Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 3/12/2018
-
Rebuilding Infrastructure in America: Administration Perspectives
Mar 14, 2018 | Senate Commerce Committee
Location: 106 Dirksen / 10:00 AM -
Hearing on Energy Cyber and Emergency Response
Mar 14, 2018 | House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy
Location: 2123 Rayburn / 10:00 AM -
Rebuilding Infrastructure in America: State and Local Transportation Needs
Mar 12, 2018 | Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety an
Location: 253 Russell / 2:30 PM -
Hearing on Interior Budget
Mar 13, 2018 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Location: 366 Dirksen / 10:00 AM -
Shining Light on the Federal Regulatory Process
Mar 14, 2018 | House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
Location: 2154 Rayburn / 10:00 AM -
An Examination of Federal Permitting Processes
Mar 14, 2018 | House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy, and Environment
Location: 2154 Rayburn / 2:00 PM -
Full Committee Hearing to Consider DOE Nominees
Mar 15, 2018 |
Location : Dirksen 366 / 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) 'Smart Sectors' Effort Might Help EPA Boost Flexibility Across Programs
Mar 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA is touting its newly launched “Smart Sectors” program aimed at bolstering flexibility for over a dozen industry sectors as serving the role of an “obudsman” that would help represent industry groups' interests in the agency's regulatory process... -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry Slams Trump Steel Tariffs
Mar 12, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
The Trump administration’s decision to impose tariffs on imported steel and aluminum is unpopular with many industries, including the chemical sector. -
EPA Science Advisers Haven't Met in Six Months: Report
Mar 10, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Jacqueline Thomsen
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) scientific advisory board (SAB) hasn’t met in at least six months, Scientific American reported this week. -
(ACC Mentioned) New TSCA Inspires New Litigation
Mar 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch - Business Briefing
By Lynn L. Bergeson
When the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was legislatively ‘modernised’ in June 2016, no one in the legal community doubted litigation was in our collective future. We have not been disappointed. -
Companies’ Chemical Secrets Run Up Against the New Toxics Law
Mar 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
Companies aren't justifying the need to keep their chemicals confidential at a time when consumers are demanding more information about the products they buy, environmental groups argue. -
Taking Stock of Chemicals
Mar 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch - Business Briefing
By Tammy Lovell
Retailers are the closest link in the supply chain to the consumer. A campaign in the US is encouraging them to use their position to demonstrate leadership on chemical management and influence the market as a whole. Mind the Store was launched five years ago by a coalition of NGOs... -
Manufacturing CEOs: Closing the Product Safety Gap
Mar 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch - Business Briefing
By Michael Kirschner
A report published recently showed that a major consumer products manufacturer failed to verify compliance of its televisions with chemical substance restrictions in its markets. -
EPA Faces Growing Calls to Replace Lead Pipes
Mar 9, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Ariel Wittenberg
U.S. EPA is facing pressure to require some form of lead pipe replacement when it revamps its lead and copper drinking water regulations. -
Breaking Echa's Culture of Secrecy to Deliver on Reach Promises
Mar 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch - Business Briefing
By Vito Buonsante
In June 2017, Echa turned ten and in May the registration of chemicals in the lowest tonnage range will end the period granted by the REACH Regulation to substances that already were on the market in 2006. However, the REACH promises to fill the data gap about chemicals... -
REACH up for Review
Mar 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Warmington
Just as the Briefing was going to press, the European Commission published its report on the second REACH Review, or REACH Refit Evaluation, to give it its proper title. This was not only long delayed from the original scheduled date of June 2017, but also too late for in-depth analysis here... -
REACH Tasks Beyond the Final Registration Deadline
Mar 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch - Business Briefing
By Thomas Berbner
The REACH Regulation always required more than just the registration of chemical substances. Where essential data is missing, it has to be generated. Moreover, REACH covers all uses of a substance and the data makes it possible to estimate human and environmental exposure specifically. -
Poorly Soluble, Low Toxicity Particles Facing Review
Mar 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch - Business Briefing
By Andrew Warmington
In 2016, the French competent authority, Anses, submitted a harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) report, proposing that the European Commission classify the white pigment titanium dioxide (TiO2) as carcinogenic under EU CLP. Echa’s Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) -
Read-Across Steps Forward
Mar 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch - Business Briefing
By Emma Davies
After two years, the EU-ToxRisk project is showing promising signs that its alternative test batteries and models may be able to predict chemical toxicity for read-across purposes. Although various case studies still await key data, early results suggest that predictions broadly match... -
Endocrine Disruptor Assays Go Fast Track
Mar 12, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
Growing concerns about environmental contaminants associated with adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects led Congress more than 20 years ago to direct the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to develop a program to screen chemicals... -
(ACC Mentioned) US Group Calls for Tariff Exemption of Natgas Pipeline Steel
Mar 9, 2018 | ICIS
By Tracy Dang
Steel products used for constructing natural gas pipelines should be exempt from impending US tariffs because of insufficient domestic capacity and natural security considerations, industry group Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) said on Friday. -
Ceraweek: As OPEC Waits for Appreciation, US Ramps up Oil Production
Mar 12, 2018 | Platts
By Brian Scheid
OPEC ministers came to Houston this week for a “thank you” that never arrived. -
Offshore Oil Plan ‘Good First Step’ in U.S. Energy Revival: API
Mar 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Cunningham
A draft plan to open up the U.S. outer continental shelf to drilling could bring economic benefits not just to coastal regions but also nationally, Erik Milito, American Petroleum Institute's director of upstream and industry operators, said on a call with reporters. -
Offshore Drilling: It’s Not Worth It
Mar 12, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Rep. Anthony Brown (D-Md.)
In 2016, communities up and down the Atlantic coast successfully advocated to keep oil and gas development away from their shorelines, coastal neighborhoods, and vibrant economies dependent on clean and healthy waters. -
New York Threatens Lawsuit Over Trump's Offshore Drilling Plan
Mar 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman (D) threatened to sue the federal government if it doesn't exclude ocean areas off of New York from its offshore drilling plan. -
Oil Industry Falls out of Love with Trump
Mar 12, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Ben Lefebvre and Eric Wolff
The oil and gas industry’s relationship with President Donald Trump is cooling off. -
Three NRG Gas Plants to Shut Amid California's Green Push
Mar 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment
By Brian Eckhouse
The Golden State is increasingly inhospitable to fossil fuel power plants. -
West Virginia Royalty Law Abolishing Post-Production Cost Deductions a Pen Stroke Away
Mar 9, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
West Virginia’s oil and natural gas producers would no longer be permitted to deduct post-production expenses from landowners’ royalty checks under a bill awaiting the signature of Republican Gov. Jim Justice. -
Ohio Utica Natural Gas Output Spiked Again in 2017
Mar 9, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Utica Shale natural gas production increased again last year to 1.7 Tcf, up about 25% from 2016, according to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). -
Chemical Sector 'Anxious' About Slow EPA Progress on Overhauling RMP
Mar 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
A chemical industry official says companies are “anxious” about EPA's apparent slow progress in repealing Obama-era revisions to the agency's facility safety program and issuing a replacement rule, saying industry is unsure of the overhaul's status despite a looming deadline... -
More Hearings Set Amid Mixed Messages from GOP
Mar 12, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk
It's infrastructure week for the Senate Commerce Committee. -
Opinion: We Built the Panama Canal. Surely We Can Fix Infrastructure
Mar 12, 2018 | Roll Call
By Doug Peterson
Few issues have been free of partisan wrangling of late, and few occasions have inspired unified feelings of greatness in our country. Yet the public and private sectors together have an opportunity with infrastructure to chart a different course and seed the path for the next great American moment. -
Federal Courts Pause Suits over Texas Haze Plan
Mar 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
Federal district and appeals courts have granted joint requests from EPA and environmentalists to put on hold litigation challenging the Trump administration's regional haze federal implementation plan (FIP) approving an emissions trading program in the state... -
The E.P.A. Chief Wanted a Climate Science Debate. Trump’s Chief of Staff Stopped Him.
Mar 9, 2018 |
By Lisa Friedman and Julie Hirschfeld Davis
John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, has killed an effort by the head of the Environmental Protection Agency to stage public debates challenging climate change science, according to three people familiar with the deliberations, thwarting a plan that had intrigued... -
How a Climate Skeptic Marginalized for Years at the Interior Dept. Rose to Prominence Under Trump
Mar 12, 2018 | Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin and Dino Grandoni
Just 10 days after President Trump took office last year, an Interior Department official suggested a swift change to its website in preparation for Trump’s choice to lead the department, Ryan Zinke. -
Environmentalists Say NSR Suit Loss Could Hinder EPA's Deregulatory Bid
Mar 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists critical of EPA's efforts to ease Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) air permitting mandates say a potential loss in an appellate court case where the agency is defending Obama-era positions on enforcing NSR could hinder the deregulatory effort... -
A Global Game Changer for Energy Efficiency Investments
Mar 9, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Victor Rojas
Three hospitals in England recently cut energy costs in half after spending the equivalent of $18 million in energy efficiency upgrades. The projects got a much-needed boost from a certification that gave investors confidence the retrofits would bring returns.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Rebuilding Infrastructure in America: Administration Perspectives
Mar 14, 2018 | Senate Commerce Committee
Witnesses:
The Honorable Elaine Chao, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation
The Honorable Wilbur Ross, Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce
*Witness list subject to change.
-
Hearing on Energy Cyber and Emergency Response
Mar 14, 2018 | House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy
-
Rebuilding Infrastructure in America: State and Local Transportation Needs
Mar 12, 2018 | Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety an
Witnesses:
Mr. Kyle Schneweis, Director, Nebraska Department of Transportation
Mr. Dan Gilmartin, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer, Michigan Municipal League and Member of the National League of Cities
Mr. Jordan Kass, President, Managed Services, TMC Division, C.H. Robinson
Ms. Jo Strang, Senior Vice President, Safety and Regulatory Policy, American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association
*Witness list subject to change.
-
Mar 13, 2018 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Witness: Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke.
-
Shining Light on the Federal Regulatory Process
Mar 14, 2018 | House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
-
An Examination of Federal Permitting Processes
Mar 14, 2018 | House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy, and Environment
-
Full Committee Hearing to Consider DOE Nominees
Mar 15, 2018 |
The purpose of the hearing is to consider the following nominations:
Mr. Theodore Garrish to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (International Affairs); and
Mr. James Edward Campos to be Director of the Office of Minority Economic Impact at the Department of Energy.
-
(ACC Mentioned) 'Smart Sectors' Effort Might Help EPA Boost Flexibility Across Programs
Mar 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA is touting its newly launched “Smart Sectors” program aimed at bolstering flexibility for over a dozen industry sectors as serving the role of an “obudsman” that would help represent industry groups' interests in the agency's regulatory process, giving it a potentially key role in reshaping federal policy on air, waste, energy, water and other issues.
Elizabeth Corona, an official with the agency's Smart Sectors program that opened on Oct. 4, said her program was designed to “improve customer service to all sectors of the economy” during the American Chemistry Council's (ACC) Global Chemical Regulations Conference March 1 in Washington, D.C.:
EPA Touts 'Smart Sectors' Program As 'Ombudsman' For Industry Concerns
An EPA official says the agency's recently launched “Smart Sectors” program -- which is developing regulatory flexibility for more than a dozen industries -- aims to be an “ombudsman” for industries to raise concerns they have about federal oversight such as conflicting guidance from various EPA offices and other policy issues.Corona said the agency is reviving a sector-based approach to aid EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's priorities of streamlining regulation and improving collaboration with stakeholders, industry in particular, who are affected by federal and state rules.
She added that the office is seeking to bolster relationships within the agency. “In order to help resolve conflicts, we need to have strong internal relations so we're making an effort to reach out to program offices and our regulatory colleagues to make sure they understand we're not trying to do their jobs, we're trying to help them,” Corona said.
If the Smart Sectors office succeeds in reworking regulatory processes at EPA, it could reverse the initially tepid response from industry officials for the project, where they generally backed its goals but noted legal hurdles that hampered past efforts at sector-based regulation.
While the office only employs five people, Corona said it is “monitoring and participating in conversations on that and keeping track of comments that people are submitting” on the Toxic Substances Control Act reform implementation issues that were a top focus of discussion at the ACC conference, as well as other policies.
For instance, an office focused on the interests of particular sectors could play a key role in the ongoing discussions over potentially reforming the renewable fuel standard (RFS), which pits the oil and refinery sector critics of the program against its farming and biofuels-producing supporters:
As RFS Vexes GOP, Some See High-Octane Fuels Bolstering Ethanol
As the Trump administration struggles to develop consensus fixes to EPA's renewable fuel standard (RFS), some Republican lawmakers are outlining a long-term vision for fuel and vehicle policy that would allow for increased use of various ethanol blends in higher-octane fuels to spur greater vehicle fuel efficiency and lower greenhouse gas emissions.Similarly, Smart Sectors could have a major role in deciding how EPA goes about accelerating Superfund and other waste-cleanup programs -- a goal that is already one of Pruitt's top priorities. The effort is likely to kick into high gear now that the White House has nominated long-time Dow Chemical Company attorney Peter Wright to head the agency's Office of Land and Emergency Management:
EPA Waste Office Nominee Backs Streamlining Federal Cleanup Programs
Peter Wright, the Trump administration’s nominee to head EPA’s waste office, has advocated for streamlining federal cleanup programs and providing additional oversight responsibilities to states, stances that echo efforts by Administrator Scott Pruitt though implementing some streamlining will require action by Congress.Wright is already a backer of streamlining the federal waste programs that he has been tapped to lead, but how that effort will progress under Pruitt is still unclear, and will involve balancing the administrator's vocal goal of quick cleanups with concerns from industry over potentially onerous federal mandates.
Finally, EPA air policy has recently pitted states' priorities against each other and industry with a series of state-level petitions seeking more stringent federal controls on upwind emissions that officials in Delaware, Connecticut and other states say are making it impossible for them to attain national ambient air quality standards for ozone and other pollutants.
EPA has struggled to respond to those petitions by the statutory deadline, leading to litigation over both its responses and the six-month extensions that the agency has granted itself on those deadlines:
Delaware Urges 3rd Circuit To Bar EPA Delays On Interstate Air Petitions
Delaware is urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit to set a precedent barring EPA from easily granting itself six-month extensions to respond to states' Clean Air Act petitions asking the agency to mitigate interstate air pollution, which could bolster Northeast states that are trying to use the petitions to curb their major ozone problems.Keep reading Inside EPA for coverage of EPA's regulatory reform efforts, and how the agency's new “ombudsman” works to change that dynamic.
https://insideepa.com/insider/insider-march-9-2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Industry Slams Trump Steel Tariffs
Mar 12, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
The Trump administration’s decision to impose tariffs on imported steel and aluminum is unpopular with many industries, including the chemical sector. The U.S. industry’s leading trade group, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), is condemning the measure, saying it will hurt industry competitiveness.
In a White House ceremony before steel and aluminum industry workers on March 8, President Donald J. Trump signed a proclamation imposing a 25% tariff on imported steel and a 10% duty on aluminum. Trump left the door open to trading partners Canada and Mexico, as well as military allies, being exempt from the measures.
“Steel is steel,” Trump said. “If you don’t have steel, you don’t have a country.”
The administration has grown increasingly concerned about steel. Last month, the Commerce Department issued a report calling for the U.S. to reduce steel imports. Imports grew at double-digit rates in 2017, the report noted, and the U.S. now imports more than 30% of the steel it consumes.
Because of foreign competition, the Commerce Department said, the U.S. steel industry has closed six oxygen furnace facilities and idled another four since 2000, representing more than half of such plants in the U.S. “Domestic steel production is vital to national security,” it said.
But the Trump administration doesn’t speak with one mind on trade. Trump’s chief economic adviser, Gary Cohn, is resigning, reportedly because of his oppositions to the tariffs.
The ACC has asked Trump to reconsider the tariffs because they will drive up the cost of building chemical plants in the U.S.
“For a chemical manufacturing industry that has invested $185 billion in new factories, expansions, and restarts of facilities around the country, President Trump’s announcement comes at the worst possible time,” ACC said. “More than half of these investment projects are still in the planning stage, and market shifts caused by tariff increases may convince investors to do business elsewhere.”
Petrochemical plants use a lot of steel. For example, Sasol estimates that the $11 billion ethylene cracker and downstream chemical complex it is erecting in Lake Charles, La., will require 58,400 metric tons of the metal.
Dow Chemical says steel accounted for roughly 20% of the cost of the $6 billion in petrochemical projects it has completed on the Gulf Coast. It agrees with ACC that the tariffs will be harmful to competitiveness.
Chemical firms are currently building eight major ethylene projects in the U.S., meant to take advantage of cheap ethane feedstock extracted from shale. Two projects were completed last year. Several more are under consideration.
And beyond construction costs, the chemical industry could be a casualty in any trade war that results from the tariffs, says Kevin W. McCarthy, a stock analyst with Vertical Research Partners. “The U.S. industry is a large net exporter and thus vulnerable to potential retaliatory trade actions,” he wrote to clients. “Indeed, new shale-gas-inspired projects along the U.S. Gulf Coast will render U.S. commodity chemical producers increasingly reliant upon export markets over the next three to five years.”
In a report, Goldman Sachs economist Jeffrey Currie warned about harmful impacts on the broader economy. “Industries that are net consumers of steel and aluminum in the U.S. now face cost disadvantages relative to their international competitors, especially at a time when the labor market is tight and wage inflation is picking up,” he wrote.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/96/i11/Chemical-industry-slams-Trump-steel.html
-
EPA Science Advisers Haven't Met in Six Months: Report
Mar 10, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Jacqueline Thomsen
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) scientific advisory board (SAB) hasn’t met in at least six months, Scientific American reported this week.
The magazine said the full EPA board last met in August, and has not held conference calls or votes since then. One board member said that in the past, the group would have met or been in contact several times.
The EPA said that the group hasn’t met because of delayed paperwork, which stops the board from having enough members to reach a quorum.
However, one board member said that EPA head Scott Pruitt was slowing down the board until about a dozen members’ terms end in September.
"He's running out the clock, because in the end of September, he gets another chunk of them off," the member told Scientific American. "The obvious interpretation is that he's making sure he doesn't use the SAB until he has appointed the overwhelming majority of the people on the SAB."
Peter Thorne, a professor at the University of Iowa College of Public Health and former chairman of the board, said the board would normally have at least one two-day meeting and a couple of teleconferences over the span of six months.
He added that EPA officials would also consult the board on the science behind new regulations.
"If there are reports or regulatory actions that are being scheduled or that are happening and they're not coming to the science advisory board, then something is most definitely lost, because the board provides very important input to the process and scientific rigor," Thorne told Scientific American.
Pruitt has taken steps to reshape the agency’s advisory boards, blocking scientists who have received past EPA grants from sitting on the boards. The EPA said the move was to eliminate conflicts of interest, but critics have said it allows more industry advocates to work as EPA advisers.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/377720-epa-science-advisers-havent-met-in-6-months
-
(ACC Mentioned) New TSCA Inspires New Litigation
Mar 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch - Business Briefing
By Lynn L. Bergeson
When the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was legislatively ‘modernised’ in June 2016, no one in the legal community doubted litigation was in our collective future. We have not been disappointed.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its legal counsel for these purposes, the US Department of Justice (DoJ), are facing multiple lawsuits in several federal appeals courts and the very real possibility of more litigation deriving from TSCA Section 21 citizen petitions in the light of a recent decision. While none of this is especially unexpected, it is nonetheless disquieting. This article is a quick summary of where the cases stand and a discussion of what is at stake.
New TSCA: an overview
TSCA is the federal law that gives the EPA authority to regulate imported, manufactured and processed industrial chemical substances, including those intended for commercial and consumer uses.
Its significant legislative makeover in 2016 in the form of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA), and the robust implementation measures required of the agency since then, have been the focus of considerable (and laudable) effort.
LCSA extensively amends TSCA, revising and adding definitions, notably by:
· expanding testing authority;
· regulating new and existing chemicals (including, for the latter, sequential prioritisation, risk evaluation and risk management steps);
· expanding information reporting;
· narrowing the scope for confidential business information (CBI) protection; and
· tinkering with preemption.
EPA administrator Scott Pruitt said, at an oversight hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 30 January: "EPA’s top priority for ensuring the safety of chemicals in the marketplace is the implementation of [Lautenberg], which modernises [TSCA] by creating new standards and processes for evaluating the safety of chemicals in the marketplace within specific deadlines."
Among the most consequential ‘implementation’ measures incumbent upon the EPA to effect quickly was to issue three TSCA ‘framework’ rules. Collectively, these are intended to provide the administrative muscle behind the LCSA’s promise to deliver on its commitment to make TSCA a more effective tool in ensuring industrial chemical safety.
Under TSCA, the EPA was to issue final risk prioritisation, risk evaluation and inventory notification rules by June 2017. The former, issued on 20 July 2017, defines the process by which the agency identifies and designates an existing chemical substance as either ‘high’ or ‘low’ priority. High priority substances must be evaluated pursuant to a process established by the risk evaluation rule, issued on the same day.
The inventory notification rule of 11 August 2017 implemented the new TSCA’s requirement that chemical manufacturers (including importers) identify chemicals as ‘active’, in order to develop a TSCA inventory that better correlates with the substances actually in US commerce. This should assist the EPA in prioritising chemicals for evaluation.
The agency issued these three framework rules rapidly but not without controversy. They had been proposed under the Obama administration and reflected its interpretation of the many new terms and concepts in the amended TSCA. The Trump administration issued the final rules, however, and, not surprisingly, it did not embrace some of its predecessor’s positions.
The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), which oversees TSCA matters, is now under the leadership of Dr Nancy B Beck. She holds a doctorate in environmental health and, for the past five years before joining the EPA, served as director for regulatory science policy at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the trade association representing the interests of the domestic industrial chemical industry.
The lawsuits
In August 2017, the NGO Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families and 11 other organisations sued the EPA in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, challenging the risk prioritisation and risk evaluation final rules. Other organisations similarly filed suit in the Second Circuit (Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) in New York) and in the Fourth Circuit (Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments) in Virginia.
After a series of transfers, the two challenges were consolidated in the Ninth Circuit on 27 November and 11 December 2017, respectively, as *Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families v. EPA and **Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments v. EPA, Industry associations and other chemical interests motioned to intervene in these challenges, which the court granted.(*Nos. 17-72260, et al.; ** Nos. 17-72260, et al.)
The EDF challenged the remaining ‘framework’ rule, the inventory notification rule, last September in the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit (EDF v. EPA, No. 17-1201). It claims that the final rule authorises confidentiality claims that are not consistent with revised TSCA Section 8 and 14. Industry groups and others have been granted leave to intervene in the case.
More recently, on 5 January 2018, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a petition for reviewin the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of what it characterised as an EPA final rule. This was issued on 7 November 2017 and is entitled New chemicals decision-making framework: working approach to making determinations under Section 5 of TSCA.
This ‘framework document’, as it has come to be called, is the final rule at issue. It was posted in the EPA’s docket. Comment was requested on it to supplement the EPA’s two related TSCA public meetings, which took place in December. It is noteworthy that the agency does not refer to the framework document as a final rule and it was not published in the Federal Register as such. Instead, it states that the document outlines a "conceptual approach" to how it may go about making decisions on new chemicals.
The EPA specifically states that the document, referred to as a "draft" in the Federal Register notice that announced the two public meetings, "outlines EPA’s approach to making decisions on new chemical notices submitted to EPA under TSCA Section 5, as amended by LCSA", and includes its "general decision framework for new chemicals" and a breakdown of how EPA "intends to approach each of the five types of new-chemical determinations required under the statute".
The citizen action petition raises novel and interesting legal questions, and is quite different from the other petitions for review that are pending. It is unclear whether the framework document legal challenge will survive procedural motions that the EPA can be expected to file to dismiss the action.
Citizen petitions
Before we move off these judicial challenges, we need to reflect briefly on another area in hot dispute. TSCA Section 21 authorises ‘citizens’ to file petitions with the EPA, urging it to issue, amend or repeal a rule or order issued under TSCA Sections 4 (chemical testing), 5 (new chemical notification), 6 (existing chemicals) and 8 (record-keeping and reporting).
This is an EPA administrative procedure that requires the agency to respond within 90 days of submission. Petitioners may seek judicial review by a federal district court of a petition denial or, if the EPA fails, time to respond rapidly to a petition. Under the rules, the reviewing federal district court is granted de novo review, which traditionally has meant that it would review the entirety of the administrative record developed by the EPA.
On 23 November 2016, a citizen organisation, Food & Water Watch, along with others, filed a Section 21 petition under new TSCA, seeking a ban on the addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water. The EPA swiftly denied the petition.
The petitioners thereafter appealed the decision by filing a complaint with the US District Court for the Northern District of California, asking the court to declare that they had properly shown that the addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water poses unreasonable risks as defined under TSCA. The EPA moved to dismiss the action, which the court denied.
More recently, the agency sought to limit the record on review to its administrative record and to bar the petitioners from seeking discovery. The court denied that motion too, ruling that the scope of the court’s review is not limited to this, that a de novo ‘proceeding,’ to quote the statute, "reflected Congress’ desire to allow the reviewing court to consider additional evidence beyond the administrative record" and ruled that petitioners were entitled to seek discovery beyond the administrative record.
The court’s decision is well written and compelling, and has sent shock waves through the chemical community. The EPA has not yet appealed the decision and it would appear at present that it does not intend to do so.
Implications
Judicial review of the final framework rules was not unexpected. At this early stage of litigation, it remains to be seen what the key issues are, how the litigants will frame the disputes, and how the court will decide them. No stays of the final rules have been issued. The cases are proceeding and their pending nature has no real impact on the parties or the EPA’s implementation or administration of TSCA.
EDF’s novel challenge to the new chemicals ‘framework document’ may or may not survive motions to dismiss. The draft framework document is just that, a draft, conceptual framework outlining the EPA’s approach to new chemical review, not a rule amenable to appeal of final agency action. The court may well decide to dismiss the case on procedural grounds.
The real surprise here is the court’s ruling in Food & Water Watch. If citizen plaintiffs are able to obtain de novo review of EPA decisions in response to these petitions, reviews that are not bounded by the agency’s administrative record and greatly supplemented by new record evidence elicited by trial court discovery rules, citizen plaintiffs can be expected to avail themselves of Section 21 petitions as a convenient work-around to unfavourable EPA administrative decisions.
The decision carefully explains all the reasons why district court procedural rules, litigant advocacy tactics, and judicial discretion should allay any EPA (and chemical company stakeholder) fear of being "sandbagged and surprised" with new evidence not presented in the petition. Common sense, however, would suggest otherwise, as that is exactly what the EPA - and industry stakeholders - fear.
The views expressed in this article are those of the expert author and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch
https://chemicalwatch.com/64757/new-tsca-inspires-new-litigation
-
Companies’ Chemical Secrets Run Up Against the New Toxics Law
Mar 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
Companies aren't justifying the need to keep their chemicals confidential at a time when consumers are demanding more information about the products they buy, environmental groups argue.
Companies are wrangling with updates to the nation's toxic chemicals law that require them to provide more information up front to justify keeping their chemicals secret, and lack of guidance from the Environmental Protection Agency may be to blame, the industry said.
Keeping their chemicals confidential is crucial for the industry, companies argue, because even small details could reveal trade secrets about how products are made.
More than four months have passed since the October deadline requiring companies to provide “up-front” data to justify new requests that a chemical be classified as “confidential business information,” or CBI, and thus not revealed to consumers.
However, the Environmental Defense Fund claims that EPA is not substantiating those new CBI requests in accordance with the law, and instead leaving the door open for companies to continue to hide critical information on the confidential portion of the TSCA inventory.
“Most companies are still submitting their TSCA documentation the same way they always have, without even trying to substantiate the reason for CBI claims,” Richard Denison, a lead senior scientist with EDF, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group, told Bloomberg Environment.
More Guidance Needed
The logistical challenges related to resubmitting data for thousands of chemicals require more time and guidance from the EPA, according to the industry.
“I think we're still sort of in transition phase. Companies are not acting in bad faith,” James Votaw, an environmental compliance attorney at Keller and Heckman, a Washington, D.C., law firm, said.
Votaw told Bloomberg Environment that claims for confidentiality were rarely, if ever, reviewed by the EPA previously. The new mandate requires documentation submitted upfront to be reviewed within 90 days by the EPA. While there has not been very much enforcement on confidential business information substantiation yet, Votaw said there is certainly a risk for those companies that might attempt to get a false certification.
“This could be a case where EPA pursues one or two high profile enforcement cases to make the point, and from thereafter industry is better at policing itself,” he said.
“But I hope EPA is not too quick to go there because companies are probably just doing what they used to do, and may just need more guidance to make adjustments.”
However, an EPA spokesperson told Bloomberg Enviornment the agency has in fact provided guidance for companies, including a series of webinars explaining the new substantiation requirements under Section 14 of TSCA.
The spokesperson maintained the agency “will hold companies accountable,” for failing to provide a sufficient data to substantiate their confidentiality requests.
Loss of Intellectual Property
Trade secrets could include everything from a substance's chemical structure, to production volumes, or even the particular site that made it.
Many manufacturers and their downstream customers worry that rolling back confidentiality safeguards could destroy critical trade secrets.
“Without proper security of CBI there is much less incentive for our members to innovate new, more effective formulations at the risk of losing all their hard work,” Owen Caine, executive vice president at the Household & Commercial Products Association, told Bloomberg Environment.
“Communication of seemingly isolated pieces of information about a product formula, including ingredient chemical names, concentrations, Chemical Abstract Service names and numbers, and physicochemical properties, provide key ‘clues’ to a trained eye that could unravel the sophisticated formulary science behind a product that was a significant investment to create,” Caine said.
Whatever the business risks may be, they are running up against a public that is demanding more information about the products it buys.
“Companies are actually starting to compete in the transparency space,” Julie Froelicher, technical relations manager at Procter & Gamble, said.
Speaking at the recent GlobalChem conference in Washington, D.C., Froelicher pointed to emerging state requirements for cleaning product disclosures that are popping up in California, New York, and Maryland. In addition, Walmart's new sustainable chemistry policy asks suppliers to include full ingredient transparency, including products typically protected under trade secrets such as fragrances.
What Qualifies in ‘Inventory Reset’
Prior to the 2016 amendments to TSCA, the EPA's chemical inventory had grown to over 85,000 substances manufactured, imported, or processed in the U.S.—17,800 of which contained concealed information, according to EDF.
As part of amendments, the EPA was ordered to determine which of the existing chemicals on the register are still present in commerce in the United States.
Known as the Inventory Reset Rule or Active-Inactive Rule, it requires any company looking to retain confidentiality on the register to resubmit substantiation documentation. The EPA has five years to review whether that information has a case to remain hidden.
But EDF also alleges that the EPA is misapplying that standard, by letting too many new companies to piggyback onto pre-existing confidentiality claims.
“Our complaint is that even companies that never made a claim in the past are being allowed to do so during this process,” Denison said.
According to EDF, that allows companies to hide behind trade secret claims to avoid legal obligations to identify potentially harmful chemicals in their products.
“The public cannot tell whether a large majority of the highest-use chemicals in the United States pose health hazards or not,” EDF said in a brief filed March 6 in U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
“These include chemicals that we are likely to breathe or drink, that build up in our bodies, that are in consumer products, and that are being released from industrial facilities into our backyards and streets and forests and streams.”
However, court documents show that industry groups siding with the EPA claim that any changes in confidentiality procedures could impact “core commercial interests, as protecting confidential information has substantial value for many companies and, more generally, is a major factor in promoting innovation and research into new chemicals.”
— With assistance from Pat Rizzuto.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129361589&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129361589&jd=129361589
-
Mar 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch - Business Briefing
By Tammy Lovell
Retailers are the closest link in the supply chain to the consumer. A campaign in the US is encouraging them to use their position to demonstrate leadership on chemical management and influence the market as a whole. Mind the Store was launched five years ago by a coalition of NGOs, spearheaded by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
Two years ago, it introduced an innovative ‘retailer report card’, which awards top US retail chains points and grades based on their chemical management policies. The stores are evaluated on the basis of publicly available information on their websites across 14 key metrics, such as chemical policy, transparency and continuous improvement. At the heart of the campaign is the premise that retailers have a key role to play in ensuring the safety of chemicals in products and packaging.
Speaking during a recent Chemical Watch webinar, campaign director Mike Schade explained: "Over the past 15 to 20 years we’ve increasingly seen retailers stepping up and enacting restrictions on chemicals of high concern. We want the campaign to challenge them to become even more aggressive, given the power they have to meet the consumer demand for radical transparency, and safe and healthy products."
Race to the top
By grading companies’ efforts between A and F, the report card aims to create an element of competition. Mr Schade said that this "drives a race to the top, inspiring them to improve". The strategy seems to have worked, with the average grade of the 11 retailers that were evaluated rising from a D+ in 2016 to a C in 2017. Also, in the past year, seven of them have announced major new initiatives to improve the safety of chemicals. These are:
· Albertsons;
· Best Buy;
· Costco;
· CVS Health;
· Home Depot;
· Target; and
· Walmart.
Others, such as Amazon, Walgreens and Staples, have pledged to release safer chemicals policies in 2018. According to Mr Schade, this is "clearly showing that retailers are stepping up and improving their approach to safer chemicals management".
The campaign also empowers consumers by asking them to email retailers, requesting that they take action on chemicals in products and packaging. To date, more than 23,000 people have acted through the Mind the Store website.
‘Regulatory void’
Although the campaign was originally launched to help implement TSCA reform, it has now taken a different focus - encouraging retailers to take the lead where federal regulation has failed to act. The first three proposed restrictions on toxic chemicals under the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, on methylene chloride (dichloromethane), N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) and trichloroethylene (TCE) were moved from the ‘pending’ column into the ‘long-term action’ column in the regulatory agenda late last year.
The federal government is "driving rapidly in reverse on a variety of health and safety and social policies", said Mike Belliveau, executive director of the Environmental Health Strategy Center, who also spoke in the webinar. This, he said, is "not only a tragedy for its impact on the healthy development of American children and its vulnerable populations, but it’s very short-sighted from a business perspective."
Mr Belliveau argued that the government’s leadership on health and safety lack of credibility with the public provides retailers with "an important role to fill that regulatory void. Naturally, leadership falls on market players, including retailers and brands, that have a lot of reputation and brand value at stake," he said.
"We’re seeing PFAS in drinking water and people’s bodies - that is alarming and mobilising the American people. We’re seeing phthalates in our food and persistently in our bodies, which is of concern to consumers."
All this, he said, adds up to a "serious business opportunity", both for retailers and brands that want to maintain market advantage and reduce reputational risk by being recognised as leaders, but also for providers of green chemistry solutions.
Although, many providers of safer alternatives exist, Mr Belliveau believes that there are "entrenched chemical markets - that we should have long abandoned - which are resistant to change. This is where, retailers need to play a key role, because they’re on the front line of consumer discontent. They’re in a very powerful position to send the market signals that demand and ease the entry of green chemistry solutions into the marketplace."
In store next
The campaign has already expanded from evaluating 11 retailers in 2016 to a further 19 in 2017. It also added overviews of product sectors in its last report. For its November 2018 report, Mind the Store plans to expand further, although it has not yet confirmed how many new stores and sectors will be included.
Mr Belliveau said that, as retailers are beginning to institutionalise chemical policies and programmes, the campaign will concentrate on "direct results in reducing chemical footprint and replacing chemicals of high concern with safer alternatives".
It will focus particularly on encouraging retailers to phase out chemicals of high concern that are currently neglected by federal agencies, such as methylene chloride, perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) and ortho-phthalates.
Mr Belliveau concluded: "We plan to continue to amplify pressure to encourage retailers to use their influence in the market to drive chemicals of high concern out of commerce and replace them with safer and healthier alternatives."
https://chemicalwatch.com/64752/taking-stock-of-chemicals
-
Manufacturing CEOs: Closing the Product Safety Gap
Mar 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch - Business Briefing
By Michael Kirschner
A report published recently showed that a major consumer products manufacturer failed to verify compliance of its televisions with chemical substance restrictions in its markets. The result? It sold televisions that, surprisingly, contain an illegal chemical flame retardant.
DecaBDE was phased out of manufacture in 2013 in the US under a voluntary agreement with the EPA. However, it is still produced in and available to manufacturers in China and so can continue to find its way into products consumed around the world.
There was a similar failure among toy manufacturers a few years ago, when they were caught selling toys that illegally contained lead in paint. When this came out, it caused an uproar.
Manufacturers like Mattel, RC2 and others issued huge product recalls. This was very costly for them – Mattel alone lost at least $110m, worth 2% of sales, in 2007 – and brand equity.
The final embarrassment to the industry was the US Federal Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) coming down hard with new regulations, banning additional substances and requiring expensive testing. The CPSC was effectively saying: "If you can’t control product safety yourselves, we’re going to force you to control it our way."
Toy manufacturers could have avoided this draconian regulation by defining, controlling and properly managing their materials and supply chains. They seemingly chose instead to maximise profit and give their suppliers free rein when selecting product materials, either explicitly or by their passivity. When cost is king, quality and conformance to specification can suffer.
However, it is not only a focus on cost that can cause these problems. When manufacturers fail to identify and embrace market requirements at the design stage, for example taking into acount factors such as substance restrictions or harmful environmental or human health impacts, they can inadvertently market products that put themselves at risk of recall costs and brand damage, and their industry at risk of more regulation.
Safety standards vs. safety
Flame retardants – which are the subject of the report – are particularly challenging for manufacturers of electronic products. These products operate by controlling and managing electrical energy. Their components can use and dissipate the energy provided in various ways, including thermally as heat.
To save costs and improve flexibility, many parts and materials used in electronic products are made of plastics. Whether derived from fossil fuels or plants, plastics are flammable. To use them in locations where they could be subjected – usually under fault conditions as opposed to normal operating conditions – to heat levels that exceed the safe threshold for flammability is dangerous, unless the risk can be mitigated.
The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) creates and maintains standards for a variety of electronic products. These define safety requirements, including flammability. For televisions and IT products in general, IEC 62368-1:2014 stipulates guidelines that, when followed, reduce the likelihood of ignition and, should ignition occur, control the spread of fire.
The standard also offers advice on design and materials that help in meeting its requirements. For example, a design engineer could separate flammable parts by a specified distance from potential sources of ignition, such as a hot part or a site that could short-circuit and generate higher than normal temperatures, or use a barrier made of a less flammable or non-flammable material.
The standards do not tend to be prescriptive; rather, they define what the design must achieve. Parts and barriers may be made of various materials, for instance, but those materials must possess minimal levels of non-flammability. In choosing a plastic material, design engineers must be aware that most plastics are flammable, unless they are sufficiently treated with chemical flame retardants.
While a wide variety of flame retardant chemicals are available, organohalogens – those based on chlorine or bromine for their functionality – comprise most of the substances restricted or eliminated under the Stockholm Convention. Two types of these flame retardants are also restricted under the EU RoHS Directive and, as a broader class, they are all targeted for restriction in electronic casings as well as children’s products, upholstered furniture and mattresses by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission.
These are toxic chemicals that, of themselves, pose a safety risk to the environment and human health. Using them to mitigate thermal safety may not always be an appropriate trade-off, particularly in customers’ minds, and this may put a manufacturer at risk of having to re-engineer products to replace them once they are restricted.
While IEC 62368-1:2014 and similar standards cover classical thermal safety, they do not cover environmental or human health impacts from material and substance selection. This gap is an aspect of how manufacturers’ products can get into trouble with regulators.
Rethinking safety
Awareness of these kinds of details should make engineers think twice about using plastic materials in high energy, high temperature or high risk environments. Plastics have fantastic and compelling properties, but they may not be the only materials that do. Many laptop computers now come in metal enclosures; in the past, nearly all were enclosed in flame-retarded plastics.
An increasing number of consumer-class routers and switches have metal enclosures. This is not by accident. While there are many reasons for it, this approach eliminates the problems related to flame-retarded plastic enclosures now and in future designs.
Electronics manufacturers are not alone: in fact, manufacturers of nearly all products - and authors of product safety standards for them as well - must rigorously consider environmental and human health safety as a critical aspect of product safety.
Furthermore, flame retardancy is not the only chemical function that can get manufacturers into trouble, nor are plastics the only problematic material. REACH restrictions, authorisation and disclosure requirements identify many functions (extending beyond classical product safety considerations) that may cause problems if the wrong substance is selected to fulfil them, including:
· corrosion resistance (for example, chromates);
· UV stability;
· product/material colour; and
· plastic flexibility (for example, phthalates).
Engineers responsible for selecting materials throughout the supply chain must review their choices and ask themselves certain questions:
· Will this choice risk exposing my customers to toxic substances, regulated or not?;
· Are there other design or material options that will achieve the same result with lower safety and redesign risk?;
· What is the lifecycle cost/risk trade-off between these options?;
· If a plastic must be used, what are the trade-offs among the various types of plastics that do and do not require flame retardants, stabilisers, etc?;
· Is this specific chemical (or product-level) function required? And if so, how do I define which chemicals are acceptable?; and
· Is ‘acceptability’ defined simply by compliance with regulatory requirements, or are there future risks – to the brand, to my customers and to future designs – attached to selecting a particular chemical type or family for this product or product line?
CEOs must ensure that their engineers are asking themselves these types of questions. They must be a fundamental part of product development and part of the company’s product lifecycle processes.
Engineering departments in electronics companies and others that manufacture articles often do not have sufficient knowledge of chemicals and toxicology. Rather than ignoring this problem, such expertise should be sought out and incorporated into the product lifecycle process, design reviews and specifications.
The inclusion of procurement and supply management (at least) in these decisions is critical to help understand not only the availability and cost of the various design options, but also the ability of suppliers to meet the defined material quality (including substances incorporated) and volume requirements.
If a manufacturer simply specifies ‘black PC/ABS plastic that meets UL94V-1 flammability requirements’, the suppliers will use whatever sources of resin, colourant, stabilisers and flame retardants they, or their resin suppliers, choose.
Unless the manufacturer defines the sources and parameters on acceptable substances – either based on or including toxicity – and ensures that its suppliers remain within those constraints, its risk mitigation strategies have a serious and increasingly dangerous gap.
Manufacturers must do their part to avoid an experience like that of the toy industry. They must therefore take product environmental and human health impacts - and, at the very least, compliance - as seriously as any other product safety attribute.
The views expressed in this article are those of the expert author and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch
Michael Kirschner is the President of Design Chain Associates
https://chemicalwatch.com/64762/manufacturing-ceos-closing-the-product-safety-gap
-
EPA Faces Growing Calls to Replace Lead Pipes
Mar 9, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Ariel Wittenberg
U.S. EPA is facing pressure to require some form of lead pipe replacement when it revamps its lead and copper drinking water regulations.
Democratic Reps. Gwen Moore of Wisconsin and Louise Slaughter of New York have sent a letter to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt this week urging him to require "full replacement of all lead service lines" nationwide.
Lead is a potent neurotoxin that is particularly harmful to children.
Public health experts have long argued that the best way to reduce exposure to lead in drinking water is to replace 7 million to 11 million lead water lines — a job that water utilities estimate would cost $30 billion.
One of the challenges in removing lead service lines is that no one knows exactly how many exist. The American Water Works Association estimates there could be 3.3 million to 10 million lead pipes in service.
In comments to EPA, AWWA says the agency should require utilities to develop an inventory of lead pipes within their service area.
While AWWA doesn't put a timeline on removal of lead pipes, the water utility interest group does recommend that a final lead regulation "result in ... development of plans for the complete removal of lead service lines through a long-term, shared commitment."
"Lead service line replacement strategies must consider other water and non-water improvements and customer affordability challenges. Locally developed programs, responsive to local circumstances, are essential."
EPA has been working on revising the Lead and Copper Rule since 2010. After the drinking water crisis in Flint, Mich., the agency said a new rule would come out in June 2017. The Trump administration has pushed back that date twice, and a new proposal is now expected in August 2018.
As part of a new rule, AWWA also says EPA should require "robust" corrosion control methods to prevent lead from leaching out of pipes and into water, as well as more public outreach on lead risk.
Slaughter and Moore are also asking EPA to drastically change water sampling requirements.
Critics have long said existing sampling standards can be manipulated in ways that don't give an accurate picture of lead contamination. In addition, it's often the same homes with a low risk of having lead that are tested multiple times, leaving out possible contamination in the wider communities. Large utilities are also allowed to sample just once every three years.
"EPA has allowed these techniques to continue without consequence," the lawmakers wrote. "We must implement strict testing procedures and discourage creative testing strategies that allow failing systems to persist."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/03/09/stories/1060075965
-
Breaking Echa's Culture of Secrecy to Deliver on Reach Promises
Mar 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch - Business Briefing
By Vito Buonsante
In June 2017, Echa turned ten and in May the registration of chemicals in the lowest tonnage range will end the period granted by the REACH Regulation to substances that already were on the market in 2006. However, the REACH promises to fill the data gap about chemicals on the market and to use substances sustainably are still far from being achieved.
Early last year, Echa presented its mapping of the chemicals universe to stakeholders. Of the 17,000 substances registered under REACH, it identified 3,000 substances of unknown priority. For these, the agency suspects that there may be a risk but it does not know enough about them because the registration dossiers are not in compliance or are "of low quality".
These substances may be harming the environment or causing human health problems, but the information is not available because companies did not provide enough evidence about their hazards, exposure and risks. The substances would not be on the market at all if the ‘no data no market’ principle had any meaning.
Unfortunately we do not know which substances Echa was talking about; it told us as much. The underlying data and even a summary are not accessible to the workers, scientific experts and citizens who may be negatively affected by these chemicals.
It is even difficult to know what we do not know. We only know that there are 3,000 substances of unknown priority, not what they are, where they are registered, nor how and where they are used.
Echa lists transparency as one of its core values and this is also a duty under EU law. Despite becoming much more open than in the days when it refused even to disclose the names of the companies registering substances, the agency does not use transparency as a means to take decisions as openly and as close to the public as possible. Decisions are taken in ways that mean crucial details are not shared with civil society, thus making the efforts of NGOs, trade unions and other non-industry stakeholders ineffective.
ClientEarth recently released a report that assessed Echa’s approach to transparency and identified opportunities for it to become more open with information that matters for the implementation of REACH and the safe use of chemicals.
Echa’s chemicals database is growing and evolving to become a massive details tool about substances. This has become more user-friendly through better organisation of the information. However the database omits meaningful information on quantities, specific uses and how workers, consumers and the environment are exposed to substances, all of which are crucial to understanding whether chemicals are used safely.
The agency’s main goal is to take decisions that ensure that chemicals are used safely.
It decides whether to grant a registration number and whether substances are in compliance with the registration provisions, and adopts decisions on whether more information should be provided by companies to ensure safety.
In addition, Echa decides on confidentiality claims from companies and may require an importer of a product or article to submit a registration for substances used in them. The agency must also prepare a restriction when the use of a substance under authorisation is deemed not to be adequately controlled.
Various levels of secrecy used by Echa impair public participation. In some cases, the protection of commercial interest does not interfere with the public interest in disclosure, in others it does. In many that we have identified, the agency’s own lack of transparency is what hinders the achievement of REACH goals.
Echa’s approach in keeping certain information secret has a particularly negative impact on third parties’ capacity
to contribute meaningfully to the decision-making process. This goes against the system of ‘open governance’ set by REACH, which aims to be inclusive
of stakeholders.
It is unthinkable that a single agency could ensure compliance on all 17,000+ substances registered so far. Some further steps towards greater transparency may help both to address the chronic deficiencies that Echa has been highlighting on compliance by the chemicals industry and to achieve real improvement in the protection of workers, consumers and the environment.
ClientEarth’s report recommends information that Echa should consider or reconsider making public in order to help REACH to be an effective law, leading the world towards the sustainable use of chemicals as production skyrockets in the years to 2050. These steps are meant to include all parties in the debate on chemicals, such as:
· producers of safer technologies;
· consumers of products containing hazardous chemicals;
· investors;
· civil society;
· worker; and
· scientists studying the effects of chemicals independently.
Echa should strive to increase the availability of information on the identity and quantities of chemicals on the market and boost public knowledge of where they are used. Citizens need to know the extent of the potential risks of the chemicals that they may be exposed to. This will enable them to make choices and it will make a largely invisible risk visible.
The agency should focus its attention on the uses and functions of chemicals, particularly the most hazardous ones, and make the public aware of the trade-offs that using them entails. Citizens are unaware of why hazardous chemicals are needed, and are excluded from an informed debate and the consequences of not making certain substances available in the EU.
Echa must break the complicity with a chemical industry that is refusing to fulfil its responsibility to manage chemicals safely. Many companies are investing huge resources in REACH compliance but the anonymity of non-compliant companies is an incentive not to do this. This approach impairs effective enforcement against non-compliant companies and makes accountability nearly impossible.
Finally, the agency should take further steps to make clear the rationale of its decisions and opinions related to ensuring chemical safety. These are supposed to be taken solely in the interest of the public; the industry is not its ‘client’ and thus it must increase the intelligibility of, trust in and accountability of its reasoning.
We believe that these steps can be taken without harm to users and producers of chemicals, and that increased knowledge will produce more trust and more acceptance of both the chemicals the public is exposed to and of the decisions public institutions take. Ten years after its creation, Echa can make bold choices to ensure that chemical legislation is implemented to protect public health and the environment.
The views expressed in this article are those of the expert author and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch
Vito Buonsante is the Law Policy Advisor and Chemicals Biodiversity, ClientEarth
https://chemicalwatch.com/64760/breaking-echas-culture-of-secrecy-to-deliver-on-reach-promises
-
Mar 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Warmington
Just as the Briefing was going to press, the European Commission published its report on the second REACH Review, or REACH Refit Evaluation, to give it its proper title. This was not only long delayed from the original scheduled date of June 2017, but also too late for in-depth analysis here, though of course we have reported on it extensively in our news pages.
The main finding of the 12-page communication, and the much more comprehensive set of staff working documents associated with it, is that REACH is working well and addressing concerns about chemical safety. "Although progress towards the objectives is lagging behind initial expectations, it has steadily improved as experience was gained," the report states.
On that basis, the review concludes that "there is currently no need to change [REACH’s] enacting terms". Instead, the Commission has identified opportunities to improve and simplify how REACH works. Thus it lists 16 ‘actions’, in which words like ‘encourage’, ‘support’ and ‘promote’ appear rather often. I would imagine many NGOs will see this as a capitulation to industry. Industry in turn might see the devil in the detail. Chemical Watch will be covering all this in the coming months.
Top of the list of ‘actions’ is to ‘encourage registration dossier updates’. Non-compliance due to insufficient data in these dossiers is a major concern, especially given that over two thirds of those subjected to compliance checks failed. Echa has called repeatedly for reform in this area. The Commission will work with the agency and others to improve performance but exactly how will only emerge over time.
Other urgent ‘actions’ include: simplifying the authorisation process; effective enforcement, so that companies which obey the law are not penalised; and addressing the areas where REACH and other European laws overlap, particularly with regard to waste and to occupational health and safety. And in some areas, application of the law will be tightened, notably those connected to restriction.
We will take an in-depth look at the review next month and that gives you the chance to reflect on the contents too. What is your immediate reaction? Are the conclusions predictable? What are you surprised and/or disappointed to see - or not to see - in it? If you want to join those who have already signed up to have their say in the April Briefing, please get in touch.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64750/reach-up-for-review
-
REACH Tasks Beyond the Final Registration Deadline
Mar 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch - Business Briefing
By Thomas Berbner
The REACH Regulation always required more than just the registration of chemical substances. Where essential data is missing, it has to be generated. Moreover, REACH covers all uses of a substance and the data makes it possible to estimate human and environmental exposure specifically.
On that basis, an assessment of each substance and use will identify those that pose risks to man or the environment and will therefore potentially initiate further regulatory actions within the framework of REACH.
At the moment, most manufacturers and importers of chemical substances still talk about the challenge of registering phase-in substances by the end of May 2018. For some, this final registration deadline appears to be the end of REACH. Be assured, this is not the case.
The registration process for ‘existing’ substances that were already on the market before REACH and were pre-registered between June and December 2008, was - and still is - the REACH task with the highest workload for the chemicals industry. However, the only goal achieved on 1 June 2018 will be the creation of a database about chemical substances in the European Economic Area (EEA).
This will, indeed, be the largest database on chemical substance properties in the world. It will provide the basis for implementing one of the key goals of REACH stated in Article 1, "To ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment". Hence, registration is just the beginning.
So, what will follow once all chemical substances marketed at above one tonne/year in the EEA are known to Echa? The Regulation itself also contains the ‘E’ for evaluation and the ‘A’ for authorisation. There are mechanisms to restrict certain uses of substances where it is not possible to exclude risks to human health or the environment.
Dossier and substance evaluation
Let’s have a closer look at the evaluation of dossiers and substances. Of course, Echa has been evaluating dossiers and member states have been evaluating substances for several years already. The Community Rolling Action Plan (Corap) list of substances contained 337 entries as of 20 February 2018, and actions are already scheduled for 50 this year and 47 more in 2019.
On the dossier evaluation side, as the new executive director of Echa, Björn Hansen, wrote in February, the REACH Review in 2017 indicated that the overall performance has been good but there is still a need to be more efficient. Hence, there are already numerous chemical substances for which regulatory actions have already been triggered and the lists will continue to grow.
At the agency’s most recent stakeholder day on 31 January, Christel Musset, director of registration, pointed out that the authorities will pay special attention to substances that are likely to have hazardous properties and also have the potential for significant exposure. These are the high priority substances for evaluation, but they will also focus on those where hazards and exposure potential are uncertain.
For this reason, Article 22 of the REACH Regulation should also be kept in mind. This obliges registrants to update their registration dossiers whenever new information becomes available, such as:
· changes in substance composition;
· changes in the annual quantities;
· new identified uses or uses
· advised against;
· new data on the risk of the substance; or
· changes in classification and labelling.
According to the agency, 67% of all dossiers have never been updated. The current update status of all dossiers is published on Echa’s website. Very old dossiers have a higher probability of getting picked for further evaluations, especially if the substance has widely dispersive uses in large quantities.
For this reason, companies are advised to check their dossiers for uses that might not be relevant any more. There should not be any widely dispersive use in the dossier if the substance is not used in such ways.
It is also advised to check read-across and quantitative structure-activity relationship (Qsar) justifications in a dossier, since this might also be a target that determines further regulatory action. In cases where justifications for the use of read-across or Qsars are insufficient or not conclusive, the agency may consider a dossier to be incomplete and request further actions.
In summary, a registration dossier is not a static piece of work; it needs continuous care. Although all the aforementioned activities are going on at the same time, the improvement of data quality in the registration database is a crucial factor in further actions, for example, the identification of substances of very high concern (SVHCs) and uses that pose a risk to man or the environment.
Article 57 lists properties that categorise such substances as subject to inclusion in the candidate list. Registrants should be aware that Article 57 (f) states that "substances … for which there is scientific evidence of probable serious effects to human health or the environment which give rise to an equivalent level of concern to those of other substances listed in points (a) to (e) … can also be included in the candidate list".
Continuing obligations
Once a substance is listed, there are obligations for all participants in the value chain. The presence of candidate substances at concentrations above 0.1% requires communication throughout the supply chain, and the use of safety data sheets (SDSs) for the substance itself and mixtures that contain it at above 0.1% and any final article, using similar declarations.
Substances on the candidate list may become subject to authorisation. In such cases, the registrant needs to decide whether the use of the substance is essential and go for an authorisation or if it can be substituted with less hazardous alternatives. Authorisation is a very complex, time- and money-consuming process without any guarantee of success.
Another function of REACH that is not reflected in its name is the restriction of specific uses of a substance. If the authorities consider that such uses are "not without risk", as defined by REACH, they can initiate a process to restrict that use. Registrants are advised to keep an eye on changes in Annex XVII, which lists all restrictions.
Finally, registrations are not the end. Substances that enter the EEA market for the first time at above one tonne/year need to be registered before they can be marketed. The determination as to whether a substance is indeed entirely new to the market is carried out by Echa.
If a manufacturer or importer intends to widen its product portfolio, an inquiry by Echa is necessary. Where the substance is already registered by other companies, the agency will inform the potential new registrant accordingly. By acquiring a letter of access (LoA), the registration process can be concluded.
Companies should be aware that Article 29, paragraph 3, points out that each Sief "shall be operational until 1 June 2018". Hence, the Sief that originally registered a substance may disband. This makes negotiations about a LoA and the compensation of co-registrants more complicated and all Sief members should think about keeping a Sief-like structure in place. The same might also be true for consortia formed for REACH registrations.
Companies remain responsible for the safe use of their chemical substances. Hence, there are tasks that must be continuously undertaken to ensure that the business stays compliant with REACH. Some tasks and questions that need to be considered are listed below.
Key tasks after the deadline
Firstly, check the status of your Siefs and consortia after 31 May. Will they still exist? If not, for how many substances has the company taken the lead registrant (LR) function? If a company wants to put one of your substances on the EEA market for the first time, Echa will communicate with the LR, who must then negotiate with existing and potential new registrants about the cost for the LoA. How this is going to work is currently unclear.
Keep an eye on the status of the registration dossiers. Are they up-to-date? The status includes keeping track of new data and literature that becomes available. Further, are there justifications for read-across and/or Qsars to be assessed? Are the uses accurate? Are uses of new clients covered? Check the chemical safety report and the SDSs, including its extensions, on a regular basis.
Importers of mixtures in particular may find that their products might change in composition, which may lead to different tasks. New components in a recipe may need to be registered, while a change in the concentrations of existing components may require an update of a dossier as soon as the threshold tonnages (one, ten, 100 or 1,000 tonnes/year) are passed.
Is the business about to market new substances? You need to check with Echa whether there are companies that have already registered them. Keep track of your supply chain.
There may be suppliers who do not register all of their substances and take them off the market. Get in touch with yours to check whether they have registered or intend to. Is the supplier just selling his remaining stock and leaving the market afterwards? Check for alternative suppliers to prevent supply chain disruptions.
Are there substances in the portfolio that might become subject to further regulatory actions? Do you need to prepare to seek authorisation for the use of a substance or are there safer alternative substances that can be used?
Taking all this together it should become clear that REACH does not end after 31 May 2018, it has rather just begun. As Mr Hansen said in the Global Business Briefing in February: "After this year’s registration deadline, REACH moves from a setting-up stage to total operation." So from 1 June 2018, let us see what is ahead of us instead of looking back.
The views expressed in this article are those of the expert author and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch
Thomas Berbner is the Regional Director of Business Development, EMEA at Dr Knoell Consult.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64756/reach-tasks-beyond-the-final-registration-deadline
-
Poorly Soluble, Low Toxicity Particles Facing Review
Mar 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch - Business Briefing
By Andrew Warmington
In 2016, the French competent authority, Anses, submitted a harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) report, proposing that the European Commission classify the white pigment titanium dioxide (TiO2) as carcinogenic under EU CLP. Echa’s Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) subsequently reviewed the report and decided that TiO2 should be classified as a category 2 carcinogen by inhalation.
Industry has consistently and vehemently opposed both the proposal and Rac’s Opinion, giving a range of scientific, legal and socio-economic arguments. The issue is important, not least because TiO2 is a major product, in both volume and value terms: research firm MarketsandMarkets says the global market was worth $10.6bn in 2016.
Last year, the British Coatings Federation said that the requirements resulting from the classification could cause "major and unnecessary alarm to users and consumers". Certain products containing TiO2 would have to be labelled as ‘suspected of causing cancer’, even though in many cases there would be no possibility of inhalation because, for example, the particles were too large or suspended in a liquid, as in a paint.
For some downstream sectors using the substance, the classification could even affect market access, because several pieces of EU legislation incorporate regulatory measures linked directly to CLP carcinogenicity classifications. For example, Article 15 of the cosmetics Regulation prohibits the use of carcinogens in cosmetics without a specific risk assessment by the EU’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS). Similarly, the toy safety Directive restricts the use of carcinogens in accessible parts of toys below a certain concentration stipulated in CLP and also in inaccessible parts if the substance can be inhaled.
While the TiO2 classification is not yet law, opportunities remain for influencing the outcome of the process. The Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) is likely to discuss a draft amendment to technical progress (ATP) for harmonised classification at its next meeting in March.
At some point after that, Echa’s REACH Committee will make the final decision, usually signing off harmonised classifications according to Rac Opinions with few changes. Publication of the legislative changes is expected in early 2019, followed by an 18-month transition period.
Many parties opposed to the classification are still focusing on the justifications. Damjana Drobna, professor of toxicology at the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia, is leading a task force within NanoSafetyCluster, a Commission initiative for research projects on nanomaterial safety, specifically to address the volume of toxicological data, which she says is "completely unmanageable for regulators".
The aim is to review the data on TiO2 safety and provide "independent and transparent" advice to stakeholders. The task force, which launched in January, comprises ten scientists from EU member state authorities, consultancies and universities, and will provide a scientific opinion on the CLH proposal. Similarly, members of the Titanium Dioxide Manufacturers Association (TDMA) have embarked on a €14m science programme to answer remaining questions about all forms of TiO2, including surface-treated nanoforms.
The EU courts
Even after the classification becomes law, if indeed that happens, there would remain the possibility of legal action, for which there is some precedent. In January, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) dismissed an appeal by the European Commission, effectively ending a long-running case concerning the classification of ‘coal tar pitch high temperature’ (CTPHT).
When the Commission set the classification, several companies complained that it had not taken into account a key factor, the overall solubility of the substance. The Commission argued that it could not do so, because the CLP legal text did not refer explicitly to that. The courts disagreed and annulled the classification, saying that the Commission was obliged to identify and consider all relevant factors, not just those mentioned in the text.
Koen van Maldegem, a partner at law firm Fieldfisher and the lead legal representative for the companies involved in the case, said at the time that the case had wider implications. In particular, from then on, the Commission and Echa would have to demonstrate that they had taken into account comments and scientific data submitted by concerned companies, he said.
The relevance of this case to that of TiO2 remains to be seen, but industry might argue that the Commission has not done this in relation to TiO2. During the public consultation on the Rac Opinion of the TiO2 proposal, the Carbon Black for REACH Consortium (CB4REACH) accused Anses of ignoring the "vast literature of mortality studies" on TiO2 and carbon black production workers, as well as coal miners. The scientific issues raised in the proposal were based partly on other respirable substances, including carbon black, it added.
In its response, Anses said that it had not specifically assessed references relating to other related substances, because the proposal was based on specific data for TiO2. Data for other substances were only used to support the hypothesised carcinogenic mode of action. "Overall, references submitted during public consultation do not constitute new data and do not impact the CLH proposal," it said.
Implications
Elsewhere, the conversation seems to have moved away from the justifications and towards the implications. At the most recent Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal)meeting, for example, the Commission asked members to come up with solutions to the labelling problem. It suggested various labelling ‘derogations’ as a possible solution for discussion.
There are also other, related substances to consider. Rac recognised that the mechanism of toxicity outlined in the report was not unique to TiO2. In fact, it is common to a broad set of substances, used as particles and characterised by very low solubilities called poorly soluble, low toxicity particles (PSLTs) or poorly soluble particles (PSPs).
The TMDA said in the documents submitted to the Caracal meeting that the classification "sets a precedent and may have regulatory consequences on other common particulate substances in the EU".
It proposed that the member states, Echa, the Commission, NGOs and industry experts establish a working group to consider "the appropriate mechanism for any regulation of PSLTs". It also asked the Commission to pause the process for the working group and additional consultation, and to focus on the ‘real world’ implications of any decision.
Meanwhile, the German Chemical Industry Association (VCI) and a group of 16 industry associations representing downstream users of TiO2 warned of a ‘domino effect’ for PSLTs in documents submitted. "If the EU continues on the path of classification of titanium dioxide, despite all arguments, all PSLTs will have to be assessed according to this Opinion," it said. "We consider this way unworkable and not as useful."
The VCI said it did not have a full list of PSLTs and would not consider one useful. "Particle-induced inflammatory processes are not substance-specific. The threshold limits for dust at the workplace in Germany and EU member states already protects from general particle-related inflammatory processes in the lungs as a result of inhalative dust exposure. These rules thereby already implement a group approach when dealing with PSLTs," the association said.
The documents submitted by the associations listed, as examples:
· carbon black;
· inorganic colour pigments;
· iron oxides;
· cerium dioxide;
· aluminium oxide;
· magnesium oxide;
· plastic dusts;
· barium sulfate; and
· zinc oxide.
Ecetoc, an industry centre for toxicology research, suggested a scientific definition of PSLTs in its 2013 report on the relationship between such particles and the lung overload mechanism. However, it did not attempt to list them.
A spokesperson for Cefic said that the organisation did not yet have a position on PSLTs because it was still unclear how the member states would like to proceed and there were "more question marks than answers".
The Commission has speculated about whether a CLH proposal for the whole group would be justified. At the Caracal meeting in November last year, it asked whether it was appropriate to limit harmonised classification to TiO2, or if it would be preferable to classify PSLTs, or a well-defined group of them, in the same way, using a grouping approach.
It is unlikely that the TiO2 proposal could be changed to include more substances. According to an Echa spokesperson, it is not normally possible to consider a broader Annex VI entry without a new CLH proposal and related public consultation. But in general CLH proposals for groups are valid. In such cases, the classification and labelling requirements would apply to all the substances in the group, the spokesperson said.
Evaluations
The German competent authority, Baua, is already evaluating zinc oxide under REACH and in 2019 it will evaluate cerium dioxide, while Anses is evaluating carbon black. Like TiO2, these are major products in terms of volume and value. MarketsandMarkets estimated that the global markets for carbon black and for zinc oxide were worth $11.2bn in 2015 and $3.5bn last year, respectively.
One of the key features of the TiO2 evaluation has been the discussion about information on specific forms. Commercial TiO2 varies across a range of properties, such as crystal phase, surface treatment and particle size but the proposed classification is not limited by any of these.
Anses justified this approach with reference to the REACH registration dossier for TiO2, which covered all forms and assumed them to be equivalent in terms of toxicity. Furthermore, the authority said that the registrants had not transparently and exhaustively reported the various forms, meaning that differences between them could not be determined based on variation in their properties. It concluded, therefore, that the scope of the CLH proposal should cover all forms.
Echa had asked the registrants to provide more information about the forms in a Decision adopted in 2014. However, several of them contested the request, which was annulled by the Board of Appeal in 2017. The question arises as to whether the evaluations for zinc oxide, carbon black and cerium dioxide will proceed similarly.
In the Corap justification document for carbon black, Anses said that more substance identification information is required to link specific forms to uses and toxicological profiles. The documents for zinc oxide and cerium dioxide said that the evaluations are targeted at the nanoforms.
Three forms are identified in the zinc oxide dossiers: standard, nano and "lower grade". In addition, the dossiers include several toxicological study records for zinc oxide in nanoform.
However, Baua says that the information provided is nonetheless ‘insufficient’, making it hard to relate important physico-chemical properties to toxicological effects. For example, particle size information is often missing in the toxicological records and no information specific to the nanoform is provided for several endpoints, including carcinogenicity.
Furthermore, the records that include the nanoform often used a specifically coated version from BASF called Z-Cote HP1, without reference to how representative this is to the nanoform referred to for classification, according to Baua. Lastly, neither the derived no-effect levels (Dnels) nor the consumer uses differentiate between the bulk and nanoforms, it adds.
The lead dossier for cerium dioxide differentiates bulk and nanoforms. However, Baua says that only two endpoints are addressed by studies specific to the nanoform. Furthermore, no such information is provided regarding inhalation repeated dose toxicity. Baua was scheduled to submit to Echa its outcome documents for the evaluation of zinc oxide by 21 March this year.
PSLTs under evaluation
Like TiO2, zinc oxide can act as a UV filter and a white pigment. It is also valued for its antibacterial properties, its ability to increase resistance to abrasion when used
in materials and its behaviour as a semiconductor.
More than half of all zinc oxide is used to make rubber. The rest is used in a wide range of products, including ceramics, medicines, paints, coatings, adhesive, sealants, concrete, foods, batteries, plastics, glass and lubricants.
Carbon black can act as a black pigment, but is also valued for its mechanical and thermal properties. When added to materials, it can increase their tensile strength and their resistance to wear and heat.
About 70% of all carbon black produced is used in automotive tyres. The rest is used in a wide range of products, including inks, coatings, plastics, adhesives, sealants, putties, lubricants, greases, paper, cosmetics and textiles.
Cerium dioxide is valued for its hardness, its ability to absorb UV light, and its optical, electrical and catalytic properties. Nano-structured cerium dioxide films are used in optical and electronic devices, while the nanoform is used in such applications as:
· a polishing material for glass surfaces and silicon wafers;
· an anti-corrosion material in exterior architectural paint, steel and other metal plates; in solid oxide fuel cells; and
· as a catalytic diesel fuel additive for decreasing toxic diesel emissions and increasing fuel efficiency.
BASF is conducting a long-term inhalation study of cerium oxide and barium sulfate, with EU funding. A BASF toxicologist, Lan Ma-Hock, presented preliminary findings at EuroTox in Bratislava last year but the company has since declined to comment further.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64755/poorly-soluble-low-toxicity-particles-facing-review
-
Mar 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch - Business Briefing
By Emma Davies
After two years, the EU-ToxRisk project is showing promising signs that its alternative test batteries and models may be able to predict chemical toxicity for read-across purposes. Although various case studies still await key data, early results suggest that predictions broadly match existing in vivo data for selected sets of chemicals.
Co-ordinator, Professor Bob van de Water from Leiden University, Netherlands, describes the six-year project, which involves 39 partners in 13 countries, as aiming to "define if and how we can use and integrate new approach methodologies (NAMs) as an alternative approach for the safety testing of chemicals".
EU-ToxRisk focuses on using NAMs for repeated dose systemic toxicity, with test systems for the lungs, kidney, liver and nervous system, plus developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART). Alternative tests and computer models are pinned to adverse outcome pathways (AOPs), which describe the key events in the body that lead to an adverse effect following chemical exposure.
AOPs "glue everything together", said Susanne Hougaard Bennekou, from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency, an EU-ToxRisk partner, during an industry stakeholders’ meeting in Egmond-aan-Zee, Netherlands, on 21 February. "The AOP is not a scientific tool. This is really for regulatory purposes."
"At the end of this project we hope that we, as regulators, will be happy to make our decisions based on findings from key events [in AOPs]," Ms Bennekou concluded. However, she stressed that understanding and estimating uncertainties is "the key to acceptance".
Case in point
EU-ToxRisk is built on a set of case studies, each with AOPs, some of which are being identified during the project. Most so far have focused on read-across, where chemicals are grouped so that information on target chemicals can be predicted, using test data from reference or source compounds.
To stay on the regulatory track, the EU-ToxRisk case studies will take their inspiration from Echa’s read-across assessment framework (RAAF). Next comes the difficult challenge of predicting chemical toxicity with little prior knowledge (ab initio).
EU-ToxRisk anticipates beginning work soon on the first ab initio case study with the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC). Echa could provide suggestions on which substances could be studied for this, according to Mike Rasenberg, the agency’s head of computational assessment. Based on the case study results, Echa could use ab initio tools for prioritisation and/or compliance checks.
Regulatory involvement
A new regulatory advisory board (RAB), with the remit of holding the project to its promise of delivering tools that regulators need, met for the first time during the stakeholder meeting in February, chaired by Ms Bennekou and Matthias Herzler of Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment.
Dr Derek Knight, Echa’s senior scientific officer, who is on the RAB and the scientific advisory board (SAB) said that read-across was the most interesting part of EU-ToxRisk from an Echa perspective.
Referring back to an Echa ‘topical science workshop’ on NAMs in 2016, which looked at two read-across case studies from the EU Seurat-1 project, a precursor to EU-ToxRisk that was based on metabolomics, Dr Knight said: "We got people to rewrite the two Seurat-1 case studies using our RAAF. We did two versions, one without the NAMs data and one with it, so you could semi-quantify the improvement in the quality of the read-across justification using NAMs."
The case studies came towards the end of Seurat-1. "In an ideal world we would have started earlier so that the NAM data could have been generated and targeted towards the weaknesses in the read-across justifications. That was one of the learnings from Seurat-1," added Dr Knight. "The idea is to develop data pertinent to the weaknesses in the read-across justifications. So that’s what I hope will be one of the outcomes of the EU-ToxRisk work."
For EU-ToxRisk, regulatory success also depends on how the project is reported and on producing "some sort of consolidated learning from the different case studies, which could be of regulatory relevance," Dr Knight said. "One of the key things is for the scientists to present their arguments in a way that regulators can use. And a really important way of doing that is to use the already established guidance documents and templates."
Rabea Gräpel from Leiden University agreed on the importance of using a template, enabling regulators to have all of the information that they need in one place. "If we find, from a scientific point of view, that there is additional information that we want to put into these templates from OECD, Ecja and others, that would be beneficial for us as well," she said. "From a scientific point of view, we can report a bit more, as long as we include all of the points that are required from the RAB."
Science to application
Meanwhile, industry sees the project as a way to speed the use and acceptance of NAMs. "EU-ToxRisk is a progression from science to application," Andrew White from Unilever told the meeting.
"I don’t want to wait ten years for my next in vitro test to go through a full validation process - I need to be able to start applying things as and when they develop ... What I expect to come out of this project is a generalised set of tools; a set of approaches that are useful, have been applied and accepted."
Also at the meeting, Catherine Mahony from Procter and Gamble spoke of a new ‘3Rs’ - relevance, reproducibility and robustness of tools in the toolbox - which help to select the appropriate tools, based on factors like applicability and speed. "Having a view on the 3Rs for what’s in your toolbox would be really helpful to then know what we might be able to use it for," she said.
Case studies
EU-ToxRisk has four types of read-across case studies:Compounds with similar structures and a similar mode of action;Compounds with similar structures but no similarity in mode of action;Compounds that do not have similar structures but do have a similar mode of action;Ab initio, with no details known about biological or structural similarity.
Most studies so far have groups of chemicals with similar structures. Two of the most advanced – which combine types 1 and 2 – use sets of chemicals structurally related to the drug valproic acid (VPA). Used to treat epilepsy and bipolar disorder, VPA is known to be reprotoxic and can cause liver problems.For case study 1, researchers have grouped 19 structurally similar carboxylic acids, including VPA, which either have ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ in vivo data.
They have collected more than 55 AOPs for liver steatosis (fatty liver) and selected a series of in vitro and in silico tests that target common key events. For example, in vitro liver cell tests for lipid accumulation do a good job of picking out in vivo positive chemicals.
Meanwhile, the team has used chemical-activated luciferase gene expression (Calux) bioassays to test 30 genes, finding the assays to discriminate fairly well between in vivo positive and negative compounds. The researchers are now combining data from the models and using statistical tools to see how well they predict in vivo results.
Data collected so far give "a very nice first result," said project leader Sylvia Escher from Germany’s Fraunhofer Institute for Toxicology and Experimental Medicine. The team still needs to collect transcriptomics data, which gives a snapshot of genes expressed following chemical exposure. They hope that this information will strengthen NAM predictivity.
Dash to dart
Case study 2 focuses on DART for VPA analogues. "DART is a very complex endpoint," said project leader Professor Dinant Kroese from TNO. "No one assay fits this endpoint."The team uses a wide range of in vitroassays, as well as zebrafish embryo tests. By beginning chemical exposure 24 hours after fertilisation, the tests give ten different read-outs, including eye size. Leiden researchers have also developed a reporter assay, which measures a craniofacial bone angle in the embryos.
So far, these models and tests appear to be able to predict in vivo positive or negative responses quite well. "We would also like to see whether we have somehow in the data an option to see the potency of the chemicals," said Professor Kroese. Another aim is to see if the no observed adverse effect levels (Noaels) predicted using the test battery could one day be used to set regulatory limits.
Mitochondrial action
Case study 4 focuses on a set of pesticides, insecticides and fungicides with a similar mode of action, notably rotenone, which has been linked to neuronal dysfunction and Parkinson-like disease in farm workers and lab animals.
The study, led by Professor van de Water, targets mitochondrial toxicity, which is part of an AOP for Parkinson-like symptoms following chemical exposure. One AOP for rotenone toxicity describes a Parkinsonian motor being linked to inhibition of a particular mitochondrial respiratory chain complex.
The team aligned NAMs to key events of the AOP and is using models to link in vitro data to the in vivosituation. The project team plans to define which systems can be put together for an integrated testing strategy.
This, it said, "will be of relevance since current standard animal testing strategies do not allow identification of Parkinson-like adverse events and can therefore not assess this important adverse outcome".
Popcorn lung
When eight former employees of a popcorn plant in Missouri developed a serious lung disease called bronchiolitis obliterans, the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Niosh) recommended respiratory protection for all workers in microwave popcorn production. The workers had been exposed to a buttery flavouring called diacetyl and the disease – which causes scarring – became commonly known as popcorn lung.
With a wealth of data, diacetyl, an alpha-diketone, is also a perfect candidate for read-across. EU-ToxRisk’s case study 8 aims to learn how well NAMs can predict the toxicity of alpha-diketones and differentiate between beta- and gamma- diketones, which share a high structural similarity but have different modes of action. The study will also explore how chemical similarity can be enriched with biological data, such as that derived from ‘-omic’ investigations, including transcriptomics.
All of the case studies are using models for toxicokinetics, the rates at which the body absorbs, distributes, metabolises and then excretes a chemical. "A toxicologist always wants to know if the subtle change in structure between the target and source read-across substances actually affects the toxicokinetics. That’s really what the core of the RAAF is," said Dr Knight.
"That’s an area where – in terms of data and knowledge – there is a need for further development," agreed Dr Rasenberg. "We have an interest in exploring read-across, with an emphasis on toxicokinetics, because it is a general problem in our day-to-day life."
https://chemicalwatch.com/64748/read-across-steps-forward
-
Endocrine Disruptor Assays Go Fast Track
Mar 12, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
Growing concerns about environmental contaminants associated with adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects led Congress more than 20 years ago to direct the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to develop a program to screen chemicals for their potential to mimic estrogen in humans. EPA decided to go beyond the mandate and evaluate the impacts of chemicals on androgen and thyroid hormone systems and to look at effects in wildlife as well as humans.
EPA’s resulting Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) got off to a slow start and sputtered for nearly two decades at a cost of about $10 million annually. To date, only a few dozen pesticides have gone through the battery of five in vitro and six in vivo assays to screen for potential endocrine activity under the program. Eighteen of those pesticides were flagged for further testing.
By 2015, it was obvious to EPA officials that the agency’s existing approach would require decades to evaluate all the chemicals EPA must examine for potential endocrine disruption. The list of chemicals targeted by EDSP includes about 1,000 active ingredients in pesticides, 5,000 inert ingredients in pesticides, and 6,000 drinking water contaminants, with some overlap between the lists of pesticides and drinking water contaminants.
EPA needed better ways to quickly identify which chemicals require more scrutiny for endocrine disruption and weed out the majority that don’t. At that point, EPA scientists had already developed a high-throughput computational model for predicting effects of chemicals on estrogen receptor (ER) bioactivity. But such models for predicting effects on the androgen receptor (AR), thyroid, and steroid hormone synthesis pathways were not as far along. EPA decided to put EDSP on hold while EPA researchers ramped up efforts to develop high-throughput methods to replace the 11 EDSP assays. C&EN visited EPA’s Office of Research & Development in Research Triangle Park, N.C., earlier this year to find out how much progress they have made.
“The team is way ahead of schedule,” says Ron Hines, associate director for health at EPA’s National Health & Environmental Effects Research Lab. Already in place are an ER model that replaces two in vitro assays for ER binding and activation of ER transcription and an in vivo uterotrophic test that examines estrogenic activity by measuring increases in uterine weight in female rats (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b02641). An AR model that accurately predicts androgenic and antiandrogenic activity caused by chemicals blocking or activating the androgen receptor is also ready for prime time (Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2016, DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.6b00347).
They are now working to fill in gaps related to chemical effects on androgen synthesis and cell proliferation. EPA researchers have also developed a high-throughput steroidogenesis model that integrates 11 hormone measurements into one meaningful number that regulators can use to rank chemicals on the basis of their potential to disrupt steroid hormone synthesis (Toxicol. Sci.2017, DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfx274).
Additionally, EPA scientists are testing three new thyroid assays targeting enzymes and other proteins critical for thyroid hormone production and the uptake and recycling of iodide. They are working to integrate the thyroid assays into a “thyrollicle” model to better predict the effects of chemicals on thyroid cells, which are arranged in spheres called follicles. The agency expects to have all the methods ready to begin screening again by 2020.
Estrogen receptor model paves the way
EPA scientists developed the ER model first because they had a lot of information about the pathway. “We knew every single step in ER signaling. It had been worked out in the 1980s and ’70s,” Hines says. They also knew that some environmental contaminants hit targets along the path. That made it feasible for EPA to develop an approach that hit all the key points along the ER pathway. Exposure to estrogenic chemicals has been associated with health effects such as reduced fertility and increased incidences of obesity, diabetes, endometriosis, and some cancers.
Another reason why EPA started with estrogen was that high-throughput in vitro assays were already developed either commercially for use in drug discovery by the pharmaceutical industry or through an interagency government effort called Toxicology Testing in the 21st Century, or Tox21. The researchers used 18 of those assays to screen more than 1,800 chemicals—including pesticides, food-use chemicals, and substances with known or suspected endocrine activity. In addition to receptor binding, the assays measure key events along the ER adverse-outcome pathway, such as receptor dimerization, DNA binding, transactivation, gene expression, and cell proliferation. The scientists then integrated the results into a computational model that predicts the effects of chemicals on the ER pathway.
To evaluate whether the model accurately flagged chemicals in need of further evaluation for ER signaling disruption, EPA sought help from scientists at the NTP Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM), housed within the National Toxicology Program at the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences.
“We combed the literature for every possible uterotrophic study,” says Nicole Kleinstreuer, deputy director of NICEATM. Over two years, the team reviewed 700 papers: Two scientists independently read each paper and extracted all the information, such as protocol details, chemicals tested, and results. They determined that only about 15% of the papers met quality criteria based on guidelines developed by EPA and the international Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development (OECD).
Within that 15%, however, there was “still a tremendous amount of variability in the results,” Kleinstreuer notes. NICEATM scientists further narrowed the pool of studies to those that had reproducible results. The resulting set of data for about 40 chemicals correlated well with results of the ER model, Kleinstreuer says. The ER model results also correlated well with the screening results of more than 50 pesticides that were subject to the original EDSP screening assays, including the in vivo uterotrophic rodent assay.
EPA researchers have since developed a streamlined version of the ER model that uses just four assays at each point along the receptor activation pathway. That model is more efficient and “probably more amenable to use outside of EPA,” says Katie Paul Friedman, a researcher at EPA’s National Center for Computational Toxicology (NCCT). When EPA starts ordering EDSP testing again, companies will be able to use whatever assays they want as long as they hit each part of the ER pathway.
Filling androgen data gaps
After their success with the ER model, EPA and NICEATM scientists turned to developing an AR model.
Most of the chemicals that interfere with the AR pathway are antagonists, or antiandrogenic—they block the androgen receptor and inhibit gene transcription controlled by the receptor. Such chemicals have been associated with reproductive and developmental effects, such as nondescended testes in young males and prostate cancer in men.
The team’s latest AR model integrates the results of 11 high-throughput in vitro assays, each targeting a different part of the AR pathway. Just as they did in developing the ER model, the researchers screened more than 1,800 chemicals through the 11 assays. They also sought to evaluate the model against reference chemicals from the literature. The NICEATM group is working with OECD and EPA to develop a comparison literature database for the AR model similar to the one they developed for evaluating the ER model.
The AR model does a good job of predicting whether chemicals activate or block the androgen receptor. But it is not yet ready to fully replace one of the original 11 screening assays under EDSP, the Hershberger assay, Kleinstreuer says. That test investigates androgenic or antiandrogenic activity from synthesis to cell proliferation using castrated, immature male rats.
The Hershberger assay is more complicated than the uterotrophic assay, the in vivo test for estrogenic activity in rats, Kleinstreuer says. The uterotrophic assay has only one end point—increase in uterine weight. The Hershberger assay involves measuring changes in weight in five androgen-dependent tissues of the male reproductive system.
In the long term, to fully replace the Hershberger rat assay, EPA researchers are developing an in vitro assay that simulates the effects of chemicals on the most sensitive of those five tissues, prostate tissue. The test involves aggregating human prostate cancer cells into microtissues in 96-well plates and monitoring their growth over 90 days. Images are collected every couple of days using an automated, high-content imaging fluorescence microscope to measure the growth of the tissue cultures.
Although it is not high throughput, the approach decreases the number of animals needed for testing while still capturing all the key events along the pathway from androgen steroid synthesis to cellular and tissue-level effects. It is also likely to be more relevant to humans than the Hershberger rat assay.
Steroidogenesis assay takes shape
Although most tests for endocrine disruption have evaluated the effects of chemicals on hormone receptor signaling, disruption of hormone synthesis can also lead to adverse reproductive and developmental effects. “We realized that only looking at the receptor and its associated signaling pathways within the cell was not going to give us all of the answers,” says Kevin Crofton, NCCT’s deputy director. “Steroidogenesis is the focus right now.”
The process of creating steroid hormones, or steroidogenesis, starts with cholesterol. “Through a series of enzymatic steps you make steroid hormones that are physiologically relevant for sexual differentiation, reproduction, metabolism,” and other critical processes, NCCT scientist Paul Friedman says.
Chemicals can perturb any step in that complex process by inhibiting various enzymes. The original EDSP steroidogenesis assay was a low-throughput in vitro method that focused on the end of the steroid synthesis pathway—the final formation of testosterone and 17β-estradiol. But “if you inhibited an enzyme at the beginning of the pathway, you could affect formation of all the steroid hormones,” says Paul Friedman.
EPA researchers have now developed a high-throughput in vitro approach to examine chemical effects on the production of 11 hormones, including progestogens, corticosteroids, androgens, and estrogens. They used the assay to screen more than 2,000 chemicals at a single high concentration, measuring the production of all 11 hormones. Of those chemicals, 656 showed potential effects on hormone levels and were further tested at multiple concentrations.
The researchers evaluated the accuracy of the high-throughput assay by comparing the results for 25 chemicals that were run through both the original EDSP low-throughput assay and the high-throughput assay. The results from the two methods correlated well.
Asking regulators to make a quick decision based on 11 different graphs for each of thousands of chemicals would be a high hurdle, so NCCT researchers developed a quantitative prioritization metric that integrates effects on the synthesis of the 11 steroid hormones into a single number. Regulators can use that number to rank chemicals on the basis of their likelihood to interfere with the synthesis of all 11 hormones.
One of the original EDSP assays not yet covered by a high-throughput method measures inhibition of aromatase, which converts androgens to estrogens to make 17β-estradiol and estrone. Instead of developing a new assay, EPA researchers are trying to capture aromatase inhibitors in the steroidogenesis assay.
The researchers are also looking to fill in gaps that existed in the original EDSP screening assays. “We know we don’t capture all aspects of androgen synthesis in our model,” Paul Friedman acknowledges. For example, EPA scientists are working to develop assays that measure production of dihydrotestosterone, a potent androgenic metabolite of testosterone. Some chemicals are known to inhibit the enzyme that converts testosterone to dihydrotestosterone.
Trio of thyroid tests
Three in vivo animal assays initially required for EDSP screening examine the effects of chemicals on thyroid function in pubertal male rats, pubertal female rats, and amphibians undergoing metamorphosis. To replace those assays, EPA researchers are developing a series of high-throughput in vitro assays targeting three key steps in the production and homeostasis of thyroid hormones.
“Thyroid hormones are essential in processes of normal development, such as brain development in humans and metamorphosis of tadpoles to adult frogs,” says Michael Hornung, branch chief of EPA’s National Health & Environmental Effects Research Lab. Chemicals that affect thyroid processes have been associated with developmental effects on the nervous system in children, attention deficit and hyperactivity in children, hearing loss, and thyroid cancer.
When EPA researchers first began to investigate how chemicals interact with the thyroid hormone system, not many high-throughput in vitro assays were available. “There were a few assays that looked at thyroid hormone transcription via the thyroid hormone receptor,” Hornung says. But very few chemicals interact with the thyroid receptor, he notes.
Evaluating effects on the thyroid system requires a broader screening approach. The thyroid network is complex, involving multiple targets crossing many tissues in the “thyroid axis,” which includes the hypothalamus, pituitary gland, and thyroid gland. That complexity makes it particularly challenging to develop a high-throughput approach for predicting effects of chemicals on thyroid function.
EPA’s research team came up with a list of 17 potential targets where chemicals could interfere with thyroid hormone synthesis and signaling. They deemed three of the targets critical and began developing in vitro assays to screen chemicals for their ability to interfere with them. The assays measure inhibition of thyroperoxidase (TPO), an enzyme that is critical for thyroid hormone production; inhibition of iodide uptake by the sodium iodide symporter (NIS); and inhibition of deiodinase enzymes, which control thyroid hormone activation and metabolism.
EPA researchers focused on these targets, especially NIS and TPO, in part because they already had information showing environmental pollutants hit them, Crofton says. The classic example is perchlorate, which inhibits iodide uptake by NIS. Separately, some pesticides inhibit TPO, he adds.
EPA’s TPO assay uses human thyroid cells in high-throughput 96-well or 384-well plates. When the assay was used to test more than 1,800 chemicals at high concentrations, most of the chemicals—74%—did not inhibit TPO, “but 26% did produce greater than 20% inhibition,” suggesting they might be TPO inhibitors, Hornung says (Toxicol. Sci. 2016, DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfw034). EPA’s NIS assay measures the ability of a chemical to block the uptake of radioactive iodide by thyroid cells (Toxicol. In Vitro 2016, DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2016.12.006). Of 1,087 chemicals screened at high concentrations using this assay, 404, or 37%, led to greater than 20% inhibition.
The third thyroid assay being tested by EPA researchers targets inhibition of deiodinases—selenium-containing enzymes that catalyze the release of iodide, or deiodination, from thyroid hormones. Although iodine is necessary for initial thyroid hormone synthesis, deiodination is necessary to convert thyroxine (T4) into triiodothyronine (T3), the hormone with the highest affinity for the thyroid receptor. There are three deiodinase isoforms, each with different roles in producing T3.
EPA’s assay uses cell-derived deiodinase enzymes and measures a chemical’s ability to prevent deiodination. The researchers screened more than 1,800 chemicals using each of the three deiodinase enzymes. For deiodinase type 1, 225 chemicals, or 12% of those tested, showed potential for inhibiting the enzyme (Toxicol. Sci. 2017, DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfx279). The results for the other two enzymes have yet to be published, but Hornung says that about 17% of the chemicals tested showed potential to inhibit deiodinase type 2 and 3 enzymes.
Although the assay is performed in a 96-well plate, it is not quite high-throughput, Hornung says. Analysis requires separating free iodide from the proteins and other material in the assay media, then using a colorimetric test to quantitate the iodide. “We can run three 96-well plates a day,” Hornung says.
The researchers are now working to integrate the assays developed so far into a human thyroid follicle model that includes TPO, NIS, T4 and T3 export, and some other proteins needed for thyroid hormone synthesis.
However, to fully assess chemical effects on the thyroid system, scientists still have much to investigate beyond the biomolecules they’ve examined so far. The team recently started investigating the role of an iodide recycling enzyme, iodotyrosine deiodinase, in the thyroid gland. That enzyme “may be critical in areas where you have iodine deficiency,” Hornung says. “Animals like to conserve all the iodine they can to make sure they are able to make enough thyroid hormone.”
And there are other potentially important assay targets. “The ones with no information, especially thyroid hormone membrane transporters,” are lower priority for assay development because of R&D challenges, not because they aren’t significant, Crofton says. Researchers have also so far ignored the liver, which is key for regulating metabolism of thyroid hormones and hormone elimination if levels get too high.
EPA researchers have come a long way in the past few years, developing new assays to target various steps in the thyroid network, as well as other parts of the endocrine system. Once the current effort is complete, however, EPA will need to decide whether its second-tier assays are too slow. With so many of the test chemicals flagged as potential endocrine disruptors—495 potential TPO inhibitors, 404 potential NIS inhibitors, and 225 potential deiodinase inhibitors, among others—EPA may find that those tests will also take decades to complete. Then the race will be on to replace those five second-tier in vivo ecotoxicity tests involving quail, fish, frogs, and rats with high-throughput nonanimal alternatives.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/96/i11/Endocrine-disruptor-assays-fast-track.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Group Calls for Tariff Exemption of Natgas Pipeline Steel
Mar 9, 2018 | ICIS
By Tracy Dang
Steel products used for constructing natural gas pipelines should be exempt from impending US tariffs because of insufficient domestic capacity and natural security considerations, industry group Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) said on Friday.
INGAA is asking the administration to exempt those products, after US President Donald Trump signed proclamations on Thursday calling for tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminium.
Federal safety requirements and industry standards require strict steel specifications, and it is a niche product with limited domestic capacity, INGAA President and CEO Don Santa said.
About 65% of high-strength plate/coil and large-diameter line pipe imports are from North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries, Santa said. With treaty nations such as Japan and South Korea, that import figure grows to about 80%.
Additionally, US national security depends on pipelines to deliver the energy needed to heat homes and fuel businesses, power plants and manufacturing, Santa said.
“The ability to expand pipeline infrastructure in an efficient and predictable manner is critical to the US realising the full potential of its domestic energy abundance,” Santa said. “Imports of both pipeline-quality steel, and pipe products, are necessary for timely construction of the new pipeline infrastructure needed to link natural gas producers with industrial, power generation and residential customers, and ensure our national security.”
Prior to Trump’s proclamation on Thursday, industry groups such as the American Chemistry Council (ACC) had urged the president not to impose tariffs on those metals.
With companies considering expanding petrochemical capacity, steel and aluminium tariffs would make those projects more expensive.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/03/09/10201315/us-group-calls-for-tariff-exemption-of-natgas-pipeline-steel/
-
Ceraweek: As OPEC Waits for Appreciation, US Ramps up Oil Production
Mar 12, 2018 | Platts
By Brian Scheid
OPEC ministers came to Houston this week for a “thank you” that never arrived.
Since OPEC and non-OPEC producers reached their historic supply cut agreement in December 2016, global oil prices have stabilized above $60/b and supply and demand are nearing the ever-elusive balance, ministers said during the CERAWeek by IHS Markit conference.
“Everybody benefited,” OPEC Secretary-General Mohammed Barkindo said, adding that the agreement put the industry back on a “path of sustainable growth.”
Barkindo said that producers who agreed to the cut “paid a very deep price” and added that the industry should “salute them for their courage.”
But OPEC ministers got a different response.
With Barkindo and many OPEC ministers in the building, US Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke preached US energy “dominance” and called US oil and natural gas production “morally better” than imports of OPEC and other foreign crudes.
“I want to thank you all of you for making American energy great again,” Zinke said. “It is better to produce energy in this country.”
Rather than showing gratitude or committing to further global market stability, the message from US producers and the Trump administration was clear: US peak output has yet to come.
“When you look five to 10 years out you could see the Permian Basin doing 6 [million] to 7 million barrels a day all by itself,” Texas Railroad Commissioner Ryan Sitton said in an interview with the Platts Capitol Crude podcast. “There’s that much oil there. It’s just a question of whether the economics are there to put in the infrastructure and development to go get it.”
Outside of initial speculation that many OPEC producers would fail to comply with their pledges, one of the biggest concerns with the supply cut agreement was that US shale production would undercut its intended result.
Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih tried to quell that concern at last year’s CERAWeek.
“I think the comeback of shale, to a certain degree, is not only welcome and acceptable but it’s necessary because of the demand growth and the decline elsewhere,” Falih said. “This is a big market.”
But did Falih underestimate US shale’s potential?
As OPEC and non-OPEC producers have cut, US producers have set output records, crossing the 10 million b/d mark in a record-setting November, up from 8.77 million b/d in November 2016. And US imports of OPEC crude have fallen too in the year since the supply cut agreement was reached, dropping to 2.6 million b/d in December 2017 from 3.3 million b/d in December 2016, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
There were some quiet grumblings at CERAWeek that the US was not doing enough to help the market.
“It’s not just a problem for OPEC, it’s a problem for the entire industry,” Emmanuel Kachikwu, Nigeria’s oil minister, told reporters.
While he declined to offer many details, Kachikwu said OPEC ministers are increasingly pressing the heads of US oil majors to take action to stabilize the global market.
It’s unclear what, if anything, US producers could do. Even if major producers decided to cut production, hundreds of independent producers would likely step in to fill the void.
Some US producers met with OPEC ministers Monday night on the outskirts of the Houston conference. The meeting was described as cordial, but OPEC did not push for anything, sources said.
“We are not talking about prices. We are not talking about production cuts,” Barkindo told reporters ahead of the meeting. “This is not the objective of the dialogue.”
Barkindo said ministers and US producers plan to meet again in Houston next year.
It’s unclear if the next meeting will be as cordial.
http://blogs.platts.com/2018/03/09/ceraweek-opec-us-oil-production/
-
Offshore Oil Plan ‘Good First Step’ in U.S. Energy Revival: API
Mar 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Cunningham
A draft plan to open up the U.S. outer continental shelf to drilling could bring economic benefits not just to coastal regions but also nationally, Erik Milito, American Petroleum Institute's director of upstream and industry operators, said on a call with reporters.
The lobbying group released studies setting out the potential impact of lifting drilling restrictions in the Atlantic, Eastern Gulf, Pacific and Alaska.
For the Atlantic alone, a study estimates output could exceed 250,000 barrels of oil daily within three years of initial production, increasing to more than a million within eight years. The annual capital investment and other spending could grow to more than $20 billion per year within 20 years after the initial lease sales.
The API projects similar significant economic benefits for other regions.
“A lot of these areas we've not fully explored—we don't know what's out there yet—we need to get out and run seismic surveys,” Andy Radford, API's senior policy adviser for offshore issues, said in an interview.
Oceana, an environmental conservation group, said this week that offshore drilling proposals threaten prosperity of coastal communities.
But Radford disagreed.
“Our experience in the Gulf of Mexico coexisting with fishing, with military, with tourism, has shown that all these industries can co-exist and thrive. It's not an either or choice,” Radford said.
Meanwhile, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) announced in a tweet his opposition to drilling off that state's coast.
“Offshore drilling is a really, really dumb idea,” he said during a March 9 press event in New York City.
The public comment period on draft drilling program ends March 9.
—with assistance from Jim Efstathiou Jr.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129361597&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129361597&jd=129361597
-
Offshore Drilling: It’s Not Worth It
Mar 12, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Rep. Anthony Brown (D-Md.)
In 2016, communities up and down the Atlantic coast successfully advocated to keep oil and gas development away from their shorelines, coastal neighborhoods, and vibrant economies dependent on clean and healthy waters. And in his last month in office, President Obama permanently banned drilling off certain areas in the Atlantic Ocean from New England to Virginia.
But after the election of Donald Trump, these hard-fought victories proved to be only temporary.
In his first 100 days, President Trump signed an executive order undoing the Obama-era restrictions on offshore oil and gas drilling and later rolled back important safety rules put in place after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster that killed 11 and caused the country’s worst oil spill. In January, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke announced a plan to allow drilling in nearly all United States coastal waters beginning in 2019. Energy companies would have access to billions of acres on the U.S. Atlantic continental shelf, which has never had a producing oil well, and could expand production on the Pacific Seaboard for the first time in 30 years.
The Trump administration envisions oil rigs operating within a hundred miles of San Francisco, the Florida Keys and the Delmarva peninsula within five years. The seismic airgun blasting to find oil and gas deposits that would precede this industrialization of our oceans, and the inevitable oil spills that will follow - would dramatically and permanently impact the nation’s coastlines and the surrounding communities. This would not lead to American energy dominance but instead to ecological and economic disaster.
Despite proposing the largest expansion of oil and gas drilling ever, the administration has provided limited time for public comment. Yet 15 governors, 200 East and West Coast municipalities, over 1,200 bipartisan federal, state and local officials, and more than a million scientists, business owners and everyday Americans have weighed in against the plan - reflecting the extensive economic, social and environmental risks as well as strong community opposition from nearly every impacted state.
Maryland’s inclusion in the draft drilling expansion is heavily opposed in our state. Drilling threatens the Chesapeake Bay - the nation’s largest estuary, our pristine beaches and our thriving tourism and recreation economy and historic seafood and fisheries industries that support nearly 100,000 jobs. If a disaster of Deepwater Horizon’s scale occurred off the Bay, the spill would stretch from Richmond to Atlantic City - poisoning oysters and blue crabs, devastating wetlands, and leaving oil in the environment for decades. It’s not worth it.
Oil and gas development is also opposed by our military, as they have determined it threatens a wide variety of training and testing activities - such as undersea warfare trials, air-to-surface bombing and naval missile tests - critical to our military readiness and national security. The Department of Defense estimates that nearly 94 percent of Virginia’s coast and 78 percent of Georgia’s coast is not conducive to offshore drilling due to military operations. Furthermore, NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility, which supports a growing commercial space industry, has expressed similar concerns that oil and gas development in adjacent Atlantic waters could imperil future launches including resupply missions to the International Space Station and other future commercial space flight activities.
Despite promises to ‘listen to state and local stakeholders’ President Trump and Secretary Zinke are ignoring these voices of opposition in their drive to put fossil-fuel interests first.
The United States has been the world’s top natural gas producer for nine years and could overtake Russia to become the world’s largest oil producer this year. Within the next five years, the United States is expected to be among the biggest crude oil exporters in the world and become effectively energy independent at home. What then is the compelling economic or security reason to expose coastal communities to the threats of offshore drilling?
Our future is in clean energy, not dirty climate-wrecking offshore drilling. America’s renewable energy sector is growing several times faster than the national economy, produces nearly 20 percent of America’s energy and supports more than 3 million jobs - more than the fossil fuel industry. Under President Obama, we coupled the public’s desire to reduce carbon emissions and our reliance on fossil fuels, and declining costs of renewable energy and energy efficiency technology to make tremendous progress towards creating sustainable jobs, fighting climate change and achieving real energy security.
For purely political reasons, the Trump administration has chosen to push the agenda of the fossil fuel industry while ignoring the opportunities and benefits of a more secure and independent clean energy future. But across America, including in states that voted for President Trump, businesses, governments, and families are taking the lead, transforming the way they power their lives and investing in green policies that can blunt the effects of climate change. Maryland is moving forward with the nation’s largest offshore wind farm and is considering expanding goals for sourcing electricity from renewable sources to 50 percent by 2030 while making significant investments in clean energy job training programs. No president can stop this local driven progress.
We must make better choices to ensure the United States will continue to move forward and win the global race to produce affordable, sustainable energy. It starts with ending this radical, reckless and backward-looking pursuit of offshore drilling.
Brown represents Maryland’s 4th District and is a member of the Naturnal Resources Committee and the Armed Services Committee.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/377623-offshore-drilling-its-not-worth-it
-
New York Threatens Lawsuit Over Trump's Offshore Drilling Plan
Mar 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman (D) threatened to sue the federal government if it doesn't exclude ocean areas off of New York from its offshore drilling plan.
Schneiderman, in a March 9 letter to the Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, said the state's 1,850 miles of tidal shoreline should be exempt from the Trump administration's plan announced earlier this year to allow drilling off most U.S. coastal waters.
Allowing offshore drilling in New York—especially off the coast of Long Island—would jeopardize the state's tourism, fishing, and “ocean economy,” which contributes some $25 billion to the gross domestic product each year, Schneiderman said in his letter.
The risk of oil spills and the dangers posed by refining, processing, and transportation infrastructure would “pose an unacceptable threat” to the state's environment and economy, Schneiderman added.“If the Department does not terminate the proposed oil and gas leasing program, or remove these areas from future consideration for such leasing, the Office of the New York State Attorney General will use all appropriate legal avenues to vigorously oppose the Department's program,” Schneiderman said in the letter to Kelly Hammerle, chief of the National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program.
“In addition, the Department should evaluate the climate change impacts of oil and gas exploration, development and production in all areas for which such exploration, development and production is contemplated under the Draft Proposed Program,” he said.
Schneiderman joined the attorneys general of Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Virginia earlier this year in comments opposing the offshore drilling plan.
New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) also wrote to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke in January, asking for New York to be exempt from the plan.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129361595&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129361595&jd=129361595
-
Oil Industry Falls out of Love with Trump
Mar 12, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Ben Lefebvre and Eric Wolff
The oil and gas industry’s relationship with President Donald Trump is cooling off.
The administration’s 25 percent steel tariff, hostility toward NAFTA and fumbled efforts to lift restrictions on drilling are worrying executives, who have praised the president’s war on regulations but loathe uncertainty and nationalistic trade policies.
The tariff was a source of angst at a major energy industry conference this week in Houston. Executives fretted that higher steel prices could stifle projects needed to help the U.S. — the world’s biggest oil and gas producer — feed the global thirst for energy as a rising force in the export markets.
“We don’t think it would be appropriate to put a tariff on something you can’t buy in the United States," said Greg Armstrong, CEO of Plains All American Pipeline, who worries it will become too hard to find the steel valves or other pipeline equipment the company needs. “That really kills the project.”
One company hoping to capitalize on the global appetite for natural gas, Freeport LNG, said its new Texas plant required 190 miles of new pipeline — and Trump’s tariffs would have been devastating had they been in effect at the time.
"We have seven Eiffel Towers' worth of steel," Freeport LNG chief Michael Smith told the conference, known as CERAWeek. "This thing would cost a few hundred million dollars more if we had to pay 25 percent more than what we did."
The tariff moves are also unsettling senators in energy states who have backed Trump's moves for the sector. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said the tariffs could add up to half a billion dollars to the price of a proposed 800-mile pipeline the state has long wanted to jump-start its natural gas production.
"This is not coming at a good time for us," Murkowski said at the energy conference in Houston.
The industry’s top lobby group, the American Petroleum Institute, is sending its executive committee to the White House next week — a rare move by the group as it seeks to help the president “understand what the industry wants,” one source familiar with the meeting told POLITICO.
Seeking to calm the sector's nerves, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Energy Secretary Rick Perry flew to the conference and reiterated the administration’s support for higher oil and gas production.
“The thing I heard from businessmen and women most often while I was the CEO of this state was the regulatory stability,” Perry, the former Texas governor, told reporters in Houston. “The predictability of the regulatory world — that was where the real long-term effect could be positive or negative. That’s what the president’s intent is.”
But Perry himself roiled the energy world late last year with a now-jettisoned plan to prop up struggling coal-fired and nuclear power plants — a move that would have aided Trump's supporters in the coal industry but harmed natural gas producers. Like Trump’s tariffs and attempt to renegotiate NAFTA, Perry’s proposal raised questions about the administration's commitment to free markets, long a hallmark of GOP policies.
Meanwhile, Zinke's shifting plans on opening federal waters for drilling, controversial moves to shrink the size of national monuments and attempts to ease restrictions on land use in Western states have drawn sharp legal challenges — making companies wary of venturing into new areas.
In January, Zinke proposed opening nearly all federal waters off the East, West and Gulf coasts to oil exploration — but quickly backtracked and promised to take Florida's waters "off the table" moments after a hastily scheduled meeting with Republican Gov. Rick Scott. After several other governors pushed to exclude their states, Zinke has said he was open to shrinking his proposal even further.
He also opened the door to rewriting Obama administration policies that had blocked off stretches of California's deserts available for mining and recreation and had restricted energy and mineral operations across the multistate habitat of the greater sage grouse.
Obama's second-term Interior secretary, Sally Jewell, argued that Zinke’s moves only created confusion for energy companies about where they will be allowed to operate.
“Business people do not mind following rules, they just cannot handle uncertainty when the rules keep changing," said Jewell, a former petroleum engineer who headed retail chain REI before taking the helm at Interior. She said people in the industry have been complaining to governors and Interior officials about the changes to the sage grouse policy, for example.
"They’re hearing from oil companies saying, ‘I thought we had a deal,’” Jewell said. “They’re investing, they’re putting in work, they don’t want to be going back to the planning stages. It costs them a lot of money."
Some industry experts said companies are also feeling whiplash from the administration’s stab at rolling back Obama-era regulations on fracking and natural gas companies’ methane emissions. That fight has been raging for over a year — and it’s just one of several environmental rule revisions where the Trump administration has faced legal setbacks.
For companies interested in exploring on federal acreage in Wyoming, Colorado and other states west of the Rockies, the frequent jockeying between Interior and the courts is unsettling, said Bernadette Johnson, vice president of market intelligence at Austin-based energy advisory firm DrillingInfo.
“Are you going to expend capital when the rules go back and forth daily?” Johnson said. She added: “You could have a rollback tomorrow. Or a court ruling. It certainly is a piece of the puzzle when you think, ‘Do I put rig here or go to Texas?’”
Those questions are crucial in an industry that carefully forecasts its costs for projects that often take years to execute. U.S. oil and gas companies are expected to hike their spending on exploration and production in North America by more than 20 percent this year to $116 billion, according to forecasts from Barclays analysts.
Other companies are less worried — regarding the legal fights as background noise and confident they can comply with whatever the administration finally settles on.
“The industry is faster than government,” Pioneer Natural Resources CEO Tim Dove told POLITICO. “Industry is ahead of the rules in this case.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/03/oil-industry-falls-out-of-love-with-trump-404001
-
Three NRG Gas Plants to Shut Amid California's Green Push
Mar 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment
By Brian Eckhouse
The Golden State is increasingly inhospitable to fossil fuel power plants.
In the latest development, NRG Energy Inc. plans to shutter three old gas-fired power plants in California, according to a March 9 statement from the Sierra Club. The plants are operated by the company's GenOn unit, which is expected to be spun off under a bankruptcy agreement that was approved last year.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the ultimate owner of Bloomberg Environment.
GenOn intends to shut down the Etiwanda plant in Rancho Cucamonga as of June 1. The Ormond Beach facility in Oxnard is slated to go dark as of Oct. 1 and the Ellwood site in Goleta is set to close as of Jan. 1, 2019. An NRG spokeswoman declined to comment March 9.
California regulators are pushing utilities to ditch gas-fired power plants for clean energy projects amid a statewide effort to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions in half by 2030 from 2015 levels. In January, the California Public Utilities Commission approved an order that requires PG&E Corp., the state's biggest utility, to change the way it supplies power when demand peaks, by using batteries or other nonfossil fuel resources.
“Closing these plants is more proof that clean energy is driving gas out of California,” Evan Gillespie, a Sierra Club campaign manager, said in the statement.
—With assistance from Mark Chediak.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129361596&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129361596&jd=129361596
-
West Virginia Royalty Law Abolishing Post-Production Cost Deductions a Pen Stroke Away
Mar 9, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
West Virginia’s oil and natural gas producers would no longer be permitted to deduct post-production expenses from landowners’ royalty checks under a bill awaiting the signature of Republican Gov. Jim Justice.
SB 360 was sponsored by Republican state Sen. Charles Clements to reverse a controversial West Virginia Supreme Court ruling last year that favored EQT Corp. and upheld post-production deductions from royalties. The favorable opinion came after EQT filed a petition for rehearing of an earlier ruling from the high court that would have prohibited post-production deductions.
The state Senate voted unanimously late last month to pass the legislation, which also cleared the House of Delegates by a vote of 96-2. It was unclear when or if Justice would sign the legislation.
SB 360 preserves the state statute requiring producers to pay landowners a minimum 12.5% royalty on the value of production at the wellhead. However, it modifies the law to make clear that those payments be made “free from any deduction for post-production expenses.” For natural gas, those costs can currently be taken from royalties to cover expenses for items that include compression, dehydration and transmission.
The bill would nullify Leggett v. EQT Production, No. 16-0136, by Patrick and Katherine Leggett, who own mineral rights in the Marcellus Shale hotbed of Doddridge County. The plaintiffs claimed that EQT was deducting post-production expenses for years and unlawfully reducing their net royalties.
SB 360 declares that the “continued exploitation of the natural resources of this state in exchange for such wholly inadequate compensation is unfair, oppressive, works an unjust hardship on the owners of the oil and gas in place, and unreasonably deprives the economy of the state of West Virginia of the just benefit of the natural wealth of this state…”
In petitioning for a rehearing, EQT said the state Supreme Court had misinterpreted state royalties laws, misapplied a previous ruling by the high court on a similar case and exceeded a lower court’s question. In explaining the court’s decision to reverse the previous ruling, Chief Justice Allen Loughry pointed to a similar case that came before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
“While the language” of West Virginia’s royalty statute “differs from that of the Pennsylvania statute, the import is the same: both were intended to guarantee a fair, minimum royalty to lessors calculated at the wellhead.” The plaintiffs, Loughry wrote in the opinion, “fail to persuade us that this purpose is undermined in any fashion through the pro-rata deduction or allocation of costs incurred to enhance the value of the oil or gas.”
However, the high court said the allegations against EQT were not without precedent and acknowledged that the case raised policy issues suitable for the state legislature.
The issue of post-production deductions has been controversial across the country, and SB 360 could have far-reaching impacts.
In Pennsylvania, where the attorney general continues to pursue a lawsuit against Chesapeake Energy Corp. related to similar deductions, lawmakers have repeatedly tried to address the issue. Specifically, efforts to clarify the state’s Guaranteed Minimum Royalty Act for how marketing costs should or should not be factored into royalty payments has faltered for years.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113647-west-virginia-royalty-law-abolishing-post-production-cost-deductions-a-pen-stroke-away
-
Ohio Utica Natural Gas Output Spiked Again in 2017
Mar 9, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Utica Shale natural gas production increased again last year to 1.7 Tcf, up about 25% from 2016, according to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR).
Unconventional production in the state reached its highest point in 4Q2017 at 503 Bcf, an increase of nearly 40% from the year-ago period and up about 9% from 3Q2017.
ODNR’s fourth quarter report listed 1,897 horizontal shale wells, 1,869 of which reported oil and natural gas production during the period. The average amount of oil produced was 2,244 bbl and the average amount of gas produced was 269.2 MMcf. Ohio law does not require separate reporting of natural gas liquids or condensate; totals included those volumes.
Fourth quarter Utica oil production was 4.2 million bbl, about 16% higher from 3.6 million bbl reported in the year-ago period. While oil volumes slowly crept back up for sequential increases last year, year/year oil volumes fell again, going from about 18 million bbl in 2016 to 16.4 million bbl in 2017.
It was the second straight annual decline, albeit less sharp than in 2016 when volumes dropped from a shale era peak of 23 million bbl produced in 2015.
ODNR’s Rick Simmers, chief of the oil and gas division, said Thursday during a presentation at the Ohio Oil and Gas Association’s winter meeting in Columbus that the last two years of oil declines were not unexpected given the steep decline in prices that began in 2014.
“A lot of the companies that had the option, based on their lease acreage, tried to move to a gas window, and where they could, a dry gas window,” he said. “We saw that trend through our permitting, and we saw that trend in the drilling activity that we also go out and oversee.
“We projected that this drop in oil production was going to happen,” he added. “While the companies are drilling the gas, or the dry gas areas, I think this trend will continue unless prices gain pretty significantly.”
To date, Ohio has permitted 2,767 Utica wells, of which 2,276 have been drilled. At this time last year, the state had permitted 2,427 Utica wells, of which 1,931 had been drilled.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113645-ohio-utica-natural-gas-output-spiked-again-in-2017
-
Chemical Sector 'Anxious' About Slow EPA Progress on Overhauling RMP
Mar 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
A chemical industry official says companies are “anxious” about EPA's apparent slow progress in repealing Obama-era revisions to the agency's facility safety program and issuing a replacement rule, saying industry is unsure of the overhaul's status despite a looming deadline to implement the existing rule when a stay expires next year.
“We're very anxious to see that rule and we need to get the ball rolling to be done by February,” the source tells Inside EPA. “It's a tight time frame -- there will be a lot of comments. It's a big and important rulemaking.”
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt last June delayed the effective date of an Obama-era update to the agency's Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility accident prevention rule nearly two years from June 19, 2017, to Feb. 19, 2019, to allow time for the agency to issue a new regulation revising the controversial rule in response to an industry petition. Pruitt is weighing whether to undo some of the revisions that tightened RMP requirements.
According to the Unified Agenda of pending federal regulations, EPA plans to propose a revision rule in April. But the industry source says that nearly halfway through the administration's delay, it is unclear whether EPA is on target to finalize revisions before the Obama-era rule is slated to take effect next February.
“My understanding is they haven't even started drafting the RMP rule,” the source says, adding that EPA has not forwarded proposed revisions to the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) for mandatory pre-publication review. “We're potentially months away from a” proposed rule, the source says, and the agency would have to take public comment on such a rule before issuing a final version -- a potentially lengthy process.
EPA did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
A host of industry groups, Republican-led states and Pruitt during his tenure as Oklahoma's attorney general, have long faulted the Obama EPA's Jan. 12, 2017, final RMP rule as an unnecessary update to the agency's accident prevention rule and argued that provisions could increase facility security risks.
EPA issued the rule in response to former President Barack Obama's August 2013 executive order on improving facility safety issued after a fertilizer facility in West, TX, exploded in April of that year killing 15 people, including first responders. The rule brought steeper requirements for facility audits, hazard analysis, and data disclosure.
Early last year Pruitt granted an industry petition to reconsider and possibly rescind the RMP update rule, backing petitioners' assertions that federal investigators' ruling that arson caused the West, TX, fire, which spurred a push for new regulations, undermined the need for the Obama-era rulemaking.
In a March 13 letter to petitioners, Pruitt said EPA would propose a rule “in the near future” that would allow industry and the public to comment on issues raised in the petition, as well as other matters the agency deems appropriate. Since then industry officials have said they expect EPA's rewrite would essentially scrap the Obama rule.
Concerns over the timing of the Trump administration's proposing a rule revising RMP come as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is scheduled to hear oral argument March 16 in a lawsuit challenging the grounds for the lengthy delay.
In the consolidated case, Air Alliance Houston, et al., v. EPA and E. Scott Pruitt, environmentalists, unions and 11 Democratic state attorneys general are arguing that EPA lacks statutory authority for such a lengthy delay that would increase the risk of disasters harming petitioners' interests.
EPA and a coalition of 12 Republican-led states, including Louisiana, Arizona, Arkansas and Kentucky, have arguedthat the Clean Air Act gives the agency broad authority for setting effective dates after notice and comment, and that the rule's disclosure provisions threaten facility security and that other provisions create duplicative burdens for emergency response groups.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/chemical-sector-anxious-about-slow-epa-progress-overhauling-rmp
-
More Hearings Set Amid Mixed Messages from GOP
Mar 12, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk
It's infrastructure week for the Senate Commerce Committee.
The panel will hold a trio of hearings to look at President Trump's infrastructure plan, including one Wednesday featuring Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.
Chao and other administration officials have been furiously defending the president's plan, though they haven't made much headway, sparring with Democrats over funding and proposed changes to environmental permitting.
Republican leaders, meanwhile, are giving mixed messages on how, when and if Congress will pass infrastructure legislation based on Trump's proposals.
Any bill is likely to start in the House, where Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) is hoping to put together a broad, bipartisan package with help from ranking member Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.).
Shuster has said he wants the bill written and through the full House by the August recess, but he's also eyeing finishing it in the lame-duck session to avoid the political pressure of the midterms.
Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) threw a wrench in that strategy last week. "The plan is to do this in about five or six different bills," Ryan said Thursday at a town hall on tax reform with Home Depot employees.
One bill could have some sort of "down payment" on infrastructure, while others would deal with other areas, from conventional surface transportation to energy and water infrastructure, Ryan said.
Ryan said Republicans are looking to reform environmental permitting, a pillar of Trump's plan. But his comments were vague, and it remains unclear how permitting would be packaged together with funding.
"We're going to start in about a week and a half with our infrastructure bills and move into the summer passing them," Ryan said.
Ryan last week also turned back the idea of raising the federal gasoline tax. Shuster and a handful of Republicans on the T&I Committee have endorsed an increase as a way to pay for Trump's plan and stabilize the Highway Trust Fund, which is set to run out of money in 2020.
"We're just not going to do that here," Ryan said in a town hall sponsored by Americans for Prosperity. "There are some people who are talking about that, but the last thing we want to do is pass historic tax relief in December and then undo that, so we are not going to raise gas taxes."
Ryan's outline for infrastructure likely dampens the prospects for passage in the Senate, where any bill would have to be broad enough to muster nine Democratic votes.
And members of Senate leadership — including Commerce Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) — have been skeptical that Congress will do anything on infrastructure this year.
Still, the Commerce Committee has packed its schedule.
Tomorrow, the Communications, Technology, Innovation and the Internet Subcommittee will meet for a discussion about broadband infrastructure, while the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety and Security Subcommittee will examine "state and local transportation needs."
And then Chao and Ross will come before the full panel in what's shaping up to be a theatrical hearing Wednesday.
Chao's appearances in the Senate Environment and Public Works and House T&I committees featured tense exchanges with Democrats about environmental permitting and the controversial Gateway infrastructure project in New York.
Ross, for his part, will almost certainly be asked about the Trump administration's recently announced tariffs on imported steel and aluminum.
The energy industry is already worried the move could raise prices for pipelines and export facilities, which in the early stages are figuring to have a part in the infrastructure push (Energywire, March 9).
For now, Thune and other Republicans are keeping their messaging centered on bipartisanship, even if it remains unlikely that the GOP will be able to rally behind a big infrastructure bill this year.
"These hearings will help guide our efforts to write bipartisan infrastructure legislation meeting the needs of our communities across the country," Thune said in a statement.
Schedule: The Communications, Technology, Innovation and the Internet Subcommittee hearing will be Tuesday, March 13, at 10 a.m. in 253 Russell.
Witnesses: Gary Resnick, mayor, Wilton Manors, Fla.; Steve Berry, chief executive officer, Competitive Carriers Association; Bob DeBroux, vice president of regulatory affairs, TDS Telecom; Brad Gillen, executive vice president, CTIA-The Wireless Association; and Mike Romano, senior vice president for policy, NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association.
Schedule: The Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety and Security Subcommittee hearing is Tuesday, March 13, at 2:30 p.m. in 253 Russell.
Witnesses: Kyle Schneweis, director, Nebraska Department of Transportation; Dan Gilmartin, executive director and chief executive officer, Michigan Municipal League and member of the National League of Cities; Jordan Kass, president, managed services, TMC Division, C.H. Robinson; and Jo Strang, senior vice president, safety and regulatory policy, American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association.
Schedule: The full committee hearing is Wednesday, March 14, at 10 a.m. in 106 Dirksen.
Witnesses: Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/03/12/stories/1060076023
-
Opinion: We Built the Panama Canal. Surely We Can Fix Infrastructure
Mar 12, 2018 | Roll Call
By Doug Peterson
Few issues have been free of partisan wrangling of late, and few occasions have inspired unified feelings of greatness in our country. Yet the public and private sectors together have an opportunity with infrastructure to chart a different course and seed the path for the next great American moment.
The past 100 years brought some remarkable triumphs in infrastructure. Railroads linked our vast nation. The Panama Canal twice transformed global commerce. The telegraph became broadband.
Just last month, we watched powerful booster rockets launch toward space and land safely again to lay the groundwork for the next mission of exploration.
Americans are still driven to innovate — but our progress on things like driverless cars, smart grids and next-generation aircraft is outpacing our increasingly outdated infrastructure.
Elected members of both political parties often hear from constituents that better-performing infrastructure in their communities means a better economy and quality of life — higher home values, manageable commutes, safe water, reliable power, stronger small businesses and more jobs.
A forward-looking investment in our nation’s infrastructure would take what is becoming a strong headwind and turn it into a boost for jobs and productivity long into the future.
Fortunately, the makings of a large-scale, bipartisan initiative to upgrade America’s infrastructure have been on the table since President Donald Trump took office. The president made infrastructure a signature feature of his campaign — running as a great dealmaker and builder — and Democratic leaders have long been on record that infrastructure is a top priority.
Now, with the Trump administration’s proposal in hand, both sides should commit to seeing a bipartisan solution become reality.
How Trump’s plan fares
As co-chair of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Executive Council on Infrastructure, I have worked with a dozen other private sector executives to develop insights to help policymakers modernize U.S. infrastructure.
We are increasingly convinced that a winning, bipartisan deal for the American people must include robust public funding, regulatory streamlining, targeted support for rural communities and a fundamentally new approach that ensures the most efficient use of limited public resources while opening up opportunities for private-sector investment and innovation.
Importantly, the administration’s plan addresses each of these priorities.
Finding additional revenue: First, the administration has proposed to incentivize new local revenue with the goal of increasing overall investment across the country. There will be debate over his particular approach, but we should applaud the president for confronting this need and for encouraging fresh perspectives on the many ways to pay for it, including through partnerships with the private sector.
Also significant is the administration’s commitment to addressing traditional federal responsibilities like the Highway Trust Fund.
Permitting: On permitting, both Congress and the administration already deserve credit for their efforts. Congress made headway in previous highway reauthorization bills, and the president established the “One Federal Decision” framework — and hopefully the accountability needed to bring the process down to two years without undermining environmental concerns.
Now they should work to finish these existing reforms and entrench them for future administrations.
Rural communities: The president is right to provide targeted funding for America’s rural infrastructure, which could fall even farther behind as technology advances. To level the playing field, our council has recommended helping smaller communities bundle their projects to attract private capital and place rural liaisons at federal agencies.
Modernize the way we build: Not everyone has noted the most revolutionary part of the president’s plan: its emphasis on long-term operations and maintenance as well as procurement policies.
Too few state and local governments know what assets they have or what resources those will demand. And when a new asset is built, they typically fail to address the costs of maintaining it over its life.
This makes prioritization impossible, contributes to a deferred maintenance crisis and ignores the extraordinary financial risk to taxpayers.
Any final infrastructure package will need to help these governments adopt a new forward-looking model, one that emphasizes long-term thinking and taps private sector expertise when it makes sense.An American moment
This is a watershed moment, born of necessity. With the right leadership, we can find a solution for the good of our communities, jobs and sustained growth in this country.
Trump’s proposal is a positive step. Now he must commit personally to getting this done, and Congress must step up as well. There are many voices still to be heard, but the makings of a deal are there.
Doug Peterson is president and chief executive officer of S&P Global and serves as co-chair of BPC’s Executive Council on Infrastructure.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/we-built-panama-canal-surely-can-fix-infrastructure
-
Federal Courts Pause Suits over Texas Haze Plan
Mar 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
Federal district and appeals courts have granted joint requests from EPA and environmentalists to put on hold litigation challenging the Trump administration's regional haze federal implementation plan (FIP) approving an emissions trading program in the state, pending EPA's potential reconsideration of the plan.
Environmentalists suing the agency say that EPA's Oct. 17 FIP is far weaker than a prior Obama-era regional haze proposal for the state, and that it will not cut emissions sufficiently to curb haze. The rule establishes emissions trading for sulfur dioxide within the state, and relies on interstate emissions trading to limit nitrogen oxides. Environmentalists contest both aspects of the plan as being inadequate.
But in a March 6 order in National Parks Conservation Association, et al., v. EPA, et al, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit agrees to place the case in abeyance pending the EPA's decision to grant or deny environmentalists' petition to reconsider the Texas haze plan, and any appeal of that rule in the 5th Circuit.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson orders the parties to file a joint status report “within two business days of any ruling on the administrative appeal or action taken by the Fifth Circuit,” or May 1 at the latest.
The case is one of several related to Texas' plans for complying with EPA's haze reduction program. A second case, also styled NPCA, et al. v. EPA, et al., before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, is also now in abeyance pending resolution of reconsideration proceedings following an order of that court March 6.
Another case, also before the 5th Circuit, State of Texas, et al. v. EPA, et al., is on hold pending EPA voluntary remand of a different haze plan for the state, dating from the Obama era, that Texas claims is too stringent.
Meanwhile, the D.C. Circuit recently granted EPA's request to put on hold broader litigation over Obama-era revisions to the haze program, which aims to cut air pollution to improve visibility in parks and wilderness areas. States are required to craft state implementation plans outlining how they will cut emissions to comply, but if EPA rejects those plans then it can impose its own emissions reduction plan on a state through a FIP.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/federal-courts-pause-suits-over-texas-haze-plan
-
The E.P.A. Chief Wanted a Climate Science Debate. Trump’s Chief of Staff Stopped Him.
Mar 9, 2018 |
By Lisa Friedman and Julie Hirschfeld Davis
John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, has killed an effort by the head of the Environmental Protection Agency to stage public debates challenging climate change science, according to three people familiar with the deliberations, thwarting a plan that had intrigued President Trump even as it set off alarm bells among his top advisers.
The idea of publicly critiquing climate change on the national stage has been a notable theme for Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the E.P.A. For nearly a year he has championed the notion of holding military-style exercises known as red team, blue team debates, possibly to be broadcast live, to question the validity of climate change.
Mr. Pruitt has spoken personally with Mr. Trump about the idea, and the president expressed enthusiasm for it, according to people familiar with the conversations.
But the plan encountered widespread resistance within the administration from Mr. Kelly and other top officials, who regarded it as ill-conceived and politically risky, and when Mr. Pruitt sought to announce it last fall, they weighed in to stop him. At a mid-December meeting set up by Mr. Kelly’s deputy, Rick Dearborn, to discuss the plan, Mr. Dearborn made it clear that his boss considered the idea “dead,” and not to be discussed further, according to people familiar with the meeting. All spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to describe internal White House deliberations and meetings.
During that meeting, according to two attendees and a third person briefed on the discussion, administration officials and White House aides were in agreement that Mr. Pruitt’s idea was unwise. Their main concern was that a public debate on science — particularly on an issue as politically charged as the warming of the planet — could become a damaging spectacle, creating an unnecessary distraction from the steps the administration has taken to slash environmental regulations enacted by former President Barack Obama.Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGEE.P.A. to Give Dissenters a Voice on Climate, No Matter the Consensus JUNE 30, 2017
Asked about the meeting and the administration’s internal deliberations, Raj Shah, the deputy press secretary, said: “The Trump Administration will ensure that any climate science review will be conducted through a robust, interagency process, consistent with federal law.”
The E.P.A. did not respond to requests for comment.
The episode reflects some of the challenges that Mr. Kelly faces in bringing order to a chaotic White House, where policy deliberations are sometimes circumvented when people close to Mr. Trump approach him personally to seek his approval for unorthodox moves.
Mr. Kelly is a retired four-star Marine Corps general who is said to share the pragmatic view held by military leaders including Jim Mattis, the secretary of defense, that climate change is happening and poses a serious national security challenge. Since he became chief of staff last July, Mr. Kelly has toiled to control access to Mr. Trump to try to ensure that his actions are informed by an orderly process in the West Wing — a pursuit that flies in the face of the president’s freewheeling style.
The tension between the White House and the E.P.A. over the red team, blue team idea reflects a broader rift within the administration over whether and how directly to attack climate change science itself. While the words “climate change” have been removed from many federal websites, and Mr. Trump has mocked global warming in tweets, the administration has stopped short of using the power of the federal government to attack the science.
Holding national debates on climate change could have serious policy implications.
The fundamental science, that man-made pollution is overwhelmingly responsible for warming temperatures and rising sea levels, is widely accepted among mainstream scientists. That science formed the basis of a key 2009 E.P.A. decision known as the endangerment finding, which declares that climate change is a threat to human health and welfare. That finding is the legal backbone for almost all federal climate policy and requires the government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in some manner. A government critique of climate science could lay the groundwork for challenging the endangerment finding in court.
Climate denialist groups like the Heartland Institute have urged Mr. Pruitt to challenge the finding, while industry associations have expressed little interest in doing so. Tim Doyle, vice president of policy for the conservative business organization American Council for Capital Formation, said the companies he works with have not expressed any interest in a public forum to challenge climate change science.
“We definitely haven’t heard any of our members supporting the red team, blue team concept,” he said. “There’s been, if anything, radio silence about it.”
The idea for red team, blue team climate debates originated with Steven Koonin, a physicist at New York University who was an energy undersecretary under Mr. Obama. Mr. Koonin in April wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal calling for using the military-style exercise — in which one team attacks and another defends — to test the robustness of climate change science. One week later, he paid a visit to the E.P.A. at Mr. Pruitt’s invitation to discuss the idea further.
Mr. Koonin, in an interview, said he has “no dog in this fight” — meaning that he is willing to be persuaded that climate change is an urgent threat — but that he believes there are uncertainties in the science that are worth exploring.
In talking with federal officials, Mr. Koonin said he outlined a vision for a debate including not only the E.P.A. but also the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, both of which collect data and conduct studies on Arctic ice melt, global temperature modeling and other issues. The White House science adviser should coordinate any such exercise, he said, to ensure all relevant government offices participate.
“It would need to be governmentwide, certainly multiagency, in order for it to be robust and taken seriously as a scientific endeavor,” Mr. Koonin said.
Climate scientists and others who oppose the debate idea note that the studies that make up the body of knowledge on climate change already are subject to rigorous peer review. They contend that the red team, blue team exercise would be a politically motivated way to inject doubt into findings that have already been scientifically established.
“The idea of a red team approach is used to test how well forces, or strategy, will perform against an adversary. But climate science is not our adversary,” said Sherri Goodman, a former deputy undersecretary of defense under President Bill Clinton and now a senior fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center.
Mr. Pruitt planned to announce his red team, blue team debate in early November, according to a news release that was written but never issued. According to four people who have read the draft news release, the debates were to be organized by the E.P.A.’s science advisory board and not include other agencies.
The announcement of the debates would have coincided with the release of an exhaustive scientific report from 13 United States government agencies that definitively found human activity to be responsible for almost all of the warming that has occurred in the past half-century. It would have also coincided with the start of a United Nations meeting in Germany to discuss the Paris agreement, the global climate accord from which Mr. Trump intends to withdraw the United States’ participation.
When Mr. Trump’s chief of staff learned about the news release, he demanded the debates be delayed until cabinet secretaries and top White House officials could discuss it, according to three people familiar with the discussions. That initial meeting never occurred, but on Dec. 13, the White House convened senior officials to discuss the matter.
According to two people who attended, the meeting included a presentation of the red team, blue team plan by two E.P.A. officials — Mr. Pruitt’s chief of staff and the head of the agency’s air office. Other attendees included senior officials from the Department of Energy, the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the National Economic Council.
The meeting was run by Mr. Dearborn and Michael Catanzaro, who is a member of the economic council and the president’s domestic energy and environment policy director.
The takeaway, according to people in the room, was that every office within the White House was opposed to the idea. At one point, Mr. Dearborn said the notion of red team, blue team debates was “dead” and should not be mentioned again. “The chief doesn’t want it,” Mr. Dearborn said, referring to the White House chief of staff, according to one person who attended.
E.P.A. officials were taken aback, the person said.
In the weeks since that meeting, however, Mr. Pruitt said the red team, blue team debates were still under consideration. In January, he told Congress that a report in E & E News, a news organization focusing on energy and the environment that first reported that the White House had killed the plan, was false. White House opposition to the debates was “untrue,” he said under questioning by a senator.
For the moment, even those who have championed the red team, blue team idea like Mr. Koonin are doubtful the debates will happen. “My optimism that we can get this done in a quality way is pretty low at this point,” Mr. Koonin said. “It needs to be a governmentwide exercise and there’s nobody that I know of that has picked up the ball in the White House.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/climate/pruitt-red-team-climate-debate-kelly.html
-
How a Climate Skeptic Marginalized for Years at the Interior Dept. Rose to Prominence Under Trump
Mar 12, 2018 | Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin and Dino Grandoni
Just 10 days after President Trump took office last year, an Interior Department official suggested a swift change to its website in preparation for Trump’s choice to lead the department, Ryan Zinke.
While Zinke wouldn’t be sworn in for weeks, Office of Policy Analysis senior adviser Indur Goklany emailed Doug Domenech — a Trump appointee who would become the Interior Department’s assistant secretary of insular areas — telling him they would “be doing the new Secretary a favor if … the current ‘Our Priorities’ page visible on the DOI home page were removed before he is confirmed.”
Unlike Domenech and some of the other Interior officials who were taking a fresh look at the department’s policies and messaging, Goklany wasn’t a new arrival. He had been working at the Interior Department since Ronald Reagan was president and had spent years questioning whether climate change would damage the planet as much as some of his colleagues predicted.
Goklany, who often goes by the nickname “Goks,” has written papers for several conservative think tanks as well as participated in their events and films while working at the Office of Policy Analysis for more than 30 years. Weeks after Trump’s inauguration, he found himself within the inner circle of the Interior Department’s leadership. He weighed in on climate change discussions, attended meetings with some of Zinke’s senior aides and began working in the office of the deputy secretary.
Goklany’s transition from an Interior backbencher to someone with access to key decision-makers highlights a regular bureaucratic ritual that has attracted little notice under this administration: When a new president comes to power, civil servants aligned with the administration can suddenly gain prominence. Plenty of federal employees might be seething since Trump’s arrival, but others have welcomed it and are thriving.
A batch of emails newly released under the Freedom of Information Act, coupled with interviews with current and former federal officials and academics, chart the ascent of a longtime Interior analyst who had established his conservative bona fides outside the department as he feuded with some of his colleagues within.
As Goklany began suggesting an overhaul of the Interior Department’s website, he explained to Domenech in a Jan. 27 email that he was making “revisions that would be technically and scientifically more accurate than what’s currently on it, and also provide context, which the current one doesn’t.”
Three days later, he proposed wiping out the page in question altogether.
“I actually think removing the Priorities page is better and more efficient than just modifying certain pages because climate change is not the only questionable priority on the current Priorities page,” Goklany wrote.
Interior spokeswoman Heather Swift said Friday that she had been informed by the department’s human resources office that she could not comment on Goklany’s role.
Myron Ebell, a senior fellow at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute who headed Trump’s transition team at the Environmental Protection Agency and has worked with Goklany for years in what Ebell described as his “moonlighting job as a one-man think tank,” said his longtime ally has been empowered in a way he hasn’t been since the Reagan administration.
“Obviously they kept him in a box during the Obama administration, and now they’ve let him loose,” said Ebell, who lobbied the president to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. “He’s a national treasure, in my view. He’s a very meticulous analyst of policies, and he knows how to get behind the claims and look at the data.”
Others with knowledge of the agency — including Joel Clement, who headed the Office of Policy Analysis from January 2011 until July 2017 — said in an email that he fails to understand why the new leadership at the Interior Department would rely on someone with a background in electrical engineering to help guide climate policy.
“A climate change denier is someone who rejects the multiple lines of corroborating scientific evidence that show that rapid change is real, it’s caused by human activities, and it’s extremely dangerous,” Clement said. “For an electrical engineer to suggest that climate change is good for society and is just dandy, there are lots of nonexperts with opinions; the bizarre thing is that sitting political appointees in the Department of the Interior would seek out his advice.”
Throughout his career at the department — Goklany joined the Office of Policy Analysis in 1986 — he has questioned the severity of climate change’s effects, the extent to which humans have contributed to it and the predictions of its future course. Under both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, Goklany weighed in on international climate reports in his personal and professional capacity.
Michael MacCracken, who took a leave from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to work as senior global change scientist at the interagency Office of the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002, recalled in an interview Thursday that Goklany frequently submitted comments on behalf of the Interior Department that suggested the United States could adapt to climate-change effects more easily than many scientists projected.
As officials worked on the official Climate Action Report that the Bush administration released in 2002, Goklany wrote a Nov. 13, 2001, memo in which he said that the federal government should jettison phrases the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used to describe possible climate impacts — “likely” and “very likely,” which have a numerical probability attached to them — in favor of “might,” “may” or “could.”
“We are skeptical of the methodology used to grade different levels of possibilities,” Goklany wrote.
In the end, Harlan Watson, the State Department’s special envoy to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, who had co-authored a paper with Goklany, overruled him and said the administration should preserve words such as “likely” and “very likely.”
“He was very persistent,” said MacCracken, chief scientist for climate change programs with the D.C.-based Climate Institute, adding that he and others outlined in writing their reasons for rejecting aspects of Goklany’s critiques. “I was lucky being relatively senior and a scientist in the process, so could go back at him.”
Goklany also regularly worked with conservative think tanks skeptical of climate change, publishing two books with the Cato Institute and speaking on panels held by the Heartland Institute. In 2012, Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (Ariz.), now ranking Democrat of the House Natural Resources Committee, called for a probe into whether Goklany improperly received a $1,000-per-month payment from the Heartland Institute for writing a chapter in a book on climate science.
Goklany asked to stop working on climate change at the Interior Department after Barack Obama took office. Clement, who supervised him, said he filed the FOIA request that produced the raft of emails related to Goklany’s activities “because he refused to discuss these activities with his supervisors while I was there at DOI, and his work products, a mystery to all of us in the career ranks, were likely to represent threats to scientific integrity.”
The documents chronicle how Goklany reached out to new appointees in key positions and shared work he had done that meshed with Trump and Zinke’s push for expanded fossil fuel production.
“It was a pleasure to meet you last evening,” Goklany wrote Downey Magallanes, Zinke’s deputy chief of staff, in a March 10, 2017, email, attaching two papers he had written “as an Independent Scientist” on the benefits of fossil fuels and carbon dioxide, respectively. “I hope to run into you from time to time.”
Goklany asked for permission in March 2017 from Interior’s Ethics Office to speak at the Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change. Goklany told a lawyer there that he wanted to speak only in a “personal capacity,” noting that he “worked on climate change matters for over 20 years until about 2009.”
At the conference, Heartland introduced Goklany as an “independent scientist,” without referring to his Interior Department post. He posited correlations between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and indicators of well-being, such as life expectancy and the per capita gross domestic product.
“Instead of living in the worst of times, we’re actually living in the best of times,” Goklany said, “and carbon dioxide and fossils fuels are a good part of that.”
Top officials at the Interior Department welcomed Goklany’s input. While Clement had been exploring whether to move Goklany to the department’s ethics office, the analyst sought instead to work directly with Associate Deputy Secretary James Cason on policy matters. The job discussions came as Zinke’s aides were orchestrating a department-wide reassignment of Senior Executive Service employees, such as Goklany, Clement and others from around the country. In June, they reassigned 33 of those staffers.
While the vast majority received their new postings without providing input, an email exchange in April shows that Zinke’s aides solicited Goklany’s views on where he should work. Goklany informed Domenech that Clement was seeking to detail him to an ethics assignment, noting: “The theory is an SES-er can do anything. But I’d rather not!”
Domenech consulted with the department’s principal deputy solicitor, Daniel Jorjani, and then informed Goklany that he had told a colleague “to slow-walk action moving you to Ethics.”
Instead, Cason in May approved Goklany’s transfer to work in the office of the deputy secretary, though Clement said Interior officials refused to sign the paperwork making the detail official. According to copies of Cason’s schedule obtained by the advocacy group Friends of the Earth under FOIA, Goklany attended 19 meetings with Cason between April 5, 2017, and Jan. 16, 2018. Only eight of the sessions list topics, and two of them are focused on climate change.
Even before moving under Cason, in April Goklany procured the Obama administration’s fiscal year 2013 climate budget for Cason and Domenech as the Trump team was preparing to roll out its first congressional budget request, which consolidated climate activities within the Interior Department. Later that month, Domenech sent Goklany an Obama-era National Park Service brochure on the effects of global warming throughout the parks. Goklany marked up the document with this thoughts, describing a page titled “Responding to Climate Change” as “propaganda for a favored option.”
Goklany also interpreted media coverage of climate for high-level Interior officials. He described a Los Angeles Times article about California’s brutal wildfire season as “better than most” while deriding a New York Times storyabout the impact of sea-level rise and other climate effects on Guam by arguing that “tide gauge data, however, doesn’t show any acceleration in sea level rise due to man-made global warming or whatever.”
By May, Goklany was reviewing a draft of at least one U.S. Geological Survey paper on climate change and preparing “a summary overview of climate change activities gleaned from examining web presence,” remarking on the volume of climate communication done by Obama’s Interior Department.
“I estimate that there are over 100,000 pages on the web on DOI servers (including bureaus) that refer to climate change!” he wrote to Cason.
Late last year, Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt signed a secretarial order wiping out four directives and policy manuals instructing Interior employees on how to address climate and other environmental impacts on public lands, including at least one Goklany singled out to Cason in May. The order said the documents were “inconsistent” with the administration’s energy goals.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/03/09/how-a-climate-skeptic-marginalized-for-years-at-interior-rose-to-prominence-under-trump/?utm_term=.eb973a0c6e9f
-
Environmentalists Say NSR Suit Loss Could Hinder EPA's Deregulatory Bid
Mar 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Environmentalists critical of EPA's efforts to ease Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) air permitting mandates say a potential loss in an appellate court case where the agency is defending Obama-era positions on enforcing NSR could hinder the deregulatory effort, because an adverse ruling would undermine the justification for it.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit at March 5 oral argument appeared to lean against EPA's claim that it can enforce NSR violations as “ongoing,” and such a ruling would create major limits on the agency's NSR enforcement powers. Environmentalists already expect the Trump EPA to try easing NSR enforcement, but they say a loss for the agency could make it harder to relax the NSR program.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has taken early steps to soften NSR requirements, issuing a Dec. 7 memo dropping the agency's long-running policy of not relying on industry data to determine whether a facility's projected emissions should trigger NSR, which can impose strict and potentially expensive emissions control mandates.
In the memo, Pruitt said the agency should defer to companies on determining whether a facility should trigger NSR, which critics warn will lead to more companies claiming they should not be subject to NSR permits.
Nevertheless, Pruitt said that the agency would still monitor a facility's emissions once construction is complete, and would enforce NSR if it determined that emissions should have triggered NSR. But environmentalists note that a loss for EPA in the 5th Circuit would likely prevent such an enforcement action because such a decision would hinder the agency's ability to obtain “injunctive relief” -- in NSR cases, requiring issuance of a permit.
Therefore, an adverse ruling for the agency in the 5th Circuit case could undermine key provisions of Pruitt's memo, which environmentalists say would bolster critics' efforts to reverse the memo.
One environmentalist tells Inside EPA that Pruitt's memo “depends on the pretense that EPA can . . . prosecute NSR violations whenever they are discovered, and it doesn't matter whether industry fails to report or falsely reports construction that should have undergone NSR.”
A ruling from the 5th Circuit that finds NSR violations are one-time events subject to a five-year statute of limitation also “cuts firmly against Pruitt's deregulatory enforcement memo, and will fuel calls not just to reverse the memo, but to undertake other NSR reforms that strengthen the rules by reforming or repealing features like the demand growth exclusion that allow NSR violations to go undetected and unprosecuted after five years,” the source says.
The demand growth exclusion allows power plant operators to exclude from consideration projected emissions increases that are anticipated to result from increases in electricity demand. When invoked, the exclusion makes it less likely projects will trigger NSR, which applies in areas violating federal ambient air standards.
'Some Tension'
A second environmentalist acknowledges there is “some tension” between Pruitt and EPA air chief William Wehrum's drive for NSR relief, and EPA and the Department of Justice's (DOJ) continued defense of the “ongoing violation” theory in the 5th Circuit case, USA, et al. v. Luminant Generation, LLC, et al.
In the case, the Trump administration is continuing the Obama administration's appeal of a federal district court ruling that found NSR violations are one-time events, and placed other restrictions on NSR enforcement.
EPA's continued defense of the case even under the Trump EPA and its deregulatory agenda makes sense, the second source says, because it makes the Pruitt memo's position more defensible. “I think DOJ and EPA recognize the potentially disastrous implications of the district court's ruling,” the source says.
However, the source says, “it is correct, at least in part, that a loss [in the 5th Circuit] would undermine EPA's rationale for the new policy. Under the new policy, EPA contended that while it would not 'second guess' a source's emission projection calculations, the agency said that it would continue to monitor whether a source's actual emissions increase. In other words, EPA suggests that it could still adequately protect against violations of the law when a source's emissions actually increase significantly after a modification.”
Pruitt's memo said EPA would not “second-guess” industry emissions data but added, “EPA intends to focus on the level of actual emissions during the 5- or 10-year recordkeeping or reporting period after the project for purposes of determining whether to exercise its enforcement discretion and pursue an enforcement action. That is, the EPA does not presently intend to initiate enforcement in such future situations unless post-project actual emissions data indicate that a significant emissions increase or a significant net emissions increase did in fact occur.”
Yet a loss in Luminant would show EPA's policy on “second guessing” to be flawed, the second source says. If the Texas federal district court's ruling being appealed in the case is allowed to stand, “EPA cannot obtain injunctive relief for such violations because the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) provisions purportedly do not allow for such relief. So, contrary to EPA's policy letter, the agency will not actually be able to protect against actual violations. And as a result of the policy letter, the agency won't attempt to second guess emission projections to 'prevent' a violation either.” NSR permits and closely-related PSD permits, which apply in areas attaining federal ambient air standards, are required for new or modified major pollution sources.
Injunctive Relief
Federal appeals courts have a mixed record on the NSR enforcement issue but in general have ruled against EPA, at least with respect to civil penalties. EPA remains adamant, however, that it must be able to obtain injunctive relief -- in effect, forcing industrial facilities to obtain permits and if required, install pollution controls -- after projects are built.
The second source says, “it would be detrimental to PSD enforcement if the 5th Circuit concluded that courts lack authority to order injunctive relief for 'past' violations of the law. In fact, such a rule could make PSD enforcement effectively impossible because it is extremely difficult to detect major modifications while they are occurring."
There may also be broader motives for DOJ's continued defense of the ongoing violation theory and also the continued right to injunctive relief, the source suggests. “It would be similarly detrimental if the Fifth Circuit concluded that injunctive relief claims are effectively subject to the five-year statute of limitations,” because, “a five-year statute of limitations could leave the public without a remedy when one administration decides not to enforce certain aspects of the law. Such a ruling would have implications for the enforcement of other laws as well."
The Luminant case stems from an EPA enforcement action against Texas power plants operated by utility Luminant, one of which, Big Brown, has since shut down. EPA alleges that Big Brown and another plant, Martin Lake, circumvented NSR permit review when they modified their facilities some years ago.
Luminant counters that if the plants violated NSR, they did so once when they failed to obtain permits, but that enforcement action is now time-barred. A federal district court earlier in the litigation found not only that the violations are subject to the statute of limitations, but that injunctive relief is not available post-construction.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-say-nsr-suit-loss-could-hinder-epas-deregulatory-bid
-
A Global Game Changer for Energy Efficiency Investments
Mar 9, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Victor Rojas
Three hospitals in England recently cut energy costs in half after spending the equivalent of $18 million in energy efficiency upgrades. The projects got a much-needed boost from a certification that gave investors confidence the retrofits would bring returns.
With millions of buildings in need of upgrades and the emergence of a $20-billion retrofit industry in the United States alone, there is neither a shortage of projects nor capital looking for environmental opportunities in which to invest. What has been lacking is a way to grow the market to scale.
Even with an energy efficiency market topping $1 trillion, investors have historically considered such retrofits risky. All this is changing quickly with a new and global underwriting standard mitigating the risk of such investments.Nations embrace new certification
One investor in the 2016 landmark hospital project in Liverpool, England, predicted the new model would “unlock the European retrofit market.” Since then, a number of countries on the continent have expressed interest in the Investor Confidence Project.
We believe a global market for retrofits can now be unlocked after ICP’s Investor-Ready Energy Efficiency certification, or IREE, last month joined the platform of global certifications delivered by Green Business Certification Inc.
The company administers LEED for green buildings, along with protocols for real estate portfolios and healthy buildings – and will now offer training and support for IREE.
After building momentum in the U.S., Canada and Europe for the past five years, the certification could now gain a global reach.It gives investors peace of mind
To upgrade a building takes capital investment up front. Because each building is unique and does its math differently, it’s hard to aggregate energy efficiency projects, predict their return on investment, and bring them to scale.
In many cases, the projects look too small to be of interest to investors. ICP changes this by providing standards to build confidence that a project will perform as anticipated in the form of lower electricity bills, higher energy savings and returns on investment.
The ICP tool brings rigorous protocols as well as measurement and verification metrics to energy efficiency building retrofits. It creates a replicable pipeline of projects, standardizing the way they are developed and brought to market at scale.
Its IREE certification for commercial and multifamily projects lets investors and building owners know that a particular project is “investor-ready,” making potential energy efficiency upgrades more attractive to both parties.
With the standardization ICP and IREE bring to the table, we’re on a path to scaling energy efficiency investments from a one-building-at-a-time approach to a portfolio approach. On this smarter path to boosting financial savings, while cutting energy use and pollution, we can all breathe a bit easier.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2018/03/09/global-game-changer-energy-efficiency-investments
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested