Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - July 4, 2018
-
Senate Republicans Agree on Pruitt’s Future: It’s Trump’s Call
Jul 3, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Sen. Susan Collins was the lone Republican to vote no on EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s nomination. -
Pruitt Ally Plays Gatekeeper of His Public Records
Jul 3, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna and Emily Holden
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt placed a former political fundraising ally in charge of an office that has been slow to release his most sensitive documents — including details about his meetings with industry lobbyists and taxpayer-funded travels across the U.S. and Europe. -
TSCA Reform: The Terrible Twos Edition
Jul 3, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Liz Hitchcock
We recently marked two years since the enactment of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act -
US FDA Announces Public Hearing On Predictive Toxicology Roadmap
Jul 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced a public hearing on its predictive toxicology roadmap, issued on 6 December last year. -
Hawaii's Governor Signs Ban On Two Sunscreen Ingredients Into Law
Jul 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Hawaii has become the first US state to ban the sale of sunscreen containing two key ingredients: oxybenzone and octinoxate. -
Chemsec Probes Hansen on REACH Candidate List 'Paralysis'
Jul 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
NGO ChemSec has sent a letter to Echa head Bjorn Hansen, urging him to speed up the processes of identifying SVHCs and find ways to "limit the paralysis" of the REACH candidate list. -
EU Publishes Scientific Opinions On Chemicals In Cosmetics
Jul 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The EU’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) has published Opinions on chemicals used in cosmetics and personal care products. -
Swedish Chemicals Agency Warns About Hazardous Substances in Artificial Turf
Jul 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The Swedish Chemicals Agency, Kemi, has said that newly installed artificial turf should not be made from rubber crumb containing hazardous substances. -
Driller Gets Second Try at Delaware River Basin as Fracking Ban Looms
Jul 3, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
A Pennsylvania driller will get a second chance to convince a court it should be allowed to drill for natural gas in the Delaware River Basin—even as the interstate commission governing the basin is poised to ban fracking. -
3rd Circ. Revives Challenge To Del. River Basin Fracking Ban
Jul 3, 2018 | Law 360
By Jeannie O'Sullivan
The Third Circuit issued a precedential decision Tuesday reviving a company’s challenge to the Delaware River Basin Commission's fracking moratorium, saying a lower court must review ambiguous language in the 57-year-old compact governing the agency to determine what types of projects fall within its oversight. -
FERC, Industry Decline to Appeal Downstream GHG Ruling
Jul 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Trump administration and industry are declining to seek Supreme Court review of an appellate ruling that required the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to analyze the downstream greenhouse gas impacts of a major natural gas pipeline network, a move that will keep the precedent set by the ruling in place. -
Noble Adds More Permian Crude Takeaway to South Texas
Jul 3, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Houston-based Noble Energy Inc. has increased its crude oil takeaway capacity from the Permian Basin to South Texas with an additional five-year, firm sales agreement. -
California Unveils Final Natural Gas Storage Rules
Jul 3, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
California has finalized regulations for underground natural gas storage that take effect Oct. 1 aimed at public health and safety nearly three years after the four-month-long methane leak at Aliso Canyon, the state's largest storage facility. -
States Argue Appellate Ruling Backs Rejection of EPA's RMP Delay
Jul 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists and others challenging EPA's delay of an Obama-era rule adding new requirements to the agency's Risk Management Plan (RMP) program say a recent appellate court ruling backs their claim that the Trump administration's reconsideration of the RMP update rule is not grounds to delay that regulation. -
(ACC Mentioned) Seattle Bans Plastic Straws, but US Still Has a Long Way to Go
Jul 3, 2018 | AFP
Seattle has become the first major US city to ban plastic straws and utensils in its eateries, a victory for environmentalists that will be tough to replicate elsewhere in the United States. -
New Emails Reveal Pruitt Exempted Utah Oil Companies from Smog Rules
Jul 4, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Justin Wise
New emails reveal that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exempted Utah oil and gas producers from key smog requirements, according to Politico. -
Court Revives Suit Against 2015 Ozone Standard
Jul 3, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today revived the legal challenges to EPA’s 2015 ozone standard, granting the request by state challengers who were tired of waiting for the Trump administration to decide whether to reconsider the rule.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Senate Republicans Agree on Pruitt’s Future: It’s Trump’s Call
Jul 3, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Sen. Susan Collins was the lone Republican to vote no on EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s nomination. But 16 months later, following multiple revelations about Pruitt’s conduct, the Maine Republican isn’t ready to demand the agency chief’s resignation.
“It’s not my call as to whether or not he stays in his post—that’s the president’s call,” Collins told Bloomberg Environment in a recent interview.
Her stance illustrates the political quandary confronting Pruitt’s Democratic critics. If they can’t get the lone Republican who voted against Pruitt’s confirmation to demand his firing, then how are they to convince Republicans who backed the Environmental Protection Agency head to abandon him now?
Other Republican senators who have been sharply critical of Pruitt agree with Collins’ assertion that it’s up to President Donald Trump to decide Pruitt’s fate. As a result, not even further congressional hearings—such as one coming up in August, which the chairman of the Senate’s environment committee foreshadowed recently following new ethics revelations about Pruitt—will make much of a difference in persuading Republicans to join Democrats calling for the EPA head’s ouster, the Senate’s second-ranking Democrat predicts.
“I don’t know if there’s an ethical tripwire when it comes to Scott Pruitt, because he has served the purpose of some Republicans to emasculate environmental protection, and as a result, they are willing to look the other way when he has been guilty of repeated ethical violations,” Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told Bloomberg Environment.
Republicans have grown increasingly uncomfortable defending Pruitt’s conduct, ranging from his around-the clock security detail to his $50 a night bedroom rental in a Capitol Hill condominium from a lobbyist. Other actions that have raised eyebrows: allegations that Pruitt sought first-class upgrades at taxpayer’s expense, used his public position to prod Chick-fil-A Inc. to award a franchise to his wife, Marlyn Pruitt, and sent out top EPA aides for personal errands.
For now, Pruitt’s position appears safe. Trump said June 15 that Pruitt is doing “a fantastic job” but added, “I’m not happy about certain things. I’ll be honest.”
Handful of CriticsIn April, more than 130 House Democrats joined 38 Senate Democrats, as well as Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), offering a resolution expressing no confidence in Pruitt and calling for his immediate resignation.
The depth of Pruitt critics’ frustration was on display July 2, when a woman confronted the EPA chief in a Washington, D.C., restaurant. Pruitt got up and left the restaurant.
But only a handful of House Republicans—several of them members of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, which tends to attract more moderate Republicans—have called on Pruitt to call it quits. They include Florida Reps. Carlos Curbelo and Ileana Ros-lehtinen; New York Rep. Elise Stefanik; New Jersey Rep. Frank LoBiondo; and most recently, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania. Both LoBiondo and Ros-Lehtinen are retiring.
“Ironically, because [Pruitt] has been so reckless and has no credibility left in Congress, he has strengthened those who want to see our country take a different course,” Curbelo told Bloomberg Environment. “So we’re taking advantage of that, and I certainly hope he leaves the administration one way or the other as soon as possible. In the meantime, we’re going to continue taking advantage of his incompetence, pettiness, and recklessness to advance our cause.”
Fitzpatrick at a June 25 news conference in Horsham, Pa., said that Pruitt should step down because “there’s way too much stuff now” under investigation, referring to separate inquiries the Government Accountability Office, EPA inspector general, House Oversight Committee, and others are conducting.
Ernst Among Toughest CriticsSen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) has called Pruitt “about as swampy as you get here in Washington, D.C.” Ernst and her Iowa GOP colleague, Sen. Chuck Grassley, have criticized him on biofuels policy, with Grassley warning he would call for Pruitt’s resignation if the EPA continued exempting small oil refineries from a mandate to use renewable fuels such as ethanol.
Pruitt subsequently made moves to do what Grassley and Ernst wanted, but that in turn angered oil-state senators.
Asked if Pruitt’s conduct warrants his early departure, Ernst said, “I do. I believe so.” But she told Bloomberg Environment, “If the president decides to let him go, I am totally OK with that. But it is up to the president to make that decision.”
Sens. John Kennedy (R-La.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) also haven’t hesitated to criticize Pruitt. But Kennedy, who has warned that Pruitt’s behavior hurts Trump, agreed the call is still the president’s.Capito has repeatedly called for more congressional oversight over Pruitt, saying he needs to “clear the debris” she said is piling up around his conduct. But she also stopped short of calling on Trump to fire him.
“The president is going to make the decision on whether or not he goes or not,” Capito said.
Pruitt has made only a handful of appearances before congressional committees. But Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, recently bowed to pressure from members to bring Pruitt before a hearing in August.
Barrasso told Bloomberg Environment that he is eyeing mid- to late-August for the hearing, after senators return from a scheduled work period the week of Aug. 6.
Steep Learning Curve?Many Republicans, such as the chairman of the House Rules Committee, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), say Pruitt has been slow to adapt to national media attention and struggled along a learning curve that can be a challenge for new Cabinet members and others new to Washington.
“Scott Pruitt is learning that Washington, D.C., is a very expensive and difficult town to make your way in and around,” Sessions told Bloomberg Environment.
Other Republican senators remain firmly in Pruitt’s camp. They include Sen. Jim Inhofe (Okla.), who raised concerns over Pruitt’s actions in recent weeks but came to the fellow Oklahoman’s defense after meeting with him this month.
Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) said he’s been impressed with Pruitt’s attention to the Anaconda Co. Smelter site in Montana, which Daines said is finally seeing progress under Pruitt’s campaign for more progress on Superfund cleanups.
Daines said he sees no reason for Pruitt to consider resigning.
“Part of this too is you’ve got a group of folks, extremists, who are chasing him relentlessly because they just don’t like what he’s doing at EPA,” Daines said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/senate-republicans-agree-on-pruitts-future-its-trumps-call
-
Pruitt Ally Plays Gatekeeper of His Public Records
Jul 3, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna and Emily Holden
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt placed a former political fundraising ally in charge of an office that has been slow to release his most sensitive documents — including details about his meetings with industry lobbyists and taxpayer-funded travels across the U.S. and Europe.
The role played by Elizabeth Beacham White, the former treasurer of Pruitt’s political action committee, adds to questions about the EPA leader’s pervasive habit of mixing his political, personal and official interests while leading the $8 billion agency. White, who touts an extensive career in the GOP fundraising world, joined EPA in September as director of its Office of the Executive Secretariat, which handles Freedom of Information Act requests for Pruitt’s office.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/07/pruitt-ally-plays-gatekeeper-of-his-public-records-667031
-
TSCA Reform: The Terrible Twos Edition
Jul 3, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Liz Hitchcock
We recently marked two years since the enactment of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. The law, more commonly known as TSCA reform, was the much heralded and long-awaited bipartisan update of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a 1976 law that never really got off the ground as a public health protection.
While the final bill fell short of the reform that we’d worked for, we won on several important issues. We recognized that, if EPA got it right and implemented the letter and spirit of key provisions, the law could protect Americans from dangerous chemicals and have a substantial impact.
Commenting on the final bill, our late campaign director Andy Igrejas said: “Let’s bring our A-game to implementation and get the most out of what we won.”
Unfortunately, while Safer Chemicals Healthy Families and our coalition partners have clearly played a good game, the chemical lobby has laid claim to the umpires, the playing fields, and all the bases. With the Trump Administration so clearly bent on ripping up the regulatory playbook, this has not been our season.
While the Obama EPA got right to work in 2016 acting on the new law’s requirements and putting the new tools to work to take on known chemical hazards, everything changed under the Pruitt EPA. It has failed to protect public health and the environment from toxic chemicals in a number of ways. Here are some of the high low lights.
Green lighting new chemicals
Congress was concerned about the inadequate safeguards against unsafe new chemicals in the original TSCA and significantly strengthened EPA’s ability to review new chemicals in the 2016 update. In a big step forward, EPA is now required to make an affirmative determination of safety before a new chemical goes to market. Under the old TSCA, EPA had just ninety days to evaluate a new chemical before allowing it on to the market. This meant that most new chemicals got a green light to go to market without thorough review.
For the first several months after President Obama signed the bill into law, EPA staff diligently worked toward its goals. After careful review, the agency found that, in most cases, it either did not have enough information for an informed evaluation of the safety of a new chemical or that, under its conditions of use, the new chemical “may present an unreasonable risk.” As a result, nearly 75 percent of new chemicals were placed under orders for limited human exposure and environmental release, requiring increased testing to better understand potential hazards. But the chemical lobby mounted relentless and misleading attacks on EPA’s supposed “overreach” with false claims that the changes in the law were insignificant and not meant to disrupt the old status quo in this way.
Rather than standing its ground and resisting industry pressure to weaken the new law, the EPA’s political leadership intervened to roll back program improvements that the staff had put in place. In November 2017, the EPA issued a “framework” for evaluating new chemicals that reversed recent progress, replacing an effective review process with one that is legally dubious, poorly conceived and a major step backward in protecting our health and the environment.
Stronger reviews of new chemicals are among the most important enhancements of chemical safety in the 2016 TSCA reforms. Our grave concerns surrounding the EPA’s implementation of these reforms led Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families and the Natural Resources Defense Council to challenge the lawfulness of the new chemicals framework in court.
Slamming the brakes on a proposed ban on dangerous paint strippers
One of the EPA’s first acts under its new stronger authority was a proposal to ban paint strippers and other coating removers containing methylene chloride and N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) for consumer and most commercial uses.
Both chemicals had been under review by the EPA for years, and the agency had well documented the case for banning both for use in paint strippers. Methylene chloride, for example, has a record of more than sixty deaths since 1980 from inhalation of the chemical. It also is known to cause several types of cancers as well as liver, kidney and reproductive toxicity. A broad set of studies across multiple species show that NMP causes developmental toxicity (fetal death or decreased infant birth rates) and other health effects.
After tough questioning in Congressional hearings about why the proposed ban had been indefinitely delayed and a meeting with families of consumers who died using products containing methylene chloride since the ban was proposed, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced on May 10 that the final rule would be sent to the Office of Management and Budget “shortly.” The public is still waiting, but major retailers are not – in the past month, three of them have announced that they will end sales of paint stripping products containing methylene chloride or NMP by the end of 2018.
Changing the rules of the road
There are tens of thousands of chemicals in commerce. Most have not been properly reviewed for their health effects. That’s a big mountain for EPA to climb. We knew when the bill was signed that the pace of evaluation and management would be slow. The 2016 law required the EPA to develop “framework rules” that outline how it would choose which “existing” chemicals it would assess and how it would conduct those assessments. While the rules proposed in early January 2017 were health protective and were met with a great deal of public support, the final rules issued by the Pruitt EPA in June 2017 were rewritten to conform to the chemical lobby’s wishes, and failed to ensure that unreasonable risks to health and the environment are fully assessed and eliminated.
As finalized, the framework rules brought back some of the failures of the original TSCA, so Safer Chemicals Healthy Families and several of our coalition partners filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to review them.
Ignoring chemical hazards
The Lautenberg Act requires the EPA to systematically and comprehensively assess chemicals already on the market by looking at all uses and exposures to a chemical. The first ten chemicals that EPA prioritized in the first year have widespread and substantial exposure and multiple adverse health effects. Comprehensive and health protective assessments of their safety are essential to safeguard communities and vulnerable populations and to set a precedent for strong and effective implementation of the new law.
Asbestos, for example, was widely seen as the “poster child” for TSCA reform, with recognition that TSCA was so weak that EPA couldn’t even use it to regulate a deadly chemical like asbestos. An estimated 15,000 Americans die each year from diseases associated with asbestos exposure, so it is incomprehensible that EPA would ignore the millions of pounds of asbestos deposited in hazardous landfills or discarded in routine dumpsites each year.
Also defying common sense is the EPA’s plan to ignore exposures from the chemicals’ presence in the air, the ground or water in most cases. Not only does this jeopardize the integrity of the evaluation, it disregards exposures to vulnerable populations like fence-line communities that the reformed TSCA requires the EPA to explicitly consider and mitigate risks.
Safer Chemicals Healthy Families founder Andy Igrejas published a blog post in 2016 with the Key Takeaways from the Passage of TSCA Reform. His words are even more true today:
To the concerned public: Keep up your guard and stay involved. You know who you are. You might not be a professional advocate, but you have become a change-maker for a safer environment for you and your family. You choose safer products, but also take action, at least occasionally, to push for more systemic improvement. You might come at the issues from the perspective of breast cancer, from a concern about learning disabilities, or just general concern for public health. The key question you have is: does this bill solve the problem of toxic chemicals? The short answer is no. No one can credibly argue that this bill solves the problem of toxic chemicals and their impact on public health in the United States. The progress at the federal level will just be too slow.
The good news is that because of the reforms, the federal government can finally be part of the solution. The EPA can get in on the action of advancing public health and environmental protection. Consumer-driven campaigns will probably still produce more change, more quickly than EPA can. So keep reading labels and keep taking action for your own family and the broader world. Keep pressuring companies to substitute safer chemicals for unsafe ones. Keep holding your retailers accountable for what they sell through our Mind the Store campaign and similar efforts. But now, also help us keep EPA’s feet to the fire to use their new powers to the maximum degree.
Let’s keep holding EPA’s feet to the fire.
https://saferchemicals.org/2018/07/03/tsca-reform-the-terrible-twos-edition/
-
US FDA Announces Public Hearing On Predictive Toxicology Roadmap
Jul 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced a public hearing on its predictive toxicology roadmap, issued on 6 December last year.
The aim of the 12 September meeting in Silver Spring, Maryland, is to get comments on the roadmap's six-part framework for new or enhanced FDA engagement in the science of toxicology.
The FDA says the document is a commitment to "promoting the development and use of new technologies to better predict human, animal, and environmental responses to a wide range of substances".
Registration for the event is required by 29 August. Electronic and written comments can be submitted until 12 October.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68231/us-fda-announces-public-hearing-on-predictive-toxicology-roadmap
-
Hawaii's Governor Signs Ban On Two Sunscreen Ingredients Into Law
Jul 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Hawaii has become the first US state to ban the sale of sunscreen containing two key ingredients: oxybenzone and octinoxate.
Governor David Ige (D) signed SB 2571 into law on Tuesday afternoon, almost two months after the bill cleared the state legislature.
From 2021, Hawaii will become the first state in the US to ban the sale or distribution of sunscreens containing the substances.
According to the Consumer Healthcare Products Association, the move will affect "at least 70% of the sunscreens on the market today".
There is an exemption for consumers with a prescription issued by a licensed healthcare provider, and the ban does not include products marketed or intended for use as a cosmetic.
The bill cites its main motivation as the "significant harmful impacts" the substances have on Hawaii's marine environments, including coral reefs. They "degrade corals' resiliency", the bill says, and are "constantly refreshed and renewed every day by swimmers and beachgoers".
Commenting on the bill, Governor Ige (pictured) said: "Studies have documented the negative impact of these chemicals on corals and other marine life.
"Our natural environment is fragile, and our own interaction with the earth can have lasting impacts. This new law is just one step towards protecting the health and resiliency of Hawaii’s coral reefs."FDA backlog
Use of oxybenzone and octinoxate has stayed high in the US, even as other countries have turned to alternative substances. A decades-long backlog for new ingredient approvals at the Food and Drug Administration is to blame.
In 2014, the US Congress passed the Sunscreen Innovation Act. This sought to speed up the FDA’s approval process and allow ingredients used in Europe and Canada to enter the US market.
In keeping with the law, the agency finalised new sunscreen ingredient guidance in 2016 that outlines how it determines whether a nonprescription sunscreen active ingredient is generally recognised as safe and effective (Grase). This designation is needed to bring a new product to market.
But a coalition of NGOs and industry groups protested against the FDA’s approach. And the ingredient approval backlog remains.
US agency watchdog, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), published a report in November, reviewing the status of the applications. It found the FDA was waiting for more data it had concluded were needed to make the Grase determinations.
In Europe, octinoxate may be used in sunscreen at up to 10% concentration. Last year, the European Commission lowered the maximum concentration for oxybenzone from 10% to 6%.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68249/hawaiis-governor-signs-ban-on-two-sunscreen-ingredients-into-law
-
Chemsec Probes Hansen on REACH Candidate List 'Paralysis'
Jul 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
NGO ChemSec has sent a letter to Echa head Bjorn Hansen, urging him to speed up the processes of identifying SVHCs and find ways to "limit the paralysis" of the REACH candidate list.
Its executive director Anne-Sophie Andersson says while she agrees with the SVHC Roadmap setting out a strategy for prioritising potential SVHCs, Echa must look beyond the first round of priority criteria.
In light of the recently published second REACH Review, Ms Andersson says it is "clear to me that REACH is not delivering at the pace that could be expected," and that the matter is of "serious concern".
In its report on the Review, the European Commission acknowledged that the process of adding SVHCs to the candidate list is "extremely slow" and the precautionary principle is "not yet used".
Yet Ms Andersson says it is "confusing and contradictory" that Echa's progress report on the roadmap seems to say something different – that all currently known relevant SVHCs have been addressed.
She questioned which substances are seen as "relevant" and what Echa means by "addressed".
NGOs have pointed out the disparity between Echa's candidate list, which has 191 substances, and ChemSec's Substitute It Now (SIN List), which contains 912. The SIN List is put together from publicly available information on substances from existing databases and scientific studies, as well as new research.
In November last year, Echa identified seven substances on the SIN List that are not yet under regulatory scrutiny but which may be potentially harmful to humans or the environment.
In her letter, Ms Andersson adds that ChemSec has discovered that "no single part or process" of REACH could be blamed for the slowness of identifying SVHCs, and that for much of the time it is "industry that has succeeded in manufacturing doubt, resulting in a paralysis by analysis whereas the precautionary principle could have justified legal action".
ChemSec's five questions to Bjorn Hansen
Do you agree that non-registered substances could also be relevant for the candidate list? These may be low-volume chemicals and may enter EU through imported articles, the letter says. They make up about half of the SIN List;
Are classified carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR) chemicals adequately regulated through requirements that apply following their classification? If not, the letter adds, "why are they deselected in the screening process?";
What is your view on listing restricted substances on the candidate list and vice versa? In Echa’s view, the letter says, almost a third of the SIN List substances are "addressed" because they are scheduled for evaluation, but "very little" has come out of these processes;
What is your plan to ensure that discussions in expert groups "actually bring substances closer to the candidate list" and will not continue to serve as a way of keeping substances "off the regulatory radar for a number of years"?; and
What assurances will Echa give that it resists industry pressure more effectively and sticks to the scientific hazard criteria for candidate listing?
https://chemicalwatch.com/68238/chemsec-probes-hansen-on-reach-candidate-list-paralysis
-
EU Publishes Scientific Opinions On Chemicals In Cosmetics
Jul 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The EU’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) has published Opinions on chemicals used in cosmetics and personal care products.
Its Opinion on the safety of cosmetic ingredients HEMA and Di-HEMA trimethylhexyl dicarbamate found that:HEMA and di-HEMA-TMHDC, when applied appropriately to the nail plate at concentrations of up to 35% and 99% respectively as part of an artificial nail modelling system, are not likely to pose a risk of sensitisation, provided that their use is restricted to the nail plate only and contact with the adjacent skin is avoided.
Its further scientific concerns about the substances, include:more analytical data are needed to exclude the possibility of the presence of other sensitisers that may be present as impurities or degradation products alongside the two methacrylate monomers; andboth HEMA and di-HEMA-TMHDC are weak to moderate sensitisers and pose a risk of sensitisation from misuse of the products or from poor application or unintentional contamination of the skin adjacent to the nails under normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of use.
In an addendum to its earlier scientific Opinion on climbazole, the SCCS said that in cosmetic products it is safe to use:as a preservative in face cream, hair lotion and foot care up to a concentration of 0.2%;as a preservative in rinse-off shampoo up to a concentration of 0.5%; andas an anti-dandruff agent in rinse-off shampoo up to a concentration of 2.0%.
Meanwhile, the SCCS Opinion on water-soluble zinc salts, used in oral hygiene products, stated that:exposure to water-soluble zinc salts via toothpaste and mouthwash at the concentrations of 1% and 0.1%, respectively, may lead to a daily intake level of 3.54mg for adults and children aged 6-17 years. This exposure constitutes between 14% and 35% of the upper limit (UL) for these age groups. Therefore, the SCCS considers that the use of zinc in toothpaste and mouthwash per se is safe for adults and children aged 6-17 years;exposure to water-soluble zinc salts via toothpaste at the concentrations of 1% may lead to a daily intake level of 1.0-2.00mg for children aged six months to five years. This exposure constitutes between 10% and 29% of the UL for this age group. Therefore, the SCCS considers that the use of zinc in toothpaste per se is safe for children in this age group; andthe SCCS said it cannot advise which portion of the UL should be allocated to exposure from cosmetic products.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68207/eu-publishes-scientific-opinions-on-chemicals-in-cosmetics
-
Swedish Chemicals Agency Warns About Hazardous Substances in Artificial Turf
Jul 4, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The Swedish Chemicals Agency, Kemi, has said that newly installed artificial turf should not be made from rubber crumb containing hazardous substances.
Existing surfaces do not need to be replaced, the agency says, but recommends gradually doing so to help reduce the presence of such substances in the environment.
The material contributes to an increased presence of both microplastics and hazardous substances, it says. It is often manufactured from recycled tyres, newly manufactured rubber or thermoplastic.
Large amounts of microgranules disperse through rainwater and sports players' shoes and clothes. Examples of substances that can be present include certain polycyclic aromatic substances (PAHs), metals, phthalates and volatile organic compounds. They can be spread spread via leachate, water and purification plants.
To purchase or construct such a surface, Kemi advises:
not to use granules containing particularly hazardous substances;
where possible select alternative materials that do not contain such chemicals;
information about content should always be requested from the supplier; and
if the artificial turf is to be built indoors the room should be well ventilated.
The Swedish EPA has developed a guide for the construction and maintenance of artificial turf.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68235/swedish-chemicals-agency-warns-about-hazardous-substances-in-artificial-turf
-
Driller Gets Second Try at Delaware River Basin as Fracking Ban Looms
Jul 3, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
A Pennsylvania driller will get a second chance to convince a court it should be allowed to drill for natural gas in the Delaware River Basin—even as the interstate commission governing the basin is poised to ban fracking.
Wayne Land and Mineral Group LLC says the Delaware River Basin Commission doesn’t have authority to assert control over natural gas drilling in the region. The commission—which includes the governors of Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania and a federal representative from the Army Corps of Engineers—is moving to ban fracking in the 13,539-square-mile basin.
If the court were to decide in favor of the Pennsylvania driller, it could hamstring the commission’s ability to move forward with its pending ban, which it proposed Nov. 30 and took public comment on until March 30.
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit isn’t yet deciding on the commission’s authority. A three-judge panel of the court, in a July 3 opinion, said the 1961 compact governing the commission is too ambiguous to determine whether Wayne Land and Mineral Group’s drilling efforts are a “project” that falls under the commission’s jurisdiction.
“To be clear, at this stage, we are not adopting or endorsing either Wayne’s interpretation or the Commission’s, or anyone else’s,” Judge Judge Kent A. Jordan wrote for the court. “We are simply noting that the parties have posited potentially reasonable interpretations that bear their own strengths and weaknesses.”
The judges want the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which in March 2017 decided in favor of the commission, to sort out the compact’s intent. Judge Thomas M. Hardiman, a potential nominee for the Supreme Court, joined in the decision. Judge Anthony J. Scirica filed a separate concurrence.
Pending Fracking BanAt issue is whether the commission’s authority covers only projects exclusively intended for a water-oriented purpose, such as a dam or a storage tank, or extends to any activity affecting water, which would include natural gas drilling.
Wayne Land and Mineral Group said it has been prevented from drilling an exploratory well on the 180-acre Wayne County, Pa., property it bought in 2015 because the commission issued a de facto moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in the basin. The moratorium was put in place pending the commission’s development of natural gas regulations.
Some environmental groups argue that the proposed fracking ban doesn’t go far enough, because it would still allow companies to import fracking wastewater into the basin and extract water from the basin to use in drilling operations outside the region, with approval from the commission.
The would-be driller has received support from several Pennsylvania lawmakers, who argue the Delaware River Basin Commission’s de facto fracking ban thwarts the state’s sovereignty. There is no ban on fracking in the neighboring Susquehanna River Basin or in Pennsylvania as a whole, where more than half of the Delaware River Basin lies.
Fact-Finding EffortsThe Third Circuit judges said the commission’s proposed ban doesn’t preclude the courts from deciding on Wanye Land and Mineral Group’s claims.
And the court teed up issues for both sides to address in the district court’s fact-finding efforts. Wayne Land and Mineral Group must explain how the proposed water storage tanks for its operations wouldn’t be subject to the commission’s jurisdiction to review projects, the judges write.
The commission, on the other hand, must defend its interpretation of its authority from claims it is “unduly broad to the extent it could permit the Commission to exercise authority to review and control nearly all productive land use within the Basin,” the judges add.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/driller-gets-second-try-at-delaware-river-basin-as-fracking-ban-looms
-
3rd Circ. Revives Challenge To Del. River Basin Fracking Ban
Jul 3, 2018 | Law 360
By Jeannie O'Sullivan
Law360 (July 3, 2018, 6:30 PM EDT) -- The Third Circuit issued a precedential decision Tuesday reviving a company’s challenge to the Delaware River Basin Commission's fracking moratorium, saying a lower court must review ambiguous language in the 57-year-old compact governing the agency to determine what types of projects fall within its oversight.
A three-judge panel said it was unclear if challenger Wayne Land and Mineral Group LLC’s proposed natural gas extraction plan — which would utilize hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking — amounted to a “project” that would require the green light by the commission, per its compact. Wayne Land sought to overturn a Pennsylvania federal judge’s decision that the commission has an oversight role over natural gas wells and that those who want to conduct fracking, which entails the use of pressurized liquid to fracture rock in order to release natural gas, must first seek its permission because such projects involve water resources.
The commission, which was founded in 1961 through a compact between the states of Pennsylvania, New York, Delaware and New Jersey, adopted a moratorium on natural gas drilling in the watershed in May 2010. Per the moratorium, the commission won’t approve any new projects until it adopts new natural gas development regulations.
The district court had tossed Wayne Land’s challenge in March 2017 after determining that its proposed activities constituted a “project” subject to the commission’s oversight. Wayne Land’s claim turned on the “proper interpretation of the compact’s terms,” the appeals panel found.
“Because we conclude that the meaning of the word ‘project’ as used in the compact is ambiguous, we will vacate the order of dismissal and remand the case for fact-finding on the intent of the compact’s drafters,” the appeals court said.
The compact at issue says the commission has oversight of projects undertaken “for the conservation, utilization, control, development or management of water resources,” according to the decision. Wayne Land argued that the goal of its fracking project wasn’t for the utilization of water but rather to capture natural gas. The commission contended that fracking comes under the commission’s purview, and cautioned against applying too narrow a definition to the word “project.”
It was the “persuasive force” of Wayne Land’s point that swayed the Third Circuit.
“No matter how ‘reasonably and liberally’ we construe the compact’s terms … we cannot ignore that the word ‘for’ must have some purposive meaning and limiting function. Doing so would sweep nearly any activity that happens to use Basin water into the compact’s definition of ‘project,’ which could potentially include the construction of a new skyscraper in New York City or a small housing development in rural Pennsylvania,” the Third Circuit said.
In lodging a procedural fight against Wayne Land’s challenge, the commission had argued that a request for declaratory relief wasn’t ripe because Wayne Land hadn’t sought permission for the project before lodging its court claim. The commission invoked the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission, a challenge to the agency’s contention that Reliable’s automatic sprinkler heads were “consumer products.” The Reliable court held that the agency’s actions weren’t subject to review yet because it hadn’t taken any final action.
But the Wayne Land case was distinguishable, the Third Circuit said. While the agency in the Reliable case hadn’t made a final decision, the commission in the instant case took a “definitive position” on the projects it had the authority to review.
“Here, a grant or denial of the relief Wayne requests would clarify the legal relationship between Wayne (and other similarly situated natural gas companies) and the commission so that fracking firms can operate with a better understanding of their legal constraints,” the Third Circuit said.
The appeals court went on to note that Wayne Land wasn’t asking for a review of an agency’s action, but rather a declaratory judgment that its plan didn’t constitute a "project" subject to the commission’s review.
Wayne Land also met the burden of proving it had standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to bring the claims in federal court versus an administrative forum, according to the Third Circuit.
“It has shown concrete and particularized injury because the commission’s assertion of jurisdiction over well pad construction, exploratory well drilling, and fracking activities has prevented Wayne from realizing the market value of natural resources on its property, has caused Wayne to face a threat of sanctions, and has confronted Wayne with an extensive and expensive application process,” the decision said.
Likewise, the assertion of jurisdiction and the moratorium caused those injuries because they prevent Wayne Land from fracking, the Third Circuit found.
"Wayne Land and Mineral Group is quite pleased with today's decision and is looking forward to the opportunity to present the district court with compelling evidence in support of its position that natural gas wells and related facilities are not 'projects' requiring commission review and approval under the Delaware River Basin Compact," the company's attorney David Overstreet, of Overstreet & Nestor LLC, told Law360.
An attorney for the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, which joined the case as an intervenor in support of the commission, noted that the parties now have the chance to “establish a full record” before the district court.
“We are confident that when a full record is established that the courts will conclude that the DRBC has not only the authority to regulate fracking and related infrastructure, but the absolute duty to do so,” Jordan B. Yeager of Curtin & Heefner LLP said in a statement after the ruling.
A representative for the commission declined to comment, citing the agency's policy of keeping mum about pending litigation.
Third Circuit Judges Kent A. Jordan, Thomas M. Hardiman and Anthony J. Scirica sat on the panel.
Wayne Land and Mineral is represented by David Overstreet and Christopher Nestor of Overstreet & Nestor LLC, Jeffrey Belardi of Belardi Law Offices, and Joseph R. Rydzewski of Spall Rydzewski Anderson Lalley & Tunis PC.
The Delaware River Basin Commission is represented by Kenneth J. Warren and Mark L. Greenfogel of Warren Environmental Counsel LLP.
The Delaware Riverkeeper Network is represented by Jordan B. Yeager and Mark L. Freed of Curtin & Heefner LLP.
Amicus Pennsylvania Sen. Joseph B. Scarnati et. al. is represented by Matthew H. Haverstick, Eric J. Schreiner and Joshua J. Voss of Kleinbard LLC.
The case is Wayne Land and Mineral Group LLC v. Delaware River Basin Commission, case number 17-1800, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.https://www.law360.com/delaware/articles/1059979/3rd-circ-revives-challenge-to-del-river-basin-fracking-ban
-
FERC, Industry Decline to Appeal Downstream GHG Ruling
Jul 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Trump administration and industry are declining to seek Supreme Court review of an appellate ruling that required the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to analyze the downstream greenhouse gas impacts of a major natural gas pipeline network, a move that will keep the precedent set by the ruling in place.
The developer of the Sabal Trail pipeline and Florida utilities that will use the natural gas for their power plants did not file a petition for writ of certiorari by a June 30 deadline. They had be mulling whether to ask the high court to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's August ruling in Sierra Club v. FERC, which initially vacated key permits for the Sabal Trail project.
Similarly, the Justice Department (DOJ) on behalf of FERC did not file a cert petition by its July 1 deadline.
Both DOJ and industry had earlier signaled they were weighing an appeal by twice asking the high court to extend the deadline to file cert.
It is possible that industry and the government declined to appeal out of fear that the high court would have found the case moot, given that FERC responded to the adverse court ruling by conducting a supplementary National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review of the project's downstream GHGs and re-issuing the permits.
But leaving the ruling in place means that environmentalists can continue to cite it as precedent in their ongoing efforts to force more detailed climate and GHG reviews of gas infrastructure and other fossil fuel projects.
FERC has already sought to limit the scope of the ruling, issuing a May order that declined to analyze the downstream or upstream GHG impacts of a separate natural gas project in New York, known as the New Market Project. That included installing compressor stations and other upgrades for an existing pipeline.
The commission in a 3-2 order said such upstream and downstream emissions were not “indirect” and “cumulative” effects under NEPA because both the suppliers and end users of the gas are unknown. This contrasts with the Sabal Trail project, in which the pipeline system is being built to serve several specific gas plants in Florida.
Analysts had said a successful appeal by FERC would have confirmed its order in the New Market project, though a loss would have validated minority commissioners' argument that the commission should assess a broader range of indirect GHG effects.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ferc-industry-decline-appeal-downstream-ghg-ruling
-
Noble Adds More Permian Crude Takeaway to South Texas
Jul 3, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Houston-based Noble Energy Inc. has increased its crude oil takeaway capacity from the Permian Basin to South Texas with an additional five-year, firm sales agreement.
The contract provides for firm gross sales of at least 10,000 b/d beginning this month. Sales would increase in October to 20,000 b/d through the remainder of the agreement.
Crude oil sold under the agreement initially would use Noble’s existing firm transport capacity to Corpus Christi in South Texas. Soon after the Epic Crude Pipeline begins full service, Noble expects crude oil sales under the agreement to be transported by way of the firm transportation capacity.
Noble management in May had said it was finalizing takeaway agreements with Epic, which is building parallel crude oil and natural gas liquid (NGL) pipelines from the Permian to the Texas Coast.
Via Epic’s crude pipeline, Noble has secured 100,000 b/d of firm transportation capacity for 10 years following project startup, which is expected to be in the second half of 2019. Noble previously executed firm sales agreements to the Gulf Coast or Cushing markets for its Delaware sub-basin oil covering 10,000 b/d gross for the second half of 2018 and 5,000 b/d gross for 2019.
“Shortly following commencement of full service of the Epic Crude Pipeline, it is anticipated that crude oil sales under the agreement will be transported by way of the company’s firm transportation capacity,” Noble said.
Noble increased its 2018 production guidance in May after delivering first quarter volumes that were 18% higher year/year, with Permian-led oil output jumping 30%. Delaware sub-basin volumes climbed 85% year/year to 45,000 boe/d, weighted 69% to oil.
Epic’s 16-, 20-, 24-, and 30-inch diameter crude oil system is to traverse 730 miles from West Texas, with capacity to deliver up to 440,000 b/d of crude and condensate from the Delaware and Midland sub-basins.
The Epic Y Grade Pipeline LP, the NGL pipeline already underway, is to run 650 miles with capacity of at least 220,000 b/d. It links producer reserves in the Permian and Eagle Ford Shale to Texas Gulf Coast refiners, petrochemical companies and export markets.
Noble also updated its basis hedge position for the remainder of 2018 and 2019. For the second half of 2018, Noble has secured a total of 20,000 b/d of Midland-Cushing basis swaps at a price differential of $2.30/bbl. For 2019, the company has hedged 27,000 b/d of Midland-Cushing basis at a price differential of $3.23/bbl.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114928-noble-adds-more-permian-crude-takeaway-to-south-texas
-
California Unveils Final Natural Gas Storage Rules
Jul 3, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
California has finalized regulations for underground natural gas storage that take effect Oct. 1 aimed at public health and safety nearly three years after the four-month-long methane leak at Aliso Canyon, the state's largest storage facility.
The new rules apply to all of the state’s 12 gas storage facilities with collective capacity of 375 Bcf. The cost of compliance in total is estimated at up to $337 million.
The regulations would replace emergency rules that took effect in early 2016 following the blowout of Aliso’s SS#25 well at the 3,200-acre storage field in Southern California. Aliso at the time operated with 114 storage wells and 86 Bcf capacity.
A Southern California Gas Co. spokesperson said the Sempra Energy utility, which owns Aliso Canyon, supports "efforts to enhance the safety of natural gas storage facilities at both the state level and nationally," and it is generally "supportive of forward-looking laws and regulations that adopt best practices for our storage facilities."
A Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) official told NGI the "final-final" version of the rules cover:Construction specifically for wells drilled into an underground gas storage reservoir;Mechanical integrity testing designed to detect anomalies;Required real-time data gathering system, including alarms to alert operators of pressure changes that indicate potential emissions;Restrictions on production and withdrawal of storage gas through designated production tubing only; andProtocols for decommissioning a storage project.
In addition, the regulations cover standards and specifications for risk management and emergency response plans; monitoring and inspections to ensure early detection; project data standards and specifications; and protocol for records retention and management of wells, wellheads and valves.
Regulators last year opened a nearly two-month comment period for draft regulationsgoverning the operation of underground gas storage, with final comments compiled last summer.
DOGGR chief Ken Harris said the "best science and engineering" was put into the new standards, drawing input from a broad spectrum of the public. The overriding goal is to prevent any future Aliso Canyon-like incidents, he said.
“Our new regulations put the emphasis on proactively preventing leaks, and we believe they are the strongest protocols for natural gas storage in the nation," he said.
Still pending regarding the Aliso storage well leak is a root cause analysis that DOGGR officials said last Friday is ongoing, as is vetting of each well.
"So far, 57 of the 114 wells have passed the testing protocol and are available for injection and storage," a DOGGR spokesperson said. Three wells have been plugged and abandoned and an additional 25 are likely to be permanently taken out of service.
"Whatever the final total of wells approved to resume service, Aliso Canyon likely will operate with significantly fewer wells than before the leak occurred in October 2015.”
The long-term fate of Aliso is to be determined by the California Public Utilities Commission.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114932-california-unveils-final-natural-gas-storage-rules
-
States Argue Appellate Ruling Backs Rejection of EPA's RMP Delay
Jul 3, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists and others challenging EPA's delay of an Obama-era rule adding new requirements to the agency's Risk Management Plan (RMP) program say a recent appellate court ruling backs their claim that the Trump administration's reconsideration of the RMP update rule is not grounds to delay that regulation.
In a July 2 letter to a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit environmentalists and Democratic-led state cite the 2nd Circuit's June 29 ruling in the case Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that found a rule updating penalties for noncompliance with corporate fuel standards should take effect without delay, despite the administration's plans for future revision to the rule.
“[T[he Second Circuit reasoned that NHTSA 'offer[ed] no authority -- statutory or otherwise -- for the proposition that an agency has authority to delay a rule because it is engaged in a separate process of reconsideration,” petitioners say in the letter to the D.C. Circuit panel. “Similarly, EPA’s reconsideration does not authorize or justify suspending a duly promulgated final rule.”
Petitioners note that the 2nd Circuit ruling rejects NHTSA's claim that it has general authority to delay rules implementing statutes that it administers. “Rather, the court found that NHTSA’s action contravened Congress’s clearly expressed intent to assure timely regulatory action, as EPA’s action does here,” the letter adds.
Environmentalists and states, including New York, Iowa, and New Mexico are challenging a June 2017 EPA rule delaying by nearly two years the effective date of the Obama EPA's January 2017 final rule updating the agency's RMP program with new requirements.
The D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in petitioners' challenges to the delay rule March 16. Judges generally seemed to back the Trump administration's authority to delay the Obama-era rule but questioned whether the agency had justified extending compliance deadlines from the original target of June 19, 2017, until Feb. 19, 2019.
With the delay case pending, EPA in May proposed a rule scrapping most of the requirements that the Obama-era rule added to the RMP program, including for third-party auditing and safer alternatives analyses.
Since oral argument, the three-judge panel weighing the litigation has ordered the Trump administration to provide a list of all federal agency rules prior to 2017 where effective dates of existing rules were changed solely to allow time for a potential reconsideration of those regulations.
EPA has notified the court of its proposed revision rule but has not sought any action on the case based on that news.
Petitioners responded, arguing in a May 25 letter to the court that EPA's proposal to rescind many of the updates should not be a reason to delay their lawsuit.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/states-argue-appellate-ruling-backs-rejection-epas-rmp-delay
-
(ACC Mentioned) Seattle Bans Plastic Straws, but US Still Has a Long Way to Go
Jul 3, 2018 | AFP
Seattle has become the first major US city to ban plastic straws and utensils in its eateries, a victory for environmentalists that will be tough to replicate elsewhere in the United States.
After targeting plastic bags, environmentalists have set their sights on plastic drinking straws as a public enemy, highlighting the gap between their brief moment of utility and the enduring impact they have on marine creatures, which often ingest discarded plastic.
A video of a turtle visibly in pain and bleeding with a plastic straw stuck in its nose went viral in 2015.
With 725,00 residents, Seattle, which sits off Puget Sound in the Pacific Northwest, is the largest US city so far to have banned plastic straws, a move hitherto only a few coastal resorts -- such as Malibu last month -- have dared to take.
The city's politicians adopted the ban in 2008, but gave restaurant owners years to find alternatives to plastic straws and cutlery, including compostable items. As of July 1, every infraction of the new ban will cost restaurants owners $250.
Even if consumers can be persuaded not to just throw the straws away, they are generally too narrow to be recyclable, and fall between the screens of recycling facilities.
They wind up in landfills. Rain and wind may then carry them into waterways and ultimately to the sea.
While still in its early stages, there is a global push underway to ban straws.
The European Commission has proposed banning single-use plastics such as plates, utensils, cotton swabs and of course straws, but it will take several years before all member states put it into effect. Britain wants to take action as soon as this year.
The United States is still far from a universal ban, aside from those in the progressive bastions on the West Coast.
In Hawaii, whose beaches drive its thriving tourism sector, a bill to ban straws failed in the face of resistance from the restaurant and retail industries.
California is currently debating a less dramatic bill that would forbid restaurants from offering straws unless specifically requested by customers, while New York's mayor has voiced his opposition to straws even if no law has yet been adopted.
Asian and African rivers
The battle over plastic bags, which has been waged for more than a decade, shows the challenges ahead for banning straws.
Today, California and Hawaii are the only two out of 50 US states to have banned plastic bags. Some cities, including the US capital Washington and Portland, Maine, make stores charge customers five cents or more per bag.
On the hand, a dozen states have laws that actually ban cities from banning them.
In Texas, the Democrat-dominated city of Austin and others have seen their efforts to ban local shops from issuing disposable plastic bags overruled by the state's Supreme Court, with the backing of the attorney general, a Republican.
Plastic bag manufacturers are urging a flexible approach, rather than outright bans. "If you don't need a straw, don't take one," is the slogan of the American Chemistry Council.
The National Restaurant Association has said that in some situations -- such as when driving, or for people with physical impairments or small children -- the use of straws can be beneficial.
Ocean Conservancy director Nick Mallos told AFP that there are "low hanging fruit," such as "voluntary policies where restaurants are only distributing straws upon request."
Alaska Airlines has announced it will replace its plastic stir straws with small birch wood sticks. And McDonald's is studying ways of replacing plastics with biodegradable materials.
But in the final analysis, the vast majority of plastic pollution in the oceans comes not from places like Seattle, where waste disposal is quite effective, but from developing countries, mainly in Asia, whose waste management systems are simply overwhelmed.
A staggering 90 percent of plastic found in the world's oceans comes from just 10 rivers, eight of them in Asia and two in Africa, according to 2017 research by the Helmholtz Center for Scientific Research in Germany.
"If you want to have the biggest impact in the shortest amount of time, the best thing to do would be to help those countries collect their waste and have proper waste management," said Kara Lavender Law, a professor of research oceanography at the Sea Education Association.
"We need to think about how we're using these materials, which are designed not to biodegrade," she said. "They're designed to function for a very long time."
https://www.afp.com/en/news/826/seattle-bans-plastic-straws-us-still-has-long-way-go-doc-1739gw1
-
New Emails Reveal Pruitt Exempted Utah Oil Companies from Smog Rules
Jul 4, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Justin Wise
New emails reveal that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exempted Utah oil and gas producers from key smog requirements, according to Politico.
The news outlet reports that oil and gas producers attempted for years to receive an exemption, and they finally received it after Scott Pruittbecame head of the EPA.
The news was revealed after the Sierra Club obtained emails via a lawsuit over a Freedom of Information Act request.
Matt Gravatt, associate legislative director at the Sierra Club, told Politico that the emails show polluters have Pruitt at their "beck and call."
"The public is being shut out of the decisions that affect the air we all breathe while polluters have Pruitt at their beck and call whenever they ask to throw out a lifesaving protection," Gravatt said.
Politico's report notes that Utah oil and gas producers received the exemption after an industry lobbyist, Marc Himmelstein, asked for assistance from House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah).
Emails showed that Himmelstein coordinated a phone call between Pruitt and Utah lawmakers in July 2017, according to Politico. Himmelstein reportedly gave Bishop talking points for the conversation.
Among the talking points, Himmelstein reportedly told Bishop to ask the EPA to "develop a streamlined permitting solution for future development" of the Uinta Basin in Utah.
At the time, the EPA was about to declare that the land was not meeting standards for smog or ozone pollution — a move that would bar oil and gas producers from using the permitting solution. Instead, gas and oil producers would have to get approval for every well they aim to drill on the land.
But on April 30, the EPA made a proposal that was in line with Himmelstein's request regarding a "streamlined permitting solution." Politico notes that Himmelstein also sent Pruitt's chief of staff marked-up regulatory text that he wanted Bishop to bring up.
The news of oil and gas producers getting an exemption from Pruitt comes as the EPA chief faces scrutiny over myriad controversies regarding his spending and management decisions. Over the weekend, top ethics official at the EPA called for an investigation into Pruitt about potential ethics violations.
The official called for probes into Pruitt's rental of a 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.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/395397-new-emails-reveal-pruitt-exempted-utah-oil-companies-from-smog
-
Court Revives Suit Against 2015 Ozone Standard
Jul 3, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals today revived the legal challenges to EPA’s 2015 ozone standard, granting the request by state challengers who were tired of waiting for the Trump administration to decide whether to reconsider the rule.
The one-page order directs that the case be moved back onto the court's active docket on Aug. 1, a nod to EPA's June statement that it plans to finish its internal review by that date.
Many observers expect EPA to keep the standard of 70 parts per billion instead of seeking to return to the Bush-era standard of 75 ppb, which could trigger a lengthy legal battle of its own. The agency has mostly finished deciding which parts of the U.S. fail to meet the standard, kicking off a series of implementation requirements for the states. And EPA recently took an early step toward the next review of the ozone standard, with plans to finish in 2020.
If EPA does plan to defend the Obama-era standard, oral arguments could take place as early as this fall. The case was fully briefed when the court put it on hold just days before it was scheduled to hear arguments in April 2017.
WHAT'S NEXT: The court ordered EPA and the rule's challengers to file suggestions for how to proceed by Aug. 22.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
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