Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 7/18/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Group Acts to Address Marine Litter Issues
Jul 17, 2018 | Greener Package
By Jim Butschli
Steve Russell, VP of Plastics at the American Chemistry Council, compliments packaging’s sustainability efforts, but packaging must provide benefits beyond its initial use as part of a circular economy. -
(ACC Mentioned) US API Criticises Lack of Steel Tariff Exceptions for Oil, Gas Companies
Jul 18, 2018 | ICIS
By David Haydon
The American Petroleum Institute (API) on Tuesday urged the US Department of Commerce (DOC) to reconsider its ruling to deny product exclusions from tariffs on imported steel, saying the decision will have negative consequences for the oil and gas industry. -
(ACC Mentioned) REMADE Funds Plastics and E-Scrap Recycling Research
Jul 17, 2018 | Resource Recycling
By Colin Staub
Projects advancing plastics and scrap electronics recovery will receive funding through a federal initiative to save energy and support U.S. manufacturing. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Groups Back EPA's Science Transparency Rule but Seek Changes
Jul 17, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Petrochemical and other industry representatives are reiterating their support for EPA's proposed rule barring the use of science where the underlying data and models are not publicly available but they are also calling for clarifications that would expand the rule's scope... -
(ACC Mentioned) Environmental, Health Advocates Speak out Against EPA 'Secret Science' Rule
Jul 17, 2018 | ABC News
By Stephanie Ebbs
Environment and health advocates are calling on the Environmental Protection Agency to abandon a proposed rule that they say would hurt environmental protections by blocking the agency from using some scientific research in its regulations. -
(ACC Mentioned) Closed Loop Launches Circulate Capital to Take on Ocean Plastics in Asia
Jul 18, 2018 | Green Biz
By Joel Makower
Closed Loop Partners today is announcing a new venture, Circulate Capital, to invest in companies, innovations and projects that prevent marine plastic waste originating in Asia. -
Critics: EPA Science Policy Is out of Tobacco Playbook
Jul 17, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Emily Holden
Public health advocates opposing EPA’s new science policy are seeking to frame it as a repeat of the tobacco industry’s discredited attacks on the research surrounding secondhand smoke. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump’s EPA Pivots yet Again on Reviews of New Chemicals Under TSCA, Leaving Public and Worker Health in the Dust
Jul 18, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
EDF has learned from multiple sources that political appointees at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are on the verge of taking yet another huge lurch away from what the 2016 reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)... -
EPA Declines to Defer to OSHA Rules in TSCA Existing Chemical Reviews
Jul 17, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA is planning to consider workers' exposures to existing chemicals when it assesses substances' risks for possible regulation under the revised toxics law, noting that Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has acknowledged... -
New Chemicals Could Enter Market Sooner Under Plan Eyed by EPA (1)
Jul 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical makers, such as DowDupont and the BASF Corp., may be able to bring products to market faster under a strategy the EPA is considering that would ease restrictions on new substances. -
(ACC Mentioned) Regulatory Disarray Predicted if Chemical Analysis Bill Passes (1)
Jul 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A House bill to allow different EPA offices to manage the chemical assessments that underlie pollution cleanups is a formula for regulatory disarray, opponents of the legislation said. -
(ACC Mentioned) Four Acrylates 'Possibly Carcinogenic', IARC Says
Jul 18, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified four high-production volume acrylates as group 2B "possibly carcinogenic to humans" substances. -
EPA Chemical Assessments Face Shakeup Under House Bill
Jul 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical assessments that underlie pollution cleanups, water quality standards, and other EPA decisions could be conducted by any of the agency’s regulatory offices, not just one in its research division, under a bill to be introduced in the House July 17. -
5 Critical EPA Health Rules Jeopardized by “Censored Science”
Jul 17, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jennifer McPartland
For 18 months now, the Trump administration has waged an aggressive battle against science in an effort to bolster the interests of polluters. -
ATSDR's Strict Risk Levels for PFAS Driving Push for Tighter Protections
Jul 17, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
A federal health agency's recently released draft report recommending stricter risk values than EPA had adopted for two perfluorinated chemicals is already driving calls for tougher regulatory requirements, with a bipartisan group of House lawmakers urging EPA... -
GAO: Less Than Half of U.S. Schools Test for Lead in Water
Jul 17, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
Fewer than half of American school districts test their drinking water for lead, and when they do, more than a third find elevated levels of the potent neurotoxin, according to a government watchdog report released today. -
EU Sets Limits on Cosmetics Fragrance Chemicals
Jul 17, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has set limits on fragrance chemicals in leave-on and rinse-off products, following a review by the Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer safety (SCCS). -
Marriott Hotels Eliminating Plastic Straws by 2019
Jul 18, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Dee-Ann Durbin
Marriott International plans to remove plastic straws and drink stirrers from all of its 6,500 hotels and resorts worldwide by next year. -
EIA Stats Show No Slowing in Natural Gas, Oil Production Growth
Jul 17, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By David Bradley j
The trend of growing natural gas and oil production from the United States' seven most prolific onshore unconventional plays, which began 20 months ago, will continue unabated in August, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). -
Loud Backlash, Quiet Support for Offshore Plan in Key Races
Jul 18, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Pamela King, Kellie Lunney and Kristi E. Swartz
When East Coast voters cast their ballots in the congressional races this fall, there's one sensitive energy issue that may be on their minds. -
Pipeline Ruling Will Help Texas Producers Get Gas to Mexico
Jul 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Karn Dhingra
Natural gas producers in West Texas now will have an easier time exporting gas from the Permian Basin to Mexico. -
Enterprise Considering Crude Oil Export Terminal Offshore Texas
Jul 17, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Enterprise Products Partners LP, to leverage booming onshore oil production, said Tuesday it may build an export terminal offshore Texas to expand deliveries to the largest international markets in Asia and Europe. -
Fla. Republican Is 'Rabid' About Extending Moratorium
Jul 18, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Kellie Lunney
A Florida Republican said yesterday he's hoping to get language preventing drilling off the coast of his state into the Defense authorization bill currently in conference committee. -
(ACC Mentioned) Anti-Terror Program for Chemical Facilities Seeks Industry Support
Jul 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joyce E. Cutler
Federal regulators responsible for protecting facilities handling chemicals from external threats such as terrorism are taking a summer road trip to drum up support for congressional reauthorization. -
Bill Easing Air Permitting Gets OK From House Energy Subcommittee (1)
Jul 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Legislation that makes it easier for power plants, factories, and refineries to seek air pollution permits for new and expanded construction won House Energy and Commerce subcommittee approval solely with GOP support. -
Republicans Move to Bar Use of Carbon Cost in EPA Funding Bill
Jul 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott and David Schultz
The House is headed for another showdown this week on whether to bar the EPA and other agencies from weighing health costs and other impacts from carbon emissions, the primary driver of climate change. -
A Closer Look at Interior and Environment Amendments to Spending Bills
Jul 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam M. Taylor and Sarah Babbage
Measures blocking Obama-era environmental rules and numerous funding transfers are among the changes the House will consider when it begins debate on a two-bill “minibus” spending package (H.R. 6147). -
Party-Line Vote Advances Reforms to New Source Review
Jul 18, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
A bill to rework a key feature of EPA's New Source Review program yesterday passed a deeply divided House Energy and Commerce panel. -
LaFleur: Climate Change Is Shaping FERC’s Work
Jul 17, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
Even though FERC is not an environmental regulator, climate change is increasingly influencing the grid reliability and affordability issues the commission does regulate, Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur said today at the POLITICO Pro Summit in Washington.
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
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Group Acts to Address Marine Litter Issues
Jul 17, 2018 | Greener Package
By Jim Butschli
Steve Russell, VP of Plastics at the American Chemistry Council, compliments packaging’s sustainability efforts, but packaging must provide benefits beyond its initial use as part of a circular economy.
On May 17, 2018, the American Chemistry Council released the following statement in response to National Geographic’s June 2018 issue discussing the global challenges of dealing with ocean waste:
“Marine litter is a serious global problem, and we appreciate National Geographic’s thoughtful and compelling coverage. Plastic producers agree with the magazine, its readers, and millions of concerned people around the world: Plastics don’t belong on our sidewalks, in our rivers, or in our oceans.
“We and our members are working with governments, NGOs, and our industry peers to deliver sustainable solutions. Through our ‘Global Declaration,’ 75 plastics associations from 40 countries have launched 355 projects that address education, research, public policy, sharing best practices, plastics recycling/recovery, and plastic pellet containment.
“We know there’s more to be done. Last week, America’s plastic resin makers announced an ambitious goal: to recycle or recover all plastic packaging in the United States by 2040.
Achieving a more circular economy for plastics will enable society to continue to harness plastics’ essential benefits, like enhancing the safety and sanitary packaging of food and personal care products, while helping to protect and restore the environment for future generations.”
Packaging World:
What efforts are ACC and its members taking to address ocean waste?
Steve Russell:
We all want clean oceans, and we work on solutions with environmental stakeholders and our partners in the value chain. That includes efforts in the Ocean Conservancy and its 2012 launch of the Trash Free Seas Alliance, whose members focus on making continual progress toward eliminating ocean trash. This involves the integration of collection, sortation, and treatment [of the materials] as a system in an economically viable way. We are also developing financial models and working with private-equity firms, development banks, and others to source a mix of risk-tolerant and intolerant capital for the project.
While we look to improve efforts to reduce marine waste here in the U.S., are there other areas around the world that need to be considered in terms of contributing to this problem?
We are looking to identify where the primary sources of inputs into ocean waste exist, and much of this is coming from regions in Southeast Asia, with rapidly growing economies where more and more people have access to consumer goods. We’re looking into the gap between increasing consumption, where people are coming out of poverty, and the ability to capture, recover, and/or recycle waste. Our perspective is to try to turn off the tap by preventing plastics from reaching the ocean in the first place. Once waste gets into the middle of the ocean, the elements tend to break down the plastics, much of which become confetti-like pieces that are difficult to collect. Another primary source of waste is in densely populated areas around rivers that feed the world’s oceans. Many of these are in Asia and Africa, including countries such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and many others, all of which have expressed interest in working to reduce ocean waste. They are working with their local governments to do just that.
Lightweighting of plastic packaging materials and recycling have long been touted as ways to achieve sustainability benefits, but a bottle of plastic in the ocean is a bottle of plastic in the ocean regardless of its weight. And recycling isn’t as effective as it could be, correct?
There is also an important role here for packaging makers and for CPG companies to focus on designing more recyclable packaging. There’s a need to work with partners both up and down the entire supply chain. We recognize there are practical limits to mechanical recycling for some plastic packaging. Our members are focusing on plastic packaging materials that can be recycled and still deliver greater performance attributes. Packaging makers should be congratulated for developing more resource-efficient materials, next-generation packaging that uses less material and can be recovered for recycling or for energy recovery. We need to seek packaging that can be part of a solution after its initial use.
https://www.greenerpackage.com/waste_reduction/plastics_group_acts_address_marine_litter_issues
-
(ACC Mentioned) US API Criticises Lack of Steel Tariff Exceptions for Oil, Gas Companies
Jul 18, 2018 | ICIS
By David Haydon
The American Petroleum Institute (API) on Tuesday urged the US Department of Commerce (DOC) to reconsider its ruling to deny product exclusions from tariffs on imported steel, saying the decision will have negative consequences for the oil and gas industry.
US President Donald Trump signed proclamations in March calling for tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminium. The move was not favoured by energy or petrochemical groups.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) estimates more than $9bn worth of US chemicals and plastics exports have been negatively impacted by Trump’s trade decisions, and as much as half of the $194bn in planned US chemical industry investment is at risk of delay or abandonment.
The API heavily criticised the DOC’s decision on Monday to deny product exclusions for US natural gas and oil companies, noting a lack of domestic capacity to manufacture products to exact specification.
“This ruling ignores the legitimate and critical needs of the natural gas and oil industry for global sourcing of specialty steel products essential to delivering energy to the American families,” API executive vice president Marty Durbin said.
Durbin added that the API expects the tariffs to increase the cost of sourcing steel, which will by extension increase consumer’s energy costs.
“This is not the way to achieve the administration’s commendable goal of US energy dominance,” he said. “The administration should reconsider their trade policy decisions.”
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/07/17/10242346/us-api-criticises-lack-of-steel-tariff-exceptions-for-oil-gas-companies/
-
(ACC Mentioned) REMADE Funds Plastics and E-Scrap Recycling Research
Jul 17, 2018 | Resource Recycling
By Colin Staub
Projects advancing plastics and scrap electronics recovery will receive funding through a federal initiative to save energy and support U.S. manufacturing.
The REMADE (Reducing Embodied-Energy and Decreasing Emissions) Institute announced July 11 its first round of projects to receive funding. The REMADE Institute launched in early 2017 and has been working through the selection process since last summer.
REMADE is funded partially through the U.S. Department of Energy, and its goal has been to develop technologies reducing energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions in manufacturing by improving recycling, remanufacturing and reuse.
A handful of projects selected during the first funding round are related to plastics and electronics recycling. Resource Recycling queried REMADE for more information and compiled the following roundup of seven of the recycling-related projects.
All told, the 17 projects have a combined value of $10 million, which comes from $4 million in federal funding and the remainder in cost-share contributions. The REMADE effort has partnerships with 30 organizations that will be completing the projects.
Capturing hard-to-recycle plastics
Targeting film and flexible packaging: A project by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), Idaho National Lab and Resource Recycling Systems (RRS) seeks to advance recovery of flexible packaging and plastic film. Titled “Determining Material, Environmental, and Economic Efficiency of Sorting and Recycling Mixed Flexible Packaging and Plastic Wrap,” the project will examine barriers along every stage of the recovery process. Its goal is to gather data on the efficacy of new types of sortation equipment, the impact that equipment has on quality of other commodities processed in the MRF, the market potential for recovered film and flexible packaging, and more. ACC and RRS are already working on a project called Materials Recovery for the Future (MRFF), which involves optimizing MRFs’ ability to sort flexible packaging.
Breaking down barriers to multi-layer film recovery: The project will examine the primary challenges for recycling multi-layer film, which currently is not recycled in large volumes, according to REMADE. The recovery challenges include effectively separating low bulk density film using existing processing equipment and sorting laminated films into separate streams. They also include a lack of markets for the end products, which are “heterogenous blends with altered properties.” The project, titled “Scalable High Shear Catalyzed Depolymerization of Multilayer Plastic Packaging,” seeks to address the issue that there is a lack of cost-effective and energy-efficient conversion technologies for these materials. The project is a collaboration between the ACC, Michigan State University, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Unilever and the University of Massachusetts-Lowell.
Bring circular economy into systems analysis: A third plastics recycling-related project seeks to incorporate circular economy concepts into other analysis tools. According to the REMADE project description, “Few conceptual models exist for the evolving plastics circular economy. Attempts to envision/assess impacts of a future plastics circular economy are lacking.” This project, titled “Systems Analysis for PET and Olefin Polymers in a Global Circular Economy,” will be carried out by the ACC, Idaho National Lab and Michigan Technological University.
Focus on electronics
Looking at e-scrap on a systems level: This project will be completed by Idaho National Lab and electronics recycling company SunnKing. The project, called “Evaluation of logistics Systems for Collection, Reprocessing, and Production of Secondary Feedstocks from e-Waste,” will examine inefficiencies within the logistics of the current electronics recycling system. “Two reasons for difficulty in accessing residential e-wastes are ineffective placement of collection facilities and low-economic incentives,” REMADE wrote in a project overview. “This results in low availability of raw feedstocks, therefore causing higher costs due to competition between recyclers.” The project proposes to help provide a systems-level understanding of the sector, aiming to help individual players see how their operations are connected to the wider “ecosystem” of e-scrap recovery.
New approach to foster circuit board reuse: Completed by Caterpillar, CoreCentric and the Rochester Institute of Technology, this project will focus on removing the coating material that’s applied to circuit boards during their production. The coating is usually made from silicon or epoxy and is applied to protect the circuit board, but it creates a barrier to reusing circuit boards at end-of-life. The boards are often damaged during removal of the coating. According to REMADE, this project, titled “Epoxy/Silicon Potting Material Removal for Greater Recovery of Circuit Boards,” will rectify “a lack of knowledge of how to effectively and cost-efficiently remove silicon and epoxy potting material without damaging the circuit board,” REMADE wrote.
Deeper dive into device condition: This project, which is being undertaken by the same organizations as the circuit board reuse venture, aims to expand device testing to measure finer details that don’t show up during functional testing. Although functional testing is the industry norm, “there are no technologies available to measure or detect latent defects in used printed circuit boards,” according to REMADE. As an example, the project points to solder joint degradation in circuit boards. This wear-and-tear is responsible for roughly 13 percent of device failures, according to the project overview, but functional testing does not reveal the solder joint condition. Manual inspection of these components is often cost- and time-prohibitive, so the goal of this project, titled “Condition Assessment of Used Electronics,” is to explore technologies that could perform that task in an efficient manner.
Shifting design for an emerging stream: Solar panels are growing as a portion of the end-of-life stream. According to the REMADE description, the “Development of an Industrially Relevant RE-SOLAR Design Framework” project will examine how to improve design-for-recycling. The project will look at the life cycle impact of different materials and manufacturing choices, as well as the economics of various types of end-of-life recovery. “This is an imminent and critical challenge as previously installed solar modules are now creating a surge of electronic waste,” REMADE wrote. “The installation of new systems is also rapidly being scaled up and may create tremendous amounts of e-waste at the end of their lifespan.”
https://resource-recycling.com/recycling/2018/07/17/remade-funds-plastics-and-e-scrap-recycling-research/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Groups Back EPA's Science Transparency Rule but Seek Changes
Jul 17, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Petrochemical and other industry representatives are reiterating their support for EPA's proposed rule barring the use of science where the underlying data and models are not publicly available but they are also calling for clarifications that would expand the rule's scope, limit EPA's ability to grant waivers, better protect trade secrets and more.
Even as environmentalists and other critics renewed their opposition to the proposal, industry supporters -- including the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- told a July 17 public hearing that while they welcomed the proposed rule's goals, the agency should clarify several provisions.
A key concern is the protection of confidential business information (CBI), an issue industry groups -- and the Trump EPA's top toxics appointee -- have raised throughout the proposed rule's development.
The issue is particularly acute in the chemical industry, where pesticide registrants and chemical manufacturers often craft studies that rely on CBI to justify EPA approvals of their substances. Some have said that the proposed rule likely does not apply to their regulatory proceedings as it only covers “economically significant” rules costing more than $100 million.
For example, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) was initially concerned with the proposed rule's scope but later endorsed it in light of the limitation.
"Now that we've had an opportunity to see the rule as published and consider it -- we're still working on it to assess all the provisions -- but we have a great deal of confidence this is a policy that makes sense for EPA," Michael Walls, ACC's vice president of regulatory and technical affairs told Inside EPA earlier this year.
But API's Ted Steichen said at the hearing that “protection for CBI may need to be maintained even for certain data that are submitted to EPA to inform rulemakings. Protections for proprietary information or CBI should not be weakened, though results of agency analyses of this information could potentially be made available. Any such available results should be transparent regarding the agency’s selection of key data, and the interpretation of that key data.”
More broadly, the Chamber's Dan Byers urged EPA to “[p]rotect sensitive information,” and praised language in the proposed rule stating that even while advancing the new transparency proposal, EPA “must adhere to longstanding statutory requirements for 'the protection of privacy and confidentiality of research participants, protection of proprietary data and [CBI], and other compelling interests.'”
Byers called such protection “paramount,” adding that “additional guidance explaining how agency officials should advance transparency goals while ensuring protection of such sensitive information under varied circumstances would be beneficial.”
Steichen and Byers had other concerns as well. EPA's draft rule, as many of its critics have pointed out, introduces new terms and fails to provide certain information, instead asking stakeholders for their views on a series of implementation issues.
One undefined issue is how EPA's administrator will reach conclusions on what studies or scenarios will be exempted from the rule, as the proposal gives the administrator latitude to do.
Byers, in his remarks, urged EPA to “[d]evelop further guidance and processes for employing the administrator’s exemption authority. Given the scope and complexity of the proposed rulemaking, it is important and appropriate that the Administrator be provided the flexibility to exempt certain data and information from disclosure requirements. However, EPA should work to develop systematic guidance for determining how and when such authority should be applied.”
Administrator's Latitude
Byers adds that in addition to the administrator's latitude to exempt decisions or science from the rule, EPA should also “in certain situations -- particularly when relevant publicly available data is limited -- [consider] flexible and non-binary approaches to transparency requirements.”
He said this could include “assigning greater decision-making weight to publicly available data while still allowing for the consideration of non-transparent data. Such an approach may be particularly useful for retrospective studies in which it is impossible or impractical to make data available. This concept should be concurrently explored and addressed through the agency’s proposed rule to increase the consistency and transparency of consideration of costs and benefits in the rulemaking process.”
The administrator's latitude to apply the policy has been a topic of previous concern, with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality noting in recent comments that placing such decisions in the administrator's hands overly politicizes them. The Commission recommended that EPA withdraw and re-draft the proposal, and suggests that EPA's Science Advisory Board -- currently chaired by TCEQ's top toxicologist -- make decisions about when the rule should be applied.
Others in industry suggest that the rule already provides direction to the administrator. In their recent interview with Inside EPA, top ACC officials expressed no concern with the rule's existing language on the administrator's latitude.
David Fischer, an ACC senior director, said at the time that the proposed rule “certainly does grant the administrator discretion,” but he argued that the rule's language is “Not unbridled. It's bounded." He pointed to the rule's section 30.9, which he described as laying out "some criteria, it's not just what the administrator opined. We think that's reasonable. We have to trust that the administrator will comply with the regulation, regardless of who that is."
But Anne LeHuray of the Pavement Coatings Technology Council, argued at the July 17 hearing that EPA should broaden the rule's focus, saying that it does not go far enough. LeHuray said that her group is concerned that the proposed rule is too restrictive, by applying itself only to “pivotal studies” -- a new term defined in the proposal -- and final regulations.
In a similar vein, API's Steichen urged EPA to broadly apply the rule to “information used to inform policy decisions, including scientific, economic and environmental impact data and models that are designed to predict health and environment impacts, costs, benefits, and/or market impacts of specific regulatory interventions on complex economic or environmental systems”; and for the rule's principles to be applied throughout the regulatory process, including to both proposed and final measures.
He also called for it to include clear directions to ensure that underlying data are available in a manner sufficient for validation; and to include data, models, methods, codes and other information necessary for validation.
Hearkening to some of the technical details of risk analysis included in EPA's rule and critical to many EPA decisions, API also calls on EPA to explicitly address “uncertainties in data, models and analyses when utilizing those studies in decision-making. This is particularly important when models are used to quantify benefits of an action at levels at or below existing standards or background concentrations of a regulated substance.”
Meanwhile, Byers also called on EPA to enhance its risk communication by detailing in its press releases and other announcements where decisions are based on available on confidential information and advancing efforts to de-identify sensitive information so that it could be released publicly.
The Chamber also hopes to see EPA's policy benefit from other agency's experiences and expertise. Byers recommended that EPA “coordinate with other agencies working to address similar regulatory transparency challenges. ... numerous federal agencies are facing similar challenges related to data transparency and protection of sensitive information. Drawing on the expertise and experience of other agencies across the federal government through active and ongoing coordination will improve EPA’s ability to make this effort a success. Ideally, such an effort would be undertaken in concert with the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-groups-back-epas-science-transparency-rule-seek-changes
-
(ACC Mentioned) Environmental, Health Advocates Speak out Against EPA 'Secret Science' Rule
Jul 17, 2018 | ABC News
By Stephanie Ebbs
Environment and health advocates are calling on the Environmental Protection Agency to abandon a proposed rule that they say would hurt environmental protections by blocking the agency from using some scientific research in its regulations.
The EPA held a public hearing on its "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science" rule Tuesday, which former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said would bar the agency from basing regulations on science where the raw data is not made public -- what Pruit called "secret science." More than 200,000 public comments have been submitted on the proposalsince it was announced in April.
Dozens of representatives from groups including the American Lung Association, Moms Clean Air Force, and Union of Concerned Scientists testified against the proposal in the hearing.
Michael Halpern, director of the Center for Science and Democracy and the Union for Concerned Scientists, testified that the rule would prevent EPA from carrying out its mission to protect human health and the environment.
"Without the ability to use this scientific information, EPA would be unable to meet its mission and statutory obligations. This proposal would make it significantly harder for EPA to use the best available science to protect the public, including from harmful emissions of hazardous air pollutants, particulate matter and ozone, exposure to dangerous chemicals in commerce, (and) drinking water contaminated with toxic chemicals such as PFAS or lead," Halpern said.
In one example, the director of the nuclear program for the Natural Resources Defense Council said the proposed rule could undercut standards for radiation exposure because the EPA would no longer be able to rely on research on atomic bomb survivors -- because the data is available to other researchers but not the general public.
Matthew McKinzie, director of the nuclear program for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the rule would exclude important studies about atomic bomb survivors, for example, even though the studies are well-regarded and have been reviewed by other researchers multiple times.
"Implementation of the rule would effectively block the use of such key scientific studies and allow for radiation standards to be either wholly weakened or made functionally meaningless," McKinzie said in his testimony.
The studies McKinzie cites and other health-related studies about issues like smog pollution or chemical exposure often study thousands of individuals monitored for decades, and researchers say they can't publicly release the data because it would not be possible to remove all the personal information or that the research subjects did not consent to make the data public.
Some advocates say the rule isn't actually about transparency but would benefit industry groups who want fewer regulations.
Groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, American Petroleum Institute, and the American Chemistry Council say they support the rule and would work with other stakeholders to maximize transparency while working within limitations like information that legally can't be made public because it includes private health information.
A report released by the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute on Tuesday says the rule is actually more limited than critics say and that the EPA would still be allowed to use research that can't be made publicly available when it is "not feasible" to do so. Angela Logomasini, a senior fellow at the institute who attended Tuesday's hearing, said some of the testimony ignored that other laws like the Safe Drinking Water Act require the EPA to use the "best available science" so it could not ignore studies who use data protected by privacy laws.
"Numerous presenters raised concerns that the transparency rule would somehow prevent EPA from using the best available science, and thereby prevent EPA from making rules to protect public health. Nothing could be further from the truth," said Angela Logomasini, a senior fellow at the institute who attended Tuesday's hearing. "The rule explicitly provides exemptions for science that cannot be released because of privacy concerns," Logomasini said, adding "Perhaps some opponents are actually more concerned that data release will undermine their ideological views about regulation."
But critics, including Democratic lawmakers, said the rule was unnecessary and implied that EPA was previously using science that wasn't already vetted by other researchers.
"The proposed rule perpetuates the incorrect notion that the science the EPA relies on is somehow hidden. It is not,” Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, D-Or., said in her testimony. “The EPA would be forced to ignore valuable information discovered during their research because it contains confidential information. This would have chilling consequences for the EPA and every person who benefits from clean air and clean water."
The proposed rule is open for public comment until August 16. An EPA official said in a statement that the agency will consider all submitted comments when updating the rule.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/environmental-health-advocates-speak-epa-secret-science-rule/story?id=56631373
-
(ACC Mentioned) Closed Loop Launches Circulate Capital to Take on Ocean Plastics in Asia
Jul 18, 2018 | Green Biz
By Joel Makower
Closed Loop Partners today is announcing a new venture, Circulate Capital, to invest in companies, innovations and projects that prevent marine plastic waste originating in Asia.
Like its parent, which was founded in 2014 to invest in recycling infrastructure in order to put more recycled materials back into manufacturing supply chains, Circulate will focus on jumpstarting waste management and recycling infrastructures — in this case, in South and Southeast Asia.
The new venture will be led by Rob Kaplan, Closed Loop’s co-founder and managing director, who previously served as director of sustainability for Walmart and led corporate responsibility and brand strategy for wine and spirits maker Brown-Forman. Circulate will be based in Asia, though the exact domicile of the fund is still being worked out based on legal and regulatory considerations.
Tackling the recycling problem in Asia will be no small feat. Up to 95 percent of plastic in the world's oceans pours in from just 10 rivers, according to research published late last year. Eight of those rivers are in Asia. (The other two, the Niger and the Nile, are in Africa.) The Yangtze River alone, Asia’s longest, topped the list, dumping up to an estimated 1.5 million metric tons of plastic waste a year into the Yellow Sea.
Much of the problem stems from the rapid development seen in Asia over the past 30 years, especially China’s burgeoning consumerist lifestyle, which has overwhelmed the nation’s sparse waste management infrastructure.
It’s not just China. Roughly 60 percent of all the plastic in global waters originates in five countries — China, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam, according to a 2016 study by McKinsey & Co.’s environmental business unit and the nonprofit Ocean Conservancy.Exponential growth
The idea for the fund came from some of the same investors that helped create the original Closed Loop Fund — companies like Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble, Unilever and Walmart — all of which were confronting significant roadblocks to sourcing recycled material in their far-flung supply chains. Closed Loop has focused on growing recycling in U.S. municipalities. Asia wasn’t part of its mandate.
“The reality is that these countries have been exponentially growing in the last 10 to 15 years,” Kaplan explained to me recently. “Their consumption is exponential, and their waste production is exponential. That type of growth happened over 50 to 100 years in the United States and Europe. So, our investments in waste and recycling infrastructure, and the policies and consumer behavior and awareness of those topics, had time to evolve. In Asia's markets, we have within the same generation people consuming different types of products and producing different types of packaging.”
The rise of public concern about ocean plastics, and the recognition of the scale of Asian countries’ contribution to the problem, also played a factor, leading Closed Loop to partner with PepsiCo, 3M, Procter & Gamble, the American Chemistry Council and the World Plastics Council to launch a $150 million initiative last October called Closed Loop Ocean to focus on waste management and recycling solutions in Southeast Asia. The Ocean Conservancy served as the project’s lead nonprofit partner.
But Kaplan and his team recognized that addressing Asia's challenges required a more intensive effort.
“We realized that in order to properly take this on, it was going to be very difficult to run it as a side project out of a U.S.-based firm,” said Kaplan, who will serve as CEO of Circulate Capital. “We needed to devote the resources, the people, the talent and the attention in a very focused, discrete way, and it was going to be difficult to do that out of Closed Loop Partners, given all the commitments we already had.”
The new fund came together quickly, he said. “When we created this project, we expected it to take several years to ramp up. But given the rate of change and the interest in ocean plastic, it's becoming an issue that everyone is very concerned about, so we decided to accelerate that project.”
Circulate Capital is part of a growing drumbeat of activity related to ending plastic waste. In recent months, U.S. cities from Manhattan to Malibu have announced straw bans or phase-outs, as have companies like Starbucks, McDonalds and American Airlines. In April, U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May announced a proposal to ban straws and other plastic items.
Meanwhile, U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres warned last year that unless steps are taken to curb the pollution, plastics could outweigh fish in the world’s oceans by 2050.A new view
While environmental concerns about plastic waste have been around for decades, public concern has been stoked in recent years by social media, such as the graphic video of a sea turtle with a straw stuck in its nose, which has been viewed more than 30 million times. A new generation of millennial consumers and their younger brothers and sisters are growing up with a new, less-favorable view of plastics.
“The awareness of the issue has changed, and that's caused consumer engagement and consumer activism, which you don't see often in an environmental topic like climate change,” said Kaplan. “Governments are paying attention, too, so the awareness of the problem has skyrocketed, but awareness of the solutions has lagged. That's why we feel like it's important to accelerate and lean in on this topic as quickly as possible, because we need to start investing in those solutions.”
The solution set for recycling in developing countries isn’t necessarily the same as in developed ones, where trash trucks ply city streets for garbage and recycling bins, then unload their haul into centralized municipal recycling facilities.
In most Asian countries, there are informal waste collection systems, explained Ben R. Jordan, Senior Director of Environmental Policy for The Coca-Cola Company, which is an investor in Circulate, and which earlier this year announced “World Without Waste,” a global goal to help collect and recycle the equivalent of 100 percent of its packaging by 2030.
Some of those systems perform quite well, says Jordan, collecting up to 80 percent of beverage containers through informal scavenging systems. But it’s just a start. “There is a real opportunity from our standpoint to both formalize some of those informal systems, but also potentially include other plastics in those systems and reduce the leakage over there,” he told me.
According to Circulate, a 45 percent improvement in plastic leakage is possible by improving waste management and recycling in China, Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand.
Of course, this is easier said than done. The complexities of investing in emerging markets is nontrivial, including labor, corruption and human rights issues. Entrepreneurs don’t have access to banks and other cornerstones of starting and scaling a business that their counterparts in developing economies take for granted.
Moreover, there’s a lack of a track record investors can fall back on: People haven't been making money in this space as investors. There are few trusted investment partners in Asia who have deep experience in this space, another quality that make for a stable investment environment in developed economies.
As a result, the risk to investors can be significant, says Kaplan. “In the U.S., investing or providing a loan to a municipality is probably one of the safest things you can do to support collection. In some of these markets, it's one of the more risky things you can do.”
Kaplan says he expects the fund to be up and running and making its first few investments by the first quarter of 2019, and that it will make a few more investments by the end of next year. The initial $150 million in capital will come from existing Closed Loop Fund investors, as well as some new members, such as Dow Chemical and Kimberly-Clark.Inevitable market?
I asked Kaplan what we might expect from Circulate over the next couple of years. “In two years, what we'd like to be able to show is what types of interventions can work and scale to prevent plastic from being mismanaged, as well as waste in general being mismanaged, and directing it out of the environment and back into consumer goods and retail and plastic supply chains,” he said.
“At the same time,” he continued, “we want to be able to demonstrate this is an investable market that investors should be looking at and should be thinking about investing in, either directly with us or on their own.”
I asked Coke’s Ben Jordan the same question. He struck a similar theme: “In the next two to three years, I think it’s more about demonstrating what’s possible. We talk a lot about how to identify the investment opportunities that can be easily replicated. That’s a part of the world where a lot of innovation goes on. A real hope is that over the next two or three years, the investments that Circulate Capital makes are in technology and projects that are meaningful on their own as individual projects and initiatives but can be easily and quickly replicated across that part of the world.”
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/closed-loop-launches-circulate-capital-take-ocean-plastics-asia
-
Critics: EPA Science Policy Is out of Tobacco Playbook
Jul 17, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Emily Holden
Public health advocates opposing EPA’s new science policy are seeking to frame it as a repeat of the tobacco industry’s discredited attacks on the research surrounding secondhand smoke.
Dozens of speakers from medical and environmental groups at a public hearing Tuesday said the agency’s proposal to bar science that doesn’t have publicly available data would make it impossible or incredibly expensive to conduct research that EPA would consider in writing regulations. They argued it could also undermine study participants’ trust and have a chilling effect on what kind of science health experts could pursue.
The result: EPA would begin to ignore critical information about how pollutants harm people, said the rule's critics, who vastly outnumbered supporters.
“In short, we believe this policy is not in the best interest of our profession, the patients that we serve or the public health,” said Meredith McCormack, a physician-scientist with the American Thoracic Society. “The focus on transparency is highly reminiscent of the rhetoric used by the tobacco players decades ago.”
McCormack said tobacco industry documents showed companies trying to set up procedural hurdles for what science the government could consider, and also used language similar to EPA’s proposal around transparency, sound science and reproducible science.
The change could weaken air quality standards in the near-term, as EPA reviews rules for ozone and particulate matter, and could slow regulations long-term, said Paul Billings, senior vice president of advocacy for the American Lung Association.
“If you didn’t know that particulate matter led to premature death and EPA had not evaluated that science, what would happen because of that?” Billings said outside the meeting room at agency headquarters. "We could see a path where less information would then mean that you have weaker standards and weaker cleanup."
Three Democrat lawmakers — Reps. Paul Tonko of New York, Suzanne Bonamiciof Oregon and Dan Lipinski of Illinois — also appeared in opposition to the proposal.
Officials from Minnesota — John Stine from the Pollution Control Agency and Paul Allwood from the Department of Health — asked EPA to immediately suspend the proposal.
Without studies on chemicals used at 3M manufacturing sites, the state wouldn’t have been able to successfully sue on behalf of affected residents, they said. Without research used in computer models for pollution, they wouldn’t know how many people in the Twin Cities die prematurely or are hospitalized because of dirty air, they said.
Stine said after his statement that the state will seek a meeting with acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler.
The science rule was a priority for former Administrator Scott Pruitt, who promoted the proposal in interviews with conservative media outlets, although its progress has already begun to slow, with EPA reclassifying the regulation to require a greater level of internal review. Wheeler has said he will take a “hard look” at the proposal, and some groups hope his biology background might prompt him to scrutinize it more closely.
The draft rule's critics also maintained that peer review ensures that study data is valid, even if the data itself is not publicly available.
Community-based health researchers argued that the rule might deter valuable science.
Pamela Miller, executive director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics, said the proposal would prevent EPA from using her group’s research on how toxic chemicals affect Arctic indigenous peoples.
“This information is considered protected information, medical information, because we’re collecting information about health, about demographics, about behaviors in the home and community,” Miller said. The group’s research has been instrumental in informing how military operations are cleaned up, she said.
The handful of the proposal's supporters who appeared at the meeting argued that for epidemiological studies, researchers could make their data available while shielding the identities of participants.
Dan Byers, senior policy director for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute, said many of EPA’s claimed monetary benefits from regulations are based on particulate matter studies that didn’t have public data.
Still, EPA's policy change could pose problems for businesses depending on how it is crafted.
The Chamber said it is “paramount” that EPA adhere to requirements to protect proprietary data and confidential business information, as well as participant privacy. The group noted that Wheeler would have special authority to exempt certain studies from the new requirement, and said EPA should develop systematic guidance for how that would work.
The American Petroleum Institute said any data used in EPA policymaking should be transparent, reproducible and publicly available “to the extent possible, and consistent with the protection of other compelling interests such as privacy, trade secrets, intellectual property, and other confidentiality protections.”
Annie Snider contributed to this report.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/07/critics-epa-science-policy-is-out-of-tobacco-playbook-692587
-
Jul 18, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
EDF has learned from multiple sources that political appointees at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are on the verge of taking yet another huge lurch away from what the 2016 reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) require when EPA reviews the safety of new chemicals prior to their market entry. A reporter at Bloomberg Environment has heard the same thing, and published an article this morning on some of the changes.
The Trump EPA apparently intends to abandon its November 2017 “New Chemicals Decision-Making Framework,” which already strayed far from the law’s requirements. That approach would have allowed EPA staff to limit their review of a new chemical only to the intended uses identified by its manufacturer, despite the law’s clear mandate that EPA consider known or reasonably foreseen, as well as intended, uses when conducting its review. Under the framework, where EPA had concerns about reasonably foreseen but not intended uses – rather than issue an order as required by the law – EPA would take two other steps: make a “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” determination for the chemical, clearing it to enter commerce; and issue a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR), which could trigger a separate, future review on any subsequently intended use, wholly divorced from the initial review.
Initially, EPA staff indicated the “not likely” finding would be made only once a final SNUR had been promulgated. That then slipped to have issuance of the finding coincide with the proposal of the SNUR. That then slipped further to allow the finding to be issued based on EPA’s mere intent to develop a SNUR.
Now, however, the Trump EPA plans to decouple completely its ability to issue a “not likely” finding from any dependency at all on promulgation of a SNUR. How then, you might well ask, would EPA consider reasonably foreseen uses of a new chemical? The short answer is, it won’t.
The longer answer is that EPA apparently intends to so narrowly define “reasonably foreseen” as to render it effectively the same as “intended,” ignoring the obvious fact that Congress clearly distinguished between the two. EPA may also loosen the threshold for making a “not likely” finding to such a degree that EPA would have to prove a risk is highly probable before it could place any conditions on a new chemical. This, too, flies in the face of the law, which requiresEPA to impose restrictions whenever it finds a new chemical may present an unreasonable risk. Only in Trumplandia does “may present” mean “highly probable.”
Finally, the Trump EPA appears intent on never imposing testing requirements on new chemicals. This despite the fact that the 2016 TSCA reforms require that if EPA lacks sufficient information to review a new chemical, EPA must issue an order that either requires submission of the missing information or imposes conditions sufficient to address any potential risk in the absence of the information. This provision was motivated by the fact that the great majority of new chemical submissions lack any health or environmental data, and prior to the 2016 reforms, EPA had little choice but to allow such a chemical into commerce.
Avoidance of testing requirements is being achieved in two ways by the Trump EPA. First, by making the issuance of an order a rarity, EPA is taking away its primary means of imposing testing requirements. Second, EPA now intends even when an order is issued, to merely request that companies submit relevant information, rather than specifying the needed data and the methods to develop it (a longstanding feature of new chemical orders that is also called for under the testing provisions of TSCA).
To sum up the new approach:
· Few, if any, orders
· Few, if any, SNURs
· Few, if any, testing requirements to fill information gaps
· Effectively no consideration of reasonably foreseen uses
· Many, many rubber stamps of new chemicals
Will they even bother to write it down?
A last, highly disturbing feature of EPA’s new approach is that political appointees are apparently resisting actually putting the new approach in writing. This suggests they are aware of how far the approach is straying from the law. But it also leaves professional staff in the lurch and begs the question of how the new rules are to be applied in a consistent manner.
Immediately after passage of the 2016 reforms and before new operating policies and procedures had been put in place, a common complaint of the industry was that different program staff were making different decisions in similar cases. Now, without detailed procedures in writing and without even the law to fall back on, this same thing could happen on steroids. Or are the political appointees simply assuming they’ll have lowered the bar so much that virtually every new chemical will go unregulated regardless of the potential risks it may pose?
In contrast to the last round of changes, where EPA issued documents describing the changes, held a public meeting, and subjected its approach to public comment, in this case we understand EPA plans to implement its approach without any public notice and without providing any written description of the changes, let alone the statutory basis for them.
Industry beware
I expect the motivation behind the new approach – crafted largely by political appointees who came to the agency directly from the American Petroleum Institute and the American Chemistry Council – is to address industry demands for quick and easy reviews of new chemicals “as in the good old days” before TSCA was reformed.
However, as I was quoted in the Bloomberg story saying: “Companies may want to think twice before supporting this illegal approach, which will call into question the actual safety of their new chemicals and put their investments at risk.”
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/07/17/trumps-epa-pivots-yet-again-on-reviews-of-new-chemicals-under-tsca-leaving-public-and-worker-health-in-the-dust/
-
EPA Declines to Defer to OSHA Rules in TSCA Existing Chemical Reviews
Jul 17, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA is planning to consider workers' exposures to existing chemicals when it assesses substances' risks for possible regulation under the revised toxics law, noting that Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has acknowledged that its exposure limits for many chemicals are “outdated and inadequate.”
But in a statement to Inside EPA, EPA says that it will confer with OSHA before it imposes any new requirements.
“Given that OSHA recognizes that many of its permissible exposure limits (PELs) are ['outdated and inadequate'], EPA is including worker exposure scenarios in the [Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)] Risk Evaluations,” EPA says.
Noting that TSCA section 9 (d) requires that EPA consult with other agencies, including OSHA, and impose the least burdensome of duplicative requirements, the agency says, “EPA will consult with OSHA and other federal agencies before implementing risk management actions on existing chemicals."
The agency's approach stands in contrast to its plan to preclude consideration of exposures that other EPA programs are already addressing, an issue that is already drawing strong criticism from environmentalists who charge the approach is unlawful and will exclude millions of pounds of chemicals from EPA's assessments.
It also appears to reject calls from industry officials who have urged the agency to coordinate with OSHA before regulating new and existing chemicals under the revised TSCA, and to defer to existing rules.
The agency's statement responds to Inside EPA inquiries lodged after Herb Estreicher, of the law firm Keller and Heckman, LLP, told a July 11 webinar that EPA's recently released problem formulation documents, detailing EPA's plans for reviewing the first 10 existing chemicals under the revised TSCA, show EPA largely ignoring OSHA rules.
Estreicher argued that EPA's plan to assess workplace exposures rather than defer to OSHA regulations comes despite EPA's declining to regulate exposure pathways that it deems already adequately regulated under its own rules. He cited the agency's Clean Air Act regulation of ozone-depleting chemicals as one example.
Estreicher urged companies to press EPA to defer to the existing rules of OSHA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission in advance of a July 26 deadline for public input on problem formulation documents.
“People need to make the case that these agencies have full competency and are the right place to control those risks,” he said.
In its statement to Inside EPA, the agency not only defended its decision to consider worker exposures in the upcoming assessments but also argued that bypassing review of exposures addressed by EPA statutes is appropriate.
“Certain exposure pathways are adequately assessed and effectively managed under other EPA-administered environmental statutes, and EPA has proposed not to include these in the TSCA risk evaluations,” the agency says.
“This allows the TSCA program to better protect human health and the environment by focusing on those pathways that are likely to represent the greatest areas of concern to EPA, avoiding duplicating efforts, and using resources efficiently under the TSCA program in order to meet the statutory deadlines and protect public health.”
EPA Authority
While industry attorneys have acknowledged that EPA has authority under the revised TSCA to regulate worker risks, they also have urged the agency to work with OSHA before addressing risks of new and existing chemicals' to workers and to impose the least burdensome of duplicative requirements.
Late last year, a chemical industry coalition urged EPA to forgo regulating new chemicals' risks to workers and instead use its TSCA authority to inform OSHA enforcement, arguing that agency's rules adequately protect workers, in most cases, making EPA restrictions unnecessary.
In a Dec. 1 issue paper submitted to EPA, the TSCA New Chemicals Coalition (NCC) urged EPA to craft a process for consulting with OSHA under the revised TSCA. A source with the group tells Inside EPA that discussions on that industry request pertaining to review of new chemicals are ongoing.
In its statement, EPA says it is considering the NCC request, as it would with any stakeholder feedback, but has not yet responded.
Environmentalists have criticized the request, calling industry's proposed approach “patently illegal,” and arguing that it would undermine worker protections due to OSHA's limited reach and resources.
And a senior OSHA official has downplayed the prospect of significant coordination with EPA on chemical risks to workers under the revised toxics law as some industry groups have sought, calling the extent of such collaboration “hard to predict” and suggesting it is often unnecessary.
The scope of EPA's authority to address chemical risks to workers has been a decades-long question that has played out in various EPA programs. Labor groups and some industrial hygienists have opposed use of OSHA standards, saying they are largely out of date and ineffective -- a point that even OSHA has acknowledged on its website.
While urging companies to back OSHA authority in comments to EPA, Estreicher noted that EPA's problem formulation documents suggest that the agency does intend to use data from OSHA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to inform its own assessments of the chemicals' risks to workers. If companies believe those agencies databases do not accurately reflect a chemical's exposures, they should also notify EPA, he said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-declines-defer-osha-rules-tsca-existing-chemical-reviews
-
New Chemicals Could Enter Market Sooner Under Plan Eyed by EPA (1)
Jul 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical makers, such as DowDupont and the BASF Corp., may be able to bring products to market faster under a strategy the EPA is considering that would ease restrictions on new substances.
Political appointees in the EPA’s chemicals office are directing agency staff to limit rules and other restrictions they place on new chemicals.
Career staff also are being directed to increase the number of new chemicals deemed safe enough to reach the marketplace quickly, according to information obtained by Bloomberg Environment.
The agency continues to evolve its approach to overseeing new chemicals as it gains experience working with changes made to the Toxic Substances Control Act in 2016, the agency said in a statement emailed to Bloomberg Environment.
The latest strategy would be good news to chemical manufacturers who have complained over the last two years that EPA delays in approving new compounds are threatening the innovations that enable beneficial new technologies and products.
The EPA’s new approach would further erode the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) amendments of 2016 that sought to improve public and environmental health protection, environmental health advocates told Bloomberg Environment.
Speedier ApprovalsChemical manufacturers or importers that want to bring new products to market first must seek the EPA’s approval by filing what are called premanufacture notices, or PMNs.
Under the original and amended chemicals law, the agency has 90 days to complete its review of the notices, but has the option of a one-time 90-day extension. Yet dozens of notices have been under review since the amended TSCA became law June 22, 2016, according to information from the EPA’s new chemicals website.
“It’s not uncommon for it to take more than 400 days,” Michael P. Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, told Bloomberg Environment in a recent interview.
The EPA’s statement said it “takes its statutory deadlines seriously, and we are specifically looking to improve the amount of time it takes the agency to review new chemicals,” the agency’s statement said.
“Not only did Congress give EPA 90 days to review and make a determination on a PMN submission, but the amended statute now requires the agency to refund all applicable fees charged to the submitter for review of the notice if EPA fails to make a determination on a notice by the end of the applicable review period,” the agency added.
New chemical fees, currently capped at $2,500, are slated to increase up to $16,000 under a proposed rule the agency released in February.
Limit ControlsThe agency has tried several strategies since the 2016 TSCA overhaul to reduce the time it takes to review premanufacture notices. The latest calls for narrowing the number of ways EPA analysts think a chemical could be used, according to the information obtained by Bloomberg Environment.
Narrowing what TSCA calls “reasonably foreseen” uses would increase the chance that the agency would conclude a chemical is “not likely to present an unreasonable risk.” The “not likely” finding is the safest conclusion the EPA can reach for new chemicals.
Chemicals deemed not likely to present an unreasonable risk can enter commerce without EPA limits on the ways they can be used.
The agency’s new strategy also would involve limiting use of regulations or other restrictions intended to control potential risks of a new chemical. Such restrictions, called consent orders and significant new use rules, limit a new chemical’s uptake in the market, Kathleen M. Roberts told Bloomberg Environment. She co-manages the TSCA New Chemicals Coalition, a group of manufacturers.
The new chemical may be safer than another that’s on the market already without regulatory controls, but customers perceive it as riskier because of the significant new use rules, she said.
Chemical manufacturers also would no longer have to provide toxicity, environmental fate, or other data using specific pre-approved tests, according to a third part of the EPA’s new strategy. Instead the agency would describe the types of information it would like to have.
The goal is to encourage companies to use new types of chemical tests instead of traditional strategies that expose laboratory animals to chemicals. New methods include automated high throughput tests, computer-based models, and cells that predict chemical toxicity or exposure.
Political appointees and career staff are discussing whether the new strategy should be written down, according to the information obtained by Bloomberg Environment.
Initial ReactionThe new approach has public health advocates worried.
The EPA has strayed farther and farther from TSCA’s new chemical requirements under the Trump administration, Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, told Bloomberg Environment.
The amended chemicals law clearly distinguished between a company’s intended uses for a new chemical and those that are known or could be reasonably foreseen once the chemical enters U.S. commerce, he said.
“Congress required EPA to assess all three types of uses together and issue orders imposing conditions necessary and sufficient to mitigate any risks from all three,” Denison said.
He called the EPA’s plan illegal and said it would threaten public health.
“Companies should think twice before supporting this illegal approach, which will call into question the actual safety of their new chemicals and put their investments at risk,” he said.
The EPA is ordering its employees to circumvent the law and reduce oversight of new chemicals that could be just as dangerous to public health as those for which they substitute, Daniel Rosenberg, an attorney with Natural Resources Defense Council, told Bloomberg Environment.
“Congress and the courts will need to get to the bottom of this “ said Rosenberg, whose organization already is suing the EPA over the new chemicals framework it issued last November.
The EPA told Bloomberg Environment it disagrees with those assertions.
“Any changes made by EPA will be consistent with the statute, ensure that any appropriate testing is identified (when necessary), and of course ensure that we are protecting public health and the environment while allowing for technological innovation in the chemicals sector,” EPA said.
—With assistance from Dean Scott.
(Updates with comment from the EPA.)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/new-chemicals-could-enter-market-sooner-under-plan-eyed-by-epa-1
-
(ACC Mentioned) Regulatory Disarray Predicted if Chemical Analysis Bill Passes (1)
Jul 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A House bill to allow different EPA offices to manage the chemical assessments that underlie pollution cleanups is a formula for regulatory disarray, opponents of the legislation said.
They foresee a profusion of disparate chemical standards that would be confusing and less effective.
“The Chemical Assessment Improvement Act would wreak havoc on the chemical assessment process at the Environmental Protection Agency,” Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) told Bloomberg Environment.
“It would slow down the assessment process, lead to regulatory uncertainty, open the door to increased industry influence, restrict the scientific information that could be used, and essentially gut the IRIS program without officially shutting it down,” she said by email.
She specifically cited the EPA Integrated Risk Information Program, which the agency’s Office of Research and Development has managed for many years.
Johnson, ranking member of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, issued her warning about legislation Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) is to introduce July 17. The full committee is scheduled to mark up the legislation July 18.
The Chemical Assessment Improvement Act addresses analyses IRIS staff members have conducted for years. The agency’s research office intentionally manages the IRIS program to ensure that impartial science drives its conclusions, according to EPA information.
Broadening Assessment OfficesThe Chemical Assessment Improvement Act would allow other agency offices that need a chemical analyzed to prepare their own evaluations provided they meet specific scientific standards detailed in the act.
“The bill would effectively gut the IRIS program by removing its core function to program offices,” Jennifer McPartland, a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund’s health division, told Bloomberg Environment.
The complex analyses required to examine chemical hazards and determine the doses at which those hazards could manifest, which IRIS does, “require standardized approaches done by skilled people with quality controls. It’s possibly best to have those skills centralized,” Jonathan M. Samet, a physician and dean of the Colorado School of Public Health, told Bloomberg Environment.
Fragmenting chemical assessments so they are carried out by multiple EPA offices “is not necessarily the best way to assure these assessments are done in the right way,” said Samet, who chaired a recent National Academies panel that commended the IRIS program for improvements it has been making.
“The proposal appears oblivious to key factors that motivated the inception of the IRIS program, which are still relevant today. These include supporting scientific consistency in the development of chemical assessments used across the agency, and providing independence between scientific review and regulatory decisions informed by those reviews,” McPartland said.
“No additional resources are indicated in the bill to support program offices in managing the significant additional workload that would result,” she said.
The American Chemistry Council, which represents small and large chemical manufacturers, supported what it called “efforts to improve the rigor of and scientific discipline in EPA’s chemical assessment programs.”
The council “has long-standing concerns with EPA’s IRIS program, specifically its lack of transparency, productivity, and inability to produce scientifically sound chemical assessments that meet EPA’s needs on a consistent basis,” it said in a statement provided Bloomberg Environment.
(Updates with comment from Jonathan M. Samet.)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/regulatory-disarray-predicted-if-chemical-analysis-bill-passes-1
-
(ACC Mentioned) Four Acrylates 'Possibly Carcinogenic', IARC Says
Jul 18, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified four high-production volume acrylates as group 2B "possibly carcinogenic to humans" substances.
The results of the Iarc evaluation of the acrylate substances – methyl acrylate (MA), ethyl acrylate (EA), 2-ethylhexyl acrylate (2EHA) and technical-grade trimethylolpropane triacrylate (TMPTA) – are published in a Lancet paper.
Use and exposure
MA is used in the production of acrylic fibres and fire retardant fabrics. It is also used to produce coatings, adhesives and prostheses, and as an intermediate in the synthesis of other substances. Human exposure can occur primarily through inhalation and dermal contact during production and use as an intermediate.
EA is used to produce polymers for water-based paints, resins, plastics and synthetic rubber. It is one of the principal monomers used worldwide to manufacture styrene-based polymers, used for medical and dental items. It is also used in surface coatings for textiles, paper, leather and food contact materials, and as a food flavouring agent. Occupational exposure can occur primarily for: chemical and paint manufacturing workers; nail salon workers; and dental technicians. Exposure of the general population can occur through food and from materials containing EA.
2EHA is used as a plasticising co-monomer in the production of resins for pressure-sensitive adhesives, latex paints, reactive diluent or cross-linking agents, textile and leather finishes, and coatings for paper. Occupational exposure can occur during manufacturing.
TMPTA is used primarily to produce ultraviolet-curable inks, paint additives, coatings and adhesives. Occupational exposure can occur during manufacture or use of the substance. While exposure of the general population can occur through the use of consumer products, such as latex paints, and furniture and floor polishes.
The American Chemistry Council issued a press release on 11 July criticising the classifications of MA, EA and 2EHA on the basis that Iarc's approach is flawed. The trade association is a long-standing critic of the agency, saying that it needs reform and in particular should be more transparent in its processes.
Other substances
As part of the same assessment, isobutyl nitrite was also classified as a group 2B substance, while β-picoline was classified as a group 3 substance. The former is used as an intermediate in the synthesis of solvents and fuels; the latter as a starting material for pesticides and pharmaceuticals, a solvent and as an intermediate.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68747/four-acrylates-possibly-carcinogenic-iarc-says
-
EPA Chemical Assessments Face Shakeup Under House Bill
Jul 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical assessments that underlie pollution cleanups, water quality standards, and other EPA decisions could be conducted by any of the agency’s regulatory offices, not just one in its research division, under a bill to be introduced in the House July 17.
The Chemical Assessment Improvement Act, to be introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) and marked up July 18 by the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, addresses chemical assessments that the Environmental Protection Agency’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) has conducted for decades.
The IRIS program, run by the EPA’s Office of Research and Development, examines the health hazards chemicals pose and the doses at which those hazards manifest.
The bill would allow other agency offices that need the information to prepare their own chemical evaluations provided those analyses meet specific scientific standards detailed in the act.
Regulatory GoalsThe agency’s regulatory offices combine the hazard and dose information with exposure details to decide whether a specific situation poses a risk that needs regulation or other controls. Types of controls that can follow IRIS assessments include drinking water and hazardous waste cleanup standards.
The agency centralized the IRIS chemical assessment function years ago to prevent different parts of the agency from reaching divergent conclusions about a chemical’s hazards.
IRIS assessments, however, long have been criticized for being too slow.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-chemical-assessments-face-shakeup-under-house-bill
-
5 Critical EPA Health Rules Jeopardized by “Censored Science”
Jul 17, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jennifer McPartland
For 18 months now, the Trump administration has waged an aggressive battle against science in an effort to bolster the interests of polluters.
That same campaign to undermine truth and mislead the public has infected the politically-appointed leadership of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – as disgraced, former Administrator Scott Pruitt and a cast of industry insiders have taken aim at the very research and science that undergirds many of America’s most fundamental public health and environmental protections.
Among their more brazen attempts to unleash polluters is the proposed “censored science” rule the EPA continues to push forward. It would effectively bar the agency from using high-quality scientific studies in the development of safeguards to address toxic exposures. That’s because the rule calls for making the data underlying those studies publicly available, even though the research often relies on personal information scientists must protect for legal and ethical reasons.
A look at just a few of the proposed – and existing – regulations in jeopardy under the proposed rule shows just how dangerous the EPA’s proposal could be to our nation.
1. Proposed bans of trichloroethylene in common degreasers
Trichloroethylene, TCE for short, can be found in multiple products such as degreasers, spot cleaners, and paints and coating products. TCE is associated with liver and kidney issues, developmental effects and various forms of cancer. In 2016, the EPA proposed two regulations to ban the use of this dangerous chemical in dry cleaning facilities.
Because the data underlying key studies used to support the ban – all of which were subject to multiple rounds of scientific peer review – are not publicly available, the proposed “censored science” rule could undermine these chemical safeguards. As a result, high-risk uses of TCE continue.
2. Proposed ban of methylene chloride in paint, coating removers
Methylene chloride exposure has resulted in dozens of deaths – several in the past year alone. Often found in paint and coating removers still available at many hardware stores nationwide, the chemical is also associated with impaired visual and motor functions, respiratory irritation, headaches and nausea. The EPA proposed a ban on the substance in 2017.
The scientific basis for this ban comes from an agency risk assessment that received extensive internal and external review, and which relied on high-quality studies whose underlying data are not publicly available. The “censored science” rule would therefore put this life-saving proposed ban in jeopardy.
3. Existing national air quality standards
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to set national air quality standards that protect the public from a variety of harmful pollutants. Limits have been set to address exposure to smog and lead, for example – pollutants that are especially dangerous to children.
These limits rely, in part, on extensive research built on confidential health data. The “censored science” proposal could thus affect EPA’s ongoing efforts to review and update these critical air quality standards.
4. Existing formaldehyde emission limits in composite wood
Formaldehyde, known to cause respiratory irritation and cancer, is one of the most heavily used chemicals in the United States. It’s found in numerous consumer products and is widely used in resins applied to common particle-board products.
In 2016, the EPA finalized a rule establishing limits for the amount of formaldehyde that could be emitted by these composite wood products to limit exposures. Many high-quality scientific studies supported rule, including some whose data are not public.
If applied retroactively, the “censored science” rule could interfere with this and other already-existing rules.
5. Future action on hazardous chemicals in drinking water
Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances are a large class of chemicals used to make products water or grease-resistant and can be found in everything from nonstick cookware and clothing to food packaging and adhesives. The EPA recently announced its intent to regulate two of the most well-studied PFASs, PFOA and PFOS [PDF], in drinking water.
These chemicals are associated with high cholesterol, immune effects and developmental problems along with a host of other health effects.
Much of what we know about the chemicals comes from studies of communities with contaminated drinking water. For example, the C8 Health Project assessed more than 60,000 individuals living in the Parkersburg, West Virginia, area after a major release of PFOA from a Teflon plant contaminated local water supplies.
Studies from the project revealed, among other serious health problems, an increase in testicular and kidney cancer in the Parkersburg community.
If “censored science” has its way, however, the EPA may be blocked from using critical studies such as those published under the C8 Health Project as the agency seeks to limit public exposure to these and other harmful chemicals.
We believe Americans deserve better.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2018/07/17/5-critical-epa-health-rules-jeopardized-censored-science
-
ATSDR's Strict Risk Levels for PFAS Driving Push for Tighter Protections
Jul 17, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
A federal health agency's recently released draft report recommending stricter risk values than EPA had adopted for two perfluorinated chemicals is already driving calls for tougher regulatory requirements, with a bipartisan group of House lawmakers urging EPA to reconsider its health advisory levels once the draft is finalized.
In addition, California regulators also cited the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry's (ATSDR) draft toxicological profile as justification for its just-adopted plan to significantly lower the threshold at which local agencies must report detections of the two substances in their drinking water supplies.
In a July 17 letter, Reps. Fred Upton (R-MI), Dan Kildee (D-MI) and other lawmakers from Michigan and Pennsylvania, urged acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to review the final version of ATSDR's toxicological profile and “as appropriate, act immediately to adjust the health advisory levels for [perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)],” given the potential serious health effects from these substances.
Specifically, the lawmakers say exposures above ATSDR's minimal risk levels (MRLs) -- which they point out are seven to 10 times more stringent than risk values EPA used to set its 70 parts per trillion (ppt) drinking water advisory for the two chemicals -- are linked to liver damage, decreased antibody response to vaccines, and thyroid disease, among other adverse effects.
ATSDR released its draft profile last month in the face of significant criticism from lawmakers and environmentalists after Inside EPA and other news outlets reported EPA and other Trump administration officials had urged the White House to block the document because it sought more conservative values for two per- and polyfluoroakyl substances (PFAS) than EPA had used when setting its advisory levels.
Internal emails showed that administration officials were concerned they would face a “potential public relations nightmare” should the draft profile be released with stricter risk values than what EPA had used in its drinking water advisories.
ATSDR eventually released the draft report for comment but sought to downplay potential health concerns from exposures above its limits, cautioning the public not to read its levels as cleanup or health effects standards. “If someone is exposed to an amount above the MRLs, it does not mean that health problems will happen," ATSDR said in a related document.
Nevertheless, the lawmakers urge EPA to revise its health advisories for PFOA and PFOS once ATSDR finalizes its risk values.
In addition, the lawmakers urge EPA to craft health advisory levels for the two other chemicals ATSDR identified in its draft toxicological profile -- perfluorohexane sulfonic acid, or PFHxS, and perfluorononanoic acid, or PFNA -- “that are also potentially associated with health issues.” They add, “If warranted, the EPA should move to create health advisories for these additional chemicals.”
While there are scientific gaps on PFAS, current data that has been published “is raising many public questions,” they say, urging EPA to act quickly to update health advisories “that effectively communicate and explain risks to the public, as well as provide tools for adequate protection from exposure to these chemicals.”
California's Notification Levels
At the same time, California's water board is adopting interim notification levels calling on water agencies to report levels of two high profile perfluorinated chemicals in drinking water, which is likely an initial step towards developing a regulatory standard and signals diminishing clout EPA may have in steering states' health protective levels.
“The establishment of a notification level is often an initial step in the process of adopting a formal state regulatory standard, called a Maximum Contaminant Level [(MCL)],” a July 13 press release says.
California's Water Resources Control Board July 13 set new drinking water guidelines for local water agencies to adhere to in detecting and reporting PFOA and PFOS.
The guidelines for notification levels call for water agencies to report to their governing boards and the state board if levels exceed 14 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and 13 ppt for PFOS in drinking water systems.
These levels -- while just notification levels -- match some of the most health protective regulatory limits developed in the country, such as those recommended by science advisors to New Jersey's environment department as well as correlating with ATSDR's draft risk levels.
The board says its Division of Drinking Water is also setting an interim “Response Level” of 70 ppt for the total combined two chemicals, in concert with EPA's 2016 drinking water health advisory for the two chemicals. If PFOA and PFOS are found in drinking water provided to consumers above that level, then the division is recommending that the water agency cut off that water source from service.
Implicit in California's action is that there is “little to no confidence” that EPA will develop an MCL or, if it does, develop a health protective MCL, a scientist with the Environmental Working Group (EWG) tells Inside EPA. Therefore, the “onus” is falling to states to get their own health protective level, the source says. The source also cites the expected lengthy time it would take for EPA to develop an MCL and notes that the agency hasn't issued one since 1996, when the federal Safe Drinking Water Act was reauthorized.
While California's notification guidelines do not require water agencies to test for these contaminants, the environmentalist sees the move as an “encouraging first step.” The press release also notes that most of the larger water systems already have tested for these, and says that if they do test and the levels exceed those delineated in the guidance, “then water agencies are required to report the results to their governing boards and to the State Water Board.” Further, they are encouraged to report the data to their customers, it says.
While the state relies on EPA's health advisory level of 70 ppt as a cleanup figure, the environmentalist believes this is merely a “placeholder” for now.
New Jersey Findings
The state water board says its new notification guidelines are based on other states' most health protective levels and follow recommendations made by California EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).
In a June 26 letter from OEHHA Director Lauren Zeise to the state water board, OEHHA makes clear of its confidence in New Jersey's findings. “The most recent comprehensive reviews that resulted in water advisory levels or standards for these chemicals were published by the State of New Jersey,” Zeise writes.
She says for PFOS, New Jersey found 13 ppt was the level needed to protect against immunotoxicity effects, while for PFOA, 14 ppt was associated with a 1x10^-6 risk of cancer level, and to protect against liver toxicity.
“OEHHA has reviewed the documents and process used by New Jersey to derive these numbers and finds both to be rigorous and sufficient for establishing interim [notification levels] for these compounds,” the letter says.
Further, OEHHA points out that ATSDR's draft toxicological profile for the chemicals has risk levels similar to New Jersey's risk levels. “Applying OEHHA's public health goal methodology” to the minimum risk levels ATSDR derived for these two chemicals “would result in drinking water advisory levels of 13 ppt for PFOA and 9 ppt for PFOS,” the letter says.
OEHHA says it is recommending New Jersey's levels as interim notification levels until OEHHA finishes its own derivation of drinking water notification levels for these two chemicals.
California has tested 455 of its public water systems for PFOA and PFOS, eight of which were found to have exceedances above 70 ppt for either or both chemicals combined, the release says. The state though could have many more systems at lower-detect levels. EWG has argued one of the flaws with EPA's Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) -- which required testing for six PFAS in public water systems between 2013 and 2015 -- was that its reporting levels were high -- at 40 ppt for PFOS and 20 ppt for PFOA. Concentrations detected at lower levels were not released to the public, according to EWG in a May 22 report.
And one of the labs that tested a third of the UCMR-tested water systems did test down to 10, 5 and 2.5 ppt, and indicated in a slide presentation some of those results, including that California was found with PFOS-PFOA detects at 5 ppt in more than 40 of its public water systems. Andy Eaton, technical director for Eurofins Eaton Analytical, Inc., in the slides says “The UCMR 3 database significantly underestimates the occurrence of PFAS compounds in municipal waters because of [minimum reporting levels] that were inadvertently too high.”
Further, he says, the high frequency of 5 ppt detection of PFAS “suggests that utilities should proactively consider monitoring (at low levels) to check for potential plumes, even if the UCMR 3 database showed no detection.”
The environmentalist says the specific water systems that the Eaton lab found to have levels lower than EPA's reporting limit have not been publicly named, nor reported to EPA, states or utilities.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/atsdrs-strict-risk-levels-pfas-driving-push-tighter-protections
-
GAO: Less Than Half of U.S. Schools Test for Lead in Water
Jul 17, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
Fewer than half of American school districts test their drinking water for lead, and when they do, more than a third find elevated levels of the potent neurotoxin, according to a government watchdog report released today.
Larger school districts, and those in the Northeast, were far more likely to test for lead — and more likely to find it — according to the Government Accountability Office report. The report, based on a survey of more than 500 school districts across the country, found widely varying programs to test for and remediate lead in drinking water.
There is no federal law requiring schools to test their drinking water for lead — in fact, a 1988 law requiring states to establish such programs was struck down as unconstitutional. Even newer schools can have lead in their systems because water fountains and other fixtures that contained up to 8 percent lead could legally be called "lead free" until 2014.
The GAO report calls for EPA and the Department of Education to step up their efforts to inform schools about the importance of testing for lead and the best ways to do so.
The six Democrats who requested the report, including top members of the House Energy and Commerce and Senate HELP committees, called the report's findings "disturbing and unacceptable" in a joint statement. They called on EPA to finalize a stronger regulation governing lead testing in drinking water and to issue guidance requiring testing in all public schools.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
EU Sets Limits on Cosmetics Fragrance Chemicals
Jul 17, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has set limits on fragrance chemicals in leave-on and rinse-off products, following a review by the Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer safety (SCCS).
The SCCS found that the substances Tagetes minuta and Tagetes patula flower extracts and oils should not be used as ingredients in sunscreen products and in products marketed for exposure to natural/artificial UV light.
A maximum concentration of 0.01% is set for leave-on products and 0.1% for those to be rinsed off.The update to the Regulation will be binding 20 days after publication in the EU’s Official Journal.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68719/eu-sets-limits-on-cosmetics-fragrance-chemicals
-
Marriott Hotels Eliminating Plastic Straws by 2019
Jul 18, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Dee-Ann Durbin
Marriott International plans to remove plastic straws and drink stirrers from all of its 6,500 hotels and resorts worldwide by next year.
The world’s largest hotel company said Wednesday that the move will eliminate approximately 1 billion straws and 250 million stirrers by July 2019.
Bethesda, Maryland-based Marriott says the year-long timeframe will let hotels deplete their existing supplies and identify alternatives to plastic straws. Customers will be given alternatives upon request.
Marriott is the latest big company to ditch plastic straws. Starbucks and American Airlines announced plans to eliminate plastic straws last week. Hilton Hotels and Hyatt Hotels Corp. have also said they plan to stop using plastic straws by the end of this year.
The push to ban the straws gained traction after a viral video in 2015 showed rescuers removing a straw from a sea turtle’s nose. Plastic straws are too small and lightweight to be easily recycled, and many wind up in the ocean.
Some Marriott hotels have already begun eliminating plastic straws. In February, more than 60 Marriott hotels in the United Kingdom banned them. Hotels in Costa Rica, Hawaii and Australia have made similar moves.
The JW Marriott Marco Island Beach Resort in Florida was using 65,000 straws each month before it eliminated them in March, said Amanda Cox, the resort’s director of sales and marketing.
Cox said the 810-room resort — which has 10 restaurants — now puts biodegradable paper straws in its pina coladas and sugar cane stirrers in its mojitos. It serves other cocktails and non-alcoholic beverages without straws, but will provide paper ones upon request.
Cox said the move was a natural one on the island, which is a nesting ground for loggerhead sea turtles. She said resort guests and convention planners had been asking about the hotel’s environmental practices.
“Guests choose to vacation here because it’s a tropical paradise,” Cox said. “We have to protect it the best we can.”
Cox said banning straws has gone over well with patrons, partly because the resort has posted signs explaining why straws aren’t offered. The resort had anticipated that half of patrons would request paper straws for their ice tea and other beverages, but Cox said only about 20 percent have made that request.
Marriott has made other moves to reduce its environmental footprint. Earlier this year, it began replacing small bottles of shampoo and conditioner with in-shower dispensers at many of its hotels. The company says it will have the dispensers in 1,500 hotels by the end of this year, which will eliminate 35 million plastic toiletry bottles annually.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/travel/marriott-hotels-eliminating-plastic-straws-by-2019/2018/07/18/2ea898fe-8a40-11e8-9d59-dccc2c0cabcf_story.html?utm_term=.ef2d2d28b43a
-
EIA Stats Show No Slowing in Natural Gas, Oil Production Growth
Jul 17, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By David Bradley j
The trend of growing natural gas and oil production from the United States' seven most prolific onshore unconventional plays, which began 20 months ago, will continue unabated in August, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Total gas production production in August for seven key regions -- the Anadarko, Appalachian and Permian basins, and the Bakken, Eagle Ford, Haynesville and Niobrara formations -- is expected to reach 70.53 Bcf/d, compared to 69.47 Bcf/d in July, according to EIA's latest Drilling Productivity Report (DPR). Total oil production from the same plays will increase to 7.47 million b/d from 7.33 million b/d in July.
Those increases would continue a trend that began in January 2017. At that time, total gas production out of the plays was estimated at 47.51 Bcf/d, and total oil production was an estimated 4.54 million b/d.
All seven plays are expected to see increased natural gas production in August compared to July, with the Appalachian Basin, home to the Marcellus and Utica shales, continuing to lead the way with an estimated 28.88 Bcf/d from 28.59 Bcf/d in July, EIA said.
Increases are also expected in the Anadarko (7.12 Bcf/d from 7.02 Bcf/d), Bakken (2.43 Bcf/d from 2.40 Bcf/d), Eagle Ford (6.93 Bcf/d from 6.80 Bcf/d), Haynesville (9.14 Bcf/d from 8.95 Bcf/d), Niobrara (5.15 Bcf/d from 5.10 Bcf/d) and Permian (10.89 Bcf/d from 10.66 Bcf/d).
Total oil production in the seven plays is expected to increase nearly across the board as well, with much of the increase to come from the Permian, which is forecast to reach 3.41 million b/d, compared to 3.33 million b/d in July.
Increases, albeit more modest, are expected in five other plays, with the Anadarko estimated at 559,000 b/d, Appalachia at 118,000 b/d, Bakken at 1.30 million b/d, Eagle Ford at 1.44 million b/d and Niobrara at 611,000 b/d. The Haynesville (43,000 b/d) is forecast to see oil production remain unchanged month/month.
Drilled but uncompleted (DUC) well counts across the Big Seven ended June at 7,943, an increase of 193 from May, EIA said.
The bulk of the DUCs were in the Permian, which saw an increase of 164 in June to 3,368, and in the Eagle Ford, which increased 19 to 1,537. Two Big Seven plays saw their DUC numbers decrease from May: the Appalachian Basin (minus 5) and the Niobrara (minus 42).
There was a 265% increase in estimated exploratory gas well completions in 2Q2018 compared with 2Q2017, the American Petroleum Institute (API) said in a report released Friday.
The report “shows the continued growth and strength of U.S. energy production," said API chief economist Dean Foreman. "Right now, the U.S. production is supplying substantially all the growth in oil demand throughout the world. For this growth and dominance to continue, our energy infrastructure must keep pace with production especially in areas like the Permian Basin in Texas and the Bakken in North Dakota that have experienced major growth in natural gas and oil production."
The exploratory success rate was 64.3% during 2Q2018 and total estimated gas well completions increased 76% compared with 2Q2017, API said.
The productivity of new oil wells in the Big Seven plays is expected to increase in August to 686 b/d, according to the DPR. New-well gas production per rig is expected to decrease slightly during the month to 3.75 MMcf/d.
EIA compiles the DPR using recent U.S. data on the total number of drilling rigs in operation along with estimates of drilling productivity and estimated changes in output from existing wells to provide estimated changes in production.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/115077-eia-stats-show-no-slowing-in-natural-gas-oil-production-growth
-
Loud Backlash, Quiet Support for Offshore Plan in Key Races
Jul 18, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Pamela King, Kellie Lunney and Kristi E. Swartz
When East Coast voters cast their ballots in the congressional races this fall, there's one sensitive energy issue that may be on their minds.
Competitors in several races for House and Senate seats in Florida, the Carolinas, Virginia and other states are letting voters know where they stand on the Trump administration's proposal to allow oil and gas leasing in nearly all the U.S. outer continental shelf (Greenwire, Jan. 4). The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management proposal — expected to be finalized next year — would replace an Obama-era plan that closed all areas but the Gulf of Mexico and a section of Alaska's Cook Inlet to offshore oil and gas development.
Most governors along the East and West coasts were outraged by the proposal. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has since hinted that several states with limited resource potential would likely be excluded from the plan. But he seems interested in exploring a Mid-Atlantic gas play, and Florida's western waters are known to hold oil potential (Energywire, April 16).
Zinke controversially pledged to exclude Florida's waters from new offshore drilling just days after BOEM released the draft five-year plan. It remains unclear whether he will walk back that exemption in later versions of the document.
As in the gubernatorial races, congressional candidates on both sides of the political aisle have taken stances against offshore drilling in their states' waters (Energywire, May 29). But some GOP contenders have said they would support new exploration and production under the right circumstances.
Republicans who oppose offshore drilling must do more than simply say they are against it, said Craig Auster, political action committee director for the League of Conservation Voters.
"What are they doing to stop their president and his Department of Interior from doing this?" he said.
Here's a look at where contenders for House and Senate seats in several East Coast races stand on offshore drilling:
Florida
In the Florida Senate race, the incumbent, Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson, and his challenger, Republican Gov. Rick Scott, are both opposed to drilling off the coast of the Sunshine State.
Auster said LCV recently did an event with Nelson in Tampa to highlight "his strong record" on the environment. On offshore drilling, "you have one who is against it [Nelson], and one [Scott] who has flip-flopped on it," said Auster. Scott's opposition sparked Zinke's now-infamous January tweet saying that Florida was "off the table" when it comes to offshore oil and gas drilling.
But Auster said Scott is "trying to greenwash his environmental record by saying he's against" offshore drilling.
Florida's congressional Republicans and Democrats consistently have opposed efforts to open up the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the state's Atlantic seaboard to oil and gas drilling. The eastern Gulf is under a drilling moratorium that expires in 2022.
But that doesn't mean Florida's congressional representatives are dead set against opening any area that's currently off-limits, said House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah).
"They're more reasonable than that," said Bishop, who has met with members of the Florida delegation periodically to discuss the issue. "But there are some areas that should remain off limits, and I will agree to that."
The Pentagon warned in a recent report that additional drilling in the eastern Gulf could hinder military testing and training.
"If there is an area that is essential to the military's need — and that's the military carve-out — that's going to be designated by the military, then I'll obviously be listening to that. And we're going to take that very seriously," he said.
Georgia
Georgia is a key state largely because Gov. Nathan Deal (R) has not taken a formal position on the issue other than to say he's passed along concerns to the congressional delegation.
This leaves plenty of opportunity for environmentalists to press elected officials for an exemption and those pushing for an "all of the above" energy strategy to advocate for exploration off the Peach State's coast.
Georgia Rep. Buddy Carter (R) pressed BOEM to hold one of its informational sessions along Georgia's coast, arguing it was necessary for federal regulators to make their case for offshore drilling to the residents and businesses that are actually there.
That didn't happen — the BOEM meeting was near the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport — and Carter remains firm in his support for exploring offshore energy development but doing so while protecting the coast.
"Any energy exploration must be done in a way that does not harm our beautiful coastline. I am committed to working to ensure a positive relationship between increasing our energy independence and protecting our beautiful coasts, marine life, and industries," he said in a statement to E&E News.
Democrat Lisa Ring, who's seeking Carter's seat in the House, sums up her energy position succinctly on her campaign website: "No drilling. Period."
Like Carter, Georgia Rep. Karen Handel (R) also took a cautionary approach.
"We need to aggressively pursue all available energy solutions. However, in doing so, we must take into consideration the environmental impact as well as the fact that Georgia's coast is home to Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay," Handel said.
She's calling for a full assessment of potential impacts of drilling offshore before any additional steps are taken.
Handel's Democratic opponent will be selected in a runoff election later this month.
The Consumer Energy Alliance as ramped up its campaign to educate elected officials on the importance of a broad energy policy that will include offshore drilling. It says the United States needs enough energy options to ensure the nation isn't reliant on foreign sources.
This will add jobs, boost economic development and keep prices low at the pump and in the home, the group argues.
Its Campaign for America's Energy won't stop at the elections, but reaching out to new elected officials is a focus.
"We want to make sure they are using science and data," not emotion, said Kevin Doyle, executive director of CEA in Florida, in an interview.
Doyle and CEA's Southeast Executive Director Tim Page visited the Georgia Chamber of Commerce as part of their rounds. Page explained that they were doing their best to emphasize the fact that many people don't pay attention to what type of fuel makes up their electricity bill — but that customers sometimes have to make a choice between paying that bill and getting prescription medicine.
"This touches everybody," Page said.
The two were headed to walk the halls of the Georgia State Capitol to continue with their message — one that Doyle described as energy agnostic.
"But we feel we have to say 'yes' to everything," he said.
South Carolina
After losing the endorsement of several other South Carolina Republicans due to her stance on offshore drilling, Katie Arrington swung back.
"I support the repeal of Barack Obama's arbitrary restrictions on domestic energy exploration," the GOP candidate, who beat incumbent Rep. Mark Sanford in the Republican primary, wrote in a June 19 statement. "I do not support drilling for oil off of South Carolina's coast."
At least five Republican coastal mayors have opted to back Arrington's Democratic opponent, Joe Cunningham, instead, according to recent reporting by the Charleston Post and Courier(Energywire, June 21).
In her statement, Arrington sought to clarify that while she supports expanding the U.S. offshore drilling program, she doesn't want to bring the industry to her home state.
"I am not opposed to studying the issue, but we didn't have an oil industry in our state before the Obama ban, and we won't have one after the Obama ban," she said.
South Carolina's other coastal district, which includes Myrtle Beach, appears to rest safely in the hands of an offshore drilling opponent, no matter who wins the election.
Incumbent Republican Rep. Tom Rice last month joined Gov. Henry McMaster (R) and two other members of South Carolina's congressional delegation in a letter to Zinke opposing their state's inclusion in the offshore plan.
"Our environment is our most precious asset — we must safeguard our natural resources and the communities supported by our coastline," Rice said in a June statement. "I will continue to do everything in my power to protect and grow our coastal economy."
North Carolina
Opposition to the Trump administration's offshore drilling plan is a centerpiece in Democrat Kyle Horton's quest to unseat Rep. David Rouzer (R) as representative of the Tar Heel State's southern coast.
"My family tragically lost someone we love in the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and now the Trump Administration is expanding drilling & obliterating safety protections for workers," Horton tweeted on Jan. 4, the day BOEM released its draft five-year plan.
"In Congress, I'll stand up to those attempts," she continued in a second tweet. "While my opponent puts oil & gas interests ahead of our health, I'll fight for you."
Rouzer has said he would support leasing in the Atlantic Ocean, as long as drillers adhere to the strictest safety precautions and conduct their activities at least 30 miles off the coast.
In the race to represent the barrier island communities that make up North Carolina's Outer Banks, Walter Jones runs unopposed.
The Republican congressman has backed legislation that would block Interior from leasing any part of the Mid-Atlantic outer continental shelf to oil and gas developers. Earlier this year, Jones called on BOEM to hold a public meeting on the federal drilling proposal not only in the state's capital, but also in a coastal town.
"It is vitally important for the federal government to receive the input of citizens who stand to be most impacted by this proposal," he wrote in a Jan. 25 letter to BOEM. "Therefore, I respectfully encourage you to grant the county's request for a public meeting in Dare County."
Farther inland, other North Carolina congressional candidates are making their opposition known.
The state's 9th District is gearing up for a heated contest between Democrat Dan McCready and Republican Mark Harris, who beat out incumbent Rep. Robert Pittenger (R) in the primary.
McCready, a solar energy entrepreneur, views conservation as a "moral imperative," which won him the endorsement of the North Carolina LCV.
"Dan McCready knows protecting the environment and the economy must go hand in hand, he lives it in his daily life," Carrie Clark, North Carolina's LCV executive director, said in a March 14 statement. "Dan understands that we must protect our coast from the potential harm of offshore drilling, and fight to make sure we have clean drinking water for our children and future generations."
Energy hasn't been a focal point of Harris' platform, but the Baptist pastor has aligned himself with many of the Trump administration's priorities, such as building a border wall.
Virginia
The issue of offshore drilling is surfacing in the House race in Virginia's 2nd District, which includes Virginia Beach and parts of Norfolk and Hampton.
Republican Rep. Scott Taylor told The Washington Post in January that he was opposed to oil and gas drilling in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of his state. His challenger, Democrat Elaine Luria, whom LCV has endorsed, also opposes offshore drilling.
So where is Luria's advantage?
"There's room for her to talk about his evolving stance on it," Auster said of Taylor, who didn't take a public position on the issue until the Trump administration unveiled its proposal to open more than 90 percent of federal waters to potential oil and gas drilling.
Incumbent Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine has openly supported offshore drilling in the past, but he changed his stance after joining Hillary Clinton's ticket in the 2016 presidential race, according to a PolitiFact analysis.
"Virginia is well-positioned to be a national leader in offshore energy exploration," Kaine said in a 2013 statement after teaming with Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) on legislation to promote energy production on Virginia's portion of the outer continental shelf.
Kaine had a different view by the time the Trump administration proposed to expand offshore drilling into Virginia's waters.
"Drilling would threaten our defense assets in Hampton Roads, and Virginians living near the coast tell me they don't want it," he said in January. "A small business owner on the Virginia Beach boardwalk asked me to imagine what a BP-like oil spill would do to summer tourism.
"It's not worth the risk."
Prince William County official Corey Stewart, Kaine's Republican opponent in the Senate race, includes fossil fuels — as well as solar, nuclear and wind — in his platform to increase U.S. energy independence.
"With massive advances in safety technology over the past decade, I strongly support offshore oil and gas exploration in the Atlantic along with the high-paying jobs, energy independence and increased tax revenues these projects will bring," Stewart said in a statement to E&E News.
One former Virginia lawmaker is encouraging the delegation to stay open to the state's offshore energy potential.
"They are exploring offshore all over the world," Jim Webb, co-chairman of the American Petroleum Institute's Explore Offshore coalition and a former Democratic senator, said in an interview with The Hill. "Our technology is good, safety procedures I think have vastly improved, so let's take a look at what's out there."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/07/17/stories/1060089269
-
Pipeline Ruling Will Help Texas Producers Get Gas to Mexico
Jul 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Karn Dhingra
Natural gas producers in West Texas now will have an easier time exporting gas from the Permian Basin to Mexico.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found July 17 that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission appropriately limited its jurisdiction when it conducted an environmental review of a natural gas export facility set up to export natural gas from West Texas to Mexico.
The facility is connected to the 148-mile Trans-Pecos Pipeline, which has been subject to lawsuits and local opposition from environmental groups.
The pipeline is subject to regulations from the state of Texas rather than the federal government, the court said.
Expanded Review?In its lawsuit, the nonprofit Big Bend Conservation Alliance argued that FERC had regulatory jurisdiction over the natural gas export facilities, which are located at the Texas-Mexico border, and the Trans-Pecos Pipeline, which delivers gas to the facility.
The environmental group also said regardless of the scope of FERC’s jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, the National Environmental Policy Act required an expanded review of the facilities and pipeline.
Big Bend’s arguments, which relied on the Intrastate Commerce Act, were unconvincing primarily because in its review of the project, FERC found that the pipeline “initially” would be used to transport natural gas produced in Texas and received from other Texas-based intrastate pipelines and processing plants, the court said.
Along with Trans-Pecos Pipeline LLC‘s assertion that the pipeline and export facilities would be sourced with gas produced in-state, there’s an “abundant” amount of Texas-sourced natural gas to supply the Trans-Pecos Pipeline without relying on gas from interstate pipelines, the court said.
Attorneys for the Big Bend Conservation Alliance didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg Environment’s request for comment.
The case is Big Bend Conservation All. v. FERC, D.C. Cir., No. 17-1002, 7/17/18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/pipeline-ruling-will-help-texas-producers-get-gas-to-mexico
-
Enterprise Considering Crude Oil Export Terminal Offshore Texas
Jul 17, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Enterprise Products Partners LP, to leverage booming onshore oil production, said Tuesday it may build an export terminal offshore Texas to expand deliveries to the largest international markets in Asia and Europe.
The proposed project as envisioned would be capable of loading very large crude carriers (VLCC) with up to 2 million bbl of capacity. Front-end engineering and design has begun, with initial work underway for permitting.
“Given the long-term outlook for growing supplies of U.S. crude oil production, increasing global demand requiring super tankers, and the future limitations of Gulf Coast port and lightering capacities, we are confident this project will be embraced and supported by both domestic and international customers,” said Enterprise general partner CEO Jim Teague.
No details were provided about where the offshore project would be sited. However, in April Enterprise purchased a 65-acre waterfront site on the Houston Ship Channel (HSC) to serve as the next phase of expansion at an existing terminal, which has two docks, dredging infrastructure and land to expand marine terminaling capabilities. Future plans include constructing at least two deepwater docks capable of accommodating Suezmax vessels, a term used for massive ships (including VLCCs) capable of transiting the Suez Canal.
Based on initial designs, the export project may include about 80 miles of 42-inch diameter pipeline to an offshore terminal capable of loading and exporting crude oil at a rate of about 85,000 bbl per hour.
Enterprise now has a second partial loading underway of the VLCC tanker Eagle Victoria at its jointly owned Seaway marine terminal in Texas City, south of Houston. The tanker is loading about 1.1 million bbl.
“On the heels of our second successful loading of a VLCC at the Texas City terminal, we are now planning to expand our capabilities to load crude oil faster and more cost efficiently without the need for lightering vessels,” Teague said.
Enterprise already has “aggregation capabilities” for exports that include more than 4 million b/d from the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, Cushing Hub and third-party suppliers.
“Capital and infrastructure to support our project would be solely provided by private capital and would not be reliant nor contingent upon state or federal government agency financial support or infrastructure development,” he added. “We believe this would enable us to deliver this project in a timely manner once permits are granted and the project is underwritten.”
A final investment decision would be subject to receiving the requisite state and federal permits and customer demand.
Enterprise assets include 49,000 miles of pipelines; 250 million bbl of storage capacity for natural gas liquids (NGL), crude oil, refined products and petrochemicals; and 14 Bcf of natural gas storage capacity.
Expansions already are underway to take advantage of growing liquids output from Texas to supply overseas markets.
Enterprise last year began building the Shin Oak NGL pipeline from West Texas to Mont Belvieu, its gas processing facility near Houston.
Construction also is underway east of Houston with Enterprise partner Navigator Holdings Ltd. to build an ethylene export terminal. The 50-50 joint venture is being sited at Enterprise’s Morgan’s Point facility on the HSC with capacity to export up to 2.2 billion pounds/year and refrigerated storage for 66 million pounds. The project should be able to load ethylene at rates of 2.2 million pounds/hour.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/115078-enterprise-considering-crude-oil-export-terminal-offshore-texas
-
Fla. Republican Is 'Rabid' About Extending Moratorium
Jul 18, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Kellie Lunney
A Florida Republican said yesterday he's hoping to get language preventing drilling off the coast of his state into the Defense authorization bill currently in conference committee.
Rep. Francis Rooney said he is trying "real hard" to get the existing moratorium on oil and gas drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico extended beyond 2022.
"This is one of the main priorities I have, because nobody in Florida wants offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf or the Atlantic," Rooney said.
The freshman lawmaker, a former ambassador to the Vatican, cited it as one of the reasons he ran for Congress.
Rooney has unsuccessfully tried to insert language into various bills, including the fiscal 2019 Interior-Environment spending bill, that would prohibit drilling off the coast of the Sunshine State, where it's barred for the next four years.
Florida's congressional delegation has consistently opposed efforts to open the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the state's Atlantic seaboard to oil and gas drilling.
"I don't care how many times they turn me down, I'm gonna keep coming back at 'em like a rabid dog to get offshore drilling banned in the eastern Gulf," the Florida Republican said yesterday.
But embedding such a provision into the fiscal 2019 National Defense Authorization Act would be impressive, considering that neither the House nor the Senate version currently contains such a measure.
Doing so would require "airdropping" the language into the final bill.
"It's extremely difficult to do, and it's not supposed to take place," said House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop, who is on the NDAA conference committee. "It can happen, but you obviously would have to have not only the conferees but leadership involved in that," said the Utah Republican.
Bishop, who has met with members of the Florida delegation periodically to discuss the issue of offshore drilling, has expressed an openness toward leaving some areas of the eastern Gulf off-limits, specifically parts the military needs for testing and training, which he has referred to as the "military carve-out."
The Pentagon has warned that additional drilling in the eastern Gulf could hinder such activities.
"Doing all of the offshore is going to be difficult," Bishop said, referring to the ban that Rooney and others are seeking for Florida. "Doing the military range is a piece of cake." He said the latter could end up in an energy bill, or it could possibly be stand-alone legislation that he predicted "would go through very quickly."
Rooney praised both Bishop and Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) for working with the delegation on the issue.
"There's a lot of differences of opinion all around," he said. "I'm just thankful that we have people like Chairman Bishop and Whip Scalise who are willing to look at all sides and realize the differences between Florida and other oil states."
Still, he said the Florida delegation is "pretty set in" against offshore drilling along the state's coast.
"That's not to say that we can't try to find some middle ground, because that's the way the legislative process is, and we're going to work hard to do that," Rooney said, adding that his ultimate goal is "getting the most protections we can for the people of Florida."
The Republican also said he does not think members who wanted the offshore drilling ban language in the Interior-Environment spending legislation should vote against the overall bill because their effort failed.
"You can't hold up the whole train because one car is not doing well," the former ambassador said. "We've got a lot of Everglades money in that bill, and we need it."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/07/18/stories/1060089449
-
(ACC Mentioned) Anti-Terror Program for Chemical Facilities Seeks Industry Support
Jul 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joyce E. Cutler
Federal regulators responsible for protecting facilities handling chemicals from external threats such as terrorism are taking a summer road trip to drum up support for congressional reauthorization.
The meetings are a chance to talk in smaller forums about the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards, an 11-year-old program to ensure that facilities properly identify and protect chemicals. Meetings are being held in Oakland, Calif., Chicago, and Philadelphia.
Chemical, oil, and natural gas sectors “are absolutely an attractive focus” for cyberactivity, David Wulf, Department of Homeland Security’s acting deputy assistant secretary for infrastructure protection, told an Oakland audience June 27. “The threat of chemical terrorism has never been more relevant than it is today.”
But the federal agency isn’t the only one pushing Congress to renew the program, which is up for reauthorization by Dec. 18. A host of chemical companies and chemical industry groups also want the program to continue for another four years.
Industry was cognizant of security when the program began in 2007, “but we didn’t have any specific parameters to drive the program so we were just kind of all over the board and nothing that really helped us move our needle forward,” Matt Fridley, environmental, health, safety and security manager at German chemical company Brenntag AG, told Bloomberg Environment.
“So this regulation—and that’s why we’re so supportive of the reauthorization that’s so important to us—has gotten us to a point that we’re being more proactive than reactive,” Fridley added.
No IncidentsNo chemical security incidents have occurred since the program began.
The initiative requires operators of facilities handling specified quantities of 322 hazardous chemicals to analyze their risks, develop security plans, submit information to the department, and implement security measures as appropriate.
“We haven’t had anything. That’s great. But we cannot let our foot off the gas,” said Fridley, who also is vice chairman of the departmental advisory group, the Chemical Sector Coordinating Council. The panel consists of 15 trade associations representing the bulk of the chemical industry. “We don’t want this to go backwards when we’ve made this much progress where we’re at as an industry.”
Representatives from Solvay SA, National Association of Chemical Distributors, American Chemistry Council, Praxair Inc., Federal Emergency Management Association, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are among the registrants for the July 19 meeting in Chicago, Bardha Azari, the department’s spokeswoman, told Bloomberg Environment.
Nearly 3,000 FacilitiesThe meetings focus on what’s happening with the program and on issues particular to each region where they are held.
In Oakland, for example, regulators spoke about cybersecurity since Silicon Valley’s Apple Inc. and Applied Materials representatives were in the audience.
“There’s a lot of nontraditional chemical facilities. It’s certainly not just oil refineries and chemical manufacturers and distributors,” Wulf told Bloomberg Environment. “It’s all these various other types, college and university labs, facilities that are not waking up every day saying ‘hey, I’m a chemical facility’ and scouring the Federal Register for any requirements on chemical facilities.”
The agency has approved plans from nearly 3,000 facilities designated as high-risk under the program.
“But even I was surprised when a handful of prisons came across my desk,” Wulf said. “I’m pretty sure the wardens don’t wake up every day thinking, ‘I’m a chemical facility,’ ”
Organizers are still finalizing the agenda for the Chicago meeting.
The agenda will cover national and international chemical terrorist threat information specific to the region. The meeting will include representatives from sectors ranging from agriculture to construction equipment, cleaning solutions, pharmaceuticals, and paint, Azari said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/anti-terror-program-for-chemical-facilities-seeks-industry-support
-
Bill Easing Air Permitting Gets OK From House Energy Subcommittee (1)
Jul 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Legislation that makes it easier for power plants, factories, and refineries to seek air pollution permits for new and expanded construction won House Energy and Commerce subcommittee approval solely with GOP support.
The panel’s environment subcommittee approved the bill (H.R. 3128) on a vote of 13-9 and sent it for consideration to the full committee, whose leaders haven’t decided yet when they will take up the measure.
The bill may not come before the full committee until after the summer recess, Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), chairman of committee’s environment subcommittee, told Bloomberg Environment. While it is expected to pass the House, its fate in the Senate remains uncertain. Republicans hold a slim majority and can’t prevent Democrats from blocking the measure’s consideration.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), would reform the Clean Air Act permitting program known as new source review that applies when emissions increase as a result of new construction or expansion at businesses.
Specifically, it would allow companies to calculate emissions increases on an hourly rate instead of an annual basis. It also would exempt projects in which emissions drop or are considered routine repairs and maintenance.
State-of-the-Art ControlsUnder the new source review program, power plants, refineries, and manufacturing plants are required to install state-of-the-art air pollution controls when renovating or building new facilities that significantly increase annual air emissions.
Griffith said calculating emissions increases at an hourly rate instead of an annual rate—as is currently the practice—would harmonize the new source review program with the one the Environmental Protection Agency has in place for setting emissions standards for newly constructed sources.
“The new source review is desperately in need of reform” because it discourages companies from carrying out projects to improve energy efficiency, making incremental pollution control upgrades and keeping facilities in good working order, Shimkus told the assembled lawmakers during the vote.
Bill Wehrum, who heads the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, has made overhauling the program a priority and is pursuing the same change through regulation.
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler reiterated the need to update environmental laws that are 30-plus years old to keep up with changes in technology while touring a Pennsylvania machine parts manufacturer July 16.
“Industry innovates on a constant basis so we need to make sure that our statutes keep up with what industry is doing,” Wheeler told Bloomberg Environment in a July 16 exclusive interview.
Environmental Groups OpposedSubcommittee Democrats opposed Griffith’s legislation. Along with environmental groups such as the Southern Environmental Law Center, they oppose any attempts by businesses to avoid installing pollution controls to offset the increase in emissions. By contrast, industries have pushed for changes to the new source program, saying the current process is too time-consuming and costly.
“This change would let polluters spew more pollution over the course of a year, so long as the amount of pollution produced each hour goes down,” Frank Rambo, a Southern Environmental Law Center attorney, told Bloomberg Environment.
“If they are opening up the hood to replace an old piece of equipment with a newer one, at the same time they should be required to install modern pollution control technology to limit their impact on their neighbors,” Rambo added.
Paul Eager to Move BillSen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in late May introduced S. 2761 with similar language, but the measure has yet to receive a hearing before the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Paul told Bloomberg Environment that he has received a lot of interest from “back home” to streamline regulation, but “It’s tough to move anything in Senate basically because you have to get Democrats’ support and there’s very little support from Democrats on anything to do with less regulation.”
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who chairs the environment committee, is supportive of reforms to the new source review program but the committee’s aide wouldn’t say whether he will take up Paul’s bill or wait for the House legislation.
“Barrasso is sympathetic, but I haven’t had any discussions with him,” Paul said.
Industry groups including the National Association of Manufacturers, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and the American Forest & Paper Association support the bill.
—With assistance from Alex Ebert and Dean Scott
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/bill-easing-air-permitting-gets-ok-from-house-energy-subcommittee-1
-
Republicans Move to Bar Use of Carbon Cost in EPA Funding Bill
Jul 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott and David Schultz
The House is headed for another showdown this week on whether to bar the EPA and other agencies from weighing health costs and other impacts from carbon emissions, the primary driver of climate change.
The House is slated to vote on two amendments from Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) to the fiscal 2019 spending bill for the Environmental Protection Agency and Interior Department.
The first amendment would bar the EPA, Interior, and other agencies funded under the bill from accounting for the social cost of carbon in drafting any regulations or regulatory guidance.
The social cost of carbon measures the impact a federal action will have on carbon emissions and projects those effects into the future. The metric has become an industry target because of how the estimate has been used to justify stringent regulations.
A second amendment of Mullin’s would bar enforcement of an Obama-era EPA climate rule to cut methane from oil and gas operations. The Trump administration is already seeking to roll it back.
The amendments are among dozens that the House Rules panel decided July 16 to allow as part of floor debate as the chamber this week takes up a “minibus” spending bill (H.R. 6147) combining EPA and Interior, financial services, and general government funding measures.
The bill would provide $35.2 billion in fiscal 2019 spending for those agencies, about the same as the current year, but less than the Senate version’s $35.85 billion total.
Similar Amendment AdoptedThe House narrowly approved a similar amendment to bar the Energy Department and other agencies from weighing carbon costs on June 8 as it passed a fiscal 2019 energy and water spending bill (H.R. 5895). But it was a close vote: The amendment by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) passed 212-201.
Democratic amendments poised for EPA-Interior floor votes include two by Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.): One would strike language in the House bill that would roll back the Clean Water rule, an Obama administration effort to expand federal jurisdiction over waterways. Another would bar the EPA from changing 2015 coal ash requirements.
Another amendment from Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) would provide an additional $10 million for an EPA program that gives grants to cities for removing lead pipes from drinking water systems. Moore represents the Milwaukee area, which has been among the most aggressive cities in the country in pushing to replace all of its lead pipes.
Yet another amendment would prevent the EPA from forcing states in the Chesapeake Bay region to go beyond what they’re already doing to clean up the bay’s waters.
The measure is backed by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and three other Republicans from Pennsylvania. It would force the EPA to formally abandon an Obama-era proposal to accelerate restoration of the Chesapeake by curtailing even more industrial activity in the region.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/republicans-move-to-bar-use-of-carbon-cost-in-epa-funding-bill
-
A Closer Look at Interior and Environment Amendments to Spending Bills
Jul 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam M. Taylor and Sarah Babbage
Measures blocking Obama-era environmental rules and numerous funding transfers are among the changes the House will consider when it begins debate on a two-bill “minibus” spending package (H.R. 6147).
The House Rules Committee made in order 87 amendments to the two-bill minibus package, 70 to the Interior Department and environment portion of the measure and 17 amendments to the Financial Services-General Government funding portion of the bill, which is based on H.R. 6258.
Below are highlights of the Interior and Environment amendments set for debate.
Funding ChangesAmendment No. 54 from Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) would impose a 1 percent reduction on each discretionary account in the Interior-Environment part of the bill.
Amendment No. 39, from Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.), would cut the bill’s funding for the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities by $46.5 million, adding that funding to the measure’s spending reduction account.
Amendment No. 11, from Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) would shift $20 million within National Recreation and Preservation account. The amendment description says the funding would support the National Maritime Heritage Grant Program.
Several amendments would reduce funding for the Interior secretary’s office to boost other accounts. They include:
No. 14, from Rep. Colleen Hanabusa (D-Hawaii), which would increase funding for U.S. Geological Survey investigations and research by $4.8 million. The funding would be used for the Volcano Hazards Program to mitigate damage from eruptions, according to the amendment description.
No. 7, from Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.), which would transfer $2.5 million to increase grants to preserve sites connected to the civil rights movement.
No. 25, from Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), which would boost the Interior Department inspector general’s office by $2.5 million.
Amendment No. 45, from Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), would move $10 million from EPA environmental programs to increase grant funding for drinking water lead reduction. The amendment description said that would maintain the fiscal 2018 funding level for the lead program.
Amendment No. 37, from Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), would shift $10 million of Forest Service funding to hazardous fuels management from forest products.
Amendment No. 34, from Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.), would cut forest and range land research by $5 million and boost funding for the National Forest System by $4.5 million. The shift would fund eradication and enforcement activities related to illegal marijuana growing operations on federal forest land, according to the amendment description.
Policy RidersAmendment No. 61, from Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.), would prohibit the EPA from using funds to pursue any criminal enforcement of environmental laws, including through arrests and search warrants.
Amendment No. 66, from Rep. Ralph Abraham (R-La.), would block enforcement of any prohibition on planting genetically modified crops in a national wildlife refuge under a cooperative land management agreement.
Amendment No. 70 from Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) would bar use of funds to pay attorney fees in settlements under the Clean Air Act, Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or Endangered Species Act.
Several amendments would block the use of funds to enforce Environmental Protection Agency rules and policies adopted by the Obama administration:
No. 43, from Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) would effectively block the 2016 methane rule.
No. 47, from Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), would bar enforcement of 2016 emissions and fuel efficiency standards on heavy-duty vehicle trailers.
No. 56, from Grothman, would bar implementation or enforcement of a 2015 EPA ground level ozone rule.
Some Democratic amendments would prohibit the Trump administration from rolling back Obama-era policies, such as
No. 57 from Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-Va.), which would bar funding from modifying the EPA’s 2015 coal ash rule.
Some would remove policy provisions from the underlying bill, including:
No. 40, from Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), which would strike a prohibition on requiring a permit for discharging dredged or fill material related to normal farming and ranching activities.
No. 41, also from Beyer, which would strike the bill’s repeal of the 2015 Waters of the U.S. rule jointly issued by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Other amendments include:
No. 48, from Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), would block funding to enforce the listing of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse as a threatened species. The species has been listed since 1995.
No. 17, from Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), would increase to six, from three, the number of Appalachian states eligible under the bill for a grant pool of $90 million for abandoned mine reclamation and economic and community development.
No. 69 from Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.) would bar the use of funds for the EPA’s Environmental Justice Small Grants Program.
No. 67, from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), would block elimination of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Urban Wildlife Refuge Partnership.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/a-closer-look-at-interior-and-environment-amendments-to-spending-bills
-
Party-Line Vote Advances Reforms to New Source Review
Jul 18, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
A bill to rework a key feature of EPA's New Source Review program yesterday passed a deeply divided House Energy and Commerce panel.
By a 13-9 margin, the Environment Subcommittee voted along party lines to forward an amended version of H.R. 3128 to the full committee.
The bill, introduced last year by Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), would overhaul NSR's yardstick for gauging whether an expansion or upgrade to a power plant or factory requires pre-construction permitting under the program.
Currently, EPA relies on an annual emissions forecast to make that call. The amended version of Griffith's bill would substitute an approach tied to whether the project would lead to a higher hourly pollution rate.
As they did at a May hearing, Republicans described the proposed change as part of an attempt to simplify a program so complex that it purportedly discourages businesses from undertaking efficiency upgrades and pollution control projects.
"An hourly rate test is straightforward to carry out because it only relies upon engineering design factors, not complicated future emission projections and assessments," subcommittee Chairman John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said before the vote. Another program, known as New Source Performance Standards, has used the hourly rate test for decades "with little to no controversy," Shimkus said.
But Democrats said Griffith's bill would allow aging coal-fired power plants — long grandfathered from basic Clean Air Act requirements — to stay in business without installing scrubbers and other modern pollution controls. Those plants are nearing the end of their useful life spans and will need significant investments to keep operating, said Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), the subcommittee's ranking member.
Under the existing NSR framework, any such major modifications would end the grandfathering and require them to curb emissions, Tonko said, adding that the "new loopholes" opened by the bill would instead let those plants continue to sidestep that requirement.
"Turning to Congress is just the latest attempt," he said. "This bill will result in dirtier air."
Also on party-line votes, the subcommittee swatted down proposed amendments by Tonko and Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) that would have, respectively, kept the status quo in place for plants within 5 miles of a school, hospital, nursing home or veterans' health care facility, or that are a source of airborne lead.
The full Energy and Commerce Committee could take up the legislation as early as next week.
Other efforts to alter NSR
Griffith's bill represents the latest in a series of efforts by House Republicans to carve out changes to long-standing Clean Air Act provisions. While several have won House approval, none has gotten out of committee in the Senate.
NSR has also been getting fresh attention from EPA after Bill Wehrum, a former industry lawyer, returned to the agency as air chief last November. Wehrum had previously sought to overhaul the program during a previous tour at the air branch during the George W. Bush administration. He has taken a more piecemeal approach in this round but has still garnered opposition.
This spring, for example, three environmental groups sued over a March change that compressed the process for predicting the potential rise in emissions expected from a plant expansion or other significant modification (Greenwire, June 5).
Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed to a motion by the Natural Resources Defense Council and two other organizations to hold the litigation in abeyance.
While EPA had announced the March change through a guidance memo, the agency also plans to pursue a formal rule along the same lines. Once made final, that rule "could moot or substantially alter the procedural and substantive issues" outlined in the lawsuit, the group said in the motion.
In granting their request, the court ordered EPA to file status reports every 90 days, starting on Oct. 11.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/07/18/stories/1060089431
-
LaFleur: Climate Change Is Shaping FERC’s Work
Jul 17, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
Even though FERC is not an environmental regulator, climate change is increasingly influencing the grid reliability and affordability issues the commission does regulate, Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur said today at the POLITICO Pro Summit in Washington.
“For everyone who’s working on energy right now there’s this macro issue of how you rationalize our energy economy with climate change,” she said. “And the arc of the future is cleaner, there’s no question about that. Even though we’re primarily an economic regulator, I think that a lot of the resource choices that are being made for climate reasons are shaping a lot of our work, and that’s been true since I’ve been there.”
That includes increasingly common issues such as demand response, energy storage, incorporating variable renewable sources and figuring out interconnection rules, according to LaFleur.
A lot of issues before FERC are “driven by people who want cleaner things and that’s pushing on the system,” she said. “So it’s shaping our work, even if we’re not coming up with the climate rules.”
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested