Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - July 17, 2018
-
Same Agenda, Different Style, Acting EPA Head Pledges
Jul 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Ebert
The EPA won’t change direction under Andrew Wheeler’s watch, but it will talk about issues in a different way, the new acting administrator told Bloomberg Environment in an exclusive interview. -
Changes On Tap At U.S. Chemical Safety Board
Jul 17, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
After a briefing in late June, Vanessa Allen Sutherland formally ended her three-year stint as chair of the U.S. Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) -
Lineups Set For Marathon 'Secret Science' Hearing
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
After months of taking potshots at an EPA proposal to limit the use of scientific research in crafting new regulations, critics are primed for a sustained assault at a public hearing tomorrow that could last into the early evening. -
EPA Faces New Wave Of Criticism Over Controversial Science Rule Proposal
Jul 17, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is facing a new wave of criticism over its controversial proposal to require the use of publicly available data to justify its major rules, posing an early test for the agency's new acting administrator, Andrew Wheeler, and the extent to which he may be willing to drop or soften a plan developed by his predecessor, Scott Pruitt. -
INSIGHT: Five Litigation ‘Hot Spots’ That Escalate the Stakes Under TSCA
Jul 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Martha E. Marrapese and Roger H. Miksad
We’ve seen a historic upswing in private actions aimed at the Toxic Substances Control Act since it was updated by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, Pub. Law No: 114-182 (June 22, 2016). Prior to this, litigation stemming from TSCA has been modest compared with other federal environmental laws. -
Ability to Request CBI Expanded Under TSCA
Jul 16, 2018 | EHS Daily Advisor
By William C. Schillaci
The June 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) expanded the categories of persons who may request confidential business information (CBI) about chemicals, which regulated entities submitted to the EPA. -
(ACC Mentioned) How Europe’s Chemical Industry Learned To Love REACH
Jul 17, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alex Scott
The European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic), Europe’s leading chemical industry association, has made a U-turn in its view of REACH, Europe’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation & Restriction of Chemicals legislation. -
Echoing Dourson, House GOP Seeks To Return IRIS To EPA Program Offices
Jul 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Echoing an approach advocated by former EPA toxics nominee Michael Dourson, House Republicans are preparing to mark up draft legislation that seeks to return both ongoing and new work of EPA's influential but often controversial risk analysis program to the agency's program offices -- similar to how the work was done in the program's early days. -
Markup Set On Bill To Revamp Assessment Process
Jul 17, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Colleen Luccioli
Key Republican lawmakers on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee this week will have their chance to push reforms to EPA's controversial chemical assessment process. -
Skip The Slip: Receipts Waste Resources AND Endanger Your Health
Jul 16, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
By Beth Porter
-
Echa Sets Database Deadline For SVHCs In Articles
Jul 17, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Companies will have until the end of 2020 to submit information to an Echa database if they produce, import or sell articles that contain REACH candidate list substances. -
Trump Says U.S. to Compete with Russia for Europe Gas Market
Jul 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Elena Mazneva, Margaret Talev and Naureen S. Malik
President Donald Trump eased his tone about a Russian natural gas pipeline to Germany after a one-on-one meeting with President Vladimir Putin, shifting from the harsh criticism he’d levied in Europe last week. -
Trump Turns Down Rhetoric, Says U.S. LNG 'Will Compete' With Russia’s Nord Stream 2 Pipeline
Jul 16, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
President Trump appeared to backtrack from a comment he made last week that the controversial Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline would make "Germany a captive of Russia," claiming the United States would compete against the proposed pipeline with liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports. -
Trump Plan To Kill CSB Makes Regulatory Planning 'Difficult,' Agency Says
Jul 17, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Rebecca Rainey
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) is urging a federal court to reject environmentalists' suit seeking to require a rule mandating facilities report their accidental releases, charging, among other things, that the plaintiffs lack standing, though CSB says that if the court requires such a rule it may be “difficult” given administration plans to kill the agency. -
Carbon Tax Bill Talks Come as House Readies Symbolic Opposition (1)
Jul 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
House Republican leaders this week are seeking to essentially force members to say whether they oppose or support a carbon tax, throwing a spotlight on the debate several months before the midterm elections. -
House Voting On Anti-Carbon-Tax Measure: 'Pass The Popcorn'
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E Daily
The House will vote this week on an anti-carbon-tax resolution, a perennial piece of legislation that this year will serve as a key test for the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus. -
Kochs Rally Lawmakers For Anti-Carbon-Tax Resolution
Jul 17, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Nick Sobczyk
Koch Industries Inc. today wrote lawmakers urging support for an anti-carbon-tax resolution set for a vote in the House, as outside groups gird for a fight over the proposal. -
Koch Backs House Measure Opposing Carbon Taxes
Jul 16, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Koch Industries on Monday offered support for a House resolution that would oppose any carbon tax.
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
-
Same Agenda, Different Style, Acting EPA Head Pledges
Jul 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Ebert
Wheeler wants to improve communication about pollution
EPA rules must reflect latest business practices
The EPA won’t change direction under Andrew Wheeler’s watch, but it will talk about issues in a different way, the new acting administrator told Bloomberg Environment in an exclusive interview.
“President Trump, when he called me to take on this role, he asked me to clean up the water, clean up the air, and provide regulatory relief,” Wheeler said July 16 prior to a visit at Canonsburg, Pa.-based machine parts manufacturer AccuTrex Products, Inc. “And I think you can do all of that at the same time.”
The trip was one of Wheeler’s first after replacing Scott Pruitt, the former Environmental Protection Agency administrator who resigned amid multiple ethics scandals.
While Wheeler said that he wanted to follow through on priorities that Pruitt laid down, including faster enforcement and permitting, he will also focus on agency communication to the public.
One of his key policy goals will be to increase risk communication, which he said is one of the main criticisms of the agency. Calling the Flint, Mich., water crisis, a “poster child” for why better communication is necessary, Wheeler said he will gather working groups in the next several weeks to encourage the agency to speak with “one voice” on health concerns.Business-Friendly Tone
Wheeler repeated those comments to leaders of the Washington County, Pa., business community. He also said the agency will focus on drastically reducing the amount of time it takes to research potential samples so that it can more quickly process enforcement actions and warn individuals if they are exposed to health risks.
Like Pruitt, Wheeler said that many of the agency’s rules are 30 years old and need to be updated to better monitor current evolving business practices. That includes both making sure people are safe, but also not getting in the way of industry, he said.
“I don’t expect in the short time I’m at the agency that I’ll solve all these problems, but I want to get us on a glide path,” he said.
Wheeler said another priority would include further research into which lead pipes need to be replaced to protect drinking water from lead contamination. The EPA has been working for years on updating its standards on lead in drinking water, formally known as the Lead and Copper Rule.
He also put to bed questions about reopening the greenhouse gas endangerment finding, which underpins all of the agency’s climate change regulations. He said that since the science hasn’t changed, he sees no reason to revisit the finding.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/same-agenda-different-style-acting-epa-head-pledges?context=landing-heroes
-
Changes On Tap At U.S. Chemical Safety Board
Jul 17, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
Chair departs, investigators leave, staff fears changing mission
After a briefing in late June, Vanessa Allen Sutherland formally ended her three-year stint as chair of the U.S. Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). She described her term on the board as a “fix-it” role for the small independent government agency, which investigates chemically related industrial accidents.
She refused to say exactly why she cut short her five-year board term other than a need for more time for her family. However, rail transportation company Norfolk Southern announced on June 25that Sutherland was joining the company as a vice president.
Sutherland took over board leadership in 2015 after a period when CSB was under attack by members of Congress and federal oversight agencies. U.S. President Barack Obama had called for the resignation of the board’s then leader, whom Sutherland replaced.
CSB stakeholders hoped that Sutherland’s arrival would calm the turbulence and let the agency refocus on what it does best—investigations that go beyond identifying degraded pipes or broken valves to reveal the deeper causes of incidents, such as a plant culture of ignoring safety alerts. As she departs, however, trouble may again be brewing.
Before Sutherland became chair, complaints reported to Congress by unnamed CSB staff alleged mismanagement and internal disruption. Criticism also centered on delayed accident investigation reports. When Sutherland arrived in 2015, six reports were incomplete, one of which stretched back six years.
In her first year, Sutherland emphasized clearing out these reports and declined to begin new investigations. CSB began new investigations again in 2016.
Now, as Sutherland departs, nine accident reports are in process—one of which occurred in 2014, before she took over the board. That accident at a DuPont site involved a chemical process mix-up in which methyl mercaptan was accidentally released, killing four workers. The incident led the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) in 2015 to label DuPont a severe violator of workplace safety regulations, a consequence that increased enforcement scrutiny and fines. However, CSB has yet to finalize its report.
Sutherland claimed that the nine outstanding reports are nearly complete—further along, she said, than were the six when she arrived. She added that an agency such as CSB will always have accident investigations in process.
Sutherland also embarked on a program more broadly to streamline investigations and issue more timely reports. Those changes are in flux, according to Kristen Kulinowski, the board member who took over as interim executive after Sutherland’s departure.
“I am comfortable in being able to step down at this time,” Sutherland said at the June briefing. CSB is in a place where new leadership can easily take the next step to make the board more efficient, innovative, and successful, she said.
Both Kulinowski and Sutherland emphasized the difficulty of running a small federal agency with merely 32 staff and an $11 million budget. The hiring and retaining of staff, long-term budgeting, and strategic planning have been extremely difficult for the board, which has never had sufficient funds to meet its investigative requirements under law. Federal reports have found the universe of accidents that qualify for CSB investigation can reach 150 or more a year, far beyond the half dozen CSB has resources to investigate.
Those preexisting challenges have been exacerbated under President Donald J. Trump, who has twice proposed eliminating CSB. In both cases, Congress stepped in to fund the agency and keep it alive, but the uncertainty has contributed to the agency’s instability, Sutherland and Kulinowski said. Additionally, the White House must nominate a new chair and other board members, and Trump is unlikely to do so. Of the three remaining board members, Manuel (Manny) Ehrlich’s and Rick Engler’s terms end in December 2019, and Kulinowski’s term ends in August 2020, just months before the next presidential election. By statute, CSB should have five board members.
The board also appears to be facing a revolt among some staff over declining staff numbers and fears that CSB is changing its mission. In interviews with C&EN and in an anonymous memo prepared by “six senior CSB investigators” and obtained by C&EN, CSB critics lodged a litany of complaints against board management. The critics allege reduced quality of accident investigations and reports, degrading working conditions, mismanagement, and waste.
In the anonymous memo, the senior investigators note that since Sutherland arrived three years ago, the number of accident investigators has declined through attrition and resignations from 20 to 12. Meanwhile, they continue, CSB hired five management specialists and human resources experts. The investigators also see a general trend toward briefer investigations and reports. They cite a growing focus by management on the immediate and direct cause of an accident, such as a broken pipe or gauge, rather than a detailed root-cause review that uncovers the overall conditions that led to an accident.
Such deeper investigations and reports have been CSB’s bread and butter. Many CSB investigations and reviews have revealed industry-wide poor practices, long-ignored company conditions, and regulatory shortcomings that led to an accident. Frequently, CSB investigators found that avoidable conditions that triggered deadly accidents had been discovered but not addressed by companies years before the accidents occurred. Investigators have also identified significant gaps in industry regulations. Companies or regulators are unlikely to point fingers at themselves, but uncovering such information lays the groundwork for safety improvements, according to several former and current CSB investigators.
In the memo and interviews, investigators say they believe expert peer and stakeholder review of draft reports will be curbed or eliminated. They are also concerned that a proposed shift to outsourcing report writing will reduce accuracy.
The staff also say tension between staff and management has been heightened by top managers recently brought in from other federal agencies. Those managers have devalued their work and have little experience in industrial accident investigations, staff say.
Kulinowski countered those allegations at the briefing and at a CSB business meeting in July, saying that hiring and replacing lost staff is her top priority. Her goal is to hire six new investigators over the next year, eventually bringing the total up to 22. Kulinowski also stressed that the focus on root-cause investigations will continue. But for reports to be relevant, timeliness must be improved, she said.
She added that she was unaware of staff complaints regarding top management. “I always have an open door,” she said, “and will listen to any staff complaint and take it from there.”
CSB is the only body worldwide dedicated solely to investigating large chemically related industrial accidents and publishing their causes. It makes recommendations without issuing fines or regulations. Other organizations examine industrial accidents, but they are regulators that issue fines or companies themselves. Neither are likely to reveal their own flaws.
CSB’s independence is a strength for the agency but also a problem that stretches back to its birth as part of 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. CSB was not funded until 1998, after a series of New Jersey industrial accidents. The accidents were investigated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and OSHA, but their reviews were slow and inadequate, leading then-president Bill Clinton to provide $3 million for CSB’s first year.
Since then, CSB has endured criticism and threats of elimination—with support frequently coming only after an accident with severe consequences for a plant, its workers, and the surrounding community.
https://cen.acs.org/safety/industrial-safety/Changes-tap-US-Chemical-Safety/96/i29
-
Lineups Set For Marathon 'Secret Science' Hearing
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
After months of taking potshots at an EPA proposal to limit the use of scientific research in crafting new regulations, critics are primed for a sustained assault at a public hearing tomorrow that could last into the early evening.
More than 100 people have signed up in advance to speak at the hearing, set to begin at 8 a.m. at EPA headquarters and run as late as 8 p.m. For opponents, a principal goal "is to make the case in a public forum as to why this would undermine the EPA's ability to protect public health," Yogin Kothari of the Union of Concerned Scientists said in an interview.
While the speakers lineup released this afternoon includes representatives of business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global Energy Institute, a large majority are from advocacy organizations vehemently opposed to the EPA plan. Also scheduled to speak are three House Democrats — Reps. Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon, Dan Lipinski of Illinois and Paul Tonko of New York — who signed on to a letter last month pressing then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to scrap the proposal (Greenwire, June 7).
The proposed rule, titled "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science," would effectively bar the use of specific studies to draft new rules unless the underlying data "are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation," according to the text.
The idea sprang from legislation sponsored by House Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas). In unveiling EPA's version in April, Pruitt framed it as a move intended to bolster public confidence in the agency's decisionmaking. In a Friday interview with E&E News, acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler, who took over last week following Pruitt's forced resignation, signaled a desire to move ahead.
While stressing he doesn't want to "pre-judge" the outcome, Wheeler said that "fundamentally, I do believe that the more information you put out to the public, the better the regulatory decisions will be and the better understood the regulatory decisions will be by the public" (E&E News PM, July 13).
To foes, the real purpose of what they often label the "censoring science" proposal is to stymie the use of research that would justify the need for stricter public health and environmental protections.
"In plain English, what they're trying to do is set up a structured method to cherry-pick the studies they use," Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said during a conference call with reporters today.
A main target, critics say, is the "Six Cities" paper published by Harvard University researchers in 1993. Together with an American Cancer Society study released two years later, the paper established a connection between fine particulate air pollution and premature death, leading to new EPA regulations in 1997.
While research relies on many data sources, a powerful fount of information is confidential data from individual patients, Harvard President Drew Gilpin Faust wrote in comments filed last month in urging EPA to drop the planned rule.
With its prohibition "against EPA reliance on any study where personally identifiable data cannot be made public," Faust wrote, the proposal "effectively disqualifies the best available science from use in the regulatory process."
On the other side is the Heartland Institute, the conservative think tank with ties to the Trump administration. "The availability of scientific study methods and data will be crucial to assuring the integrity of the science used to justify policy and regulations," senior fellow Peter Ferrara and policy adviser John Dale Dunn said in comments also submitted last month. They also urged EPA to apply the proposed policy to the computer models used in EPA-funded climate science.
The Illinois-based institute is a vocal critic of mainstream research, which shows that human activities are primarily responsible for rising temperatures.
"The continued use of default models, without consideration of alternatives or model uncertainty, creates a false scientific justification for EPA actions, policies and regulatory burdens," Dunn and Ferrara wrote.
The comments are among more than 200,000 so far received by EPA, according to the regulations.gov website, although most appear to result from campaigns organized by advocacy groups.
In what could be read as an acknowledgment of the high level of public interest, EPA will livestream the audio from tomorrow's hearing. An agency spokeswoman did not respond to emailed questions today asking whether the agency has livestreamed previous public hearings.
The deadline for written comments, extended in response to requests from numerous groups, is Aug. 16.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/07/16/stories/1060089267
-
EPA Faces New Wave Of Criticism Over Controversial Science Rule Proposal
Jul 17, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is facing a new wave of criticism over its controversial proposal to require the use of publicly available data to justify its major rules, posing an early test for the agency's new acting administrator, Andrew Wheeler, and the extent to which he may be willing to drop or soften a plan developed by his predecessor, Scott Pruitt.
It is "unclear if, when or how the [rulemaking] process would proceed," Paul Billings of the American Lung Association (ALA) told a July 16 conference call.
Environmentalists held the conference call -- one day before EPA's July 17 public meeting on the proposal -- to reiterate their calls for EPA to scrap the measure.
“We strongly oppose EPA’s efforts to restrict the use of the best available science in its policymaking and encourage EPA to withdraw its proposal,” a group of 69 public health organizations said in a July 16 statement. The groups renewed their criticisms that EPA's proposal would prevent the agency from using studies based on confidential medical data, opening the door to weaker regulatory standards than the agency might have otherwise crafted.
“If EPA excludes studies because the data cannot be made public, people may be exposed to real harm. The result would be decisions affecting millions based on inadequate information that fails to include well-supported studies by expert scientists. These efforts are misguided and will not improve the quality of science used by EPA nor allow the agency to fulfill its mandate of protecting human health and the environment. For the sake of the country’s health, EPA must not restrict this research.”
The proposed rule generally bars EPA staff from basing regulatory actions on any science where the underlying data and modeling is not publicly available, though the plan allows the administrator to waive the requirements. The concept is based on controversial legislation long championed by House science committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX), which twice passed the House but has failed to advance in the Senate.
Supporters say the measure is intended to improve the integrity of the science underlying EPA's rules but critics charge it is intended largely to block the use of long-standing confidential medical studies that the agency has relied on when setting strict air quality and other health-based standards.
Many critics have also called for EPA to withdraw the proposal and recraft it after consulting with the National Academy of Sciences or some other expert body.
But even some of the administration's supporters have called for the measure to be reconsidered. For example, EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), as re-shaped by Pruitt, voted unanimously to review the science policy proposal, after several members of the SAB expressed concerns about the plan, including new Chairman Michael Honeycutt, the top toxicologist for Texas' environmental agency.
In addition, Honeycutt's agency, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), backed the measure's intent but urged EPA to create a panel of experts to draft a new, “more explicit proposed data transparency rule” for public comment and review.
TCEQ also raised special concerns about the proposed plan to allow the administrator to waive the rule's requirements.
Internal Criticisms
The proposal also faced strong criticism from within the agency after Pruitt developed the rule largely without input from agency staff, and initially with minimal intra-agency review, raising doubts about how it will be finalized without them.
Just as the SAB was voting to review the rule, the agency also decided to strengthen its internal review of the proposal and created a workgroup that was absent when the proposal was first hastened to release.
The rule further underwent an unusually brief pre-publication review by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), arriving at OMB April 19 for review, only to be signed by Pruitt April 24. OMB review typically takes up to 90 days, but can be faster or shorter, depending on the circumstances.
Since Wheeler took over from Pruitt July 9, several administration supporters have identified the proposal as an unfinished item in Pruitt's deregulatory agenda and have raised concerns that Wheeler may not be able to quickly complete the measure.
“I think [Pruitt's departure] does endanger the president's agenda,” former Trump EPA transition chief Myron Ebell told NPR on July 5, before adding that President Donald Trump is “very determined to achieve his agenda” and that Wheeler is “fully on board.”
Also, one informed source expects that with Pruitt gone, “things will slow to a crawl.” Citing Wheeler's former boss, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) and the several other former Inhofe staffers now in key positions, the source said, “They talk a lot, but when you look at what they have actually accomplished . . . it is not very much.”
Wheeler has not indicated one way or the other how he might proceed on the rule, though in his first address to agency staff July 12, he emphasized his plans to consult closely with career staff. “My instinct will be to defend your work and to seek the facts from you before drawing conclusions,” Wheeler said, stating that he views EPA staff as some of the most dedicated in the federal government.
“Just like me, you came to EPA to help the environment. I know how dedicated and passionate you are and it is a privilege to work alongside you and lead the agency in its vital mission of protecting human health and the environment.”
But Wheeler's appointment is raising uncertainty for environmentalists. ALA's Billings said that normally, EPA would take months to work through and respond to the many public comments that are expected on the proposal, before crafting a final rule.
But with this administration, he said, “it is unclear what a normal process would look like."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-faces-new-wave-criticism-over-controversial-science-rule-proposal
-
INSIGHT: Five Litigation ‘Hot Spots’ That Escalate the Stakes Under TSCA
Jul 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Martha E. Marrapese and Roger H. Miksad
We’ve seen a historic upswing in private actions aimed at the Toxic Substances Control Act since it was updated by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, Pub. Law No: 114-182 (June 22, 2016). Prior to this, litigation stemming from TSCA has been modest compared with other federal environmental laws.
Things have changed. The 2016 amendments moved TSCA out of the backwater of environmental litigation. This article discusses five “hot spot” areas that target some ambiguities with the new law and assume an enforcement role.
How TSCA Changed in 2016TSCA is the primary federal law governing the review and management of existing and new industrial chemicals in the U.S. that are not otherwise regulated (15 U.S.C. 2602(2)). The definition of a “chemical substance” subject to TSCA excludes pesticides when formulated and distributed as such (pesticide intermediates are subject to TSCA prior to being incorporated into a pesticide) as well as food, drugs, and cosmetics. Notable changes include the following.
TSCA Inventory. After almost 40 years, no one knew how many of the 85,000 plus chemicals on the TSCA Inventory were in commerce. To find out, Congress required chemical companies to report the chemicals they made or brought into the U.S. from June 21, 2006 to June 21, 2016. (EPA, Final Rule TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements, 82 Fed. Reg. 37520 (Aug. 11, 2017)). So far, about half of the listed chemicals have been reported. After the updated Inventory is published next year, companies will need to notify the EPA before an inactive chemical is commercialized.
New Chemicals. New language in the statute requires the EPA to regulate based on insufficient information alone. This means that new chemical reviews begin from a presumption of risk rather than safety, unless data prove otherwise. The statute doesn’t require a minimum data set, and the EPA must consider all known, intended, and reasonably foreseen conditions of use. Up to 80 percent of new chemicals are being regulated, which may include testing, bans on water discharge, and personal protection equipment.
Existing Chemicals. To address the thousands of chemicals in use today, amended section 6 of TSCA replaces an ad hoc program of existing chemical reviews, which over the years was characterized by shifting expectations and almost no progress. The EPA is on a mandated schedule with minimum throughputs to prioritize and evaluate existing chemicals.
User Fees. Companies are required to help pay for EPA reviews and the amount and types of fees are going up. (EPA, Proposed Rule, User Fees for the Administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act, 83 Fed. Reg. 8212 (Feb. 26, 2018)). A risk evaluation of an existing chemical will entail multi-million dollars in fees for affected industries. Small businesses (revenues of $91 million or less) stand to pay 10 percent of the assessed fees.
PBTs. In the coming months, a small business review panel will weigh in on the five chemicals on the 2014 EPA Work Plan that scored high for persistence, bioaccumulation, and either high or moderate for both. They include two flame retardants that EPA identifies are used in consumer products (Decabromodiphenyl ethers (DecaBDA) and Phenol, isopropylated, phosphate (3:1) (iPTPP)). EPA is only required to complete a use and exposure assessment prior to proposing a risk management rule for these chemicals. The agency’s assessment must be completed by mid-2019.
Confidential Business Information (CBI). Trade secret rules are expected that will govern the EPA’s mandatory review of CBI claims for chemicals on the confidential TSCA Inventory and establish unique identifiers for them under which nonconfidential information will be grouped.
Fines. The updated TSCA includes a new felony endangerment provision, which states: “Any person who knowingly and willfully violates any provision … and who knows at the time of the violation that the violation places an individual in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, shall be subject on conviction to a fine of not more than $250,000, or imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or both.” Organizations that violate this provision can be subject to a fine of up to $1 million.
The Five TSCA Litigation ‘Hot Spots’TSCA cases arise in three ways.
First, enforcement cases are brought by the government directly. Second, citizen suits can be brought by the public to compel actions by the government. Third, citizens can pursue litigation against private parties as available by law.
The primary source of the litigation momentum in relation to TSCA right now is the challenges to EPA’s implementing rules pending in the Second, Ninth, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals and citizens’ suits against private companies and the government to enforce TSCA. Other emerging areas to watch are changes in government enforcement, reverse FOIA suits and any efforts to apply the False Claims Act in the context of TSCA, given the possibility of treble damages. These “hot spots” are discussed below in turn.
1. EPA’s Rules for TSCA Implementation and Existing Chemical Reviews. As EPA seeks to implement TSCA, environmental advocates already have filed lawsuits to change the rules. The three main lawsuits that have been filed are spread across the map and advancing simultaneously. This will result in several interpretive “shots across the bow” in rapid succession, followed by program adjustments, if any, that are necessary as a result. In the Ninth Circuit, key aspects of EPA’s rules for the prioritization and risk evaluation of existing chemicals are under challenge, including how the EPA administers the term “conditions of use” Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments v. EPA, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families v. EPA. In the D.C. Circuit, the way in which EPA is allowing companies to continue CBI claims for chemical identities on the Inventory is under review, among other issues in Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA. The Second Circuit challenge Natural Resource Defense Council v. EPAsuggests the need for an air-tight, lockstep process to regulate new chemicals that will create commercial delays on the order of years. Beyond the framework rules, the EPA must take on a minimum of 40 more chemicals by the end of 2019. This work is in addition to the 10 chemical evaluations it has underway, the risk management actions for five priority PBTs the agency is required to initiate, and industry-sponsored risk evaluations for two other priority PBTs.
The relevant rulemakings are the EPA’s final Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for Risk Evaluation under the Toxic Substances Control Act, and the final Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation under the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act. The difference between a “high priority” designation and a “low priority” designation for risk evaluation in this process is significant: The former may disrupt longstanding product makeups. As this activity builds, legal challenges will mount based on missed deadlines and disagreements over final agency actions.
2. Citizens’ Suits to Enforce TSCA. The citizens suit provisions in TSCA allow two types of actions. First, citizens or environmental groups can bring lawsuits against alleged violations of TSCA by industry. Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. found that wholly past violations may not be the basis for citizens suits unless such violations are reasonably expected to occur in the future. Second, citizens’ suits are brought to compel the EPA to carry out a “nondiscretionary duty” under TSCA. Recent examples include:
In 2017, health groups informed chemical companies of their intent to sue for the failure to report the importation of asbestos and n-propyl bromide under TSCA’s Chemical Data Reporting rule. The evidence used to support the alleged failures to report were characterized as “publicly available.”The Ninth Circuit has ordered the EPA to propose new standards for lead dust in A Community Voice et al. v. EPA. The case could be a model for future suits to force updates of other chemical control policies.The EPA was found to have unduly delayed implementation of the TSCA formaldehyde emissions standards for composite wood products, and was ordered to make the rule effective this June in Sierra Club and Community Voice – Louisiana v. Scott Pruitt.A decision by a California district court is allowing a citizens’ petition for rulemaking to move forward that urges the EPA to ban fluoride in drinking water under TSCA in Food & Water Watch Inc. et al. v. EPA.3. Federal Enforcement. TSCA is not a state-delegated environmental program, so government-initiated lawsuits to compel compliance are confined to the federal level. TSCA civil penalties for manufacturing in violation of section 5 of the Act, or failing to report significant risk information under section 8(e), are as high as $37,500 per day and can accumulate to an extraordinary degree.
The EPA reached a $10.25 million settlement with DuPont in 2005 in significant part for the failure to report monitoring data demonstrating the presence of PFOA in the bloodstreams of exposed pregnant female employees (Memorandum from G. Nakayama, General Counsel, EPA to Environmental Appeals Board, Consent Agreement and Proposed Final Order to Resolve Dupont’s Alleged Failure to Submit Substantial Risk Information under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and Failure to Submit Data Requested under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Dec. 14, 2005)).
TSCA’s criminal provisions are rarely employed and the new endangerment provision is yet untested. Seizures under TSCA are rare also, but the EPA is more aggressively exercising its subpoena authority and with greater frequency. In addition, companies that report to the EPA must be cognizant of potential criminal prosecution for false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Although such prosecutions often involve false statements made during criminal investigations or proceedings, false statement violations can arise in other contexts involving government agencies. For example, because companies must identify their intended conditions of use in a premanufacture notice, undertaking a non-disclosed use of a new chemical immediately after EPA’s review is completed may be actionable under this provision.
Under the current administration, we may see deliberate and targeted initiatives to enforce egregious violations of the law, with a heightened risk of criminal enforcement proceedings under TSCA. The Department of Justice’s Environmental and Natural Resources Division lists worker safety crimes as one of its top prosecutorial priorities, and TSCA sections 3, 5, 6, and 9 give the EPA ample authority to regulate chemical exposures in the workplace and enforce against consent order violations in this area.
4. Private Party False Claims Act Actions. While TSCA authorizes citizens suits against private parties, section 20 doesn’t restrict any right available under another statute or common law to seek enforcement or other relief. TSCA’s amendments may open the door to liability under the False Claims Act (FCA) 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A). The FCA allows a private individual—referred to as a relator—to bring suits, on behalf of the government, involving fraudulent claims for payment submitted to the U.S. The FCA also includes a “reverse claim” provision, which imposes liability on individuals who use a false statement or representation to avoid a payment owed to the U.S. Recent cases have explored the intersection of the FCA and the TSCA.
Two FCA reverse claim lawsuits have been brought by individuals against chemical companies, in one case by a former employee, alleging the failure to report risk or release information to the EPA as TSCA requires. The cases are United States ex rel. Simoneaux v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. United States ex rel. Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP v. BASF Corp. In both cases, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the FCA does not cover unassessed penalties, which depend entirely on future government action and discretion.
Once the EPA finalizes its proposed user fees, however, such opportunities will only increase as the plaintiff’s bar will likely argue that failing to pay the appropriate user fee constitutes a reverse false claim. With the possibility of treble damages, the plaintiff’s bar has proven itself creative in crafting FCA complaints in other industries involving assessed or structured fee systems. There are numerous FCA reverse claim lawsuits relating to an importer’s avoidance of predetermined customs duties.
5. CBI Claims Under Freedom of Information. TSCA e-reporting and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response information that is made public includes environmental data voluntarily disclosed by companies, which can be mined for purposes of litigation. While FOIA/CBI litigation may pose less direct costs on the impacted company as there are no civil penalties or damages, the competitive damage could be significant if information critical to a company’s market presence is inappropriately released to a competitor or the public.
Data provided to potential private litigants could form fodder and evidence for the litigation types discussed above. Existing FOIA law allows private parties to sue the government to try to force disclosure of information they seek if the agency denies access. The D.C. Circuit challenge to the CBI provisions of the EPA’s Inventory Reset rule suggests that environmental advocates recognize the importance of limiting the protection afforded to company data.
Future ConsiderationsDavid was equipped with only five pebbles when he killed the giant Goliath. These five litigation areas will change the TSCA dynamic as the EPA’s priorities are forced in different, competing directions by the courts. Ingredient manufacturers and importers to a lesser extent may find many of these areas familiar ground. However, increasingly under the new law, downstream product manufacturers have obligations to act affirmatively, and may be held accountable under TSCA.
As a result, TSCA is no longer the exclusive domain of ingredient manufacturers, and there are many ways in which the supply chain will need to engage—or face being engaged. Private parties that seek to enforce TSCA are well-financed, fueled in part by “doomsday” fundraising, an expanded toolbox of new rules to challenge, and sympathetic lower courts. Two of the organizations leading the challenge against the EPA’s three TSCA framework rules are mentioned in an article entitled, “The 6 Best Environmental Groups to Donate to for a Better World”, Dec. 28, 2016. How the last presidential election served as a fundraising tool is publicly documented in articles such as “Trump Helps Drive Donations to Environmental Groups”, Feb. 9, 2017.
In closing, the new TSCA law implicates companies across a wide range of industries. Companies and their counsel should closely evaluate their obligations, engage the supply chain, monitor EPA rulemakings related to risk evaluations for “high priority” chemicals, and learn to recognize those areas that carry heightened potential for civil and criminal liability.
Martha E. Marrapese and Roger H. Miksad are partners in Wiley Rein LLP’s Consumer Product Regulation and Environment & Safety practices. Marrapese has earned a global reputation for her work with companies with industrial biotechnology and nanotechnology platforms and is a recognized authority on chemical regulation and premanufacture approval under the evolving Toxic Substances Control Act. Miksad counsels clients on a broad range of health and safety related regulatory matters before the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission, among others. P. Nicholas Peterson is of counsel in the firm’s White Collar Defense & Government Investigations and Consumer Product Regulation practices. Peterson represents clients on a wide range of litigation, transactional, and regulatory matters with a particular focus on the government contracting, environmental, and consumer product industries. Vesna Harasic-Yaksic is an associate in the firm’s White Collar Defense & Government Investigations Practice. She represents corporate clients and their executives in government and internal investigations, civil enforcement matters and criminal investigations alleging false claims, financial institution fraud, securities fraud, health care fraud, money laundering, and public corruption.
The opinions expressed here do not represent those of Bloomberg Environment, which welcomes other points of view.
https://www.bna.com/insight-five-litigation-n73014477467/
-
Ability to Request CBI Expanded Under TSCA
Jul 16, 2018 | EHS Daily Advisor
By William C. Schillaci
The June 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) expanded the categories of persons who may request confidential business information (CBI) about chemicals, which regulated entities submitted to the EPA.
Specifically, the new section added state, tribal, and local governments; treating physicians or nurses in nonemergency situations; and doctors, nurses, and first responders engaged in an emergency response. In March 2018, the Agency issued drafts of three documents to guide the three categories on the conditions they must meet to obtain access to CBI. The conditions for the three categories have general similarities but vary in the details. Final versions of those documents have now been issued.
Following are provisions that apply both to all three categories and selected provisions that apply individually.All Requesters
Three requirements apply to each of the three categories:
The requester must show that he or she has a need for the information related to their professional or legal duties.The recipient of TSCA CBI is prohibited from disclosing or permitting further disclosure of the information to individuals not authorized to receive it (physicians/nurses may disclose the information to patients).The EPA generally must notify the entity that made the CBI claim at least 15 days before disclosing the CBI. There is an exception for disclosures in emergency situations wherein the EPA makes the notification as soon as practicable.State, Local, and Tribal Governments
The requesting government must have one or more agreements with the EPA that will ensure that the government entity has adequate authority to maintain confidentiality of the information and will maintain it in accordance with procedures comparable to the safeguarding procedures used by the EPA. The guidance provides two options for reaching an agreement with the EPA:A requesting government may seek preapproval that it meets the appropriate measures and adequate authority requirements. Such approval would be memorialized in an agreement. The requesting government may later submit a written request that references the prior agreement and provide assurance that the confidentiality requirements that the EPA previously approved have not changed. The written request must also explain that the information is for the purpose of administration or enforcement of a law.A requesting government may submit a specific written request demonstrating that it meets the appropriate measures, purposes, and adequate authority requirements all at the same time. The EPA reviews the request and makes an agreement with the requester, if appropriate.Professionals in Nonemergencies
This category comprises health professionals employed by the federal government, a state agency, or tribal government; an environmental professional employed by a federal or state agency or tribal government; or a treating physician or nurse.
The professional must assert in a statement that he or she has a reasonable basis to suspect that:The information is necessary for, or will assist in, either:The diagnosis or treatment of one or more individuals; orResponding to an environmental release or exposure; andThe individual(s) being diagnosed or treated has been exposed to the chemical substance for which the CBI is requested.
The professional must agree to use the information exclusively for the health or environmental needs asserted in the statement of need and sign a written confidentiality agreement.Emergency Responders
This category comprises treating or responding physicians, nurses, agents of a poison control center, public health or environmental officials of a state, political subdivision of a state, or tribal government, and first responders.
An emergency must meet either or both of the following definitions:Environmental emergency includes the environmental impacts of industrial and/or technological incidents and of natural disasters and complex emergencies that require technical support to respond effectively to minimize negative environmental impacts.Medical emergency is any unforeseen condition that a physician, nurse, or other professional whose employment is principally concerned with human health matters would judge to require urgent and unscheduled medical attention.
When the request is made, the EPA will ask the requester to affirm both that there is a reasonable basis to suspect that a medical, public health, or environmental emergency exists and their understanding that the CBI released may be used only for the emergency purpose for which it is requested and not disclosed to any person not entitled to receive it.
Requesters must also provide a brief description of the information requested. For example, one might request a list of all substances reported to be produced at a particular facility or health and safety data for a particular substance.
https://ehsdailyadvisor.blr.com/2018/07/ability-request-cbi-expanded-tsca/
-
(ACC Mentioned) How Europe’s Chemical Industry Learned To Love REACH
Jul 17, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alex Scott
Supporting the chemical management law is good for competitiveness, Europe’s chemical industry now says
The European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic), Europe’s leading chemical industry association, has made a U-turn in its view of REACH, Europe’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation & Restriction of Chemicals legislation. After years of kicking and screaming to resist REACH—the biggest and most expensive body of chemicals regulation ever introduced—Cefic has emerged as its biggest advocate.
Cefic Director General Marco Mensink and his colleagues now argue that if chemical firms around the world buy into a REACH-style system, which requires safety data on individual substances, then European chemical firms will be able to show that their products are among the safest and should face fewer barriers to trade.
This attitude marks an about-face in Cefic’s approach to REACH, industry critics say. REACH was conceived in the 1990s as a way to regulate chemicals in the European Union and encourage substitution of dangerous substances. It entered into force on June 1, 2007, and is administered by the European Chemicals Agency, or ECHA.
“When the concept of REACH was introduced, there was an element of scaremongering on the industry side,” recalls Axel Singhofen, adviser on health and environment policy for both the Green Party and the European Free Alliance party in the European Parliament.
That may be, but Cefic is keen to leave such history behind. “Going in peace might not be the worst way for the industry and the European Chemicals Agency to go together,” Mensink told delegates recently at the Helsinki Chemicals Forum, a meeting on European chemicals regulation.
The heads of Cefic and ECHA formalized their positions at the Helsinki meeting by agreeing to an alliance on REACH. They signed a joint agreement to cooperate further on improving the implementation of REACH by sharing chemical safety data and striving to improve the scientific assessment of some substances.
A key benefit of the alliance for industry is ECHA’s agreement to bring its experts and those from industry together to discuss critical issues about a substance ahead of any regulatory decision or ECHA opinion.
The alliance was formed just weeks after the May 31 deadline for chemical companies in Europe to register hazard data on thousands of chemicals they produce in volumes of 1 to 100 metric tons per year. The deadline, the third of three, marks the completion of the regulation’s multi-billion-dollar, 10-year program of data gathering for more than 21,000 existing chemicals.
Cefic hopes the alliance will lead to a streamlining of the process of registering chemicals under REACH, making it more straightforward for companies outside Europe to adopt. Meanwhile, ECHA is encouraging regulators outside the EU to adopt their own REACH-style chemical management systems.
The U.S. is one country that is not about to join the REACH hug-in. Mensink pointed out that at last month’s annual meeting of the American Chemistry Council, the main trade association for the U.S. chemical industry, CEO Cal Dooley hailed the U.S. regulatory environment as a key competitive advantage over Europe.
The Toxic Substances Control Act, the central piece of U.S. chemical regulation, is less prescriptive than REACH. It also fits with President Donald J. Trump’s desire for a light touch in the regulation of business.
Indifference to REACH by the U.S. wasn’t the only gripe Mensink aired. Promoting the regulation in other parts of the world also faces challenges, he said. One problem is that REACH has plenty of detractors in its own backyard. Some European member states fail to acknowledge that REACH ensures product safety, he said.
“Not everyone is yet on board,” Mensink said. “Not everyone likes the way industry operates. Member states should support the outcome of REACH.”
The Cefic leader also took aim at environmental groups that publish alternative lists of chemicals to those recognized as substances of very high concern under REACH. These are a distraction and undermine REACH, Mensink said. “Don’t make alternative lists,” he warned.
For REACH is to be highly regarded around the world, public criticism of the chemical data dossiers that companies submit to ECHA also needs to stop, Mensink said. Rather, ECHA should give industry “a few years” to ensure all the data dossiers meet the required standard before ECHA reviews them, he said.
Mensink’s wish list extends to the education of other countries by the European Commission on the benefits of REACH. “We need a smart foreign REACH policy,” he said. “The EU should put some money on the ground to explain what REACH is.”
If chemical companies from outside Europe are to take REACH seriously, better enforcement is needed to ensure that chemicals imported into the EU comply with the regulation. “You have to make sure you enforce it, following up with checks at borders. There is no benefit for the REACH brand if we comply in Europe but do not do checks on imports,” Mensink said.
ECHA acknowledged some of Mensink’s points, albeit with a less combative tone. Bjorn Hansen, ECHA’s recently appointed executive director, highlighted the need to work with the European chemical industry to promote a competitive environment and encourage innovation through REACH. One way ECHA could facilitate such competition is by working with industry to identify at a far earlier stage whether a new or existing substance is toxic, he said.
ECHA is also looking at ways to make the data generated under REACH more usable for industry. One example is improving the usability of safety data sheets, which stipulate how certain substances should be managed and handled, Hansen said.
Whether REACH or REACH-like standards make their way beyond Europe’s borders ultimately may be out of the hands of Cefic and ECHA and instead in those of the banking sector. Banks increasingly will require chemical firms building new plants to have first-class compliance with regulatory systems and environmental standards—such as REACH—in place, said David Williamson, associate director and head of environment and sustainability for the European Bank for Reconstruction & Development, speaking at the event.
Cefic, though, isn’t relying on the banks. It is urging the EU to encourage chemical regulators around the world—especially China, with its huge chemical industry—to adopt REACH-style regulations. The introduction of a communications center for REACH in China, as proposed by industry in Helsinki, may not be far away.
https://cen.acs.org/business/economy/Europes-chemical-industry-learned-love/96/i29
-
Echoing Dourson, House GOP Seeks To Return IRIS To EPA Program Offices
Jul 16, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Echoing an approach advocated by former EPA toxics nominee Michael Dourson, House Republicans are preparing to mark up draft legislation that seeks to return both ongoing and new work of EPA's influential but often controversial risk analysis program to the agency's program offices -- similar to how the work was done in the program's early days.
The draft bill's approach is winning praise from Dourson, echoing his long-standing call to expand the scientists participating in the functions of the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) beyond its program staff. In an interview with Inside EPA, Dourson, who helped create and staff IRIS in its early days, described the bill as “brilliant” and “the way IRIS was intended” to operate. “This is a good step in the right direction,” he added.
He also advocated for the bill's approach in a recent editorial in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, where he argues that IRIS' structure should change because the program has ceased to be productive, and its standing within the scientific community has dropped.
“Some stakeholders . . . may pressure EPA to maintain IRIS as is. Other stakeholders ... may pressure EPA to scrap IRIS, for it does not offer recent and credible information,” Dourson writes. “Clearly a third option exists, which is to integrate again the reviewing and finalizing of risk values proposed by separate EPA offices into the hands of a central and senior EPA risk assessment group,” he wrote.
The House science committee is scheduled to meet July 18 to mark up the “Chemical Assessment Improvement Act,” which moves responsibility for new and existing assessments from the IRIS program to “the relevant program office of [EPA], so long as the relevant program office determines there is a need for such an assessment.”
The bill marks the latest effort to scale back the program from critics who charge its use of conservative modeling approaches results in risk values that drive unnecessarily strict regulatory standards. Those efforts have so far failed to advance in Congress, where appropriators recently preserved the program while “encouraging”the agency to continue a series of reforms the program's staff has been implementing.
The draft also sets a series of standards for how any new risk analyses must be performed and encourages EPA to develop more than one risk value. EPA is currently considering such an approach for its pending hexavalent chromium assessment, which, if adopted, would mark a win for industry groups that have long advocated for an alternative to EPA's more-conservative single point estimates generated by strict linear dose-response modeling.
“When supported by the available data, the toxicity value or values shall include a range of point estimates of risk as well as sources and magnitudes of uncertainty associated with the estimates. When multiple point estimates can be developed, the relevant program office shall -- consider all datasets; and make a determination about how best to represent the human health risk posed by the chemical substance involved.”
The bill further directs EPA's administrator to create a “chemical hazard identification and dose response steering committee … to coordinate the conduct of covered assessments by relevant program offices for purposes of ensuring that, with respect to such assessments, there is no duplication of effort.”
The draft bill directs that the committee be chaired by EPA's research chief and that it contain 15 staff selected by the administrator, representing the program offices and regions.
The measure further tasks the steering committee with considering “any third-party assessment of a chemical substance generated by another Federal, State, or international agency or agencies or members of the scientific community that meets the requirements specified” in the bill “[f]or purposes of supplementing a covered assessment.”
Program Offices
The draft bill's approach is similar to what Dourson and other former EPA staff who created and staffed the IRIS program in the early 1980s have described. Then, IRIS assessments were conducted by technical staff in various EPA program offices who were part of a pair of intra-agency committees that developed chemical toxicity values. The assessments were coordinated and managed by EPA's research office.
Since the mid-1990s, when those committees were disbanded, IRIS was consolidated within one center in EPA's research office, known as the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA). In recent years the program has centralized its resources and drawn less and less on the work of scientists outside NCEA.
As part of an effort to remake the program, its current leaders have been working to consult more with program offices and other clients who rely on IRIS assessments to set regulatory limits. But given limited staff resources, it is unclear whether the program offices would now have personnel to conduct the assessments currently conducted by IRIS -- though the bill does allow EPA to rely on outside assessments.
Dourson, who asked Trump to withdraw his nomination last December after Democrats and a handful of Republican senators voiced concerns about his work with industry, has long been concerned about the pace of IRIS' assessment development.
Several years ago, he was a finalist in the running to become director of the IRIS program, and during remarks to IRIS staff, he suggested allowing assessments from outside NCEA, and even outside EPA be included in the IRIS database. The comments were considered controversial by many IRIS staff.
Dourson was not selected for the post, and remained at TERA -- the nonprofit risk assessment and peer review consulting group he formed after leaving EPA in 1995 -- until Trump nominated him for the toxics office role.
“If you have outside party involvement, and they develop a really good value -- do an assessment the way it always should be done and have it independently vetted -- why shouldn't IRIS use it?” Dourson told Inside EPA. “There are a lot of people on the outside that can do really good assessments. Why not? Why keep quibbling about these things?”
A former official was less enthusiastic about the bill, which also includes directives regarding how EPA should produce estimates of chemicals' toxicity.
The second source notes that similar language is included in former Administrator Scott Pruitt's proposed rule on science transparency. Proposed last April, the directive seeks to bar EPA's use of any scientific information in decision-making where the underlying data and models are not publicly available -- though it provides latitude to the administrator in its application. “The Hill staff is no doubt aware of that proposal. I see it all as being linked,” the source says, adding that some of the bill's text appears to run contrary to Pruitt's transparency proposal.
The source points to text in the bill requiring program offices to “consider all datasets” when multiple point estimates could be developed for a chemical. “By virtue of the [proposed] rule, availability of [underlying] data has primacy to everything else. The agency wouldn't have all data to consider,” the source says.
The source also points to a discussion of “scientific standards” the bill provides for EPA program offices' development of IRIS assessments -- which again appears to contradict the transparency proposal, the source says. The bill directs EPA offices to “integrate all lines of scientific evidence.”
In his editorial, Dourson argues for returning IRIS functions to the program offices, saying “[i]t would save time and resources because monthly meetings of this senior EPA group would replace other, generally more time consuming, multiple intra-EPA reviews of risk information … Also, this approach would maintain risk value development in individual EPA offices ... However, the senior EPA group -- independent of individual EPA offices -- would alone have the final authority on whether a risk value is officially published in IRIS to be the official risk position for the entire Agency.”
Dourson also suggests that such an IRIS structure, if successfully implemented, “would set the ground for an overall IRIS database integrating risk value assessments across US federal Agencies.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/echoing-dourson-house-gop-seeks-return-iris-epa-program-offices
-
Markup Set On Bill To Revamp Assessment Process
Jul 17, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Colleen Luccioli
Key Republican lawmakers on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee this week will have their chance to push reforms to EPA's controversial chemical assessment process.
Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) have blasted EPA's approach to reviewing the dangers posed by chemicals and called into question the scientific integrity of the agency's assessment program.
This week, the full committee will mark up Biggs' draft proposal to reform chemical evaluations.
The duo has previously raised grievances with cases in which the agency hasn't agreed to reconsider Integrated Risk Information System assessments opposed by industry. IRIS is an electronic database with information and characterizations of the health concerns related to chemicals found in the environment.
One such case involved a formal "request for correction," or RFC, submitted by Denka Performance Elastomer, a chloroprene manufacturer that "has spent more than $18 million on pollution control and been subject to reputational damage" because of EPA enforcement actions, the lawmakers said in a letter to then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt (E&E Daily, Oct. 13, 2017).
Another case involved EPA's decision to reject a 2013 correction request from the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, which argued IRIS "chose to rely upon an inaccurate study as the primary basis for its conclusion" that the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) is a highly dangerous chemical.
The agency subsequently moved to prohibit the manufacture, import, processing and distribution of TCE in degreasing and dry cleaning operations — the chemical's two primary uses in the United States (Greenwire, Dec. 7, 2016).
Smith and Biggs described those assessments as "some of the more well-documented cases of the failure of the IRIS program to take additional scientific information into account."
Biggs' "Chemical Assessment Improvement Act" would shift the assessment process from IRIS to agency program offices.
Under the bill, any assessment carried out through IRIS would be instead carried out by the "relevant program office of the Environmental Protection Agency, so long as the relevant program office determines there is a need for such an assessment."
Schedule: The markup is Wednesday, July 18, at 10 a.m. in 2318 Rayburn.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/07/16/stories/1060089187
-
Skip The Slip: Receipts Waste Resources AND Endanger Your Health
Jul 16, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
By Beth Porter
When an item is physically small, it may not convey the impact it has on the world. Paper receipts are small slips that carry with them vast environmental costs and can pose risks to our health through direct contact.
Extraction and use of these resources take a toll on the climate. Every year in the United States, production of paper receipts uses the wood equivalent of 12.4 million trees and 13 billion gallons of water. It generates 1.5 billion pounds of waste and emits 4 billion pounds of CO2.
Along with a wasteful use of resources and emissions, paper receipts carry risks to our health. It’s estimated that 93% of paper receipts are coated with bisphenol A (BPA) or bisphenol S (BPS), endocrine disruptors linked to devastating health effects. As you may know from Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families’ efforts to tackle BPA in canned foods, studies have linked BPA exposure to issues like breast cancer, prostate cancer, reproductive health and developmental problems. Awareness about the potential risks of BPA has grown in the public, but the lesser-known BPS has become a common replacement for BPA in thermal paper receipts, and it may be just as hazardous.
The good news is that there are plenty of options companies can choose to better their receipt practices and replace outdated, wasteful, toxic items with innovative solutions.
My organization, Green America, is a national non-profit group that uses economic action to address environmental and social problems. Our Skip the Slip campaign is raising awareness about receipt impacts and offering steps people can take to resolve these issues. The goal is to see all companies offer three receipt choices to meet each customer’s individual preference: an option for no receipt, a digital option, and a non-toxic, recyclable paper option. Skip the Slip’s new report reveals the effects of receipts and lays out the many existing solutions for companies to achieve receipt practices that are gentler on the planet and protect employee and customer health. Access the full report and take action here!
Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families’ Mind the Store campaign has been urging retailers to eliminate harmful chemicals like BPA and BPS in receipt paper and other products. In recent years, both Best Buy and Trader Joe’s have adopted policies to eliminate bisphenol chemicals in receipt paper. Earlier this year, the campaign co-released a report that found bisphenol chemicals in receipt paper used by top retailers including Target.
Recently, green blogger Leah Segedie of Mamavation launched a petition urging Target to phase out these receipts. We hope Target will step up and join Best Buy and Trader Joe’s to address toxic receipts.
https://saferchemicals.org/2018/07/16/skip-the-slip-receipts-waste-resources-and-endanger-your-health/
-
Echa Sets Database Deadline For SVHCs In Articles
Jul 17, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Companies will have until the end of 2020 to submit information to an Echa database if they produce, import or sell articles that contain REACH candidate list substances.
This EU database, which will be set up by the end of 2019, should help waste operators treat waste and recycle materials as part of the waste legislation package that contributes to the circular economy.
"The goal is to improve the risk management of chemicals during waste recovery and to promote non-toxic material cycles," Echa says.
The database should help consumers make informed choices on safer products and also increase pressure to substitute substances of concern.
REACH Article 7(2) says producers and importers of articles must notify Echa if an SVHC is present at over one tonne per producer, or importer, per year, in a concentration higher than 0.1% by weight.
While Article 33 requires companies to reply within 45 days if asked by consumers about the presence – above 0.1% concentration – of SVHCs in their products.
Last month, the EU’s Council of Ministers called on the European Commission and Echa to implement measures, to ensure that substances of concern in materials – including those in imported articles – can be traced through the entire supply chain by 2030.Waste framework
The agency is required to generate the database as part of an amendment to Article 9 of the waste framework Directive, which obliges suppliers to notify Echa of the presence of SVHCs in articles. It entered into force in July this year.
According to the amended Directive, member states will need to:promote the reduction of the content of hazardous substances in materials and products; andensure any supplier of an article, as defined under REACH Article 33, provides the necessary information on the presence of SVHCs.
In 2016, Cefic director general Marco Mensink criticised moves by the European Parliament's committees to "make chemical policy through waste policy". He argued that using the latter to focus on hazardous substances, would require Europe "to control global production processes and all imports of finished products into Europe, which is practically impossible without checking every container entering Europe's ports".
The net result, he said, will be that "even more goods" are made outside of Europe.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68724/echa-sets-database-deadline-for-svhcs-in-articles
-
Trump Says U.S. to Compete with Russia for Europe Gas Market
Jul 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Elena Mazneva, Margaret Talev and Naureen S. Malik
American LNG vies with pipeline supply from Gazprom
Nord Stream 2 to boost Russia’s export capacity to Germany
President Donald Trump eased his tone about a Russian natural gas pipeline to Germany after a one-on-one meeting with President Vladimir Putin, shifting from the harsh criticism he’d levied in Europe last week.
“We are going to be selling LNG and will have to be competing with the pipeline and I think we’ll compete successfully, although there is a little advantage locationally” because Russia is closer to buyers in Europe, Trump told reporters at a press conference with Putin after their meeting in Helsinki on July 16. “I’m not sure necessarily that it’s in the best interest of Germany or not but that was the decision that they made.”
The Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which would double Russia’s current capacity to deliver natural gas directly to Germany under the Baltic Sea and circumvent Ukraine, a major supply route to the European Union, has been a sore point between the U.S. and its allies over the past months. Last week Trump slammed what he called German dependence on Russian energy, saying it made the nation “captive” to Moscow. The Kremlin said Trump’s attacks were economically motivated and an attempt to promote U.S. liquefied natural gas in Europe.
Trump last year signed a law giving him the right to sanction companies involved in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project. Royal Dutch Shell Plc, BASF SE’s Wintershall unit, Uniper SE, OMV AG and Engie SA have agreed to provide Russia’s Gazprom PJSC with financing for the 9.5 billion euro ($11 billion) pipeline and could be at risk of penalties.
“I called him a competitor and a good competitor he is,” Trump said of Putin. “I think the word ‘competitor’ is a compliment.”
Putin said he sees space for cooperation with the U.S. on energy, while saying Russia may be willing to extend gas transit accords with Ukraine if the two nations’ state companies can resolve legal disputes about fees and pricing.
Europe is poised to become more reliant on gas imports as output from the Groningen field in the Netherlands, the continent’s largest, winds down.
The continent must “establish very, very solid relationships” with any countries that can provide gas at an affordable price with the appropriate services and “without any political strings attached,” Maros Sefcovic, vice president of the European Commission’s Energy Union, said at the World Gas Conference in Washington last month.
But Europe may have difficulty attracting gas cargoes from overseas, given higher prices in Asia. The WGI spot LNG assessment for Northeast Asia was $10.30 per million British thermal units on July 9, while U.K.’s National Balancing Point gas futures traded at $7.50 on July 16.
Longer term, gas export project developers in the lower 48 states may face delays as they wait for regulatory approval. Sefcovic called the U.S. approval process “redundant” and said it needed to be revamped.
Gazprom is Europe’s largest gas supplier and provides more than a third of the region’s needs in the fuel. Its chief executive officer, Alexey Miller, confirmed in June its plan to start laying the pipes in the next couple of months and to open the Nord Stream 2 link by late 2019. The project would cut Russia’s dependence on Ukraine and help meet additional demand for the fuel in the EU in next two decades as local production falls.
Meanwhile, Russia is unperturbed by the prospect of American LNG supplies to Europe. They “will never catch up with and will never surpass” Russian gas exports to the region, Miller said in June.
—With assistance from Justin Sink and Ilya Arkhipov.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/trump-says-us-to-compete-with-russia-for-europe-gas-market
-
Trump Turns Down Rhetoric, Says U.S. LNG 'Will Compete' With Russia’s Nord Stream 2 Pipeline
Jul 16, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
President Trump appeared to backtrack from a comment he made last week that the controversial Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline would make "Germany a captive of Russia," claiming the United States would compete against the proposed pipeline with liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.
Trump initially made the comments on Nord Stream 2 last Wednesday during a meeting with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) officials. At the time, he said Germany "is totally controlled by Russia because they will be getting from 60-70% of their energy from Russia," and called the Russian pipeline "a very bad thing for NATO."
But during a press conference Monday, in which he appeared alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump said the United States "will be competing" against the pipeline.
Trump also said he had previously characterized Putin as an "adversary" or a rival. “Actually, I called him a competitor, and a good competitor he is," he said. "And I think the word competitor is a compliment. I think that we will be competing, when you talk about the pipeline.
“I'm not sure necessarily that it's in the best interests of Germany or not, but that was a decision that they made” to import gas via Russian-owned Gazprom’s Nord Stream.
Russia is now the biggest gas supplier to Europe through its pipeline system, but after it invaded Ukraine in 2014 and annexed Crimea, the United States and its allies sanctioned some Russian energy companies and executives. The sanctions, coupled with burgeoning U.S. gas supplies, have opened the door to more LNG imports to the continent.
“We'll be competing” against Russia to supply Europe with gas, Trump said. “As you know, the United States is now, or soon will be, the largest [producer of] oil and gas in the world. We're going to be selling LNG and we'll have to be competing with the pipeline. And I think we'll compete successfully, although there is a little advantage locationally. I just wish them luck."
Putin during the press conference said Russia is "aware of the stance of President Trump," and suggested that Russia and the United States, as two of the world's major producers of oil and gas, should "work together on the regulation of international markets.
"Neither of us is actually interested in the plummeting of the prices," Putin said, adding consumers in both countries, as well as U.S. gas producers, would suffer.
Last March, Germany granted authorization for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which would have 1.94 Tcf (55 bcm) of transport capacity, and run 1,222 kilometers (759 miles) under the Baltic Sea. The pipeline would connect the Russian port of Ust-Luga, near St. Petersburg, to Greifswald in northeast Germany. Nord Stream is expected to enter service in 2019.
Several Eastern European countries, including Poland, are opposed to the pipeline, and the Trump administration has promised to work with the continent to help diversify its energy supply.
For example, last November, Poland's state-owned oil and gas company, PGNiG, signed a five-year contract for LNG sourced from Cheniere Energy Inc.'s Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana. In June, PGNiG also agreed to take more gas exports over 20 years in two separate proposed projects that would be sited in Louisiana and Texas.
Other European energy projects that could thwart Russian influence include the Gas Interconnector Greece-Bulgaria, a 32-inch diameter, 182-kilometer (113-mile) pipeline with 3-5 bcm (105.9-176.6 Bcf) of transportation capacity; and LNG Croatia LLC's floating LNG import terminal on the Croatian island of Krk, which would have 2 bcm (70.6 Bcf) of import capacity.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/115068-trump-turns-down-rhetoric-says-us-lng-will-compete-with-russias-nord-stream-2-pipeline
-
Trump Plan To Kill CSB Makes Regulatory Planning 'Difficult,' Agency Says
Jul 17, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Rebecca Rainey
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) is urging a federal court to reject environmentalists' suit seeking to require a rule mandating facilities report their accidental releases, charging, among other things, that the plaintiffs lack standing, though CSB says that if the court requires such a rule it may be “difficult” given administration plans to kill the agency.
While Congress appears unlikely to grant Trump administration requests to zero out the board's funds, CSB's arguments underscore the uncertainty agencies face as they seek to navigate administration efforts to scale back industrial oversight, while simultaneously adhering to various mandatory legal deadlines.
In a July 13 cross motion for summary judgment in the case Air Alliance Houston, et al., v. United States Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, the Justice Department (DOJ) on behalf of CSB urged the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to quickly dismiss the suit, arguing that the groups lack standing and that the board's limited resources have required it to “prioritize its investigatory activities.”
“Investigations are crucial to fulfilling the Board’s statutory purpose with respect to reducing the number of accidental chemical releases and reducing potential injuries or other damage from such releases. Under these circumstances, the Board’s delay is not unreasonable,” the filing states.
But CSB argues that if the district judge were to find that the delay was unreasonable, that the court should set a two-year “date-certain deadline” for any new rule.
And CSB notes that any rulemaking schedule could be impacted by events outside their control, noting that the Trump administration's proposal to eliminate the board's funds in fiscal year 2019 creates uncertainty that “makes planning difficult.”
“If the final appropriations for the next fiscal year will impair the Board’s ability to take final action on the rule within 24 months, the Board will promptly advise the Court and prepare a proposed alternative schedule,” the motion states.
DOJ's request comes in the wake of the Trump administration's budget request for fiscal year 2019 that renews prior calls to eliminate CSB, arguing that the Board's recommendations focused “on the need for greater regulation of industry,” and that its overlap with other government agencies' authorities has “generated friction.”
However, House appropriators have dismissed such requests and are proposing to provide $12 million to the board in FY19 -- $1 million more than the board received last year.
Nevertheless, the board's argument in the pending suit underscores the difficulties CSB and other agencies face as they seek to account for White House budget proposals that significantly scale back funds while simultaneously complying with statutory mandates to develop implementing regulations.
Clean Air Act
In this case, environmental and health groups are challenging CSB's alleged failure to comply with a Clean Air Act mandate to issue a rule requiring industrial facilities to report accidental chemical releases following an incident.
The suit, which charges the rulemaking has been “unreasonably delayed,” marks the latest effort by plaintiffs groups to pressure the Trump administration to impose new safety mandates on facilities in the wake of releases stemming from hurricanes and other storm events, even as it proposes to scrap most requirements of the Obama-era final rule updating EPA's facility accident prevention program.
But requiring any new CSB rule could be complicated. The Obama administration considered crafting such a measure in 2009, but shelved the effort in the face of concerns from other federal officials and industry groups that extensive new reporting requirements could duplicate existing regimes overseen by EPA and OSHA.
CSB, created by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, investigates industrial facility accidents to inform regulations at OSHA, EPA and other agencies. The amendments tasked the CSB “with the non-discretionary duty to 'establish by regulation' requirements binding on persons for reporting accidental releases into the ambient air subject to the Board’s investigatory jurisdiction.”
Groups including Air Alliance Houston, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), United Support and Memorial for Workplace Fatalities and the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, who are challenging the delay, are also seeking summary judgment in the case.
They argue the board's delay in promulgating a rule has hindered many of the groups' functions of providing timely information on chemical releases, forcing them to expend additional resources because agencies like EPA have inadequate information available and that the current reporting scheme is failing to prevent accidents.
But, CSB says in its motion that the groups lack standing to bring the suit, contending that they cannot prove that they were harmed by the lack of available information regarding releases because the statute does not require the reported information to be disclosed to the public.
They also suggest that the reporting obligation created by the Air Act amendments could be satisfied by reporting to the National Response Center in lieu of the CSB.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trump-plan-kill-csb-makes-regulatory-planning-difficult-agency-says
-
Carbon Tax Bill Talks Come as House Readies Symbolic Opposition (1)
Jul 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
House majority whip moves resolution to deride economy-wide carbon tax
Americans For Tax Reform and other conservatives contend tax would harm economy
House Republican leaders this week are seeking to essentially force members to say whether they oppose or support a carbon tax, throwing a spotlight on the debate several months before the midterm elections.
The vote comes as Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), one of the leaders of of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, is working on a carbon tax bill that could call for using a significant portion of the proceeds for infrastructure, according to sources familiar with the discussions.
“The bulk would go to the Highway Trust Fund and infrastructure,” said one source who has been briefed on the bill and who spoke on condition of anonymity, saying it would amount to a “tax swap” that the carbon tax would effectively replace the federal gas tax.
A staff-level briefing was slated for late July 16 on the bill, according to multiple sources, but Curbelo’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment on when he’ll introduce the measure.
Some portion also could be dedicated to increasing incentives for carbon capture and storage, clean technology, and assistance for low-income families to shield them from being affected by an uptick in energy costs related to putting a price on carbon, sources said.
The battle over the carbon tax resolution meanwhile is likely to be a replay of a successful 2016 floor vote on a resolution—offered then and now by House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.)—opposing a tax on carbon emissions as harmful to the economy. The “sense of Congress” resolution (H. Con. Res. 119) isn’t legally binding because it doesn’t go to the president for his signature.
That 2016 resolution passed 237-163, with all Republicans backing it. The vote was a disappointment for environmental advocates who had pushed members of the Climate Solutions Caucus, particularly Republicans, to take tough stands on climate issues on the floor.
The new Scalise resolution goes before the House Rules panel July 17 and is expected to be voted on the floor this week.
Test VoteWhile it’s expected to once again pass, environmental groups will be watching to see how Republicans facing tough re-election battles vote on the measure, Andres Jimenez, senior director of government affairs for the Citizens’ Climate Lobby environmental group, told Bloomberg Environment.
The resolution is being watched particularly as a test vote for members of the Climate Solutions Caucus, which now has 86 members, with equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats.
Opponents of a carbon tax, including powerful conservative lobby groups like Americans for Tax Reform, argue it would cause energy prices to climb, raise unemployment, and reduce purchasing power and wages.
Since the 2016 vote, several Republican groups have formed to make a case in favor of a carbon tax. They cite polls showing that a majority of Republican voters are concerned about climate change and want government to act, and that it would let markets instead of government allocate resources, stimulate innovation, and encourage capital investment.
(Updated with additional details on the bill negotiations.)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/carbon-tax-bill-talks-come-as-house-readies-symbolic-opposition-1?context=landing-heroes
-
House Voting On Anti-Carbon-Tax Measure: 'Pass The Popcorn'
Jul 16, 2018 | E&E Daily
The House will vote this week on an anti-carbon-tax resolution, a perennial piece of legislation that this year will serve as a key test for the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus.
The resolution, from House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), would call a carbon tax "detrimental to the United States economy" and suggest that it could increase costs across the economy.
A spokeswoman said Scalise is "looking forward to a good vote," and Scalise said in a statement that the resolution "would yet again put Congress on record against a carbon tax."
It's a version of a similar measure that passed the House in 2016, when no Republicans voted against it, including Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida, co-chairman of the Climate Solutions Caucus (E&E News PM, June 10, 2016).
This time around, the caucus will have 86 members — and 43 Republicans — likely enough to block the resolution. The vote is largely symbolic, but for critics of the caucus, it marks a crucial moment.
A vote in favor puts lawmakers on record as against what is widely seen by climate hawks as the best solution to global warming, vindication for detractors who see the caucus as a shelter for vulnerable Republicans looking to put a green notch on their belt.
"Absolutely, oh, hell yes," RL Miller, president of Climate Hawks Vote, said when asked whether she thinks it's a make-or-break moment for the caucus. "This is 'Please pass the popcorn!'"
Curbelo, for his part, suggested last week he wouldn't vote for this year's resolution.
"Protecting our environment and economic growth are not mutually exclusive," he said in a statement. "The resolution presents a false choice."
Meanwhile, the Citizens' Climate Lobby, the group behind the caucus, has been lobbying against the measure. The group is hoping to get some sort of bipartisan carbon-fee-and-dividend legislation introduced in Congress, either in the coming months or in the next session.
The issue at the moment is not whether Republicans support a carbon tax; it's that they're potentially taking an option off the table, said CCL spokesman Steve Valk.
"Obviously, if all Republicans vote for the Scalise resolution as they've done in the past, it makes it a little problematic — not impossible, but a little problematic — for any of them to sponsor our legislation," Valk said.
CCL issued a point-by-point rebuttal on its website when the legislation was introduced.
While energy prices would likely rise with a carbon tax, they could easily be offset by distributing the dividends to households, the group argues.
Still, the pressure will be on Republicans to vote for Scalise's resolution, particularly in an election year.
Some oil and gas producers, such as Exxon Mobil Corp., have come out in favor of a carbon tax, but a wide variety of right-leaning groups still oppose it.
"Energy is the engine of progress," Chet Thompson, president of the group American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, said in a statement of support for the Scalise resolution. "Making it more expensive will hurt our economy and disproportionately impact middle- and low-income families who can least afford it."
A coalition of conservative and fossil fuel-backed groups also sent a letter last week to House leadership asking for a vote.
"A carbon tax is a policy with one definable goal: to raise the cost of traditional, reliable, affordable sources of energy," wrote the groups, which include the American Legislative Exchange Council, Competitive Enterprise Institute and Heartland Institute.
The resolution will hit the House Rules Committee tomorrow afternoon, when lawmakers are sure to engage in the first round of partisan squabble over the measure.
Leadership had been in talks behind closed doors last week about whether to bring it up for a vote, according to a source familiar with the discussions.
Miller, who is among the most vocal critics of the Climate Solutions Caucus and calls its Republicans the "climate peacocks," said she thinks it will be a test of Curbelo's leadership.
"This is the time for the climate peacocks to show their true colors, whether they will flash their tails proudly in support of a carbon tax, or whether they are all squawk and no walk," she said.
Schedule: The Rules hearing is Tuesday, July 17, at 3 p.m. in H-313 Capitol.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/07/16/stories/1060089179
-
Kochs Rally Lawmakers For Anti-Carbon-Tax Resolution
Jul 17, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Nick Sobczyk
Koch Industries Inc. today wrote lawmakers urging support for an anti-carbon-tax resolution set for a vote in the House, as outside groups gird for a fight over the proposal.
"A carbon tax would make energy more expensive and raise the costs of consumer products and services on which people depend," wrote Philip Ellender, Koch Companies Public Sector LLC president of government and public affairs.
"It would also make U.S. producers less cost competitive, driving production and jobs to other parts of the world," he wrote. "Worse yet, this tax would hit hardest the least advantaged among us."
The resolution, from House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), would call a carbon tax "detrimental to the United States economy" and suggest that it could increase costs in every sector (E&E Daily, July 16).
Koch Industries joins a list of conservative interests pushing lawmakers to vote for the measure, the latest iteration of a similar proposal that passed with overwhelming Republican support in 2016.
This year, though, it's stirring up a touchy set of political circumstances in the GOP caucus. Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) — one of the party's most vulnerable incumbents — is reportedly drawing up legislation that would end the federal gasoline tax and impose a carbon fee on refiners (Climatewire, July 16).
And with 43 Republicans on the Climate Solutions Caucus, the vote will be a key benchmark of where the party is on climate change.
But a carbon tax, Ellender wrote, "distorts markets and favors one industry over another."
"We share the belief held by Majority Whip Steve Scalise and House Leadership that raising taxes on the energy that American families and businesses rely on every day will not help any hardworking citizens improve their lives," the letter says.
The Koch missive largely outlines common criticisms of carbon tax legislation, namely that it would hit low-income households the hardest and jack up energy prices.
It points to a 2013 National Association of Manufacturers report to that effect, as well as a Congressional Budget Office study that found a carbon tax could hike fossil fuel prices.
Scalise's resolution will likely hit the floor Wednesday or Thursday, when it's widely expected to pass.
Still, groups like Citizens' Climate Lobby — the organization behind the solutions caucus — are gearing up campaigns of opposition.
But others aren't so quick to the trigger. The Climate Leadership Council — which pushes carbon tax legislation with support from Exxon Mobil Corp. and BP PLC, among others — hasn't been active on the resolution, said Greg Bertelsen, senior vice president with the council.
Whatever Curbelo comes out with will be more consequential, Bertelsen said.
The Scalise measure is "a nonbinding resolution with no force of law," he said. "I imagine it will pass, but I think the much more interesting sign of progress in the Republican party is the fact that there are Republican members working on and pushing for a real market-based solution to lower carbon emissions and stimulate growth in the next generation of energy technologies."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/07/16/stories/1060089263
-
Koch Backs House Measure Opposing Carbon Taxes
Jul 16, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Koch Industries on Monday offered support for a House resolution that would oppose any carbon tax.
In a letter to House lawmakers supporting the measure, Koch takes a clear stance that Congress should denounce potential taxes on carbon dioxide emissions.
The company's president of government and public affairs, Philip Ellender, urges support for the GOP-backed resolution that would make clear that "a carbon tax would be detrimental to the American economy."
"Rather than imposing a carbon tax that would ultimately hurt the very people it is trying to protect, it is important that the government allow energy innovation to progress in line with market demand," Ellender wrote. "At a time when more American families are feeling the benefits of tax reform and a strong, pro-growth economic agenda championed by Congress and the administration, it is important to keep the momentum at full speed."
The House is set to vote this week on the measure that would condemn the idea of a carbon tax. The legislation would ultimately be nonbinding.
The resolution was introduced by House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) in April, and would say that a tax on carbon dioxide emissions “would be detrimental to American families and businesses, and is not in the best interest of the United States.”
"A carbon tax would make energy more expensive and raise the costs of consumer products and services on which people depend," Ellender said in his letter. "It would also make U.S. producers less cost competitive, driving production and jobs to other parts of the world."
Carbon taxes have long been supported by many Democrats and environmentalists as a way to discourage the use of fuels that contribute to climate change, and some conservative economists have also backed the idea.
Since President Trump took office, a handful of conservative campaigns have tried to move Republicans towards carbon taxes, including one backed by former Secretary of State James Baker.
Backers of Baker's policy started pushing the idea last year. Under their proposal, the money collected from carbon taxes would be returned to the economy through tax breaks or other methods.
Some conservative scholars also support a carbon tax as do major oil companies like Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/397295-kochs-pledge-support-for-bill-fighting-carbon-taxes
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