Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - July 3, 2018
-
Whistleblower Says Pruitt Kept Secret Calendar to Hide Meetings with Industry Reps: Report
Jul 3, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Justin Wise
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt and his aides maintained "secret" calendars in order to prevent controversial meetings or calls with industry representatives getting out publicly, according to a CNN report. -
TCEQ 'Applauds' EPA's Intent But Seeks Panel To Rewrite Science Rule
Jul 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Texas' environmental agency is applauding the intent behind EPA's proposed rule to require use of public research to justify its regulations but is urging the agency to create a panel of experts to draft a new, “more explicit proposed data transparency rule” for public comment and review... -
Air Liquide Sues Carlyle over Theft of Trade Secrets
Jul 3, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc S. Reisch
Air Liquide has filed a lawsuit alleging that the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm, hired a senior Air Liquide executive as part of a scheme to get its hands on confidential business information. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Backs EPA Science Rule as Means of Targeting Strict Risk Studies
Jul 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Industry groups are welcoming EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's controversial plan requiring use of public research to justify agency policies, saying it will make it easier for them to access raw data underlying studies they have questioned and which the agency has... -
EPA Region 1 Chief Signals Possible Support for Interim PFAS Measures
Jul 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA Region 1 Administrator Alexandra Dunn says the agency may be willing to take interim steps to address perfluorinated chemicals before the agency completes work on the four action items that Administrator Scott Pruitt recently announced... -
Bill to Remove Phthalates from FCMs Introduced into US Senate
Jul 3, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A bill to ban the use of orthophthalates in food contact substances has reached the US Senate. -
Canadian Government Promises Overhaul of Country's Chemicals Law
Jul 3, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
Canada’s Liberal government has promised to update the country’s Chemicals Management Plan and overhaul key chemicals law the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (Cepa) "as soon as possible in a future parliament". -
Court Doesn't Answer Question About Marcellus-Area Ban
Jul 3, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A long-running dispute over whether an interstate commission can block hydraulic fracturing in a section of the Marcellus Shale will not end anytime soon. -
U.S. Fossil Fuel Consumption Reaches Lowest Share in a Century
Jul 3, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Katherine Blunt
U.S. fossil fuel consumption last year reached the lowest share in more than a century as use of renewable energy continued to climb and petroleum use remained well below its 2005 peak. -
More Tumult at America’s Chemical Safety Agency
Jul 3, 2018 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The final act of US Chemical Safety Board’s departing chairwoman was to fire its managing director, who’d been on paid leave for three years -
EPA Vows to Act 'as Quickly as Possible' on Texas Haze Rule
Jul 3, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
With a federal judge showing signs of impatience, EPA is promising to launch a new rulemaking on regional haze requirements for Texas by next month. -
D.C. Circuit Rejects Rehearing of Boiler MACT Suit
Jul 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has rejected environmentalists' petition for rehearing of their unsuccessful suit over provisions of EPA's industrial boiler air toxics rule, potentially ending the years-long litigation over the rule... -
Progressive Greens Oppose Carbon Tax
Jul 3, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Kelsey Brugger
Proposals for a carbon tax aren't going anywhere soon. -
Conservative Groups Urge Trump to Reject HFC Treaty
Jul 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
A coalition of more than 20 national and state conservative groups is urging President Donald Trump to “reject” an international agreement to phase down the use of refrigerants that act as potent greenhouse gases, even though the deal enjoys widespread support from industry...
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Whistleblower Says Pruitt Kept Secret Calendar to Hide Meetings with Industry Reps: Report
Jul 3, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Justin Wise
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt and his aides maintained "secret" calendars in order to prevent controversial meetings or calls with industry representatives getting out publicly, according to a CNN report.
The news outlet reported on Monday that the findings were revealed by a former EPA official who is scheduled to testify before Congress soon.
The report says that EPA staffers consistently met in Pruitt's office to go through a process in which they would either remove or alter records from the EPA chief's calendar. Kevin Chmielewski, Pruitt's former deputy chief of staff for operations, reportedly said the reasoning for this was because the meetings could "look bad."
The scrubbing led to a noticeable difference between Pruitt's public calendar and what internal EPA schedules and emails show. CNN notes that more than two dozen meetings, events or calls were removed from his public calendar.
Chmielewski, who said he was forced to leave the agency in February because he questioned its spending and management, said some meetings were purposefully omitted from Pruitt's calendar after they happened. For example, Pruitt's meeting with Cardinal George Pell, who faces multiple historical charges of sexual offenses, was removed from the calendar.
"We would have meetings what we were going to take off on the official schedule. We had at one point three different schedules. One of them was one that no one else saw except three or four of us," Chmielewski told CNN. "It was a secret ... and they would decide what to nix from the public calendar."
CNN noted that if the allegations are true, the EPA's practice of removing or altering public calendars could violate federal law.
The controversy over Pruitt's public calendar is one of the many controversies that have ensnared the EPA chief. The top ethics official at EPA, Kevin Minoli, called for an investigation into Pruitt over the weekend.
Minoli said in a letter that he'd like investigations into Pruitt's rental of the Capitol Hill condominium, taxpayer spending on travel and allegations that Pruitt had an aide help him with personal matters, including searching for housing during work hours.
CNN reports that at least 14 federal probes are focusing on Pruitt's spending, management and ethics.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/395301-pruitt-maintained-secret-calendar-to-hide-meetings-with-industry
-
TCEQ 'Applauds' EPA's Intent But Seeks Panel To Rewrite Science Rule
Jul 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Texas' environmental agency is applauding the intent behind EPA's proposed rule to require use of public research to justify its regulations but is urging the agency to create a panel of experts to draft a new, “more explicit proposed data transparency rule” for public comment and review, signaling that even supporters of the plan are concerned it may not be adequate.
“Taking these steps will lead to a more thoughtful and meaningful policy that promotes and is led by scientific research while providing necessary regulatory transparency,” the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) said in undated comments that EPA posted to its docket earlier this month.
In addition to seeking a panel to rewrite the rule, TCEQ is also urging EPA to use a separate panel, such as the agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB), to grant waivers from the proposed rule's requirements, saying it will ensure unbiased decisionmaking, rather than granting that authority to the administrator as the proposed rule does.
“Because the EPA has a vested interest in the outcome of such a decision, the TCEQ recommends that exception decisions rest with an external, third-party entity, such as the EPA's Science Advisory Board or a new cross-disciplinary board,” the comments says.
The commission said it appreciates EPA's “intention to provide greater transparency to the broader community of scientists, regulators, regulated entities, and interested members of the public who rely on and are impacted by the EPA's regulations.”
But the commission encouraged EPA “to interact with experts in each of these areas throughout the development process to ensure that all the opportunities and challenges presented with this proposed data transparency rule are fully realized and considered.”
The proposed rule, issued in April, seeks to bar the agency from using any science where underlying data and models are not publicly available from use in “significant” regulatory decisions -- leaving loopholes in what may be excluded from the rule.
It also gives EPA's administrator ultimate authority in determining which decisions may be excluded from the policy.
The plan has sparked fierce criticism from environmentalists and Democrats, who charge it would limit the agency's ability to use key health studies that rely on confidential health data to justify air quality and other health-based standards.
A host of Democratic state officials who oppose the plan also urged the agency to withdraw it and convene a special National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel to review the proposal.
It has also drawn an implicit rebuke from the agency's SAB, led by Michael Honeycutt, director of TCEQ's toxicology division, which voted unanimously to review the rule after a SAB workgroup blasted the apparent science underlying the rule as “dubious” and charged it would undercut rules' integrity.
Unaddressed Issues
Just as the SAB was voting to review the rule, the agency also decided to strengthen its internal review of the proposal. Officials agreed to raise the level of review and created a workgroup that was absent when the proposal was first hastened to release, leaving career staff and program offices out of the loop and raising doubts about how it will be finalized without them.
Echoing SAB, TCEQ says that EPA left a number of issues unaddressed in its proposal, and it urges the agency to seek the advice of a diverse group of experts to craft a new draft rule. “The proposed data transparency rule language was silent on several important technical considerations, presumably to allow the public an opportunity to shape the rule. However, the lack of specific policy design has led to confusion among experts and particularly the media about the real consequences of this proposed rule,” TCEQ writes.
TCEQ encourages EPA “to convene a work group or review panel of experts to help in guiding the agency on several of the important details that are needed to make this proposed data transparency rule succeed,” and suggests that panelists be drawn from the Health and Human Services Department, NAS, and “institutional review boards who would best be able to discuss the most recent and relevant methods for collecting and sharing health data from human studies.”
“The work group should also examine economic and environmental modeling data, the extent to which data should be replicable, necessary privacy restrictions, exception criteria, and the potential for inadvertent bias due to the proposed data transparency policy,” the commission adds.
After taking these steps, TCEQ says that “EPA should then provide a more explicit proposed data transparency rule for public inspection and comment."
TCEQ also provides some recommendations regarding the existing proposal. TCEQ “strongly encourages” EPA, for example, to distance itself from determining which regulatory decisions will and will not be exempted from the rule. EPA's proposal states that the administrator will make such decisions, though this authority is bounded by section 30.9.
That section states that the “Administrator may grant an exemption ... on a case-by-case basis if he or she determines that compliance is impracticable because: (a) It is not feasible to ensure that all dose response data and models underlying pivotal regulatory science is publicly available ... or (b) It is not feasible to conduct independent peer review on all pivotal regulatory science used to justify regulatory decisions for reasons outlined in OMB Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review.”
TCEQ argues that to increase greater public trust, decisions about exceptions to the rule should not be made on a political stage, but rather, by an independent body. TCEQ suggests that SAB -- now led by Honeycutt -- could be entrusted with this role, or a separate group could be convened to do so.
“The true tone of this proposed rule will be set through exception determinations ... Exceptions will also ensure that regulatory action continues to take place in the event that the EPA has a statutory requirement to make a decision using data that are not available ... As with many ethical determinations, organizational independence provides greater trust that decisions were reasonable, objective, and unbiased.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/tceq-applauds-epas-intent-seeks-panel-rewrite-science-rule
-
Air Liquide Sues Carlyle over Theft of Trade Secrets
Jul 3, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc S. Reisch
Air Liquide has filed a lawsuit alleging that the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm, hired a senior Air Liquide executive as part of a scheme to get its hands on confidential business information. That information could give Carlyle the upper hand in acquiring Praxair and Linde industrial gas assets now being auctioned as part of the $70 billion merger of the two industrial gases giants, announced in December 2016.
In addition to Carlyle, suitors for the assets, which are being divested to quell antitrust concerns, include the private equity firm CVC Capital Partners and the industrial gas companies Taiyo Nippon Sanso and the Messer Group. If Praxair and Linde succeed in tying the knot, the combined firm will be the largest industrial gases maker, with over $30 billion in annual sales. Air Liquide, the current number one, has sales of about $23 billion.
Carlyle declined to comment on the suit. However, industry sources indicate that the private equity firm continues to pursue a deal for Praxair and Linde assets.
For its part, Air Liquide wants an injunction issued against Carlyle and the executive, Leslie Graff, formerly Air Liquide’s vice president for mergers and acquisitions in the Americas. The suit seeks to prevent use of the allegedly stolen information, the return of the stolen files, and monetary damages against both Carlyle and Graff.
According to the suit, filed in a Pennsylvania federal court on June 12 but only recently publicized, Carlyle began talking with Graff in January about how he might help the private equity firm acquire Praxair and Linde assets. For three months prior to his resignation from Air Liquide at the end of April, the lawsuit charges, Graff absconded with a collection of documents that “would provide any company looking to compete in this market ... highly relevant and nearly invaluable information for guiding its investments and expenditures.”
Among the documents Graff allegedly downloaded to his personal email were financial valuation models and distributor prospect lists. Just before he tendered his resignation, the lawsuit charges, Graff viewed documents that detailed revenue and market share information for Air Liquide and its competitors. The lawsuit also claims he viewed other documents, including a PowerPoint presentation laying out plans for growth in the dry ice market.
Then on the way out the door, Graff allegedly printed “a trove of confidential documents,” including a list of potential distributor acquisition targets. And he purportedly took with him a number of unknown documents on two thumb drives.
https://cen.acs.org/business/mergers-&-acquisitions/Air-Liquide-sues-Carlyle-over/96/i28
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Backs EPA Science Rule as Means of Targeting Strict Risk Studies
Jul 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Industry groups are welcoming EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's controversial plan requiring use of public research to justify agency policies, saying it will make it easier for them to access raw data underlying studies they have questioned and which the agency has, in at least one case, used to set conservative risk values that drove strict policies.
In early comments submitted on the proposed rule, chemical manufacturers say their experiences trying to access data they question are evidence of the need for the rule. In the case of trichloroethylene (TCE), the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA) has yet to gain access to data underlying a controversial study indicating the widely-used solvent can cause cardiac birth defects -- and which EPA has used to set strict risk values and subsequent cleanup policies.
HSIA said in comments released by EPA earlier this month that it "support[s] EPA's proposed transparency rule and point to the use of the Johnson et al (2003) in EPA's derivation of toxicological values for TCE as an example of why the rule is needed."
In comments released at the same time, the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) says the rule will make it easier for other industry groups to avoid the difficulty they faced gaining access to data underlying a controversial 2012 study by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) that showed a positive correlation between estimated levels of a diesel exhaust surrogate and lung cancer.
The study, known as the Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study (DEMS), led EPA risk assessors to consider whether to update their 2001 IRIS assessment of diesel exhaust's health risks, which excluded cancer risk because of a lack of data."Notwithstanding EMA's ultimate success in ensuring that other leading scientists could obtain access to the DEMS data in a manner sufficient to enable necessary reanalyses, the processes and expenses that EMA was forced to underwrite were unduly burdensome and costly," the group says in its comments.
"Accordingly, in its implementation of the [proposed rule], EPA should take the steps necessary to ensure that future third-party efforts to gain access to the data underlying pivotal study data are far more streamlined and cost-effective," the group adds.
Pruitt's proposed rule seeks to bar regulators from relying on any research in major regulations where the underlying data and models are not publicly available, though the rule as proposed also gives the administrator latitude to grant exemptions from the policy.
Opponents of the proposal, ranging from Democrats to academic associations and environmentalists, have been particularly vocal, arguing that the rule as proposed would bar EPA from using most public health data because it contains private medical information.
They have been especially concerned that the rule would make it more difficult for EPA to rely on human health studies conducted by NCI and others that the agency has long used when setting air quality standards for ozone, particulate and other criteria pollutants.
Industry groups have been more circumspect, with the American Chemistry Council one of a handful that have publicly praised the proposal's aim of transparency.
TCE Study
Now HSIA and EMA are welcoming the proposal, saying it will help gain access to underlying data for those seeking to scrutinize studies they criticize.
In HSIA's case, the group hopes the rule will help them gain access to data underlying the 2003 Johnson study, which found evidence of cardiac malformations in fetal mice after their mothers were exposed to TCE, results that HSIA has long disputed. HSIA represents the makers and users of TCE and other halogenated solvents.
EPA used the study in part to justify its 2011 IRIS assessment of TCE, which included strict drinking water and inhalation risk estimates. EPA has also used the risk values to set regulatory policies. For example, EPA Region 9 in 2014 set strict action levels that can lead to building evacuations to protect workers and residents from short-term exposure to TCE vapors at Superfund and other waste sites in the region.
Some states are also beginning to adopt the region's action levels, HSIA writes.
But HSIA reiterates its long-standing charge that the Johnson study is flawed. The group points to flaws in the study's design and record-keeping, and argues that its findings have not been replicated.
"HSIA's attempts to see the raw data which formed the basis of the Johnson et al (2003) study have been unsuccessful," HSIA writes, adding that its request to obtain the data from EPA resulted in a brief summary of data. HSIA's examination of this summary "reveals an absence of certain critical information, including more importantly dates for any of the individual treatment/control animals," which the authors sought to address in a pair of published errata.
"HSIA has consistently maintained that the data presented" in the original study and the two errata "do not allow calculations of the incidence of cardiac malformations per litter that is time-matched to concurrent controls (the standard practice for developmental toxicity studies.) … The lack of data availability and clarity sufficient to construct key analyses associated with a key study should disqualify the use of that study in important decisions such as [reference concentration and reference dose] calculations used for regulatory purposes."
HSIA also argues that the Johnson study is "not reproducible," pointing to two efforts that failed to reproduce the effect in studies designed to meet EPA or Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development guidelines -- one of which included Johnson in the scientific team. HSIA is funding a third attempt at replicating the Johnson study, underway at a contract lab. HSIA says that results are expected by September.
EMA's Comments
Similarly, EMA writes in its comments that it hopes EPA's proposed rule will help ensure that other industry groups will be able to more easily gain access to data underlying studies they oppose to help reanalyze them.
The group notes that its investigators eventually gained access to the data, which allowed them to demonstrate, among other things, that "the reported associations between occupational exposures to [diesel engine exhaust] and lung cancer are greatly attenuated, with most being statistically non-significant."
But EMA says its efforts were costly and time consuming, noting it took more than three years and cost more than $200,000 -- excluding the cost of the investigators' fees.
"In the end, however, those efforts proved to be well worth the effort, since the investigators . . . ultimately were able to complete their reanalyses, which in turn led to the publication of four important peer-reviewed journal articles highlighting the significant questions and uncertainties that pertain to the original DEMS results."
The group says this should "serve as a clear-cut example of the vital importance of ensuring that pivotal scientific data are made available for review, replication and reanalysis by other independent scientists. Without that type of third-party expert review, the original results of pivotal regulatory science might not receive the scrutiny and reassessment that is warranted. . . .That in turn could lead to the implementation of mis-informed regulatory policy and inherently flawed regulations."
As a result, the group says that when the proposed rule is "properly" implemented, it "can serve as a safeguard against that type of adverse outcome."
The group also recommends changes that it argues will improve the proposal's implementation based on its experience with the DEMS study. For example, it suggests that EPA "set up data-housing capabilities and protocols at the [National Center for Health Statistics' Research Data Center] or at another suitable data-storage/analysis site to facilitate the receipt and centralized management of pivotal study data in a manner that can streamline third-party access to data, while also providing safeguards and Agency oversight to protect confidentiality concerns; develop standardized data-access, data-sharing, data-security and confidentiality agreements; and "ensure that any fees for gaining authorized access to pivotal study data at EPA's authorized data-housing site(s) are kept to a minimum."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-backs-epa-science-rule-means-targeting-strict-risk-studies
-
EPA Region 1 Chief Signals Possible Support for Interim PFAS Measures
Jul 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA Region 1 Administrator Alexandra Dunn says the agency may be willing to take interim steps to address perfluorinated chemicals before the agency completes work on the four action items that Administrator Scott Pruitt recently announced, telling a regional forum that additional actions may be folded into a national management plan slated for released later this year.
In closing remarks to last week's forum, Dunn said that she heard community members call for interim actions beyond items the agency has already pledged to take on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), though she did not commit to any specific measures.
"Once our eyes" are open to the situation and concerns regarding PFAS contamination, "you can't really close them and not act," Dunn told the June 26 forum, according to a recording of the session released by a citizens coalition.
Dunn spoke at EPA's first of several community engagement forums across the regions aimed at addressing PFAS, following a national summit in May between EPA and states that was criticized by community groups for giving limited access to citizens.
New England-based Region 1 held the first of the regional fora, as the region has drawn significant concerns from community groups facing PFAS contamination in their drinking water systems stemming from manufacturers or military use of the substances in fire fighting foam.
At the June 26 closing session of the two-day forum in Exeter, NH, Dunn spoke following Peter Grevatt, the director of EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water and the top official on PFAS policy. "I think what you heard form Peter [Grevatt] is EPA is in action mode at this point on this matter," Dunn said.
She reiterated the four PFAS action items Pruitt announced in May: evaluating the need for an enforceable drinking water standard for two PFAS -- perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), taking steps to propose those two chemicals as hazardous substances under the Superfund law, developing groundwater cleanup recommendations for PFOA and PFOS for use at contaminated sites, and developing toxicity values for newer generation PFAS known as GenX and perfluorobutane sulfonate.
She said those actions "will be helpful, but I know what we heard [here] is there's so much that can be done in the interim."
Dunn said she has many notes from the New England forum about other items besides the four action items previously pledged by EPA that "may become part of [the agency's] national plan that reflects the true input that you all gave us."
Dunn did not specify which actions advised by community groups the agency may take up, only saying some attendees at the forum talked about Superfund sites and other drinking water issues.
She noted that EPA held the forum after community group members sought a say in the decisions the agency makes on PFAS affecting communities. Dunn also referenced her background in teaching environmental justice at three law schools, noting the real opportunity she now has to "practice what we preach, which is inclusion and listening."
Dunn and Grevatt planned to meet with Pruitt to brief him on the meeting's proceedings June 27.
'Strong' Standard
At the forum, citizen group members reiterated their request for a "strong, enforceable" national drinking water standard for PFAS that is health-protective of multiple populations, a community coalition member told Inside EPA.
Groups also asked for strong cleanups, designating contaminated sites as Superfund sites and making sure the polluter pays, the source says.
The forum included speakers from community groups in New England and state regulators from New England states, as well as New York. The community coalition source says that hearing the differences between Vermont and New Hampshire regulators over PFAS drinking water contamination stemming from the same company in different towns -- with Vermont applying a health advisory limit of 20 parts per trillion (ppt), for instance, and New Hampshire applying EPA's 70 ppt health advisory level for its drinking water -- highlighted the discrepancies in state responses.
It also highlighted the need for a strong, health-protective standard for drinking water capturing the total of these chemicals, the source says.
This source did not hear any strong commitments coming from federal agencies at the forum, but says citizens at the meeting are hopeful that "contextualizing" their request and personal stories will help [EPA] to additionally prioritize meaningful action on this class of chemicals as soon as possible. The source said, "I'm cautiously hopeful."
Another community group source noted that the best part of the summit was the networking with others who can help with their PFAS contamination -- such as the design engineers for a drinking water filter system planned for their community in Massachusetts.
The source noted the continuing problem in Westfield, MA, where contamination from an Air National Guard base is polluting city wells, but the guard lacks access to funds to pay for treating the water. Whether Westfield receives help remains to be seen, the source says, adding though that at least community members were able to talk to those in charge of a pending treatment system that may be paid for by the city through a controversial bond initiative.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-region-1-chief-signals-possible-support-interim-pfas-measures
-
Bill to Remove Phthalates from FCMs Introduced into US Senate
Jul 3, 2018 | Chemical Watch
A bill to ban the use of orthophthalates in food contact substances has reached the US Senate.
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) introduced the protect our food from phthalate contamination Act on 28 June.
Senator Feinstein had signalled her intention to introduce legislation removing phthalates from FCMs back in April. At that time she said: "Families have the right to know that their food wasn't packaged using plastic that contains harmful chemicals."
The bill builds in a two-year period to allow the plasticisers to be phased out. And, in addition to the ban, it requires that any alternative substances are put forward to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, which would check for "potential adverse effects of exposure to the substance on vulnerable populations, including pregnant women, infants, children, the elderly, and populations with high exposure, including workers who are exposed through production practices or handling of final products."
https://chemicalwatch.com/68216/bill-to-remove-phthalates-from-fcms-introduced-into-us-senate
-
Canadian Government Promises Overhaul of Country's Chemicals Law
Jul 3, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
Canada’s Liberal government has promised to update the country’s Chemicals Management Plan and overhaul key chemicals law the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (Cepa) "as soon as possible in a future parliament".
But with Canada’s next general election due on, or before, 21 October 2019, a Cepa reform Bill is unlikely to reach parliament before 2020. It will also require a Liberal Party victory. This looks far from certain following a serious defeat in Ontario’s provincial election on 7 June.
The government's promise to overhaul the legislation was announced by health minister Ginette Petitpas Taylor and environment and climate change minister Catherine McKenna. It comes in response to 87recommendations made by the parliament's Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last summer.
These recommendations – which included prohibiting ‘substances that are of very high concern’ unless industry could prove they can be used safely and there are no substitutes – were strongly criticised by the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada (Ciac) as "overly precautionary" and a threat to innovation and investment. But civic society groups welcomed them, arguing that Canadian chemicals legislation is much weaker than that in the EU and US.
In detailed responses to the committee recommendations, issued on 29 June, the Canadian government says it agrees "with the intent" of most of them. However, it wants to assess them further in 2018 and 2019 as part of its ongoing consultations on the next phase of Canada’s Chemicals Management Programme (CMP) after 2020. Almost all of the key areas addressed by the committee, will remain under discussion in this engagement exercise, and include:
The government also says some of the committee’s recommendations, such as those to improve government transparency and consultation procedures, can be implemented ahead of Cepa's revision.Government responses to key recommendations
SVHCs: Recommendation 41 was possibly the most fiercely disliked by the chemical industry. It mirrors the authorisation provisions of the EU’s REACH Regulation and says Cepa should be amended to require a reverse-burden approach for substances of very high concern, including CMRs, PBTs and vPvBs, and their prohibition for all uses except any industry could justify. Devoting just a single paragraph to the issue, the government – as industry expected – did not endorse it at this time. It said instead that it ‘recognises the committee’s concern’ and promised to consider it further as part of the CMP post-2020 process.
Substitution: Emphasising the need to use safer alternatives to Schedule 1 substances and to avoid replacing any with an equally or more toxic substance (regrettable substitution), the committee called for a mandatory duty to assess alternatives as part of all screening assessments and to add a mandatory substitution test to the regulation of toxic substances. The government said it supported the intention of these, and other recommendations on substitution (57-60).
Product labelling: The government said it would ‘further consider’ the committee’s call for mandatory hazard labelling of all products containing toxic substances – a measure that would be similar to California’s Proposition 65 labelling rules for products containing carcinogens and mutagens.
CBI: The government agreed with two recommendations calling for greater transparency on chemical names. The first said the explicit chemical or biological name of substances or living organisms should be disclosed when risk management instruments are adopted for them; the second said use of a masked name for a substance should be limited to five years, unless the proponent could justify its use for a longer period. In the interim, the government said it is finalising an approach to strengthen transparency in CMP risk assessment activities. This will require companies to provide a rationale for confidential business claims and outline the types of information that are generally not expected to qualify as such.
Prioritisation: The government stopped short of backing the recommendation of amending Cepa to require an assessment or reassessment of a substance, within a prescribed timeline, if another OECD country places new restrictions on it; if new information about its toxicity comes to light; or if the amount of the substance used in Canada increases significantly. It has also promised to include the results of the government’s identification of risk assessment priorities (Irap) process – which identities new priorities for assessment – in the annual Cepa report to parliament.
Choosing risk management options for toxic substances: Once a substance is defined under Cepa as ‘toxic’ and added to Schedule 1, the government must pick the most appropriate risk management measure, binding or non-binding, by certain deadlines. The committee recommended that Cepa be amended to "update, improve and prescribe timelines" for listing a substance on Schedule 1 after the conclusion of a risk assessment; for producing draft risk management measures; and for finalising these. The government’s response is that it will further consider these through the CMP post-2020 process.
The government rejected a recommendation that a substance should be added to Schedule 1 automatically upon a finding of toxicity by government officials, without allowing industry or other stakeholders to comment, object ,or request a review as they currently have the power to do.
PBTs: Cepa requires the government to achieve "virtual elimination of PBTs". To do this, it must identify the lowest level at which it can be accurately measured (known as the level of quantification or LOQ); add the substance and its LOQ to the virtual elimination list; and identify the quantity or concentration that may be released into the environment in "release limit" regulations.
But because of practical problems in setting LOQs or promulgating release limit regulations, the government, in agreement with the committee, promises to make the regime more effective. In addition, the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations from 2000, which define whether a substance is persistent or bioaccumulative, will be updated to bring them into line with the best available science and standards, including those of other OECD jurisdictions.
Cumulative effects: The government "supports the intent" of the committee’s recommendation to add a requirement to Cepa for the government, when deciding if a substance is toxic, to assess aggregate exposure to, and cumulative and synergistic effects of, the substance, and to look at multiple exposure points. The government also points out that it is co-leading the finalisation of OECD guidance on the considerations for assessment of the risks of combined exposure to multiple chemicals.
Endocrine disruptors: The government said it supported the intent of the committee’s call to explicitly mention endocrine disruptors in Cepa’s definition of toxic and for the law "to expressly address substances that are dangerous at low-level quantity thresholds", but stopped short of agreeing that such amendments were needed.
It also side-stepped whether to back the call for the government to "implement measures, thresholds, techniques and reporting requirements specifically addressing EDCs" but said it is considering new approaches, including in vitro methods to detect endocrine activity at low doses.
Vulnerable populations and biomonitoring: The government agreed that Cepa's preamble should mention the importance of considering vulnerable populations in risk assessments. It also promised to publish a policy which will include a definition of the term and the objectives of the programme. It also said it recognises that current biomonitoring surveys only measure a small proportion of chemicals and it is examining new methods that can detect a much broader range of substances. This will include those that can detect substances at lower levels and in smaller blood or urine samples.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68233/canadian-government-promises-overhaul-of-countrys-chemicals-law
-
Court Doesn't Answer Question About Marcellus-Area Ban
Jul 3, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A long-running dispute over whether an interstate commission can block hydraulic fracturing in a section of the Marcellus Shale will not end anytime soon.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision today in litigation over the Delaware River Basin Commission's fracking moratorium, but it did not resolve the issue. Instead, it will remand the case to a lower court for further proceedings.
The outcome is a small, partial win for opponents of the DRBC's policy, which has blocked fracking in the 13,539-square-mile river basin atop the Marcellus Shale since 2009. Landowners have long sought to open up the Pennsylvania portion to oil and gas extraction. But the interstate compact — a mix of federal agencies and governors of Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and Delaware — has maintained that it needs more time to consider potential safeguards before shale drilling can occur.
A district court ruled for the commission last year, and landowners making up the Wayne Land and Mineral Group LLC hoped the 3rd Circuit would overturn that decision. The appeals judges didn't go that far but agreed to send the case back so the district court can take a closer look.
The DRBC has jurisdiction over "projects" in the basin that could affect water resources. The legal dispute centers on whether fracking counts as such a project under the terms of a 1961 compact that created the commission (Energywire, Nov. 22, 2017).
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania said the term was unambiguous and sided with the DRBC last year. The 3rd Circuit rejected that conclusion today and is now remanding the issue to the lower court to do "fact-finding" on the intent of the compact's writers.
"The parties have identified conflicting reasonable interpretations of the term 'project,' which counsels us to conclude that the District Court erred when it decided that the Commission's project review authority under the terms of the Compact unambiguously includes Wayne's proposed activities," Judge Kent Jordan, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote for the court.
"To be clear, at this stage, we are not adopting or endorsing either Wayne's interpretation or the Commission's, or anyone else's," he added. "We are simply noting that the parties have posited potentially reasonable interpretations that bear their own strengths and weaknesses."
Judge Thomas Hardiman, another Bush appointee, joined in the opinion, and Senior Judge Anthony Joseph Scirica, a Reagan appointee, concurred. The case will now go back to the district court in Pennsylvania.
The DRBC, meanwhile, is working on formalizing its nearly decade-old fracking prohibition. The commission is weighing proposed regulations that would bar high-volume fracking within the basin (Energywire, April 6).
Click here to read today's opinion.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/07/03/stories/1060087685
-
U.S. Fossil Fuel Consumption Reaches Lowest Share in a Century
Jul 3, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Katherine Blunt
U.S. fossil fuel consumption last year reached the lowest share in more than a century as use of renewable energy continued to climb and petroleum use remained well below its 2005 peak.
The U.S. Energy Department reported Tuesday that fossil fuels accounted for just over 80 percent of domestic energy consumption in 2017, the lowest share since 1902. Renewables, meanwhile, accounted for just over 11 percent, the highest share in roughly the same time period.
The drop in fossil fuel consumption -- the third consecutive annual decline -- was driven in part by a 2.5 percent decline in the use of coal, following a decade-long trend. U.S. coal consumption has fallen about 40 percent since 2005 despite the Trump administration's efforts to prop up the industry.
U.S. natural gas consumption dropped 1.4 percent despite a surge in domestic production and a steady uptick in global demand. In the U.S., the ongoing shift away from coal for electric power generation has boosted consumption of natural gas by 24 percent since 2005.
Petroleum consumption remained the largest driver of demand for U.S. fossil fuels and increased slightly last year. But its usage, driven mostly by demand for gasoline, remained 10 percent below the 2005 peak, aligning with recent predictions gasoline will soon be displaced as a main driver of crude demand worldwide.
In its most recent outlook, the International Energy Agency projected that global gasoline demand will grow only 0.2 percent a year through 2023 as 10 of the world's largest vehicle markets, including the U.S., implement stricter fuel efficiency standards and develop more electric models.
That anticipated shift has spurred energy companies in the U.S. and elsewhere to invest more heavily in petrochemicals as emerging markets worldwide consume more plastics and consumer goods. The IEA anticipates that petrochemicals will account for a quarter of the growth in global oil consumption during the next five years, replacing gasoline as the driver of crude demand.
Much of the recent growth has occurred along the U.S. Gulf Coast, which has emerged as the locus of global petrochemical production thanks to a steady supply of low-cost natural gas feedstocks from West Texas and elsewhere.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/U-S-fossil-fuel-consumption-reaches-lowest-level-13046346.php
-
More Tumult at America’s Chemical Safety Agency
Jul 3, 2018 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
The final act of US Chemical Safety Board’s departing chairwoman was to fire its managing director, who’d been on paid leave for three years
The managing director of the embattled US Chemical Safety Board (CSB), who had been on paid administrative leave since June 2015 over accusations of mismanagement and leadership deficiencies, has just been officially terminated by the outgoing chairwoman of the agency, which investigates US chemical accidents.
Vanessa Sutherland abruptly resigned her job as the CSB’s chairperson on 22 June, and she officially removed Daniel Horowitz from his post the previous night. A federal employee salary database had once shown that Horowitz earned $158,700 from the CSB in fiscal year 2015, and that he drew from the agency a salary of $160,300 and $161,900 in the next two years, respectively, despite not working.
Sutherland’s sudden action shocked Horowitz. He says the three-year delay in his termination speaks to the ‘feebleness’ of the charges against him. Horowitz says he and his lawyers had tried to settle the matter multiple times, but their proposals were rebuffed. He has appealed his removal to the federal civil service court, and still wants to be reinstated as the CSB’s managing director. ‘The broader context is important here – the CSB is in very serious decline, and about 40% of its investigators have left,’ Horowitz states.
The agency’s previous chairman, Rafael Moure-Eraso, was forced to resign over mismanagement allegations in March 2015, amid congressional and White House pressure. Moure-Eraso, who was never prosecuted, provoked a backlash simply by pushing for significant safety changes in chemical industry practices, Horowitz tells Chemistry World. The CSB currently appears to be in tumult. In addition to these personnel issues, President Trump has twice proposed to defund the agency.
Sutherland left the CSB to become a vice president at the Virginia railroad company Norfolk Southern Corporation, effective 25 June. Meanwhile, Kristen Kulinowski, who has served on the CSB since August 2015, is filling in as the agency’s ‘interim executive authority’.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/more-tumult-at-americas-chemical-safety-agency/3009221.article
-
EPA Vows to Act 'as Quickly as Possible' on Texas Haze Rule
Jul 3, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
With a federal judge showing signs of impatience, EPA is promising to launch a new rulemaking on regional haze requirements for Texas by next month.
The agency intends to move "as quickly as possible" and expects to have a signed notice of proposed rulemaking by Aug. 17, an EPA attorney wrote in a filing yesterday with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Attached to the filing is a declaration by Wren Stenger, head of the multimedia division for EPA's Region 6 office based in Dallas.
The upcoming notice will include a detailed explanation of the parts of the final regional haze rule that EPA plans to reconsider, Stenger said in the declaration. While EPA staffers have already developed a draft, the recent closings of several coal-fired power plants in Texas — including the Monticello Steam Station owned by Vistra Energy Corp. — has affected reconsideration of the rule, which was published last October.
In addition, Stenger said, a number of EPA employees who worked on the final rule have retired, left the agency or been reassigned to other projects. While those employees have been replaced, Stenger said, "time and resources were necessary for the new staff to become familiar with the final rule."
The filing was the latest in a lawsuit originally brought in 2011; it came after the judge in the case last month ordered EPA to "inform the court why it has not yet issued the notice of proposed rulemaking and when it intends to do so," according to the filing.
The regional haze program, dating back to 1999 in its current form, aims to restore natural visibility to 156 national parks and wilderness areas by 2064. Texas was required to complete the haze rule — which is supposed to address pollution from coal-fired power plants — under a 2012 settlement to the district court suit.
But the National Parks Conservation Association and other plaintiffs have charged that the final version released last October differs so starkly from the Obama-era draft that it amounts to an illegal "bait and switch" (Greenwire, Oct. 16, 2017).
In an administrative petition for reconsideration in December, they then asked EPA to redo the rule, which relies on an emissions trading system in place of specific pollution controls proposed by the Obama administration.
The upcoming notice of proposed rulemaking will mark the first step in EPA's plan to seek public comment on aspects of the final rule, Stenger said, "that will include, but may not be limited to, some or all of the issues raised in the plaintiffs' petition for reconsideration."
In the interim, proceedings in both the D.C. District Court litigation and a separate suit filed with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are on hold (Greenwire, March 7).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/07/03/stories/1060087687
-
D.C. Circuit Rejects Rehearing of Boiler MACT Suit
Jul 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has rejected environmentalists' petition for rehearing of their unsuccessful suit over provisions of EPA's industrial boiler air toxics rule, potentially ending the years-long litigation over the rule unless environmentalists ask for, and are granted, a Supreme Court appeal.
In a July 3 per curiam order, the court without explanation denies environmentalists' petition for panel rehearing in Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, et al. Environmental groups in the suit challenged as unlawful EPA's use of a carbon monoxide (CO) threshold as a “surrogate” for specific limits on individual hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), and also the agency's “work practice standards” that apply instead of numeric emissions limits during periods of boiler startup and shutdown.
The case was the latest in a long-running series of lawsuits filed by environmentalists and industry groups over the boiler maximum achievable control technology (MACT) rule, first issued by the Obama EPA in 2011.
In a March 16 unanimous ruling in Sierra Club, the most recent case, the court found that EPA had failed to explain why its 130 parts per million CO limit was an appropriate substitute for individual HAP limits, remanding this aspect of the rule to EPA. But in her unanimous opinion for the court, Judge Nina Pillard sided with EPA in rejecting environmentalists' criticisms that the boiler work practice standards are unlawfully weak.
Pillard found that EPA's allowance of a four-hour startup period when emissions controls need not apply, subject to certain conditions, was a reasonable response to the difficulties of measuring and controlling pollution when boiler and emissions controls are not yet up to operating temperatures.
Pillard disagreed with environmentalists' arguments that EPA should have subcategorized boilers into those that can apply their controls more quickly on startup, and those that cannot.
Sierra Club and other groups then urged the court to reconsider the case, but the July 3 order leaves a bid for high court appeal as the environmentalists' last option to challenge the rule.
Unless environmentalists appeal to the Supreme Court, this appears to mark the end of a long line of legal challenges to the boiler MACT, which EPA proposed, withdrew, re-proposed and subsequently finalized in weaker form, citing the availability of better data to underpin the regulation.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/dc-circuit-rejects-rehearing-boiler-mact-suit
-
Progressive Greens Oppose Carbon Tax
Jul 3, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Kelsey Brugger
Proposals for a carbon tax aren't going anywhere soon.
But that hasn't stopped members of the environmental left from opposing the idea, in a move that separates them from other mainstream environmentalists who see it as one way to reduce greenhouse gases.
Dozens of far-left environmental groups, led by Food & Water Watch, declared last month that a carbon tax is a "license to pollute." The group argued that the tax is regressive and the costs would be passed on to consumers. It also says there's no evidence it would work.
"These aren't effective," said Seth Gladstone of Food & Water Watch. "Taxing bad things and creating these revenue streams, you are creating a model where you are dependent upon those polluters. That's just kind of a backwards approach."
Gladstone pointed to a British Columbia study that found emissions actually increased under a carbon tax.
In a letter to the Congressional Progressive Caucus, about 30 environmental groups urged lawmakers to remove references to a carbon tax in the People's Budget, an alternative spending plan meant to outline liberal priorities.
While the groups applauded the effort to generate revenue to tackle climate change, they could not support a carbon tax "that gives a green light for the biggest climate scofflaws to pay to pollute and maintain a harmful status quo."
The letter states that lower-income communities tend to bear the brunt of air pollution. Asked whether Food & Water Watch could support a carbon pricing policy if the revenue benefited underprivileged communities, Gladstone said, "There are other ways to find that money. Allowing polluters continuing to pollute is a false solution to the matter."
Chairmen of the Progressive Caucus — Reps. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) — have not responded to the group, Gladstone said. Their offices did not respond to requests for comment.
Gladstone could not say how many Democrats oppose a carbon price in favor of more stringent approaches.
Carbon price proposals, which take on many forms, have long been embraced by many environmentalists as a way to tackle climate change. There is some disagreement on how the revenue should be spent. One idea is to put it toward clean energy and green jobs.
Earlier this year, Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) and Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) introduced the "Healthy Climate and Family Security Act." The bill, a cap-and-dividend approach, would put a price on carbon and give the money back to Americans. It would spur investments in high-paying jobs in the green sector, the Democrats said. "It is a win-win-win, boosting middle class pocketbooks, growing good paying jobs, and reducing our carbon footprint," a press release stated at the time.
In recent years, eco-conservative groups such as the Niskanen Center and R Street Institute have popped up and called for a price on carbon. Some of the market-based proposals call for using the revenue generated from a carbon tax to backfill revenue losses from tax cuts. They also call for eliminating EPA authority over greenhouse gas emissions and other rules.
It's a similar proposal that conservatives like Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), who co-founded the House Climate Solutions Caucus, have indicated they would support. Forty-two Republicans are now in the caucus.
Last year, Exxon Mobil Corp. declared its support for carbon pricing (Climatewire, June 15, 2017).
That embrace has Food & Water Watch increasingly uncomfortable. "The bottom line is they know it's a program that would allow them to maintain the status quo," Gladstone said.
"We need real leadership in Congress from our elected officials at the federal level and the local levels advocating and fighting for a true transition to a cleaner energy as soon as possible," he added. "That doesn't mean taxing carbon emissions. It means shutting down fossil fuels once and for all."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/07/03/stories/1060087651
-
Conservative Groups Urge Trump to Reject HFC Treaty
Jul 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
A coalition of more than 20 national and state conservative groups is urging President Donald Trump to “reject” an international agreement to phase down the use of refrigerants that act as potent greenhouse gases, even though the deal enjoys widespread support from industry, Republican senators and other conservative groups.
A July 2 letter from the free market Competitive Enterprise Institute think tank and several of its allies charges that the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol would lead to “higher costs for households, motorists and businesses that rely on air conditioning and refrigeration.”
The Kigali deal sets a global phase down schedule for hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which were initially promoted as replacements for chemicals that harm the ozone layer, though they act as potent short-term GHGs.
The letter -- which is joined by several groups that dismiss mainstream climate science -- argues that the deal would lead to “minute” reductions in global temperature but come at a “very high cost.”
Supporters of the deal have said HFC cuts achieved by the agreement would prevent up to 0.5 degrees of global average temperature increase -- a significant amount given the oft-cited goal to limit increases to 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels.
The recent letter comes after a wide range of refrigeration and air conditioning groups sent Trump a June 13 letter urging him to send Kigali to the Senate for ratification, arguing it would boost domestic manufacturing jobs and the sector's trade balance.
A group of 13 Republican senators also have urged Trump to embrace the Kigali deal.
Further, the deal recently earned the support of three other conservative groups: Americans for Tax Reform, FreedomWorks and the American Council for Capital Formation.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/conservative-groups-urge-trump-reject-hfc-treaty
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested