Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/12/17
-
EPA: Some TSCA Mandates Still in Early Implementation Stages
Dec 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
A US EPA official acknowledged at a 6 December stakeholder meeting on new chemicals that the agency is only in the early stages of meeting some of the new mandates in the amended TSCA. -
Staff Urges OPPT Leaders To Maintain TRI Program In Reorganization
Dec 12, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA staff is urging leaders of the agency's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) to maintain the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program as a distinct unit in the ongoing effort to reorganize OPPT -- either by continuing to have a TRI division within OPPT, or making TRI a distinct branch within a new division. -
Is There No Limit to Industry’s Overreach and Hubris When It Comes to New Chemicals Under TSCA?
Dec 12, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
-
Four Reasons to Celebrate the California Cleaning Product Right to Know Act
Dec 12, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Samara Geller
At long last, the veil of secrecy over chemicals in cleaning products is lifting. -
What Are the Latest Trends in the Personal Care Sector?
Dec 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
Bans, restrictions, ingredient disclosure: these are the key chemical issues the personal care industries in Europe, the US and the rest of the world have grappled with throughout the past year. -
Lawmakers Threaten to Pull US IARC Funding
Dec 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
Three lawmakers are threatening to pull US financial support from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc) in the latest salvo over the process used in labelling chemical substances as carcinogens. -
CPSC Issues Final Rule Expanding Phthalate Ban
Dec 11, 2017 | Lexology
By Erin M. Bosman, Julie Y. Park and Suzanne Marinkovich
Nearly ten years after the first three phthalates were banned from children’s toys by Congress, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a final rule on October 27 prohibiting five more. -
Editorial: EPA Must Do Better With Drinking Water
Dec 12, 2017 | Burlington Times News
It shouldn’t be this way, but ensuring our drinking water is safe will require a long and persistent effort. -
Italy Requests Suspension of REACH Deadline for Dye SMEs
Dec 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Italy has proposed that the REACH registration deadline be suspended for a group of dye-producing SMEs because Echa’s Board of Appeal (BoA) is expected to rule on a data-sharing dispute, in which the group is a defendant, "very close" to the deadline. -
'No Shame': How the Trump Administration Granted Big Oil's Wishlist
Dec 12, 2017 | The Guardian
By Oliver Milman
The Trump administration’s zeal for environmental rollbacks has enabled it to fulfill almost all of the top priorities in a “wishlist” drawn up by the American Petroleum Institute (API), the leading lobby group for US oil and gas companies. -
EPA to Release CPP Replacement ANPR in 'Upcoming Weeks'
Dec 12, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA says it plans to release a document formally seeking input on whether and how to replace the Clean Power Plan (CPP) greenhouse gas rule for power plants “in the upcoming weeks,” and that it will weigh GHG target-setting formulas that might fit within a narrower interpretation of the agency's statutory power to regulate GHGs. -
Tanker Crash Spills at Least 1,000 Gallons of Ethanol
Dec 12, 2017 | Des Moines Register (In E&E Greenwire)
By Luke Nozicka
At least 1,000 gallons of ethanol leaked onto an Iowa road after a semitruck and tanker trailer flipped yesterday, according to authorities. -
Bloomberg Thanks Trump: Pulling Out of Paris Deal a 'Rallying Cry' for Environmentalists
Dec 12, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Max Greenwood
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) said Tuesday that President Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate accord has served as a "rallying cry" for environmentalists and boosted efforts to fight climate change. -
Sierra Club Seeks Rehearing of Air Pollution 'Hot-Spots' Suit
Dec 12, 2017 | Inside EPA
Sierra Club and others are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to rehear their case against EPA's revised guidance for calculating when transportation projects might result in air pollution “hot-spots” causing violations of federal air standards, after the court rejected the suit for lack of jurisdiction and standing.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
EPA: Some TSCA Mandates Still in Early Implementation Stages
Dec 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
A US EPA official acknowledged at a 6 December stakeholder meeting on new chemicals that the agency is only in the early stages of meeting some of the new mandates in the amended TSCA.
It is still working out how it will report on confidential business information (CBI) claims, where there are by definition restrictions on what it can reveal, said Tanya Hodge Mottley, acting deputy director of programs in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
The new TSCA requires review of all CBI claims, and the EPA issued guidance in January clarifying that companies must submit information substantiating the need for such a designation when the claim is made.
"We need to be very careful in our review and in figuring out how we will disclose information about our decision, so we are considering now what is the best way to publicly communicate the various aspects of our CBI review efforts," Ms Mottley said.Unique identifiers
The EPA has also yet to reach a conclusion on how to apply the required "unique identifiers" to confidential chemical identities.
The agency consulted earlier this year on the issue, proposing two alternative approaches. One would ensure that any submission related to a confidential chemical, including non-CBI information, contains the unique identifier and not the substance's name. This would allow observers to track all submissions related to a particular substance. The second option – backed by industry – would assign a unique identifier for all information on a protected chemical submitted by the same person or company, but apply another for submissions on that same substance from other entities.
The agency is reviewing public comments "to see if we can't develop some sort of an acceptable approach", Ms Mottley said.
She said the EPA is also still in the early stages of drafting required guidance on generic chemical names, and a regulation required by TSCA on how it will review claims to protect specific chemical identities of chemical substances on the confidential portion of the TSCA inventory.
"We are currently engaged in the initial regulatory development process," Ms Mottley said.
And, she added, the EPA is committed to providing more complete information on its chemical review process online. NGOs argue that the new TSCA requires that supporting information used to make determinations on new chemicals be provided online, not just when requested onsite.
"Our goal is to get as much done by 2018 as we possibly can," Ms Mottley said.
Addressing a related criticism, she said the EPA stopped updating its pre-manufacture notice (PMN) data to review it and "make sure that our terminology is up to date, consistent with the statute".
https://chemicalwatch.com/62451/epa-some-tsca-mandates-still-in-early-implementation-stages
-
Staff Urges OPPT Leaders To Maintain TRI Program In Reorganization
Dec 12, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA staff is urging leaders of the agency's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) to maintain the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program as a distinct unit in the ongoing effort to reorganize OPPT -- either by continuing to have a TRI division within OPPT, or making TRI a distinct branch within a new division.
“TRI program is a very unique 'right-to-know' program that is continuing to improve data quality and only beginning to find ways to increase the use of the TRI data and subsequent analysis,” say written comments from TRI staff to OPPT leaders -- obtained by Inside EPA.
“TRI staff have been working to support [multiple environmental statutes] and many other program issues -- we have not been an insular or isolated program.”
The comments come in response to senior managers' three options, issued last September, for reorganizing OPPT to better implement the June 2016 law reforming the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which OPPT is responsible for implementing.
As first reported by Inside EPA, a memo to staff from OPPT Director Jeff Morris explains the reform law's enactment -- and its many new requirements for EPA -- is the driver for the reorganization.
Key among the major changes to OPPT's existing structure is a plan to consolidate its seven current divisions into five, according to the three straw diagrams circulated within the office. There are few differences among the three plans, with the major difference appearing to be the placement of the TRI program -- which is currently housed in its own division, one of the two proposed for elimination.
One EPA proposal, straw B, shows the TRI program becoming a branch within the new Existing Chemicals Division. Another option, straw C, suggests making TRI a branch in a different new division, the Data, Analytics & Strategic Engagement Division. The third proposal -- straw A, most objectionable to TRI staff -- suggests splitting TRI between two branches within that new data division.
The TRI division is responsible for collecting data annually on facilities' releases of listed chemicals into the environment, as required by the Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). EPA collates and analyzes this data, and releases it to the public, providing a significant resource for regulators and the public about facilities' releases. The program has been housed in recent years as a distinct unit within EPA's Office of Environmental Information (OEI), and after a 2014 reorganization, as a division within OPPT.
Morris requested staff comments by Dec. 1 on the three different proposals for how branch offices will be organized within the five new divisions. Morris has given staff differing signals in recent meetings over whether the plan to reduce OPPT's divisions from seven to five is finalized or still up for discussion, sources say.
In their responses to the proposals, staff almost uniformly urged OPPT leaders to maintain TRI as a distinct unit.
'More Problems Than Cures'
“If your consideration is the organization 3-5 years in the future, then don’t 'demote' the TRI program . . . TRI was brought into OPPT to become a more valued and substantial program, reaching out to more users of our data including those within OPPT,” one unnamed staffer says in written comments.
“TSCA may be the correct focus right now, and it certainly is critically important in so many ways. But TRI can, and is, supporting TSCA right now and moving [employees] involuntarily from TRI to TSCA may cause more problems than cures.”
Similarly, a summary of staff comments on the proposed reorganization plan obtained by Inside EPA includes multiple comments urging OPPT leaders to “Keep TRI as an intact division” and others supporting straw C, making TRI a branch within the new data analysis division if TRI cannot be maintained as a division.
One commenter calls straw C the best second choice, because a TRI “fits best in the proposed Data Analysis and Strategic Engagement Division (Straw C). Doing so maintains an important identity of the TRI program and helps by having a single Branch Chief be accountable for all aspects of the program.”
Regarding straw B, placing TRI as a branch in the new Existing Chemicals Management Division, one staffer says this “wouldn't be a good fit” for TRI because that new “division will be focused on risk management under the new TSCA regulations, [and] the addition of the TRI program would just be a distraction. While the TRI program can certainly provide useful information for chemical reviews under TSCA, the program is not involved in the management of chemical risks so it would be a better fit” in the new data analysis division.
Comments in the summary of TRI comments were most opposed to straw A, which would divide TRI among branches within the new data analysis division.
“If the TRI program were to be broken up as in Straw Proposal A, the program would lose its identity as a defined program and have extreme difficulty remaining a high preforming program. This is not just an issue of maintaining the TRI 'brand' as discussed in management’s rationale for Straw Proposal A. All parts of the TRI program from regulations to data analysis to outreach, work together and depend on one another to” operate, one comment states.
Another warns that without a “defined organizational entity to administer and speak for the TRI program, the program will not be able to work effectively with OEI, the regions, other EPA offices, or industry and public stakeholders.”
Chemical Data Reporting
A summary of staff comments on the proposed new data division, however, offers a different perspective on TRI. One commenter in this group prefers the straw A proposal “to make the most efficient use of database resources and knowledge between [the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) program] and TRI, to further integrate the two reporting systems and to minimize the need for additional CDR staff. [The Existing Chemicals Branch] only has 2 full time [employees] dedicated to CDR now, other staff do existing chemicals functions and only dedicate a portion of their time to CDR. There will be numerous efficiencies gained by eventually combining the IT support for the 2 databases.”
TRI staff comments, however, argue that there are not efficiencies to be had by consolidating the two programs because the uniqueness of the programs and their authorizing statutes.
“The problem is that the TRI functions are not the same as the functions in CDR and [another TSCA chemical information disseminating program known as] ChemView. For example, the regulations we write are specific to the statutory requirements of EPCRA section 313 and the chemical rulemakings (listing and delistings) are much different than any rulemakings for these other programs,” a TRI staffer writes in comments obtained by Inside EPA.
The staffer adds, “I would be no more qualified to work on a CDR rulemaking than a CDR staff person would be to work on a TRI rulemaking . . . It’s the same with the other TRI activities, guidance is facility and chemical specific and based on the EPCRA section 313 statutory requirements and the TRI rules, these have no relationship to CDR or ChemView. In fact, TRI interpretive guidance can be very complicated requiring input from all parts of the TRI program. Diluting the TRI staff across 3 or 4 branches is only going to hurt the program’s ability to write rules, prepare guidance, and respond to difficult interpretive guidance questions.”
In an Oct. 12 document obtained by Inside EPA, OPPT leadership seeks to explain the rationale behind the three approaches. The document explains that splitting the TRI program among branches in the data division in straw A would increase collaboration with other OPPT data collection and management programs, such as CDR and the online chemical information dashboard set up by the Obama administration known as ChemView.
Combining the different data collection programs would “gain efficiencies in regulatory and guidance development, data analysis, and information dissemination and outreach,” the document states. The document explains that in this proposal, a branch within the division would be responsible for data collection through both TRI and CDR, by writing the rules and guidance; a second branch would be tasked with all chemical data coming in to OPPT; and a third branch would be responsible for working with “internal and external stakeholders to identify interest in OPPT data and best (effectively, efficiently) make those data available.”
The document appears to acknowledge a downside to this approach, stating that “[i]ntegration of function (TRI, CDR, and Chemview) requires continuing leadership commitment to the TRI 'brand,' given its importance in providing chemical information to a wide range of community stakeholders.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/staff-urges-oppt-leaders-maintain-tri-program-reorganization
-
Is There No Limit to Industry’s Overreach and Hubris When It Comes to New Chemicals Under TSCA?
Dec 12, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
We’ve already blogged about how changes the agency is making to its reviews of new chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) are illegal as well as bad policy. But an industry letter and attachment added last week to EPA’s new chemicals docket shows the chemical industry isn’t done yet in seeking to eviscerate the program.
The letter and position statement were submitted to Jeffery Morris, Director of EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) by something called the TSCA New Chemicals Coalition (NCC).
They raise a multitude of red flags.
The NCC is a creation of the industry law firm Bergeson & Campbell (B&C). The letter to Morris describes NCC as “a group of representatives from over 20 companies that have come together to identify new chemical notification issues under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and to work collaboratively with you and your team to address them.”
First red flag: Nowhere are the 20+ companies identified, not in the letter or associated position statement, nor on B&C’s web pages for NCC. Such secrecy always sets off an alarm when it comes to the chemical industry’s history of forming misleading front groups and coalitions. Why don’t the companies want their identities known?
Second red flag: The NCC letter and position statement claim that “OSHA has in place an extensive regulatory scheme, as well as enforcement mechanisms, governing chemical exposure in the workplace” and refers to the “robust nature of the existing OSHA regulatory program” and its “overarching and comprehensive requirements” that apply in the workplace. Now, anyone outside of industry readily acknowledges that OSHA’s ability to adequately address workplace exposures has been decimated over time – through sustained industry efforts on many fronts, including mounting legal challenges to OSHA’s authority and successfully pressing for reduction after reduction in its budget and staffing. Those attacks continue today, and if anything have accelerated under the Trump Administration.
Why then, you may wonder, is NCC writing to the director of EPA’s TSCA office to tout OSHA’s sweeping authority over workplace chemical exposures? By now you may be getting a sense of where this is headed … .
The chemical industry is apparently not content with bullying EPA to move away from carrying out its statutory duty to issue orders to mitigate potential risks arising from reasonably foreseen conditions of use of new chemicals. It’s now trying to extend that victory and compel EPA to abandon issuing orders even where EPA finds a company’s intended conditions of use may present unreasonable risks to workers.
Let me step back briefly to provide some necessary background. First, TSCA has always provided EPA with the authority to regulate chemical exposures in workplaces, and EPA has done so for many decades. Second, last year’s amendments to TSCA not only retained that authority that overlaps with OSHA’s (despite some industry efforts to strip it from TSCA), it strengthened that authority, by explicitly identifying workers as a “potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation” and directing EPA to identify and evaluate risks, and mitigate unreasonable risks, faced by workers – whether from chemicals already in use or new chemicals just entering the market.
NCC acknowledges part of this authority: It does not argue that EPA shouldn’t do such evaluations. But if EPA identifies potential risks to workers from a new chemical, rather than issue an order to mitigate it (as is required by law), NCC says EPA should simply tell the company and OSHA of its concerns and leave any further consideration to them. That mere notification, claims NCC, then clears EPA to find that the new chemical is “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” to workers and (assuming EPA doesn’t find there are potential risks other than to workers) give the company the green light to commence manufacture and use.
Lest you don’t believe me, let me quote from the NCC position statement:
The TSCA NCC believes that for many, if not most, new chemicals for which EPA has proposed workplace restrictions under new TSCA, once EPA has informed OSHA and the notifier of its occupational risk assessment, that will be sufficient to ensure adequate workplace protection and to make any unreasonable risk to workers “not likely.”
And from its letter setting forth EPA’s “proper role:”
[T]he proper role for EPA should be to provide hazard identification and risk assessment information to the new chemical notifier and to OSHA to make these parties fully aware of EPA’s assessment and its identified occupational concerns, if any.
… NCC believes that EPA should disfavor issuing TSCA Section 5(e) orders that mandate use of particular PPE or other workplace-specific measures to mitigate occupational exposure. Instead, the TSCA NCC recommends the following approach if EPA identifies a workplace-specific risk concern:
1. EPA should consult with OSHA on the workplace risk concern.
2. EPA should inform the notifier of its assessment and concerns.
3. After the OSHA consultation and notifier communications are completed, EPA should no longer engage but instead rely on the employer’s responsibilities mandated by OSHA, as well as OSHA’s established expertise and robust existing regulatory program, to ensure worker protection.
There are so many things wrong with this that it’s hard to know where to start.
First, it’s patently illegal. Last year’s reforms give EPA a direct mandate to protect workers as a “potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation.” The law gives EPA no mandate or authority once it identifies a potential workplace risk from a new chemical to simply toss it over the fence into its neighbor agency’s back yard. If EPA identifies a potential risk, it must fully protect against it.
Second, NCC makes a big deal about a provision in TSCA that says EPA should consult with OSHA “to the extent practicable” before EPA imposes restrictions on a new chemical. But “consult” does not mean merely to inform someone else and then wash one’s hands of the matter. A requirement that EPA “consult” with OSHA does not allow EPA to transfer its duties to OSHA. EPA retains the mandate to protect against the unreasonable risk after any such consultation. Yet NCC would have EPA instead rush to issue a “not likely” finding without even waiting for a response from OSHA, let alone action on OSHA’s part to actually mitigate the risk. No way is that legal.
As a matter of law, for EPA to reasonably rely on actions taken by OSHA to make a finding, those OSHA actions could not be speculative and theoretical. Before it could make a finding, EPA would need to wait for OSHA to actually act. That process would be time-consuming, but if NCC truly believed the theory it is espousing, then it would accept that EPA could not issue a final finding on a new chemical until OSHA took final action, even if that delayed an EPA finding for weeks, months or years. NCC’s theory that EPA could simply “no longer engage” has no basis in TSCA or the plain meaning of “consult.”
Third, despite NCC’s outlandish claims to the contrary, OSHA lacks authority (not to mention capacity) to clean up after EPA in this manner. Just one example: OSHA has no authority to mandate that companies test their chemicals. If OSHA needs data on chemical hazards, it must request, through the Interagency Testing Committee, that EPA require the testing under TSCA. That process has rarely gone well or quickly. In 1991, OSHA requested through the ITC that EPA require a simple dermal absorption test to be conducted on 658 chemicals for which it had concerns about worker exposure. Thirteen years later, EPA finally issued the rule – covering only 34 of those chemicals. (I strongly suspect this massively diminished testing capability is one of NCC’s motivations here.)
Fourth, NCC knows full well that OSHA’s risk standard – “no significant risk of material harm” – is vastly more lenient than TSCA’s unreasonable risk standard. That’s because the industry for years argued (unsuccessfully) in the debate over TSCA reform to use the OSHA standard instead of the unreasonable risk standard that Congress retained. As interpreted by the courts and subsequently implemented by OSHA, the OSHA standard allows risk to workers that are multiple orders of magnitude higher than those EPA would consider constitute unreasonable risks.
If NCC believes that OSHA’s standard should apply to any new chemical risks EPA drops into its lap, then workers would receive far less protection (and companies could well save a lot of money) under NCC’s proposed approach. If on the other hand NCC believes TSCA’s risk standard would still apply in such cases, how does it expect OSHA to use its limited authority to achieve this far more stringent standard?
OSHA itself acknowledges the severe limitations to its authority. For example, OSHA notes that its standard-setting system is broken, and in fact it has been able to issue standards for only 39 agents since 1971 (and only three in the last 15 years):
OSHA recognizes that many of its permissible exposure limits (PELs) are outdated and inadequate for ensuring protection of worker health. Most of OSHA's PELs were issued shortly after adoption of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act in 1970, and have not been updated since that time.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) affirmed this state of affairs in a 2012 reported titled “Multiple Challenges Lengthen OSHA’s Standard Setting.”
You have to credit NCC with one thing: having a lot of chutzpah. After the industry’s success in severely weakening OSHA, it now seeks to compel EPA – to which Congress gave greater authority to regulate chemicals just last year – to instead cede that authority and transfer its obligations over to a far weaker agency.
I could go on, and I expect we’ll need to in other fora, should EPA show any receptivity (I wish I could say with confidence it won’t) to NCC’s new demands to further weaken TSCA’s new chemicals program.
Let me end this post by noting a cruel irony in this development. NCC acknowledges that EPA has regulated workplace exposures through orders issued for new chemicals for many decades under the old TSCA, not just since last year’s reforms:
NCC recognizes that the approach being advocated is at odds with EPA’s longstanding practice in assessing and regulating new chemicals. Nonetheless, for the reasons provided above and elaborated in the attachment, TSCA NCC believes that EPA’s prior and current approach is mistaken.
I mentioned that NCC was created and is run by Bergeson & Campbell. B&C employs in senior positions as its “B&C Team” for staffing NCC at least four former EPA officials who were among the architects of the new chemicals review program under the old TSCA.
Funny – by which I mean sad – how, now that they’re in the private sector representing (unnamed) chemical companies, they’re disowning all that work they did. Not to mention throwing worker protections from potentially toxic chemicals under the bus.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/12/12/is-there-no-limit-to-industrys-overreach-and-hubris-when-it-comes-to-new-chemicals-under-tsca/
-
Four Reasons to Celebrate the California Cleaning Product Right to Know Act
Dec 12, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Samara Geller
At long last, the veil of secrecy over chemicals in cleaning products is lifting. In October, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act of 2017, which will require known hazardous chemicals in home and commercial cleaning products to be listed on labels and online.
Manufacturers of cleaning products have until 2020 to disclose ingredients online and until 2021 to list them on labels. But the impact of the new rules could be felt sooner, and well beyond California. The nation's most populous state is also the biggest market for consumer products, and it's likely that the new disclosure rules will trickle down to products manufactured, distributed and sold nationwide. (New York also has a cleaners ingredient disclosure law, but its specific rules are still being worked out.)
EWG was a co-sponsor of the bill, authored by state Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens. Here are four reasons we're celebrating the fact that Californians will soon have unprecedented access to detailed chemical information for cleaning and disinfecting products used in the home and workplace.
1. Rather than disclosing chemicals of concern, manufacturers may decide to take them out of products.
Transparency often begets reformulation. In 2009, the California Safe Cosmetics Program began requiring companies to report carcinogens and reproductive toxicants in their products. By 2015, more than 150 companies reported removing a total of 2,193 ingredients. Cleaning product makers may take the same path, knowing that once ingredients are known, consumers can make educated decisions to avoid them and choose better options.
2. Disclosure is mandatory for ingredients linked to chronic diseases and conditions, not simply immediate dangers.
Previously, only some ingredients, such as those associated with acute hazards like skin or eye burns, physical hazards like flammability, or active ingredients in disinfectants or sanitizers, were required to be listed on package labels. Now, substances linked to longer-term problems like DNA damage, birth defects, endocrine disruption, neurotoxicity and respiratory impacts will have to be disclosed.
3. For the first time ever in the U.S., manufacturers will have to disclose more of their fragrance ingredients.
The vague term “fragrance” may hide the identity of dozens of chemicals in a complex mixture in a single product. But fragrance chemicals can trigger asthma and allergic reactions. Some are linked to cancer, like acetaldehyde, or can form carcinogenic secondary pollutants, like formaldehyde, when they mix with air. Some manufacturers have begun voluntarily disclosing fragrance ingredients, but many more have not. Under the new law, companies will have to list more of their fragrance ingredients, including the 26 allergenic components required in Europe.
4. Impurities will be under greater scrutiny.
The new law identifies 34 “non-functional constituents” that must be revealed online. These are substances present in small amounts that are not intentionally added, serve no technical purpose in the finished product or are not stripped out. They could be contaminants introduced from raw materials or processing equipment, breakdown products of an ingredient or a byproduct of the manufacturing process. The list includes hormone-disrupting phthalates, carcinogens such as benzene and nitrosamines, and the likely carcinogen 1,4-dioxane.
While we wait for the bill to start taking effect, EWG’s Guide to Healthy Cleaninghighlights products that help reduce exposure to known fragrance allergens and other hazardous ingredients and impurities.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2017/12/four-reasons-celebrate-california-cleaning-product-right-know-act#.WjABrlWWbIU
-
What Are the Latest Trends in the Personal Care Sector?
Dec 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
Bans, restrictions, ingredient disclosure: these are the key chemical issues the personal care industries in Europe, the US and the rest of the world have grappled with throughout the past year. And they will remain hot topics on the 2018 agenda.Looking for safer preservatives
Preservatives – or the lack thereof – is a prevalent crisis in the cosmetics sector. Last year stakeholders upped their efforts to both defend existing ingredients from impending restrictions or bans, and to encourage investment in developing new preservation systems. Trends to watch are multifunctional additives and formulations based on organic acids. Swiss multinational Lonza, for example, is future–proofing its portfolio by formulating such preservation options. Meanwhile, US business group the Green Chemistry and Commerce Council (GC3) ran a competition with the aim of identifying promising safe preservation systems for personal care and household products, and to help bring them to market. It closed in August 2017 with 48 submissions for potential new systems, which are currently being evaluated.Are mineral oil hydrocarbons a health concern?
Another group of substances to watch are mineral oil hydrocarbons. The European Food Safety Authority, the EU's Scientific Committee for Consumer Safety (SCCS) and the Danish Consumer Council have put pressure on the European Commission to consider whether dietary exposure to certain mineral oils in lip care products is a health concern. Beuc, the European Consumer Organisation, recently urged Brussels to impose a safety limit on mineral oil aromatic hydrocarbons (MOAHs) and mineral oil saturated hydrocarbons (MOSHs). Next year will likely see this discussion progress and could force a response from the European Commission.Microplastics under scrutiny
Meanwhile, more and more EU member states are mulling, or already implementing, bans on microplastics in cosmetics. Belgium has notified a draft plan to voluntarily phase out microplastics in all consumer products by 2019. The ban would initially apply to cosmetics and toothpaste. France will prohibit rinse–off cosmetics containing microplastics from January 2018 and Sweden has proposed to do the same. The UK government had aimed to ban the manufacture of rinse–off cosmetics containing microbeads by the end of 2017. Whether these initiatives will have a significant effect on the cosmetics industry, however, remains to be seen. According to trade bodies, the sector has already phased out solid microbeads from rinse–off cosmetics voluntarily, ahead of any legislation.Increasing transparency
While preparing for a shrinking toolbox of available substances, personal care companies are also keeping an eye on ingredient disclosure trends. Under rising demands for transparency, large corporations and retailers are beginning to make information on the chemicals in their products more easily available to consumers; and personal care is fronting this trend. Unilever US has made available fragrance ingredient information for almost 100 of its products available online and through an app. It has plans to provide consumers with information about specific fragrance ingredients above 0.01% (100 parts per million) present in its personal care products by the end of 2018. Procter & Gamble also recently announced an initiative to reveal all the fragrance ingredients in its products above 0.01%, by the end of 2019. If calls from NGOs are heard, fragrance ingredients could soon be added to product labels, too. California's Assembly has already passed a bill that would require ingredient labelling for professional cosmetics.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62315/what-are-the-latest-trends-in-the-personal-care-sector
-
Lawmakers Threaten to Pull US IARC Funding
Dec 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
Three lawmakers are threatening to pull US financial support from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc) in the latest salvo over the process used in labelling chemical substances as carcinogens. The move comes after they repeated a demand that Iarc put forward an official to testify before a hearing in Washington.
Representatives Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chair of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, and Andy Biggs (R-Arizona), chair of its Environment Subcommittee, wrote to Iarc and the Department of Health and Human Services on 1 November, demanding information on the agency's monograph programme. This is tasked with identifying environmental factors that can increase the risk of human cancer.
They focused specifically on Iarc's 2015 review of glyphosate – the primary ingredient of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide – repeating assertions that had appeared in news media reports about the controversial decision to classify it as "probably" carcinogenic to humans.
Iarc director Christopher P Wild responded with a letter defending the agency's procedures and its decision on glyphosate. He declined to name an agency official who could testify at a hearing, and offered to answer questions at the organisation's offices in France.
On 8 December, the two lawmakers, joined by Representative Frank Lucas (R-Oklahoma, wrote back. They reiterated their demand for a hearing witness and their criticisms of the glyphosate deliberations.
Given "questions regarding the scientific integrity" of the monograph programme, they wrote, lawmakers "may decide to consider the appropriateness of providing continued US federal government funding".
The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has given nearly $48m to Iarc since 1985. More than $22m of this went to the monographs programme.
However, it is not certain that the three lawmakers could follow through on their threat, because it is appropriations committees that have direct responsibility for funding decisions, and the executive branch would also presumably weigh in.
Iarc's work has come under fire before from lawmakers and industry groups in the US, because it has regulatory implications. Substances it lists as carcinogens are also listed as such under California’s Proposition 65. This requires manufacturers and retailers to warn workers and consumers exposed to listed chemicals.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62502/lawmakers-threaten-to-pull-us-iarc-funding
-
CPSC Issues Final Rule Expanding Phthalate Ban
Dec 11, 2017 | Lexology
By Erin M. Bosman, Julie Y. Park and Suzanne Marinkovich
Nearly ten years after the first three phthalates were banned from children’s toys by Congress, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) issued a final rule on October 27 prohibiting five more. The rule bans the manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribution in commerce, or importation of children’s toys and products containing more than 0.1% of five phthalate chemicals. Phthalates are a group of chemicals used to soften plastics and make them pliable and easier to grip and are found in numerous household products, including children’s toys. The long-awaited final rule continues to face significant controversy regarding its scope and the data used to support it.
Years in the making
Due to concerns that phthalates can act as endocrine disruptors, Congress originally prohibited certain phthalates in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA). The CPSIA permanently banned three phthalates (DEHP, DBP, and BBP) and imposed an interim ban on an additional three (DINP, DNOP, and DIDP). Section 108 of the CPSIA then required CPSC to convene a group of experts called the Chronic Hazard Advisory Panel (CHAP) to assess the risks of phthalates and phthalate alternatives.
Thereafter, CHAP convened and ultimately recommended banning five additional phthalates in a July 2014 final report. In addition to recommending that the interim ban on DINP be made permanent, CHAP recommended banning DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP, and DCHP. According to the CPSIA, CPSC was required to issue a final rule addressing whether to make the interim ban permanent and whether to add any more phthalates to the ban no later than 180 days after the CHAP report was issued. However, no rule was issued before the deadline and the final rule did not follow until this October—over two years and nine months later.
The rule also ends litigation against CPSC for its delay in issuing the final rule. The Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups had sued CPSC in December 2016 for failing to meet its January 14, 2015 deadline. On October 31, 2017, that suit was dismissed with prejudice in light of CPSC’s issuance of the final rule.
The final rule
Predictably, the U.S. will now permanently ban toys containing the eight phthalates identified by CPSC in the proposed rule from 2014— DEHP, DBP, BBP (the three originally prohibited in the CPSIA) and DINP, DIBP, DPENP, DHEXP, DCHP (the five recommended by CHAP for a ban). The rule takes effect on April 25, 2018.
Controversy about the rule
The final rule passed by a vote of three to two commissioners, reflecting the political divide on the Commission as well as the contentiousness surrounding a ban on phthalates. Sensing the likelihood of litigation, CPSC Commissioner Elliot F. Kaye issued a statement defending the rule and highlighting “how thorough the CHAP was and how its methods and conclusions were validated by a substantial peer review.” He implored “judges and law clerks who may look over this record” to study Congress’s directive to the CPSC in the CPSIA, the science, and how the CPSC reviewed public comments during the rulemaking.
Then-CPSC Commissioner Joseph P. Mohorovic, who voted against the rule, issued a statement that the Commission “missed [an] opportunity to pass a reasoned, evidence-based rule prohibiting the phthalates that pose actual risk to consumers.” He stated that the standard for a phthalate to survive the ban—“reasonable certainty of no harm”—was inconsistently applied by CPSC throughout the rulemaking process. Additionally, he noted that there is “scant evidence showing that the products covered by the Final Rule—toys and child care articles—contribute in any measureable way to overall phthalate exposure for the vulnerable population.” Instead, he pointed to dietary sources as contributing “the most to overall phthalate exposure.” Acting CPSC Chairman Anne Marie Buerkle also published a statement agreeing with some of the criticisms raised by Commissioner Mohorovic. Their criticisms echo those raised by phthalate manufacturers that the CHAP report, and now the final rule, relied on outdated data from 2005.
Challenges ahead
Litigation and industry challenges are certain to follow. The Toy Association issued a statement that it does not believe the rule is fully supported by scientific evidence. Other industries may be subject to scrutiny for phthalate use in the future, including cosmetics and dietary sources, as raised by Commissioner Mohorovic. Manufacturers outside of the toy and child product industries should monitor the controversy and seek counsel to determine whether their products may be at issue.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c3fbd1f9-3dc2-440d-8691-25da533960ba
-
Editorial: EPA Must Do Better With Drinking Water
Dec 12, 2017 | Burlington Times News
It shouldn’t be this way, but ensuring our drinking water is safe will require a long and persistent effort. A modest but important step was taken recently when the EPA announced it would begin working with other federal and state agencies to address concerns surrounding GenX and other perfluorinated chemicals.
Ever since the StarNews first reported the GenX contamination, we’ve been more concerned about what we don’t know than what we do know: Is GenX harmful at levels we’ve been exposed to? If the discharge into the river ends, will it eventually purge out? What other contaminants are we ingesting?
Those questions are unanswered because GenX, like thousands of other chemicals in use, is not regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency.
We know, for example that the industrial chemical o-Dichlorobenzeneis can cause liver and kidney damage. With a permit, however, diluted levels are allowed into waterways. Unlike GenX, o-Dichlorobenzeneis is regulated and a safe level has been determined.
Here’s the rub: Of the thousands of chemicals, microorganisms and other substances that can get in our water — or already are in it — the EPA’s National Primary Drinking Water Regulations cover only 90. It’s those hundreds of substances not on the list — including GenX — that we are most worried about. The problem is not that the EPA is not aware of them, there simply are too many to properly evaluate and regulate.
With help from outraged residents and leaders in the Cape Fear region perfluorinated compounds like GenX have risen to the top of that figurative pool of unregulated chemicals and exposed to increased scrutiny.
Credit Republican U.S. Sen. Richard Burr for pressuring the EPA. On Oct. 31, Sen. Burr wrote EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt requesting that the agency review the actions of the EPA, state regulators and Chemours regarding GenX discharges, and to prioritize GenX and similar chemicals for risk evaluation.
In the recent announcement, the EPA said it will identify near-term actions it can take to support affected communities; enhance its coordination with states and other federal agencies to provide communities with needed information; increase research to identify new methods for measuring perfluorinated compounds and fill data gaps; and expand proactive communications about health effects.
In a tweet on Monday, Burr wrote: “Glad to see @EPA taking seriously the issue of dangerous chemicals like GenX in an effort to ensure folks across the country have clean and safe drinking water.”
As we said, these are modest but important steps. With the help of Sen. Burr, this issue is now clearly on the EPA’s radar. We hope it stays there, but we do have reason to be skeptical.
Pruitt has been a longtime critic of the very agency he now leads, and Michael Dourson’s nomination to oversee the EPA’s chemical pollution division is still alive. (Sen. Burr and Sen. Thom Tillis remain the only Republicans openly opposing Dourson, citing his work on behalf of the chemical industry).
Both Pruitt and Dourson are too cozy with many of the heavy polluters that need serious EPA oversight. The Washington Post reported Nov. 10 that “on pesticides, chemical solvents and air pollutants, Pruitt and his deputies are using industry figures to challenge past findings and recommendations of the agency’s own scientists.”
Pruitt’s allegiance and advocacy seem to lie more with the companies the EPA regulates than with the public he is supposed to protect. Monday’s news was a promising step, but we urge both Sens. Burr and Tillis to hold Pruitt accountable. Apparently he’s convinced that the Chemours of the world will do the right thing regarding the environment.
Forgive us if we respectfully disagree.
http://www.thetimesnews.com/opinion/20171212/editorial-epa-must-do-better-with-drinking-water
-
Italy Requests Suspension of REACH Deadline for Dye SMEs
Dec 12, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Italy has proposed that the REACH registration deadline be suspended for a group of dye-producing SMEs because Echa’s Board of Appeal (BoA) is expected to rule on a data-sharing dispute, in which the group is a defendant, "very close" to the deadline.
In a position paper submitted to the meeting of the Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) on 15-16 November, the Italian Ministry of Health says the Dye-Staff Cooperation has "virtually no time" to prepare dossiers by 31 May as a consequence of the anticipated verdict date.
The cooperation was set up for the joint registration of hundreds of substances. It has been in a legal dispute since April with the European Dyes Consortia, lead registrant of a number of dyes, over data-sharing rights for Acid orange 7.
In July, Echa granted the group free access to the requested dossier, saying that the consortia "did not make every effort to reach an agreement". It also encouraged the parties to apply the same assessment to other dye substances under negotiation.
However, an appeal filed by the consortia in August led to the suspension of Echa's Decision. As a result, the group currently has no access to the relevant studies necessary for registration, the ministry says.
"Until the BoA takes its decision, it is uncertain whether the Dye-Staff Cooperation will have access to the studies or [if] they will have to resume the negotiation with the European Dyes Consortia," it says. The cooperation is dealing with more than 100 dye-substances "with exactly the same critical situation".
Failure to suspend the deadline will lead to cooperation members "likely" facing bankruptcy, the Italian ministry adds.Lenience
As an alternative to deadline suspension, the ministry proposes that EU member states exercise leniency in their enforcement actions towards the group, whose dyes are used in textiles, paper and leather.
Member states could issue a guidance document, the ministry says, "in which they agree that they will not take actions against prospective registrants that, due to circumstances beyond their control, were not able complete the relevant dossiers by the 2018 registration deadline".
Such a move has precedence in the biocides sector, whereby a leniency period of six months was agreed in relation to the Article 95 provision in the biocidal products Regulation, it adds.Free data for SMEs
The ministry has also asked other member state competent authorities to support Echa's proposal for conditional free data access to SMEs – at least for all substances in the lower tonnage bands between one-ten tonnes/year.
Such companies are experiencing "severe challenges" in preparation of their dossiers, "due to their lack of financial and staff resources" and experience with "REACH-related obligations", it says.
SMEs need to register hundreds of substances, each with an average cost of around €30,000 per substance, the Italian ministry adds. This would bankrupt many of them, should Echa apply the same rules on registration it did for the 2010 and 2013 deadlines.
"It is highly likely that a large number of SMEs will fail to submit the registration dossier in due time," it says.
The high cost of registration is the one of the main concerns for such companies as the registration deadline looms, Echa head Geert Dancet said last month.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62508/italy-requests-suspension-of-reach-deadline-for-dye-smes
-
'No Shame': How the Trump Administration Granted Big Oil's Wishlist
Dec 12, 2017 | The Guardian
By Oliver Milman
The Trump administration’s zeal for environmental rollbacks has enabled it to fulfill almost all of the top priorities in a “wishlist” drawn up by the American Petroleum Institute (API), the leading lobby group for US oil and gas companies.
How big oil is tightening its grip on Donald Trump's White HouseIn a document called “comments on specific regulations” sent to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in May, API highlighted eight key changes it wanted to ease the regulation of air and water pollution. An analysis shows that the EPA has now so far either partially or wholly delivered on six out of these eight key demands within the first year of the Trump administration,which solicited input on government rules from a number of trade groups.
This comes as the Guardian and the Center for Public Integrity publish an investigation into the way the oil lobby has worked for decades to influence US government policy – and is tightening its hold.
Earlier this year a letter penned by Howard Feldman, senior director of regulatory affairs at API, accompanied the lobby group’s wish list for government, and it stated that fossil fuel companies are thriving “despite the unprecedented level of federal regulatory actions targeting our industry”.
Timeline Big oil and the US governmentFeldman called for the federal government to alter regulations in a way that “promotes access to domestic oil and natural gas resources, streamlined permitting and cost-effective regulations”.
The letter is addressed to Samantha Dravis, an EPA associate administrator who previously held a senior role at the Republican Attorneys General Association and was counsel to Freedom Partners, one of the groups in the Koch brothers network.
The 25-page list of API’s suggested regulatory changes places particular emphasis on eight key demands that peel away standards primarily imposed under Barack Obama’s administration. The EPA’s administrator, Scott Pruitt, previously a harsh critic of the agency who has pledged to reign in its “out of control, anti-energy agenda”, has overseen the delay or repeal moves in line with six of API’s eight highest priorities.
“There’s no question that energy lobbyists are calling the shots in this administration, which has been all too willing to roll back public health protections,” said Jeremy Symons, vice-president of Environmental Defense Fund. “Anyone who doubts that can just look at their record.”
Pruitt and his team have made it clear that oil, gas and coal industries trump scienceLiz Purchia Gannon, former EPA communications head
On March 22, Pruitt met with API executives at the Trump International Hotel in Washington DC . Less than a month later, Pruitt wrote to Feldman, as well as three other oil and gas industry representatives, to tell them he was temporarily suspending regulations that curb leaks from drilling operations while the EPA reconsiders the rule.
In June, the EPA proposed a two-year pause to the rule, which was drawn up under the Obama administration in 2016 and aimed to reduce “fugitive” emissions such as methane, a potent greenhouse gas. In July, a federal court blocked the attempted suspension of the rule.
The EPA has fared better in fulfilling other top API priorities. In June, Pruitt signed a two-year delay to regulations designed to improve the safety of chemical facilities. API argued that the rule, which followed several disastrous incidents at chemical plants, would be burdensome and do little to improve safety.
API said the EPA “should reverse” a separate regulation requiring power plants to follow air pollution rules when they are starting up, shutting down or undergoing maintenance. Pruitt, who previously sued the EPA to halt the rule, is now reassessing it.
Implementation of new standards to reduce ozone, a pollutant that helps form smog, was delayed by a year at Pruitt’s behest in June, a month after the API called for the EPA to reconsider the rule. Several states and health groups have launched legal action against the EPA after it missed a deadline to designate which areas of the country are failing to meet the tightened standards on smog.
API also secured an early victory in February, when Donald Trump issued an executive order to scrap the “waters of the United States” rule, which was put in place under the Obama administration to protect streams and rivers that provide drinking water to around a third of Americans. The regulation has been opposed by some farmers and owners of golf courses and industrial plants as being too stringent.
Several of API’s lower priority proposals have also been fulfilled, with Pruitt introducing new rules for members of the EPA’s scientific boards which open the way for more industry involvement and, separately, deciding to not introducenew financial responsibility requirements that API feared may have impacted the petroleum industry.
“Pruitt and his team have no shame,” said Liz Purchia Gannon, former head of communications at the EPA under the Obama administration. “They have made it clear from the start that oil, gas and coal industries trump science, the American people and public health and environmental organizations.
“What we can see from his schedule is an alarming pattern of meeting with special interest groups before making policy decisions favoring their bottom line at the expense of Americans’ health and the environment.”
When contacted for comment, the API said it was happy for its previous statements to speak for themselves. The EPA did not respond to a request for comment.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/12/big-oil-lobby-get-what-it-wants-epa-trump-pruitt
-
EPA to Release CPP Replacement ANPR in 'Upcoming Weeks'
Dec 12, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA says it plans to release a document formally seeking input on whether and how to replace the Clean Power Plan (CPP) greenhouse gas rule for power plants “in the upcoming weeks,” and that it will weigh GHG target-setting formulas that might fit within a narrower interpretation of the agency's statutory power to regulate GHGs.
The announcement, included in a court case status update filed late Dec. 11 in paused litigation over the Obama-era CPP, adds some further details to what is already known about EPA's plans for the forthcoming advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR).
Nearly a month ago, Administrator Scott Pruitt said the agency would take the first step toward replacing the CPP -- which he proposed to rescind in October -- “very, very soon.” At the time, he said the ANPR would ask the public to weigh in on “what are the tools in the toolbox to address carbon dioxide reduction under section 111 of the Clean Air Act,” he told a Nov. 17 event.
Just days ago, he then testified to a House hearing that EPA is “going to be introducing a replacement rule, too, in place of the Clean Power Plan,” his first firm pledge to issue a replacement following the ANPR.
That announcement was important because debate is raging between major industry groups and hard-line conservatives about whether EPA should have some level of GHG regulation for the power sector to create legal and regulatory certainty, or whether the agency should attempt to scrap all of its GHG controls.
It appears Pruitt, in opting to craft a replacement rule, has sided with industry groups, including nearly all facets of the power sector, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.
In the new status update, submitted to the CPP case docket in West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al. in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, EPA says it will “solicit information on systems of emission reduction that are in accord with the legal interpretation that has been proposed by EPA.”
In general, that would mean target-setting formulas that rely only on GHG reduction measures that are “inside the fence” of regulated power plants, as opposed to “beyond the fence” measures such as switching from coal to lower-carbon natural gas or renewables.
That statement also aligns with Pruitt's prior statements that the ANPR would not specifically take comment on EPA's landmark GHG endangerment finding, though conservative groups have said that would not fully close the door on them offering comments on the issue, as well as a related claim that EPA must craft sector-specific endangerment findings to proceed with regulation.
The D.C. Circuit has paused consideration of West Virginia through mid-January, after previously holding the case in abeyance two prior times. EPA is slated to issue another status update on its regulatory efforts, after which the court would decide whether to continue the abeyance.
The agency has sought to put the case on hold until it concludes its rulemaking to rescind the CPP, though environmental groups have urged the D.C. Circuit to issue a ruling in the case because it heard oral arguments more than a year ago.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-release-cpp-replacement-anpr-upcoming-weeks
-
Tanker Crash Spills at Least 1,000 Gallons of Ethanol
Dec 12, 2017 | Des Moines Register (In E&E Greenwire)
By Luke Nozicka
At least 1,000 gallons of ethanol leaked onto an Iowa road after a semitruck and tanker trailer flipped yesterday, according to authorities.
The driver lost control while he was rounding a curve in Dubuque County on Old Highway Road. He entered a ditch, and the semi rolled over.
The driver was treated for minor injuries. The damage to the semi and tanker is estimated at over $100,000.
Although the Dubuque Fire Department said 1,000 gallons of ethanol leaked, the sheriff's office estimated the leak to be about 1,500 gallons.
Fire officials built a containment dike to keep the ethanol from reaching waterways.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/12/12/stories/1060068741
-
Bloomberg Thanks Trump: Pulling Out of Paris Deal a 'Rallying Cry' for Environmentalists
Dec 12, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Max Greenwood
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) said Tuesday that President Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate accord has served as a "rallying cry" for environmentalists and boosted efforts to fight climate change.
"The fact that President Trump has a different view has been a rallying cry for the pro-environmentalists groups. And that has been very helpful," Bloomberg said at a news conference in Paris, according to Time.
"So I just want to thank him for all of his assistance," he added. "There is not a thing that Washington can do to stop it."
Bloomberg, who was in Paris for a climate summit, has been an outspoken advocate for efforts to fight climate change, helping to launch an organization earlier this year aimed at fulfilling the U.S. commitment under the Paris agreement.
That group, America's Pledge, is comprised of a number of U.S. states, businesses and universities that have vowed to help the U.S. reach its commitments under the accord.
Trump in June announced his intention to back out of the 195-nation accord, arguing that it would hurt economic and job growth in the U.S. while allowing countries like India and China to continue to expand their use of fossil fuels.
He said he would seek to renegotiate the deal, though other world leaders have rebuffed that notion.
The Paris agreement marked the first coordinated international effort to mitigate the effects of climate change by having countries set goals for reducing carbon emissions.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/364463-bloomberg-thanks-trump-pulling-out-of-paris-deal-a-rallying-cry-for
-
Sierra Club Seeks Rehearing of Air Pollution 'Hot-Spots' Suit
Dec 12, 2017 | Inside EPA
Sierra Club and others are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to rehear their case against EPA's revised guidance for calculating when transportation projects might result in air pollution “hot-spots” causing violations of federal air standards, after the court rejected the suit for lack of jurisdiction and standing.
In a Dec. 11 petition for both rehearing by the panel that heard the case and by the full court en banc, the petitioners argue the D.C. Circuit erred in its ruling in Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA. The court dismissed the case in a unanimous Oct. 24 decision. In his opinion for the court, Judge Stephen Williams found that the groups lack standing to sue because they are unable to show injury from EPA's guidance.
Petitioners in the suit claim that the Obama EPA's 2015 revisions to the hot-spot guidance, which applies to particulate matter (PM), could lead state air regulators to underestimate pollution, resulting in violations of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
Air regulators must evaluate whether transportation projects, such as highway expansions, “conform” to their plans for attaining NAAQS, and EPA's guidance aims to help them determine this.
But EPA in the suit argued that the guidance on so-called transportation conformity determinations is non-binding, and hence not “final agency action” subject to judicial review.
Williams in his opinion found that for “coarse” PM, or PM10, the guidance is not subject to judicial review, but for smaller “fine” PM, or PM2.5, he instead found petitioners lack standing to sue, because they cannot show harm from the guidance's application.
In their petition for rehearing, environmentalists urge the D.C. Circuit to reconsider the decision and they claim that the court ignores its own precedent with the decision.
“By requiring proof that EPA’s procedure for calculating the 'design value' for PM2.5 'will be used,' this decision establishes a test for causation that requires a degree of certainty not required by prior decisions of this Court. Like the procedure at issue here, this Court has previously found standing to challenge agency action that authorized third party conduct that would cause concrete injury to petitioners if the authorized conduct occurred,” they argue. Design values are locally calculated air pollution levels used for regulatory compliance purposes.
Environmentalists argue that the D.C. Circuit has previously “applied as the standard for causation the likelihood that the harmful conduct was 'substantially probable,' not the absolute certainty standard applied by the Panel.”
They further argue that the court's finding that the PM10 aspect of the guidance is non-binding overlooks a violation of petitioners' individual rights.
“Petitioners argued that EPA may only change the hot-spot procedures by notice and comment rulemaking because EPA may not lawfully affect Petitioners’ members’ statutory right to a healthful air supply except by legislative rulemaking,” they say. EPA did not subject the guidance to public notice-and-comment.
“The Court’s decision holding that EPA’s amended guidance is not final conflicts with prior decisions holding that agency action affecting individual rights is final action,” petitioners argue.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/sierra-club-seeks-rehearing-air-pollution-hot-spots-suit
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested