Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 6/4/2018
-
Hearing on Onshore Energy Legislation
Jun 6, 2018 | The Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Location: 1324 Longworth / 2:00 PM -
Hearing on Energy and Water Spending Bill
Jun 5, 2018 | Rules
Location: H-313 Capitol / 3:00 PM -
Markup of Transportation Spending Bill
Jun 5, 2018 | The Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agenic
Location: 192 Dirksen / 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) Business Economists Worry About Possible Recession in 2020
Jun 4, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
By Martin Crutsinger
A group of top business economists believes the major tax cuts President Donald Trump pushed through Congress will give a significant boost to economic growth this year and next year. But they worry that by 2020, the country could be entering a new recession. -
(ACC Mentioned) Debriefing the EPA’s Science Advisory Board Meeting
Jun 2, 2018 | Union of Concerned Scientists (Blog)
By Genna Reed
I spent most of Thursday and Friday this week at the EPA’s Science Advisory Board meeting in Washington, DC, as the 44 members gathered to discuss EPA’s regulatory agenda and hear updates from EPA programs on lead, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Strengthens Internal Review Of Science Rule As SAB Seeks Scrutiny
Jun 1, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Top EPA officials have decided to strengthen the internal agency review of Administrator Scott Pruitt's controversial proposed rule requiring the use of publicly available research to justify rules just as the agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB) voted unanimously to review the measure amid broad criticisms. -
Advisers to Ask Pruitt to Slow Down on EPA Science Rule
Jun 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The independent scientists who advise the EPA will formally ask the agency to slow down making changes to the types of scientific studies it can use, but how strongly they will make their case remains to be seen. -
Mexico, Canada and Eu Warn of Trade War After Trump Imposes Steel, Aluminum Tariffs
Jun 1, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Fears of an international trade war have erupted after the Trump administration prepared to impose at midnight Friday (June 1) twice-delayed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from the three leading U.S. allies -- Mexico, Canada and the European Union (EU). -
(ACC Mentioned) Some Chemical Uses Ignored in EPA Risk Plans
Jun 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA will disregard certain ways people could be exposed to chemicals if air, water, food, or other laws already apply to those exposures. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Narrows Scope Of First 10 TSCA Assessments, Drawing Criticisms
Jun 1, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Rebecca Rainey
EPA is further narrowing its approach for assessing the risks of the first 10 “existing” chemicals it is reviewing for possible regulation under the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), issuing problem formulation documents that preclude consideration of risks that other agency programs are already addressing. -
Pruitt EPA Illegally and Dramatically Undermines Authority to Limit Dangerous Chemicals under Reformed Chemical Safety Law
Jun 1, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
EPA today revealed its severely flawed approach to reviewing the risks to health and the environment posed by the first 10 chemicals being evaluated under the newly reformed chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
Obama-Era Formaldehyde Rule Takes Effect, Winning Praise
Jun 1, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists and domestic producers are jointly touting the June 1 deadline for enforcing an Obama-era rule setting emissions standards for formaldehyde from wood products, a deadline they agreed to after environmentalists beat back an industry-backed Trump administration effort to delay the rule's implementation for an additional six months. -
(ACC Mentioned) Olin, Oxy, Westlake Face Lye Market Risks if EPA Bans Asbestos
Jun 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Olin Corp., Oxy Chemical Corp., and Westlake Chemical Corp. could see their caustic soda sales thwarted if market trends continue and the EPA bans the chlor-alkali industry’s use of asbestos. -
(ACC Mentioned) Worker Risks Feared as EPA Asbestos Probe Excludes Past Uses
Jun 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson and Adam Allington
The Environmental Protection Agency’s evaluation of asbestos’ risks will move forward without examining exposures to the mineral that are still in buildings, a decision opposed by labor unions, advocacy groups, and Democratic lawmakers. -
Congress Appears Unlikely To Require DOD Comply With State PFAS Limits
Jun 1, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Congress appears unlikely to require the Defense Department (DOD) to comply with state cleanup standards for perfluorinated chemicals in pending fiscal year 2019 defense authorization legislation in the absence of an EPA standard despite efforts by some lawmakers to include language mandating such compliance. -
Big Shortfall Seen in Specialty Chemicals Registered in EU
Jun 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The number of specialty chemicals registered with the European Union was less than half of what the bloc expected, but chemical companies like BASF SE say they aren’t worried supply chains will be affected. -
California Assembly Approves Flame Retardant Ban
Jun 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
A measure that would ban the sale of children’s products, mattresses and upholstered furniture containing flame retardants in California has been approved by the state Assembly and awaits action in the Senate. -
Congress May Finally Take Action on Cosmetics Filled with Toxic Chemicals–Here’s What You Need to Know
Jun 3, 2018 | Good News Network
Currently, cosmetic manufacturers have no legal obligation in the U.S. to report health problems from their products, many of which contain known toxic ingredients—and they don’t need to prove the products’ safety before they are sold in stores. -
(ACC Mentioned) The World’s Plastic Problem
Jun 4, 2018 | Manila Times
By Marit Stinus-Cabugon
...Similarly, the American Chemistry Council – whose membership counts plastic producers – has launched its “plastics-to-fuel” campaign suggesting the burning of unrecyclable plastics to produce various petroleum-based products (plastic is made from petroleum or petrochemicals). -
Zone Before You Frack, Pennsylvania Court Tells Local Governments
Jun 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Local governments in Pennsylvania must amend their zoning ordinances to specifically allow for gas drilling, the state’s Supreme Court ruled June 1 in a decision that sided with Lycoming County property owners opposed to fracking near their land. -
Fracking Limits Near Playgrounds Among Rules on Hold by Penn. Court
Jun 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Portions of Pennsylvania’s hydraulic fracturing regulations that restrict drilling near playgrounds and other public spaces can remain on hold pending a legal challenge from a coalition of natural gas developers, the state’s Supreme Court ruled June 1. -
Vatican to Host Oil Majors, Investment Firms for Climate Talks
Jun 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
Top executives of oil and gas companies and investment firms are expected to huddle next week at the Vatican to discuss climate change, the latest sign the corporate community is ramping up its focus on the issue. -
Shell Markets Gas With Offset Package as Neutral for Climate
Jun 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mathew Carr
Royal Dutch Shell Plc is attempting to market some of its natural gas as clean energy, packaging it with credits for eco-friendly projects that offset pollution coming from the fuel. -
Sierra Club's Suit Over Gas Pipeline Tests Corps' CWA Permitting Power
Jun 1, 2018 | Inside EPA
Sierra Club and other environmental groups are urging a federal appeals court to vacate the use of a Clean Water Act (CWA) dredge-and-fill general permit for the construction of a natural gas pipeline in West Virginia, creating a fresh legal test of the Army Corps of Engineers' power to approve the use of CWA general permits. -
With Gas Prices in Mind, Members to Debate Increased Drilling
Jun 4, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Scott Streater
A House Natural Resources subcommittee this week will consider a suite of draft legislation aimed at reducing what President Trump has called the "regulatory burden" on oil and natural gas development on federal lands. -
Energy and Water Bill Heads to House Floor
Jun 4, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Manuel Quiñones
The House is planning to take up its first spending bills for fiscal 2019 — a package to include measures to fund energy and water programs, and veterans and military construction issues. -
Shuster Wants a Bill, but Outlook Remains Dim
Jun 4, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk
"Infrastructure week" has become a perennial joke around Washington, D.C., mocked as the Trump administration's go-to distraction whenever it has to fend off a damaging news story. -
States to Target Climate Pollutants, in Contrast With Paris Exit
Jun 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The states most active on climate change announced plans to cut short-lived planet-warming pollutants like methane and black carbon, and expand clean-energy financing. -
More Money, Fewer Woes if Climate Deal Target Met, Research Says
Jun 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
A study is forecasting trillions in global economic benefits from meeting Paris climate agreement temperature targets, but many of the corporate boardrooms most receptive to its conclusions are the ones already with ambitious climate goals. -
U.S. Industries Ask Trump Administration to Endorse Global Hydrofluorocarbon Deal
Jun 4, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
A group of unlikely allies wants the Trump administration to require reduced U.S. use of a class of synthetic chemicals that are potent greenhouse gases, in line with an international agreement. -
San Diego May Ban Plastic Foam Food Containers over Pollution Concerns
Jun 2, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Avery Anapol
San Diego is considering a ban on polystyrene food containers that, if passed, would make it the largest California city to do so.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Hearing on Onshore Energy Legislation
Jun 6, 2018 | The Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Witnesses: John Baza, director, Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining; Gov. Susana Martinez (R-N.M.); Katharine MacGregor, deputy assistant secretary for land and minerals management, Interior Department; Ken McQueen, secretary, New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department; and Dennis Willis, resident of Price, Utah.
-
Hearing on Energy and Water Spending Bill
Jun 5, 2018 | Rules
-
Markup of Transportation Spending Bill
Jun 5, 2018 | The Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agenic
-
(ACC Mentioned) Business Economists Worry About Possible Recession in 2020
Jun 4, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
By Martin Crutsinger
A group of top business economists believes the major tax cuts President Donald Trump pushed through Congress will give a significant boost to economic growth this year and next year. But they worry that by 2020, the country could be entering a new recession.
The National Association for Business Economics says in its latest quarterly outlook that its panel of 45 economists expects the economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, to expand 2.8 percent this year. That is down slightly from the panel's March forecast, which put GDP growth this year at 2.9 percent.
The NABE economists are "slightly less optimistic about the U.S. economy in 2018 than they were three months ago," says NABE vice president Kevin Swift, chief economist at the American Chemistry Council.
Part of the drop-off in optimism reflects growing worries about what Trump's get-tough approach on trade might do to U.S. growth prospects.
Three-fourths of the NABE panel believes that current trade policies will have a negative impact on the economy. Trump last week imposed penalty tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from major U.S. trading partners — the European Union, Canada and Mexico — and he has threatened tariffs on up to $200 billion in Chinese imports, moves that could trigger a global trade war as the targeted nations pledge to retaliate.
The NABE forecasting panel was upbeat on the near-term impacts of the $1.5 trillion tax cut that Congress passed in December. The median expectation is that the cuts in individual and corporate taxes will boost growth by 0.4 percentage points this year and 0.3 percentage points next year.
The forecasters said the economy should grow 2.7 percent in 2019 after their projected 2.8 percent GDP growth this year. Both projections would be up from 2.3 percent growth in 2017 and the 2.1 percent average annual gains the country has seen since the Great Recession ended in 2009.
However, the Trump administration is projecting a bigger boost, forecasting that the GDP will grow by 3 percent or better over the next decade as the economy gains momentum from the positive impacts of the president's economic program of lower taxes, deregulation and tougher trade policies aimed at reducing U.S. trade deficits.
But many private analysts are more pessimistic, noting that underlying factors such as the retirement of the baby boomers and weak productivity gains will continue to depress long-term growth prospects. The private forecasters believe the positive effects from the Trump tax cuts will quickly fade after the first two years.
Asked when the next recession might begin, two-thirds of the NABE economists saw one starting by the end of 2020, with 18 percent even more pessimistic, expecting the next downturn to begin by the end of 2019.
The current recovery, which began in mid-2009, is currently the second longest expansion in U.S. history and will become the longest if it lasts past June 2019.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/06/04/us/politics/ap-us-economy-nabe-outlook.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Debriefing the EPA’s Science Advisory Board Meeting
Jun 2, 2018 | Union of Concerned Scientists (Blog)
By Genna Reed
I spent most of Thursday and Friday this week at the EPA’s Science Advisory Board meeting in Washington, DC, as the 44 members gathered to discuss EPA’s regulatory agenda and hear updates from EPA programs on lead, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). As I explained earlier this week, it was the first meeting for 18 of the members who had been appointed after Administrator Pruitt issued his directive barring EPA-funded scientists from serving on the committee. Much of the meeting turned out to be an exercise in reaching consensus in a group of over 40 people on a select few decisions (you can follow my twitter thread for more detail here), but there were some important things that came out of the two half-days.
Overwhelming public support for more review of scientific underpinning of EPA regulations
During the public comment period section, 21 speakersprovided comments on the EPA SAB workgroup’s memos on the EPA’s regulatory agenda. Public comment periods at these meetings don’t usually last a full hour, but scientists and experts in person and on the phone clearly wanted to express their support for the EPA SAB’s review of several rulemakings in process that would effectively roll back science-based regulations on vehicle and power plant emissions. Many of the oral comments echoed the same concerns that the SAB workgroup raised in its assessment of glider vehicles, namely that EPA had not undertaken an assessment of the emissions impacts from this rule and should, and that the technical information relied upon in the proposal was both at odds with EPA’s own tests and had now been withdrawn by the body conducting the research. Additionally, and notably, nine of the oral commenters (including myself) from different fields were in strong support of SAB review of the “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” proposed rule.
Consensus from SAB on general lack of analysis supporting EPA’s regulatory decisions
After the comments finished up, the SAB moved on to discuss the recommendations of the workgroup (here and here) and to come to a consensus on the advice that would be contained in a letter to the administrator coming out of this meeting. At first, some of the newer members advocated that the SAB postpone review of several of the regulatory actions that had been flagged as meriting review by the workgroup until more information was provided by the EPA. In fact, SAB member, Dr. Christopher Frey told Politico on Thursday that, “Basically they just didn’t provide us with any answers,” said Frey. “That kind of put us in a position where all we can really do is say EPA has not identified the science or any plan to review it, and clearly there are science issues that are in the proposed rule.” Luckily, after much conversation, there was an acknowledgement, even from the newest members, that it is better to agree to review and find out later that the scope of the review can be narrowed than to simply kick the can down the road and hope for better information from EPA. Thus, the full SAB was able to vote in favor of recommending to Administrator Pruitt that they review all five deregulatory actions identified by the workgroup as requiring scientific review.
Agreement that Pruitt’s restricted science proposal warrants review
Then the committee moved onto the question of whether to review the EPA’s April proposed rulemaking on transparency in regulatory science. From the outset, all members seemed to agree with the workgroup’s recommendation that it merited review. Dr. Honeycutt even justified the need for SAB review because of the sheer number of questions (27) that the EPA posed in such a short proposed rule. Stanley Young was the only member to show support for the rule, arguing that “mischief has been done” in the past with “studies hiding behind data,” calling out the Six Cities study as an example. This is a common talking point used by Administrator Pruitt and others when talking about so-called transparency, however it’s easily countered by showing that after all of the controversy around the study, once the data was reanalyzed by the Health Effects Institute, its findings were confirmed. The majority of members, however, were supportive of SAB review of this policy and ultimately voted unanimously in favor of recommending that Pruitt charge them with that duty.
Calls for delay of SAB review come from Pruitt-appointed members
The perhaps more contentious piece of this conversation happened on Friday when the SAB had time to consider exactly what they would be asking of the Administrator Pruitt regarding this rule. The question became: would they just ask to review the rule or would they also request that the agency defer all action on the rule (moving any further in the rulemaking process) before SAB’s review was complete. Interestingly, only new members disagreed with asking for agency deferral and Dr. Kimberly White of the American Chemistry Council commented that she thought SAB review shouldn’t begin until the rule is in final rule stage. It’s important to note that the American Chemistry Council has lobbied on similar legislation in Congress (the HONEST Act). Not only is it supportive of the rule, but its member companies stand to gain financially from such a rule that would limit the agency’s ability to use independent science to implement strong standards on chemicals that are environmental contaminants. Thus, Dr. White’s interest in delaying SAB review until it’s too late is right in line with her employer’s agenda in getting this rule finalized and implemented as soon as possible.
Another reason for delaying SAB review of regulatory actions is to wait until the makeup of the committee changes again this fall. Some 15 committee members’ terms will end at the end of September 2018 and while 8 of them have only served one term and could be reappointed, it is likely that Pruitt will not do that and appoint all new members. The final 11 members who were appointed under the Obama administration have terms expiring in September 2019, 8 of whom have only served one term. By the end of 2019, it is possible that Pruitt could have a hand-selected SAB and so far, Pruitt appointees appear more interested in delaying SAB review and allowing EPA actions to get farther into the rulemaking process before SAB weighs in. But, the SAB’s role is to be involved in EPA’s deliberative process and providing advice early enough in the rulemaking process that it can actually have an influence on the science considered by the agency. Advice received after a rule is already finalized is useless.
The ball will soon be in Pruitt’s court
At the very end of the meeting, the SAB agreed that Dr. Honeycutt and the Designated Federal Officer would draft a letter to Administrator Pruitt that would be sent to members for comment. This letter will then be sent to the Administrator’s office and once there, there are no requirements for him to respond in any window of time and no mandates that he follow the SAB’s advice. He could agree with the SAB and charge them with reviewing EPA actions within a matter of months, he could do the same thing but have them do it over the course of the year (at which time several of the rules under review might already be finalized), he could disagree with their recommendations and give them no charge or a different charge altogether, or he could ignore them completely. It’s hard to foresee what he will do because while he seems uninterested in scientific backing for his deregulatory agenda and never responded to the SAB letter sent in September 2017, he took quite an interest in EPA’s federal advisory committees when he issued a directive that changed the composition of many of them in October.
It would be in the public’s best interest for the SAB to have the opportunity to review these EPA regulatory actions so that there is at least some public record of scientific input and peer review feeding into the rulemaking process that has been entirely lacking at the EPA under the Trump administration. Administrator Pruitt should listen to his advisors on these issues, charging them with immediate review of these potentially destructive policies. Otherwise, the message he’ll be sending is that he can’t handle the truth: best available science will not support his deregulatory agenda.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/genna-reed/debriefing-the-epas-science-advisory-board-meeting
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Strengthens Internal Review Of Science Rule As SAB Seeks Scrutiny
Jun 1, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Top EPA officials have decided to strengthen the internal agency review of Administrator Scott Pruitt's controversial proposed rule requiring the use of publicly available research to justify rules just as the agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB) voted unanimously to review the measure amid broad criticisms.
As Inside EPA first reported, the proposed rule was largely developed by political appointees without following the agency's usual action development process (ADP) for crafting important rules, leaving career staff and program offices out of the loop but raising doubts about how it will be finalized without them.
Officials were able to do this because they categorized it as a “tier 3” measure, the least stringent of the three tiers in EPA's ADP governing intra-agency review. In particular, it meant that the agency did not create a staff-level working group that would have been available to review the measure and respond to public comments.
During SAB's June 1 meeting in Washington, D.C., one of the board's career officials announced that EPA's policy office (OP) had elevated the proposed rule's categorization to tier 1, a step that will allow for the creation of the internal workgroup.
“OP just sent an email that they have completed their tiering,” Tom Carpenter, the designated federal officer for SAB, announced to members at the meeting. He added that the science transparency rule has been “elevated to a tier 1 rule.”
While the decision is significant, it comes only after the proposed rule has drawn wide-ranging criticism, including from new members of the SAB who Pruitt appointed. During the board's meeting May 31, they voted unanimously to review the proposed rule after a workgroup warned that it would undermine rules' integrity and preclude the use of key scientific research to justify agency rules.
But it is unclear whether the agency will agree to such a review or, if it does, delay action until SAB completes its review -- an approach that SAB is seeking.
Last month, agency sources told Inside EPA that the science transparency rule had been categorized as a “tier 3” measure, the lowest of three tiers in EPA's ADP, and therefore received the least scrutiny in the intra-agency review process before rules or actions are made public. According to the sources, and EPA's ADP handbook, a plan such as the science transparency plan that Pruitt signed April 24, should have received a tier 1 rating, subjecting it to the greatest level of scrutiny before a draft was publicly released.
The tier 3 status “means it gets the lowest amount of attention in terms of review and management attention. Tier 1 and 2 have to go through a formal workgroup process,” one agency source said last month. “You can slip a tier 3 out without getting the sign off of all the offices.”
But the sources say that the measure appears to have all the hallmarks of a tier 1 rule that requires significant intra-agency review from career staff and others, usually in a special work group. Without their involvement, it is uncertain how the agency will be able to review and respond to the thousands of comments the agency is likely to receive on the draft rule.
A second source told Inside EPA last month that one of the reasons the rule needs a regular staff work group is that each action's work group is charged with reviewing and determining how to address issues raised in public comments.
“It's very unclear” how the rule will move forward, the second source says, “because none of the career staff was involved in its writing.”
Such concerns may have led EPA leaders to change the rule's tiering status, though the agency never confirmed to Inside EPA what its original tier status was.
SAB Meeting
Tom Sinks, director of EPA's Office of the Science Adviser, first hinted at the new approach in May 31 remarks to the SAB about the rule's development process. “There will be an effort to follow the administrative process with EPA programs involved going forward,” he said.
SAB member Chris Frey, a professor of environmental engineering at North Carolina State University, pointed out Sinks' remarks June 1 as SAB members discussed whether their letter to Pruitt seeking review of the proposed rule should request EPA defer action until SAB completes its review.
“Tom Sinks said they would make an effort to follow procedure going forward, not that they had been,” Frey said. He added that “we probably wouldn't be in this conundrum” of whether and how to review the rule if agency officials had followed proper procedures.
SAB member Jeanne VanBriesen, an environmental engineering professor at Carnegie Mellon University, sought clarification on the next steps, asking whether EPA could “say no thank you” to SAB's recommendation that it review the science underling the transparency proposal.
“The agency could say that,” agreed Carpenter. “What has happened in the past, the administrator can set the time for that review.”
VanBriesen replied that she would like SAB's letter to Pruitt to “more strongly signal to the administrator we would like the answer not to be 'No thank you.' We would like the answer to be 'Yes, we would like your input on this'.”
Frey and VanBriesen's comments came in response to a proposal from SAB member Steven Hamburg, chief scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, to include language in the letter that “SAB recommends that EPA defer adopting changes to EPA's foundational policies with use of science … until SAB and other authoritative bodies have had an opportunity to review and propose changes...”
Hamburg explained that he proposed the language because SAB's charter “is to make sure that a deliberative process informs policy,” and he argued that his language was entirely about process, not the proposal. Hamburg's proposal met with divergent reactions from his fellow SAB members.
Kimberly White, an SAB member from the American Chemistry Council, said that she was “very supportive of SAB looking at the rulemaking, [but] I'm not supportive of us issuing a letter saying, 'Please defer adopting.' While I think there are things in the current rulemaking that could be improved or modified, there are aspects currently in there that I think things should be implemented by the agency.”
And SAB member Don van derVaart, who formerly led North Carolina's environment department and who is now an independent consultant, argued that the Hamburg's proposal was “gratuitous. We've already said we want to review” the proposal, he noted. He added that the rule is not finalized. “That's the process. Everybody makes comment,” he argued.
But Hamburg and Frey argued that the process had not been followed, because science and intra-agency reviews did not occur before the proposal was drafted and released for public comment.
“For my colleague Dr. White, I don't think it's an issue of do we agree or disagree with certain aspects of the rule as its currently proposed,” Frey said. “It's a question of the process. This is a rule with very long term implications ... Waiting a few more months to make sure that everyone has a chance to have a say, including this board, I don't think will cause the earth to spin at a different frequency.”
Eventually, SAB members appeared to agree to include some softer language suggesting or requesting that Pruitt defer the rule until SAB completes its review. SAB members will work out the letter's final language in the coming weeks, an SAB official told reporters after the meeting.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-strengthens-internal-review-science-rule-sab-seeks-scrutiny
-
Advisers to Ask Pruitt to Slow Down on EPA Science Rule
Jun 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The independent scientists who advise the EPA will formally ask the agency to slow down making changes to the types of scientific studies it can use, but how strongly they will make their case remains to be seen.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board, a group of more that two dozen scientists selected by the agency to review its work, debated a resolution at a June 1 meeting that asks the EPA not to formalize these rule changes until the advisers have a chance to weigh in.
The EPA floated a proposed rule earlier this year that would prohibit using scientific studies based on data the public can’t access. The rule raised concerns among many scientists and environmentalists who feared that it would lead to fewer actions from the agency on issues like air pollution or chemicals. These areas often feature studies that use human subjects and, as a result of privacy restrictions, have personal health data that can’t be made public.
“This is a rule that is going to have long-term implications that we’re going to have to live with for a long time,” said Christopher Frey, an environmental engineering professor at North Carolina State University and a member of the board.
The board plans to send the EPA a letter asking it to hold off on finalizing the rule, but it’s still debating the language. It resolved to work more on draft language for the letter before formally sending it to the agency.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/advisers-to-ask-pruitt-to-slow-down-on-epa-science-rule
-
Mexico, Canada and Eu Warn of Trade War After Trump Imposes Steel, Aluminum Tariffs
Jun 1, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Fears of an international trade war have erupted after the Trump administration prepared to impose at midnight Friday (June 1) twice-delayed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from the three leading U.S. allies -- Mexico, Canada and the European Union (EU).
Trade associations representing the oil and gas industry voiced alarm over the developments and said the tariffs would ultimately hurt the U.S. pipeline industry.
In the wake of the trade brouhaha, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the decision issued Thursday to impose the tariffs on Canada and Mexico was made because of insufficient progress in renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). He also predicted that any retribution on trade would be ineffectual and lead to only "trivial" cost increases for American consumers.
President Trump first proposed levying a 25% tariff on steel imports and a 10% tariff on aluminum imports on March 1. Three weeks later, he issued a proclamation calling for suspending the tariffs until May 1 while negotiations were ongoing. Although the White House extended trade negotiations with Canada, Mexico and the EU on April 30 for another 30 days, Chinese imports were hit with the tariff on May 1.
Swift Retaliation From Allies
All three allies immediately moved to retaliate.
The Mexican government said it "deeply regrets and rejects" the decision to levy the tariffs and said it would retaliate in kind. Mexico City said it plans to target various products made in the United States, including flat steel, furniture and food products.
"This measure will be in force until the U.S. government eliminates the imposed taxes," Mexico's Ministry of Economy said in a translated statement posted to its official website. "Mexico reiterates its openness to constructive dialogue with the U.S., its support for the international trading system and its rejection of unilateral protectionist measures."
Said Mexico Foreign Affairs Minister Luis Videgaray, “Our positions are clear, and we will continue working on all fronts to ensure that the relationship between Mexico and the United States lives up to what it should and can be…
“These positions will not change due to the rhetoric or actions of this kind” by the U.S. administration, he said in remarks to journalists on Thursday. “We will remain in close communication with Canada so that we may continue to jointly defend an open, free and rules-based trade regime, including the successful modernization of the free trade agreement.”
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland announced plans to levy up to C$16.6 billion ($12.8 billion) in tariffs on a host of American-made products. Ottawa plans to solicit public comments over the proposed tariffs until June 15 and enact them on July 1.
"This is the strongest trade action Canada has taken in the post-war era," Freeland said. "This is a very strong response. It is a proportionate response. It is perfectly reciprocal...This is a very strong Canadian action in response to a very bad U.S. decision."
Trudeau said he made an offer to Trump earlier in May to meet in Washington, DC, "to work out the final details of NAFTA." But the talks were derailed after the White House insisted that Ottawa agree to a five-year sunset clause in the trade pact.
"There was the broad lines of a decent 'win-win-win' deal on the table that I thought required that final 'deal-making moment,'" Trudeau said. "I got a call from Vice President Pence on Tuesday in which it was impressed upon me that there was a precondition to us being able to get together: that Canada would accept a sunset clause for NAFTA.
"I had to highlight that there was no possibility of any Canadian prime minister signing a NAFTA deal that included a five-year sunset clause. Obviously, the visit didn't happen."
Speaking for the EU, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said the tariffs are "unjustified" and run afoul of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. The 28-member trade bloc has "no choice" but to file legal proceedings with the WTO on Friday, and plans to immediately impose additional duties on products imported from the United States.
"This is protectionism, pure and simple," Juncker said, later adding that the EU has "consistently indicated our openness to discussing ways to improve bilateral trade relations with the U.S., but have made it clear that the EU will not negotiate under threat."
Overcapacity in the steel sector remains at the center of the trade dispute, but Juncker said the EU was not the source of the problem, and that the trade bloc was, in fact, "equally hurt by it. That is why we are determined to work toward structural solutions together with our partners…”
However, “by targeting those who are not responsible for overcapacities, the U.S. is playing into the hands of those who are responsible for the problem."
NAFTA Talks 'Didn't Get Far Enough'
During an interview Thursday with CNBC, Ross said even if the EU followed through with its threat to levy tariffs on more than $3 billion of American-made products, such as bourbon whiskey, jeans and peanut butter, the price increase would amount to less than 1% of the $18 trillion U.S. economy.
"You're only looking at one side of the equation, which is the price side," Ross said. "There are dozens of other steel industry and aluminum industry players, all of whom are adding employment and opening facilities as a result. So when you're thinking about the overall economy, it's not just the trivial increase in product prices -- it's also the increase in employment and the strength of the economy overall.
"Even if the EU does retaliate, and even if some others do, it still will remain unlikely to be as much as 1% on our economy. Remember, just because they put tariffs on some of our products, it doesn't mean those sales will go to zero. And in the case of agriculture, they may very well find other markets that are just as good."
On the issue of worldwide steel production, Ross said "there's overproduction of steel and there's overcapacity throughout the world. We have needed to deal with it in a very global manner. You can't just deal with it [by] dealing with one country."
When asked if the Trump administration had levied the tariffs against Canada and Mexico because the NAFTA discussions weren't going well, Ross said "it's a reflection that the discussions didn't get far enough to justify another postponement or an exemption."
Ross was to travel to China on Friday.
'Step In The Wrong Direction'
As the trade dispute unfolds, the oil and gas industry continued to fret about specialty steel products, which are used in oil and gas pipelines and at liquefied natural gas export facilities.
CEO Don Santa of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) called the decision to impose the tariffs "very troubling to the U.S. pipeline industry," and run counter to the Trump administration's oft-stated goal of achieving energy dominance.
"The large-diameter, thick-walled steel used to construct natural gas transmission pipelines is a niche product with unique technical specifications," Santa said. "Pipelines require specialty steel products not always available in sufficient quantities and specifications from domestic manufacturers. For certain steel products used in pipelines, no domestic product is available today."
American Petroleum Institute (API) CEO Jack Gerard concurred, calling the tariffs "a step in the wrong direction" that could also weaken national security.
"Increased prices in specialty steel could threaten the continued domestic production of oil and natural gas and natural gas liquids, which are at their highest levels of production since 1949, and could raise energy costs for U.S. businesses and consumers," Gerard said.
The oil and gas industry has submitted comments on an interim final rule outlining a procedure for requesting an exemption to the tariffs. The rule, conceived by the Commerce Department, was published last March in the Federal Register.
The industry and its allies argue that specialty steel products meet the criteria for an exemption from the steel tariff because there is an insufficient supply of comparable products from domestic steel manufacturers.
Last month, API, INGAA and other trade groups -- specifically, the American Gas Association, the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, the GPA Midstream Association, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America -- recommended a list of 11 changes to the interim final rule.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114575-mexico-canada-and-eu-warn-of-trade-war-after-trump-imposes-steel-aluminum-tariffs
-
(ACC Mentioned) Some Chemical Uses Ignored in EPA Risk Plans
Jun 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA will disregard certain ways people could be exposed to chemicals if air, water, food, or other laws already apply to those exposures.
The agency June 1 released ten plans to examine potential health and environmental harms of 10 chemicals. In those plans, the EPA said the nation’s primary chemicals law allows it to exclude some chemical exposures. Bloomberg Environment prepared a snapshot of chemical uses the agency will or won’t evaluate.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusions on the chemical exposures, called uses, that it will focus on under the Toxic Substances Control Act will affect public health, companies’ business, and the environment. If the EPA finds chemical uses pose unreasonable risks, it has to prevent or reduce those risks through regulation or other measures.
According to its June 1 risk analysis plans, the agency said it will “focus its analytical efforts on exposures that are likely to present the greatest concern and consequently merit a risk evaluation under TSCA, by excluding, on a case-by-case basis, certain exposure pathways that fall under the jurisdiction of other EPA-administered statutes.”
The agency also said it wouldn’t look at some other ways chemicals are used. For example, if a chemical may be in food and another agency has legal authority over food uses of the substance, the EPA may disregard the possibility that people could ingest the chemical.
Big 10The chemicals that the EPA is examining are asbestos; pigment violet 29; a group of three flame retardants called the cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster; and seven solvents including 1- bromopropane, carbon tetrachloride, 1-4 dioxane, methylene chloride, n-methylpyrrolidone, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene. The EPA is required to complete 10 risk evaluations for the chemicals by December 2019, but that deadline could be extended six months.
Companies that have produced one or more of the 10 chemicals include the Albemarle Corp., BASF Corp., DowDupont, Lanxess U.S. Solutions Inc., and Olin Corp.
The EPA’s updated plans to evaluate 10 chemicals said the agency could ignore a chemical’s uses or exposures—for example, the molecule’s presence in water—because another environmental law, such as the Clean Water Act, adequately controls the chemical.
The EPA also excluded chemical uses for other reasons. For example, asbestos remains in buildings, even though U.S. manufacturers no longer make insulation or other products with the mineral. The agency said it will not examine such “legacy” uses of asbestos.
The agency also will not examine the risks that the solvent methylene chloride could pose when used in food processing because those food uses are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration—not TSCA.
Environmental groups are already challenging in several courts the EPA’s assertion that it can exclude certain chemical uses. The agency’s interpretation of its mandates around chemical uses is likely to continue to draw intense interest from industry and environmental groups seeking to broaden or reduce the pool of potential regulations.
Enhanced DetailThe EPA’s updated chemical review plans—called “problem formulations"—are more specific than draft plans it released a year ago. They detail the chemical uses, health and environmental concerns, and groups of people it will or will not examine as it decides whether any of the 10 chemicals pose unreasonable risks.
If unreasonable risks are found, the EPA must prevent or reduce the potential harm to people or the environment by banning a chemical, restricting uses of it, requiring labels, or issuing other warnings.
Interested parties will have at least two opportunities to comment on the agency plans. The agency will soon publish Federal Register notices announcing the problem formulations and providing 45 days to comment on them.
The agency later will issue the 10 draft risk evaluations for scientific review, which also will be open to public comment.
Initial ReactionsMost Individuals and organizations that Bloomberg Environment contacted immediately after the EPA released the risk analysis plans said they needed time to examine the documents before they could comment.
The American Chemistry Council—which represents the bulk of U.S. chemical companies—issued a statement praising the agency for completing the documents.
“The release of the problem formulation documents for the first 10 chemicals for risk evaluation is another important milestone in the implementation of the 2016 TSCA amendments. We commend Administrator Pruitt and EPA’s dedicated staff for their continued commitment to meeting the requirements of the law,” the council said.
By contrast, the Environmental Defense Fund slammed the agency’s effort, describing the documents as providing a “severely flawed approach” to reviewing the risks to health and the environment posed by the first 10 chemicals.
“EPA is both ignoring the law and endangering public health. The approach it is taking—designed by an appointee who came straight from the chemical industry’s lobbying arm—ignores millions of pounds of toxic pollution,” said Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the nonprofit environmental advocacy group.
“Pruitt’s EPA won’t examine the real extent of exposures to these chemicals—and that will put at risk the lives and health of Americans,” he added.
(Corrects the description of the types of chemical exposures the EPA disregarded in its 10 chemical risk analysis plans)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/some-chemical-uses-ignored-in-epa-risk-plans-corrected
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Narrows Scope Of First 10 TSCA Assessments, Drawing Criticisms
Jun 1, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Rebecca Rainey
EPA is further narrowing its approach for assessing the risks of the first 10 “existing” chemicals it is reviewing for possible regulation under the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), issuing problem formulation documents that preclude consideration of risks that other agency programs are already addressing.
The move is drawing strong criticism from environmentalists who charge the approach is unlawful and will exclude millions of pounds of chemicals from EPA's assessments.
“The documents released today demonstrate EPA’s illegal approach to chemical reviews, going even beyond that set forth in its 2017 rule that laid out the details of how EPA will conduct chemical risk evaluations under TSCA,” Environmental Defense Fund said in a statement.
EPA June 1 published problem formulation documents for the first ten chemicals being evaluated under the reformed TSCA. The chemicals include asbestos, 1-bromopropane, carbon tetrachloride, 1, 4 dioxane, cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster (HBCD), methylene chloride, N-methylpyrrolidone, perchloroethylene, pigment violet 29 and trichloroethylene.
“These actions provide the American people with transparency and an opportunity to comment on how EPA plans to evaluate the ten chemicals undergoing risk evaluation, select studies, and use the best available science to ensure chemicals in the marketplace are safe,” said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in a June 1 press statement.
EPA's framework rule for evaluating risks of existing chemicals under TSCA generally precludes consideration of legacy uses, as well as those uses that are regulated by other agencies, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), arguing it has discretion under the new law to do so.
But environmentalists are suing over this approach, charging it is unlawful. The pending lawsuit could pose a significant hurdle to EPA's TSCA implementation, as environmentalists have threatened to ramp up calls for state rules, creating a patchwork of regulation that industry fears, if EPA fails to adequately consider chemical risks.
Several of the just-released problem formulation documents go even further, limiting EPA's consideration of risks that may be addressed by other agency program offices.
For example, the agency noted in its asbestos document that it has identified “certain exposure pathways that are under the jurisdiction of regulatory programs and associated analytical processes carried out under other EPA-administered environmental statutes -- namely, the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) -- and which EPA does not expect to include in the risk evaluation.”
“As a general matter, EPA believes that certain programs under other Federal environmental laws adequately assess and effectively manage the risks for the covered exposure pathways. To use Agency resources efficiently under the TSCA program, to avoid duplicating efforts taken pursuant to other Agency programs, to maximize scientific and analytical efforts, and to meet the three-year statutory deadline, EPA is planning to exercise its discretion under TSCA section 6d to focus its analytical efforts on exposures that are likely to present the greatest concern and consequently merit a risk evaluation under TSCA, by excluding, on a case-by-case basis, certain exposure pathways that fall under the
jurisdiction of other EPA-administered statutes.”
'Put The Cart Miles Ahead Of The Horse'
The decision to preclude risks already addressed by other EPA programs appears to end a long-running pushamong high-level officials, who have been working for months to remove overlapping uses from the scope of the TSCA analyses.
But environmentalists are strongly criticizing EPA's approach and renewing their past criticisms of agency decision to preclude consideration of legacy uses and uses regulated by other agencies.
While EDF has previously said that TSCA anticipates the possibility that another part of EPA or another agency might be able to effectively address an identified risk, it still requires EPA to consider that possibility. And it has noted that such a step is triggered “only after EPA has undertaken its risk evaluation of the chemical and made its risk determination, not before the agency even understands the nature, extent and magnitude of the risk.”
Now, the group says, EPA is proposing to preempt the statutory requirement. “The approach EPA now plans to take would put the cart miles ahead of the horse, moving to the very front of the risk evaluation process a step that Congress intended not be undertaken until the very end,” EDF says.
“Instead, EPA will from the outset lop off from its risk evaluations potential sources of risk it has yet to evaluate at all; and this based on at best a hypothetical argument that another office or agency can and will adequately address a risk it too has yet to evaluate even in isolation, let alone through the broad, integrated risk evaluation TSCA demands of EPA.”
EDF also charged that EPA was failing to consider risks to vulnerable subpopulations despite congressional mandates to do so. “The science tells us that the combined, long-term, and even low-level exposures resulting from multiple uses and sources of exposure to a chemical are what matter. Assessing all of these exposures is essential to considering differential vulnerabilities of particular subpopulations such as infants, pregnant women, workers, the elderly and disproportionately exposed communities,” the group said.
“Not only will EPA ignore known sources of exposure to toxic chemicals, it is also abdicating its obligation under TSCA to protect the public, including vulnerable subpopulations, from those chemicals where their combined exposures present unreasonable risk,” the group added.
But EPA's approach is winning praise from the chemical industry, which has long urged the agency to limit the scope of any TSCA reviews. “It is essential that TSCA risk evaluations . . . are focused on the conditions of use that present the greatest potential risks so that the risk evaluations are protective and practical,” the American Chemistry Council said in a statement.
In addition to the problem formulation documents, EPA also released guidance for how to conduct systematic and transparent literature reviews in TSCA assessments.
And it also released a proposed significant new use rule to address certain uses of asbestos.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-narrows-scope-first-10-tsca-assessments-drawing-criticisms
-
Jun 1, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
EPA today revealed its severely flawed approach to reviewing the risks to health and the environment posed by the first 10 chemicals being evaluated under the newly reformed chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). These chemicals were selected in 2016 because of their potential dangers to the health of American families, but the Pruitt EPA has chosen to ignore many sources of exposure to the chemicals and, in doing so, will severely underestimate their actual risks.
“EPA is both ignoring the law and endangering public health. The approach it is taking – designed by an appointee who came straight from the chemical industry’s lobbying arm – ignores millions of pounds of toxic pollution,” said Dr. Richard Denison, EDF lead senior scientist. “Pruitt’s EPA won’t examine the real extent of exposures to these chemicals – and that will put at risk the lives and health of Americans.”
An analysis by Environmental Defense Fund reveals that EPA will ignore more than 68 million pounds of seven of these 10 chemicals released to the nation’s air, water, and land every year. Among the chemicals are known killers such as asbestos and other toxic chemicals such as trichloroethylene (TCE) that cause cancer and are linked to developmental and neurological disorders.
This new assault on TSCA implementation is illegal and could make TSCA even weaker than it was before the 2016 reforms. It also flies in the face of the science that informs what we know about how chemicals can affect our health and that of our environment – frustrating Congress’ mandate that EPA conduct broad risk reviews of chemicals and use the “best available science” when assessing chemical risks under TSCA. The move provides yet more evidence of this Administration’s unrelenting war on science.
The documents released today demonstrate EPA’s illegal approach to chemical reviews, going even beyond that set forth in its 2017 rule that laid out the details of how EPA will conduct chemical risk evaluations under TSCA. The approach adopted in that rule, which closely mirrored the demands of the chemical industry, is currently being challenged in the courts.
EPA asserts that the potential exercise of authority under another law EPA administers – such as the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act – allows EPA to ignore known releases of and exposures to a toxic chemical when assessing its risks under TSCA. In doing so, EPA will effectively assume that such exposures to known toxic chemicals pose no risk whatsoever to people or the environment. EPA will also entirely exclude known exposures arising from “legacy” uses and associated disposals of asbestos and HBCD from their risk evaluations.
Yet the science tells us that the combined, long-term, and even low-level exposures resulting from multiple uses and sources of exposure to a chemical are what matter. Assessing all of these exposures is essential to considering differential vulnerabilities of particular subpopulations such as infants, pregnant women, workers, the elderly and disproportionately exposed communities.
Pruitt’s EPA now intends to weaken the implementation of a new law Congress made stronger by breaking it up into pieces and distributing those pieces to other parts of the agency – the authorities of which Pruitt is working relentlessly to dismantle – with no obligation for those other EPA offices to act. Not only will EPA ignore known sources of exposure to toxic chemicals, it is also abdicating its obligation under TSCA to protect the public, including vulnerable subpopulations, from those chemicals where their combined exposures present unreasonable risk.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/06/01/pruitt-epa-illegally-and-dramatically-undermines-authority-to-limit-dangerous-chemicals-under-reformed-chemical-safety-law/
-
Obama-Era Formaldehyde Rule Takes Effect, Winning Praise
Jun 1, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists and domestic producers are jointly touting the June 1 deadline for enforcing an Obama-era rule setting emissions standards for formaldehyde from wood products, a deadline they agreed to after environmentalists beat back an industry-backed Trump administration effort to delay the rule's implementation for an additional six months.
“As of June 1, 2018, it is illegal to manufacture or import composite wood products in the United States if they contain excessive amounts of formaldehyde,” Earthjustice said in a June 1 press statement it issued jointly with the Composite Panel Association (CPA).
Earthjustice represented Sierra Club and the New Orleans-based group A Community Voice when they successfully sued EPA over the Trump administration's regulation that sought to delay the Obama-era rule's implementation until December 2018 -- one year later than planned.
EPA's rule stems from the 2010 Formaldehyde Standards in Composite Wood Products Act, which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act. Congress enacted the legislation in response to health effects suffered by residents displaced by Hurricane Katrina and housed in government-issued trailers containing wood products with high levels of formaldehyde-containing adhesives.
Under the 2016 final rule, wood products had to comply with the new emissions limits by December 2017. But the Trump administration in a September rule extended the compliance deadline to December 2018, arguing that a provision in the law to accommodate the sale of existing stocks allowed extending the compliance deadline for the broader rule, sparking legal challenges.
After the court ruled that the delay rule was unlawful, EPA and environmentalists agreed (/node/210041) to the June 1 compliance date.
While CPA and many industry groups sought the delay, they had long advocated for the rule's adoption as it would have created a level-playing field for domestic producers who were concerned over a strict rule adopted by California's Air Resources Board (CARB).
According to the press statement, Earthjustice says the rule's deadline got “more attention in the wood-products industry than in the general public, as manufacturers and their trade associations closely followed the case. Not all were in favor of the changes, but many American and Canadian panel producers had already begun voluntarily complying with the CARB regulation.”
“They were frustrated by the EPA’s inaction, and by years of being undercut in the marketplace by cheaper, imported products that contain formaldehyde,” the statement adds.
Jackson Morrill, president of CPA whose members represent more than 90 percent of industry manufacturing capacity, says the industry has high hopes for the national standards, according to the press statement, adding that “a significant majority” of U.S. and Canadian manufacturers are now TSCA Title VI certified.
“Unique to U.S. producers, TSCA Title VI requires 100-percent compliance, 100-percent of the time, in all 50 states,” said Morrill. “This extra level of scrutiny means that U.S. producers must be on their game all the time.”
“We believe that to best protect consumers and ensure fair competition among manufacturers, new regulations must be paired with adequate enforcement resources, and commitments at the federal and state levels to enforce the requirements,” said Morrill.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/obama-era-formaldehyde-rule-takes-effect-winning-praise
-
(ACC Mentioned) Olin, Oxy, Westlake Face Lye Market Risks if EPA Bans Asbestos
Jun 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Olin Corp., Oxy Chemical Corp., and Westlake Chemical Corp. could see their caustic soda sales thwarted if market trends continue and the EPA bans the chlor-alkali industry’s use of asbestos.
Caustic soda—also known as lye and sodium hydroxide—is a “building block” chemical used to make aluminum, detergents, and soap, and to prevent lead and copper from leaching out of water pipes.
The price of caustic soda rose from $384 a metric ton on April 30, 2016, to $698 a metric ton on April 2, 2018, according to Nexant Inc., a consulting firm in Washington that analyzes chemical industry trends.
Chlor-alkali manufacturers make caustic soda, chlorine, and hydrogen gas by sending electric currents into solutions of salt water that then react to produce all three chemicals. Three different production methods are used to make the chemicals: a mercury-based process, an asbestos-based process, and a membrane technology that uses neither mercury nor asbestos.
Asbestos UseNinety percent of U.S. chlor-alkali manufacturers use asbestos, Jason F. Miner, a senior chemicals industry analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence, told Bloomberg Environment. They use asbestos to make diaphragms that separate the hydrogen gas from the chlorine and caustic soda to prevent explosions, among other risks.
U.S. chlor-alkali manufacturers face an uncertain future regarding their use of asbestos, because the Environmental Protection Agency is assessing the health and environmental risks of the mineral, which is known to cause cancer and respiratory disease.
If the EPA concludes that asbestos—or particular uses of it—pose an unreasonable risk, then the Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016 require the agency to prevent that unreasonable risk. The EPA can do so by banning a chemical, restricting its uses, requiring labels, or taking other actions.
Formosa Plastics Corp., Olin, Oxy Chemical, and Westlake Chemical are the largest chlor-alkali companies globally, Miner said in a May 31 analysis of chlor-alkali earnings.
Of those four companies, the U.S. operations of Olin, OxyChem, and Westlake would face the greatest market risk if the EPA decides to ban asbestos or concludes that their use of asbestos diaphragms poses an unreasonable risk, Miner told Bloomberg Environment.
Olin, OxyChem, and Westlake import asbestos to make the diaphragms they use. The chlor-alkali industry accounted for almost 100 percent of the 300 tons of asbestos imported into the U.S. in 2017, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, which tracks the use of minerals.
Formosa Plastics USA uses the membrane process—not asbestos—in its chlor-alkali plants, Steve Rice, a spokesman for the Livingston, N.J.-based company, told Bloomberg Environment.
European chlor-alkali manufacturers, that formerly used the mercury process, are phasing out of that technology and switching to membranes instead, Miner said.
Formosa Plastics USA uses a different technology that employs a membrane—not asbestos—in its chlor-alkali plants, Steve Rice, a spokesman for the Livingston, N.J.-based company, told Bloomberg Environment.
Neither Olin, OxyChem, nor Westlake replied to Bloomberg Environment’s calls and emails requesting comment.
Safety DebatesThe American Chemistry Council, which represents Olin and OxyChem among other chemical manufacturers, said it couldn’t comment about potential market impacts from the EPA’s risk evaluation of asbestos. It did say, however, that manufacturers are using asbestos safely.
“Facilities that use chrysotile asbestos diaphragms during the manufacturing process of chlorine and caustic soda (NaOH) adhere to established safety protocols to minimize potential asbestos exposure to workers, the public, and the environment,” the trade association said in a statement provided to Bloomberg Environment.
The council and its members have and will continue to work with the EPA “to ensure the risk evaluation of asbestos is scientifically accurate and continues to be protective of worker and environmental health,” it said.
Safety arguments about asbestos are playing out in numerous comments companies, health officials, scientists, asbestos contractors, and others are submitting to a public docket, or electronic file, the EPA maintains for its asbestos risk evaluation.
Recently, Axiall Corp., a chlor-alkali company owned by Westlake, submitted airborne asbestos monitoring data from workers’ monitors while performing nine tasks including handling dry asbestos. All the measurements were below the Occupational Safety and Health Administration‘s Permissible Exposure Limit of 0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter of air.
But proponents of reducing asbestos use say workplace standards are too lax.
OSHA’s Permissible Exposure Limit doesn’t prevent exposed workers from getting cancer or other diseases from asbestos, Barry Castleman, an environmental consultant, told Bloomberg Environment. He discussed information that he, too, has included in the EPA’s docket.
Exposures at OSHA’s Permissible Exposure Limit would result in at least seven people dying from lung cancer and asbestosis per 1,000 workers exposed, he wrote in public comments.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/olin-oxy-westlake-face-lye-market-risks-if-epa-bans-asbestos?context=article-related
-
(ACC Mentioned) Worker Risks Feared as EPA Asbestos Probe Excludes Past Uses
Jun 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson and Adam Allington
The Environmental Protection Agency’s evaluation of asbestos’ risks will move forward without examining exposures to the mineral that are still in buildings, a decision opposed by labor unions, advocacy groups, and Democratic lawmakers.
The EPA decided in an updated plan to examine asbestos risks that building insulation, siding, fire-proofing, and other existing asbestos-laden materials would not be evaluated.
These so-called legacy uses include construction materials installed in buildings in the 20th century, when asbestos was a commonly used material.
Health OutcryBut failing to account for these products will not address the real scope of the asbestos problem, health advocacy groups said.
“‘Disappointed’ would be a very mild word for the approach EPA is taking with asbestos,” Liz Hitchcock, acting director for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, a Washington-based advocacy group, told Bloomberg Environment June 1.
Linda Reinstein, president of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization in Los Angeles, told Bloomberg Environment June 1 the action was “unacceptable” because it signals the agency will not protect Americans from all sources of asbestos.
“The unfortunate result of the Trump Administration’s inaction is that Americans will continue to get sick and die from this toxic substance,” Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said in a statement June 1.
Industry organizations didn’t address the asbestos issue directly but said the agency’s prioritization of current usage and the nine other chemicals the agency is evaluating is appropriate.
The EPA must target “the conditions of use that present the greatest potential risks so that the risk evaluations are protective and practical,” the American Chemistry Council—a trade organization representing more than 150 major chemical companies—said in a June 1 statement.
The council was involved in the 2016 overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that strengthened reviews of the risks of chemicals in commerce.
Modern Uses OnlyIn the document, the EPA said its goal is to focus on preventing unreasonable risks from chemicals as they are manufactured, processed, and distributed today.
However, under the 2016 amendments to the TSCA, Hitchcock said the EPA is required to determine whether a chemical presents an unreasonable risk throughout its lifespan in the economy, not simply future uses.
While companies no longer use asbestos in construction, the chemicals persist in homes and office buildings.
By excluding legacy uses of asbestos from the review, the EPA won’t have to propose solutions to minimize existing exposures or determine how widespread the exposures are.
Firefighter, Remodeller RisksAsbestos’ past use still harms workers today, labor unions and scientists said. Asbestos can be safe if it remains enclosed within structures, but loose fibers can be released when the material is disturbed. Firefighters and construction workers, in particular, face these risks.
Those workers are at risk if their protective equipment is insufficient to protect from asbestos in buildings, Pat Morrison, assistant to the general president for health, safety, and medicine at the International Association of Fire Fighters, a labor union in Washington, told Bloomberg Environment June 1.
Firefighters stir up asbestos as they attack structure fires by breaching walls and ceilings, Morrison said. Construction workers are at risk from flawed remodeling or demolition work, he said.
Firefighters are especially concerned about their cancer risk.
In a study by researchers at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the National Cancer Institute, and the University of California, Davis completed in 2015, twice as many firefighters were found to have malignant mesothelioma than would be expected in the general population. The researchers said exposure to asbestos while fighting fires was the most likely explanation.
While it isn’t realistic to remove asbestos from all buildings where it is present, Morrison said there is much EPA could do to identify the risks of the legacy materials and educate the public.
“This is still a problem,” Morrison said. “Just because we’re not using it doesn’t mean it’s not still a problem.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/worker-risks-feared-as-epa-asbestos-probe-excludes-past-uses
-
Congress Appears Unlikely To Require DOD Comply With State PFAS Limits
Jun 1, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Congress appears unlikely to require the Defense Department (DOD) to comply with state cleanup standards for perfluorinated chemicals in pending fiscal year 2019 defense authorization legislation in the absence of an EPA standard despite efforts by some lawmakers to include language mandating such compliance.
Before the House adjourned for its Memorial Day recess, lawmakers approved their FY19 defense bill but the GOP-led Rules Committee blocked consideration of an amendment on the House floor that would have required DOD to comply with state standards.
The amendment, offered by Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI), would have required DOD to comply with state drinking water, groundwater and surface water standards for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the absence of a federal drinking water standard.
“In the absence of national primary drinking water regulations for perfluorinated compounds, the Department of Defense shall comply with State drinking-, ground-, and surface-water standards for these chemicals in States that have such standards,” Kildee's failed amendment reads.
The House Rules Committee rejected the amendment when crafting a rule for the defense authorization bill, H.R. 5515, and the House voted 351-66 May 24 to approve the bill.
One congressional aide says it is unclear why Kildee's amendment was rejected.
The Senate Armed Services Committee approved its version of the defense bill May 23, but is not slated to release the legislative text until the week of June 4.
But Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) announced May 31 that they had secured a measure in the committee's bill that authorizes DOD to fund treatment of two specific perfluorinated chemicals in drinking water at two Air National Guard bases to meet EPA's health advisory levels, though their announcement makes no mention of any requirement that DOD comply with state standards.
The amendment also provides the National Guard Bureau with access to the defense environmental restoration account to fund the cleanups, rather than its operations and maintenance (O&M) funds, and authorizes a $10 million boost to the Army, Navy, and Air Force O&M accounts and $15 million to the Guard's O&M account, according to the May 31 press release from Gillibrand's office.
Her office says the measure was adopted after DOD was attempting to force the Guard to choose between funding training and maintenance or the cleanup of water supplies.
The senators also say they won language requiring a briefing on the federal health agency report blocked by EPA and DOD due to recommendations of more conservative risk estimates for two PFAS than EPA.
While the Senate does not appear to have included a mandate for DOD to comply with state requirements in its bill, senators may still seek to include PFAS requirements when the bill moves to the floor. Michigan's two Democratic senators, for example, have said they are concerned that DOD is not complying with state standards.
And Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, last month led 25 Democratic senators, including Schumer, in urging EPA to quickly develop a drinking water standard for PFAS, citing obstacles to DOD cleanups. EPA's advisory levels “cannot be used to determine remediation responsibilities and transfers of surplus DOD property under” Superfund law, they say.
Reed's office did not respond to an inquiry into whether the senator would seek to include a PFAS measure in the defense bill.
State Standards
Such action underscores the difficulty lawmakers have had in their attempts to address DOD's significant PFAS contamination issue through defense legislation.
The problem stems from the fact that EPA currently has non-enforceable lifetime health advisories for two PFAS chemicals -- perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) -- in drinking water, driving a patchwork of state advisories, standards and rules and many calls for EPA to set federal standards.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt recently committed to “begin in earnest” a formal look at the need for a federal, enforceable drinking water standard, known as a maximum contaminant level (MCL), for PFOA and PFOS but the process to any standard would typically be lengthy.
But in the absence of an EPA standard, some states are struggling to force DOD to comply with their requirements, sparking concern from lawmakers.
Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Gary Peters (D-MI) sent a May 10 letter to Defense Secretary James Mattis raising concerns that DOD may be preparing to revise its policy so that it would not have to comply with some state cleanup requirements for PFAS. "We would have great concern if in fact the Department or any of the individual branches were considering this action," they say. A spokeswoman for Stabenow said at press time the senator has not yet received a response from DOD.
While a DOD spokeswoman would not answer a question on whether the department has formally responded to the letter, a top official recently appeared to downplay the senators' concerns. In a brief interview on the sidelines of EPA's May 22 PFAS summit, DOD Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety & Occupational Health Maureen Sullivan told Inside EPA that DOD's policy is to follow officially promulgated state standards, provided they are a “non-discriminatory standard as it fits into the [Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act] process.”
This means the standard cannot single out DOD for requirements not mandated of the private sector. She said Michigan previously approved a measure that would have been discriminatory toward DOD, but has since revoked it.
The department also cannot fund cleanups that states call for under voluntary standards, she noted. The Stabenow-Peters letter appears to respond to issues over whether DOD must treat contamination near an Air Force base to levels below EPA's lifetime health advisory level, according to Sullivan.
But Sullivan in slides presented at the PFAS summit says that DOD supports EPA's plan to consider whether a drinking water MCL is warranted.
DOD faces significant potential cleanup liability for PFAS due to its use of firefighting foam, which contains the chemicals, in training and to put out fires. According to the slides that Sullivan presented, DOD testing found 24 drinking water systems in the United States where the department is the water supplier and the water tested above EPA's health advisory.
In testing off-base wells where suspected or known migration of contaminants occurred, DOD found 564 public and private wells above the EPA advisory level, they say. And, in sampling groundwater, DOD identified 401 active and closed installations with at least one area with a known or suspected release of PFOA or PFOS, the slides say.
PFAS Database
In addition to blocking the Kildee amendment, the Rules Committee also did not allow floor consideration of a bipartisan amendment led by Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) that called for creating a national database for military service members and veterans with health problems linked to PFAS contamination.
But the House did adopt a non-binding “Sense of Congress” resolution that does not mention PFAS specifically but calls generally on DOD to “seek to reduce the financial burden on state and local government” to pay for cleanups stemming from DOD activities and says DOD should “expedite and streamline cleanup at locations where contamination is having a direct impact on civilian access to clean drinking water.”
Further, the measure calls for DOD to “allay local community concerns” over the safety of drinking water degraded by defense activities and says it should seek to increase resources for response actions and for technology solutions that may speed cleanups, and should seek to improve contracting procedures and capacity, and should pursue cooperative approaches. It calls for a high-level DOD briefing to the Armed Services committees on these initiatives within 120 days of the bill's passage.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/congress-appears-unlikely-require-dod-comply-state-pfas-limits
-
Big Shortfall Seen in Specialty Chemicals Registered in EU
Jun 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The number of specialty chemicals registered with the European Union was less than half of what the bloc expected, but chemical companies like BASF SE say they aren’t worried supply chains will be affected.
The European Chemicals Agency had expected to receive—by the May 31 deadline—registrations for about 25,000 specialty chemicals produced in or imported into the EU in annual volumes of 1 to 100 metric tons, but only 11,100 came in.
Of these, 6,824 were substances not previously registered under the REACH law, which aims to address the production and use of chemicals, and their potential impacts on human and environmental health. Higher volume and more hazardous chemicals were required to be registered under previous REACH deadlines in 2010 and 2013.
The chemicals agency played down the shortfall in registrations, saying it wasn’t aware of any concerns in supply chains that substances would no longer be available because of a failure to register.
‘Convinced’ Most Chemicals RegisteredBASF SE, the world’s largest chemicals producer, did everything possible to secure its supply chain and business activities, and doesn’t expect any of that to be disrupted, company spokesman Christian Zeintl told Bloomberg Environment.
BASF has registered about 2,000 substances under REACH—about a third of which were submitted for the May 31 deadline, Zeintl said.
The registrations submitted by the deadline brought the total number of REACH registration dossiers to 88,319, covering 21,551 chemicals submitted by 13,620 companies. Dossiers are extensive files of documentation that must include information on substance identity and properties, guidance on safe use and proposals for testing if existing substance safety information is lacking.
The European Chemical Industry Council said in a June 1 statement it was “convinced” companies had submitted registrations for most substances and “the chemical industry will continue supplying its markets and customers with no disruptions.”
The success of the deadline wouldn’t be “measured by numbers but more by impact in the supply of chemicals in the EU,” Hanna-Kaisa Torkkeli, agency spokeswoman, told Bloomberg Environment.
Forecasts of numbers of substances that would be registered had been made when market conditions were different, Christel Musset, the agency’s director of registration, said in a June 1 online briefing. In addition, because of REACH, companies “have rationalized their portfolios” and discontinued sales of substances in some cases, she said.
Compliance ConcernDespite the deadline’s passing, it was likely quite a number of chemicals would continue to be sold on the EU market without having been registered, Stefan Scheuer, a Brussels-based environmental consultant, told Bloomberg Environment.
Regulators should focus on checking for compliance after the deadline because so far REACH enforcement has been insufficient, he said.
Marko Susnik, a chemicals policy adviser to the Austrian Economic Chambers, which represents small and medium-sized companies, told Bloomberg Environment it was a “daring conclusion” that the final REACH registration deadline had been a success.
Compared to databases such as the European Inventory of Existing Commercial Chemical Substances and the EU inventory of classified and labeled substances, which have significantly more than 100,000 entries, the number of substances registered under REACH was low, Susnik said.
Small- and medium-sized companies producing low-volume chemicals, including pigments and specialized additives for automotive engines, said the costs and complexity of REACH were barriers to registration, Susnik said. Some companies trading in specialized chemicals might have decided to keep their production volumes below the REACH threshold of 1 metric ton to avoid a registration requirement, he said.
Even if companies haven’t registered their chemicals, REACH allows them to sell existing stocks, meaning it could take time for supply shortfalls to become apparent in some sectors, Susnik said
Enforcement Project PlannedMusset said EU national authorities would cooperate in an enforcement project in 2019 to check companies had fulfilled their registration obligations. Sanctions for noncompliance vary from country to country, but can include fines and criminal prosecution.
Customs authorities will need to cooperate in the enforcement effort because some companies are likely to seek to import chemicals into the EU single market through countries that are less rigorous in the enforcement of REACH, Anthony Bochon, a partner with Everest Law in Brussels, told Bloomberg Environment.
Musset said that even though the final REACH deadline passed, the registration system remained open, and some companies were still submitting registrations. In some cases leeway would be granted, such as if companies could show they had ordered chemical safety tests and the results had arrived too late to be included in the registration dossier, she said.
Potential enforcement against companies that missed the deadline and didn’t have registration numbers was the responsibility of authorities in the EU’s 28 countries, said ECHA director Bjorn Hansen, speaking at the same briefing as Musset.
There was nothing to stop late registration, but ECHA knows who registered when, and the information could be passed to enforcement authorities for possible action, Hansen said.
Though May 31 marked the end of the REACH registration process, it was “the start of another journey” in ensuring compliance, including with obligations for companies to update their registration dossiers, Musset said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/big-shortfall-seen-in-specialty-chemicals-registered-in-eu
-
California Assembly Approves Flame Retardant Ban
Jun 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
A measure that would ban the sale of children’s products, mattresses and upholstered furniture containing flame retardants in California has been approved by the state Assembly and awaits action in the Senate.
The Assembly approved the bill, AB 2998, on 30 May by a 58-12 vote.
The measure would bar, from 1 January 2020, the sale in California of covered products containing – or with a constituent component containing – the chemicals at levels above 1,000 parts per million. It covers all flame retardant substances. The bill would also bar repair and reupholstery businesses from working on furniture containing the substances.
Current California law requires manufacturers of upholstered furniture to state whether or not the product contains added flame retardants and bars manufacture or sale of products that contain more than 1/10th of 1% of pentaBDE or octaBDE.
Rhode Island, Maine and San Francisco all passed measures in 2017 banning some or all flame retardants in furniture and other products. Proposed bans were being considered by 14 state legislatures as of February.
At the national level, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) voted in September to grant an NGO petition to begin a rulemaking to prohibit the use of organohalogen flame retardants in furniture and several other household product categories.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67350/california-assembly-approves-flame-retardant-ban
-
Jun 3, 2018 | Good News Network
Currently, cosmetic manufacturers have no legal obligation in the U.S. to report health problems from their products, many of which contain known toxic ingredients—and they don’t need to prove the products’ safety before they are sold in stores.
Government regulators have never assessed the safety of any products on store shelves and, as a result, American consumers are ingesting potentially harmful ingredients through their skin without knowing it — ingredients like Propylparaben, Isobutane, and phthalates in perfumes and lotions, which contain hormone disruptors.
Do you use Pantene or Suave shampoo? Do you know what ingredients are in products you use from Dove, Oil of Olay, Aveeno, Lubriderm or Neutrogena?
Countless products contain concerning and unsafe ingredients, and a coalition of industry giants and Congressional Senators are poised to finally take action.
Last September, a coalition of companies dedicated to safer, more natural, personal care products descended on Washington, D.C. to support a new bipartisan bill, the Personal Care Products Safety Act (S. 1113), introduced by Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein and Republican Susan Collins which demands more protective laws governing that industry.
Mainstream cosmetics companies including L’Oreal, Revlon, Proctor & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Unilever, and Estee Lauder have confirmed support for the bill, which has attracted 15 co-sponsors in Congress.
Last month, the eldest Kardashian daughter, Kourtney, traveled to D.C. to push for the reform and tell Congress to “do its job”.
“Even going into a store to buy just about anything…you shouldn’t have to walk around aimlessly asking ‘Is this okay?’ ‘Is this not okay?’ Kardashian said during a briefing with New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. “Everybody should have the right to healthy products.”
Unlike in Europe and Canada, U.S. laws that do govern the $62 billion beauty industry in America are eight decades old with no rules requiring disclosure or adequate testing. While nearly 1,400 ingredients are banned from personal care products in Europe, the US has eliminated only 30. The Feinstein-Collins bill would require the FDA to investigate the safety of five cosmetics contaminants yearly, while requiring cosmetics makers to disclose ingredients, report incidents involving harm to health, and give the FDA authority to recall dangerous products.
In a recent study, the levels of potentially hormone-disrupting chemicals in the bodies of teenage girls plunged in just three days after they stopped using certain cosmetic products, shampoos and soaps that contained phthalates and parabens, according to Kim Harley, Ph.D., a researcher with the Center for Environmental Research and Children’s Health at the University of California – Berkeley.
Harley, a reproductive and perinatal epidemiologist, and her team from the Environmental Health Laboratory of the California Department of Public Heath enlisted volunteers, 100 Latina girls between 14 and 18 years old, to start using safer products. They pledged to refrain from using their regular personal care products for three days and instead to rely solely on products free of the suspected endocrine disruptors.
After three days, the teens’ urine tests showed significant decreases in the concentrations of parabens, preservatives widely used in cosmetics, shampoos and skin lotions (down 44%), and phthalates, common industrial plasticizers in nail polish and fragrances (down 27%). Particularly problematic is the fact that you won’t see ‘phthalates’ on the label, because it is hidden by using the word fragrance or parfum, unless the brand specifies it uses no artificial fragrance.
“Techniques available to consumers, such as choosing personal care products that are labeled to be free of phthalates, parabens, and oxybenzone, can significantly reduce personal exposure to these potentially endocrine-disrupting chemicals,” the study authors wrote. “Our study did not test products for the presence of these chemicals, but simply used techniques available to the average consumer, like reading labels.”
Also be aware that some “watchdog” websites can also be erroneous, according to the Scientific Advisory Board. Some synthetic preservatives are manmade, but still safe. Butylene Glycol, for instance, has been called a skin irritant, but according to the reputable Personal Care Products Council (PCPC), formerly known as the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association, it is a non-toxic, hypo-allergenic ingredient used in cosmetic and food preparations, with a well documented safety and usage record.
Some cosmetics companies, such as Arbonne, use more plant-based ingredients. They have been driving the safety of their products through independent testing and global governmental standards used by Europe. Their list of “not-allowed” ingredients includes more than 2,000 substances—even more than the 1,400 banned under EU law.
“All Arbonne products must have a 100% pass rate to be introduced to our line,” says the company website, which reports that they test ingredients’ safety through the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) and the watchdog group PCPC.
Other brands with no parabens or phthalates include Tata Harper, Dr. Hauschka, Aveda, and Acure. (Conversely, Pantene, Suave, Dove, Oil of Olay, Aveeno, Lubriderm, and Neutrogena, all sell some products formulated with those two ingredients.)
The new call to consider more closely the effects of chemicals on consumers also has far-reaching benefits for the environment, similar to recent moves to rid personal care products of microbeads. The endocrine disruptors that are flushed into waterways, have been been suspected by EPA scientists as causing malformed frogs and mutations in fish.
Because your entire family is using a myriad of products every day that may be contain harmful ingredients, it is worth your time—and Congresses—to investigate the safety of the cosmetics industry.
https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/cosmetics-regulation-reform-in-the-us/
-
(ACC Mentioned) The World’s Plastic Problem
Jun 4, 2018 | Manila Times
By Marit Stinus-Cabugon
TOMORROW, June 5, is World Environment Day. This year’s theme is #BeatPlasticPollution and it’s not a day too late: We are breathing, drinking and digesting plastic, while the world’s oceans are choking in plastic litter.
Plastic is indeed ubiquitous and it is forever: Even after we are done with it and throw it away, it doesn’t cease to exist. Burn it and it will transform into invisible, indestructible toxins. Dump it and while it might disintegrate and fragment, it doesn’t disappear. Throw it indiscriminately and it will find its way into water bodies, including the oceans, where it will be swallowed by birds, fishes and ocean mammals.
For decades, rich countries have been exporting their used plastic to China. More than half of the world’s plastic waste ended up in China (Asia Times, May 25, 2018), but starting this year, the country has banned importation of 24 types of waste. This immediately created garbage crises in the countries that used to ship most of their non-recyclable plastic and paper wastes to China. The US asked China to delay or modify the ban. Other waste exporters have diverted their garbage to Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand. Some banned trash still finds its way to China though: In May alone, Chinese customs authorities seized 137,000 tons of smuggled “foreign garbage” (Global Times, May 27, 2018).
In Australia, incineration has gained popularity as the quick fix solution to the crisis. Similarly, the American Chemistry Council – whose membership counts plastic producers – has launched its “plastics-to-fuel” campaign suggesting the burning of unrecyclable plastics to produce various petroleum-based products (plastic is made from petroleum or petrochemicals).
But what the world needs is less plastic, environmentalists say. They hail China for banning importation of plastic waste. The ban has exposed the poor state of plastic recycling in the developed countries, that rather than address the problem at home simply shipped out most of their used plastic. China is still taking some trash, but only those with higher recyclability content. The burden of sorting the wastes has shifted from the Chinese importer to the exporter.
In Europe, the European Commission announced on May 28 that it is targeting 10 single use plastic products (SUPs) for either an outright ban or restrictions. These 10 SUPs and abandoned or lost fishing gear account for 70 percent of marine litter found on Europe’s beaches. “Plastic residues are now found in many marine species … and therefore enter the food chain,” the commission says in its proposed directive. The single use plastic products that the commission wants banned are the ones where alternatives are readily available and affordable. These are plastic cotton buds, cutlery, plates, straws, drink stirrers, and sticks for balloons.
For other single use plastic products, consumption reduction targets will be set while extended producer responsibility will be applied in dealing with the costs of waste management and clean-up, and consumer awareness campaign.
Closer to home, Dumaguete City has just started implementing a “no plastic everyday” policy at the city public market. In Cebu, plastic still rules with stores giving plastic bags except on a no-plastic bag day once a week. Incidentally, Marks & Spencer gives a P10 discount to customers who decline the store’s paper bag.
Many coffee shops and stores selling milk teas and other beverages continue to use single use cups or containers with huge plastic lids (that are often completely unnecessary), straws and stirrers. Then there are the bottled drinks, including mineral water. These beverages or drinks are often promoted as lifestyle products. But few if any of the containers – cups and bottles – are reused or recycled. Even if properly disposed of after fulfilling their short-lived purpose, these single use plastic containers end up in the landfill where they are mixed with used sanitary napkins, banana peel, torn envelopes and other household waste. It is disturbing to know that a simple beverage leaves an ecological footprint out of proportion with the need that is satisfies.
Let me end on a positive note: Arthaland’s Cebu Exchange Tower that will rise in Salinas Drive, Cebu City, will be Cebu’s first “sustainable office development” catering to tech firms and BPOs. It will be a “green building,” its design and the materials to be used in the construction helping the future owner or tenant reduce electricity consumption by up to 40 percent. A double piping system will enable the use of recycled water and cut the water bill. Water has long been a scarce commodity in Metro Cebu, so any high-rise building that considers how tenants can conserve water, is laudable. In the same way with electricity: while power supply is not a problem in Cebu at this time, new capacity is unfortunately dominated by coal-fired plants that even in their cleanest form contribute to air pollution and climate change. Conserving electricity benefits all, not only the consumer. Happy World Environment Day!
http://www.manilatimes.net/the-worlds-plastic-problem/404160/
-
Zone Before You Frack, Pennsylvania Court Tells Local Governments
Jun 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Local governments in Pennsylvania must amend their zoning ordinances to specifically allow for gas drilling, the state’s Supreme Court ruled June 1 in a decision that sided with Lycoming County property owners opposed to fracking near their land.
The 4-3 decision is a victory for the four residents of Fairfield Township who sued the town’s Board of Supervisors after it allowed for drilling of an unconventional natural gas well in a conditional use district that was zoned Residential-Agricultural, or R-A.
The decision has implications for Marcellus Shale drilling in Pennsylvania and could be a warning to local governments interested in courting gas companies.
Overturned
Overturning a lower court decision, the state Supreme Court ruled that the township couldn’t automatically equate drilling operations with power and water utilities that are permitted under the zoning ordinances without amending its zoning codes.
“What a governing body may not do, however, and what the Fairfield Township Board of Supervisors did in this case, is to permit oil and gas development in residential/agricultural districts without first enacting the necessary amendments, based upon a clearly inadequate evidentiary record and no meaningful interpretative analysis of the language of its existing zoning laws,” Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Christine Donohue wrote in the June 1 majority opinion.
Modify ZoningThe decision indicates that local governments will need to change their zoning codes to allow for fracking, David Hess of Crisci Associates, a government affairs lobbying firm in Harrisburg, wrote in a blog post June 1. Hess once served as the state’s secretary of environmental protection.
Messages left by phone and email to Fairfield Township on June 1 were not answered. A woman who answered the phone at Inflection Energy LLC, the Denver-based gas developer involved in the case, said the company had no comment.
“The Court’s decision makes clear that shale gas development is an industrial land use, and that local government must rigorously consider what other land uses it is compatible with before allowing it to occur in districts designed for incompatible uses, such as a district designed to foster a quiet residential environment,” George Jugovic, Jr., vice president of legal affairs at the environmental group PennFuture who argued the case before the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court in March 2017, said.
A dissenting opinion, written by Justice Kevin M. Dougherty and joined by Justices Max Baer and Sallie Updyke Mundy, found the majority’s view “unduly restrictive.”
The case is Gorseline v Bd of Supervisors of Fairfield Twp., Pa., No. 67 MAP 2016, 6/1/18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/zone-before-you-frack-pennsylvania-court-tells-local-governments
-
Fracking Limits Near Playgrounds Among Rules on Hold by Penn. Court
Jun 2, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Portions of Pennsylvania’s hydraulic fracturing regulations that restrict drilling near playgrounds and other public spaces can remain on hold pending a legal challenge from a coalition of natural gas developers, the state’s Supreme Court ruled June 1.
But in a majority opinion by Chief Justice Thomas Saylor, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court also reversed portions of a lower court decision and allowed rules to take effect governing well-developed impoundments—ponds—and site restoration at fracking sites.
The impoundment provisions require drillers to apply new construction standards, such as using a synthetic impervious liner, and fencing or monitoring the pond to reduce risk of damage.
The site restoration provisions require drillers to restore the land surface that has been disturbed when a well is drilled.
The decision is a partial victory for the Pittsburgh-based Marcellus Shale Coalition, which sued the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the state’s Environmental Quality Board in October 2016 challenging provisions in the regulations on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
“We appreciate the court’s attention and responsiveness to our ongoing legal challenge to several specific Chapter 78a provisions, which cause immediate harm to our industry and we believe to be unlawful,” the coalition told Bloomberg Environment in an email.
Years of ActionThe Chapter 78a regulations took effect Oct. 8. 2016, after years of revisions and public hearings. They were intended to account for new production techniques and activities and to provide reasonable protections for such things as natural resources, water supplies, endangered species, schools, and playgrounds while still encouraging the safe production of natural gas.
The Marcellus Shale Coalition has argued that the regulations conflict with existing statutes, could cost producers up to $2 million per well with no environmental benefit, and are harmful to the industry.
Litigation over the validity of the rulemaking itself will now continue before the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection spokesman Neil Shader told Bloomberg Environment June 1.
The agency had no comment on the June 1 decision.
The state agencies had appealed a Nov. 8, 2016, order from the Commonwealth Court that temporarily blocked portions of the regulations that restricted drilling near school playgrounds, required developers to monitor and remediate inactive wells near drilling sites, imposed new construction standards for impoundments, and set new requirements for site restoration.
The case is Marcellus Shale Coal. v. Dep’t Env’tl Prot., Pa., No. 115 MAP 2016, 6/1/18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/fracking-limits-near-playgrounds-among-rules-on-hold-by-penn-court
-
Vatican to Host Oil Majors, Investment Firms for Climate Talks
Jun 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
Top executives of oil and gas companies and investment firms are expected to huddle next week at the Vatican to discuss climate change, the latest sign the corporate community is ramping up its focus on the issue.
The meeting with Pope Francis is expected to include the top executives of BlackRock Inc., Exxon Mobil Corp., and BP Plc, among others, as well as former Obama administration Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.
A spokesman for Moniz confirmed that he would attend the discussions. ExxonMobil and BlackRock didn’t return Bloomberg Environment’s request for comment. A spokeswoman for BP declined to comment—though company spokesman Geoff Morrell previously confirmed to Axios that BP CEO Bob Dudley would attend and was looking forward to the discussions.
Axios first reported the gathering would take place. Bloomberg Environment independently confirmed the meeting, which is expected to occur late in the week of June 4.
Doubling Down on ClimateDiscussions at the gathering will be private to allow for an open dialogue among the executives. But the meeting underscores recent statements from several of the companies that they are doubling down on climate change goals, even as the Trump administration pulls back on climate policies.
A year ago on June 1, President Donald Trump announced that he will pull the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement. Many companies, including oil and gas majors like ExxonMobil and BP, urged the president to remain in the deal.
“The fact that the pope, who is not a traditional environmental or clean-energy advocate, the fact he has said this is an issue about the future of our planet, a moral, fundamental issue as well as a compelling economic issue, is very significant,” Mindy Lubber, chief executive officer and president of nonprofit sustainability group Ceres in Boston, told Bloomberg Environment.
Some recent corporate climate efforts have resulted from increasing pressure from shareholders. For example, ExxonMobil shareholders voted last year to require the oil and gas giant to account for and report the risks it faces from climate change. On May 23, the company announced new greenhouse gas reduction efforts, outlining a target to reduce methane emissions from its production assets.
BP in March announced that it will invest $500,000, through its finance arm BP Ventures, in a U.S.-based consortium focused on developing low-carbon technologies.
Call to ActionBlackRock CEO Larry Fink, who is expected to attend the Vatican meeting, wrote an open letter to CEOs in January, urging them to look beyond their profits and engage with shareholders on issues like sustainability.
“Your company’s strategy must articulate a path to achieve financial performance,” Fink wrote. “To sustain that performance, however, you must also understand the societal impact of your business as well as the ways that broad structural trends—from slow wage growth to rising automation to climate change—affect your potential for growth.”
The upcoming gathering isn’t the Vatican’s first foray into climate change territory. Pope Francis in May 2015 wrote an encyclical, a letter sent to all Catholic bishops, on climate change urging protection of “our common home.”
“Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day,” the pope wrote. “There is an urgent need to develop policies so that, in the next few years, the emission of carbon dioxide and other highly polluting gases can be drastically reduced, for example, substituting for fossil fuels and developing sources of renewable energy.”
More Progress NeededDespite momentum from oil and gas companies on accounting for the climate risks and making some clean energy investments, their progress on the issue has been slower than other sectors, Ceres’ Lubber said. And the progress in part is driven by increasing momentum in the investment community, she added.
Major asset managers such the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the New York State Common Retirement Fund acted earlier on the issue, putting more money into renewable energy and engaging with higher emitting countries to disclose climate risks, Lubber said. Both asset managers work closely with Ceres’ investor network.
Large investment firms including BlackRock, Morgan Stanley, and State Street Corp. have become more heavily involved in the past five to six years, though Lubber said they are still generally taking small steps.
The next step is to ensure that investment firms are incorporating climate considerations into their investment portfolios. “If this is a fundamental economic risk, a material risk that matters, then it shouldn’t only matter for” the investment products dealing with the environment, Lubber said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/vatican-to-host-oil-majors-investment-firms-for-climate-talks-1
-
Shell Markets Gas With Offset Package as Neutral for Climate
Jun 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mathew Carr
Royal Dutch Shell Plc is attempting to market some of its natural gas as clean energy, packaging it with credits for eco-friendly projects that offset pollution coming from the fuel.
The oil giant is offering business customers in Europe a combination of gas and certificates that show emissions are offset with financing for carbon-reduction projects. It’s testing markets in Germany, Italy, Spain, and Britain to gauge demand for what credits to use, according to David Wells, head of Shell Energy Europe in London.
The move is the latest sign that oil companies are seeking to adapt to tighter environmental rules and the urge by policy makers worldwide to cut greenhouse gases. Natural gas is the cleanest of fossil fuels, though it still produces carbon dioxide blamed for heating the Earth’s atmosphere. By selling pollution offsets with the gas, Shell could “neutralize” the impact of that fuel on the climate.
“Most companies are fairly early in the sustainability journey, so there’s a huge amount of interest” from potential customers, Wells said in an interview. “The point of transaction may be a little bit further down the track.”
Other oil companies have taken steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their fuels.
BP Plc invests in emissions reduction projects worldwide to compensate for emissions in producing lubricants to acids. The program, called Target Neutral, has offset 3 million tons of carbon dioxide since 2006, about the same as taking 1.3 million cars off U.K. roads for a year.
Total SA’s Ecosolutions focuses on improving development, production, and marketing of its products. The Paris-based company said last November that it cut 8 million tons of emissions under the program since 2009. The savings were 1.9 million tons last year, according to data on the company’s website.Under Pressure
Shell is offering its credits as oil companies face increasing shareholder pressure to tackle global warming and recognize the need to shift their business plans toward clean-energy targets in the 2015 Paris climate deal.
Oil and gas products can be offset by selling emissions credits, though it’s unclear how to account for such transactions because nations have yet to agree on rules under the Paris Agreement. Shell’s emissions reduction credits will be verified by firms outside the company, Wells said.
Shell already “has access” to offsets from the Reducing Emissions From Deforestation and Forest Degradation program known as REDD+, according to spokeswoman Sally Donaldson.
“Deforestation schemes are the most obvious ones,” Wells said. “This is a voluntary offset, so it has to be something that resonates with the customer. That’s still a work in progress.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/shell-markets-gas-with-offset-package-as-neutral-for-climate
-
Sierra Club's Suit Over Gas Pipeline Tests Corps' CWA Permitting Power
Jun 1, 2018 | Inside EPA
Sierra Club and other environmental groups are urging a federal appeals court to vacate the use of a Clean Water Act (CWA) dredge-and-fill general permit for the construction of a natural gas pipeline in West Virginia, creating a fresh legal test of the Army Corps of Engineers' power to approve the use of CWA general permits.
“The Pipeline is ineligible for the streamlined permit at issue. The Corps knew that, but authorized its use anyway,” Sierra Club says in its May 25 opening brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Sierra Club et al. v. Army Corps of Engineers.
The opening brief comes as the 4th Circuit is also weighing a motion from Sierra Club to halt construction of the pipeline until the court rules on the issues outlined in the brief.
The Corps has temporarily pulled its authorization of Mountain Valley Pipeline's (MVP) use of nationwide permit 12 (NWP 12) until the Corps can determine if MVP is complying will all the terms of the permit, but is allowing construction to continue for sections of the pipeline not subject to NWP 12.
“The Corps’ legally required determination of whether the Pipeline complies with all the terms and conditions of NWP 12 was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law because the Corps’ consideration of three conditions was impermissibly inadequate,” the opening brief says.
“Moreover, because certain stream crossings are ineligible for the streamlined permit, the Corps could not lawfully authorize NWP 12’s use for any of the Pipeline’s stream crossings. That is, the defects as to certain ineligible stream crossings infected the Corps’ verification of the remainder of the stream crossings. For those reasons, this Court should vacate the Corps’ verification that the Pipeline’s 591 waterbody crossings are authorized under NWP 12.”
However, the Corps is countering in a May 31 response that there is no reason to stop work on segments of the pipeline not affected by its reconsideration of the NWP 12 approval.
“During that process, work should be allowed on the crossings that are not affected by the issue Petitioners have raised. The Court should defer to the Corps’ management of these issues while its administrative reconsideration continues,” the Corps' new filing says.
In its merits brief, Sierra Club argues that the Corps erred in at least three ways when authorizing the use of NWP 12 for the pipeline.
First, MVP admitted, and the Corps knew, that it cannot construct its crossings of four rivers in compliance with NWP 12's condition that requires all stream crossings in West Virginia to be completed within 72 hours, the brief says.
Second, because West Virginia waived its authority to issue an individual water quality certification for the pipeline under CWA section 401, MVP cannot satisfy that condition of NWP 12, the brief says. Although the state “may have had the authority to waive its authority under CWA Section 401, it does not have the authority to modify either NWP 12 or its prior Section 401 Certification of NWP 12,” Sierra Club argues.
Third, environmentalists argue, the Corps' decision is devoid of any analysis of whether MVP’s discharges just 3,600 feet upstream from a public drinking water intake comply with General Condition 7 of the NWPs, which prohibits activity “in the proximity of a public water supply intake.”
“Because at least five of the Pipeline’s water crossings are ineligible for NWP 12 coverage, the Corps’ verification of the remaining crossings under NWP 12 was not in accordance with [federal regulations] and should be vacated,” Sierra Club says, maintaining that even one ineligible crossing renders all the pipeline's crossings ineligible for NWP 12.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/sierra-clubs-suit-over-gas-pipeline-tests-corps-cwa-permitting-power
-
With Gas Prices in Mind, Members to Debate Increased Drilling
Jun 4, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Scott Streater
A House Natural Resources subcommittee this week will consider a suite of draft legislation aimed at reducing what President Trump has called the "regulatory burden" on oil and natural gas development on federal lands.
Among the four measures to be discussed at Wednesday's Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee hearing is a discussion draft that appears designed to discourage administrative protests of oil and gas lease sales and development. It will certainly spark opposition from conservation groups.
The proposal would allow the Interior secretary to collect a "filing fee" from those submitting administrative protests of oil and gas lease sales, issuance of right-of-way grants or applications for permit to drill (APD). The "base filling fee" for administrative protests that are 10 pages or less would be $150, with "an additional assessment of $5 per page," the discussion draft says.
In addition, protests that challenge "more than one oil and gas lease parcel, right-of-way, or application for permit to drill" would be assessed an additional $10 for each additional lease parcel, ROW grant or APD being challenged, the measure says.
The discussion draft calls for implementing the filing fees beginning Jan. 1, 2020. It's not clear who sponsored it.
The three other discussion drafts — two sponsored by New Mexico Rep. Steve Pearce (R) and one sponsored by Utah Rep. John Curtis (R) — call for streamlining oil and gas permitting and reducing regulations on drilling for federally owned minerals on non-federal land.
All four discussion drafts mirror the president's wishes. Last year, he directed federal agencies to review regulations and actions that "burden" the development of domestic energy resources on public lands.
The Bureau of Land Management earlier this year issued an instruction memorandum reversing several onshore leasing reforms instituted by the Obama administration (Energywire, Feb. 2). Among them, the updated leasing procedures slash the period of time during which opponents can raise objections to proposals and scrap a rotating auction schedule designed to give BLM offices more time for review.
Katie Schoettler, a spokeswoman for House Natural Resources Committee Republicans, said in an email to E&E News that the discussion draft proposals "are needed to expedite the burdensome regulatory process" to drill on public lands that GOP lawmakers have complained about for years.Gas prices
Schoettler also tied the drafts to rising gasoline prices, saying the proposed bills "will help American families across the nation pay less at the pump." She did not elaborate on the connection between federal regulations and rising gasoline prices, which the price-tracking website GasBuddy said earlier this week are averaging $2.97 a gallon — the highest point in several years.
The issue has touched off a sometimes fierce political debate, with Democrats blaming the rising prices in part on Trump's decision to exit the Iran nuclear deal (E&E Daily, May 23). Republicans have shot back, accusing them of not supporting increased domestic production.
Katharine MacGregor, Interior's deputy assistant secretary for land and minerals management, is scheduled to testify at Wednesday's hearing.
MacGregor boasted at a Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources hearing last year that BLM was moving to ramp up oil and gas production. "And we're only just getting started," she said (E&E Daily, June 30, 2017).
BLM earlier this year released data showing that in 2017, oil and gas lease sales generated about $360 million — an 86 percent increase over 2016, the final year of the Obama administration (E&E News PM, Feb. 1).
The first discussion draft sponsored by Pearce calls for broadening the use of permitting exemptions, called categorical exclusions, "to streamline the oil and gas permitting process" on lands managed by Interior and the Forest Service.
The categorical exclusions would exempt environmental analysis in specific circumstances, mostly in instances where similar activity has already been evaluated. This includes drilling wells "at a well pad site at which drilling has occurred previously," or for expanding or modifying "an existing oil or gas well pad site, road, pipeline, facilities, or utilities submitted in a Sundry Notice," the discussion draft says.
Pearce's second discussion draft states that BLM will not require oil and gas operators to obtain a federal permit "to access subsurface mineral estate" on private or other non-federal lands if the oil and gas at issue "is less than 50 percent Federally owned."
New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R) and Ken McQueen, secretary of the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, are also set to testify Wednesday.
The discussion draft sponsored by Curtis calls for amending the Mineral Leasing Act to allow a drilling operator to begin production activities, under certain circumstances and on eligible federal lands, after submitting to the Interior secretary a notification of permit to drill.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/06/04/stories/1060083243
-
Energy and Water Bill Heads to House Floor
Jun 4, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Manuel Quiñones
The House is planning to take up its first spending bills for fiscal 2019 — a package to include measures to fund energy and water programs, and veterans and military construction issues.
The minibus is part of an effort in both the House and Senate to advance appropriations work as quickly as possible.
The $44.7 billion energy and water bill largely ignores President Trump's budget but includes controversial measures against Obama-era water regulations and in favor of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site in Nevada (Greenwire, May 16).
The Senate version does not follow the House to fund Yucca licensing or scrap the Clean Water Rule.
The House military construction measure doesn't include much related to energy and the environment, but the report includes a provision to fund roads in military communities affected by sea-level rise (E&E Daily, May 9).
The Rules Committee will meet tomorrow to discuss parameters for debate and potential amendments to the minibus. Proposals filed include efforts to increase or drop funding for certain line items.
Others are:A proposed amendment from Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) to strike language repealing the Clean Water Rule.Another Beyer-proposed amendment to strike language meant to protect farmers from needing Clean Water Act dredge-and-fill permits for certain activities.Several proposed amendments from Rep. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) against the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.A proposed amendment from Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) to prevent funding for climate change programs in Africa.
On the Senate side, appropriators will advance legislation in committee to fund the Department of Transportation and also veterans and military construction issues.
Subcommittee markups are scheduled for tomorrow, followed by a full committee vote on Thursday.
House appropriators are selling their transportation spending bill as a "down payment" on broader infrastructure reform (E&E Daily, May 24).
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/06/04/stories/1060083251
-
Shuster Wants a Bill, but Outlook Remains Dim
Jun 4, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk
"Infrastructure week" has become a perennial joke around Washington, D.C., mocked as the Trump administration's go-to distraction whenever it has to fend off a damaging news story.
The White House and most lawmakers now agree that the infrastructure plan President Trump floated in February has little chance of making it through Congress this year.
But House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) is holding out hope. Over the past few weeks, he's told reporters and groups at public speaking events that he wants to produce a broad, bipartisan infrastructure bill sometime this summer.
"Chairman Shuster believes that action on infrastructure should remain a priority for Congress this year," a committee spokesman told E&E News in an email. "There is strong interest from Committee members and he is working with his colleagues to produce a measure this summer."
Shuster has been mum on what, exactly, that bill would look like, or whether it would be based directly on the president's plan.
But action on infrastructure would be welcome news to many high-profile observers in Washington, who have grown frustrated as the administration and Congress drag their feet.
Ray LaHood, the Republican who served as President Obama's first Transportation secretary, told E&E News he is disappointed in the lack of progress on the issue.
"It's not on the list of priorities for the White House. It's not on the list of priorities for the Congress," LaHood, who serves as a policy adviser at the law firm DLA Piper, said in a recent interview.
"That's a huge, huge disappointment for states and cities and people who build roads and people who use our transportation systems."
The House is set to take up its water infrastructure bill this week in what GOP leadership has sold as one of several small steps toward Trump's plan.
But a pivot to a broader package that would include permitting provisions and transportation infrastructure remains elusive.
White House infrastructure adviser D.J. Gribbin — one of the primary architects of the plan — left the administration in April. Many observers saw the departure as a nail in the coffin, since Gribbin had been aggressively pitching the plan to lawmakers and outside groups before stepping down.
He still has not been replaced. Asked last week whether a hire was in the works, a White House spokeswoman said she had no staff announcements to make.
"Since the Trump administration's been in office, I've had several meetings with D.J. Gribbin, who used to be the White House infrastructure guy," LaHood said. "I talked to him on his way out the door."
The fact that Gribbin hasn't been replaced yet is disappointing but hardly surprising, LaHood added.
What's more, the Trump administration has already moved to implement a number of the environmental permitting proposals laid out in its infrastructure plan, with or without Congress. That could make moderate Democrats even more hesitant to address the issue.
The White House Council on Environmental Quality, for instance, has already moved ahead with preliminary plans to reform its National Environmental Policy Act regulations. Those changes, which have potentially huge implications for the energy and transportation industries, are likely to take months, if not years (Greenwire, May 21).
Once lawmakers see how those changes — as well as reviews at individual agencies — play out, then the politics might get easier, said Fred Wagner, a partner with Venable LLP's environmental practice group who served as chief counsel for the Federal Highway Administration in the Obama administration.
"Once they understand some of that, then I think it becomes a lot easier to approach the question of, from a legislative perspective, of 'What should we do?'" Wagner said.
For now, administration officials — including the president himself — have said repeatedly that it will have to wait until after the midterm elections.
Most recently, it was White House Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short who told reporters that the road to 60 votes in the Senate would be too arduous, with Democrats unwilling to give Trump what he called a legislative win before midterms.
"There's a great desire to get there, but I just think the politics this year are intervening on that," Short said last month. "So I think it's something we're going to focus on more in 2019."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/06/04/stories/1060083263
-
States to Target Climate Pollutants, in Contrast With Paris Exit
Jun 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The states most active on climate change announced plans to cut short-lived planet-warming pollutants like methane and black carbon, and expand clean-energy financing.
The 16-state U.S. Climate Alliance’s unveiling of the initiatives June 1 coincided with the one-year anniversary of President Donald Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement.
The steps were intended to show that action would continue to build at the state level even as the Trump administration moves toward a formal withdrawal from the international climate agreement in 2020.
Part of the Climate Alliance’s plan is to cut hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), black carbon, methane, and other short-lived climate pollutants. Carbon dioxide is the main driver of climate change, but the short-lived pollutants are also potent contributors to warming.
Specifics about how the states would reduce these pollutants will be announced during a Global Climate Action Summit in September, a statement from New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) said.
‘Super Pollutants’The focus on the short-lived pollutants, also known as “super pollutants,” is new, because until now most efforts below the federal level been about reducing carbon dioxide, said Andrew Light, a former State Department climate negotiator with the Obama administration.
“But there’s a lot of capacity still there for addressing super pollutants” at the state level, Light, a senior fellow at the World Resources Institute, told Bloomberg Environment.
Reductions of black carbon—the sooty pollution from coal-fired power plants and other sources—also will help make the air healthier, he said.
The alliance includes 16 states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington, as well as Puerto Rico.
Those group members have vowed to continue cutting emissions consistent with their share of the goal the Obama administration unveiled before the 2015 Paris talks: a 26 percent to 28 percent emissions reduction by 2025 from 2005 levels.
Green BanksThe climate alliance also said it will work to increase the number of state “green banks” uses innovative financing techniques and market development tools in partnership with the private sector to accelerate clean energy technologies’ use.
The New York-based Green Bank announced in 2017 it would begin supporting renewable energy projects outside the state. Other new cooperative efforts will focus on increasing the amount of carbon dioxide stored in forests and farms.
Three states in the climate alliance—New York, Connecticut, and California—have been at the forefront of creating green banks.
But for now, states in the climate alliance are focusing more on how to use the existing banks to help finance commercially viable clean energy projects instead of working to open such banks in every state, Caroline Angoorly, the New York Green Bank’s chief operating officer, told Bloomberg Environment.
“Does it make sense to have everyone create their own entities?” she asked.
An alternative is to have existing banks such as New York’s assist other states in credit underwriting, a process used to assess lending risks for a specific project, she said.
While the super pollutant pledge is light on specifics, the climate alliance pointed to several potential areas to cut emissions, including methane from landfills.
States in the alliance have more than 250 landfill energy projects that are fueled by methane emitted from those landfills that would otherwise be vented to the atmosphere or flared, and opportunities exist for nearly 100 more such projects, according to a Climate Alliance fact sheet.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/states-to-target-climate-pollutants-in-contrast-with-paris-exit-1
-
More Money, Fewer Woes if Climate Deal Target Met, Research Says
Jun 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
A study is forecasting trillions in global economic benefits from meeting Paris climate agreement temperature targets, but many of the corporate boardrooms most receptive to its conclusions are the ones already with ambitious climate goals.
The study, published May 24 in Nature, finds the globe could be more than $30 trillion richer if countries meet the 2015 climate deal’s strongest target, which aims to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).
The study is one of the first to look at the economic benefits of meeting the 1.5-degree goal in particular, compared to the agreement’s main target to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).
The study of climate benefits and costs came nearly a year after President Donald Trump’s June 1, 2017, announcement that he would pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate deal, saying it imposed “draconian financial and economic burdens” on the nation.
Trump’s decision was the result of months of internal debate at the White House. But many U.S. companies, including oil and gas giants Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., urged the president to stay in the deal.
Still SplitCompanies that are ambitious climate actors could see the study as further vindication they are doing the right thing in setting science-based emissions targets, procuring more renewable energy, and preparing for risks to their operations from climate change impacts such as sea level rise, Anne L. Kelly, senior director of policy for Ceres, the sustainability nonprofit group, told Bloomberg Environment.
Kelly directs Ceres’ Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy network, which includes companies such as Adobe Systems Inc., eBay Inc., General Mills Inc., IKEA, and Mars Inc.
Businesses on the sidelines aren’t likely to be swayed, in part because the research examines the potential economic benefits at a country level, making it difficult to distill down to specific companies, George David Banks, executive vice president at the American Council for Capital Formation in Washington, told Bloomberg Environment.
The paper is “useful from a very high-level policymaking perspective, but it’s not going to change the debate here in the U.S. on a national climate policy, and I don’t know how it can be used from a business perspective,” said Banks, who served as Trump’s top international energy adviser until February.
Projected BenefitsThe Nature study, by Stanford University’s Marshall Burke, Noah S. Diffenbaugh, and W. Matthew Davis, projects economic benefits using gross domestic product for a range of scenarios. Those include if countries met the 1.5-degree or 2-degree Paris agreement targets; if countries achieved their current national emissions commitments, leading to about 2.5 or 3 degrees of warming by end of century; and business as usual, leading to up to 4 degrees of warming.
Although the study doesn’t measure the effect on individual companies, Burke said tucked within the broader GDP metric is the output of millions of individual companies that would be negatively affected by climate change in the absence of mitigation efforts.
Companies should see the potential benefit, too, of investments in new technology, he added. Meeting the 1.5-degree goal will require new technologies, and that is a big call to the private sector.
“The returns of those technologies are going to be absolutely huge,” Burke said.
According to the study, meeting the 1.5-degree target could increase global gross domestic product by 3 percent to 4 percent by 2100. That equates to around $30 trillion in current dollars, or about 20 percent to 30 percent of current global GDP, Burke told Bloomberg Environment.
The world’s poorest countries with already high temperatures would reap the biggest benefits from meeting the 1.5-degree target, but most large, wealthy nations also would see a substantial amount of avoided costs. The U.S. in particular could see potential economic benefits of $5 trillion to $6 trillion, Burke said.
Tipping PointThe Nature study runs counter to the narrative of the Trump administration and others who argue participation in the Paris agreement would be too costly for the U.S.
“There has been no change in the U.S. position on the Paris agreement,” Lindsay Walters, White House deputy press secretary, told Bloomberg Environment in response to questions about the study.
The recent Stanford University research isn’t the first report to show substantial economic benefits from aggressive climate mitigation.
That evidence is growing toward a tipping point, and it includes a 2017 study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that found short- and long-term economic benefits for Group of Twenty countries, representing major economies, from strong climate policies, Helen Mountford, program director for the New Climate Economy initiative, told Bloomberg Environment.
Mountford said the narrative pushed by critics that climate policy is too costly lingers, despite evidence to the contrary.
She finds that real-world evidence is more persuasive to companies—whether damages already incurred from climate effects or dollars earned from early investments in clean energy and other mitigation technologies.
Much of the business community is waking up to this, Mountford said.
Studies like the Stanford research should underscore not just the importance of calculating risks from climate change but also the significant benefit to be gained from learning where opportunities will lie and how to seize them, she added.
“Companies have done the math. They did the math a long time ago, regardless of who is in the White House,” Ceres’ Kelly said. Now those companies that already knew the clean energy transition would be cost effective know “there really will be value creation as well.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/more-money-fewer-woes-if-climate-deal-target-met-research-says
-
U.S. Industries Ask Trump Administration to Endorse Global Hydrofluorocarbon Deal
Jun 4, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
A group of unlikely allies wants the Trump administration to require reduced U.S. use of a class of synthetic chemicals that are potent greenhouse gases, in line with an international agreement.
The organizations lobbying for the restrictions include rival international chemical producers Arkema, Chemours, Honeywell, and Mexichem Fluor as well as a U.S. business that builds refrigerated trailers for shipping. Then there are environmental advocates, domestic manufacturers of home refrigerators, and a company that makes aerosol tire-inflating products.
Related: The global push against hydrofluorocarbons
The organizations hold different views on how the U.S. should implement a 2016 treaty on hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)—chemicals used as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and blowing agents that puff up plastic into foams. But they are delivering a unified appeal to the Trump administration, which has generally disparaged international deals, from trade pacts to the Paris Agreement to combat climate change. Their message is simple: Back the global accord on HFCs.
HFCs replaced chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons, two classes of chemicals that were used for the above applications and that break down stratospheric ozone. In contrast, HFCs are harmless to the ozone layer but have large potential to contribute to global warming.
To address the climate change threat from continued use of HFCs, countries met in Kigali, Rwanda, in 2016 and set a global schedule to phase down use of these greenhouse gases. They acted by tacking an amendment onto a 1989 treaty, the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer.
Implementing the Kigali Amendment on HFCs hasn’t been high on the Trump administration’s agenda. To do so, the administration must seek formal consent from the Senate to ratify the international treaty. Besides, the U.S. already had a plan in place for ratcheting down use of HFCs—a 2015 regulation from the Environmental Protection Agency under former president Barack Obama.
But HFC manufacturers Mexichem Fluor and Arkema challenged that rule in court. They argued that the agency improperly relied on part of the Clean Air Act that requires manufacturers to replace substances that deplete stratospheric ozone with safer substitutes. Last August, a federal court agreed with them and struck down the rule, delivering a blow to EPA and its supporters in the case, Honeywell International, Chemours, and environmental activists. Honeywell and Chemours make HFC alternatives.
The decision threw the market for HFCs and alternatives into a whirl of uncertainty about whether, when, and how the U.S. will pare back the use of HFCs. At a recent public meeting with EPA, representatives from a variety of industries warned that U.S. businesses might lose money from investments in HFC-free technology because the 2015 regulation is kaput.
For instance, Fix-a-Flat, a company that produces aerosol cans that can inflate vehicle tires, has already switched from HFCs, marketing its products as containing a “zero global warming potential propellant.”
But some makers of other aerosol products are wondering whether they can switch from newer, more climate-friendly chemicals back to HFCs, said Douglas Raymond, a consultant who spoke at the EPA meeting on behalf of the National Aerosol Association.
Companies can now legally use HFCs in aerosols sold in the U.S., responded Cindy Newberg, who manages EPA’s program that approves the use of chemicals as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances such as CFCs. However, she warned that EPA will eventually restrict HFCs through a new regulation, although the agency is just in the starting phase of creating that rule.
While EPA works on the rule, the Trump administration should reduce uncertainty by endorsing the Kigali Amendment as a political signal that the U.S. still plans to crank back its HFC use despite the court ruling, said Kevin Fay, executive director of the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy. That group represents manufacturers, businesses, and trade associations that make or use fluorinated gases, including fluorochemical producers AGC Chemicals, Arkema, Chemours, Daikin, Honeywell, Mexichem Fluor, and Solvay. Individual representatives of Arkema and Mexichem Fluor, the companies that successfully argued in court against EPA’s HFC regulation, also said at the meeting that those companies back U.S. participation in the Kigali Amendment even though they questioned the agency’s legal basis for the rule.
Officials throughout the administration, including representatives from the Commerce Department and the military, have held discussions on the Kigali Amendment, said William Wehrum, who leads EPA’s Office of Air & Radiation. They are trying to reach a well-reasoned, deliberative decision on whether to back the global HFC deal, he said.
“You have billions of dollars on the line,” Fay stated. “If you don’t speak up soon, that investment from our companies [in HFC-free technology] is going to go elsewhere.”
President Donald J. Trump has often chosen to change or withdraw from—rather than embrace—international agreements. But failure to support the Kigali Amendment would work at odds with some of his priorities, such as expanding U.S. jobs and cutting the country’s trade deficit, warns a recent study by the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy and the Air-Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration Institute. Domestic implementation of the Kigali deal is expected to create 33,000 U.S. jobs in manufacturing by 2027, the study says. At the same time, working with other countries to decrease global HFC use would boost the U.S. share of the world market in heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, and refrigeration equipment to 9.0%, up from 7.2% in 2016, thus increasing the nation’s exports. Not embracing the Kigali deal will mean economic losses for the U.S., the study finds.
Meanwhile, the lack of a federal path to reduce HFCs is leading to a situation that industry detests—regulation of HFCs by individual states, Fay and others said. California is already moving to ban HFCs in certain new equipment, such as frozen-yogurt dispensers, and in foams as a backstop to the overturned EPA rule.
Many sectors fear California’s move will lead to a patchwork of state requirements for HFCs, causing headaches for manufacturers that sell products across the U.S. The federal government, rather than individual states, needs to set policy on HFCs, said Helen Walter-Terrinoni, who works on regulatory strategy for Chemours.
Environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and others, have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision that overturned EPA’s HFC regulation. However, the nation’s highest court receives far more requests for review than it accepts. If the Supreme Court does accept the HFC case, a ruling may not emerge for nearly a year—and even then, the Supreme Court might agree with the lower court’s ruling.
Overall, the situation is “a mess” that may take Congress and EPA several years to rectify, predicted Charles A. Samuels, general counsel of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. The association in 2016 set voluntary goals to stop using HFCs in foam insulation by 2020 and in household refrigerators and freezers after 2024.
The U.S. Senate will have to grant formal agreement to the Kigali Amendment. Both houses of Congress will have to pass legislation giving EPA new authority to implement an HFC phasedown. Then the agency will have to go through a time-consuming procedure to issue a regulation to implement the agreement, a process that usually takes about three years. In the meantime, Samuels said, states have ample opportunity to create a hodgepodge of HFC regulations.
This, Samuels concluded, is “a rather dismal scenario.”
https://cen.acs.org/environment/greenhouse-gases/US-industries-ask-Trump-administration/96/i23
-
San Diego May Ban Plastic Foam Food Containers over Pollution Concerns
Jun 2, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Avery Anapol
San Diego is considering a ban on polystyrene food containers that, if passed, would make it the largest California city to do so.
Polystyrene, a nonbiodegradable plastic foam, is used for takeaway food and beverage containers, egg cartons, coolers and other products.
More than 116 cities in California have banned the product over concerns about ocean pollution and marine life health, according to the Los Angeles Times. Officials said that the city collected more than 12,500 pieces of the material along San Diego beaches last year.
Opponents of the ban, including restaurants, say that banning the product would result in higher costs for businesses and customers, and that there are no viable alternatives that recycle well and keep food hot or cold.
San Diego City Councilman Chris Ward, who is leading the charge, said the packaging industry has begun to “evolve,” making restaurant concerns invalid.
"This is all about trying to get the plastics out of our oceans and out of our streams," he said.
The ban, which could be voted on by the city council in September, would fine violators $200 for a first offense, and up to $500 for subsequent offenses.
The move comes after companies and cities nationwide have begun acting to ban plastic straws and drink stirrers in an effort to reduce ocean pollution.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/390394-san-diego-may-ban-plastic-foam-food-containers-over-pollution
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested