in the absence of formal federal regulation.
The EPA's fact sheet says the agency "has collected data on six PFAS substances in public drinking water systems and is evaluating this information to determine the next steps to protect public health".
It says the agency "is ramping up its work to gather and evaluate additional scientific information about chemicals, like GenX, to identify risks and determine if it is necessary to set drinking water health advisory levels or take other actions".GenX in North Carolina
The fact sheet also contains a section specifically addressing the controversy over GenX in North Carolina.
The document notes that the EPA approved the commercialisation of GenX under a consent order that set conditions on its manufacture. It said the agency "has initiated an investigation" into chemicals business the Chemours Company's "compliance with a 2009 order" to determine if the company has met requirements to "control releases" at its Teflon production facility in Fayetteville, NC.
It said the EPA is using data from Chemours "to update its risk assessment" of GenX, and is performing "independent laboratory analysis" for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, which is weighing sanctions against Chemours.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62318/us-epa-announces-cross-agency-initiative-on-pfas
-
EPA Group Plans New PFAS Test Methods As Labs Grapple With Demand
Dec 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA has created a new intra-office work group that is developing more validated test methods to address a wider array of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) than is currently available, an effort that could aid laboratories that face an increasing demand to conduct sampling analysis since the agency issued drinking water advisories for two such substances in 2016 but which are facing backlogs and limited funds.
The work group, comprised of representatives from EPA’s Office of Land & Emergency Management (OLEM), Office of Research & Development (ORD) and Region 3 representing regional labs, is also working on developing multi-lab validated methods for analyzing sample types other than drinking water, according to ORD slides from last July for an Environmental Research Institute of the States-EPA joint meeting.
Cindy Carporale, a co-chair of the OLEM-ORD-Region 3 workgroup, told a recent meeting of state waste officials that the workgroup is working to establish validated methods for analyzing 24 PFAS compounds, with a goal of having methods validated later in 2018.
The group developing test methods is part of a broader effort the agency announced Dec. 4 to address the ubiquitous class of chemicals that a growing number of states, localities and tribes are struggling to address.
According to the announcement, this includes developing a list of near-term actions EPA will take to help support local communities”; enhancing “coordination with states, tribes and federal partners to provide communities with critical information and tools to address PFAS”; increasing EPA's “ongoing research efforts to identify new methods for measuring PFAS and filling data gaps”; and increasing risk communication efforts with states, tribes, localities and the public about PFAS' health effects.
Development of new validated test methods appears to be a critical part of the new effort as several experts told a meeting of state waste officials recently that there is a gap in validated methods available for analyzing samples in various media other than drinking water.
The experts, who spoke at the Association of State & Territorial Solid Waste Managers (ASTSWMO) annual meeting in Arlington, VA, highlighted the state of the country’s lab capacity for performing analytical sampling of PFAS chemicals, as well as the need for additional EPA-validated methods for samples in a variety of media.
States first raised concerns in 2016 that lab capacity was inadequate to handle the new demand for sample analyses following EPA’s issuance of new health advisories for chronic exposure to two PFAS in drinking water. Implementation of EPA’s advisories, which set health advisories at 70 parts per trillion (ppt) for the two most common PFAS -- perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) -- falls mostly to states.
PFAS were used in a host of consumer and industrial applications and in fire-fighting foam, contaminating fire-fighting training sites across the country. They have been linked to adverse health effects, such as particular cancers.
11 States
Governmental public health laboratories in 11 states have the capability to conduct analytical testing on PFAS found in water or blood serum, or in some cases both, according to Sarah Wright, with the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL).
Wright spoke at the ASTSWMO conference as part of a plenary session on analytical challenges related to PFAS. APHL represents state and local governmental public health laboratories, which are often the first set of labs, before commercial entities enter the arena, to conduct testing on emerging chemicals that have not yet become a mainstream focus.
Of the 11 states that have some capacity to analyze for the substances either in water, blood serum or both, nine have lab capacity to analyze for PFAS in water -- most of which is for drinking water, she said. Five states have well-established PFAS analytical programs: California, Minnesota, Michigan, New York and New Jersey, she said.
Nine additional states have labs that are seriously considering prepping to be able to test for PFAS, she said. “So it’s on their radar right now, definitely,” she said.
Wright also noted a small number of states that have the capability to test for the chemicals in other media; for instance, Minnesota can analyze for them in soil, Wisconsin can for dust and both Michigan and Wisconsin can analyze for them in fish tissue.
But she cited barriers to gaining lab capacity, with the biggest one being funding. Other hurdles include lack of support and “no defined need,” she said. For instance, Indiana is not prepared to take on such analyses because public health labs there indicate the state has not defined a need for it, she said. Further, Alaska has said it cannot adopt the methods for testing PFAS unless the state legislature specifically allocates funding for them.
In addition, state labs have told her that some labs have the staff, but lack the equipment for testing PFAS, while others have the equipment but lack the staff.
During the question-and-answer period after the speakers’ presentations, the panelists were asked whether private labs have the capacity to perform much of the work, to make up for state labs’ lack of capacity. Wright responded that yes, there are quite a few commercial labs conducting these tests, but noted “it depends upon what niche that we want these labs to fill.” Sometimes, public health labs fill that niche before the need becomes a mainstream issue and is at a scale where commercial labs would profit, she said.
Answering the same question, Janice Willey, a senior chemist with the Navy, said there are many labs currently in the process of being accredited for the Navy’s program, partly due to the demand for this work. She noted there are 1000-sample backlogs at some labs right now. Further, equipment is going down in price, she said.
“I just see the capabilities becoming greater in the commercial field,” she said.
But another unfulfilled need is for validated methods to test PFAS in media other than drinking water. EPA has validated Method 537 for testing PFAS in drinking water and potable groundwater. But as far as other media, “there is a huge vacuum right now,” Willey said during her presentation. She said given that situation, many Navy accredited labs have sought to develop modified methods of Method 537 for other media, but modifying means eliminating specific requirements under 537. As a result, “they’re all over the place,” she said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-group-plans-new-pfas-test-methods-labs-grapple-demand
-
P&G Becomes Improbable Supporter of Ingredient Disclosure Rule
Dec 7, 2017 | Bloomberg
By Lauren Coleman-Lochner
· California cleaning-product law more than decade in the making
· P&G says ‘timing was right’ with consumers wary of chemicals
It took more than a decade, but California has a new law requiring extensive labeling of ingredients in cleaning products, and it got support from what might seem the unlikeliest of advocates: product manufacturers themselves.
Companies like Procter & Gamble Co. and Easy-Off maker Reckitt Benckiser Group Plc, after years of arguing the need to preserve their proprietary formulas in detergents and oven cleaners, came to the table with lawmakers and health and environmental groups and ultimately signed on.
P&G, which makes Mr. Clean and Comet, and other manufacturers have also faced growing pressure from retailers to disclose -- and in some cases, remove -- ingredients. Merchants are responding to customers’ demands for transparency about chemicals like formaldehyde and phthalates.
“The timing was right,” said Julie Froelicher, P&G’s North American regulatory and technical relations manager. A “growing chorus” of consumers want to know more about what’s in their products, she said.
But pushback is building, too. The Trump administration’s deregulation drive and a raft of disclosure measures in other states has prompted about 50 trade groups to lobby for a national labeling standard that would challenge rules like the new California law, Bloomberg reported last month. Opponents say such a move would weaken consumer protections. States have long set the pace for regulating consumer safety, with California leading the way.
California’s Famed Cancer Warnings Imperiled by Federal Push
Governor Jerry Brown signed California’s Cleaning Product Right to Know Act into lawin October. The first phase takes effect in 2020, when manufacturers of detergents, disinfectants and other household products will be required to list online any substances linked to harmful health effects, along with most other ingredients. By January 2021, they will need to do so on product labels as well.
In New York, meantime, Governor Andrew Cuomo used his 2017 state-of-the-state report to announce that manufacturers would be required to list cleaning-product chemicals on easily searchable websites. Though New York has had disclosure regulations on its books for four decades, they haven’t been enforced. The state is now working to finalize updated rules.
According to the Environmental Working Group, a co-sponsor of the California legislation, only 7 percent of cleaning products adequately list ingredients.Wal-Mart Move
Yet pressure on manufacturers is growing from leading retailers like Target Corp. and Home Depot Inc. Last year, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. specified eight chemical groups it wants eliminated, including formaldehyde, and this year, expanded the list of substances it’s encouraging suppliers to remove.
“Over the years, I think that a lot of the fundamental attitude of ‘we’re not doing this’ eroded, in part because of what Wal-Mart was doing,” said Deborah Goldberg, a managing attorney at Earthjustice, a group that brings lawsuits to challenge or enforce environmental policy. Earthjustice sued P&G, Reckitt Benckiser, Church & Dwight Co. and Colgate-Palmolive Co. in 2009 to force them to comply with the New York state rules issued in the 1970’s, though not enforced. The case was dismissed.
A lot has happened since then. P&G began posting a list of ingredients in its goods in 2012, along with a list of substances it avoids. But it wasn’t product specific, so a consumer couldn’t tell which chemicals were in which items. This year, the company said it would begin listing ingredients in fragrances used in products like Febreze and Herbal Essences. Companies frequently exclude specific components in favor of generic terms like “fragrance,” which can mask dozens of ingredients.Sick Cleaners
Proponents of the California law say there’s plenty to be concerned about in household cleaners, including ingredients that may cause cancer or reproductive harm. One of the sponsors, Women’s Voices for the Earth, cites studies showing that workers who clean for a living have higher rates of asthma and are more likely to have children with birth defects.
State Senator Ricardo Lara, who sponsored the law in the legislature, knows those concerns well. His immigrant mother spent years cleaning homes in some of the state’s wealthiest communities. She’d often come home feeling dizzy or sick. As a result, “this issue is very personal on multiple fronts,” Lara said.
Disclosing proprietary formulations was a sticking point in the discussions for companies like P&G. The sides finally agreed to list substances linked to harmful effects while letting companies claim trade-secret protections for other ingredients, said Janet Nudelman, director of program and policy for Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, who helped negotiate the legislation.
“Social change doesn’t happen overnight,” said Nudelman, who credited the confluence of consumer activism and the push by retailers for helping drive the bill into law in California. “This conversation has really evolved and changed over the past 10 years.”Changed Positions
Like P&G, fragrance maker Givaudan SA was initially opposed to the California measure, but came around to support it. The Swiss-based company backs more disclosure and has been in discussions for years, said Greg Adamson, senior vice president for regulatory affairs, product safety and sustainability.
Previous attempts to establish a rule lacked clarity, and “there wasn’t a willingness to have a frank and good-faith type of discussion” about concerns like proprietary information and technology, Adamson said.
The Consumer Specialty Products Association, a trade group whose members include P&G, Clorox Co. and SC Johnson, according to its 2016 annual report, also supported the law in the end. As negotiations continued, some other powerful opponents -- the California Retailers Association, American Cleaning Institute and International Fragrance Association’s North America unit -- changed their stance from opposed to neutral.
“Our members needed assurances that confidential business information would be protected to safeguard our members’ brands and investments in innovation,” said Steve Caldeira, CSPA’s president and chief executive officer.
Grocery and chemical trade groups were among those that remained opposed, arguing the rules were unclear, used questionable science and could prompt “frivolous, misguided lawsuits,” according to an August letter sent to the State Assembly.
Federal cleaning-product disclosure bills introduced by former New York Representative Steve Israel and California Representative Raul Ruiz, both Democrats, haven’t progressed.
But with two of the largest states creating a de facto national standard, “companies now have a much greater incentive to formulate away from some of these chemicals of concern,” said Sarah Ervin, director of governmental affairs at Honest Co., a maker of personal-care and baby products. She helped negotiate the California law.
It won’t be easy. Though CSPA started a voluntary labeling program in 2010, Caldeira said, the new law means members will all have to make changes and invest “a lot of time and resources into meeting the requirements.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-07/p-g-becomes-improbable-supporter-of-ingredient-disclosure-rule
-
Amazon, Walgreens Take Baby Steps On Chemical Safety
Dec 7, 2017 | Greenbiz
By Anya Khalamayzer
Chances are you don't prioritize your holiday wish list based on the chemical composition of the products on it. But informed shoppers are increasingly scrutinizing the items they're bringing into their homes with an eye to whether they include chemicals harmful to human health.
That's inspiring more retailers to make meaningful changes to their chemical disclosure and elimination policies, according to a new industry report card released ahead of Black Friday.
The analysis was prepared by Mind the Store, a national campaign launched in 2013 to promote retailer chemical transparency. It evaluates companies based on their policies for flame retardants, carcinogens and endocrine disruptors in consumer products. This year's edition scores 30 major retailers, compared to 11 retailers in its inaugural report.
First, the good news: Seven out of the 11 retailers evaluated in both 2017 and 2016 made significant improvements in their chemicals policies, moving their average grade from a D+ to a C. This shift was driven by corporate action from companies such as Best Buy, Costco, CVS Health, the Home Depot, Target and Wal-Mart Stores, which all released safer chemicals initiatives this year.
The companies were scored out of 135 points, based on publicly available information and data that they released to Mind the Store about progress on chemicals management oversight, supplier accountability, chemicals disclosure, safer alternatives policies and other criteria.Ahead of the bell curve
No company received an A grade in 2016 (PDF), while in 2017, two companies received all-star ratings: Apple (A) and Wal-Mart Stores (A-), followed by CVS Health, IKEA, Whole Foods Market and Target, which earned B+ grades. Wal-Mart Stores' score dropped slightly from first to second place.
Apple leads the consumer electronics industry in chemicals safety, having phased out brominated flame retardants and polyvinyl chloride in 2009.
Costco and Albertson's supermarkets progressed the most year-over-year, jumping from failing grades to C grades from 2016 to 2017. Last year, consumers delivered 125,000 signatures to Albertson's headquarters, pressuring it to set restrictions on BPA in packaging products and develop a chemicals policy. Costco announced a new chemicals management policy in October.
Also this year, P&G, SC Johnson and other corporations supported a California law demanding transparency in commercial and household cleaning products. Home Depot strengthened its chemicals policy across five product categories. Walmart is working with the Environmental Defense Fund to reduce its chemicals footprint by 10 percent by 2022.
Responding to consumer demands in "era of hyper-transparency," Target will publicize the chemical footprint of the products on its shelves by 2020. And in April, pharmacy chain CVS Health announced the removal of parabens, phthalates and formaldehyde donors in about 600 body products, promising to stop shipping store brands that don't meet these standards to distribution centers by 2019.
"We think these improvements show that retailers respond to consumer concerns and scientific evidence," said Mike Schade, director of the Mind the Store campaign. "Retailers see the value of getting ahead of the curve on enacting rules ahead of state or governments."
According to Schade, while the federal government is decreasing oversight of corporate chemicals management, states are leading the way. Over the past year, 24 states introduced 106 policies to protect the public from toxic chemicals, according to Safer States.
"States are stepping up to the plate to fill major gaps in chemical management at the federal level," Schade said. "Retailers are working to get ahead of the regulatory curve by adopting robust safer chemicals policies. This is more critical than ever as the Trump EPA is turning back the clock on public health." Deceptive 'D' grades
Two retailers that received D grades in 2017 have a slightly more hopeful story behind their ratings. Amazon, which recently acquired Whole Foods, improved from its F grade in 2016 (it received the worst possible rating of the 11 companies in the inaugural report).
While the online retailer publicly has not declared safer chemicals policy, the company disclosed to Mind the Store that it is in the process of developing and evaluating a program. An Amazon representative declined to comment on the details but said more information may be available in early 2018.
Over the past year, Amazon introduced a private label laundry detergent products certified by EPA Safer Choice, which restricts chemicals such as phthalates. It's also in the process of making its Elements brand transparency sourcing and third-party certification process available to all companies. It has yet to set a clear timeline for reducing or eliminating toxics, to clarify for customers which products meet third-party safer chemical certifications or disclose the presence of toxics through the Chemical Footprint Project.
"The Whole Foods acquisition is a real opportunity for Amazon to see the [grocery store's] approach to chemicals" in beauty and personal care products, Schade said.
Walgreens also received a D grade this year, finally announcing plans to publicize a chemicals sustainability policy and a restricted substance list in 2018 after faltering on the initiative since 2014. The delay was influenced by its merger with Boots and the formation of the Walgreens Boots Alliance, reported Mind the Store.
Boots has eliminated chemicals of high concern in its U.K. and European products, a policy Schade hopes may filter into its parent company's commitment to "cleaner" products.
Now for the bad news: Most retailers ranked by the report card are failing on chemicals transparency (the average grade for all 30 companies was a D+).
Some consumer goods experts, such as Safer Made, believe that chemistry startups and incumbents will help big companies scale safer alternatives to toxic chemicals.
Seventy percent of large retailers lag on progress, earning Ds and Fs for failing to publicly announce safer chemical policies to ensure the safety of their products and supply chain. Among the companies that received F grades are Toys "R" Us and Babies "R" Us, which sell children's toys and goods, along with Ace Hardware, Kohl's, Office Depot and Trader Joe's.
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/amazon-walgreens-take-baby-steps-chemical-safety
-
ECHA, EFSA Consult on Draft EDC Criteria Guidance
Dec 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa and the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) are seeking public views on the draft guidancedocument for the identification of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) under EU legislation for pesticides and biocides.
It was developed by the two agencies and the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC). Earlier this year, Efsa and Echa conducted two targeted consultations on the draft with experts representing member state competent authorities and stakeholders from industry and NGOs.
Over 1,800 comments were received during the second consultation.
A document presented at the latest meeting of the Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) on 15–16 November said the draft guidance would be published in early December to coincide with the third, and the first public, consultation.
At the meeting, the team with responsibility for the guidance – the ad–hoc Echa-Efsa ED consultation group – said the guidance must be available when the criteria come into effect, "which will presumably be in late spring 2018".
The deadline for comments to the consultation is 31 January. Both agencies will consider them when finalising the guidance, which is scheduled to be available by June 2018.
In October, the European Parliament vetoed the Commission's proposal for EDC criteria in plant protection products, asking it to come up with a new proposal "without delay".
A month later, the Commission published its delegated Regulation setting out the criteria for identifying EDCs under the biocidal products Regulation (BPR) in the EU Official Journal. The criteria will apply from 7 June 2018.
Unlike the proposal for EDC criteria for plant protection products, the European Parliament and Council did not block the BPR proposal from entry into force.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62351/echa-efsa-consult-on-draft-edc-criteria-guidance
-
Downstream Users Urged To Act On EU Antimony Evaluation
Dec 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Nick Hazlewood
Downstream users of antimony and its compounds have been urged to start preparing the information needed for an EU substance evaluation in March 2018. Lack of data could have serious consequences, speakers at a recent Brussels conference said.
Participants in the 2017 Antimony Day event on 29 November heard that the evaluation – to be carried out by Germany's Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Baua) – could result in the reclassification of three forms of antimony: antimony trioxide; antimony sulphide; and antimony metal.
Antimony substances are used extensively in flame retardants, and also in lead batteries, plastics, paints, glass and other ceramics.
Under the CLP Regulation antimony trioxide is currently listed as carcinogenic 2 – "suspected of causing cancer". The other two substances have no classification.
But delegates at the event, organised by the International Antimony Association (i2a), heard that reclassification to a carcinogen 1B category – "may cause cancer" – was a real possibility.
Speaking after the event Caroline Braibant, i2a's secretary general (pictured), said: "We are very worried about the impact, but we are trying to provide the most robust interpretation of toxicological evidence, and manage the possible downstream consequences of a possible reclassification."Fears
Delegates to the conference included miners, producers, traders and users of various forms of antimony, and many expressed fears that a reclassification could drive up costs and force many SMEs out of the industry.
"The problem is the links that CLP has with many other pieces of legislation like REACH and the RoHS and toys Directives," Ms Braibant said. "Once a substance is in carcinogenicity categories 1A or 1B, its use may be restricted in a number of articles, no matter the physical form in which it is used or the actual exposure potential."
In an attempt to limit damage, i2a is promoting the idea that any change of classification could also specify a route of exposure.
'Instead of having a reclassification via all exposure routes under CLP, if the authorities would agree on an inhalation effect only, then this would allow the continued use of antimony substances in any way when they are not generating dust,' Caroline Braibant, i2a
"Instead of having a reclassification via all exposure routes under CLP, if the authorities would agree on an inhalation effect only, this would allow continued use of antimony substances in any way when they are not generating dust," said Ms Braibant.
"One point where authorities and our industry could agree is that the issue is only one of inhalation," she said. "Any restrictions imposed downstream would only be applicable where there is a potential release or exposure to powders and dusts."Raising awareness
Many downstream users are convinced, Ms Braibant said, that antimony substances are "nice to work with" and have never experienced adverse health impacts from it. Therefore they question why anything should change, she added. There is a "general lack of experience" of the CLP reclassification process in the sector and a belief that current risk management measures "are protective enough".
Further awareness raising is necessary to make industry realise a reclassification decision is subject to "rigid rules and will have a number of consequences".
Antimony compound stakeholders need to engage with the process, she said. "The best advice we can give industry is to generate or provide the exposure data they have. It may not change the reclassification, but it may ensure subsequent measures are not decided on a worst-case basis"Evaluation work
Baua's decision to conduct the evaluation follows a US National Toxicology Program (NTP) study into the carcinogenicity of antimony compounds. This found evidence of lung tumours in exposed rats and carcinogenic effects on mice.
Baua's Mandy Lokaj told the conference the substances had been chosen on the grounds of:
· carcinogenicity;
· possible exposure of workers;
· high (aggregated) tonnage;
· high risk characterisation ratios;
· other exposure/risk based concerns; and
· wide dispersive use.
Antimony compounds have also been the subject of a 2017 EU pilot covering more than the three substances subject to evaluation.
Trialled for the first time this year, the so-called Colla approach has seen Echa, member state competent authorities and registrants working together on selected groups of substances. The antimony sector volunteered for the pilot to help prepare for the 2018 evaluation.
Nevertheless, despite close cooperation between the various sides, Dr Lokaj warned that industry needs to get its data in place, otherwise Baua would have to make worst case assumptions on the potential risk associated with antimony substances.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62334/downstream-users-urged-to-act-on-eu-antimony-evaluation
-
Canada Criticises EU Action On Endocrine Disruptors
Dec 7, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Canada has joined the US and Australia in complaining to the WTO that hazard-based EU proposals to regulate endocrine disrupting substances (EDCs) in biocidal and plant protection products, will harm international trade.
On 4 October, the European Parliament vetoed the European Commission's pending EDC proposal for plant protection products. The action was based on objections to provisions that would exempt some substances with the properties from the criteria.
Canada submitted a document to the WTO on 17 November, echoing concerns raised by the US and Australia a week earlier that the EU appears to be moving toward stricter criteria that would lead to even more substances being classified as EDCs, and subsequently banned.
"Hazard-based cut-offs, without giving any consideration to exposure or without performing a complete risk assessment, can unnecessarily restrict trade," the Canadian document argues. "There is a growing number of examples where active ingredients are prevented from going through the reauthorisation process in the EU based on hazard-based cut-offs, such as glufosinate ammonium, and now possibly propiconazole."
"Even more concerning is the hazard-based approach to regulatory decision making, once a compound is identified as an endocrine disruptor, or meets other hazard-based cut-offs, such as for reproductive toxicants," it says, noting that such classification decisions "trigger regulatory non-approval and default maximum residue limits (MRLs), regardless of actual risk".
Canada asked for "concrete assurance" that MRLs and import tolerances will be "made on the basis of complete risk assessments".
https://chemicalwatch.com/62322/canada-criticises-eu-action-on-endocrine-disruptors
-
Permanence Within EU Chemicals Agency, REACH Key For UK Industry - Labour MP
Dec 7, 2017 | ICIS
By Jonathan Lopez
LONDON (ICIS)--It will be vital for the UK’s chemical industry to remain within the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) after the country leaves the EU in order to keep regulatory convergence intact, according to a member of parliament (MP) from the opposition Labour party.
Angela Smith added that the trade relationship between the UK and the other 27 EU countries following Brexit was the biggest “political dilemma” her country was facing in decades.
“It’s very difficult to see our trading relationship surviving unscathed if we start to diverge [in regulatory affairs]. It just doesn’t make any sense,” said the MP representing the Penistone and Stocksbridge constituency in South Yorkshire in the north of England.
“I think the chemical industry should stay in REACH [the EU’s chemical regulatory framework] and should be able to continue to be a member of ECHA – I do believe that very strongly. For instance, take the supply chain in any given sector: a bottle of fabric conditioner, for instance, crosses the border of four countries [during the production process].”
Smith has also been a vocal critic of her party’s leader, Jeremy Corbyn, regarding Brexit. The 68-year old Labour chief, elected in 2015, has been an MP for decades, and voted on several occasions against the party line.
The UK’s Labour party fully started supporting the EU in the 1980s, and that position has, at least officially, remained unchanged since then.
However, Corbyn, who is on the left-wing of the party, has widely been seen as a sceptical EU supporter because, in his view, Brussels has tilted too much towards a liberal approach to the economy.
His campaign to remain within the EU in the 2016 referendum was restrained. According to post-referendum polls, around 30% of Labour voters chose to leave the bloc.
“He didn’t campaign enthusiastically [for the EU permanence] and I was one of those who said he should have done so. Labour needed to show leadership in Europe [and] that leadership had to come from him,” said Smith.
Brexit negotiations are proving indeed a headache. Eighteen months after the vote to leave, and five months after starting proceedings to leave, the latest move on 4 December sent almost everything into disarray again.
What seemed a done deal regarding the “divorce proceedings” which would give way to UK-EU trade talks for a post-Brexit world, collapsed on that day due to the opposition of the Conservatives’ parliamentary partner, Northern Ireland’s DUP party, to the deal the UK government was offering to its partners in the EU.
Smith said it was wrong for the UK government to offer some sort of EU single market permanence only to Northern Ireland, but not to the rest of the UK, and added she is worried that the Good Friday peace accord from 1998 was now also at risk.
“Ireland has the capacity to completely break Brexit. The challenges thrown by the border [between Northern Ireland and Ireland] are immense, and we need to establish some border arrangement, but these issues are just impossible to resolve without causing real tensions in terms of the Good Friday agreement,” said Smith, pictured right.
“There is a real, naughty set of problems there in relation to Ireland.”
As another sign of how divided the UK is when it comes to Brexit, Smith's position on chemicals regulation practically matches that of a member of the European Parliament (MEP) from the Conservative party, Julie Girling, who in September advocated for a “third party” membership to ECHA so the UK could stay within it.
All those options, however, would imply the European Court of Justice (ECJ) would have to continue playing a role in legal affairs in the UK. However, leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ is one of the main objectives of the government.
Like Girling, Labour’s Smith is adamant to support two outcomes that currently are not actually on the table: to remain within the block or adopt a Norway-type, European Economic Area (EEA) style membership to the EU’s 500m-people single market.
“Let’s imagine for a moment that Theresa May [UK’s Prime Minister] wanted a deal that minimised damage to the economy and damage to our relationship with our neighbours: that deal would dictate membership of the single market [to avoid economic disruption],” said Smith.
“The UK has to be either a full member, an EEA member, or a third country. There is nothing in between. [There will not be a] bespoke deal for the UK. My preference would be to stay in, but if we leave the most palatable option would be a Norway-style approach.”
The UK’s chemical trade group CIA has also been lobbying for that option since the 2016 referendum.
ECHA’s outgoing director general, Geert Dancet, said in an interview with ICIS in October that the Helsinki-based regulator has been told to prepare for the “worst-case scenario” which would envisage the UK leaves the single market and all regulators underpinning it.
Smith concluded by saying that the UK's newly presented Industrial Strategy was going in the right direction, but said the Brexit shadow will also loom large on that front in years to come.
“Whether all of that [strategies to boost manufacturing] can survive the revolutionary impact of Brexit… That’s the big question,” she said.
“Companies and investors need certainty, and until they get that the UK’s investment levels won’t improve. If we fail as a country to secure an EEA approach, then we would be pursuing a free trade agreement [FTA], and there is a lot of evidence suggesting that would take longer than two years to finalise [extending the economic uncertaintly].”
As part of a wide-ranging interview, Smith also spoke about the UK’s shale gas reserves and said she would support hydraulic fracturing (fracking) under a tight regulatory framework.
Her constituency sits on top of shale gas reserves, and she is convinced it could create jobs and help transition to an economy with lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
However, as a sign of the dilemmas her own Labour party faces, Smith is at odds with the official line which promised to “ban fracking” in the June 2017 general election because the use of shale gas would only “lock us into an energy infrastructure” based on fossil fuels.
Smith’s views on fracking will be published by ICIS in a second interview article on 8 December.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2017/12/07/10171724/permanence-within-eu-chemicals-agency-reach-key-for-uk-industry-labour-mp/
-
Dominion Introduces Feed Gas at Cove Point LNG Facility
Dec 6, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Dominion Energy Cove Point LNG LP said it introduced feed gas Tuesday into its new liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility on the Chesapeake Bay in Lusby, MD, as it moves closer to commencing commercial production.
"All major equipment has been operated and is being commissioned as expected following a comprehensive round of testing and quality assurance activities," Dominion said.
Construction of the facility -- which has a nameplate capacity of 5.25 million metric tons per annum (mtpa) of LNG, and would source gas from the Marcellus Shale -- is complete. Dominion said it hopes to have the facility in service this month, and to achieve its first LNG production in mid-January.
In a note to clients Wednesday, analysts with Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. said "we believe Cove Point, the second major LNG project, will begin shipping LNG by year-end and when fully operational, in 1Q2018, pushes total export capacity to about 3.4-3.6 Bcf/d."
According to Dominion, Royal Dutch Shell plc subsidiary, Shell NA LNG, is providing feed gas for liquefaction during the commissioning process and will off-take the LNG that is produced. Last month, FERC issued an authorization for Dominion to export LNG produced during commissioning activities via vessel [CP13-113].
Cove Point's marketed capacity is fully subscribed under 20-year service agreements. Pacific Summit Energy LLC, a U.S. affiliate of Japan's Sumitomo Corp., as well as Gail (India) affiliate Gail Global (USA) LNG LLC, have each contracted for half of the marketed capacity. Sumitomo has agreements to serve Tokyo Gas Co. and Kansai Electric Power Co. Inc.
Last August, the company requested permission to introduce feed gas to the facility's pre-treatment and liquefaction areas, and to proceed with setting up equipment for ship loading, including LNG loading pumps and return-gas blowers. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commissiongranted the request in October.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/112665-dominion-introduces-feed-gas-at-cove-point-lng-facility
-
Nominee Backs Faster Pipeline Permits
Dec 7, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Ariel Wittenberg
President Trump's pick to lead the Army Corps of Engineers expressed support yesterday in his Senate confirmation hearing for streamlining the permit process for natural gas pipelines.
Responding to questions about whether he'd support a permit streamlining bill, R.D. James told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that a pipeline "makes a very small footprint."
"I'm sure there are permits that have to be obtained from an environmental standpoint if it goes through a wetland and so forth, but I can't imagine that we don't have the technology now to monitor those pipelines to the point where if a leak or a crack or something develops it can't be rectified immediately," he said. "Therefore, with that in mind, I would think that would enter into the permitting process."
"With that answer," Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla). said, "I will not call you a bureaucrat."
The measure, S. 1844, from Inhofe and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), would, among other things, designate the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as the lead agency for assessing planned gas projects and set a 45-day deadline for agencies to let companies know whether their applications are ready to be processed.
The Inhofe-King bill is similar to a measure passed by the House in July over fierce opposition from Democrats and environmentalists who say it allows FERC to fast-track approvals and sacrifices public input and thorough environmental reviews (E&E News PM, Sept. 20).
James, a longtime member of the Mississippi River Commission and the owner of a Missouri cotton gin, was also asked about the Obama administration's Waters of the U.S., or WOTUS, rule, which clarifies what wetlands and waterways are covered by the Clean Water Act.
Under the Trump administration, the Army Corps and U.S. EPA are in the process of repealing and replacing WOTUS, also known as the Clean Water Rule.
"What is your view on the cooperative federalism and the states' role in regulating our water resources?" Inhofe asked.
James replied he believes in cooperative federalism "100 percent," adding, "I don't believe that the federal government should be taking away the rights of the state."
But, he said, "as far as a rule like WOTUS, I would have to tell you that as assistant secretary, if confirmed, I will be bound to follow the rules and the laws that Congress makes or that are administrative policy, regardless of my feelings about that rule or policy."
Committee members focused largely on issues specific to their states. Most were not controversial.
In response to a question from Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) about how to prevent Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes, James said, "I think when the objective is to try to stop a fish from swimming upstream, you don't have much time to do that. From what I've read, I have not been satisfied with the progress."
Senators didn't ask James about his potential conflict of interest as the owner of property that would be affected by one of the most contentious flood-control projects in the Mississippi River watershed, the New Madrid Floodway (Greenwire, Oct. 5).
James' tract is an area the corps is sometimes forced to flood. He also would benefit if the corps plugs a quarter-mile gap in a nearby levee, a project that has been slammed by environmentalists and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
James addressed the issue head-on during his opening statement, saying he had already signed a statement following a confirmation hearing with the Senate Armed Services Committee saying he would recuse himself from any issues involving the floodway or the levee.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/12/07/stories/1060068341
-
CHP No Longer Perceived Negatively by Utilities
Dec 6, 2017 | Power Engineering
By Diarmaid Williams
Attitudes to combined heat and power technology have transformed, according to speakers at the world’s largest electric power conference.
Chilkoot Ward, Director of Utilities at the University of Alaska told an audience attending POWER-GEN International 2017 that the technology is now gaining favorable attention, in stark contrast to its previous treatment.
“There’s been a change in the mindset of utilities,” Ward told attendees at the Flexible Generation & Onsite Power session. “CHP once stood for cancer as far as utilities were concerned but they’re now offering incentives to solve some problems. There’s been fundamental shifts and they are looking at more of a partner approach – changes are already happening for the good.”
Ward acknowledged there are barriers yet to be overcome if the technology is to rightly proliferate, and ‘fill the gaps’ produced by having a surplus of abundant renewable energy on the energy system.
He believes part of the problem is that CHP is not seen to be an equitable solution with conventional green energy techs.
“In Alaska I get a kick out of people getting excited about renewable projects that provide double digit efficiency improvements, but they’re confused because it’s not a solar panel,” he said. “That needs to be pushed on the regulatory and utility side.”
Earlier Thomas Drake, Regional Sales Gas Manager at MTU Onsite Energy had expounded on the benefits of CHP, and why its future looks bright in the US, and indeed worldwide.
He pointed out the positives in terms of spark spread analysis, energy efficiency gains and the general economics making CHP attractive. He also informed the audience of the array of assistance, analysis, government and utility support currently on offer to incentivize the deployment of CHP.
He mentioned Baltimore Gas and Electric as a good US representative example of the type of options available.
“There are three phases to that incentive design and it adds up to $75 per kilowatt, so for a 1 MW project, that amounts to $1 million in incentives for a well-designed CHP project,” Drake said. “There is currently 26,189 MW of potential for CHP across industrial sectors and for potential to match reciprocator-driven CHP in 47,995 locations.”
Drake used a beverage facility (bottling plant) in the Midwest as a reference case. Using CHP through a 3.5 MW reciprocating gas CHP engine would cost in the region of $5.1m in total project cost, leading to $78,000 in reduced costs per month. The fact that payback takes in the region of five years, rather than the two years owners customarily expect, is something the industry needed to overcome, he acknowledged.
Roland Keiss of MAN Diesel & Turbo was equally keen to demonstrate just how much potential there is for CHP in the renewable energy dominated era.“In this paradigm shift in energy demand there is surplus renewable generation and no baseload at all,” he said. “It’s a huge (potential) market for CHP applications, with the gaps that renewables create.”
“60 per cent of energy is wasted in the US after electricity production, so there is room to do much more for CHP applications.”
Keiss added that the current scenario was being driven by prices, especially gas prices, and the message of ongoing gas prices rising is a consistent one.
As a reference case he gave the example of the Braunschweig CHP plant in Germany, where the technology has resulted in a 40 per cent cut in emissions, as well as cost reductions.
“People are getting smarter in how they purchase their power,” Keiss said. “The influx of renewables, uncertainty on the grid and costs are all feeding into it.”
http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2017/12/chp-no-longer-perceived-negatively-by-utilities.html -
3 Hurt in Chemical Explosion at Southeastern Arkansas Plant
Dec 7, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
HELENA-WEST HELENA, Ark. — Three workers performing maintenance duties at a chemical plant in southeastern Arkansas were injured when a decomposing product exploded.
The Helena Daily World reported the explosion occurred Wednesday morning at United Initiators, which makes peroxide. The plant is located in an industrial park in Helena-West Helena, 3 miles (5 kilometers) from the Mississippi River.
Jon Cummins, the plant's vice president of manufacturing, says the chemical involved was benzoyl peroxide. Cummins said there were no chemical releases caused by the explosion. It wasn't immediately clear how serious the workers' injuries were.
WREG-TV of Memphis, Tennessee, reported that no fire occurred.
The company stopped production to begin an investigation.
Germany-based United Initiators acquired its Helena-West Helena plant in 2012, according to the company's website.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/12/06/us/ap-us-chemical-plant-explosion-arkansas.html
-
Officials Hold Meeting On Contaminated Water At Wurtsmith Air Force Base
Dec 7, 2017 | WNEM Saginaw
By James Felton
As the city of Flint continues to climb out of the devastating water crisis, another Mid-Michigan community is hoping to avoid a crisis of their own.
Two years ago drinking water wells around the old Wurtsmith Air Force base in Iosco County tested positive for hazardous chemicals. Work has continued ever since to determine how widespread the issue is.
A public meeting was held Wednesday night to update the community on the situation.
“We’re hearing a lot of talk, but we’re not seeing a lot of action," said Tony Spaniola, Van Etten Lake resident.
Spaniola is tired of seeing foam washing ashore at his home. He lives just a stones throw away from Wurtsmith Air Force base in Oscoda.
Spaniola claims the foam is a by-product of harmful chemicals used at the base many years ago. He said he’s tried to get state and federal officials to clean the area up.
"I sent a letter to a governor, to the Air Force in November. The lake association sent one before that. I’ve gotten no response," he said.
Meanwhile, a spokesperson from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality confirmed to TV5 the foam is a concern.
“There seems to be a problem in the lake that generates a really white foam that has the chemicals of concern that we’re very worried about which are PFOA and PFOS,” Mike Jury said.
So what is the Air Force doing to clean it up? Spokesperson Matt Marrs said the Air Force is in the process of testing the area and gathering information. Then they will decide what to do next.
"It is a step in the tiered approach. And from the analysis that we get from that tiered approach we will look at actions to take. We’ve been here for close to 100 years and we’re going to stay here. And we’ll always be working and trying to be good neighbors," Marrs said.
They are taking part in a series of meetings to update the community on the contamination in the area.
Spaniola said he’s been to the meetings before. He said officials are doing a lot of talking about how they’ll address the problem of PFOS from the air base, but he wants to see more.
"We need to see action," Spaniola said.
http://www.wnem.com/story/37011061/officials-hold-meeting-on-contaminated-water-at-wurtsmith-air-force-base
-
Rail Regs In Crosshairs After Emergency Brakes Rule Repeal
Dec 7, 2017 | Law 360
By Linda Chiem
Law360, New York (December 6, 2017, 8:49 PM EST) -- The U.S. Department of Transportation’s repeal of a 2015 rule requiring trains carrying crude oil, ethanol and other flammable liquids to be outfitted with advanced braking technology underscores that Obama-era regulations viewed as anti-business won’t survive the Trump administration’s relentless deregulatory push.
After completing an updated regulatory impact analysis on orders from Congress, the DOT said earlier this week that it will rescind a mandate for electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, or ECP brakes, that was finalized by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration as part of a May 2015 final ruleestablishing new tank car standards for so-called high-hazard flammable trains.
The agency concluded that there wasn’t sufficient justification for issuing a blanket requirement that expensive ECP brakes be installed on trains when they haven’t been proven to be significantly safer or better at preventing derailments.
Experts say the move ramps up the pressure on federal agencies, especially the FRA, to more carefully justify that the benefits of any rule are worth the costs to businesses, and regulations whose reviews aren’t up to snuff, according to this administration, will face the ax.
“The most convincing point the railroads made had to do with the fact the ECP rule was so prescriptive and didn’t allow the flexibility for them to find other means of achieving safe outcomes,” Marc Scribner, a senior fellow and transportation policy expert with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told Law360. “It would’ve been unexpected if they didn’t repeal the rule and roll it back. A lot of what the railroad industry would like to see is the FRA regulate in a performance-based manner, rather than a prescriptive manner.”
President Bill Clinton in 1993 carved out extensive rulemaking principles and constraints in Executive Order 12866, which, among other things, instructed federal agencies to focus on performance targets when coming up with new rules and to complete thorough cost-benefits analyses for new regulations.
And the Trump administration has demonstrated that it will more strictly enforce orders like that one, as well as President Donald Trump’s so-called 2-for-1 order, issued in January, requiring that for every new federal regulation issued, an agency must identify two existing regulations to be repealed.
“The DOT has seen mixed results [and] in terms of progress on the performance-based rulemaking front, the FRA was in worst shape,” Scribner explained. “I hope this means the FRA is getting its act together to comply and not engage in arbitrary and perspective rulemaking. It’s the beginning of something much more, and it’s certainly a good sign of whatever is to follow.”
The DOT said it yanked the ECP brakes rule after various government studies raised serious questions about whether such brakes truly provided meaningful safety benefits that would justify the billions of dollars that railroads would have to spend to install them.
The National Academy of Sciences had determined in October that the DOT’s approach in mandating ECP brakes over other technologies was “incomplete and unconvincing," and that ultimately, it was unable to make a conclusive statement regarding the emergency performance of ECP brakes relative to other braking systems.
Shortly after the National Academies’ study was released, the PHMSA and FRA on Oct. 16 published a revised regulatory impact analysis stating that the projected costs and benefits of the ECP brake mandate have declined since the time the rule was finalized in 2015.
And a year earlier, the U.S. Government Accountability Office issued a report suggesting that federal transportation officials may have overstated the benefits of the ECP brake rule. The October 2016 GAO report said the DOT didn’t have enough data to justify the business benefits of the ECP mandate. The DOT's revised regulatory impact analysis and the GAO report were mandated by the December 2015 Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Actafter criticism erupted in the rail industry.
“The signing into law later that year of the FAST Act, which required a determination ‘that the applicable ECP brake system requirements are justified,’ demonstrates that even the Obama administration was concerned that these requirements were not justified,” Vinson & Elkins LLPpartner Casey Hopkins said.
The ECP mandate, which was part of the May 2015 enhanced tank car final rule issued by the PHMSA and the FRA, required trains carrying crude oil and operating at speeds of more than 30 mph to be equipped with ECP brakes by 2021, while trains carrying ethanol and operating at more than 30 mph would have until 2023 to have ECP brakes installed.
ECP brakes provide an electronic brake signal instantaneously throughout the train, allowing train cars to brake faster than with conventional air brakes, which were first developed in the late 1800s and are still widely used in the industry today.
“These braking systems have the potential to shorten braking distances and mitigate the impacts of collisions or derailments but the evaluation of the costs, availability and impacts from their installation at the time of the 2015 rulemaking was flawed in the eyes of industry,” Hopkins explained.
“By all accounts, it appears that the statutorily mandated process failed to provide justification for the requirement and that DOT was obligated to follow the statutory mandate to ‘repeal’ these brake system requirements,” Hopkins added.
But advocates and labor unions that have stood behind the ECP mandate called the repeal a major setback for safety.
“Clearly the railroad industry’s overwhelming influence over the Trump administration is paying off in repealing the ECP brake rule,” said John Risch, the national legislative policy director for the transportation division of SMART, the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers. “ECP brakes are the safest, most advanced braking systems in the world and without some government requirement we will continue to use our current, outdated 150-year-old braking technology for the foreseeable future.”
The DOT’s public outreach efforts seeking information on other regulatory hurdles that should be eliminated could place even more freight rail proposals on thin ice.
Freight railroads recently gave the DOT its wish list for rules that should be significantly modified or dumped altogether. They are represented by the industry lobbying group Association of American Railroads, which heavily pushed to unravel the ECP brakes mandate saying the DOT had scant data and inadequate testing results to justify foisting an onerous and costly technology onto railroads.
“The regulatory relief we call for is the license and flexibility to conceive, develop and deploy innovative technologies and practices where they are effective and efficient, and to be regulated based on our success in achieving safety goals, not by outdated, prescriptive regulations,” Sarah Yurasko, counsel for the AAR, said in comments to the DOT.
The AAR on Dec. 1 said current hours-of-service restrictions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which also cover certain railroad employees who hold commercial driver’s licenses and operate commercial motor vehicles, impede railroads’ emergency response efforts and should be repealed.
Although there are specific exceptions for railroad signal employees, so-called maintenance of way, or MOW, and all other railroad employees are subject to FMCSA hours-of-service regulations.
“The work of these [MOW] employees is crucial when a railroad must coordinate efforts to restore rail service after incidents such as a derailment or grade crossing incident,” the AAR said. “However, the FMCSA HOS prohibition on driving after a 14-hour period without the required off-duty period inhibits a railroad’s ability to respond expeditiously to these type of emergency situations.”
The AAR has also asked the DOT to eliminate current restrictions imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration on railroad uses of small unmanned aircraft systems or drones. Those restrictions include nighttime operations of drones, flying drones beyond an operator’s visual line of sight and flying drones over people. Drones are increasingly being used by railroads to inspect tracks and other rail structures such as bridges, tunnels, signal towers, crossings, rail yards and stations.
“We have been clear and consistent in calling for common-sense regulatory principles, including that rules should be based on a demonstrated need, as reflected in current and complete data and sound science; and nonprescriptive regulatory tools, like performance-based regulations, should be deployed wherever possible to foster and facilitate innovation to achieve well-defined policy goals,” AAR President and CEO Edward R. Hamberger said in a statement.https://www.law360.com/articles/992087/rail-regs-in-crosshairs-after-emergency-brakes-rule-repeal
-
Oil Train Safety Rules Getting Rolled Back By Trump Adminstration
Dec 6, 2017 | OPB
By Courtney Flatt
The Trump administration is rolling back a requirement for trains carrying highly explosive liquids — like the oil trains that run through the Columbia River Gorge en route to Northwest refineries.
The 2015 rule was supposed to make these hazardous trains more safe, following a number of derailments. But that was under President Obama, Now, President Trump’s Department of Transportation says railroads with trains carrying highly flammable liquids will not have to update their braking systems.
“The costs of this mandate would exceed three-fold the benefits it would produce,” the DOT said in a statement — that’s according to studies by the National Academy of Sciences’ Transportation Research Board and the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Obama-era regulations required railroad companies to install electronically controlled pneumatic brakes by 2021. Those new systems were supposed to help prevent fiery crashes, like last year’s derailment in Mosier, Oregon. ECP brakes are supposed to brake faster because they signal instantaneously throughout the train.
The current industry-standard air brake technology has been in use for more than a century and had been involved in the deadly Lac Megantic derailmentin 2013.
Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley criticized the decision.
“Oil trains are rolling explosion hazards, and as we’ve seen all too many times—and all too recently in Mosier—it’s not a question of ‘if’ but ‘when’ oil train derailments will occur. Degrading oil train safety requirements is a huge step backward and one that puts our land, homes, and lives at risk,” Merkley said in a statement.
Industry groups applauded the decision. Chet Thompson, president and CEO of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, called the rollback a “rational decision.”
“While we support the use of improved safety technologies, (electronically controlled pneumatic) isn’t an improvement on other technologies currently in use, and would have imposed substantial costs to shippers,” Thompson said in a news release.
Conservation groups in the Northwest said the rollback was frustrating, but unsurprising. Dan Serres is the conservation director with Columbia Riverkeeper.
“We’re definitely frustrated that the Trump administration is weakening standards that are not strong enough to begin with,” Serres said. “We saw that with the Moiser derailment, potentially if there was a better braking system in place, we wouldn’t have seen so many cars come off the tracks.”
Serres said his group is now more committed to stopping oil terminal construction in the Northwest, if the federal government isn’t “holding the rail industry’s feet to the fire to improve the safety of these shipments.”
https://www.opb.org/news/article/oil-train-safety-rule-rollback-by-trump/
-
Panel Sends Clean Air Carve-Out Bills to House Floor
Dec 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Lee
Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent seven environmental bills to the House floor Dec. 6.
Four of the measures would deliver targeted exemptions from clean air rules to a group of narrow industries—coal refuse energy, brick making, wood heating, and car racing. Those bills are in line with the Trump administration's efforts to reduce environmental regulations.
Given Republican majorities, the bills’ passage on the House floor appears sure: Of the 214 recorded votes cast during the markup, 209 were along party lines. The measures’ futures are less clear after that, however.
Clean Air Carveouts
One bill, the Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment (SENSE) Act (H.R. 1119), would continue a waiver for waste-to-power companies under the Environmental Protection Agency's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule. The exemption is set to expire in April 2019. The bill passed on a strict party-line 31-23 vote.
Without the waiver, four of the nation's 19 coal refuse plants—three in Pennsylvania and one in West Virginia—won't be able to survive, according to the coal refuse industry. Democrats said the bill rejects evidence-based scientific decisions made by government agencies and courts that went into the mercury rule.
Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) voted against the bill despite hailing from the state where the coal refuse industry is centered. During the markup he said he had begun conversations with both Democratic and Republican members on legislation to speed the cleanup of Pennsylvania's waste coal piles, hopefully with some provisions for retraining out-of-work miners.
But Rep. David McKinley (R-Ga.) expressed frustration at Democratic resistance to the SENSE Act, saying he and his colleagues had made many attempts to decrease the bill's emissions exemptions.
“Just when are we ever going to get around to finding language that we can accept?” McKinley said. “We've been trying to work across the aisle on this and all we get is rebuffed.”
Brick Makers, Wood Heaters, Race Cars
Another bill (H.R. 1917) would extend the date by which brick makers have to control hazardous air pollution from their kilns. That bill was approved on a strict party-line 31-23 vote.
Most brick companies are small firms and would have to borrow millions of dollars to pay for the equipment needed to comply with the EPA rules, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), the bill's sponsor, has said. Democrats, however, argued that the bill is merely an attempt to push off health protections until industry lawsuits are fully litigated.
The third air-related bill (H.R. 453) would give residential wood heater and furnace manufacturers three more years before their products have to meet tougher Clean Air Act emissions standards. It was approved, 32-21.
Under the current rule, companies have to stop making or selling any wood and pellet stoves, hydronic—transferring heat by circulating fluid—heaters, or forced-air furnaces in May 2020. Federal regulators “must take into account the real-world needs and time constraints of industries,” Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), one of the bill's sponsors, has said.
The panel also approved by 33-20 a bill (H.R. 350) that would exclude cars made or modified for racing from being regulated as motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act. Congress didn't intend for race cars to fall under the Clean Air Act, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), the bill's sponsor, said.
Pro-Hydropower Legislation
Also approved during the hearing, by voice vote, were a pair of bills to promote the development of hydropower. Republicans and Democrats had earlier reached an agreement on those measures.
One bill (H.R. 2872) would promote hydropower development at existing nonpowered dams. It would also require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Department of Interior to identify which nonpowered dams have the greatest potential for hydropower development.
Another bill (H.R. 2880) would promote closed-loop pumped storage hydropower and would require FERC to put together a workshop exploring development of closed-loop pumped storage projects at abandoned mine sites.
Hydropower is a clean, renewable energy source, but Democrats have argued that Republicans are trying to wrest control of the nation's waterways away from local communities and hand them over to big power companies.
The final bill (H.R. 1733) approved by voice vote would direct the Energy Department to review a report on the energy and environmental benefits of re-refining used lubricating oil.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=124626309&vname=dennotallissues&fn=124626309&jd=124626309
-
EPA Schedules 3 Public Listening Sessions
Dec 6, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell
U.S. EPA intends to hold three additional public listening sessions on the proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan, the agency announced today.
The sessions are scheduled to take place in San Francisco; Gillette, Wyo.; and Kansas City, Mo., with the exact dates forthcoming, the agency said.
"Due to the overwhelming response to our West Virginia hearing, we are announcing additional opportunities for the public to voice their views to the Agency," Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a statement.
Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said the announcement demonstrates that the Trump administration is committed to hearing directly from people who would be most affected by the Clean Power Plan.
"The Trump administration is listening to the people of Wyoming," he said in a statement. "The Clean Power Plan would have meant lost jobs for energy workers in Gillette and across Wyoming."
EPA last month held hearings in West Virginia, the heart of coal country. When the Obama administration proposed the rule, EPA took fire from West Virginia politicians for failing to hold a public hearing there, with Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) calling it "exceedingly unimpressive."
Undoing President Obama's signature climate regulation has been a top priority for the Trump administration. In March, President Trump issued an executive order that required federal agencies to review rules that might stymie fossil fuel production.
Pruitt then signed a notice indicating his intent to review and possibly repeal the Obama-era climate regulation. And in October, he proposed its repeal on the grounds that it's not consistent with the Clean Air Act.
The Clean Power Plan was stayed by the Supreme Court last year and has never officially taken effect. Pruitt's proposal would repeal the regulation entirely, and EPA has not committed to replace it with any narrower standards, although the agency could choose to replace the rule with one focused entirely on power plant efficiency.
EPA has extended the public comment period on the proposed repeal to Jan. 16.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/12/06/stories/1060068295
-
SAB Members Mull Asking EPA To 'Ground Truth' Air Toxics Rule Reviews
Dec 7, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) members are mulling recommendations over the extent to which the agency should “ground truth” its risk screening methods used to review existing air toxics rules, fearing EPA may be using overly conservative assumptions that increase its workload by suggesting a need for further analyses.
On a conference call Dec. 5, an SAB panel debated its draft response to EPA's request for the advisers to assess its upgraded screening method. EPA uses the method in its Clean Air Act-mandated risk and technology reviews (RTRs), where it assesses its air toxics rules eight years after their implementation to decide whether any health risks remain from a sector's emissions or whether new technology exists to further reduce toxics emissions.
If EPA decides either that risks remain unacceptably high or that new technology can cut air toxics, it can then revise the rules -- although the agency is years behind schedule with many RTRs. Litigation filed by environmentalists has led to court-ordered deadlines for EPA to complete 33 sector RTRs by 2020.
The agency's screening method is an important tool to allow the agency to quickly determine which facilities have little potential for human or environmental risk, and which may need further assessment including computer modeling. EPA's approach uses three “tiers,” with Tier 1 analysis intended to screen out facilities not requiring further characterization, and Tiers 2 and 3 requiring increasingly demanding evaluation.
EPA charged SAB with evaluating whether the method will achieve its intended result. At a June SAB meeting as part of the review, some panelists questioned many of the agency's assumptions in its method for reviewing health risks from air toxics emitted by a host of industries, saying the approach might be too conservative by capturing too many emissions sources and could create too much work for EPA.
During the Dec. 5 call, some members reiterated those concerns with panel Chairman Jay Turner saying that “there is concern about specific values” that could contribute to an “excessive overestimate of risk.”
After other panelists pushed back against criticism of EPA's Tier 1 approach, however, the panel seemed to agree that this is more of a concern for Tier 2 assessments, and the panel's ultimate report will likely reflect this. Once final, the panel's report will be forwarded to the full SAB for its approval, and then transmitted to EPA.
Panelists called for EPA to consider employing “probablistic analysis” in Tiers 2 and 3, and also “sensitivity analysis” to better characterize uncertainty inherent in computer modeling of risk.
Field Studies
Panel members were divided, however, on whether to call on EPA to conduct further field studies to illustrate the accuracy of its assumptions on risk.
Language in the panel's draft report, still subject to change, says, “SAB also finds the case studies to be missing or inadequate for a thorough or detailed assessment of the application of the methods described. The SAB, therefore, could not assess the operational effectiveness, in aggregate, such as how many facilities are screened out, or passed to more detailed analysis, by the screening methods.”
Further, “SAB recommends more evaluation of specific facility analyses against data measured in the field for specific cases of industries and facilities modeled in future application of the RTR methods.
“These 'ground truth' studies should be included in the next RTR methods document and provided to future SAB reviewers for consideration,” the draft report says.
Some panelists resisted asking EPA to increase its workload if current methods suffice, however. Panelist Gary Ginsberg, for example, said, “I am not a big fan of asking EPA to go out and do a lot of field work."
The panel also debated other areas of EPA's method that could be prone to error. For example, panelists still harbor doubts about EPA's assumptions about exposure of people to toxics through eating fish contaminated by deposition of air emissions in water.
The panel is further likely to recommend that EPA think more carefully about its policy of assessing risk at the “centroid” of a census bloc, when most of the exposed population might not be concentrated at that point. The panel's draft report reads, “Overall, the SAB found that the tool’s reliance on census block centroid locations was not sufficient to ensure that receptors are representative of residential areas near the facilities.” Again, panelists were split on how critical of the census bloc method they should be.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/sab-members-mull-asking-epa-ground-truth-air-toxics-rule-reviews
-
Full House Energy Committee Approves Four EPA Air Bills
Dec 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
The House Energy & Commerce Committee has approved four primarily GOP-backed bills aimed at easing regulatory compliance with Obama-era EPA air rules governing brick manufacturing, waste coal combustion, wood stove manufacturers and modification of racing cars with emissions control “defeat devices."
In largely party-line votes, the committee at a Dec. 6. markup approved the legislation including H.R. 1917, which would stay the application of tougher pollution controls for brick and clay products manufacturers pending resolution of litigation on the issue; H.R. 453, which would delay tougher emissions limits for new wood stoves by three years; H.R. 1119, which would ease compliance by power plants burning waste coal with EPA air toxics standards; and H.R. 350, which would guarantee manufacturers of emissions control defeat devices immunity from EPA enforcement action so long as their products are used on race cars only, and not road-going cars.
Republicans touted the measures as commonsense steps to ease compliance for small business with tougher environmental regulations, noting that the bills do not eliminate any existing regulations, but buy time for compliance. But committee Democrats again condemned the bills as an attempt to undermine Clean Air Act public health protections -- and also to punish those companies in the affected sectors that have already invested in compliance.
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), ranking member of the full energy committee, labeled the legislation “bills to evade public health protections,” while Rep. Janice Schakowski (D-IL) declared the bills part of a wider “multi-pronged attack on our environment” by the Trump administration and GOP-controlled Congress.
Democrats particularly oppose the brick kiln measure, H.R. 1917, which they warn could defer compliance indefinitely pending long-running litigation and encourage new lawsuits, setting a bad precedent for other EPA rules. Panel Democrats present all voted against the bill.
Two Democrats, David Loebsack (IA) and Kurt Schrader (OR), broke ranks with their party to vote in favor of the wood heaters bill, H.R. 453, and also the motorsports bill, H.R. 350.
They were joined by Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA) in voting for the motorsports bill, although Ruiz at an earlier subcommittee markup indicated his support on the House floor would be contingent on changes to the bill. Ruiz wants changes that would avoid a feared loophole allowing sale of emissions defeat devices to users who could install them in road cars.
Democrats expressed hope that compromise language might still be arrived at to allow H.R. 350 to pass with bipartisan support on the House floor.
Rep. Michael Doyle (D-PA) suggested that an alternative means to dispose of waste coal might be found -- but he nonetheless voted against the waste coal measure, H.R. 1119, which Democrats say would undermine the Obama EPA's landmark mercury and air toxics standards for power plants.
House Energy & Commerce Committee environment subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus (R-IL) indicated a determination to proceed with floor votes on the bills, however. On waste coal, he said, “we will pass this one on the floor. We are going to move forward."
The motorsports measure, brick kilns bill and wood stoves bill have Senate companions, S. 203, S. 839 and S. 1857 respectively, but prospects for the bills appear dim given strong Democratic opposition.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/full-house-energy-committee-approves-four-epa-air-bills
-
States Sue EPA Over Missing Ozone Designations
Dec 6, 2017 | Inside EPA
States have followed environmental groups in suing EPA over the agency's failure to designate areas attainment with the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), after the agency in November issued only a partial list of designations.
California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia filed suit Dec. 5 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Environmental groups filed suit in the same court Dec. 4, similarly seeking a court order for EPA to issue attainment or nonattainment designations for all areas of the country.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) in a statement said, “By continuing to ignore its legal obligations to cut this dangerous pollution, the Trump EPA is turning a blind eye to public health -- and the law. Attorneys General will continue to fight back to protect our residents and our states.”
EPA missed an Oct. 1 Clean Air Act deadline to designate all areas of the country as either attainment, nonattainment or unclassifiable. Areas designated unclassifiable are treated as attainment for regulatory purposes. The designations are necessary for states to craft state implementation plans outlining measures they will take to attain or maintain the NAAQS, set by the Obama EPA at 70 parts per billion (ppb).
In their filing, the states say EPA has failed to perform a non-discretionary duty under the air law, and ask the court to enjoin “defendants to promptly perform their mandatory duty to promulgate all area designations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS by a date certain.”
EPA on Nov. 6 issued designations for areas in attainment or which are unclassifiable, but did not include a single nonattainment designation. Areas violating the standard include major metropolitan centers around the country.
Environmentalists and 16 states are already suing EPA in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit over the agency's decision to postpone all designations by one year, then abandon that decision in August. Petitioners in that suit, American Lung Association, et al. v. EPA, et al., want the court to definitively vacate the delay decision, even though EPA insists it has been withdrawn and the case is therefore moot.
Meanwhile, EPA has indicated it intends to reconsider the 70 ppb standard, which is tougher than the prior 2008 NAAQS of 75 ppb issued by the George W. Bush administration.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/states-sue-epa-over-missing-ozone-designations
-
UN Leaders Tackle Air Pollution, Call It Globe's Greatest Threat
Dec 7, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Wachira Kigotho
Pollution accounts for 12.6 million deaths each year, in addition to causing other human suffering and the destruction of ecosystems, Edgar Gutierrez, the president of the 2017 United Nations Environment Assembly, told more than 4,000 delegates in Nairobi, Kenya.
“Only through stronger collective action can we start cleaning up the planet globally and save countless lives,” Gutierrez, who is also Costa Rica's environment and energy minister, said at the Third United Nations Environment Assembly.
Gutierrez and Erik Solheim, the executive director of the UN Environment, called for a united effort to address pollution through legislation and legally binding agreements at the beginning of the conference Dec. 4.
At the close of the conference Dec. 6, delegates from across the world adopted resolutions to encourage research, policy development, and legislation to reduce pollution. Chile, Oman, Sri Lanka and South Africa committed to mitigate pollution by joining UN Environment backed #CleanSeas campaign on global litter that already has 40 member countries.
The resolutions, however, are not binding, making it difficult to tell whether the voluntary commitment to a pollution-free world will remain just on paper.
Air Pollution, Ground Contamination
Speakers at the conference highlighted air pollution as the biggest threat facing the globe.
Health risks are increased by industrial countries’ emissions from furnaces and transport, open fires, kerosene for cooking and heating, and unregulated burning of waste materials such as plastics and batteries in open pits.
Air pollution kills more than 6.5 million people each year, most of whom are in cities, according to a 2016 International Energy Agency report. UN Environment estimates that 600,000 people in Africa die from indoor pollution alone.
These major pollutants lack regulation, along with pesticides leaching from mismanaged landfills and uncontrolled waste dumping, Judy Wakhungu, Kenya's secretary for environment and natural resources, said in an interview with Bloomberg Environment at the conference.
While high income countries can identify, assess, and remediate soil contamination, Sub-Saharan African countries cannot, Wakhungu said.
Soil contamination can also come from execssive use of agrochemicals, which is projected to continue rising through 2020 in areas concentrated in Asia, South and Central America, and Sub-Saharan Africa, Maarten Kappelle, a chemicals and waste management specialist at UN Environment, said.
Forced Displacement
People could be driven from their homes, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, because of resources made scarce by pollution, desertification, natural disasters, and climate change, Tony Simons, the director general of World Agroforestry Center, said.
“Last year, about 31.1 million people were displaced within their own countries because of conflicts and violence rooted in environmental change and competition for resources,” Simons said.
A 2017 UN report predicts these environmental issues may lead to greater numbers of people displaced in the future.
There could be as many as 200 million people displaced for environmental reasons by 2050, Diana Ionesco, the head of migration, environment and climate change at the International Organization for Migration, said.
“That would mean that, in a world of 9 billion people, one in 45 would have been forced from home for environmental reasons, and entire low-lying island territories may have to be abandoned,” the report says.
Into the Water
In addition, between 4.8 million and 12.7 million tons of plastic waste enter the oceans every year, and 2 billion people are without access to solid waste management facilities, Ligia Noronha, the director of UN Environment's economy division, said.
“Besides, over 80 percent of the world's wastewater is released into the environment without treatment, poisoning the fields where food is grown and the lakes and rivers that provide drinking water to more than 300 million people,” Noronha told Bloomberg Environment at a press conference.
At the conference, Sri Lanka and Chile committed to reducing plastics and encouraging recycling in order to protect marine areas.
“We have banned plastic bags and are now working to reduce the number of plastic bottles in the country, as we want to be a green and blue beacon of hope in Asia,” Anura Dissanayake, Sri Lanka's minister of environment, said.
Chile's delegation said the government was working to extend producer responsibility, encourage recycling, and establish more marine protected areas.
“Chilean cities are banning plastic bags in advance of a planned national ban,” Marcelo Mena Carrasco, Chile's minister of environment, said. Similarly, in South Africa plans are underway to step up beach cleanup and prioritize action on used tires, electronic waste, lighting and plastic packaging.http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=124626308&vname=dennotallissues&fn=124626308&jd=124626308
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested