Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 4/17/18

Industry and Association News

NAFTA Pressures Grow on Hill as Talks Turn Upbeat
Apr 17, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss

With negotiations on a new North American Free Trade Agreement seemingly headed into the homestretch, lawmakers and interest groups on all sides of the political spectrum are stepping up pressure on the Trump administration for changes they want to see included in a revamped trade deal.
OIRA Working with EPA to Develop 'Best Practices' on Scientific Data
Apr 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad

White House regulatory chief Neomi Rao says her staff is working with EPA on developing a policy on the use of scientific data that underlies its rules, suggesting that the agency may take a softer approach than Administrator Scott Pruitt had signaled when he said he would require the agency to rely only on publicly available data to justify its rules.
GAO: EPA Violated Law with Pruitt's Soundproof Booth
Apr 16, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green and Timothy Cama

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) violated the law with its approval to pay for a secure soundproof booth in Administrator Scott Pruitt's personal office, a federal watchdog said on Monday.

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) TSCA inventory updated with active substance designations
Apr 17, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin

The latest update to the TSCA inventory indicates that 38,304 substances have been active in US commerce over the past ten years.
(ACC Mentioned) Simplify Quick Access to Critical Chemical Info, States, EMTs Say
Apr 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

Should water be used to put out a chemical that's on fire? What are the possible health effects of a chemical that a hospital patient has been exposed to? How should a state environmental agency deal with chemicals detected in drinking water?
EPA's TSCA Testing Methods Plan Faces Early Challenge As Groups Split
| Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad

EPA's draft strategic plan for adopting and using new, non-animal testing methods for implementing the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is facing an early challenge as environmentalists and animal welfare groups are split over how quickly the agency should implement the new methods.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) NAS Advice on IRIS Disappoints Chemical Industry
Apr 17, 2018 | Inside EPA

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) says it is disappointed with the results of a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report that largely backed reforms EPA is making to its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), saying the report did not go far enough in calling for reforms the group believes the program needs to ensure adequate assessments.
EPA IRIS Program Receives High Marks from the National Academies
Apr 16, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jennifer McPartland

Last week the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published its review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program, concluding that the program has made strong progress in implementing NAS’ earlier recommendations.
Weed Killer for Breakfast
Apr 16, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Carey Gillam

An excerpt from Carey Gillam’s recent book Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science.
Gov. Scott Vetoes Chemical Regulation Bill
Apr 16, 2018 | Bennington Banner
By Ed Damon

Gov. Phil Scott has vetoed a bill that would have provided for stricter regulation of toxic substances, legislation that was prompted by the discovery of PFOA in groundwater in the region.

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) Smaller Bites in EPA Air Chief's Second Pass at Permitting Update
Apr 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu

William Wehrum has unfinished business with the EPA's air pollution permitting program for factories and power plants that want to expand or make major upgrades to their facilities.
Shell CEO Tells Activists and Investors: Trust Me to Cut CO2
Apr 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kelly Gilblom

Chief Executive Officer Ben van Beurden has the same message for activists seeking to bind Royal Dutch Shell Plc to deep emissions cuts, and investors concerned about the merits of shifting away from oil and gas: Trust me.
BP Commits To "Zero Net Emissions Growth"
Apr 16, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum

BP said Monday it's committing to keeping its greenhouse gas emissions at or below its 2015 levels in the years ahead to help prepare for a lower-carbon future.
Florida Voters Could Add Nearshore Drilling Ban to Constitution
Apr 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Chris Marr

A ban on nearshore oil and gas drilling could be added to Florida's Constitution, if voters agree to the proposal in November.

Chemical Security News

(ACC Mentioned) Five Years After Plant Explosion Texas Town Has Changed, Laws Haven't
Apr 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq

An empty parcel of land is all that remains of a fertilizer plant that caught fire and exploded five years ago, destroying a quarter of West, Texas, injuring more than 160 people and killing 15. Twelve of those killed were first responders.

Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

Young People Sue Florida Governor to Force Action on Climate Change
Apr 16, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Savransky

A group of young people on Monday sued Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) to force him to take action on climate change.
Creating Prize Competitions to Encourage Finding Breakthroughs in Fighting Climate Change
Apr 17, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Dan Lipinski and John Faso

Climate change is affecting all Americans and urgent action is needed to address the problem and adapt to its effects.

Industry and Association News

NAFTA Pressures Grow on Hill as Talks Turn Upbeat

Apr 17, 2018 | E&E Daily

By Geof Koss

With negotiations on a new North American Free Trade Agreement seemingly headed into the homestretch, lawmakers and interest groups on all sides of the political spectrum are stepping up pressure on the Trump administration for changes they want to see included in a revamped trade deal.
While the president has struck a generally pessimistic outlook for a new NAFTA for months, the talks have taken a more upbeat tone in recent weeks.
"We believe we are fairly close to a deal," Vice President Mike Pence said this weekend at the Summit of the Americas in Peru, where he met with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto.
Trudeau in turn said the NAFTA talks had "a very positive momentum."
That's an alarming development for environmentalists and allies on Capitol Hill, who fear the updated trade pact may worsen climate change by "locking in" carbon-spewing policies.
"NAFTA 2.0 could expand the damage of Donald Trump's attacks on climate policies by giving fossil fuel corporations increased influence over environmental regulations, or by pressuring Mexico and Canada to mirror Trump's regulatory rollbacks," Frank Ackerman, the author of a report released today by the Sierra Club; Greenpeace Mexico; and the Council of Canadians, a social justice advocacy group, said in a statement.
"Even if we are freed from Trump's climate denialism in a few years, such NAFTA 2.0 proposals could prolong Trump's polluting legacy for decades," they said.
That report details "obstacles to climate progress" in the current NAFTA, while raising concerns about changes floated by the administration.
Among the top concerns with the nearly 25-year-old pact is the "proportionality" clause, which generally prevents Canada from reducing energy exports to the United States without a corresponding reduction in domestic access to the same products.
"If Canada tries to meet its climate goals but remains bound by this NAFTA rule, the country will produce nearly 1,500 metric megatons more climate pollution by 2050 than if it ditched the rule," states the report.
The groups also take issue with NAFTA's treatment of natural gas exports from the United States to Mexico, which are considered to automatically qualify as meeting the "public interest" test as enumerated under U.S. law, as well as the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which allows multinational firms to challenge domestic policies that they argue are discriminatory.
Maintaining ISDS in NAFTA "could delay or weaken the reestablishment of U.S. climate policies after the Trump administration leaves," states the report.
Of the current NAFTA talks, the groups express alarm that a revised NAFTA will enshrine Mexico's recent market reforms for its oil and gas industry, which they note has encouraged more development of fossil fuels.
A rumored "standstill" rule "that requires the current oil and gas deregulation to persist indefinitely" could hamper future efforts by the Mexican government to limit greenhouse gas pollution, the report notes.
A future NAFTA should instead "require each country to enforce robust climate, labor and human rights protections, in line with the Paris accord and other international agreements," while eliminating both ISDS and the proportionality rule.
Eliminating ISDS and strengthening environmental protections are also among the ideas floatedearlier this month by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
On a conference call with reporters, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said liberals will fight for progressive ideals in a new trade deal, noting that the Trump administration has said it wants to garner bipartisan support for a revamped NAFTA.
"Any renegotiation of NAFTA must eliminate the incentives for outsourcing jobs, raise wages and level the playing field for American workers," DeLauro said, while noting that past opposition from a coalition that sank the Obama administration's plans for a vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Ironically, liberals and the new administration may have found common ground on ISDS, which top Trump officials remain skeptical of (E&E Daily, March 22).Efforts to bolster 'competitiveness'
Meanwhile, congressional Republicans and like-minded think tanks are pressing the Trump administration to use the NAFTA talks to push policies that enhance American "competitiveness," including streamlining the permitting process for infrastructure and manufacturing facilities and further reducing regulations.
"We need to seize the opportunity to improve American economic competitiveness — including the competitiveness of the U.S. workforce — in a bold and ambitious way," wrote Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) to Trump last month.
"Rather than focusing on making it more difficult for companies to invest in other countries," he said, "we should instead make it easier for them to grow and invest here in the United States."
The inclusion of a "competitiveness" chapter in a revamped NAFTA could include provisions that would address permitting and regulatory reform, including the "Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act" or the "Regulatory Accountability Act" — both sweeping regulatory overhauls that have long been a top priority of industry.
Including such bills in a NAFTA rewrite has the added advantage of allowing the measures to bypass a Senate filibuster under the Trade Promotion Authority Act, which allows implementing legislation to pass by a simple majority.
"No alternative this year has so much promise to lock into law most elements of your economic development plan and timely realization of the economic benefits it will bring," wrote the senators.
A competitiveness chapter in the next NAFTA was roundly endorsed earlier this month by conservative groups, which were especially enthused about the mention of the "REINS Act," which would require new executive branch regulations with an annual economic impact of $100 million or more to be approved by Congress before taking effect.
Trump, noted the signatories, promised in 2015 to "work hard" to get the "REINS Act," S. 21, signed if elected president.
"The REINS Act is still vitally needed because if the regulatory process is not fixed, your highly successful pro-growth deregulatory efforts could prove ephemeral, reversed by the next Democratic administration that could put all the job-crushing Obama regulations back in place — and worse," wrote more than two dozen groups, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Club for Growth and American Energy Alliance.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/04/17/stories/1060079235

Return to headline | Return to top
OIRA Working with EPA to Develop 'Best Practices' on Scientific Data

Apr 16, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Maria Hegstad

White House regulatory chief Neomi Rao says her staff is working with EPA on developing a policy on the use of scientific data that underlies its rules, suggesting that the agency may take a softer approach than Administrator Scott Pruitt had signaled when he said he would require the agency to rely only on publicly available data to justify its rules.
During an April 12 hearing before the Senate subcommittee on regulatory affairs and federal management, Rao said under questioning from Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) that EPA was seeking to find a “balance” between using the “best available” data and publicly available data.
Hassan pressed Rao on whether federal agencies should use the best available science to make decisions regardless of whether that information is available to the public as Pruitt has suggested.
“Questions on information quality are very important to us. That is something my staff has been working with EPA on to develop best practices in that area,” Rao said after Hassan asked whether the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has provided any input to Pruitt on his proposal.
Hassan asked Rao whether Pruitt's policy as described makes sense. “We want to make sure we have the best available evidence,” Rao replied. “It's also important for the public to have notice and information about the types of studies that are being used . . . by agencies for decisionmaking. There is a balance to be struck there, and I think that is something that the EPA is working towards.”
Rao's characterization of the issue appears to offer an eased approach to the data transparency policy that Pruitt floated last month, when he said he planned to require the agency to justify its regulations based on scientific data that is publicly available on the internet.
“We need to make sure their data and methodology are published as part of the record,” Pruitt said. “Otherwise, it’s not transparent. It’s not objectively measured, and that’s important.”
He said the policy will mirror legislation offered by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House science committee. It directs the agency to use the “best available science” in all its actions, but bars the agency from using any studies that cannot be released publicly online “in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results.”
But the planned approach drew widespread criticisms, with many environmentalists and Democrats warning it would undermine development of many regulations.
Many observers also charged that such a policy would face legal and implementation controversies, including potential violations of medical privacy protections, trade secret information and other data that form the basis for air quality standards, pesticide and chemical approvals and other rules.
One knowledgeable source said late last month that an early version of the policy had been drafted several weeks earlier, though the first draft was “pretty sketchy. The first cut was fully [Smith's bill], but there were a lot of questions about what it would mean,” and how it would be implemented.
Maintain Procedures
Since Pruitt's public discussion of the issue, EPA has yet to publicly release any version of the policy.
But Rao indicated that her staff was working with the issue as the agency sought to find a “balance” between using the “best” data and data that is publicly available.
And in response to Hassan, Rao said she would not support agencies changing their procedures in ways that prevent them from using the best available evidence when making these decisions.
“I'm very glad to hear that,” Hassan replied. “One of the reasons I am very concerned about the EPA proposal, it seems like common sense to use the best evidence to make decisions. But what we are looking at is the agency really describing a move away from the scientific process. There isn't perfect data or perfect science. Scientific evaluation and data and analysis is an ongoing process.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/oira-working-epa-develop-best-practices-scientific-data

Return to headline | Return to top
GAO: EPA Violated Law with Pruitt's Soundproof Booth

Apr 16, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Miranda Green and Timothy Cama

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) violated the law with its approval to pay for a secure soundproof booth in Administrator Scott Pruitt's personal office, a federal watchdog said on Monday.
A report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that Pruitt's $43,000 "privacy booth" was in violation of Congress's governmentwide spending law passed last year, which caps office redecorations and refurnishings at $5,000 without prior notice to lawmakers.
In a letter sent to four Democratic lawmakers who requested the GAO investigation, the watchdog said that because the EPA approved the booth's construction without congressional approval, the agency was also in violation of the Antideficiency Act, which stipulates that an agency can't use money that is not appropriated to it.
The GAO, in its report, noted the EPA's breakdown of the costs for the booth. Those costs included $24,570 for purchase, delivery and assembly, nearly $3,500 for concrete floor leveling, almost $3,400 for the construction of a drop ceiling, $3,350 for wall painting, and more than $500 for removal of cable wiring. Roughly $8,000 was spent on the removal of closed circuit television equipment already installed in Pruitt's office.
The EPA argued to the GAO during the investigation that the installation of the booth was not a redecoration and therefore not subject to the $5,000 cap. The agency told the GAO that the booth "not only enables the Administrator to make and receive phone calls to discuss sensitive information, but it also enables him to use this area to make and receive classified telephone calls (up to the top secret level) for the purpose of conducting agency business," according to the GAO's report.
Nevertheless, the watchdog found that the EPA violated this statutory requirement and directed the EPA to report its violation to Congress and the president "as required by law."
The EPA’s top GOP overseer in the Senate demanded that the EPA explain its actions publicly.
“It is critical that EPA and all federal agencies comply with notification requirements to Congress before spending taxpayer dollars,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
“EPA must give a full public accounting of this expenditure and explain why the agency thinks it was complying with the law,” he said.
Democratic lawmakers who requested the report were quick to respond to the findings.
"Scott Pruitt likes to talk about returning the EPA to the rule of law, but it turns out he's better at breaking it than following it," Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies, said in a statement Monday.
"This is just one more example of how Scott Pruitt is blatantly breaking laws and ethics rules that protect taxpayers from government waste, fraud and abuse in order to help himself to perks and special favors — and taking deliberate steps to hide everything from Congress and taxpayers," he said.
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), who serves in Udall's equivalent role in the House, called Pruitt's approval and request of the privacy booth an "abuse of power."
"There are few greater examples of government waste than a $43,000 phone booth. Now we know that the purchase wasn't just unnecessary and wasteful, but actually illegal. Worse still, this is part of a pattern of abuse of power, ethics violations, and disrespect for the rule of law by Administrator Pruitt," McCollum said in a statement.
"The American people deserve so much better than the culture of corruption, cronyism, and incompetence that is pervasive at Administrator Pruitt's EPA," she said.
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) said that Congress now needs to know "how many other laws Pruitt has broken."
“Now that we know that Scott Pruitt’s secrecy extended to the point of breaking the law, the next question Congress needs answered is how many other laws Pruitt has broken,” Beyer said.
“We are only just beginning to learn about what Scott Pruitt has really been up to during his corrupt reign at the EPA. Congress must initiate further oversight to get answers for the public, and hold those responsible for wrongdoing accountable.”
EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman said thet GAO's report acknowledged the "need" for Pruitt's access to a secure telephone line.
"The GAO letter ‘recognized the … need for employees to have access to a secure telephone line’ when handling sensitive information," Bowman said in a statement Monday.
"EPA is addressing GAO’s concern, with regard to Congressional notification about this expense, and will be sending Congress the necessary information this week," she said.
The GAO's investigation did not determine whether Pruitt needed the construction of the soundproof booth for privacy. "We draw no conclusions regarding whether the installation of the privacy booth was the only, or the best, way for EPA to provide a secure telephone line for the Administrator," it said.
The letter additionally stated: "However, we recognize the requirement to protect classified material and the need for employees to have access to a secure telephone line when handling such information in the course of conducting official agency business."
The Washington Post first reported in September that the EPA purchased a privacy booth for Pruitt for nearly $25,000. Months later, reports found that the cost of construction and installation nearly doubled the costs associated with the booth.
Pruitt and EPA spokespeople have routinely defended the in-office booth as crucial to the administrator's work.
In December, Pruitt told the House Energy and Commerce Committee that the privacy booth was similar to a sensitive compartmented information facility, telling lawmakers, “It’s necessary for me to be able to do my job."
In March, EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox told The Hill that the expense was “old news.”
“In September of 2017 we thoroughly discussed why this secure communications line was needed for the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,” Wilcox said.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/383351-watchdog-epa-violated-law-with-administrators-soundproof-booth

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) TSCA inventory updated with active substance designations

Apr 17, 2018 | Chemical Watch

By Kelly Franklin

The latest update to the TSCA inventory indicates that 38,304 substances have been active in US commerce over the past ten years.
The US EPA has included, for the first time, an 'active' designation in its twice yearly release of the inventory. This reflects, among others, the some 85,000 retrospective reports submitted to the agency during the first phase of the TSCA inventory notification period.
Under this 'inventory reset' rule, manufacturers and importers were required to report all substances active in the ten year ‘lookback period’ ending 21 June 2016.
Stipulated under the new TSCA, this process is intended to assist the EPA in determining what substances to prioritise for risk evaluation, and to confirm the status of existing confidentiality claims.
But many manufacturers reported difficulties submitting their notices before the February deadline.
The American Chemistry Council and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates welcomed publication of the draft inventory. The April publishing, ACC told Chemical Watch, will "enable the regulated community more time to review the draft inventory for duplications or other errors that should be corrected" before the list is finalised.Inventory by the numbers
The latest inventory includes a total of 86,071 substances. Of these, more than 18,000 have their identities withheld as confidential.
The 12 April inventory designates as active those substances:notified under the 2012 and 2016 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule;for which the agency received notices of commencement (NOCs) since 21 June 2006; andreported via notices of activity (NOAs) before the 7 February inventory reset reporting deadline.
Substances listed as such include 30,972 on the public inventory and 7,332 on the confidential inventory.
Robert Helminiak, legal & government relations vice president at Socma, said this "reflects the broad understanding amongst industry that there are far fewer substances active in US commerce than the 85,000 chemical substances that were on the inventory prior to the reset."
There are nearly 48,000 that have not yet been reported as active. This includes more than 10,000 confidential substances – the identities of which would be moved to the public part of the inventory if no claim is made to maintain their protection.Processor reporting
Processors may elect to report any substances that did not get notified by upstream suppliers up until 5 October.
Downstream users may choose to forego reporting. But upon formal designation of substances, they must cease processing any inactive substance for nonexempt purposes until the EPA is notified.
Mr Helminiak advised processors to "continue communicating with suppliers to identify the raw materials in any purchased formulations and request assurances regarding whether the chemical components in such products have been activated or are exempt."
And the ACC said it will be launching a website in the coming weeks to assist processors – who are likely less familiar with EPA reporting requirements and using the online submission portal, Central Data Exchange (CDX).
The agency says it will issue a final inventory within two months of the close of downstream-user reporting.
There will be a 90-day transition period to allow companies to submit notice of any oversight, without having to stop using the substance in the interim.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66013/tsca-inventory-updated-with-active-substance-designations

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Simplify Quick Access to Critical Chemical Info, States, EMTs Say

Apr 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

Should water be used to put out a chemical that's on fire? What are the possible health effects of a chemical that a hospital patient has been exposed to? How should a state environmental agency deal with chemicals detected in drinking water?
These are among the ways that states, first responders, and health professionals envision using proprietary chemical information that manufacturers provide the EPA.
The Environmental Protection Agency issued three draft guidance documents in March that would allow state, tribal, and local governments, along with first responders—under certain conditions—to access confidential chemical information.
Some say, however, that the guidance doesn't go far enough to detail how first responders or healthcare staff would quickly access the information during an emergency, for example.
The International Association of Fire Fighters’ Racquel Segall said the EPA's guidance needs to describe more clearly how first responders can share information among incident response teams as they protect communities.
State representatives say the EPA draft documents are “a pretty good start,” Ken Zarker, a pollution prevention manager in Washington state's Department of Ecology, told Bloomberg Environment. With some changes they could help these governments better address emerging contaminants and other chemical issues they have questions about, he said.
The American Chemistry Council represents chemical manufacturers that would have their information shared. It generally supports EPA's guidance on expanding access to confidential chemical information.
“But we do have some suggestions and ideas that will strengthen the proposed guidance,” it said in a statement. The council will elaborate in its comments by the agency's April 16 deadline.
First-Ever Access
The Toxic Substances Control Act allows chemical manufacturers to ask the agency to keep a variety of information—such as chemical identity and the company's production of a specific chemical—confidential. Companies must first prove to the agency that the information's confidential status is justified.
The three draft guidance documents EPA issued address situations that would warrant the first-ever access that states, tribes, local governments, emergency responders, and health providers could have to confidential business information (CBI) chemical manufacturers give the agency to comply with the TSCA. The documents address both emergency and non-emergency situations.
Any group or medical professional wanting to access the proprietary data would have to guarantee the information would remain confidential.
But Zarker said the EPA could improve its guidance by removing some obstacles it may have unintentionally included. For example, the agency's guidance would require state officials to sign non-disclosure agreements, he said.
“We have specialized rules to protect confidential business information. Most states do. But, I would not typically sign a non-disclosure agreement,” Zarker said.
“EPA has to find a different way to accomplish the same goal,” he added.
Emergency Responders
The EPA's guidance needs many clarifications for emergency responders to know how they could share information they might see, Segall said.
For example, she said, the guidance requires the organization to guarantee that, “The information will not be disclosed to any person not entitled to receive it.”
It's not clear who in an incident response team could share the information, and what would constitute a violation, Segall said.
Nor is it clear what information emergency responders could include in post-incident reports they write up, she said. That documentation is needed if the chemical causes health problems years later, she said.
Coordinated Approach Needed
A broader issue that's critically important to emergency responders is to ease their access not only to confidential information, but to the variety of chemical data the agency has from diverse regulations and laws, Segall said.
Congress and the EPA have numerous requirements intended to help emergency responders prepare for incidents, but these aren't coordinated, she said.
The types of laws and other efforts Segall referred to include the 1986 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, to establish local emergency planning committees; the 1990 Clean Air Act, which required facilities using extremely hazardous substances to develop Risk Management Plans; acute exposure guideline levels (AEGLs) that emergency responders use when dealing with chemical spills or other catastrophic exposures; and now the TSCA provision that allows access to confidential information.
The EPA has inconsistently enforced compliance with some of these efforts, such as the local emergency planning committees and risk management plans, Segall said.
First responders also would like to have a centralized database that provides the spectrum of chemical information the EPA collects that could help them plan for or deal with emergencies, Segall said.
“For our members, time is of the essence,” she said.
One-Stop Shop Sought
“It's not like, when we get a call, we can search for information. We get the call and go,” Segall said. “There needs to be a ‘one-stop shop.’”
The EPA said it will carefully consider the input.
“Tools to make electronic requests for CBI are being considered for development, as are tools to make such information available electronically,” the agency said by email.

“As the program is implemented further, EPA will gain a better understanding of requestor needs,” it said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=132183089&vname=dennotallissues&fn=132183089&jd=132183089

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA's TSCA Testing Methods Plan Faces Early Challenge As Groups Split

| Inside EPA

By Maria Hegstad

EPA's draft strategic plan for adopting and using new, non-animal testing methods for implementing the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is facing an early challenge as environmentalists and animal welfare groups are split over how quickly the agency should implement the new methods.
At an April 10 public meeting in Washington, D.C. on the agency's draft strategic plan, Joseph Manuppello with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) urged EPA toxics officials to quickly implement the plan and adopt non-animal test approaches, as required by TSCA, citing a review he conducted through mid-February that shows a tenfold increase in EPA's use of test orders that require animal testing since passage of the new law in 2016.
But environmentalists urged caution in adopting new methods before they were fully developed, arguing that EPA should continue using animal tests to protect human health because some non-animal methods may underestimate risks.
The “long-term goal of the agency should not be to primarily protect animal lives by eliminating animal testing but to protect the human lives that depend on the EPA to keep themselves and their families safe,” said Kristi Pullen Fedinick, director of science and data at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
The revised TSCA law, enacted in June 2016, set a June 22 deadline for EPA to publish a final strategic plan for how the agency will advance chemical test methods that reduce or avoid the use of animals through a wide variety of approaches, known as New Approach Methodologies (NAMs).
EPA released its draft plan in early March for public comments, which it is accepting through April 26.
New language Congress added to TSCA in section 4(h) requires EPA to “reduce and replace, to the extent practicable, scientifically justified, and consistent with the policies of this title, the use of vertebrate animals in the testing of chemical substances or mixtures . . .”
Later, in section 4(h)(2), the statute requires that EPA by June 2018 “develop a strategic plan to promote the development and implementation of alternative test methods and strategies to reduce, refine or replace vertebrate animal testing and provide information of equivalent or better scientific quality and relevance for assessing risks of injury to health or the environment of chemical substances or mixtures . . .”
But Manuppello argues that EPA has increased, not decreased, animal testing after the TSCA reform law took effect. He said his review of EPA's consent orders requesting or requiring animal testing for applications to produce new chemicals shows a “roughly tenfold increase” since former President Barack Obama signed the law in 2016.
In 2015, for example, he found that EPA issued 59 consent orders in which 21 animal tests were required or requested, which would have used approximately 8,881 animals.
But, he said, in 2017, the agency issued 290 consent orders in which 331 animal tests were required or requested, which would use approximately 76,523 animals.
Manuppello concluded that “implementing the amended TSCA, which includes the historic goal of reducing and replacing animal [testing] use, has resulted in a roughly tenfold increase in animal use. . . . The immediate goal of the strategic plan must be to lower these numbers below pre- [reformed TSCA] implementation levels.”
Failure To Comply
Manuppello suggests one reason for the increase in EPA's requests for animal testing is because of “the agency's apparent failure to comply with TSCA section 4(a)(3), Statement of Need. This section states that when requiring the development of new information, the agency must explain the basis for any decision that requires the use of vertebrate animals. In the consent orders that I've reviewed, I've found nothing that qualifies as this statement of need.”
Further, Manuppello argues that “it seems unlikely that EPA has even adequately considered whether its information requirements could be fulfilled by NAMs, as it claims.” Manuppello says that since TSCA reform, the agency has requested companies perform some 20 local lymph node assays for skin sensitization on various chemicals. Manuppello points to the draft strategic plan, which includes a list of NAM assays that EPA will accept, which he says includes more than one NAM approach to replace the lymph node assay.
“Did the Agency even consider this defined approach in each of these 20 cases?” Manuppello asked EPA officials. As another example, Manuppello notes the draft plan “lists eye and skin irritation as having existing OECD guidelines for NAMs which meet its needs. Nevertheless [EPA] requested an acute eye irritation test, the infamous Draize test, in which irritating or corrosive substances are applied directly to rabbits' eyes.”
Nancy Beck, the top appointee in EPA's toxics office, noted PETA's analysis in her opening remarks, calling it “a pretty robust analysis that we did not have time to do ourselves in house, but we expect this analysis will be very helpful to us as we move forward.”
Manuppello did not address the content of EPA's draft plan in his remarks, indicating that he will do so in later written comments.
But several environmentalists questioned whether all of the NAMs on EPA's list are sufficiently validated and credible to be ready for use, and whether EPA is moving too quickly away from traditional animal testing in some cases.
NRDC's Pullen Fedinick, for example, said that NRDC “supports the careful and rational development of alternative test methods that can be used to accurately assess toxicity and/or exposure that will be deployed with the primary purpose and outcome of protecting public health. However, our support is tempered by significant concern that the process of deploying new technologies will progress at a pace that exceeds our abilities to provide equivalent or better scientific information for purposes of assessing chemicals."
While she thanked EPA for the “modest” extension of the time line of its draft plan from an initial version discussed with stakeholders at a public meeting last fall, she added that “the process currently defined by the agency in the draft plan still represents an overly aggressive pace for integrating [NAMs].”
“The over zealous deployment of tests that may underestimate or completely miss toxicity or exposure to produce a high false negative rate, for example, will result in risk evaluations and determinations that are not consistent with the requirements of the revised TSCA, particularly with regard to vulnerable populations including children, pregnant women and workers,” she said.
Non-Vertebrate Methods
Pullen Fedinick's concerns were echoed by Jennifer McPartland, a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund. Though she acknowledged that the task set before EPA is not easy, she outlined several concerns with the draft plan that she urged EPA to address before finalizing it.
For example, she said EPA is inconsistent in its definitions of NAMs, sometimes equating it to non-vertebrate test methods and other times as non-animal methods. But she said the law's provisions apply to non-vertebrate methods and “EPA should continuously use this as its reference point so as to allow testing involving non-vertebrate animals.”
“EPA indicates it interprets the term equivalent in the statutory language NAMs must meet the current standards of test methods mostly in vivo . . . this is entirely circular. The benchmark for a NAM cannot be a NAM. The statute is clear that the benchmark must be vertebrate testing,” McPartland said at the meeting.
McPartland also questioned whether NAMs will sufficiently address susceptible subpopulations that EPA is specifically directed to protect in the reformed TSCA, stating that EPA's “draft plan does not sufficiently address how potential risks to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations will be incorporated in the development and use of NAMs.”
But another speaker, Martin Phillips of ScitoVation, argued in his comments that NAMs could be better indicators of potential risks to susceptible subpopulations. Phillips noted that many animal toxicology studies rely on the use of in-bred and very specific strains of lab animals, which do not represent the diversity of the human population.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epas-tsca-testing-methods-plan-faces-early-challenge-groups-split

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) NAS Advice on IRIS Disappoints Chemical Industry

Apr 17, 2018 | Inside EPA

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) says it is disappointed with the results of a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report that largely backed reforms EPA is making to its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), saying the report did not go far enough in calling for reforms the group believes the program needs to ensure adequate assessments.
In an April 13 statement, ACC, the leading chemical sector trade association, charged that EPA provided the NAS panel with only limited information about its activities to reform the program.
“ACC had little expectation the committee would be able to properly evaluate the progress the agency has made to address past NAS recommendations,” the statement says.
“NAS was tasked with reviewing proposed IRIS changes based on what EPA presented in a 1.5-day workshop. Unfortunately, EPA staff elected to provide only PowerPoint presentations that offered few details on the specific practices being used and did not include the review of any actual examples of completed assessments reflecting all the changes IRIS has made,” it adds.
ACC's statement responds to a NAS's panel's April 11 report that praised EPA's efforts to improve its influential but controversial risk analysis program, and even backed supporters' efforts to keep Republicans from consolidating the program with EPA's toxics office, underscoring steps Congress took in EPA's recent budget bill.
“Overall, the committee was impressed with the changes being instituted in the IRIS program since” NAS' last IRIS review, published in 2014, the report said.
“The committee views the transformation of the IRIS program as a work in progress, recognizes that this review assesses one moment in time in a still-evolving program, and acknowledges that the IRIS program will (and should) continue to evolve as it adapts and applies new scientific approaches and knowledge,” NAS' April 11 report states.
The findings mark a significant change for the program in the Trump administration as IRIS has faced years of critical reviews from NAS and others, and more recently, calls from industry representatives and GOP lawmakers to scale back the program.
While the NAS committee called for continued improvements in the program, ACC says the panel still fell short and pledges to continue to work with the administration and Congress to ensure additional reforms.
“While the report commends IRIS staff on the progress to implement systematic review as presented in its PowerPoint slides, the fact remains the agency has yet to produce any meaningful products (e.g., a finalized IRIS handbook, a draft IRIS assessment that reflects the new systematic review approach) based on the changes it says it has made. The absence of these critical pieces of information, after years of opportunity by EPA to address the 2011 and 2014 NAS recommendations, clearly indicates that much work still remains before IRIS assessments meet the benchmark of a gold standard review expected by the scientific community.”
“We look forward to working with Congress and EPA to improve the IRIS program so that it will one day be able to produce high-quality, scientifically sound chemical assessments,” ACC added.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/nas-advice-iris-disappoints-chemical-industry

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA IRIS Program Receives High Marks from the National Academies

Apr 16, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Jennifer McPartland

Last week the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published its review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program, concluding that the program has made strong progress in implementing NAS’ earlier recommendations. As noted by the chair of the NAS committee that led the review, “The changes in the IRIS program over such a short period of time are impressive.”
As I’ve blogged about before, IRIS is a non-regulatory program that provides critical chemical reviews and scientific expertise that help ensure the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the land where we live, work, and play are safe. Offices across EPA and elsewhere in the federal government rely on IRIS, as do states, local governments, and affected communities (see here and here).
The new NAS report comes four years after its 2014 review, which noted the substantial progress made by IRIS in addressing recommendations from a more critical 2011 review of a draft IRIS assessment of formaldehyde. It is worth noting that half of the committee members involved in the new IRIS review served on the committee that authored the 2011 review.
The new NAS report arrives just a few weeks after Congress passed its FY2018 spending bill that specifies IRIS is to remain fully funded and within EPA’s Office of Research and Development—a welcome decision by Congress given earlier concerning proposals to slash or eliminate IRIS altogether.
The committee’s review was informed by a two-day workshop that included several agency presentations, public comment, and a poster session. The committee also reviewed several recent IRIS work products. Materials from the meeting and the IRIS work products can be found here.
The NAS committee:
Did not recommend any major overhaul of the IRIS program or its approach to systematic review, noting that the program has made “substantial progress in incorporating systematic review methods into its process and assessments…facilitated by recruitment of the current IRIS program director, who has extensive experience in the development of the methods and their application to chemical risk assessment;”
found that IRIS has implemented, or is in the process of implementing, the majority of the recommendations made in the 2014 NAS report;
characterized their recommendations as “refinements,” which largely centered on clarifying terms and providing additional detail to certain processes used in the development of IRIS chemicals assessments;
recommended that EPA prioritize the completion of its guidance handbook for IRIS assessments, which is anticipated to be released in 2018. However, noted that, “In the absence of a final version of the handbook, EPA is describing its approach to for the reviews in its protocol documents, and this practice provides transparency into the assessment while the handbook is being completed;”
noted that IRIS’s placement within the science arm of the agency, specifically independent from the regulatory programs, aligns with best practices of systematic review; and
highlighted that the enthusiasm from IRIS leadership and other EPA staff toward the program is apparent and impressive.
The summary of the report concludes:
“Overall, the committee was impressed with the changes being instituted in the IRIS program since the 2014 report….The change in NCEA and IRIS leadership has led to substantive reforms, and there is strong evidence that systematic review methods are being developed and implemented and that there is a commitment to use systematic-review methods to conduct IRIS assessments. Although the committee offers some refinements and identifies a few possibilities for further development in Chapter 2, its overall conclusion is that EPA has been responsive and has made substantial progress in implementing National Academies recommendations.”
The achievements of the IRIS program over the past several years are commendable. EPA should be proud of the high marks IRIS has received from the National Academies, including for its commitment to continuous improvement and scientific leadership.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/04/16/epa-iris-program-receives-high-marks-from-the-national-academies/#more-7679

Return to headline | Return to top
Weed Killer for Breakfast

Apr 16, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families

By Carey Gillam

An excerpt from Carey Gillam’s recent book Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science
For many people, a toasted bagel topped with honey might sound like a healthy breakfast choice. Others might prefer a bowl of oatmeal, cornflakes, or a hot plate of scrambled eggs. Few would likely welcome a dose of weed killer that has been linked to cancer in their morning meal. Yet that is exactly what private laboratory tests in the United States started showing with alarming frequency in 2014: residues of the world’s most widely used herbicide were making their way into American meals.
Testing since then, by both private and public researchers, has shown glyphosate residues not only in bagels, honey, and oatmeal but also in a wide array of products that commonly line grocery store shelves, including flour, eggs, cookies, cereal and cereal bars, soy sauce, beer, and infant formula. Indeed, glyphosate residues are so pervasive that they’ve been found in human urine. Livestock are also consuming these residues in grains used to make their feed, including corn, soy, alfalfa, and wheat. Glyphosate residues have been detected in bread samples in the United Kingdom for years,1 as well as in shipments of wheat leaving the United States for overseas markets.2 “Americans are consuming glyphosate in common foods on a daily basis,” the Alliance for Natural Health said in its April 2016 report, which revealed glyphosate residues detected in eggs and coffee creamer, bagels and oatmeal.3
In January 2015, an advocacy group called GMO Free USA said tests it ordered showed that Kellogg’s Froot Loops cereal contained trace amounts of glyphosate. The group blamed Kellogg Company for “feeding children unlabeled GMOs and toxic herbicides” and called for a boycott of Kellogg.4 The group also said testing showed glyphosate in PepsiCo, Inc.’s Frito-Lay SunChips snacks. The food manufacturers responded by echoing Monsanto Company’s assurances, saying that pesticide residues in food are common and that any glyphosate residues are not at unsafe levels.
Researchers from Abraxis, LLC, a Pennsylvania-based scientific diagnostics company, worked with Boston University on their own testing and reported in 2014 that they found glyphosate residues in 41 of 69 honey samples and in 10 of 28 samples of soy sauce purchased from U.S. grocery store shelves.5
One lab, Microbe Inotech Laboratories, was used by several concerned companies and groups for early rounds of glyphosate testing, in part because it was founded by a former Monsanto microbiologist, Bruce Hemming, who had a stellar reputation. Microbe Inotech was small, but it had received government grants to conduct food microbiological research. Moreover, Hemming was a career scientist and entrepreneur as well as a former church missionary with twenty-eight grandchildren, and he had a deep passion for using his scientific skills to help people. Hemming started his lab in 1991, offering microbial and biochemical analyses to a range of companies that wanted tests run on their consumer and industrial products. He was surprised when the interest in glyphosate testing emerged in 2014 and was soon very surprised by the results found in his laboratory, which he operates a mere four miles from Monsanto’s massive corporate headquarters in a St. Louis suburb. Hemming knew from his work at Monsanto that glyphosate was not supposed to accumulate in the human body, but his lab detected glyphosate in breast milk samples and a range of other substances submitted for analysis. The shock quickly wore off as Hemming’s lab became one of only a few in the United States juggling an influx of testing requests from food companies, public and private researchers, and consumer organizations, all trying to determine how much, if any, glyphosate was present in food, water, and bodily fluids.6 Hemming’s reputation and that of his lab came under sharp criticism, however, by Monsanto and others who said the methodology and results were seriously flawed. Hemming’s lab was using a method known as an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), which the lab said was validated. But critics claimed ELISA was too likely to produce false results to be considered definitive proof of anything.
Rising demand for more and better testing prompted one coalition of scientists and activists, working through what they call the Detox Project, to start offering testing in early 2016 through a laboratory at the University of California, San Francisco, that is registered with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The program was designed for individuals curious to learn if glyphosate is present in their bodies through urine testing, but it quickly expanded to include food product testing, using the more precise and well-regarded method known as liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS).
The Detox Project warns would-be testers that they may not like what they find. The group says this on its website:
Glyphosate is present at all levels of the food chain: in water, plants, animals, and even in humans. Every single study that has measured human contamination with glyphosate has found it. . . .
Despite claims that glyphosate has been widely studied by regulatory agencies and industry, little is known about the health effects of glyphosate-based herbicides at levels found in food or water.
In North Dakota, an agronomist at the state university, Joel Ransom, became so curious about glyphosate residue that in 2014 he ran his own tests on flour samples from the region. North Dakota grows much of America’s hard red spring wheat, a type that is considered the aristocrat of wheat and carries the highest protein content of all classes of American wheat. It is used to make some of the world’s finest yeast breads, hard rolls, and bagels. But growing the wheat and bringing a healthy crop to harvest is not always easy in a state known for cold and damp conditions. To make harvesting the crop easier, many North Dakota farmers spray their wheat crops directly with glyphosate to help dry the plants a week or so before they roll out their combines. The practice is also common in Saskatchewan, across the border in Canada. So when Ransom ran his tests on flour samples from the area, including flour from Canada, he expected to find some samples with glyphosate. He certainly did not expect all of them to have glyphosate residues. But they did. Ransom reported his findings to the Wheat Quality Council in February 2015, telling the group he was surprised by the results because it was generally believed by agricultural experts that if farmers used glyphosate as instructed, the pesticide’s residues should not persist in the grain, let alone in the flour made from it.
https://saferchemicals.org/2018/04/16/weed-killer-for-breakfast/

Return to headline | Return to top
Gov. Scott Vetoes Chemical Regulation Bill

Apr 16, 2018 | Bennington Banner

By Ed Damon

Gov. Phil Scott has vetoed a bill that would have provided for stricter regulation of toxic substances, legislation that was prompted by the discovery of PFOA in groundwater in the region.
Scott, in his veto message to the General Assembly on Monday, said bill S. 103 "is duplicative to existing measures that already achieve its desired protections" and "will jeopardize jobs and make Vermont less competitive for businesses." It was the first time Scott has used his veto power this legislative session.
"The bill ultimately has many negative unintended consequences, threatening our manufacturers' ability to continue to do business in Vermont, and therefore, our ability to retain and recruit more and better paying jobs," Scott wrote.
Bill co-sponsor Sen. Brian Campion, D-Bennington, called the governor's veto "deeply disappointing," saying both the Senate and House strongly supported the bill, "which takes proactive steps to protect Vermonters from harmful chemicals."
" The governor wants ineffective regulations which keep encouraging polluters to pollute," Campion said Monday night. "This lack of leadership historically allowed PFOA, lead paint, and leaded gas to become acceptable poisons in our society today."
Campion continued: " Legislative attorneys are reviewing the governor's statement for legal accuracy and the Senate will likely respond in the coming days."
The bill, "An act relating to the regulation of toxic substances and hazardous materials," passed the Senate and House late last month and was officially sent to the governor's office Tuesday.
The bill was proposed after widespread PFOA contamination was discovered in hundreds of drinking water wells in Bennington and North Bennington. State environmental officials believe the source is two former ChemFab manufacturing facilities. PFOA, or perfluorooctanoic acid, is a man-made chemical formerly used to manufacture products with the non-stick coating Teflon. It's been linked to cancers and other diseases.
Scott wrote that he and state officials support efforts to provide Vermonters with clean drinking water. He said the bill "does nothing to enhance our ability to hold violators accountable, reconnect water lines, or directly address" an ongoing response to contamination from PFOA.
Scott took issue with the bill establishing an Interagency Committee on Chemical Management and Citizen's Advisory Panel. A committee and advisory panel created by an executive order last summer "has similar membership and responsibilities," he wrote.
That committee, made up of legislators and representatives of state agencies, is due to make its first round of recommendations by July 1. The advisory panel will provide written comments by April 25.
Eight members of the Bennington County delegation, in an April 10 letter urging Scott to sign the bill, said they believe putting the inter-agency committee into statute under S. 103 "ensures its longevity beyond your administration, and creates a feedback loop directly to the Legislature so we can take action on the committee's recommendations."
Scott wrote the bill "presents a separation of powers issue by improperly allocating legislative resources to the Executive branch and charging the Executive branch with doing the work of the legislature."
The bill would have also required manufactures of consumer products to disclose "chemicals of high concern to children" in products for children.
Scott wrote that Act 188, passed in 2014, "creates a robust regulatory process that requires manufacturers of children's products disclose to the Department of Health whether a product contains any of the 66 chemicals listed in the law."
Scott did not take issue with requirements around groundwater testing for drinking water sources. The bill would require any groundwater source to be tested for specified chemicals prior to its use as a well.
One provision in the bill, regarding a controversial provision on liability for toxic or hazardous materials, had previously been stripped out and is being considered separately. S. 197 is before the House Judiciary Committee.
http://www.benningtonbanner.com/stories/gov-scott-vetoes-chemical-regulation-bill,537299

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) Smaller Bites in EPA Air Chief's Second Pass at Permitting Update

Apr 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Jennifer Lu

William Wehrum has unfinished business with the EPA's air pollution permitting program for factories and power plants that want to expand or make major upgrades to their facilities.
In his first stint at the Environmental Protection Agency in an acting capacity, Wehrum tried to address industry criticism over the permitting program, known as new source review, with sweeping rulemaking bundles.
His efforts were either dropped after the George W. Bush administration withdrew his nomination to head the Office of Air and Radiation in 2007, blocked by the courts, or undone by the incoming Obama administration.
“This time around,” Wehrum told Bloomberg Environment in an exclusive April 13 interview, “it's important to strike a better balance.”
Already, the EPA has issued two industry-coveted tweaks to the permitting program through guidance documents.
The new source review program requires factories and power plants to install costly new air pollution controls when they expand or make modifications that increase their emissions.
Industries have long complained that securing compliance with the permitting program is tedious, time consuming, and confusing. Updating how the EPA administers the program through guidance documents is one way to quickly address those concerns.
“There are a lot of current issues within [new source review] that we can provide clear guidance through guidance,” Wehrum said. “Our strategy is to tell people sooner rather than later how we think the program should be implemented.”
Did You Get the Memo?
The focus on bite-sized updates to EPA programs comes after Wehrum watched a series of ambitious regulations he helped craft—from toxic air pollution rules from the power industry to attempts to set up an emissions trading program for power plants—get overturned by judges during his last go-round at the agency between 2005-2007.
Back then, Wehrum didn't have the option to quickly update policy through guidance. Only since a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association have federal agencies like the EPA been allowed to issue guidance such as policy memos without having to go through a lengthy public comment process.
“We have an interest in trying to do some things quickly, and especially in case-specific circumstances where clarity is lacking,” Wehrum said.
However, policy made through guidance memos can be just as easily undone by a new administration, John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council, who previously served in the EPA General Counsel's Office, told Bloomberg Environment.
Environmental groups like Walke's and some states have already sued the EPA over one of its guidance documents, which eased toxic pollution emissions standards for industry.
“Industry relies upon Bill Wehrum's guidance at its peril,” Walke said.
Everything Old is New Source Review Again
But updating the permitting program has long been an industry priority. It was repeatedly spotlighted by businesses when the EPA put out a call for regulations that should be revised or eliminated.
After past regulatory efforts to make it industry-friendly fizzled, the fastest way to address business concerns is through guidance, Richard Alonso, environmental attorney at Sidley Austin LLP's Washington, D.C., office, told Bloomberg Environment.
Already, the EPA has issued two memos on two new source review changes. A December memo told agency staff not to “second-guess” how facilities calculate emissions changes.
That was followed by a March memo on project emissions accounting, also known as project netting, which tells facilities how to calculate whether emissions from their proposed new construction projects would increase pollution. Under the new guidance, facilities can include emissions decreases from their projects to the overall calculations to avoid triggering new source review.
The memo drew inspiration from a 2006 rule changing three aspects of emissions counting under new source review, which lost traction after Wehrum left the agency.
“Finalizing this [2006] rulemaking would help to remove a substantial burden to energy and manufacturing projects,” Louis Renjel, vice president of federal government affairs and strategic policy at Duke Energy, wrote in response to an EPA call for suggestions on reducing regulatory burdens.
The American Chemistry Council also asked the EPA to revisit the reforms proposed during the Bush-era EPA, whether through guidance, regulation, or legislation.
The EPA this summer aims to address project aggregation, another piece of new source review reform from Wehrum's 2006 rulemaking bundle.
It would define how emissions from separate modifications that take place around the same time should be counted, according to a presentation Anna Marie Wood, director of the EPA's Air Quality Policy Division, gave at a state air regulators conference April 5.
More Guidance Coming
Three more guidance memos are slated to be issued this spring, according to Wood's presentation.
One would redefine what counts as “ambient air,” or the air the general public breathes. This definition is important to new source review because facilities must show that their post-construction emissions won't worsen air quality according to the national standards, Lynn Hutchinson, the EPA new source review project lead in 2002, told Bloomberg Environment.
Another guidance document in the works would change the pollutant modeling used to decide whether emissions would damage air quality. The White House completed its review of the memo April 12.
A third spring guidance document would allow the EPA to revive an attempt to expand the kinds of routine maintenance and repairs excluded from new source review. That 2003 rule was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in New York v. EPA in 2006, which said industries could not write off physical changes that cost below a certain amount as routine maintenance.
“You already have a court on record saying those particular reforms are not allowed, so those might be a heavier lift without notice and comment rulemaking,” Alonso said.
When asked how he will ensure that his current batch of reforms stick beyond the current administration, Wehrum said, “a piece of it is making change that will last, but the bigger piece of it, for me, again, is just from a public policy standpoint.”

“If people can't look at our rules and know what they need to do to comply, then we've got a problem,” he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=132183082&vname=dennotallissues&fn=132183082&jd=132183082

Return to headline | Return to top
Shell CEO Tells Activists and Investors: Trust Me to Cut CO2

Apr 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Kelly Gilblom

Chief Executive Officer Ben van Beurden has the same message for activists seeking to bind Royal Dutch Shell Plc to deep emissions cuts, and investors concerned about the merits of shifting away from oil and gas: Trust me.
He advised shareholders on April 16 to reject a resolution from climate group Follow This that would set clear targets for the company's greenhouse-gas emissions, more specific than its current broad “ambition.” He also reiterated his intention for Shell to make most of its money from clean energy in 20 years, such as renewables, hydrogen or carbon capture in 20 years.
By his own account, Van Beurden understands best how to steer Europe's largest oil and gas company through a world-shaking energy transition and is already several steps ahead of the activists pushing for a stronger stance on climate, and the fund managers who are dubious Shell has any role in a low-carbon world.
“Understanding what climate change means is one of the most important strategic questions on our mind today,” Van Beurden told reporters in a phone call April 16. “We are testing the boundaries of our thinking.”
The push to eliminate carbon emissions from the world is a life-altering challenge for oil and gas companies. By Shell's estimate, to achieve goals set out in the Paris Climate Agreement and reduce the risk of catastrophic climate change, by 2060 the world must be eliminating more carbon than it's emitting.
Van Beurden has previously announced an ambition for the company to halve its “net carbon footprint” by 2050. That figure includes the company's direct emissions as well as the those released when customers burn its products.
He plans to achieve this by reducing the carbon intensity of its products, meaning its portfolio will be less oil-heavy in the future. Shell is positioning itself to instead sell more natural gas and expand in biofuels. It also plans to increase its presence in the power market, providing renewable electricity for homes and vehicles.
That approach has drawn criticism. Follow This, the Dutch environmental group, has filed a shareholder resolution for the third straight year asking Shell to set specific targets for curbing greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris agreement. Investors will vote on the proposal on May 22.
In a 40-minute call with reporters, Van Beurden made the case that Shell's existing energy transition plan is more progressive than what Follow This is proposing. Binding the company to a target would make it hard to shift course in the event that government policy or other changes affect the profitability of different technologies, he said.
“Do you want to follow a company that's really internalized” the climate issue, he said. “Or do you want to have the more narrow and rigid views of an activist?”
The backers of the climate resolution weren't satisfied with his assurances. “The rejection of this climate resolution shows the board does not want to commit to the Paris climate agreement,” said Mark van Baal of Follow This.
While Shell has yet to convince activists, it also has to mollify mainstream investors that doubt the merits of being anything besides an oil and gas company. There are signs these concerns may already be affecting the share price of big oil companies, which haven't rebounded as much as the rally in crude over the past six months.
Van Beurden's got a message for them, too: Shell isn't just an oil producer and won't shrink along with hydrocarbons’ role in the energy mix of the future.

“We have to demonstrate that no there are some really sensible and good adjacencies that allow us to go into the new energy space,” he said. “We are more than just a pure exploration and production company.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=132183094&vname=dennotallissues&fn=132183094&jd=132183094

Return to headline | Return to top
BP Commits To "Zero Net Emissions Growth"

Apr 16, 2018 | Houston Chronicle

By Jordan Blum

BP said Monday it's committing to keeping its greenhouse gas emissions at or below its 2015 levels in the years ahead to help prepare for a lower-carbon future.
BP released an "Advancing the Energy Transition" report that spelled out its plans to reduce its pollution levels, especially its methane emissions, as United Kingdom-based BP focuses more on natural gas versus crude oil.
While BP isn't planning on much larger investments in renewable energy, Chief Executive Bob Dudley said BP embraces the "dual challenge" of providing more energy to the world's growing population while working to reduce carbon emissions to help combat climate change.
"We now know that a race to renewables will not be enough. To deliver significantly lower emissions every type of energy needs to be cleaner and better. That's why we are making bold changes across our entire business," Dudley said.
That's also why BP said it's embracing the "zero net emissions growth" goal to keep its global emissions levels at or below its 2015 levels through 2025, and then working to further lower environmental waste. The aim is to reduce its carbon emissions by an annual carbon dioxide equivalent of 3.5 million metric tons by 2025.
While natural gas burns cleaner than oil, the challenge is ensuring that methane doesn't leak much during the drilling and production of gas.
So BP is setting a target of keeping its methane emissions down to 0.2 percent of the gas produced. While BP is still admitting it will still trigger methane emissions, BP sees 0.2 percent as an achievable to limit the emissions.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/BP-commits-to-zero-net-emissions-growth-12837721.php

Return to headline | Return to top
Florida Voters Could Add Nearshore Drilling Ban to Constitution

Apr 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Chris Marr

A ban on nearshore oil and gas drilling could be added to Florida's Constitution, if voters agree to the proposal in November.
The amendment, part of Proposal 6004, won the approval of the Florida Constitution Revision Commission April 16 by a vote of 33-3. The proposal needs 60 percent approval of voters in the Nov. 6 general election.
If approved, it would prohibit “drilling for exploration or extraction of oil or natural gas” in state waters—cementing Florida's existing ban on granting drilling permits in the waters it controls. Federal waters farther out from Florida's coast also are closed to drilling.
Gov. Rick Scott (R), who is running for U.S. Senate this year, announced in January that he secured a commitment from Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to keep the federal waters closed, even as the Trump administration moves toward opening more offshore waters to oil and gas leases.
Setting Boundaries
It isn't clear how much, if any, industry impact the nearshore drilling ban will have. The oil and gas industry has long sought to drill a known natural gas reserve 25 miles south of Pensacola known as the Destin Dome, but that site falls under federal control, beyond the boundary of state waters.
The American Petroleum Institute didn't respond to a Bloomberg Environment request for comment April 16.
Associated Industries of Florida, an advocacy group for various business interests in the state, opposes the drilling ban and a number of other constitutional proposals on the grounds that the constitution should be reserved for the state's core or fundamental laws, AIF President Tom Feeney told Bloomberg Environment by email April 16.
The Trump administration said in January that it was considering selling oil and gas leases in more than 90 percent of U.S. coastal waters, including on all sides of Florida—the straits in the south, Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. That was walked back days later after Scott and other Florida officials objected.

Other coastal states also oppose the leasing plan, with Washington vowing to file lawsuits over any leases in its waters and Rhode Island drafted a bill, backed by Gov. Gina Raimondo (D), to prohibit oil platforms from being built off the coast.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=132183090&vname=dennotallissues&fn=132183090&jd=132183090

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

(ACC Mentioned) Five Years After Plant Explosion Texas Town Has Changed, Laws Haven't

Apr 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Nushin Huq

An empty parcel of land is all that remains of a fertilizer plant that caught fire and exploded five years ago, destroying a quarter of West, Texas, injuring more than 160 people and killing 15. Twelve of those killed were first responders.
West lost about a quarter of its fire department in the fire and more left the department afterward due to the trauma from the fire and explosion at the West Fertilizer Co. plant.
Five years later, homes lost in the disaster have been rebuilt. A new nursing home replaced the one destroyed, though the apartment complex that burned down was never rebuilt. A new middle/high school was built across the street from where the fertilizer company stood. West Fertilizer was the only fertilizer facility owned by parent company Adair Grain.
Signs of the destruction are still visible, such as damage on some houses and two columns standing where a school once stood. Notice of a lecture on post traumatic stress syndrome remains on the town's website.
The barren land where the plant once stood sits right outside the city—home to about 3,000 people—and is yards away from a school and neighborhood. Since the explosion April 17, 2013, city officials and the volunteer fire department have overhauled how they identified hazards and zoning policies to ensure that such accidents don't happen again, Harold Pfleiderer, West's fire marshal, told Bloomberg Environment.
Prior to the 2013 explosion, Pfleiderer said, information didn't flow as openly as it should have.
Pfleiderer, who became fire marshal in 2015, collects a list of facilities in the area that have hazardous materials stored on site, including where the materials are stored and at what quantities. The list is updated annually—at a minimum—and is printed out and placed in the fire trucks so that it's immediately available. And he visits the properties within the city limits to see the potential hazards for himself.
As long as he's fire marshal, Pfleiderer said his goal is to prevent any similar accidents in West. Continuous pre-planning and training is the way to prevent that, he added.
But policy changes on the state and federal level to prevent similar accidents elsewhere have been modest.
In reaction to the West explosion, President Barack Obama proposed new emergency planning and coordination requirements for facilities and local emergency response committees under the Environmental Protection Agency. The Trump administration's EPA, however, later delayed those new requirements by two years, until February 2019, in response to industry complaints that the requirements were too invasive.
Small Town, Big Hazards
The West department has about 30 members, about two-thirds of whom have been newly recruited since the explosion, Pfleiderer said.
The volunteer fire department has recruited four firefighters that have experience with hazardous materials. One is a certified hazmat incident commander who makes decisions relating to the management of a hazardous materials incident. Pfleiderer, as a fire investigator and a fire inspector, is able to tour structures to search for hazards and make sure fire codes are met.
“That depth is amazing at a department this size,” Pfleiderer said, “to have that kind of training level.”
At the local level, the department participates in training workshops with the regional hazmat team, which is in Waco, Texas. The city has also established new zoning codes and more stringent building codes with inspections, Tommy Muska, West mayor, told Bloomberg Environment. Muska was mayor of West when the explosion happened in 2013.
At the state level, Texas lawmakers passed legislation authorizing fire officials to inspect ammonium nitrate facilities and fine them if they found hazards.
But the changes made since West haven't been enough, according to the Chemical Safety Board's 2016 final report on the explosion. The report noted that 83 percent of the 43 facilities in Texas that store fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate are within a quarter mile of a residence.
Both Muska and Pfleiderer said state regulation of ammonium nitrate passed after the West explosion was a good first step. But Pfleiderer said he would also like the state to require training of all volunteer fire departments, while Muska said he would like 911 dispatchers to have information on which locations have hazards so that when first responders are talking to dispatch, they can get a heads up.
Right now, the state only has a recommended training, but doesn't require it.
“Get out of the mindset that it can't happen here,” Pfleiderer said. “If you have chemicals in your jurisdiction, if you have roads in your jurisdictions, if you have any sort of business that generates agriculture or chemicals, you have the potential for one of these things to happen.”
Risk Management Plan
On the federal level, the Obama administration set up an interagency working group, which determined that refreshing the EPA's risk management program, a set of regulations authorized under the Clean Air Act, could close loopholes by addressing areas where safety lapses often occur.
The program, which hasn't been substantially updated since 1996, requires companies using large quantities of certain high-risk chemicals to manage the hazards, complete a risk management plan, and submit the information to the EPA. High-risk chemicals include certain concentrations of anhydrous ammonia, chlorine, hydrofluoric acid, and benzene.
The EPA issued new emergency planning and coordination requirements for facilities and local emergency response committees in a new rule, but industry groups sued in February 2017 seeking to block the changes. The main concern voiced by critics of the new requirements was the information sharing component and whether the information is adequately protected, Scott Jensen, director of issue communication for the American Chemistry Council (ACC), told Bloomberg Environment.
“Those are the things we're hoping will be fixed and addressed,” Jensen said.
The ACC and other critics of the Obama-era rule would like to see additional safeguards such as allowing the EPA to deny a request for information on chemicals if it raises a security concern.
The security concerns over sharing chemical information is “bogus,” Neil Carman, Clean Air program director for the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, told Bloomberg Environment.
“What they are really afraid of is the public in the area having access to the fact that you're living next to a plant that can do a lot of damage,” Carman said. The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the ultimate owner of Bloomberg Environment.
He noted that while there hasn't been a terrorist attack on chemical plants in Texas, first responders have had to deal with chemical plant fires and explosions, such as a recent TriChem plant fire near Fort Worth and the Arkema plant explosion in Crosby resulting from Hurricane Harvey floods. Several first responders on the scene of the Arkema explosion in August 2017 had to be treated at a local hospital after inhaling fumes from the plant.
Physical Repair, Emotional Healing
The physical damage from the explosion has been repaired but the town is still healing.
People don't like talking about the explosion, Muska said.
The explosion destroyed more than a hundred homes, a nursing home, apartment complex and school. If the explosion occurred five hours earlier, there would have been about 250 kids in the blast zone, Pfleiderer said.
“You cannot begin to express how lucky we were,” Pfleiderer said.
For most cities, hazards are already identifiable near the city centers, Muska said. Industries are close to residential areas, but officials can pre-plan and identify the risks from facilities within their jurisdictions.

“If anything good can come from those 15 deaths, it would be that we gave an opportunity to other cities to say, ‘hey what do we have in our community, what do we have in our backyard,” Muska said. “If this happens, what will we do?”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=132183083&vname=dennotallissues&fn=132183083&jd=132183083

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

Young People Sue Florida Governor to Force Action on Climate Change

Apr 16, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Rebecca Savransky

A group of young people on Monday sued Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) to force him to take action on climate change.
The group of eight young Florida residents — represented by Oregon-based Our Children's Trust — sued Scott to demand that the state begin working on a court-ordered, science-based "Climate Recovery Plan," the Miami Herald reported.
The group, which is reportedly made up of individuals ranging from 10 to 20 years old, is alleging Scott is not taking steps to combat climate change.
The suit says Scott and his administration have not passed any legislation meant to measure or curb carbon emissions. It also accuses the Florida governor and his administration of not doing anything regarding the threat of rising seas on the coasts.
One of the plaintiffs, Delaney Reynolds, an 18-year-old who attends University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, said she finds Florida's response to climate change "completely unacceptable."
"Gov. Scott says he's not a scientist," she said. "Well, neither are most of the people that are forced to take action because the state is failing us."
Andrea Rodgers, senior attorney at Our Children's Trust, said she expects the case will go before a jury before the end of the year.
"We want these stories in the courtroom, because once that happens the law is on our side," Rodgers said.
Scott's spokesman, McKinley Lewis, defended the governor's stance in a statement.
“The Governor signed one of the largest environmental protection budgets in Florida’s history last month – investing $4 billion into Florida’s environment," the statement said.
"The Governor is focused on real solutions to protect our environment – not political theater or a lawsuit orchestrated by a group based in Eugene, Oregon.”
Florida continues to face increasing risks due to climate change. By 2070, the streets of Miami could flood every day due to climate change, according to new research from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
In the past, Scott has said he is not a "scientist" when questioned about climate change. He has also previously voiced his support for President Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement.
Scott earlier this month formally announced he will run for Senate, challenging Sen. Bill Nelson (D).
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/383401-group-of-kids-sue-florida-governor-to-force-action-on-climate

Return to headline | Return to top
Creating Prize Competitions to Encourage Finding Breakthroughs in Fighting Climate Change

Apr 17, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By Dan Lipinski and John Faso

Climate change is affecting all Americans and urgent action is needed to address the problem and adapt to its effects. For years, Congress has been gridlocked on the issue and unable to provide meaningful solutions. That’s why we joined the Climate Solutions Caucus, which is taking a new bipartisan approach to address climate change. With its “Noah’s Ark” membership rules, meaning that each new member who wants to join has to bring in a colleague from the other party, the Caucus makes sure that each party has equal say. The group has grown rapidly in popularity and now boasts 72 members.
Now that it has achieved a critical mass of legislators committed to working together on climate change, the next task for the Caucus is to influence and pass legislation. So far, we have had some significant successes. Caucus members were instrumental in defeating an amendment to the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act that would have prevented the Department of Defense from studying the vulnerability of its installations to climate change. The Caucus also successfully included several renewable energy tax credits in the major tax bill that was signed into law earlier this year. We are encouraged by these achievements but think that the Climate Solutions Caucus can do much more.
Our Challenges and Prizes for Climate Act of 2018 will leverage the federal government’s prize authority (originating in the America COMPETES Act) to create competitions for next-generation climate technologies and solutions. Federal and private sector prize competitions have led to incredible breakthroughs. For example, in 2004 the Ansari XPrize led to a commercial spacecraft making two space flights in a week and helped launch the commercial spaceflight industry. And in 2011, the Department of Energy (DOE) L-Prize led to the development of a highly-efficient, low-cost, American-made LED bulb to replace the 60W halogen bulb, and in the process revolutionized the residential lighting industry.
Our bill will create new prize competitions, run by the DOE, around five themes: carbon capture, energy efficiency, energy storage, climate adaptation and resiliency, and data analytics to better understand or communicate about climate. These are all areas that are ripe for technological breakthroughs, advances in deployment and dissemination, or innovative new ideas. Our bill does not address every climate-related topic we may think is important, nor do we think it should. There are many topics that are better addressed by federal research grants or research and development activity in the private sector, and we aim to complement, not replace those.
Prize competitions offer several advantages that we think contribute to their bipartisan appeal. They allow federal agencies to work collaboratively with one another, with state, local, and tribal governments, and with the private sector. They also encourage a shared funding model in which multiple governmental agencies and private entities can make cash and in-kind contributions (such as access to facilities or expertise) to the prize purse. Prizes are paid out only for success, not for failure, limiting the government’s financial outlay. Ultimately, prize competitions raise the profile of the competitors and the competition topic, often resulting in market activity that dwarfs the cost of the competition.
With this bill, we aim to demonstrate that the Climate Solutions Caucus is working exactly as it is supposed to: as a forum for members of both parties to discuss difficult issues and come up with shared solutions. For too long, conversations like these and bipartisan efforts like ours were not happening on Capitol Hill. But in what we hope is simply one of many Caucus success stories, we aim to make climate change action bipartisan.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/383261-creating-prize-competitions-to-encourage-finding

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested