Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 6/14/18

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Ocean Plastics in Focus: G7 Charter, Product Bans
Jun 14, 2018 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Colin Staub

Many groups and organizations made announcements for World Oceans Day, which was observed Friday, June 8.
EPA’s Pruitt May Need to Go, Senate Republican Ally Says
Jun 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Erik Wasson and Jennifer A. Dlouhy

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt may need to resign amid reports that he used an agency aide to help look for a job for his wife and leased a condo under highly favorable terms from an energy lobbyist’s wife, Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe, a longtime friend of Pruitt’s, said June 13.
Trump Faces Growing Calls From Republicans, Conservatives To Fire Pruitt
Jun 13, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan

Key Republican lawmakers and other Trump administration allies are heightening their concerns about EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's ethics scandals, with many influential conservatives publicly calling for President Donald Trump to fire Pruitt or at least floating a scenario in which he leaves the agency.
No 'Alarm Sirens' over Second CEQ Pick — Carper
Jun 14, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss

President Trump's decision to nominate a relatively low-profile former congressional staffer to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality may help avoid the fate of his first nominee, who was forced to withdraw over her controversial views on climate change.

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) Split Over Fees, Industry, Environmentalists Eye EPA's TSCA Cost Estimate
Jun 13, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad

Industry and environmentalists are seeking greater transparency in EPA's cost estimates for implementing its new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) program, the basis for the user fees that Congress authorized the agency to collect in its 2016 reform of the statute, even as they are split over the initial fees that the agency is seeking.
New Chemicals Group Seeks Refund Information In EPA's TSCA Fees Rule
Jun 13, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad

Even as EPA faces questions on whether it is accurately estimating the industry fees it will need to help implement the revised toxics law, a coalition of companies is warning that the agency has omitted language in its proposed fee rule on how it will refund companies whose applications for new chemical uses are not reviewed by the statutory deadline.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Future EPA Water Permits Could Get Stricter After Solvents Review
Jun 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven Gibb and Amena H. Saiyid

The EPA’s plans to support future state and federal water pollution permits for widely-used chemical solvents will hinge on measuring harms to fish and other aquatic species under the nation’s primary chemicals law.
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Makers’ Hours Filling Out Forms Prompts EPA Paper Chase
Jun 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

Chemical makers are spending hundreds more hours filling out paperwork under the updated toxics law than the EPA originally estimated, the agency told the White House in a request under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Silicone Makers Challenge EU Limits on Cosmetics Chemicals
Jun 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner

Overly strict criteria in the European Union’s REACH law are leading the bloc to restrict chemicals used in cosmetics that are not considered problematic elsewhere in the world, according to companies that produce siloxanes, or substances used to produce silicone polymers.
Senators Want Agency Data on Fluorochemicals’ Health Effects
Jun 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan

Democratic and Republican senators want a federal agency to release new data about the health effects of ubiquitous chemicals found in nonstick and waterproof consumer products.
New York City Polystyrene Foam Ban to Start Jan. 1
Jun 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Herzfeld

A long-delayed New York City ban on single-use foam items in food service establishments and loose-fill foam packaging will take effect Jan. 1.
European Trade Group Says Plastics Database Could ‘Scare Consumers’
Jun 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell

The trade association, PlasticsEurope, has warned that a database listing the chemicals in plastic packaging could unnecessarily frighten consumers.
L’Oreal Urged to Set Timeline for Its Disclosure Goal
Jun 13, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell

US NGOs are calling on French cosmetics giant L’Oreal to set a timeline and clarify the scope of its plan to disclose more fragrance ingredients in its products.
Finland Starts RMOA on Potential EDC Resorcinol
Jun 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch

Finland has begun risk management option analysis (RMOA) of the suspected endocrine disruptor, resorcinol, under Echa’s public activities coordination tool (PACT), which also assesses hazards.

Energy News

House Republicans Propose Financial Penalties for States That Block Offshore Drilling
Jun 13, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni

House Republicans put forward a proposal this week to impose hefty fees on states that do not approve of drilling for oil and natural gas off their coasts, a move that would pressure local leaders who oppose the Trump administration’s plan to expand offshore leasing.
Guess Who Also Met with Pope and Big Oil? Renewables Executives
Jun 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lynn Doan

In the quest to track down every oil giant and investor that attended a recent climate change meeting with Pope Francis, two completely non-oil-related attendees appear to have been overlooked: a couple of renewable energy companies.
Senate Eyes Floor Action on Energy-Water Bill, Rescissions
Jun 14, 2018 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink and Geof Koss

Legislation to boost energy and water spending and a separate plan to cut billions of dollars from an Energy Department loan technology program both could make it to the Senate floor next week.
FERC Chair Will Hire Review Experts ‘in a Heartbeat’ to Speed LNG, Pipe Certificates
Jun 13, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut

FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre told a Senate panel that he is personally committed to seeing the Commission accelerate its permitting of interstate natural gas pipelines, while also hiring more staff to address a backlog of permitting for liquefied natural gas (LNG) export infrastructure.
Drilling Advancements Help Double Colorado Natural Gas Production, Boost Economy
Jun 13, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec

Driven by oilfield technology advances, Colorado has doubled its natural gas production since 2001, boosting the state's economy in the process, according to a report by the Colorado Petroleum Council, a division of the American Petroleum Institute (API).

Chemical Security News

(ACC Mentioned) As RMP Rollback Looms, GAO Raises Concerns Over Chemical Data Sharing
Jun 13, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Rebecca Rainey

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is urging lawmakers to bolster chemical information sharing between facilities and communities even as EPA is proposing to scrap some of the provisions of the Obama-era final rule updating its facility accident prevention program that would bolster such sharing of facility data.
Ex-Microsoft VP Wins Senate Confirmation to Chemical Security Post
Jun 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson

A former Microsoft Corp. vice president will stay on in a Department of Homeland Security post responsible for chemical security, critical infrastructure protection, and cyber and physical infrastructure safety.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Amtrak and BNSF Railway to Implement PTC Train Protection System
Jun 14, 2018 | Railway Technology

Amtrak is partnering with BNSF Railway Co to deploy its Positive Train Control (PTC) system on several BNSF-owned subdivisions, marking the first activation on host-owned territory used by Amtrak.

Environment News

Oil Companies Ask to Throw Out New York’s Climate Change Lawsuit
Jun 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Van Voris

A group of the world’s biggest oil companies asked a judge to throw out New York City’s lawsuit seeking to hold them responsible for costs related to climate change.
Global Emissions Hit Record with Paris Deal Targets in Limbo
Jun 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mathew Carr and Kelly Gilblom

Two years after 200 or so nations forged a new United Nations deal to protect the climate, output of the gases blamed for global warming surged to a record.
District Courts Set Deadlines For EPA To Act On Interstate Ozone Pollution
Jun 13, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker

Two federal district courts in new rulings are requiring EPA to meet binding deadlines to act on states' request for the agency to mitigate interstate transport of ozone air pollution, with one decision mandating federal air quality plans for several states and another requiring an EPA decision on a petition seeking ozone cuts in upwind states.
EPA Must Address Air Pollution Blowing into N.Y., Conn. by December
Jun 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Chris Dolmetsch

The Environmental Protection Agency was ordered by a judge to act on plans to limit the ozone pollution from five states upwind of New York and Connecticut, a victory for the Democratic-led states pressing President Donald Trump’s administration to enforce environmental regulations.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Ocean Plastics in Focus: G7 Charter, Product Bans

Jun 14, 2018 | Plastics Recycling Update

By Colin Staub

Many groups and organizations made announcements for World Oceans Day, which was observed Friday, June 8. The following is a roundup of some of the key details that have come out of statements and reports in the runup to the celebration.
G7 charter addresses plastics: Leaders of the Group of 7 countries met in Canada last week, and ocean plastics pollution was among their topics of discussion. Five countries in the group (Canada, France, Germany, Italy and the U.K.) signed an Ocean Plastics Charter, pledging to “move toward a more resource-efficient and sustainable approach to the management of plastics.”
The countries pledged support for a range of actions, such as policy measures, incentives or requirements for product stewardship, design for recyclability and recycled content. The charter also includes a number of specific goals with target dates, including:100 percent reusable, recyclable or recoverable plastics by 203050 percent recycled content in plastic products by 203055 percent recycling and reuse of all plastic packaging by 2030100 percent recovery of all plastics by 2040
Leaders from the U.S. and Japan declined to sign the charter.
Responses to the charter were predictably mixed. The American Chemistry Council responded referencing its own recent recycling-related goals, which set similar targets. The industry group said it looks forward to “collaborating on a range of activities outlined in the Charter – including sustainable design, research, information sharing, and creative new ideas like the Plastics Innovation Challenge – in the months and years ahead.”
Greenpeace was less enthused, describing the ocean plastics charter as one of several “tepid” environmental plans announced by the G7. “Governments must move beyond voluntary agreements to legislate binding reduction targets and bans on single-use plastics,” the group said in a release, adding that governments should “hold corporations accountable for the problem they have created.”
Island bans plastic: Lawmakers in the Galapagos Islands have approved a phased-in ban on many single-use plastic products. The prohibition, approved in April by the Galapagos Governing Council, bans the following items on the following dates this year:Plastic straws beginning May 22Single-use plastic bags beginning June 21Polyethylene takeout containers beginning July 21Non-deposit beverage containers starting August 21
A company that hosts trips to the Galapagos released a statement in support of the ban, describing it as a measure to “protect marine and wildlife and their habitats from the detrimental effects of plastic waste.”
Companies take voluntary action: Three major companies recently stopped or announced they will stop providing plastic straws and bags on their premises. SeaWorld said on June 7 that all of its 12 theme parks have stopped providing single-use plastic straws and bags, according to The Washington Post. On the same day, Royal Caribbean International announced its fleet of 50 cruise ships will stop providing plastic straws beginning next year, instead offering a paper straw. Ikea, meanwhile, recently announced it will stop handing out bags and straws by 2020.
Tackling ocean pollution before it arrives: Envision Plastics announced it is on track to meet its goal of processing 10 million pounds of post-consumer HDPE that would otherwise have entered waterways. The goal was announced in 2017 and slated to be met over two years. Currently, Envision says it is at the halfway point of its project timeline and the company has recycled 5 million pounds. The program collects material from areas without strong solid waste management programs, including Haiti and remote, coastal regions in Mexico, according to the announcement.
Building credit: American Express cardholders will soon have the option of using a credit card made with marine plastics. The company is working with Parley for the Oceans, a group focused on marine plastic prevention, to provide the cards. They’re expected to be widely available within 12 months.
Restating commitments: Procter & Gamble took the opportunity to reinforce the company’s commitments to increasing recyclability and collection. The company noted its Ambition 2030 initiative, launched last summer, that aims to make 100 percent of the company’s packaging recyclable or reusable by 2030 and to ensure none of the company’s packaging enters oceans by that year.
https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2018/06/13/ocean-plastics-in-focus-g7-charter-product-bans/

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA’s Pruitt May Need to Go, Senate Republican Ally Says

Jun 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Erik Wasson and Jennifer A. Dlouhy

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt may need to resign amid reports that he used an agency aide to help look for a job for his wife and leased a condo under highly favorable terms from an energy lobbyist’s wife, Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe, a longtime friend of Pruitt’s, said June 13.
“I think something needs to happen to change that, and one of those alternatives is for him to leave that job,” Inhofe told conservative political commentator Laura Ingraham June 13 on her syndicated radio show.
Inhofe later told reporters on Capitol Hill that he wasn’t calling on Pruitt to be fired or resign.
“Someone said I am calling for his resignation,” Inhofe said. “No, I’m not calling for his resignation.”
Inhofe and Pruitt both are from Oklahoma, and a number of Inhofe’s former aides work in top EPA jobs. His comments add to growing complaints about Pruitt from some conservatives as well as Democrats.
News organizations have unearthed evidence of Pruitt enlisting aides on multiple occasions to try to help line up work for his wife. That included contacting the chief executive of Chick-fil-A Inc. in pursuit of a franchise and, according to a Washington Post report June 13, contacting donors who might offer Marlyn Pruitt a job. Other reports have disclosed his use of first-class air travel, a Washington condo at his disposal for $50 a day, and round-the-clock security detail.
Defended by Trump
President Donald Trump expressed support for Pruitt June 8, telling reporters the administrator was “doing a great job within the walls of the EPA” while “being attacked very viciously by the press.”
But the president also said Pruitt isn’t “blameless” for his ethics controversies.
Ingraham, who also has a weeknight television show on Fox News Channel, wrote on Twitter earlier June 13, “PRUITT BAD JUDGMENT HURTING @POTUS. GOTTA GO.“
Inhofe said on Ingraham’s program that he agreed with her criticism of the former Oklahoma attorney general “100 percent.”
“He is capable of doing the job, but he needs to do the job and quit worrying about all these other things,” said Inhofe, former chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “I’m sending a communication over today that we’ve had enough of these things and you need to get down and do the job we’re elected to do.“
If Pruitt left, his immediate replacement could be Andrew Wheeler, now serving in the No. 2 spot at the EPA after years of lobbying on behalf of coal producer Murray Energy Corp. and other energy companies. Wheeler also worked for Inhofe as a top aide, and he served as a Republican staff member for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
After suggesting that Pruitt may need to resign, Inhofe said, “Andrew Wheeler is really good too and that might be a good swap.“
Conservative groups have begun targeting Pruitt. The Iowa-based American Future Fund has produced an ad labeling Pruitt a “swamp monster” and calling for his ouster “for the good of the country.“
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epas-pruitt-may-need-to-go-senate-republican-ally-says

Return to headline | Return to top
Trump Faces Growing Calls From Republicans, Conservatives To Fire Pruitt

Jun 13, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Lee Logan

Key Republican lawmakers and other Trump administration allies are heightening their concerns about EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's ethics scandals, with many influential conservatives publicly calling for President Donald Trump to fire Pruitt or at least floating a scenario in which he leaves the agency.
The continued reports about Pruitt's ethics and spending missteps “upset me as much as they upset you, and I think something needs to happen to change that,” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), a long-time political patron of Pruitt, said during a June 13 appearance on conservative commentator Laura Ingraham's radio show.
“One of those alternatives would be for him to leave that job,” Inhofe said.
Those comments come after Ingraham earlier tweeted that Pruitt's “bad judgment” is “hurting” Trump and that he's “gotta go” -- remarks in which Ingraham became arguably the most high-profile addition to the growing list of conservative pundits calling for Pruitt's ouster.
Inhofe also said he agrees “100 percent” with an Ingraham critique of reports that Pruitt enlisted agency staff to run “personal errands on the taxpayer dime.” He added that Deputy Administrator Andrew Wheeler, a former longtime Inhofe staffer, is “really qualified” to run the agency, “so that might be a good swap.”
His comments underscore a growing unease about Pruitt among Capitol Hill Republicans -- though few have directly called for Pruitt to be fired or step down.
Ingraham and Inhofe were reacting most immediately to a Washington Post report that Pruitt enlisted then-EPA policy chief Samantha Dravis to reach out to their political networks to find his wife a job. Ultimately, the search was successful and Marlyn Pruitt secured a position with the conservative group Judicial Crisis Network, which has financial connections with the Federalist Society.
However, prior reports also said that Pruitt directed staff to perform a range of personal favors for him, including an apartment search, booking plane tickets for personal trips, and securing an “old mattress” for Pruitt from the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.
Other reports say that Pruitt has also directed his security staff to pick up dry cleaning, that he frequently had staffers go on grocery runs, and that he enlisted staff to try to find a favored moisturizer that is sold at Ritz-Carlton hotels.
While Trump has long faced calls from Democrats to fire Pruitt over his ethical lapses, the president has rejected them, citing Pruitt's deregulatory successes.
"Scott Pruitt is doing a great job within the walls of the EPA," Trump said June 8. "I mean, we're setting records. Outside, he's being attacked very viciously by the press. I'm not saying that he's blameless, but we'll see what happens."
But one Trump supporter tells Inside EPA that Pruitt's ethics concerns may now be getting in the way of the deregulatory agenda. “They are just not keeping pace” on that agenda, the source says. “And I assume part of that is due to Pruitt being under siege, and that takes up a lot of people's time.”
RFS Dispute
Pruitt has also failed to do himself any favors among farm-state Republicans, who have long been concerned that the administrator has undercut home-grown corn and ethanol industries with steps he has taken to limit demand for the fuel in EPA's renewable fuel standard (RFS).
“Pruitt is ill serving the president of the United States,” Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) said during a June 13 Farm Bill markup before the Senate Agriculture Committee, referencing his ongoing sharp criticism of Pruitt's implementation of the RFS.
Fellow Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst (R) has also strongly criticized Pruitt's RFS implementation as hurting biofuel producers, but has mixed those criticisms with attacks on his ethics as well, recently calling Pruitt “as swampy as you get here in Washington.”
In addition, the Iowa-based conservative political group American Future Fund on June 12 unveiled an ad urging Trump to fire Pruitt over his various ethics and spending scandals. The spot was set to run in South Dakota and Nebraska -- two top corn-growing states -- just as Pruitt is embarking on a tour of Midwestern farms to soothe tensions over his efforts to ease oil sector compliance with the RFS.
Pruitt is “embarrassing President Trump. The ethical lapses are disturbing,” the ad says. Adding to the intrigue, the Sierra Club in a June 13 statement said the group has ties to the influential conservative billionaire Koch brothers, and that it has previously pushed a pro-fossil fuel agenda.
But such criticisms have done little to aid the lawmakers' efforts to limit the impacts of Pruitt's RFS policies. During the Farm Bill markup, several amendments aimed at countering Pruitt's efforts were either blocked or withdrawn.
For example, a planned amendment from Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) seeking to require year-round sales of high-grade ethanol blends was never offered.
While there are growing signals that Republican supporters of Trump's environmental rollbacks are turning on Pruitt, one former Obama EPA official is skeptical that the president will fire him. “Will believe it when I see it,” the source says.
Further, Democrats and other supporters of a strong EPA have engaged in a political strategy of repeatedly hitting Pruitt over his ethics struggles, in an attempt to raise the salience of perceived Trump administration “corruption” ahead of the November midterms and the 2020 presidential election.
“I would hope people at home are asking why we are spending good taxpayer dollars on a person that acts this way, in particular, [someone] who is supposed to be protecting my child who has asthma, or my child who has a disability, or who is cleaning up my Superfund site,” said John O'Grady, the president of a major EPA staff union, during a June 13 appearance at the National Press Club.
O'Grady said he hopes to “influence people in the moveable middle” to defend EPA, including in Congress, though efforts to give EPA additional resources may have to wait until after November midterms.
“So maybe Scott Pruitt should stay in office, at least until after November,” O'Grady quipped.
Underscoring Pruitt's thin job security, one industry source claims that the administrator is “toast” but says it is unclear when Trump “will pull the trigger.”
After last week's resignation of two top Pruitt aides, this source says that even more members of his inner circle are looking for new positions. The source also notes that Pruitt has faced an increasing number of court losses, including an adverse June 13 ruling against EPA for not enforcing a Clean Air Act provision regarding cross-state air pollution.
The industry source says Pruitt's “saving grace” has been the perception that he is effective, but that continued court losses will become a “pressure point” that underscores the daily ethics revelations.
In addition, Pruitt's openly political decisionmaking, ongoing ethics troubles and new public criticism from conservatives and farm-state lawmakers will likely lead to Pruitt losing his job “within weeks,” the source predicts.
If Pruitt does leave EPA, he will be remembered as “the most despised and least effective administrator in history.”
The Trump supporter adds that Pruitt has clearly been “very sloppy” in mixing personal business and official business, and that he should have been more careful given the high likelihood that he would become a target of those angered by his deregulatory efforts.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trump-faces-growing-calls-republicans-conservatives-fire-pruitt

Return to headline | Return to top
No 'Alarm Sirens' over Second CEQ Pick — Carper

Jun 14, 2018 | E&E Daily

By Geof Koss

President Trump's decision to nominate a relatively low-profile former congressional staffer to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality may help avoid the fate of his first nominee, who was forced to withdraw over her controversial views on climate change.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), who urged the White House to abandon efforts to confirm Trump's first pick to lead CEQ, Kathleen Hartnett White, said yesterday he did not personally know Mary Neumayr but had been told by staff members who have worked with her that "alarm sirens don't go off" (Greenwire, June 12).
"I look forward to meeting with her to learn her views on a range of issues," Carper told E&E News of Neumayr, who has been leading CEQ as its chief of staff since joining in March of 2017.
A graduate of Thomas Aquinas College and of the University of California's Hastings College of the Law, Neumayr held a series of positions on the House Energy and Commerce Committee under former Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) from 2011 to 2017, including deputy chief counsel for energy and environment.
She also served as deputy counsel for environment and nuclear programs at the Department of Energy from 2006 to 2009 and counsel to the assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division at the Department of Justice from 2003 to 2006. Neumayr was in private practice from 1989 to 2003, according to a White House statement.
EPW Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said Neumayr will make a "strong leader" at CEQ.
"Her significant experience at the White House and on Capitol Hill will serve her well in this key environmental policy position," he said in a statement.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), a senior member of the Energy and Commerce panel, praised Neumayr yesterday.
"In my dealings with her she was respectful, hardworking, diligent and I think would be a good choice," he told E&E News.
Neumayr was also praised by Stephen Brown, a lobbyist with energy giant Andeavor, who called her "one of the most principled, hard-working and intelligent people I know in the energy/environmental space."
"Her work in particular on the Clear Air Act issues at the House E&C Committee was unparalleled and I have no doubt that her efforts to bring some sanity to [the National Environmental Policy Act] and related permitting topics will be top notch," Brown wrote in an email.
The White House is hoping to avoid the fate of Hartnett White, the onetime head of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality who had questioned climate science and touted the benefits of carbon dioxide. It yanked the nomination in February after it became clear she would not win the support of a majority of senators (Greenwire, Feb. 3).
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/06/14/stories/1060084439

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) Split Over Fees, Industry, Environmentalists Eye EPA's TSCA Cost Estimate

Jun 13, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Maria Hegstad

Industry and environmentalists are seeking greater transparency in EPA's cost estimates for implementing its new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) program, the basis for the user fees that Congress authorized the agency to collect in its 2016 reform of the statute, even as they are split over the initial fees that the agency is seeking.
In May 24 comments, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said that EPA's proposal is unlawful and calls for officials to better detail its estimated costs of implementing the program. "To fulfill its obligations under TSCA section 26(b)(4)(B), EPA must more fully, accurately and transparently calculate the costs . . . to ensure EPA receives the fees necessary to support implementation of TSCA," EDF said.
"As a result of these underestimates and omissions, EPA has set the fees below the levels required by TSCA section 26(b)(4)(B), and the proposed fees will not recoup the allowable costs under TSCA," the group adds.
In short, the group says, "EPA discounted its estimates for manufacturer-requested risk evaluations in a manner that does not result in recovering the full costs, violates the [new TSCA law], and reflects arbitrary and capricious reasoning," the comments say.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, it its May 24 comments, echoed environmentalists' concerns about the transparency of EPA's calculations, but warned that the agency is proposing excessive fees that will stifle innovation.
"It is important that EPA work to provide as much transparency as possible when calculating the costs associated with administering sections 4, 5, 6, and 14 of TSCA and work to minimize the fees for stakeholders to submit notices related to those sections. EPA should also provide further clarity as to how these fees will be spent, as it is imperative that money is spent in a proper manner," the Chamber's comments state.
The debate follows Congress' 2016 reform of TSCA, which provides EPA with first-time authority to charge industry user fees to help defray the costs the agency faces for its significant new regulatory responsibilities.
EPA's proposed rule, issued earlier this year, allows the agency to collect industry fees to defray costs of a host of actions under the revised TSCA, including reviewing new and existing chemicals under sections 5 and 6, issuing test orders under section 4, and managing confidential business information (CBI) claims under section 14.
The measure proposes a methodology and two alternatives for assessing industry fees that are intended to fully recover the amount specified by law, which is 25 percent of the costs of implementing several key programs under the chemical safety law, or up to $25 million, whichever number is lower.
An EPA official said earlier this year that the agency hopes to eventually collect about $20 million annually.
But even some agency officials have suggested that may not be enough. Top officials have raised concerns that even with the new fees they may not have adequate funds to implement the new program, including plans to hire new scientists and other personnel they need -- though officials recently indicated they will have some new resources.
Underestimating Costs
Environmentalists in their comments are reiterating their earlier concerns that the agency is underestimating its costs to implement the new program. EDF "believes that EPA has significantly underestimated the baseline costs to the agency of carrying out [TSCA] sections 4, 5, and 6, and of collecting, processing, reviewing, and providing access to and protecting from disclosure as appropriate under section 14 information on chemical substances under [TSCA]."
The group protests a lack of transparency in the agency's calculations, writing that "EPA has entirely failed to include any baseline costs associated with activities related to collecting, processing, and reviewing information under sections of TSCA other than section 14."
The group says it is particularly concerned about EPA's calculations regarding the cost of implementing section 8, which governs reporting and retention of information, such as the TSCA inventory update and industry submission of health and safety data.
EDF's concerns are shared by a coalition of environmental and public health groups led by the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition, an entity that like EDF, participated in the lengthy legislative TSCA reform process.
In its May 24 comments, the coalition warns that the proposed fees may not be adequate to implement the new requirements and may already be forcing the agency to shift resources to its TSCA program.
"EPA is facing a steadily increasing workload under TSCA in 2018 and later years and OPPT managers are already voicing concern about the 'stresses' that resource limitations are placing on its ability to deliver on TSCA's mandates."
"Because of budget constraints, resources are being shifted to the TSCA program from other programs (like Safer Choice) essential to protecting public health ... These troubling developments underscore the importance of designing the TSCA fees rule to produce the maximum amount of revenue allowable under the law and establish an efficient and effective collection mechanism that prevents a shortfall in payments."
The coalition writes that EPA's proposed rule estimates the costs of implementing TSCA requirements in sections 4, 5, 6 and 14 "will be in the range of $80 million annually during fiscal years 2019-21 and therefore would require industry to pay fees of $20 million per year. We believe EPA has likely underestimated TSCA implementation costs significantly and that a more realistic analysis would require substantially larger industry fees."
Chamber 'Concerned'
Industry groups are also raising concerns about EPA's calculations though they say the agency is overstating costs. The Chamber's comments state that "EPA projected these costs for FY 2019 through FY 2021 by totaling the anticipated direct and indirect program costs. The indirect costs were calculated simply by multiplying the direct costs by 28.14% and adding the resulting amount to the total annual expected costs," before calling for more transparency from the agency.
"[T]he Chamber finds that EPA's approach to calculating these costs lacks explanation and requires further clarity." The group says it is "extremely concerned" about the large increase in fees EPA is proposing to companies that submit new chemical applications for EPA's review, and the fact that "EPA estimated a 20% drop in new chemical submissions as a result of this proposal. We urge EPA should keep new chemical registration fees as low as possible to promote innovation and avoid harming business interests."
The Chamber also argues that EPA must be more transparent in how it calculates the cost of the agency's section 5 work, which authorizes its new chemicals reviews. And, it calls EPA's approach to estimating the costs of section 6 risk assessments for existing chemicals "problematic."
Several industry stakeholders note that EPA bases its estimates on costs that its pesticide program associates with its assessments conducted utilizing user fees collected through EPA's Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) authority, though the industry commenters say that PRIA is not a good comparison.
"EPA's use of PRIA data to estimate costs for Section 6 risk evaluations does not transparently explain the Agency's estimated costs, and is not tailored to the uses of each TSCA risk evaluation. The fee program under PRIA is also too complicated to serve as a model for the TSCA fee program. The regulatory objectives under PRIA are to register or license products to individual manufacturers, which is inconsistent with the purposes of TSCA," writes the American Chemistry Council (ACC), in its May 24 comments.
Risk Assessments
ACC also argues that EPA "does not provide a sufficient explanation of the Agency's estimated costs to administer manufacturer-requested risk evaluations under section 6. Throughout the proposed rule, EPA does not explain how costs for completed risk assessments have differed in Agency experience, or whether industry, academic, or other federal or international Agency experience with completing chemical risk assessments was considered."
ACC points EPA to its own review of estimated costs of a risk evaluation, suggesting that "costs for completing TSCA risk evaluations may be significantly lower than EPA's estimates, especially for chemicals that have robust data sets and relatively few uses to examine: just over $700,000 for a complete evaluation."
Generally, ACC writes that it supports EPA's proposal of a single fee based on an average cost estimate for TSCA section 4 and 5 undertakings, which the group says is "suitable" for what it expects to be "lower cost activities." But noting that there is widespread variability in the complexity and cost of various risk analyses, ACC argues this proposal is "inappropriate" for section 6 actions, which it expects to be more complex, and they should be charged accordingly.
"Chemical manufacturers subject to fees for risk evaluations that are less complex should not be forced to subsidize the cost of more complex risk evaluations. Likewise, manufacturers subject to fees for highly complex and resource-intensive risk evaluations should not pay less than their fair share for an evaluation," ACC writes. "In order to collect fees that reflect the Agency's actual costs, ACC recommends that section 6 fees be collected through an initial down payment, followed by a final closing payment."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/split-over-fees-industry-environmentalists-eye-epas-tsca-cost-estimate

Return to headline | Return to top
New Chemicals Group Seeks Refund Information In EPA's TSCA Fees Rule

Jun 13, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Maria Hegstad

Even as EPA faces questions on whether it is accurately estimating the industry fees it will need to help implement the revised toxics law, a coalition of companies is warning that the agency has omitted language in its proposed fee rule on how it will refund companies whose applications for new chemical uses are not reviewed by the statutory deadline.
The New Chemicals Coalition (NCC), a group of companies which regularly seek EPA approval for new chemical uses, writes in May 24 comments that the agency is missing statutory deadlines to complete its reviews of new chemicals but has not proposed a process for how it will reimburse industry fees in such cases in the future.
NCC says it "is aware of far too many cases in which new chemicals assessments have been completed, yet final actions related to significant new use rules (SNUR) or other implementing actions remain undone. Such inaction by EPA has dramatic commercial effects on the impacted companies," the group writes.
Congress' 2016 reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) made changes to how EPA regulates both existing and new chemicals, and also granted EPA authority to collect user fees for actions under several sections provided the agency met certain statutory deadlines for taking those steps.
But agency efforts to implement the new chemicals program faltered, leading to an almost immediate backlog of application reviews. Though EPA declared the backlog over last summer, industry continues to raise concerns over the much slower process for reviewing pre-manufacture notices (PMN), which companies must submit to EPA before commercializing chemicals that do not appear on the TSCA inventory.
EPA has also proposed a rule detailing methodologies for calculating user fees, which is intended to cover as much as 25 percent of the cost of any new program.
Industry and environmentalists are split over the proposed fees, with industry charging EPA is overestimating costs while environmentalists say the agency is underestimating costs, though they agree that EPA has to be more transparent in detailing how it assesses industry fees.
Now NCC, which is managed by the law firm Bergeson & Campbell, is raising the question of how the agency will refund new chemicals fees if it does not meet statutory deadlines, especially for PMNs.
"Certainly if EPA were to proceed with the higher fees as currently proposed, it must address the current weaknesses in the system and ensure that all work under Section 5 is completed in a timely manner. EPA must establish a process in which Section 5 review timelines reach a level of consistency that is more in line with Congressional intent and the statutory language. This is not the case currently and must be corrected."
Its concern over adverse commercial impacts when EPA fails to quickly review new uses appears to run head on into the group's other suggestion: that EPA must include in the final rule language on "when and how Section 5 fees would be reimbursed to the notifying company if the EPA review process is not completed within" the statutorily-mandated 90 days.
The group says that EPA's existing proposal does not address the issue -- noting that EPA's Federal Register notice announcing the proposal's release for comment states "EPA does not have authority to, and therefore will not, provide refunds under any other circumstances [than withdrawal of the PMN], which is untrue; amended TSCA Section 5(a)(4)(A) clearly mandates that EPA refund fees if EPA fails to complete its Section 5 assessment within the statutory timeframe."
The group goes on to acknowledge that while such language "is not noted in Section 26(b)(4)(G) regarding refunds, the statutory intent is clear in the language at Section 5(a)(4)(A). This statutory provision states that EPA 'shall refund to the submitter all applicable fees charged to the submitter for review of the notice pursuant to section 26(b).' The provision goes on in subsection B to state that 'a refund of applicable fees under subparagraph (A) shall not be made' if EPA makes certain certifications."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/new-chemicals-group-seeks-refund-information-epas-tsca-fees-rule

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Future EPA Water Permits Could Get Stricter After Solvents Review

Jun 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Steven Gibb and Amena H. Saiyid

The EPA’s plans to support future state and federal water pollution permits for widely-used chemical solvents will hinge on measuring harms to fish and other aquatic species under the nation’s primary chemicals law.
The presence of machine degreasers and dry-cleaning chemicals such as trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene in bodies of water is drawing the attention of Environmental Protection Agency’s chemicals office.
“EPA will further analyze aquatic life risk evaluation” for the two solvents, which are carcinogens and have other adverse health effects, according to draft risk review plans EPA’s chemicals office released June 1. Prolonged exposure to trichloroethylene has been associated with effects in the liver, kidneys, immune system, and central nervous system and can affect the developing fetus, according to the EPA.
Long-term exposure to percholorethylene includes impaired cognitive and motor neurobehavioral performance. Exposure to the chemical may also cause adverse effects in the kidney, liver, immune system and blood system, and on development and reproduction, according to the agency’s findings.
Getting on the Radar
While water groups have not looked closely at these chemicals, “with potential EPA regulatory action these chemicals are likely to be scrutinized more carefully,” Carrie Capuco, spokeswoman for the nonprofit Water Research Foundation, told Bloomberg Environment.
The foundation funds, manages, and publishes the latest developments on technology, operations, and management of drinking water, wastewater, reuse and stormwater collection, treatment and supply systems.
Likewise, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies “is not aware of these chemicals causing issues for any of our utility members, but we will be following EPA’s work and stand ready to provide assistance if requested,” Nathan Gardner-Andrews, the association’s chief advocacy officer, told Bloomberg Environment.
The association represents nearly 300 publicly owned wastewater utilities in the country that also are involved in managing stormwater.
“We will watch the development of the aquatic life criteria closely to ensure that the best science is used to ensure the necessary protections for aquatic life,” the Hampton Roads Sanitation District, which treats wastewater for 1.7 million people in southeast Virginia, said. “We will continue to regulate the industries that discharge to our facilities and will modify our industrial permitting if needed based on any newly developed criteria.”
The American Chemistry Council is still reviewing the risk review plans for the chemicals, spokesman Jonathan Corley told Bloomberg Environment.
New Standards Emerging
The agency is acknowledging that new water quality standards may be warranted if it finds that fish and plants are being harmed. Both chemicals already are designated as toxic pollutants under the Clean Water Act.
The EPA made it clear it has developed water quality criteria for both chemicals to protect human health so it won’t be revisiting those benchmarks. Likewise, it won’t revisit the drinking water standards for both chemicals.
However, “EPA has not developed Clean Water Act section 304(a) recommended water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life for trichloroethylene, and there are no national recommended criteria for this use available for adoption into state water quality standards” and federal water discharge permits, a risk review plan for the compound said.
Likewise for perchloroethylene, the risk review plan said there are no national recommended water quality criteria for protecting aquatic life for perchloroethylene. As a result, the EPA doesn’t believe exposure to the chemical has been adequately or effectively managed under other agency statutes.
States use the EPA’s water quality criteria to set water quality standards for lakes, rivers, and streams. States have the option to adopt these water quality standards as enforceable limits in water pollution permits.
Aquatic Species Focus
The focus on the widely-used solvents is warranted because the chemicals office finds evidence that indicates that risks to aquatic creatures aren’t adequately being addressed by the federal agency.
Direct releases of trichloroethylene to surface waters amounts to 52 pounds per year, while indirect releases to wastewater utilities are about 28 pounds per year, according to 2015 data reported to the Toxics Release Inventory database.
The EPA’s plan didn’t provide an estimate of how much perchloroethylene is released directly or indirectly to surface waters.
However, “Within the past ten years of surface water monitoring data ... there are detections that ... exceed the preliminary chronic concentration of concern” of 3 parts per billion, according to the trichloroethylene document.
For perchloroethylene, “the chronic concentration of concern value of 1 microgram per liter is not sufficiently below the range of monitored concentrations to eliminate risk concerns,” the document for the solvent says.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/future-epa-water-permits-could-get-stricter-after-solvents-review-1

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Makers’ Hours Filling Out Forms Prompts EPA Paper Chase

Jun 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

Chemical makers are spending hundreds more hours filling out paperwork under the updated toxics law than the EPA originally estimated, the agency told the White House in a request under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Specialty chemical manufacturers appreciate the agency’s acknowledgment that they are spending more time complying with the Environmental Protection Agency’s new chemicals program, but that’s not solving companies’ problems, Robert Helminiak, vice president of legal and government relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates, told Bloomberg Environment.
The EPA needs to improve its new chemicals process so it makes “timely decisions that protect health and the environment, promote innovation and enhance the competitiveness of the US chemical industry,” Michael P. Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, told Bloomberg Environment.
The Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged the extra work companies are doing through an “emergency” Paperwork Reduction Act request it submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The EPA will publish the request June 14 in the Federal Register .
In its request, the EPA essentially asked the OMB to approve an increase in the hours the agency estimates companies are now spending filling out certain forms since Congress amended the Toxic Substances Control Act in 2016, Richard E. Engler, director of chemistry at Bergeson & Campbell P.C. in Washington, told Bloomberg Environment.
Companies must submit the forms to seek the EPA’s approval to bring a new chemical to market or, in some cases, to use a chemical in a new way.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), along with groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense Fund, said companies’ extra work to prove new chemicals won’t hurt people’s health or the environment is warranted because the EPA’s new chemical reviews were too cursory before TSCA was amended.
Delays Not Resolved
The EPA now estimates that companies are spending 1,379 more hours a year—118,555 instead of 117,176 hours—filling out the required new chemical forms than they used to.
In addition to the chemical identity, use, manufacturing, and production volume information, that new chemical manufacturers have typically submitted, companies need to provide many details about the new chemical’s anticipated exposures and releases, Engler said.
The company that seeks to make the new chemical often wouldn’t have that information, he said. It must reach out to its supply chain, the types of companies that are expected to purchase the new chemical, and that requires additional effort, Engler said.
The EPA is obliged to ask the management and budget office to approve the additional workload companies face, because the Paperwork Reduction Act requires the OMB’s review and approval for information federal agencies collect.
The current information collection approval the EPA has for its new chemical program expires Nov. 30. That expiration date combined with the agency’s need for more information has prompted the agency to request the “emergency” OMB acknowledgment that companies are spending more time complying.
The EPA request doesn’t mean the agency will approve new chemicals more quickly or address other issues concerning companies that want to make new chemicals, Engler said.
Those problems, which the EPA’s June 14 notice acknowledges, derive from the agency’s policies, not from the forms companies submit, Helminiak said by email.
New Forms Don’t Cause Backlog
In its June 14 notice, the EPA acknowledged that its new chemical reviews are taking longer. The result is a backlog of requests from manufacturers that want to make and sell a new chemical but haven’t received the agency’s approval, the EPA said.
A November 2017 document should help companies provide more robust information in the new chemical forms they submit, and that will speed up the reviews, the agency said.
While the document may help companies that are unfamiliar with the agency’s new chemicals program, it will not help resolve the backlog or help the EPA complete new reviews on time, Helminiak said.
That problem results from the EPA’s “unnecessary increased scrutiny” of the ways chemical manufacturers intend to use their new chemicals or might use them, he said.
“SOCMA members are disproportionally impacted because the specialty chemical industry thrives on innovation and getting new chemicals to market,” Helminiak said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/chemical-makers-hours-filling-out-forms-prompts-epa-paper-chase-1

Return to headline | Return to top
Silicone Makers Challenge EU Limits on Cosmetics Chemicals

Jun 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Stephen Gardner

Overly strict criteria in the European Union’s REACH law are leading the bloc to restrict chemicals used in cosmetics that are not considered problematic elsewhere in the world, according to companies that produce siloxanes, or substances used to produce silicone polymers.
In particular, under REACH, the EU has placed a restriction on the use of octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (known as D4) and decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) in cosmetic products, on the basis that the substances—when washed off with water—accumulate and persist in the environment.
Producers of the substances filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the EU restriction, arguing that the decision was taken on the basis of criteria in REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals) that preclude including some data that would demonstrate that D4 and D5 do not bioaccumulate.
General Court
Plaintiffs in the case—which has been filed with the EU’s lower court, the General Court—are the Global Silicones Council and four companies: Wacker Chemie AG, Momentive Performance Materials GMBH, Shin-Etsu Silicones Europe BV, and Elkem Silicones France SAS. The Global Silicones Council represents industry groups from North America, Europe, and Japan.
The case was filed to push the EU to take into account a wider range of data when assessing whether substances bioaccumulate, Karluss Thomas, the Global Silicones Council’s director, told Bloomberg Environment June 13. No jurisdiction other than the EU limits use of D4 and D5 and “the science doesn’t warrant any restriction,” Thomas said.
Bioaccumulation Concern
The REACH restriction on D4 and D5 limits the substances to a concentration of no more than 0.1 of a percent by weight in shampoos, gels, and other cosmetic products that can be washed off. The European Commission, the EU’s executive, took the formal decision on the restriction in January.
D4 is produced or imported into the EU in annual volumes of up to 1 million metric tons, while D5 is produced or imported up to 100,000 metric tons, according to European Chemicals Agency data. Most of that volume, however, is used in the production of polymers and is not subject to a REACH restriction.
The European Commission declined to comment on the case June 13 on the basis that court proceedings are ongoing. The European Chemicals Agency said in a statement to Bloomberg Environment June 13 that it might submit “observations” on the case to the court but otherwise didn’t comment.
For EU regulatory purposes, identifying substances as bioaccumulative does not necessarily imply “an actual adverse effect.” It is based on the precautionary principle that the buildup of substances in the environment should be prevented because “we cannot remove them once they are there” if they are later found to be hazardous, Anna Lennquist, a senior toxicologist with ChemSec, which campaigns for the phaseout of toxic substances, told Bloomberg Environment June 13.
The Global Silicones Council filed its case on D4 and D5 in April. No date for a hearing has so far been set.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/silicone-makers-challenge-eu-limits-on-cosmetics-chemicals

Return to headline | Return to top
Senators Want Agency Data on Fluorochemicals’ Health Effects

Jun 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Sylvia Carignan

Democratic and Republican senators want a federal agency to release new data about the health effects of ubiquitous chemicals found in nonstick and waterproof consumer products.
The senators are using a defense policy bill to compel the Department of Health and Human Services to release a study that would, they say, increase warnings about human exposure to perfluorinated chemicals, which have been found in drinking water supplies across the country.
Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R.5515), which the Senate began considering this week. The amendment asks the federal health agency to publish the results of its toxicological study of the chemicals within a week of the bill’s enactment.
The federal agency has blocked the release of the study, even though it was completed in January, according to a news release from Udall’s office.
Health and Human Services officials didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg Environment’s request for comment.
The study focused on four chemicals within the family of thousands of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances.
Emerging contaminants aren’t well understood and may pose a risk to human health.
Some of those contaminants included in the study, including perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), have a range of health effects. Exposure to either over time may cause cancer or affect the liver, immune system, and thyroid.
The Environmental Protection Agency has released a 70-parts-per-trillion nonenforceable health advisory for the chemicals in drinking water. States are also drafting their own standards, which are often more stringent than the EPA’s.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/senators-want-agency-data-on-fluorochemicals-health-effects

Return to headline | Return to top
New York City Polystyrene Foam Ban to Start Jan. 1

Jun 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By John Herzfeld

A long-delayed New York City ban on single-use foam items in food service establishments and loose-fill foam packaging will take effect Jan. 1.
The 2019 start for implementation of the ban, announced June 13 by Mayor Bill de Blasio (D), revived a legislative requirement first enacted in 2013 under the administration of his predecessor, Michael R. Bloomberg (I). The ban was tied up in administrative proceedings and litigation, but de Blasio said that a June 5 decision by a state Supreme Court justice cleared the way for the city to act.
Bloomberg, who signed the law as one of his last actions in office, is the ultimate owner of Bloomberg Environment.
The law bars manufacturers, food-service establishments, and stores from selling, offering, or possessing single-use foam cups, plates, trays, clamshell containers, or other food-service articles, as well as “packing peanuts” and other polystyrene loose-fill packaging.
A six-month grace period on imposing fines will follow the January effective date, supplemented by a city outreach and education effort to work with businesses, de Blasio said. Applications for small-business hardship waivers will be accepted in the fall.
“New York City’s ban on styrofoam is long overdue, and New Yorkers are ready to start using recyclable alternatives,” he said in a statement. “There’s no reason to continue allowing this environmentally unfriendly substance to flood our streets, landfills, and waterways.”
The 2013 law was contingent on a city Sanitation Department finding that expanded polystyrene foam can’t be recycled. The court previously struck down a 2015 department determination in a challenge by the Restaurant Action Alliance of New York City and a coalition of small businesses, recyclers, and manufacturers.
The June 5 decision by Justice Margaret Chan of state Supreme Court, New York County, upheld the department’s 2017 second try at the determination and dismissed the challenge. A spokeswoman for the alliance, Juanita Scarlett, declined to comment June 13 on whether the groups would appeal, but said the alliance was weighing legal options.
Groups Sought Alternative Plan
The groups were “deeply disappointed” by the decision, which will result in landfilling of post-consumer polystyrene foam “at great cost to the city and businesses across New York,” the groups’ attorney, Randy M. Mastro of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP in New York, said in a statement.
Mastro, who was chief of staff to Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) in the mid-1990s, said the city rejected the groups’ “economically feasible and environmentally sound” plan for recycling the foam.
Expanded polystyrene foam is banned in more than 70 cities, including Washington; Minneapolis; San Francisco; Oakland, Calif., Portland, Ore.; Albany, N.Y.; and Seattle.
Dunkin’ Donuts, which announced plans to eliminate all polystyrene foam cups from its global supply chain by 2020, said in May that all its New York City restaurants have made the transition from foam to a new, double-walled paper cup to comply with the city law.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/new-york-city-polystyrene-foam-ban-to-start-jan-1

Return to headline | Return to top
European Trade Group Says Plastics Database Could ‘Scare Consumers’

Jun 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch

By Tammy Lovell

The trade association, PlasticsEurope, has warned that a database listing the chemicals in plastic packaging could unnecessarily frighten consumers.
A group of NGOs and scientists, lead by the Food Packaging Forum, developed the chemicals relevant for plastics packaging database (CPPdb), to establish which of the chemicals are of most concern to human health and the environment, and identify potential alternatives.
But Patricia Vangheluwe, consumer and environmental affairs director for PlasticsEurope, told Chemical Watch: "Providing information for the sake of providing information, without knowing the full objective of the project, does not make sense at all.
"For instance, what is the use of creating a long list of chemicals deemed ‘of concern’, be it for plastics or for other materials, which potentially will be used to frighten the consumers for no good reason?"
Also, Dr Vangheluwe said plastics are "amongst the most regulated materials" and have clear requirements on material composition.
"Plastics packaging covers a wide range of applications, each having to meet the specifications of the respective industries. Food contact, for instance, is fully covered by the plastics in food contact regulation and the obligation to provide a Declaration of Compliance, in which information related to relevant substances has to be reported," she said.
PlasticsEurope had not been contacted to give input into the project, Dr Vangheluwe added.
Jane Muncke, managing director of the FPF, told Chemical Watch that researchers compiled the database using publicly available resources, but intended to contact plastics trade associations for the second part of the project, which will look at a small selection of prioritised chemicals.
Addressing PlasticEurope’s criticism that the project could scare consumers, she said: "As scientists, we think that the absence of information is more worrisome than having information available which enables us to make better decisions.
"It is unfortunate that there is such secrecy about the chemicals used in individual products like plastic packaging, and that there is still limited safety information available on many chemicals in use."
The database will soon be publicly available on the website, Chemical Hazard Data Commons, a project of the NGO Healthy Building Network (HBN) which provides hazard data for more than 50,000 chemicals.
"Our hope is that the database will become a ‘living’ information resource, and we encourage anyone with relevant expertise to contribute to the CPPdb, and make their knowledge publicly available for the benefit of all," said Dr Muncke.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67663/european-trade-group-says-plastics-database-could-scare-consumers

Return to headline | Return to top
L’Oreal Urged to Set Timeline for Its Disclosure Goal

Jun 13, 2018 | Chemical Watch

By Tammy Lovell

US NGOs are calling on French cosmetics giant L’Oreal to set a timeline and clarify the scope of its plan to disclose more fragrance ingredients in its products.
The company announced its disclosure plan in an interview with Chemical Watch last week. A spokesperson said the company has a "future goal of communicating to a larger extent the composition of our perfumes in all our products".
It did not reveal further details or timing, but said any plan would be done "in a way that meets the expectations of our consumers and ensures their safety, while at the same time fully respecting the know-how of our perfume creators and protecting us from the major risks of fine fragrance counterfeiting."
Dev Gowda, director of the US Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG) campaign for toxic-free products, welcomed L’Oreal’s move but called on the company to "provide a clear timeline and a commitment that this increase in fragrance transparency will be across all product lines."
Last year, US PIRG and coalition partners delivered over 150,000 petition signatures to L'Oréal’s US headquarters, calling on the company to disclose fragrance ingredients.
"L'Oréal's announcement is a clear sign that the industry is listening to the public, and policy makers need to take note and pass laws to mandate fragrance disclosure for all consumer products. L'Oréal's competitors Unilever USA and Procter & Gamble both made fragrance disclosure commitments over the past year," added Mr Gowda.‘No excuses’
Sarada Tangirala, director of corporate accountability at US NGO Women Voices for the Earth (WVE), told Chemical Watch that she hoped L’Oréal’s upcoming disclosure announcement would match those of Procter and Gamble and Unilever, both of which have committed to revealing all fragrance ingredients present at 0.01% of product volume.
"L’Oreal should respond to consumer demand by at least meeting this transparency standard, with the goal of reaching 100% disclosure. It is clear that there are no more excuses for personal care companies to keep fragrance ingredient information from consumers," she said.
L’Oreal’s goal is important, said US PIRG's Mr Gowda, because "some chemicals used in fragrance have been linked to cancer. But because companies aren’t required to disclose fragrance ingredients, consumers have no way of knowing if the products they apply to their bodies are putting their health at risk," he said.
L'Oreal did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publishing.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67630/loreal-urged-to-set-timeline-for-its-disclosure-goal

Return to headline | Return to top
Finland Starts RMOA on Potential EDC Resorcinol

Jun 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch

Finland has begun risk management option analysis (RMOA) of the suspected endocrine disruptor, resorcinol, under Echa’s public activities coordination tool (PACT), which also assesses hazards.
Resorcinol is used in cosmetics and personal care products and manufactured and/or imported in the European Economic Area in volumes of 10,000-100,000 tonnes a year.
According to harmonised classification and labelling under the CLP Regulation, and the classification provided by companies in REACH registrations, this substance is:very toxic to aquatic life;harmful if swallowed; andcauses serious eye and skin irritation.
Meanwhile, Sweden is preparing an RMOA on ‘phenol, dodecyl-, sulfurized, carbonates, calcium salts, overbased’ because of concerns it may be toxic to reproduction.PBTs
Belgium is preparing hazard assessments of two substances that it suspects have persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) qualities.
They are:amphoteric fluorinated surfactant; andreaction mass of 2,2,3,3,5,5,6,6-octafluoro-4-(1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropan-2-yl)morpholine and 2,2,3,3,5,5,6,6-octafluoro-4-(heptafluoropropyl)morpholine.
And three member states decided there is no need to initiate regulatory risk management action on:dichloro(dimethyl)silane (Czech Republic);HDI oligomers, isocyanurate (Slovenia)isoheptane (Latvia)
https://chemicalwatch.com/67667/finland-starts-rmoa-on-potential-edc-resorcinol

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

House Republicans Propose Financial Penalties for States That Block Offshore Drilling

Jun 13, 2018 | The Washington Post

By Dino Grandoni

House Republicans put forward a proposal this week to impose hefty fees on states that do not approve of drilling for oil and natural gas off their coasts, a move that would pressure local leaders who oppose the Trump administration’s plan to expand offshore leasing.
The administration’s plan has been met with stiff resistance from many Democrats and even Republicans in coastal communities. Elected leaders in several seaside states even vowed to block the federal government from allowing offshore leasing off their shores.
The draft proposal, which will be discussed at a hearing of the House Natural Resources Committee on Thursday, says that states will be allowed to disapprove of drilling offshore in up to half of the lease blocks off its coast without incurring a penalty.
But any state with a proposed lease sale that wants to put more than 50 percent of the blocks off-limits would be required to pay a fee equal to at least one-tenth the estimated government revenue that would have been generated from lease sales, royalties and other revenue streams, if oil and gas drilling had taken place.
The bill would also create revenue-sharing scheme for states that do decide to drill. Under current law, only Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas receive a share of offshore oil and gas receipts.
Democrats objected to the idea of dinging states for protecting their coastlines, saying the plan if enacted could cost individual states hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in fees.
“This bill is a ransom note in a cheap disguise,” Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (Ariz.), the committee’s top Democrat, said in a statement. “Penalizing states for protecting their own beaches is what you’d see in a petro-state, not in a modern democracy. The Republicans on this committee seem to think we’re here to do industry’s bidding regardless of the consequences, and until control of Congress changes, this is the best the American people can expect.”
Republicans on the committee led by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) emphasize that the draft bill is subject to change.
“What we want to really convey is that when states out East, like the coastal states, are trying to prohibit development rather than facilitating it, they are not only harming the potential oil and gas development, but they’re also harming the rest of the country” by depriving the federal government of revenue, said a Republican committee staffer speaking under condition of anonymity to discuss the proposal before it is formally introduced.
Lois Epstein, Arctic program director for the Wilderness Society environmental group, said she thought the draft needed work, noting that it empowers the interior secretary to estimate the value of offshore reserves when calculating the potential penalty.
“You could come up with almost any number there,” Epstein said. “This is very bad policy.”
At the beginning of the year, the Trump administration initially called for opening nearly every corner of U.S. waters in the Arctic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean for petroleum exploration.
But the plan was met with skepticism and, at times, outright hostility from many local politicians of both parties who still had the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, the largest oil spill in U.S. history, still fresh in their minds. That unplugged well released more than 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, killing billions of animalsof sea creatures and economically and medically imperiling thousands of Gulf of Mexico residents.
In response to the proposal from Trump’s interior secretary, Ryan Zinke, state legislators in New York, South Carolina and Rhode Island began considering legislation to block oil and gas infrastructure from being built in state waters. Leaders in California, which has decades-old restrictions on offshore development since a 1969 oil spill near Santa Barbara, promised to block the transportation of oil from any new offshore rigs through the state.
And by April, New Jersey became the first Atlantic state to adopt a legal barrier to offshore drilling when its new governor, Democrat Phil Murphy, signed a law prohibiting oil exploration in state waters, which extend three miles from shore.
By that month, Zinke acknowledged there was “a lot of opposition” to drilling outside of the Gulf region already dotted with oil rigs. Zinke told Congress that month that he will scale back the offshore administration’s plan.
Among the dissenters in Congress to the Trump administration’s offshore plan are GOP Sens. Lindsay O. Graham of South Carolina, who has called it “horrible public policy,” and Marco Rubio of Florida, who also opposes drilling off the coast of his state.
With the lack of support from the full Republican Senate caucus, it will be difficult to get a measure penalizing states for blocking offshore drilling through the upper chamber, which the GOP controls by a slim 51-to-49 margin.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/06/13/house-republicans-propose-financial-penalties-for-states-that-block-offshore-drilling/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.38711684b2e9

Return to headline | Return to top
Guess Who Also Met with Pope and Big Oil? Renewables Executives

Jun 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Lynn Doan

In the quest to track down every oil giant and investor that attended a recent climate change meeting with Pope Francis, two completely non-oil-related attendees appear to have been overlooked: a couple of renewable energy companies.
Michael Garland, the chief executive officer of U.S. wind and solar power company Pattern Energy Group Inc., said he and another renewable energy executive were invited to join the recent conversation to represent their industry.
“We were outnumbered, but that’s OK,” he said in a June 13 interview in San Francisco. “We felt honored to be there. We added just enough flavor on the renewable side to make it interesting.”
Garland echoed a lot of what has already been reported out of the meeting. He said everybody agreed that there needed to be something done about climate change, that there needs to be a price on carbon—perhaps in the form of a tax on emissions—and that oil and gas companies need a way of disclosing their efforts to combat global warming without exposing themselves to lawsuits if they can’t deliver on every part of their plans.
One thing Garland said he found disappointing about the meeting: They didn’t discuss coal.
“To me, coal is the near-term big problem,” he said. “If we could eliminate coal quickly and replace it with renewables and gas, it gives the oil guys a better transition and it gives us more room in our carbon budget. We’ve got to get rid of this coal.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/guess-who-also-met-with-pope-and-big-oil-renewables-executives

Return to headline | Return to top
Senate Eyes Floor Action on Energy-Water Bill, Rescissions

Jun 14, 2018 | E&E Daily

By George Cahlink and Geof Koss

Legislation to boost energy and water spending and a separate plan to cut billions of dollars from an Energy Department loan technology program both could make it to the Senate floor next week.
The chamber is expected to take up the fiscal 2019 spending bill that would increase funding for both DOE and the Army Corps of Engineers.
It also is due to vote on a package of $14.7 billion in cuts from unspent funding from past years that the White House has made a priority.
The $43.7 billion energy and water appropriations bill would move as part of a three-bill package, known as a minibus, that will also contain funding for military construction-veterans affairs and the legislative branch. The House passed its version of the minibus last week.
"We're going to move to the minibus that the House has sent over after we finish the defense bill," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters yesterday.
The Senate is pressing to complete work on the annual defense authorization bill by the end of this week.
"There's a good chance that it will be" on the floor next week, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, said when asked yesterday about his panel's bill.
He said the Senate would amend the House-backed legislation with a version approved by Senate appropriators in recent weeks.
Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) noted the minibus would be the first spending bills to hit the floor this year and framed it as a test of whether the Senate could move appropriations measures without running into partisan fights over policy riders.
"I hope we can be disciplined enough to not put riders on appropriations bills that should be on authorization bills," Shelby said yesterday.
The Senate's top Democratic appropriator, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, has said he is working with Shelby to eliminate "poison pill" riders.
The House passed a $44.7 billion bill last week after partisan votes rejecting Democratic bids to cut funding for building a Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility, scrap a water rider and increase spending for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy.
The Senate bill could avoid those fights entirely. It does not fund the Yucca facility, does not address the Obama-era Clean Water Rule, and favors increased research and development spending for DOE.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who leads the Interior-Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, yesterday called the minibus a "trial run" for a later package that could include the Interior-Environment bill, which she noted has never made it to the floor in the time that she's been the top Republican on the subcommittee.
"You're going to see minibuses," Murkowski said. "You're going to start seeing them soon. We are not going to be in the first minibus, but hopefully we'll be in the second. I think we're going to have an indicator here in the next week or two as to how these approps bills are going to move forward. And my hope is yeah, we're going to be on the floor."Rescission vote due
The Senate is also expected to have a vote on the rescission package that narrowly passed the House last week.
Under federal budgeting rules, the White House can offer rescissions and Congress has 30 days — in this case until June 22 — to approve them, otherwise the request dies. It cannot be filibustered.
Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney met with senators yesterday to press the case for the spending reduction, saying the money would otherwise be unspent. More than $4 billion in cuts would come from DOE technology loan programs, an effort created by an Obama-era economic recovery package.
Cornyn said he would back the package, noting it would not affect the budget agreement reached this spring to increase fiscal 2018 and 2019 spending. He said it was "undetermined" whether it could pass the Senate by a simple majority or whether it might be amended.
Shelby said he was still reviewing the rescissions but expressed some skepticism, saying the package may be "more optics than substance."
Murkowski said yesterday she too remained undecided but reiterated her view that it is the job of appropriators to decide whether to rescind funds already appropriated.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/06/14/stories/1060084457

Return to headline | Return to top
FERC Chair Will Hire Review Experts ‘in a Heartbeat’ to Speed LNG, Pipe Certificates

Jun 13, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Charlie Passut

FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre told a Senate panel that he is personally committed to seeing the Commission accelerate its permitting of interstate natural gas pipelines, while also hiring more staff to address a backlog of permitting for liquefied natural gas (LNG) export infrastructure.
During his testimony Tuesday before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, McIntyre said it was time for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission "to take a fresh look" at its policies for reviewing and authorizing interstate natural gas transportation facilities under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
"I am, of course, but one of five voices on this Commission, and my colleagues are very thoughtful regulators in their own right," McIntyre said. "I anticipate the thoughtful input from each of them that I've come to expect.
"I will say for my own part, though, that I have no interest in initiating a review of our gas certificate policy area for the purpose of slowing anything down. My interest is in streamlining and making more efficient the processes that we have. I agree with the suggestion...that we need to be efficient in this area. For my own part, I endeavor to do exactly that."
FERC adopted its current policies for pipeline certification under a policy statement issued in September 1999, but the Commission issued a notice of inquiry (NOI) for a possible overhaul last April. Public comments were originally due on June 25, but the Commission extended the deadline to July 25 in late May, citing the complexity of the issues involved [PL18-1].
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the committee's chairman, called the NOI a "very critical and very necessary review relating to our infrastructure.
"We have been talking for about a year and a half now about the possibility for a big infrastructure package. From the energy side of things, I think that we've got some pretty good ideas, some shovel-ready issues if you will, as it relates to that pipeline infrastructure."
Murkowski asked McIntyre if he was satisfied with the number of staff working at FERC. Concern that the Commission was short-staffed and faced a backlog in the permitting process for LNG export infrastructure was also raised during a House Subcommittee on Energy hearing last April.
"I'm never satisfied," McIntyre said. "We are continuing to explore creative new ways to make our processes more efficient and to enable ourselves to address this significant amount of work that lies before us."
Sen. Cory Gardner [R-CO] said he had met with officials from Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. All three nations are interested in importing LNG produced in the United States, but the lack of an LNG export terminal on the West Coast was impacting producers in the Rockies looking for another exit option.
"I'm very concerned about staff resources at FERC, in that there could be a negative effect on the permitting timelines for these types of projects to satisfy the demand from our allies," Gardner said.
McIntyre said there were four permit applications to build LNG export terminals before FERC in 2008, but today there are 14. To address the backlog, he said the Commission was "actively looking for creative new ways to embrace and attack this increased workload." Among these were FERC's decision to outsource the non-proprietary aspects of projects and designs to third party contractors.
The projects "are larger, more complex and more expensive, and as you can imagine the review process is not a simple one," McIntyre said. "We are actively seeking to hire, so send us good people and we will hire them in a heartbeat."
Last April, FERC was among 12 federal agencies that agreed to follow expedited permitting procedures, with timetables designed to complete the reviews within two years.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114703-ferc-chair-will-hire-review-experts-in-a-heartbeat-to-speed-lng-pipe-certificates

Return to headline | Return to top
Drilling Advancements Help Double Colorado Natural Gas Production, Boost Economy

Jun 13, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Richard Nemec

Driven by oilfield technology advances, Colorado has doubled its natural gas production since 2001, boosting the state's economy in the process, according to a report by the Colorado Petroleum Council, a division of the American Petroleum Institute (API).
As the nation's fifth largest gas producer and seventh largest oil producer, Colorado's 53,000 active wells in 11 of the nation's largest gas fields have created more than 232,000 jobs and $330 million in severance tax revenues (2014), contributing $1.2 billion in public revenues and an economic impact (in 2015) of $31.4 billion, according to "Progress and Opportunity: Colorado Natural Gas and Oil."
The report, issued on Monday, attempts to tie together an "essential role" for the oil and gas sector in supporting Colorado. It noted that in the recent 10-year period (2006-2016), oil production quadrupled through breakthroughs in directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking).
According to the 46-page report, Colorado's oil and gas development has provided widespread opportunity, spurring lower energy costs and increased development. Advancement has taken place in the context of a robust regulatory environment.
"More than 60% of Colorado's energy comes from natural gas or another petroleum product," the researchers noted.
Colorado natural gas consumption has shot up 30% in recent years, while the state has the third largest gas reserves in the country and output has doubled since 2001.
"The industry takes seriously its environmental responsibility, supporting strong standards and regulations that have helped contribute to our nation's energy renaissance," said API’s Tracee Bentley, executive director of the Colorado council.
The report breaks out well growth by county, and notes that in the past 15 years, Colorado has experienced a 125% increase in gas wells and a 116% increase in gas production. Weld County in the Denver-Julesburg Basin accounted for 43.1% of gas production and 41% of the wells.
Colorado's oil and gas development has taken place in a "robust regulatory program governing every facet of the industry.” The authors cited the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment for "vigorously" monitoring community health improvement. "Its recent report concluded that the state meets its strict air quality standards."
In the midstream, Colorado is a distribution hub for the West, providing 17,760 miles of interstate gas pipelines and 16,320 miles of interstate oil lines. The combination represents 4% of the nation's total. As of 2013, Colorado also had 58,200 miles of intrastate gas pipelines, including gathering lines.
Regarding the ongoing issue of drilling near residential and commercial development, the report cited two recent studies that showed there has been no major negative economic impact on local communities from the well sites. A 2014 study from Colorado State University found that the impact of fracking on housing values in Weld County was minimal.
"Its findings indicate that though drilling activity within a half mile of a house offered for sale could reduce its price by 1%, these impacts were only short term and only for urban areas," the report said. "While drilling had a minor, short term-negative impact, the county-wide effect on housing values would be positive due to an expectation of increases in natural gas and oil employment."
Complementing the Weld County study, a 2016 study examined property values and the distance to natural gas and oil development across seven Colorado counties, finding "no definitive evidence that hydraulic fracturing significantly, positively or negatively, impacts home values."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114698-drilling-advancements-help-double-colorado-natural-gas-production-boost-economy

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

(ACC Mentioned) As RMP Rollback Looms, GAO Raises Concerns Over Chemical Data Sharing

Jun 13, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Rebecca Rainey

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is urging lawmakers to bolster chemical information sharing between facilities and communities even as EPA is proposing to scrap some of the provisions of the Obama-era final rule updating its facility accident prevention program that would bolster such sharing of facility data.
During a June 12 roundtable hosted by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs examining the reauthorization of the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), the panel's top Democrat, asked a GAO witness to weigh in on the facilities' communication and planning efforts with first responders under the CFATS program.
“What we're looking at, is do first responders . . . have access to everything that is at that facility,” said Christopher Currie, director of the homeland security and justice team at GAO.
“That’s our biggest concern from the safety perspective. We're looking at what DHS is doing, how they’re working with EPA, how they're working with the states to see if the responders know exactly what's at the facility beforehand."
But industry witnesses suggested that providing the information to first responders is not always easy, due to the fact that the facilities are sometimes located in rural areas, far from first responders.
“We are in very remote areas where most of our responders are volunteers,” explained Linda Menendez of the Austin Powder Company, an explosives manufacturer. She says that frequently first responders work in “Very remote facilities with volunteer organizations, that aren’t available to spend the time to understand the chemicals in their backyard."
Despite the industry push back, GAO's concern could undercut EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's plan to rescind much of agency's January 2017 final rule updating its Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility accident prevention rule, arguing in part that the agency failed to adequately coordinate with other agencies, including the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, as required under the Clean Air Act.
Among other things, EPA's proposed rollback would modify the local emergency response coordination provisions to remove the requirement for facilities to provide “any other information that local emergency planning and response organizations identify as relevant to local emergency response planning,” but would retain the requirement for owners to provide local emergency responders with emergency action plans, emergency contract information and to request a meeting with the local emergency planning body.
Supporters of the Obama-era rule are already challenging Pruitt's plan to roll the rule back and are signaling they plan to make their case at EPA's planned June 14 hearing on the proposed rollback.
Public Citizen said in a June 13 statement that its witness at the hearing, Houston-based organizer and researcher Stephanie Thomas, “will highlight the chemical industry’s influence at the EPA and argue that the proposed changes would harm workers, first responders and local residents -- which is especially concerning given that no hearings will be held in the communities most affected.”
RMP Rule
EPA issued the final rule updating RMP with new requirements shortly before the Obama administration left office in 2017, imposing new requirements for certain facilities and included provisions aimed at streamlining disclosure of facility data, and improved coordination between facilities and first responders.
The rule was issued in response to the former president's August 2013 executive order on improving industrial facility safety after a 2013 explosion at a fertilizer facility in West, TX, killed 15 people, including first responders.
EPA's RMP program, which seeks to reduce off-site consequences, is one of several governing industrial facilities. Through CFATS, DHS regulates security of facilities holding threshold amounts of chemicals on the program's “Appendix A” list, and requires them to harden their facilities in the event of a physical or cyber attack.
OSHA regulates facility processes that could threaten worker safety through its process safety management standard.
The Senate committee held the roundtable to begin receiving advice on how to reauthorize CFATS, which is slated to expire later this year.
Sources say DHS is in discussions with House and Senate lawmakers, as well as industry, on a congressional re-authorization CFATS and lawmakers used the hearing to query industry and other witnesses for suggestions on how to overhaul the program.
One of the major differences appear to be over how long of an authorization to provide. While DHS is seeking a permanent authorization, most of the witnesses and lawmakers appeared to agree on at least a four-year authorization, which they said would foster better oversight.
The witnesses agreed that a multi-year re-authorization would provide “needed certainty” and “reasonable predictability,” and allow the department to make long-term planning decisions.
“It's time to realize it's not written in stone and we’re going to learn some things as we go through the next four or five years,” said Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE). The “re-authorization period actually compels the oversight.”
Witnesses also offered a series of other suggestions for any reform bill. For example, witnesses from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), Columbus Chemical Industries Inc. and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) National Local #918 suggested that DHS should clarify or eliminate the terrorism screening requirement under CFATS' personnel surety program, with some arguing that extending the program to lower risk Tier 3 and 4 facilities would be unnecessary and others suggesting that many employers do not understand the requirements of the background check program.
Additionally, ACC urged DHS to provide more transparency in determining a facility's risk tiering.
“Often times the facility security director - the very person with the overall responsibility and authority for making critical security risk management decisions for the site - is not aware of the determining factor(s) behind the assigned risk tier level,” said William Erny senior director of ACC. “DHS should provide a detailed explanation as to why a facility is being tiered at a certain level.”
But in response, David Wulf acting deputy assistant secretary for infrastructure protection at DHS, who oversees aspects of the program, argues that “transparency in tiering is something we have strived to foster in building the new risk tiering methodology,” and that DHS has published fact sheets and made themselves available to talk directly to facilities who have questions about the process. “We were very eager to do away with the historic black box that was the perception of how our tiering was working,” he added.
Jesse LaGros, a chemical security inspector within the DHS office responsible for chemical facility security regulations, who represented AFGE, also argued that the agency does “not provide any cyber security training as they claim,” noting that the two training classes he attended did not get into the technical aspects of the issue and instead provided instructions on how to fill out an inspection report and suggested that formal training should be put into place.
“It's just a box being checked . . . it's not a deep dive as to whether the facility is secure?” asked Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) of the inspector's inquiries into cyber security issues during facility inspections.
“It's hard for the inspectors to complete the inspections in the time given and honestly to be able to get the training,” said LaGros, noting that the program already doesn’t have enough inspectors and lacks a list of qualified and trained specialists accessible to a lead inspector when it comes to scheduling such an inspection.
However, Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-WI) expressed skepticism that the inspectors should be looking into “every possible risk” and suggested that potentially other members of DHS should look into cyber concerns.
CFATS was last authorized in December 2014 for a four-year period, and industry attorneys also say that DHS is weighing revisions to the program and expects that the agency may propose changes "sooner rather than later," though a second industry source suggested prospects for streamlining CFATS are unclear given the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda.
Nevertheless, Johnson noted that “we have an opportunity here,” but he adds that “I think there's definitely room for improvement. Let's produce a better reauthorization, let's not fix what's not broken, I think we really have to look at the cost of changing something for the benefit of making it just a little bit better.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/rmp-rollback-looms-gao-raises-concerns-over-chemical-data-sharing

Return to headline | Return to top
Ex-Microsoft VP Wins Senate Confirmation to Chemical Security Post

Jun 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Sam Pearson

A former Microsoft Corp. vice president will stay on in a Department of Homeland Security post responsible for chemical security, critical infrastructure protection, and cyber and physical infrastructure safety.
The Senate confirmed Christopher Krebs late June 12 by voice vote, clearing the way for him to serve as undersecretary of the department’s National Protection and Programs Directorate.
Krebs joined the department as a senior counselor in March 2017 and has been the acting undersecretary since August 2017. He was nominated for the position Feb. 7, 2018.
“I’m excited to drop the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary title and officially lead the NPPD team in advancing the cybersecurity and resilience of the nation’s critical infrastructure,” Krebs said in a statement to Bloomberg Environment June 13.
Krebs said his top priority is winning passage of the DHS Cyber and Infrastructure Security Agency Act (H.R. 3359), which would reorganize the agency’s cybersecurity and infrastructure operations and rename the National Protection and Programs Directorate as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The legislation passed the House by voice vote in December 2017 and is awaiting Senate action.
Another of Krebs’ duties will be to work with Congress on reauthorization of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program, which aims to ensure at-risk chemical facilities operate with sufficient security controls to prevent chemical releases, theft, diversion, or sabotage, including from acts of terrorism.
Congress reauthorized the program for four years in December 2014. Lawmakers have until until January 2019 to reauthorize it again.
Lawmakers on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a roundtable on the program June 12, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Environment is holding a hearing on the program June 14.
Krebs worked as a director for cybersecurity policy at Microsoft’s government affairs unit from 2014 to 2017 and served as a senior adviser in the DHS Office of Infrastructure Protection from 2007 to 2009.
The directorate helped emergency responders in Crosby, Texas, plan an emergency evacuation around an Arkema Inc. reactive chemicals facility after flooding from Hurricane Harvey last year caused a fire at the plant.
Krebs also represented the Homeland Security Department on the Federal Commission on School Safety, visiting a Maryland elementary school with Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and other Trump administration officials May 31.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/ex-microsoft-vp-wins-senate-confirmation-to-chemical-security-post-1

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Amtrak and BNSF Railway to Implement PTC Train Protection System

Jun 14, 2018 | Railway Technology

Amtrak is partnering with BNSF Railway Co to deploy its Positive Train Control (PTC) system on several BNSF-owned subdivisions, marking the first activation on host-owned territory used by Amtrak.
The subdivisions serving Amtrak’s Southwest Chief and California Zephyr will initially introduce the new technology, while full activation on BNSF routes is scheduled to happen by the end of August this year.
Operating under the name Amtrak, The National Railroad Passenger Corporation is a passenger railroad service that offers medium and long-distance intercity service in the US and to three Canadian cities.
BNSF network control systems assistant vice president Chris Matthews said: “This is a great step for Amtrak. We have the infrastructure in place that allows them to operate on our network.
“We have partnered with them on the federal mandate and in some cases beyond the federal mandate to install PTC on subdivisions not required of BNSF. We look forward to continuing that partnership as they roll-out PTC along our routes.”
Amtrak said it is working to achieve the installation and operation of PTC across the network it controls by the end of this year. The company is collaborating with partners throughout the industry to advance this system on host infrastructure.
All carriers will legally qualify for an alternative PTC implementation schedule where PTC is not implemented and operational.
Amtrak is performing risk analyses and developing strategies for the carriers and routes that are operating under an extension or under an FRA-approved exemption. It will enable the company to improve safety on a route-by-route basis and ensure that there is a single level of safety across the Amtrak network by 1 January 2019.
In the case of some limited routes, where a host may not be able to achieve another schedule by the end of the year, Amtrak said it will postpone service and try to find alternative modes of service until such routes come into compliance.
Amtrak is also collaborating with tenant railroads that operate over its infrastructure to ensure that they have sufficient PTC-commissioned rolling stock to operate normal services.
https://www.railway-technology.com/news/amtrak-bnsf-railway-implement-ptc-train-protection-system/

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

Oil Companies Ask to Throw Out New York’s Climate Change Lawsuit

Jun 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Robert Van Voris

A group of the world’s biggest oil companies asked a judge to throw out New York City’s lawsuit seeking to hold them responsible for costs related to climate change.
ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. argued in a hearing June 13 that the federal court in Manhattan isn’t a proper forum to regulate the global activity of the energy industry. They urged U.S. District Judge John Keenan to follow the example of other judges who have rejected similar suits.
“The only way to solve or grapple with global warming is a global solution,” said Ted Boutrous in the Los Angeles office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP who represents Chevron. Boutrous told the judge that New York’s lawyers are trying to construct “a new, extraordinary, extraterritorial tort that would regulate conduct around the globe.“
The companies say questions about the effect of greenhouse gases on the environment must be considered under federal law, which doesn’t permit the type of claims New York is pursuing.
New York sued ConocoPhillips, Chevron and Exxon, along with BP Plc and Royal Dutch Shell Plc, in January, claiming they’re contributing to global warming. New York says the oil companies’ actions constitute a “public nuisance” and a threat to community welfare.
Climate Nuisance?
New York is using state law to sue the companies to avoid conflicting with a 2011 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court against a suit that used federal public nuisance to target five big power companies. The court found in that case that the federal Clean Air Act applied, not public nuisance law.
Matthew Pawa, a lawyer in the Boston offices of Hagens Berman LLP representing the city, rejected the idea that New York is trying to misuse the law to sue the companies.
“We are asking you to apply very old law to new facts,” he told Keenan.
Public nuisance is a centuries-old legal concept that’s been used against threats to the community such as brothels, drug dens, and illegal hazardous waste dumps. The city’s suit also is based on private nuisance, an unreasonable interference with the use of someone else’s land, and trespass—an illegal invasion of property.
Keenan didn’t say when he will rule on the companies’s request.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/oil-companies-ask-to-throw-out-new-yorks-climate-change-lawsuit

Return to headline | Return to top
Global Emissions Hit Record with Paris Deal Targets in Limbo

Jun 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Mathew Carr and Kelly Gilblom

Two years after 200 or so nations forged a new United Nations deal to protect the climate, output of the gases blamed for global warming surged to a record.
Carbon dioxide emissions from energy use climbed 1.6 percent in 2017, with both emerging and developed economies contributing to the increase, according to BP Plc data published June 13. In the U.S., which intends to withdraw from the UN’s Paris accord, greenhouse-gas output fell for a third year.
Emissions are rising in the run-up to the 2020 start of the Paris deal, which pushed all countries rich and poor to make reductions in fossil-fuel use. As emerging-nation economic growth accelerates, countries remain divided about who should finance projects to limit pollution and how deep national pledges should go.
Hardly any nations have plans compatible with the Paris targets, and rich countries that have contributed the most to the buildup of gases in the atmosphere aren’t providing enough help for poorer ones, Kouassigan Tovivo, a climate negotiator for the least-developed countries group in the UN talks, said in an interview.
The biggest advances in emissions were in emerging nations, with a 4.4 percent jump in India and a 1.6 percent gain in China. Carbon dioxide output also rose in Brazil, Qatar, and Russia, while Turkey’s jumped by 13 percent.
In the European Union, home to the world’s biggest carbon market, emissions from energy use advanced 1.5 percent. Greenhouse gas output rose in Canada.
BP’s data is among the first that provides an estimate of national emissions output for the year and meshes with preliminary statistics published in March by the International Energy Agency. Official data is published later and covers a wider range of greenhouse gases.
While the use of renewables has surged, it’s still not displacing coal, the dirtiest of fossil fuels. Coal’s share of power generation globally has been little changed over the past three decades, the BP data show.
“I’m a bit worried, but not overly so,” said Spencer Dale, BP chief economist. “I’m more worried by the lack of progress in the power sector over the past 20 years, than by the pickup in carbon emissions last year.”
Programs that put a cost on emissions will cover only about 20 percent of global emissions by 2020, according to the World Bank’s State & Trends of Carbon Pricing 2018 report. Prices in programs that do exist aren’t high enough to keep temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), the main target mentioned in the 2015 Paris accord.
Given current efforts, the world is probably heading for temperature gains of 4 degrees or more, according to climate negotiator Tovivo, citing figures from Climate Action Tracker.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/global-emissions-hit-record-with-paris-deal-targets-in-limbo

Return to headline | Return to top
District Courts Set Deadlines For EPA To Act On Interstate Ozone Pollution

Jun 13, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Stuart Parker

Two federal district courts in new rulings are requiring EPA to meet binding deadlines to act on states' request for the agency to mitigate interstate transport of ozone air pollution, with one decision mandating federal air quality plans for several states and another requiring an EPA decision on a petition seeking ozone cuts in upwind states.
The decisions, issued this week, could help Mid-Atlantic and East Coast states in the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) as they continue to push for a mix of state and federal measures to cut ozone-forming emissions of pollutants including nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds. Without such air pollution reduction efforts, some of the OTC states might struggle to attain EPA's 2015 ozone standard of 70 parts per billion (ppb).
The Trump administration has either punted on, or outright rejected, petitions filed by states under Clean Air Act section 126 asking EPA to directly regulate ozone emissions from industrial sources in one state that another state argues are hindering its ability to attain the ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).
EPA is also long overdue on an air law mandate to write federal implementation plans (FIPs) imposing ozone controls on states that failed to craft their own plans for attaining the 2008 NAAQS of 75 ppb.
But the federal district court rulings mean the agency must now take steps toward resolving both issues -- although it could still formally reject the outstanding section 126 petition at the center of one of the two cases, and it could craft the court-mandated FIPs in the other case without requiring any new ozone reduction mandates.
In the first ruling, issued June 12, Judge John Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York imposed tight deadlines for EPA to issue overdue FIPs for several states for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, after the Empire State and Connecticut sued the agency to force action to curb interstate air pollution impacting them. But the victory may be limited if EPA decides that the upwind states' obligations have already been met.
In his ruling in State of New York. et al. v. Pruitt, et al., Koeltl finds that EPA has missed statutory deadlines to issue federal implementation plans (FIPs) to limit ozone-forming air pollution from Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. EPA must propose and disseminate the FIPs by June 29, and promulgate final FIPs by Dec. 6.
EPA had asked that it be allowed to sign proposed and final rules by these dates, but Koeltl agrees with the states that the agency should not only sign but publish its plans by the applicable deadlines in the Federal Register.
New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood (D) in a June 13 statement called the FIP ruling a “major win.”
FIP Lawsuit
New York and Connecticut sued to force EPA's issuance of FIPs the states say are necessary to meet the air law's “good neighbor” requirement that states mitigate emissions causing NAAQS attainment problems in downwind areas.
The air law mandates the FIPs based on EPA's finding that the states were among two dozen that failed to craft plans of their own sufficient to mitigate their interstate emissions that compromise attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
The agency did include many of these states in its 2011 Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emissions trading program for power plants, imposing FIPs to establish states' emissions caps. But even as updated in 2016 to tighten state emissions caps, CSAPR is by EPA's own admission not a full remedy to ensure attainment of the 2008 NAAQS.
However, the Trump administration is unlikely to impose tough new pollution controls on the five upwind states named in the case. The agency's recent computer modeling shows almost all parts of the country outside of California will attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS relying only on existing regulations.
EPA staff said at a recent OTC meeting that the agency plans to release by June 29 its updated modeling showing remaining “good neighbor” obligations for the 2008 ozone standard.
Reid Harvey, director of EPA's Clean Air Markets division, told OTC regulators that NOx reductions associated with CSAPR are in fact deeper than expected, undershooting the existing state caps.
This would suggest EPA will not require much, if any, additional action to reduce NOx from the five states. The court's ruling also leaves to EPA's discretion how to determine whether there is a “significant contribution” from the states to problems attaining the NAAQS in New York and Connecticut.
The agency's methodology takes into consideration not only whether the contribution amounts to one percent of the NAAQS, but also the cost effectiveness of control technologies that might be used to reduce pollution.
Emissions Petition
Meanwhile, in the second case, Chief Judge James Bredar of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on June 12 signed a ruling, entered by the court June 13, imposing deadlines for EPA to finalize its decision to approve or disapprove a section 126 petition from Maryland to directly regulate dozens of pollution sources at power plants in Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
EPA has already proposed to disapprove the petition, filed under Clean Air Act section 126, along with four similar petitions from Delaware targeting individual power plants. The agency plans to hold a public hearing on the proposed denials in Washington, D.C., June 22, and take public comment until July 23. Under the court's order, EPA must finalize its decision on the Maryland petition by Sept. 15.
According to a June 12 Delaware Online article, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Secretary Shawn Garvin recently wrote to EPA asking that the hearing be relocated to Wilmington, DE, and pushed back to July 15 -- although that would be a Sunday, an unusual day for the agency to hold a public hearing.
The air law gives EPA 60 days to respond to section 126 petitions, but EPA frequently extends these deadlines by six months. Here, the extended deadline has already passed, however.
Further, Delaware in separate litigation in the D.C. Circuit and 3rd Circuit appeals courts is challenging EPA's right to grant itself such six-month extensions in the first place.
Maryland and Delaware both allege in the petitions that upwind power plants' emissions of nitrogen oxides are compromising their ability to meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which also raises questions about the states' ability to attain the even-stricter 2015 ozone standard.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/district-courts-set-deadlines-epa-act-interstate-ozone-pollution

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Must Address Air Pollution Blowing into N.Y., Conn. by December

Jun 13, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Chris Dolmetsch

The Environmental Protection Agency was ordered by a judge to act on plans to limit the ozone pollution from five states upwind of New York and Connecticut, a victory for the Democratic-led states pressing President Donald Trump’s administration to enforce environmental regulations.
The agency originally published revised air-quality standards for ozone in 2008 and found in July 2015 that 24 states had failed to submit plans to satisfy the requirements. The EPA had until August 2017 to issue plans for the states that defaulted, but failed to meet the deadline.
Connecticut and New York sued the EPA in January seeking a court order requiring the agency to implement plans to limit ozone emissions from Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.
In ordering the agency to come up with plans for the defaulting states by December, Judge John G. Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found that Connecticut and New York have shown they will continue to be harmed by the failure to implement the plans.
The judge said New York and Connecticut are attempting to “protect their citizens from the harmful effects of the high level of dangerous pollutants in their states caused by the pollutants coming from the defaulting states.“
The EPA in the lawsuit had not contested that it could meet that December deadline.
“As we have already publicly announced, we intend to propose—by the end of June—and finalize—by December—an action that will address any remaining good neighbor obligations related to the 2008 ozone standard for these and other states,” an EPA spokesman said in an emailed statement.
New York, Connecticut Hail Win
“As many as two in three New Yorkers are breathing unhealthy levels of smog,” New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood said in a statement. “The court’s decision is a major win for New Yorkers and our public health, forcing the Trump EPA to follow the law and act to address smog pollution blowing into New York from upwind states.”
The pollution, particularly from fossil-fueled power plants and automobiles, continues to prevent the greater New York City area and parts of Connecticut from meeting federal ozone standards. Power plants are the largest sources of nitrogen oxides, a precursor to ozone, which causes a variety of health problems, especially for children, the elderly, and people with asthma.
“As a downwind state, our residents have suffered for too long from other states’ lax clean air standards,” Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said in a statement.
In fact, these areas are expected to remain out of compliance with the 2008 standard as well as the more recent and stricter 2015 standard of 70 parts per billion, according to the latest modeling results by the Ozone Transport Commission, which includes New York and Connecticut among its 12 members and the District of Columbia.
The case is New York v. Pruitt, S.D.N.Y., No. 18-cv-00406, 6/12/18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-must-address-air-pollution-blowing-into-ny-conn-by-december-1

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested