Preview Newsletter

AM ACC Clips Report - July 25, 2018

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Corporate Giants Jump Into Trump’s Tariff Fight
Jul 24, 2018 | Roll Call
By Sean McMinn

President Donald Trump’s burgeoning trade war has prompted some big names to join the fight on tariffs.
(ACC Mentioned) San Francisco Moves To Ban Plastic Straws, Containers
Jul 24, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Janie Har

San Francisco supervisors voted Tuesday to give plastic straws the cold shoulder, following the lead of Seattle, another eco-conscious West Coast city where a ban went into effect this month.
(ACC Mentioned) Coalition Forms to Fight Proposed Tariffs on Chinese-Made Vinyl Flooring
Jul 25, 2018 | Floor Focus

A group of vinyl industry representatives are forming a coalition against the implementation of a 10% tariff on certain Chinese imports, including LVT and MLF/WPC, by the Office of the United States Trade Representative; Shaw, Novalis, CFL, Metroflor, the American Chemistry Council and the Vinyl Instituteare early members of the group so far.
(ACC Mentioned) In Our Opinion: Collection is only half the battle
Jul 24, 2018 | Resource Recycling
By Shari Jackson and Nina Goodrich

As a nation, we’re doing a pretty good job collecting plastic bags and wraps for recycling. But we need to do a much better job creating demand for this recycled plastic film.
Single-Use Plastic Ban in the Bag in San Francisco
Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joyce E. Cutler

San Francisco’s plan to prohibit using or selling single-use serving utensils and containers made with fluorinated chemicals and plastics is up for a July 24 vote.
(ACC Blog) New Report Highlights The Importance of EPA’s Efforts To Increase Transparency In Regulatory Process
Jul 25, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters

A new report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s (CEI) Angela Logomasini titled “EPA Transparency Rule Will Bolster Science and Improve Rulemaking” offers important perspective and critical facts about EPA’s proposed Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science rule.

LCSA News

Democrats Who Backed Chemical Law’s Reform Question EPA Pivot
Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

Six Democratic senators who backed Congress’ overhaul of the nation’s primary chemicals law want EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler to clarify the agency’s decision to narrow its oversight of new chemicals.
EPA Extends TSCA Comment Deadline After Early Criticism
Jul 24, 2018 | Inside EPA

EPA is extending its comment deadline for how the agency plans to review the risks of the first 10 existing chemicals under the revised toxics law in the face of criticism from environmentalists and New York City officials that plans to preclude review of regulated uses is inadequate to assess risks of chemicals such as trichloroethylene (TCE).
Six Senators Key To TSCA Reform Question EPA’s New Chemical Reviews In Letter To Wheeler
Jul 25, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison

In a letter sent today to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler, six Senators who were instrumental to achieving the 2016 Lautenberg Act’s reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) raised “serious concern” about further weakening changes EPA is poised to make in its review of new chemicals.
EDF Submits Comments For Peer Reviewers on EPA’s Exposure, Use And Hazard Information On Five PBT Chemicals
Jul 25, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Lindsay McCormick

Yesterday, EDF filed comments on several draft EPA documents that are part of the basis for developing restrictions EPA is required to impose on five persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals under the 2016 reforms made to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentionws) House Panel Backs Bill Decentralizing EPA’s Chemical Reports (1)
Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan

Legislation that would decentralize the EPA’s chemical assessments won approval from a House panel July 24, but it still awaits action from another committee before going to the full House.
School Groundskeeper Blames Monsanto’s Roundup for His Cancer
Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joyce E. Cutler

A former school groundskeeper described his repeated exposure to the world’s most widely-used herbicide during testimony in a closely watched case against Monsanto.
(ACC Mentioned) Committee Passes Bill To Reform EPA Reviews
Jul 24, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Corbin Hiar,

The House Science, Space and Technology Committee this afternoon voted 17-13 along party lines to advance legislation that would undermine EPA's program for assessing the risks posed by toxic chemicals.
House Science Panel Wins IRIS Bill Jurisdiction But Faces Long Odds
Jul 25, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad

After one false start, House science committee Republicans have advanced their bill scaling back EPA's influential but controversial chemical risk assessment program but the measure still faces long odds as they lack an agreement with the energy committee on the bill's jurisdiction, have no Senate companion and face stiff Democratic opposition.
‘A Civil Action’ Carcinogen Pollutes Tap Water Supplies for 14 Million Americans
Jul 24, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Tasha Stoiber and Olga Naidenko,

Drinking water supplies for 14 million Americans are contaminated with a cancer-causing industrial solvent made notorious by the book and film "A Civil Action," according to a new EWG analysis of tests from public utilities nationwide.
REACH Candidate List Process ‘Will Speed Up’ After Brexit
Jul 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel

The process of identifying substances of very high concern and adding them to the REACH candidate list is likely to happen quicker, once the UK leaves the EU, NGOs have said.
(ACC Mentioned) How Safe Is Your Kids' Food?
Jul 25, 2018 | Consumer Reports
By Julia Calderone

A new report highlights food additives that may be harmful to kids. Here are 5 steps to take to keep kids safer.

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) Another Summit Focused On Shale Industry Set Sept. 11
Jul 24, 2018 | Oil City Derrick
By Jim Meyer

The shale revolution is underway and it may have the power to revitalize the entire region, according to Lance Hummer, executive director of the Keystone Community Education Council.
News More Gas Could Be Exported to Caribbean Under Energy Final Rule
Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern

Energy Department finalizes rule to remove environmental requirements on small LNG exports
DOE Streamlines Small-Scale LNG Exports
Jul 25, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer

The Trump administration just made it easier to export small amounts of natural gas around the world.
BLM Takes Steps Toward Seismic Testing in ANWR
Jul 24, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King

The Bureau of Land Management appears to be moving forward on an application to conduct seismic testing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Engie Invests in ‘Digesters’ Producing Gas from Household Waste
Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Francois De Beaupuy

Engie SA, France’s former natural-gas monopoly, invested in an Israeli manufacturer of devices that produce gas from household waste.
Here's How Trump's 'Greatest' Tariffs Can Hike Emissions
Jul 25, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman

The oil and gas industry is looking for a mind reader.

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

CSX Will Pay $2.7M For Oil Spill, Fires in 2015 Train Derailment
Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard

CSX Transportation Inc. will pay $2.2 million in penalties for damages caused by a 2015 train derailment in West Virginia under a deal the company reached with prosecutors.
Railroad Company Settles For $2.2 Million Over Fiery Derailment And Oil Spill
Jul 24, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green

A railroad operator is settling with the government for $2.2 million in penalties over the 2015 derailment of an oil tanker in a small West Virginia town that spilled thousands of gallons of oil and burst into flames.

Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) New Group Urges Trump To Support Kigali
Jul 25, 2018 | Amonnia21
By Michael Garry

A new coalition of conservatives and businesses in the U.S. is focused on persuading President Trump to support the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, the global agreement to phase down the production and use of HFCs.
(ACC Mentioned) Trade Groups To Trump: Back Obama's Climate Plan
Jul 24, 2018 | Axios
By Ben Geman

Axios' Amy Harder reports ... Powerful industry associations including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce launched an advocacy group Monday that's urging President Trump to back an Obama-era climate policy.
Cement Makers Won’t Need More Air Pollution Controls, EPA Says (1)
Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers and Amena H. Saiyid

Cement manufacturers such as LafargeHolcim Ltd. won’t have to deal with any new toxic pollution control requirements for at least another eight years.
(ACC Mentions) Ewire: Major Industry Groups Back HFC Treaty
Jul 24, 2018 | Inside EPA

Several heavyweight industry trade associations are mobilizing behind a campaign to persuade President Donald Trump to embrace an Obama-era international agreement to curb refrigerants that act as potent greenhouse gases, urging him to submit the deal to the Senate for a ratification vote.
Curbelo Tax Plan Offers 'Template' For Further Capitol Hill GHG Discussion
Jul 24, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey

After years of Capitol Hill gridlock on climate change, a newly unveiled carbon tax bill from Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) offers a “template” for further discussion on thorny issues including a proposed “moratorium” on EPA rules in exchange for a tax and how to establish enough certainty for both industry and environmental groups.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Corporate Giants Jump Into Trump’s Tariff Fight

Jul 24, 2018 | Roll Call

By Sean McMinn

President Donald Trump’s burgeoning trade war has prompted some big names to join the fight on tariffs.
Of the 20 largest spenders that indicated they were lobbying on tariffs in the most recent round of disclosure filings, nine of these companies or trade associations began doing so in the past year.
Google — which has spent about $11 million on lobbying so far this year, according to its reports to Congress — leads that list of newcomers. It reported lobbying for the first time on tariffs in the first quarter of this year. The tech giant specifically indicated it was lobbying the House and Senate on “China tariffs.”
Microsoft, another tech leader on the list, began lobbying Trump’s Commerce Department on solar tariffs at the end of 2018. Earlier this year, the Trump administration approved tariffs on solar panel cells imported from China.
Other big spenders new to the tariff game include the American Chemistry Council, Amazon, Exxon and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
“There is such unified concern over the threat of tariffs our members felt it important to engage as an industry,” said Wade Newton, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. “The Alliance’s big issue has been explaining the impact a trade war would have on the industry.”
The biggest spender that lobbied on tariff issues was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent $15.2 million. The disclosure reports, which are mandated by Congress, do not require filers to break down how much they spent lobbying on different issues.
Beyond targeting the Commerce Department and Congress, lobbyists have worked to influence other agencies on the tariff issue — the Department of Defense, U.S. Trade Representative and the National Economic Council among them.
Trump began discussing tariffs during his campaign for president, when he threatened to slap tariffs on Chinese goods.
He made good on those threats this year, expanding the scope from solar panels and washing machines to steel and aluminum imports. China, Mexico, Canada and the European Union have responded with retaliatory tariffs.
Trump praised tariffs broadly on Tuesday morning as a tool to threaten any country that has “treated the United States unfairly on Trade.”
http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/corporate-giants-jump-into-trumps-tariff-fight?utm_source=just-in&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=news-alert&utm_content=072418&bt_ee=G1+gh3rCS1i18ofTqEW5xGy2/efcU9x3UPkDyR+aQKdChoztDR41AqS47+yBIK7dGEt882SH5FI4ENs5c+61lg==&bt_ts=1532468185510

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) San Francisco Moves To Ban Plastic Straws, Containers

Jul 24, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)

By Janie Har

SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco supervisors voted Tuesday to give plastic straws the cold shoulder, following the lead of Seattle, another eco-conscious West Coast city where a ban went into effect this month.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors gave unanimous approval to a measure that also takes the novel step of banning carryout containers and wrappers treated with fluorinated chemicals.
Advocates of the move say the chemicals repel oil and water but can be harmful and don’t break down in compost.
Supervisor Ahsha Safai said it’s not possible to recycle tiny plastic items because they literally fall through the cracks of machinery at processing plants.
He said the legislation is a way to make people change their habits.
“It’s become so habitual for places to utilize these, it’s adding significantly to our environmental degradation,” Safai said.
Supervisor Katy Tang, who also championed the legislation, called the negative environmental impact of single-use plastics astronomical.
“San Francisco has been a pioneer of environmental change, and it’s time for us to find alternatives to the plastic that is choking our marine ecosystems and littering our streets,” she said in a statement.
The legislation requires a second approval, which is expected next week.
Seattle is believed to be the first major U.S. city to shun plastic straws when its ban went into effect this month. Since then, Starbucks and Marriott announced plastic straws and stirrers would be removed from those businesses.
The San Francisco ban on small plastic items goes into effect July 1, 2019, along with a new requirement to make napkins, utensils and other to-go accessories available only upon request, unless a self-serve station is available where people can take what they need.
The idea is to cut down on handing out items that customers may not need, such as utensils and napkins if they’re taking food to eat at home.
The Plastics Industry Association issued a statement Monday saying a better solution to dealing with the items is to expand recycling technology. “Regardless of what a straw is made of, we can all agree that it should not end up as litter,” the association said.
People with disabilities have spoken out against the plastic straw ban, saying customers with mobility issues rely on them to drink.
San Francisco has frequently led the way on policies considered eco-friendly. In 2007, it outlawed single-use plastic bags and in 2016, expanded its prohibition on foam food carryout containers to include retail sales of child pool toys and packing peanuts.
The Silent Spring Institute, a research and advocacy group, says fluorinated chemicals have been linked to hormone disruption, cancer and other detrimental health effects.
Jonathan Corley, a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, a trade association, said Monday that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has deemed the chemicals currently used to package to-go food as safe.
“This potential ban is unnecessary, contrary to sound science and will provide no further benefits to public health or the environment,” he said in a statement.
Gwyneth Borden, executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, said restaurateurs have no desire to pass on toxins through carryout containers. But the higher cost of compostable fluorinated-free containers will drive businesses to return to recyclable plastic containers, she said.
“It’s an interesting evolution,” Borden said. “But sometimes making decisions premature to fully understanding the science can be difficult.”
Copyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/san-francisco-to-consider-outlawing-plastic-straws-stirrers/2018/07/24/3b5616c6-8f0e-11e8-ae59-01880eac5f1d_story.html?utm_term=.b15c81973f59

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Coalition Forms to Fight Proposed Tariffs on Chinese-Made Vinyl Flooring

Jul 25, 2018 | Floor Focus

Calhoun, GA, July 24, 2018-A group of vinyl industry representatives are forming a coalition against the implementation of a 10% tariff on certain Chinese imports, including LVT and MLF/WPC, by the Office of the United States Trade Representative; Shaw, Novalis, CFL, Metroflor, the American Chemistry Council and the Vinyl Instituteare early members of the group so far.
Coalitions have proven to be an effective course in fighting against government tariffs.
These proposed tariffs on vinyl flooring products will have a disproportionately negative impact on U.S. consumers and U.S. flooring companies, especially those enjoying benefits from the explosive growth of LVT and MLF, as follows:
 The proposed tariffs will increase cost to the American consumer. Tariffs are assessed on products on imported into the United States. Since the tariffs cannot be fully absorbed by the supply chain, the tariffs will be passed on, in part, to the American consumer, effectively resulting in an unfair, indirect “tax” on the American consumer. American families will pay higher prices for vinyl flooring products.
 The proposed tariffs will lead to fewer and less innovative choices for the American consumer. The tariffs will increase costs and will lead to fewer product choices for the American consumer. The tariffs will also restrict consumer access to the latest in LVT innovation, including developments related to product safety and sustainability.
 The proposed tariffs will lead to American job losses. The proposed tariffs could cause layoffs throughout the supply chain, including at hundreds of flooring companies, distributors, retailers and installers in the United States.
The group is asking individuals and companies who agree that the proposed tariffs on vinyl flooring will disproportionately hurt the U.S. flooring industry and LVT sector specifically, as well as the American consumer and workers to join a conference call on July 25, by notifying Harlan Stone (h@halsteadintl.com, 203.299-3107).
Thus far, Shaw, Novalis, CFL and Metroflor as well as the American Chemistry Council and the Vinyl Institute are supporting the effort.
The steel industry has formed a similar union. On July 19, a coalition of steel users urged the U.S. Court of International Trade to knock down the trade law President Donald Trump has used to impose steel and aluminum tariffs, reiterating its claims that the law is unconstitutional.
The American Institute for International Steel, an industry group of importers and downstream users that has challenged the constitutionality of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, filed a summary judgment motion seeking to immediately halt the enforcement of the administration’s 25% steel tariff imposed earlier this year.
https://www.floordaily.net/flooring-news/coalition-forms-to-fight-proposed-tariffs-on-chinese-made-vinyl-flooring

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) In Our Opinion: Collection is only half the battle

Jul 24, 2018 | Resource Recycling

By Shari Jackson and Nina Goodrich

As a nation, we’re doing a pretty good job collecting plastic bags and wraps for recycling. But we need to do a much better job creating demand for this recycled plastic film.
Plastic film recycling has grown for 12 consecutive years and has more than doubled since 2005, climbing to 1.3 billion pounds in 2016. However, recent turbulence in the markets for recycled film – in particular, China’s current reluctance to import film for recycling – requires those of us in the professional recycling world to help stimulate domestic markets.
In other words, it’s time for us to help increase demand for products made with recycled plastic film. Because if companies, governments and consumers aren’t buying recycled, then we’re not really recycling.How the system breaks down
The mantra of waste management remains: reduce, reuse, recycle. If you don’t need a bag, don’t take a bag. Reuse anything you can. And recycle what you can’t.
But perhaps we have diminished the pivotal role that demand plays in driving recycling success. Without strong, healthy markets for the materials we collect, collecting materials could become an exercise in futility.
Looking specifically at plastic film, today the material type enjoys more than 20,000 collection points in the U.S., predominantly large retail outlets. These typically storefront recycling bins collect plastic bags from groceries, newspapers, produce, bread and dry cleaning as well as plastic wraps that protect cases of water bottles, packs of diapers, bathroom tissue, paper towels.
From a communication standpoint, the How2Recycle Store Drop-off Labelhas made it easier to understand which film packaging can be collected at these points.
But without a market for the 1.3 billion pounds of plastic film currently collected, our recycling system breaks down. Collecting more plastic film without stimulating more demand is not sustainable. Demand must rise to absorb the supply.
Many companies already make valuable products from used plastic film. For example, Trex is the largest consumer of used plastic film in the U.S., producing myriad types of plastic lumber for residential, commercial, and government markets.
In addition, more and more companies plan to use recycled plastic film to make products, such as trash-can liners and crates.
So how can the recycling sector help spur demand in tangible ways? Below are some steps to consider:Encourage the purchase of products leveraging recycled film by your or associated entities or offices.Revise purchasing guidelines to require the purchase of these types of products.Use (and encourage associated entities to use) the Buy Recycled products directory.Publicly encourage and recognize companies that create products using recycled plastic film.Sign up to be a WRAP Champion with the Wrap Recycling Action Program (WRAP).Encouraging local businesses to join the Association of Plastic Recyclers’ Demand Champions Program.Working with state economic development offices to facilitate support for local businesses to develop new end markets for plastic film;Communicate to residents the proper handling of plastic bags and wraps, including keeping them out of curbside bins, returning them to store recycling bins, and looking for the How2Recycle label.Encourage residents to use the Buy Recycled products directory and to seek out products made with recycled plastic film.Encourage residents to reuse plastic bags and packing bubbles/pillows.Encourage residents not to litter and to dispose of dirty or wet plastic bags in trash cans, not recycling bins.
Recycling professionals do not need to do this alone. WRAP provides expert resources to help recycling professionals encourage proper recycling of plastic film – including increasing demand – to prevent waste and protect the environment.Come together
As a WRAP Partner, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency notes, “There are great gains to be made for the environment, our society, and our economy by working together” to properly recycle plastic film.
We agree. We encourage all recycling professionals to rally around plastic film recycling, recommitting to increased collection and helping jumpstart broader efforts to boost demand for used plastic film.
Let’s really recycle by putting in the energy to make sure all recovered film has a reliable path to becoming a new product.
Shari Jackson is director of film recycling at the American Chemistry Council/Flexible Film Recycling Group and can be contacted at shari_Jackson@americanchemistry.com. Nina Goodrich is director of the Sustainable Packaging Coalition and executive director of GreenBlue and can be contacted at nina.goodrich@greenblue.org.
https://resource-recycling.com/recycling/2018/07/24/in-our-opinion-collection-is-only-half-the-battle/

Return to headline | Return to top
Single-Use Plastic Ban in the Bag in San Francisco

Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Joyce E. Cutler

Straws, fluorinated chemicals in containers targeted
Persistent plastics polluting landfills, clogging waterways
San Francisco’s plan to prohibit using or selling single-use serving utensils and containers made with fluorinated chemicals and plastics is up for a July 24 vote.
The proposed law is the latest in the national march to ban plastics that end up in landfills and waterways, including straws and swizzle sticks that end up clogging machinery.
Nine of the 11 members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors have co-sponsored the proposed ordinance, which would need a second board vote before it would head to Mayor London Breed’s (D) desk. Breed was not among the sponsors while she was board president until her election as mayor in June.
The bill specifies reusable cups must be supplied to 10 percent of attendees at any event exceeding 100 people on city property. It also takes aim at the single-use plastics, including condiments that are automatically shoved in a takeout bag.
BPI Certification
Plastic forks, straws, bags, and stirrers get the most attention. The proposed San Francisco ban on persistent chemical-containing foodware containers, however, may be wider-reaching alongside a provision mandating foodware that claims to be composted have a Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) certification.
That’s creating unintended consequences as well, said Gwyneth Borden, executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association.
“The interesting twist is that restaurants can now choose to go back to recyclable plastic containers if they don’t want to spend the money on BPI certified ones (which are on average a third more in cost than regular compostables),” Borden told Bloomberg Environment in an email.
The non-BPI certified compostables “actually aren’t being accepted by compost mills, so they’re ending up in the landfill so recyclable plastic is actually better. The net: changing science and realities just make it harder for businesses to figure out how best to comply and support the environment,” Borden said.
The Golden Gate Restaurant Association represents 4,400 largely privately owned restaurants in the city, including 54 Michelin-starred establishments.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/single-use-plastic-ban-in-the-bag-in-san-francisco

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Blog) New Report Highlights The Importance of EPA’s Efforts To Increase Transparency In Regulatory Process

Jul 25, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters

A new report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s (CEI) Angela Logomasini titled “EPA Transparency Rule Will Bolster Science and Improve Rulemaking” offers important perspective and critical facts about EPA’s proposed Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science rule. This important report comes at a critical point in EPA’s rulemaking process as it just held a public comment hearing last week.
Some critics of the proposal have framed it as an underhanded plot by EPA to censor science, which couldn’t be further from the truth. As noted in one of our previous blog, the rule seeks to build on efforts by the Obama Administration to “increase public access to research data while protecting proprietary interests, intellectual property, and personal privacy.”
Thankfully, the new report from CEI addresses the claims by the rule’s detractors and explains why they are wrong:
“…many of these criticisms are based on misunderstandings about how the rule would work and what it contains. Much of the hype is from those who fear that transparency will weaken regulations, but whether it makes regulations more extensive or scales them back is not the point. The goal is to ensure that the best science informs regulators so that they can design rules to best protect public health. Promoting the fundamentals of good science—transparency and reproducibility—will help achieve that goal.
And the report concludes by noting:
“Arguments against the rule that claim that it constitutes an assault on science, would violate privacy, or would prevent useful research from informing regulators are without merit. The rule simply supports fundamental principles of scientific research. It contains provisions to protect privacy and provide exceptions that allow regulators to consider quality research that is not fully transparent because of privacy concerns. It will help ensure that regulators are informed by the best science so they can design rules that protect public health while not imposing counter-productive burdens on society.”
CEI also points out some of the key features of the proposal that would strengthen the American public’s confidence in our environmental regulations and the science that underpins them:The scope of science to which the rule applies is limited. The rule covers “dose response data and models underlying pivotal regulatory science that are used to justify significant regulatory decisions regardless of the source of funding or identity of the party conducting the regulatory science.” Basically, that means the rule covers the key scientific studies the EPA uses to justify major regulations—those expected to impose costs of $100 million or more a year or that are expected to have other significant adverse impacts. Accordingly, it does not cover every EPA regulatory activity, such as routine permitting decisions, voluntary initiatives programs, or research programs. However, any EPA research used to justify major rules would need to meet transparency standards.The rule protects privacy and confidential business secrets. It specifically directs the EPA to ensure data it relies upon is “publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation,” and to do so “in a fashion that is consistent with law, protects privacy, confidentiality, confidential business information, and is sensitive to national and homeland security.”The rule allows the EPA to rely on research that is not publicly available in certain situations. The rule specifically stipulates that the EPA can still use research that the agency cannot make publicly available in cases when it is “not feasible” to do so in a way that is, again, “consistent with law, protects privacy and confidentiality, and is sensitive to national and homeland security.”
The bottom line is this proposal will strengthen EPA’s regulatory process by helping ensure that it is relying on the best available science—science that is reliable and unbiased—and by making the underlying research and data publicly available in ways that protect personal privacy, confidential business information, proprietary interests and intellectual property rights.
We encourage you to read CEI’s new report to learn more about the importance of the agency’s proposed rule and why you should support it.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2018/07/new-report-highlights-the-importance-of-epas-efforts-to-increase-transparency-in-regulatory-process/

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

Democrats Who Backed Chemical Law’s Reform Question EPA Pivot

Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

Six Democratic senators ask Wheeler about plans to narrow new chemical reviews
Balance between timely, robust agency oversight needed, they say
Six Democratic senators who backed Congress’ overhaul of the nation’s primary chemicals law want EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler to clarify the agency’s decision to narrow its oversight of new chemicals.
“We write now to raise our serious concerns about EPA’s intentions,” the senators wrote in a July 24 letter spearheaded by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.).
The Environmental Protection Agency didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg Environment’s request for a response.
As first reported by Bloomberg Environment, the Environmental Protection Agency planned to speed new chemical reviews, in part, by narrowing the number of chemical uses its staff could review as they decide whether a new chemical can enter commerce. The fewer uses examined, the faster the review, and the greater the possibility that EPA staff would conclude the chemical is safe enough to be made in or imported into the U.S.
Chemical manufacturers along with trade associations and attorneys who represent them complained that the agency’s new chemical reviews are taking so long that U.S. chemical innovation is threatened. The delays began soon after the Toxic Substances Control Act amendments became law in June 2016, they said.
All six senators signing the letter backed the 2016 TSCA amendments.
Letter and Spirit
The EPA, however, began to veer from “both the letter and the spirit of the law” in mid-2017 when it announced another direction for the new chemicals program, they wrote.
The agency’s latest plans would be an “even more sweeping” change that would weaken the TSCA amendments’ intent to better ensure the safety of chemicals already on the market and new chemicals that companies would like to make and sell, the senators wrote.
“EPA needs to balance the competing objective of conducting both timely and robust reviews of new chemicals,” wrote Sens.
, Thomas R. Carper (Del.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Edward J. Markey (Mass.), Cory A. Booker (N.J.), and Jeff A. Merkley (Ore.).
In a July 17 statement provided after Bloomberg Environment first wrote about the its plans, the agency said: “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.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/democrats-who-backed-chemical-laws-reform-question-epa-pivot

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Extends TSCA Comment Deadline After Early Criticism

Jul 24, 2018 | Inside EPA

EPA is extending its comment deadline for how the agency plans to review the risks of the first 10 existing chemicals under the revised toxics law in the face of criticism from environmentalists and New York City officials that plans to preclude review of regulated uses is inadequate to assess risks of chemicals such as trichloroethylene (TCE).
EPA July 24 extended by three weeks, from July 26 to Aug. 16, its deadline for input on problem formulation documents supporting the agency's first 10 reviews of existing chemicals under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The chemicals include the common drinking water contaminants TCE and perchloroethylene, as well as methylene chloride, N-methylpyrrolidone, commonly used in paint strippers.
The delay comes after environmentalists and New York City faulted EPA's problem formulation documents for TCE and other chemicals, arguing the documents suggest that the reviews will discount exposure pathways and limit risks.
The city's law department, in July 13 comments, said that problem formulation documents supporting EPA's reviews of TCE and other existing chemicals appear likely to underestimate risks by not evaluating exposures from spills or to people living near facilities.
“By excluding activities and uses that are designated on a case by case basis as not constituting conditions of use, EPA will likely fail to consider potential exposures caused during manufacture and use of the product, such as accidental spills, or exposures that occur when the chemical is used properly when the facility is co-located with or adjacent to residential, educational, recreational, or commercial activities,” attorneys for the city say.
“For example, using [TCE] as a spot remover in a co-located dry cleaning facility on the ground floor may result in a resident on the floor above the facility being exposed to the TCE,” they add.
New York City also calls EPA's public dockets supporting the planned reviews “incomplete” and “confusing to the general public,” and urged the agency to re-start its public comment process and allow input for four more months.
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) in a July 24 report, “‘A Civil Action’ Carcinogen Pollutes Tap Water Supplies for 14 Million Americans” faults EPA's plans for reviewing TCE under TSCA as underestimating the number of people exposed through contaminated drinking water.
Environmentalists have filed numerous lawsuits challenging the Trump administration's plans for implementing the revised TSCA. In one case, environmentalists argue that EPA's final risk evaluation rule inappropriately narrowed the scope of uses the agency will consider in future reviews of existing chemicals.
EWG and New York City raise similar concerns, faulting EPA's plans to forgo review of exposures already regulated under other statutes the agency administers.
The EWG report argues that EPA's Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) oversight of TCE fails to adequately reduce exposures to drinking water, and urges the agency to tighten its 1987 limit of 5 parts per billion.
New York City contends that EPA rules under SDWA, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Clean Air Act have limited utility in reducing exposures from legal uses.
“These statutes often cannot prevent contaminants from entering the water, air, or soil in the first place, and are not intended to, and do not, ensure that chemical products are used safely and effectively,” the City says. “By failing to consider exposure pathways that result from spills or potential consequences of proper use that cause a chemical to enter the water, air, or soil, EPA will fail to properly account for exposures to the public, including New Yorkers, that result from TSCA-regulated activities.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-extends-tsca-comment-deadline-after-early-criticism

Return to headline | Return to top
Six Senators Key To TSCA Reform Question EPA’s New Chemical Reviews In Letter To Wheeler

Jul 25, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Richard Denison

In a letter sent today to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler, six Senators who were instrumental to achieving the 2016 Lautenberg Act’s reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) raised “serious concern” about further weakening changes EPA is poised to make in its review of new chemicals.
EDF had blogged about the changes last week.
The Senators’ letter includes a “request that your staff brief our offices about the planned changes prior to moving to implement them.”
The letter was signed by Senators Tom Udall, Tom Carper, Sheldon Whitehouse, Ed Markey, Cory Booker, and Jeff Merkley.
The Senators noted that “While in the months after passage EPA began to implement these provisions in a manner we believe was faithful to both the letter and spirit of the law, beginning in the middle of last year EPA signaled it would change course by narrowing the scope of its new chemical reviews and the requisite risk determinations in a manner that deviated from the statute.”
EDF has for many months raised concerns over the steady effort by Trump Administration political appointees at EPA to undermine the provisions of the Lautenberg Act intended to significantly enhance EPA reviews of new chemicals prior to allowing them onto the market. The latest moves deviate even further from the requirements of the new law and threaten public and worker health.
EDF hopes that today’s letter will help convince EPA to return to a lawful, health-protective approach to conducting reviews of new chemicals under TSCA.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/07/24/six-senators-key-to-tsca-reform-question-epas-new-chemical-reviews-in-letter-to-wheeler/

Return to headline | Return to top
EDF Submits Comments For Peer Reviewers on EPA’s Exposure, Use And Hazard Information On Five PBT Chemicals

Jul 25, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Lindsay McCormick

Yesterday, EDF filed comments on several draft EPA documents that are part of the basis for developing restrictions EPA is required to impose on five persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals under the 2016 reforms made to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The draft documents are to undergo peer review, and EDF’s comments raise issues we believe peer reviewers need to pay particular attention to.
As required by TSCA section 6(h), EPA last year identified five PBT chemicals (DecaBDE, HCBD, PCTP, PIP (3:1), and 2,4,6 TTBP) that meet the statutory criteria for “expedited action”: By June 22, 2019, EPA must propose a rule to restrict these five chemicals. Last month, EPA released draft documents for peer review and public comment that summarize available hazard information and assess exposure and use of each of the five PBTs.
Our main points for consideration for the peer review committee are summarized below:
Exposure reduction is a key driver: The data and analyses need to support EPA’s promulgation of rules that meet the requirement to “reduce exposure to the extent practicable” as well as to eliminate unreasonable risk. For many uses, meeting the exposure reduction requirement can and should drive deeper cuts in use of PBT chemicals than simply eliminating unreasonable risk, up to and including bans on some or all uses. For example, where a viable alternative exists, a ban would be necessary to comply with the requirement that EPA “reduce exposure to the chemical substance to the extent practicable.”
Need to identify potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations: EPA has not included, and should add, a section to each document identifying the relevant potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations it can now identify based on the information it has already provided in the documents, and EPA should update these as more information is developed.
Exposure is likely to each of the five PBTs: The draft exposure and use assessment confirms that exposure “is likely” for each of the five PBT chemicals EPA has identified. Each of these chemicals is, by definition, persistent and bioaccumulative, which means people and other organisms can remain exposed to it for a very long time, with those higher up the food chain more heavily exposed. All five of these PBT chemicals appear to still be active in commerce. And monitoring data show that exposure is likely to each of the five chemicals.
EPA must consider all conditions of use: This includes so-called legacy-related use and disposal as well as conditions of use related to recycling and imported articles.
EPA statements suggesting certain exposures are low lack sufficient evidence: Certain EPA statements invoking existing regulations (sometimes in countries other than the U.S.), suggesting reductions in use over time, or characterizing specific scenarios suggest that some exposures to PBT chemicals are low or have declined. For reasons discussed in our comments, these statements are questionable or lack sufficient evidence.
EPA can and should use its authorities to address gaps in available information: TSCA gives EPA ample authority to require testing or monitoring and to collect existing information in order to fill gaps in hazard and exposure or use information. EPA should use these authorities where needed to inform robust exposure reduction rules for the five PBT chemicals.
EPA has inappropriately excluded reasonably available information, including through its literature search strategy: EPA has not yet summarized relevant information it already received on the PBT chemicals under its TSCA sections 4 and 8 authorities. EPA has also excluded large numbers of studies due to “time constraints” (see draft supplemental document). EPA should immediately provide a list of references to all excluded studies to peer reviewers and the public in advance of the upcoming peer review. EPA should also promptly initiate efforts to acquire and make public copies of the full studies as soon as possible.
EPA needs to identify all types of acute and subacute as well as chronic hazards: EPA’s focus only on repeated-dose studies in the hazard summary is overly narrow, given EPA’s mandate to reduce human risks from all hazards.
Find our full comments here for additional detail.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/07/24/edf-submits-comments-for-peer-reviewers-on-epas-exposure-use-and-hazard-information-on-five-pbt-chemicals/

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentionws) House Panel Backs Bill Decentralizing EPA’s Chemical Reports (1)

Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Sylvia Carignan

Rep. Biggs proposing to move science assessments out of EPA’s IRIS program
House committee votes to move legislation to floor
Legislation that would decentralize the EPA’s chemical assessments won approval from a House panel July 24, but it still awaits action from another committee before going to the full House.
The agency’s chemical assessments, currently conducted under the Integrated Risk Information System program, are the basis of many Environmental Protection Agency decisions regarding standards and regulations on air and water pollution, chemicals, and contaminated sites. If the bill becomes law, the assessments would be distributed among the agency’s individual program offices.
The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee voted 18-13 in favor of the bill from Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.). The bill also has been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, but committee spokespeople didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg Environment about whether they would also hold a markup.
The current IRIS program is “plagued by inefficiencies and a lack of transparency, resulting in questionable science,” Biggs said at the July 24 markup.
The bill (H.R. 6468) would change the 1978 Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act, which created the agency’s Science Advisory Board. The bill doesn’t make changes to the board, a group of administrator-appointed advisers who review chemical assessments.
The bill also requires the EPA’s research and development office to certify that the assessments meet the listed scientific standards. The standards involve reproducibility of data, completeness of data, and whether the research methods and findings are publicly available “in a manner that honors legal and ethical obligations.”
The bill would “increase public confidence in EPA’s chemical toxicity assessments by ensuring they’re conducted using the best available science,” committee chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said at the markup.
‘Shuts Down IRIS’
House Democrats and environmental groups are concerned the proposed changes could gut the IRIS program and make the assessments less effective.
The bill “shuts down IRIS without explicitly saying so,” the committee’s ranking member, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), said in a statement. “Chemical assessments will be delayed and of worse quality than under the IRIS program.”
The American Chemistry Council has “long-standing concerns” with the IRIS program, including its inability to produce “scientifically sound” chemical assessments, Jon Corley, a spokesperson for the council, said an emailed statement. The council’s members include The Chemours Co., Monsanto Co., and Honeywell International Inc.
“We support efforts to improve the rigor of and scientific discipline in EPA’s chemical assessment programs,” the council’s statement said.
The bill calls for a chemical hazard identification and dose response steering committee made up of EPA staff and led by the political appointee heading the Office of Research and Development, who hasn’t been named. The steering committee seeks to prevent duplication among the agency’s offices, according to the legislation.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/house-panel-backs-bill-decentralizing-epas-chemical-reports-1

Return to headline | Return to top
School Groundskeeper Blames Monsanto’s Roundup for His Cancer

Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Joyce E. Cutler

Former school groundskeeper describes being doused with pesticides on several occasions
Monsanto attorney’s cross questioning focused on Johnson’s training
A former school groundskeeper described his repeated exposure to the world’s most widely-used herbicide during testimony in a closely watched case against Monsanto.
Dewayne Lee Johnson, 46, blames exposure to glyphosate for his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a blood cancer. Johnson claims Monsanto failed to adequately warn of the risk associated with glyphosate-based herbicides.
Monsanto has argued in court filings that there is no association between glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and Ranger Pro products, and Johnson’s cancer. Johnson’s case is expected to set the pace for what happens in other cases against Monsanto over alleged health effects from glyphosate exposure.
The former Benicia Unified School District maintenance worker applied the chemical at six school yards and related athletic fields between June 2012 and late 2015 to early 2016, according to court documents.
“I knew I was applying chemicals and I knew if it could kill weeds, I was pretty sure it could kill me,” Johnson said July 23 during testimony in front of a jury at the California Superior Court in San Francisco.
Monsanto’s attorney briefly cross examined Johnson, focusing on his training.
Johnson is seeking compensatory and punitive damages for injuries that forced him to leave his job and led his wife to work two jobs to provide for their family.
4,000 Other Cases
Plaintiffs expect to complete testimony by July 27 and closing arguments could begin the week of Aug. 6, according to Brent Wisner, a partner with Baum Hedlund Aristei Goldman PC in Los Angeles who represents Johnson.
What happens in the Johnson trial “should affect how we deal with the 4,000 other cases,” for plaintiffs and Monsanto, Wisner told reporters at the courthouse.
There have been conflicting findings over whether glyphosate is carcinogenic: The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer said in 2015 that glyphosate probably was, but the European Food Safety Authority, also in 2015, said it probably wasn’t. California in 2017 listed glyphosate as a known carcinogen, over Monsanto’s objection.
Monsanto claims glyphosate, first approved in 1974, is the most tested herbicide in history. Glyphosate has since become the world’s most-used herbicide “largely due to its favorable toxicity profile,” Monsanto said in a trial brief.
Johnson was diagnosed with cancer in 2014. Last July, following chemotherapy and other treatment, his oncologist gave him six months to live. Wisner told Bloomberg Environment that Johnson was doing better than he has in months, but his last cancer screens were not promising.
Frequent Exposure Detailed
Johnson said he often felt pesticide drift on his face, despite using a mask, gloves, and protective, disposable jumpsuit. The airborne chemicals landed on his face and neck “at least 80 percent of the time” during his work in Benicia, a community that sits on the northern end of San Francisco Bay with a constant and variable breeze, Johnson said.
Johnson also described being doused with chemicals on several occasions from a leaking backpack-like applicator and from a loose hose on a truck-mounted sprayer.
Photos of Johnson’s lesion-covered limbs and abdomen were entered into evidence as the father of two testified how he was trained to use the herbicide.
Training Questioned
Monsanto counsel Sandra Edwards, partner with Farella Braun & Martel LLP in San Francisco, made an unexpectedly brief and subdued cross examination of Johnson. The questions centered on the time Johnson spent preparing for his certificate as a qualified pesticide applicator.
Edwards asked whether Johnson used a mix of 1-2 percent Ranger Pro to 98 percent water.
“I don’t remember recipes to make herbicides,” Johnson said.
Johnson testified he used more of Monsanto’s Ranger Pro, which “had a little more kick to it,” than Roundup. The groundskeeper said he would review an information pamphlet each time before spraying because “1 percent more could kill a tree.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/school-groundskeeper-blames-monsantos-roundup-for-his-cancer

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Committee Passes Bill To Reform EPA Reviews

Jul 24, 2018 | E&E News PM

By Corbin Hiar,

The House Science, Space and Technology Committee this afternoon voted 17-13 along party lines to advance legislation that would undermine EPA's program for assessing the risks posed by toxic chemicals.
The "Improving Science in Chemical Assessments Act," H.R. 6399, from Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), seeks to shift the assessment process from chemical experts in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System to staffers in the various program offices.
The IRIS-weakening bill is co-sponsored by Science Chairman Lamar Smith of Texas and 15 other Republican lawmakers.
Biggs, Smith and other Republicans have long opposed IRIS because they allege it does sloppy work, an assertion undercut by a recent National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine review (E&E News PM, April 11).
The health review program is also opposed by industry because its safety determinations are often used by EPA or other regulators to set exposure limits on toxic chemicals.
Smith acknowledged that IRIS has improved in recent years but said "the results aren't there." He went on to claim that decentralizing EPA's chemical assessment efforts would "increase public confidence" in the agency's work.
The assessment overhaul legislation is supported by the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry's powerful trade group.
Democrats, however, argued that the legislation would delay chemical reviews and make them of worse quality than under the specialized IRIS program.
"This is a bad bill that will ultimately result in bad science and sick people," said ranking member Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
Environmentalists at the Union of Concerned Scientists and other groups are already gearing up to fight Biggs' bill (E&E Daily, July 23).
The legislation is just the latest congressional attack on the IRIS program, which Republican Senate appropriators last year sought unsuccessfully to defund (Greenwire, March 22).
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/07/24/stories/1060090281

Return to headline | Return to top
House Science Panel Wins IRIS Bill Jurisdiction But Faces Long Odds

Jul 25, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Maria Hegstad

After one false start, House science committee Republicans have advanced their bill scaling back EPA's influential but controversial chemical risk assessment program but the measure still faces long odds as they lack an agreement with the energy committee on the bill's jurisdiction, have no Senate companion and face stiff Democratic opposition.
The committee voted 17-13 on party lines July 24 to advance H.R. 6468, a bill dismantling EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) chemical risk assessment program and requiring any future assessments be conducted through the agency's program offices.
The committee had been slated to mark up a similar measure last week but was forced to cancel the planned markup of H.R. 6399 after the House Parliamentarian referred the earlier bill solely to the Energy and Commerce Committee.
One committee source told Inside EPA that Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), the bill's sponsor and chairman of the environment subcommittee, didn't check which panel would win jurisdiction and his staff was surprised when the Parliamentarian referred the bill to the energy committee instead of the science committee.
To sidestep the jurisdictional dispute, Biggs amended the legislation to add language making the measure an amendment to the Environmental Research Development and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978, the statute authorizing various EPA research and scientific activities and which falls under the science committee's jurisdiction.
The new legislation also adds language requiring EPA to provide reports to the science committee, energy committee and Senate environment committee certifying that in performing the chemical assessments, program offices followed the bill's directives and the assessments were based on the “weight of scientific evidence
The changes won the committee the jurisdiction it was seeking, though the Parliamentarian also referred the bill to the energy committee “for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.”
Asked about the joint jurisdiction, and whether there was any agreement to move the bill through the energy committee, after the markup, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the science committee, told reporters, “We are just now talking with them.”
Asked about the timing of the energy committee's action, Smith deferred to the other committee.
But the committee's process -- as well as the bill's contents -- prompted strong criticism from Democrats.
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), who is ranking member of the energy committee's environment panel and also serves on the science committee, opposed the bill's content and noted his “serious process concerns on this bill … [which] meddles with the public health statutes that EPA implements. These statutes are under the jurisdiction” of the energy committee.”
Tonko said that science committee staff has “not had serious discussion with energy and commerce staff. I am concerned by the process of the first bill, H.R. 6399. The House Parliamentarian determined the bill [was] entirely within the jurisdiction” of the energy committee.
Political Appointee
Tonko was joined by Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA), who also argued that “Energy and Commerce should be responsible to mark up this bill.”
McNerney also protested what he viewed as the bill's politicization of chemical assessment at EPA, noting that the bill creates an intra-agency steering committee to manage the chemical assessments conducted by EPA's program offices, chaired by the assistant administrator of EPA's research office -- a Senate-confirmed political nominee.
This steering committee would determine which offices conduct which assessments, and also determines that assessments from other agencies or outside entities may meet the bill's scientific standards and will be adopted by EPA.
McNerney also argued that moving the chemical assessment work from IRIS to EPA's program offices “would offer gaps in the scientific review process. Program offices use assessments conducted by IRIS to set national standards … If only one office is responsible [for creating an assessment], there is a danger that different routes of exposure [may] not be conducted. ... Chemicals in our environment don't always follow one route of exposure.”
Biggs defended his bill, arguing that it “will eliminate EPA’s flawed . . . IRIS, and return the responsibility of conducting hazard identification and dose response assessments to EPA’s program offices, which are best situated to perform the work.”
Biggs argued that EPA created IRIS in 1985 “[w]ithout any foundation in law or direction from Congress … to 'foster consistency' in chemical assessments conducted by EPA. Unfortunately, IRIS has evolved into a program plagued by inefficiencies and a lack of transparency, resulting in questionable science that can have a significant impact on the marketplace.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/house-science-panel-wins-iris-bill-jurisdiction-faces-long-odds

Return to headline | Return to top
‘A Civil Action’ Carcinogen Pollutes Tap Water Supplies for 14 Million Americans

Jul 24, 2018 | Environmental Working Group

By Tasha Stoiber and Olga Naidenko,

Drinking water supplies for 14 million Americans are contaminated with a cancer-causing industrial solvent made notorious by the book and film "A Civil Action," according to a new EWG analysis of tests from public utilities nationwide.
The chemical is trichloroethylene, or TCE. Under the Trump administration, the Environmental Protection Agency is retreating from an earlier proposal to ban key uses of TCE. The EPA is also excluding TCE exposures through water, air and soil pollution from an ongoing safety assessment under the nation’s overhauled toxic chemicals law.
In 2015, the latest year for which comprehensive data are available, TCE was detected in EPA-mandated tests by 321 public water systems in 36 states. EWG’s Tap Water Database, which aggregates test results from utilities nationwide, shows that in about half of those systems, average annual levels of TCE were above what some health authorities say is safe for infants and developing fetuses. EWG’s interactive map shows the location of all systems with TCE contamination in 2015.
Drinking TCE-contaminated water has been linked to birth defects; damage to the brain and the nervous, reproductive and immune systems; and increased risk of cancer. The EPA’s legal limit for TCE in drinking water is 5 parts per billion, or ppb. That limit was set in 1987, but more recent research suggests TCE could be harmful at much lower levels.
In 2013, the Minnesota Department of Health set a health-based guideline for TCE in drinking water of 0.4 ppb. Based on state scientists’ review of hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, the guideline is meant to provide protection against harm to the immune system for those exposed during pregnancy, infancy and early childhood. The guideline is not legally enforceable, so as long as a water supply in Minnesota or anywhere else meets the federal standard of 5 ppb, it is in legal compliance. But the guideline acknowledges that legal does not always mean safe, as EWG research has demonstrated.
The state’s Information Sheet on TCE and drinking water is unequivocal: “TCE in drinking water is safe if the level is at or lower than the MDH guidance value of 0.4 ppb.” The advisory explains why.Because of new information and new methods used to develop guidance, this level is more than 10 times lower than the previous guidance value of 5 ppb. A person drinking water at or below the updated guidance value, whether exposed briefly, occasionally, or daily for a lifetime would have little or no risk of health effects.
EWG’s map highlights the 151 water systems where the annual TCE concentration in 2015 exceeded the Minnesota guideline. But even where the annual average for the entire system is below 0.4 ppb, some customers may be getting tap water from a groundwater well where the concentration of TCE is higher.
“The health risk from TCE is greatest for children because of their small size – on a body weight basis, they breathe in more air and drink more water each day than older children or adults.”
Levels of pollutants in the water flowing from customers’ taps fluctuate during the year, so the annual averages shown on our map reflect the overall level of concern for TCE contamination in a given water supply. For our calculations, we treated samples reported as “no detection” as having no TCE contamination, even though TCE may have been detected in concentrations below the minimum reporting levels required by the EPA or state agencies.
TCE exposure is particularly harmful during pregnancy and childhood. TCE exposure during pregnancy has been linked with heart malformations in the fetus. And it’s not just from drinking water: TCE volatizes from water into indoor air.
People whose water is polluted with TCE can inhale the chemical during bathing, showering, washing dishes and other everyday activities. The health risk from TCE is greatest for children because of their small size – on a body weight basis, they breathe in more air and drink more water each day than older children or adults.TCE pollution from Silicon Valley to Camp Lejeune
For decades, TCE has been discharged into water, soil and air from facilities where it was used as a metal degreaser, a dry cleaning agent, and a solvent used in making many products, including Silicon Valley semiconductors and electrical transformers. TCE is also used in common consumer products, such as arts and crafts materials, automotive products, and home cleaning and maintenance supplies. These uses can contribute to TCE contamination of indoor air.
More than 400 Superfund sites have TCE contamination that can spread into groundwater and threaten drinking water supplies. Many of these Superfund sites are at or near military bases, such as Camp Lejeune, the sprawling Marine Corps base in North Carolina. Veterans and their families who served and lived there later developed various kinds of cancer and neurological ailments, such as Parkinson’s disease, from drinking water contaminated with TCE and other toxic chemicals.
In addition to recognized Superfund sites, there are a much larger number of hazardous waste sites across the country, such as landfills, dry cleaners and other small-to-medium size businesses where TCE may have been used and discharged. Many of these hazardous waste sites pose a contamination risk to groundwater.
TCE contamination of tap water can be remedied. Granular activated carbon and air stripping or aeration are the two most common approaches for removing TCE. But it’s expensive and the cost depends on how much the source water is contaminated and the treatment method used.
Treating a single TCE-contaminated water source can cost between $100,000 and $200,000 a year. For a water utility, the costs add up quickly, because TCE-removing treatment may be needed at multiple wells, and the level of TCE in a well may rise as the contaminated groundwater plume spreads. Full remediation of contaminated groundwater and installation of modern water treatment plants that can tackle contamination in the long term can cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.
Many people – especially pregnant women and families with infants or small children – may not want to wait until their public water system installs TCE treatment. As an immediate, in-home solution, TCE can be removed from tap water with an inexpensive carbon-based filter. Minnesota health officials also recommend ventilating indoor air while bathing/showering, cooking, and while running the dishwasher or washing machine as an effective way to reduce the amounts of TCE in indoor air.
TCE is also a serious health concern for those who depend on private wells for their drinking water supply. U.S. Geological Survey data from 2006 suggest that almost 3.5 percent of private domestic wells may be at risk of TCE contamination. Because more than 40 million Americans rely on private wells for their water, up to 1.5 million people may be affected. The actual number of private wells with TCE contamination is likely much higher because private wells aren’t tested regularly.
Pollution from improper waste disposal or leaking storage tanks can taint drinking water for decades, and has done so in communities such as Mancelona, Mich. By the time water contamination is discovered, the companies responsible for the contamination may be long gone, leaving local communities as well as state and federal agencies to pay for cleanup. The Mancelona plume is one of the largest in the U.S., with TCE levels in groundwater as high as several hundred parts per billion.National action required
In December 2016, the EPA proposed banning uses of TCE as an aerosol degreaser and a spot cleaner. It was the first ban proposed in more than 25 years under the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, the nation’s primary chemical law. A month later, the EPA also proposed banning TCE in vapor degreasing. The ban on these uses would have protected the health of tens of thousands of workers who come in contact with TCE or TCE-containing products, and over 100,000 people who live near businesses that use and discharge TCE.
But in December 2017, the Trump administration backtracked on the EPA’s proposals, suggesting that it would not move forward with the proposed bans on aerosol degreasing, spot cleaning and vapor degreasing. These actions came after aggressive lobbying from the chemical industry. The Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, a trade association representing TCE manufacturers, repeatedly requested that the EPA and former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt delay decision-making on the proposed bans, and its requests were granted.
In June 2018, the EPA released so-called problem formulation documents that refine the scope of the risk evaluations for the first batch of chemicals, including TCE, to be assessed under the recently updated TSCA law. But for TCE and three other chemicals, the EPA excluded key exposures from polluted air, water and soil from the scope of its safety assessments. This approach could dramatically underestimate the total number of Americans who are exposed to TCE and the other chemicals the agency is assessing.
The EPA should include exposures from all TCE uses in its safety assessment, and take immediate steps to protect American workers and communities from this dangerous chemical. The EPA should also establish a new federal drinking water standard for TCE at a level that would protect children’s health.TCE in indoor air
Even when drinking water utilities or homeowners install a TCE-removing treatment for drinking water, people may be still exposed to TCE vapors in the air of homes, schools and workplaces if the groundwater or soil are contaminated. News stories from across the nation, and reports by state and local health agencies highlight the seriousness of the problem. TCE vapor intrusion is most of concern for people and communities near the hazardous waste sites where TCE contamination has reached the groundwater.
The air in many homes in Mountain View, Calif., in the heart of Silicon Valley, has toxic levels of TCE from a legacy of semiconductor manufacturing. Not all of the TCE-contaminated sites and contaminated groundwater areas across the nation have been identified or fully assessed, which means that some people may live in an area at risk from TCE vapor intrusion, but don’t know it.
“We’d been over the [TCE] plume the whole time,” Jane Horton, a Mountain View resident since 1975, told the online magazine Ensia last year. When the plume was discovered, her youngest son was still in elementary school. Her house now has a ventilation system to send TCE vapors outside, but she said, “I can remember being so outraged that everything took so long. I’m wondering: Are my kids going to get cancer?”
Some chemicals break down in soil. But chlorinated solvents like TCE are more stable and can evaporate and enter buildings through small cracks or openings in foundations. Inhaling these vapors over time carries similar health concerns to exposure through drinking water – cancer, damage to organs, neurological damage and birth defects. The extent of vapor intrusion in U.S. homes may be largely unreported, as there are likely plumes from small, unaddressed sources such as legacy hazardous waste sites, landfills, and former industrial or commercial sites.
To reduce indoor air exposure to TCE, mitigation systems can be installed in homes and buildings to vent the vapors outdoors. But such systems can be costly, and homeowners often do not have adequate financial resources to address the contamination. TCE has also been reported as a problem for indoor air in schools and preschool facilities.
In the absence of federal leadership, some states are taking actions to protect their residents from TCE. For example, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation publishes recommendations for mitigation of TCE indoor air contamination and guidance for addressing toxic chemical vapor intrusion.EWG’s advice for familiesIf TCE is found in your water, even at levels below the federal legal limit, EWG highly recommends filtering your water. Look for a carbon-based filter that is certified to remove TCE.All public water utilities are required to provide consumers with an annual Consumer Confidence Report, but these reports often don’t give the full results of tests for contaminants. You should contact your utility to learn about the full range of the most recent tests for TCE, and ask what the utility is doing to remove TCE from tap water if it is present.If TCE is measured in your indoor air, contact your state health department about recommendations for ongoing monitoring or the need for a mitigation system.If you have a private well, and suspect any sources of contamination or hear of TCE detections in your area, get your well tested. The National Library of Medicine ToxMap lets users look up hazardous and contaminated sites in their communities, and find out which chemicals have been found. This information can be helpful in deciding for which other contaminants, in addition to TCE, you may need to test.
For a detailed explanation of how we calculated TCE contamination in public water systems, see our methodology.
https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/carcinogen-pollutes-tap-water-supplies-14-million-americans/#.W1hNhNIzaUk

Return to headline | Return to top
REACH Candidate List Process ‘Will Speed Up’ After Brexit

Jul 25, 2018 | Chemical Watch

By Clelia Oziel

The process of identifying substances of very high concern and adding them to the REACH candidate list is likely to happen quicker, once the UK leaves the EU, NGOs have said.
Once the country withdraws in March next year, it will no longer play an active role and will not have a vote in the trade bloc’s regulatory committees, such as Echa’s Member State Committee (MSC).
The MSC provides opinions for the European Commission to consider on the identification of SVHCs and Echa’s draft recommendations for the authorisation list (Annex XIV).
Within the committee, the UK has raised an objection to seven out of nine substances on which EU member states did not reach unanimous agreement.
Tatiana Santos, senior policy officer at the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), says this "clearly shows" the UK is the member that is "most fiercely" opposed to the inclusion of substances on the candidate list.
NGOs have criticised authorities for adding only 191 substances to the list in ten years. In its report on the second REACH Review, the European Commission acknowledged that the process is "extremely slow".
For a chemical to be identified as an SVHC, unanimous agreement is required between all member states. If this is not achieved, those opposing it must document their views in a minority position, which the Commission considers in a final decision.
So far, out of 211 proposals since 2008, there have been nine cases with a minority view. The UK, with at least one other member state, has opposed SVHC status for the substances:1,7,7-trimethyl-3-(phenylmethylene)bicyclo[2.2.1]heptan-2-one (3-benzylidene camphor, 3-BC);4-tert-butylphenol (PTBP);the phthalates DEHP, DBP, DiBP and BBP; andhexamethylene diacrylate (hexane-1,6-diol diacrylate) (HDDA).
In the case of the four phthalates, the UK argued, together with Spain, Italy and Germany, that SVHC identification based on endocrine disrupting effects on humans did not present an "equivalent level of concern".‘Minor’ contribution
Britain’s contribution to the candidate list has also been marginal, NGO says. UK companies account for the second largest number of REACH registrations after Germany – 14% of all registrations – with over 11,000 registrations corresponding to 5,343 different substances.
Yet as a member state, the UK has proposed only three substances for inclusion in the candidate list. All three are for persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) and very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) properties, "which require [a] considerable amount of work", Echa says.
The UK’s withdrawal from the MSC will "have an impact" on the level of member state involvement in SVHC identification, an agency spokesperson says, adding it is unable to speculate on any potential effects after Brexit.
The UK's Health and Safety Executive (HSE) did not provide a comment in time for publication.
In a white paper published earlier this month, the UK government repeated its call for associate membership of Echa once it leaves the trade bloc.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68960/reach-candidate-list-process-will-speed-up-after-brexit

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) How Safe Is Your Kids' Food?

Jul 25, 2018 | Consumer Reports

By Julia Calderone

A new report highlights food additives that may be harmful to kids. Here are 5 steps to take to keep kids safer.
Certain chemicals added to food and also used in food packaging have been linked to a suite of negative health effects, and children may be most at risk. That’s according to a new report from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), published yesterday in the journal Pediatrics.
“Parents are right to worry about what they feed their kids, especially when it’s prepackaged,” says James E. Rogers, Ph.D., director of food-safety research and testing at Consumer Reports. “But learning more about what to look out for can help you make the right choices when you feed your family.”
The new AAP report and statement highlighted five chemical groups of concern: bisphenols (such as BPA), which line metal cans and are mixed into plastics; phthalates (which make plastic soft); perfluoroalkyl chemicals (or PFCs, which are found in grease-proof wrappers and packaging); perchlorate (found in food packaging); and nitrates/nitrites (curing agents found in some meats).
A number of studies performed in the past two decades have linked these and other chemicals to a range of health problems, including developmental and reproductive harms and obesity (bisphenols, phthalates, and PFCs), thyroid hormone disruption (perchlorate, nitrates/nitrites), and cancer (nitrates/nitrites).
It’s still an open question exactly how harmful some of these chemicals may be for children, and whether the amount that most are exposed to is risky. But while more research is needed, scientists have warned that there’s simply not enough evidence to prove that such chemicals are harmless for everyone. And that’s especially true for children, whose developing organ systems may be particularly vulnerable to any potential effects.
“There are lots of chemicals that are put into foods without the evidence base to show that they’re safe,” says the report’s senior author, Sheela Sathyanarayana, M.D., an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington. “They may very well be safe, but we don't know. And that's the point.” It's Not Just Food Additives
This new report is only the latest in a flurry of recent findings that suggest that the food we feed children sometimes contains additives that may be risky or toxic contaminants that should never be there.
Experts (including those from Consumer Reports) have recently questioned the safety of rice and rice-based products for infants and young children, for example, as recent research has found these products can harbor a growing list of heavy metals.
One study published in October 2017 found that among a sampling of 119 popular cereal brands, rice cereals had on average three times the amount of methylmercury, the most concerning type of mercury, as multigrain cereals; and 19 times the amount in cereals made with grains other than rice. Another study published one month later found infant rice cereals to contain about six times more arsenic than other grain cereals on the market.
“One of the most important things we can do is raise awareness about this issue among the general population,” says Tunde Akinleye, a food-safety expert at Consumer Reports. “Consumers should also continue to demand changes to the way the Food and Drug Administration regulates and oversees the safety of the food we feed ourselves and our children.”
In a statement provided to Consumer Reports, the American Chemical Council, an industry group, said that "all plastics intended for contact with food are reviewed for safety and must meet stringent FDA safety requirements before they can be used in food packaging."
According to Sathyanarayana, it’s important to remember that your child is not going to be harmed from a one-time exposure to any of these chemicals. “Don’t panic if you’re feeding your kid a hot dog once a week,” says Sathyanarayana, “but you should really be trying not to do that every single day.” 5 Ways to Minimize Exposure
Many of the chemicals that are potentially concerning are practically everywhere (even in dust), so it’s impossible to avoid them completely, says Akinleye. “We're exposed to endocrine disruptors, like BPA and phthalates, daily via diet, water, personal care and consumer products, and medical supplies, just to name a few,” he says.
But there are some simple, easy ways you can lower the risk to yourself and to your kids.
Focus on whole fruits and vegetables. Buying your fruits whole or frozenvs. canned or packaged and processed can greatly minimize exposure to BPA (from cans) and phthalates (from packaged or processed food).
“Research studies have shown that eating a diet that focuses on fresh food and frozen foods will reduce your exposure to these kinds of chemicals,” Sathyanarayana says.
And Charlotte Vallaeys, Consumer Reports' senior policy analyst and top food labels expert, agrees. “The focus on eating ‘real food’ is just a good rule of thumb, and I'm glad to see the AAP add their voice to this,” Vallaeys says.
Wash hands and produce. Consumer Reports’ experts recommend rinsing, rubbing, or scrubbing fruits and vegetables to help remove pesticide residue. In fact, a recent study published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry found that soaking apples in a solution of baking soda and water can remove more pesticides than rinsing in tap water or a bleach solution alone. Seeking out the organic label can also reduce your exposure to pesticides.
Washing hands after handling different food products and packaging is important, too. “You want to avoid transferring any chemical exposures from the packaging to the food,” Sathyanarayana says.
Be cautious with plastic. Some of the most concerning chemicals listed in this report are mixed into plastic containers, food wraps, and packaging. And when they’re heated or contain hot liquids, the chemicals can leach into your food or drink. The AAP suggests using glass or stainless steel alternatives to plastic when possible, and avoiding putting plastic containers in the microwave or dishwasher.
The AAP also recommends using the recycling number to identify plastics that are highest risk: recycling codes “3,” “6,” and “7” contain phthalates, styrene, and bisphenols, respectively. “Biobased” or “greenware” plastics are fine, because they’re made from corn and not bisphenols.
Avoid processed meats, especially if you’re pregnant. Previous studies have linked the consumption of “ultra-processed” foods, such as hot dogs, chicken nuggets, sodas, and sweets, to obesity, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol. Additionally, many processed meats contain preservatives called nitrates and nitrites, which may form cancer-causing compounds called nitrosamines in the body.
Double-check the label. Read the fine print on package labels, says Vallaeys, to ensure you’re getting a product that doesn’t contain nitrates or nitrites.
Some processed meats labeled “no nitrates or nitrites added” may still contain them from nonsynthetic sources, such as celery juice or powder, says Vallaeys, and these can be just as harmful. If you see a product making a “no nitrite or nitrate added” claim, watch out for phrasing that says “except for those occurring naturally in” whatever naturally occurring source the company used. That means it’s not completely nitrate- or nitrite-free.
https://www.consumerreports.org/food-safety/how-safe-is-your-kids-food/

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) Another Summit Focused On Shale Industry Set Sept. 11

Jul 24, 2018 | Oil City Derrick

By Jim Meyer

The shale revolution is underway and it may have the power to revitalize the entire region, according to Lance Hummer, executive director of the Keystone Community Education Council.
The Council is part of the Northwest Pennsylvania Oil and Gas HUB Taskforce, which will hold a summit called "Growing the Petrochemical Industry in Western Pennsylvania" at 9 a.m. Tuesday, Sept. 11, at Cross Creek Resort near Titusville.
... The summit is open to the public and will include speakers from the Plastic Industry Association, the American Chemistry Council, the Chemical Industry Council, ...
Subscription required. For full story: http://www.thederrick.com/news/community_news/another-summit-focused-on-shale-industry-set-sept/article_a3d9d3b6-e525-5888-8d86-9deb9c3d5195.html

Return to headline | Return to top
News More Gas Could Be Exported to Caribbean Under Energy Final Rule

Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Rebecca Kern

Energy Department finalizes rule to remove environmental requirements on small LNG exports
Aims to increase shipments to Caribbean, Central and South America
Small-scale liquefied natural gas exports primarily to the Caribbean and Central and South America will go faster when environmental reviews aren’t required—a move the Energy Department hopes will spur more exports to the region.
Small-scale LNG companies seeking to export up to 0.14 billion cubic feet per day of liquefied natural gas could go through a faster review if they determine their facility doesn’t require an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act, according to the final rule.
The rule applies to exports to countries that are not in a free trade agreement with the U.S.
“We’re glad to see DOE taking these kinds of steps to help the streamline the process, especially for these smaller facilities that will serve small emerging markets like the Caribbean and South America that are hungry for natural gas,” Charlie Riedl, executive director of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, which represents LNG producers, shippers, terminal operators, and developers, told Bloomberg Environment.
However, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, opposed the rule.
“The policy goals and priorities of the small-scale LNG rule are concerning as it removes longstanding consumer protections, blocks public input, and potentially violates the hearing requirements of the Natural Gas Act,” he told Bloomberg Environment in an email.
Pallone opposed H.R. 4606, which would have enacted the Energy Department rule aiming to speed up small-scale LNG exports, and was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this year.

“While I disagree with this final rule from the Department of Energy, it makes congressional action on H.R. 4606 unnecessary,” Pallone said.
To date, the Energy Department has granted eight small-scale natural gas applications to export to countries not covered by free trade agreements.
Mary Anne Sullivan, a partner at Hogan Lovells and former general counsel at the Energy Department, said lifting the environmental analysis requirement removes what had been “one of the psychological barriers.”
“I would expect we might see further efforts to bring LNG to the Caribbean because the dependence of fuel oil and diesel is a real problem in a lot of the Caribbean because it’s dirty, it’s expensive and its volatile,” she told Bloomberg Environment.
The rule will be published in the Federal Register July 25 and will go into effect Aug. 24.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/more-gas-could-be-exported-to-caribbean-under-energy-final-rule

Return to headline | Return to top
DOE Streamlines Small-Scale LNG Exports

Jul 25, 2018 | E&E Energywire

By Ellen M. Gilmer

The Trump administration just made it easier to export small amounts of natural gas around the world.
The Department of Energy this morning published its final rule expediting the approval of small-scale liquefied natural gas exports. The rule applies to LNG shipments destined for countries without free-trade agreements (FTA) with the United States, which have generally been subject to a higher degree of agency scrutiny.
The agency expects the rule to streamline export applications for LNG en route to "non-FTA" countries in the Caribbean, Central America and South America. Applications for exports to free-trade partners already receive expedited approval.
"DOE believes that facilitating small-scale natural gas exports will allow for greater diversity and competition in the natural gas market, consistent with the public interest under [the Natural Gas Act]," the agency said in the new rule.
The streamlining effort fits with the Trump administration's broader "energy dominance" policy. Under the rule, which was first proposed a year ago, export applications will receive expedited approval so long as they represent no more than 51.75 billion cubic feet of gas per year and do not trigger fresh review under the National Environmental Policy Act.
The regulation, which takes effect next month, deems those applications "consistent with the public interest" under a standard set by the Natural Gas Act. DOE will not provide public notice for each approval.
"DOE has thoroughly analyzed the many factors affecting the export of U.S. natural gas, as well as the unique characteristics and minimal adverse impacts of the emerging small-scale natural gas market," the agency said. "On this basis, DOE has determined that this rule is consistent with both [the Natural Gas Act] and DOE's established practice in authorizing such exports."
Praise from industry, Capitol Hill
Export proponents have been pushing for years to fast-track LNG projects.
"Reducing hurdles, streamlining the process, and providing certainty for the U.S. LNG industry in a globally competitive and fast growing market is essential," Charlie Riedl, executive director of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, said in a statement.
Small-scale export applications represent a very small slice of the LNG market. According to DOE, bigger projects account for 99 percent of the gas volumes authorized for non-FTA countries and 99 percent of the volumes requested in pending applications. Those high-volume proposals are still subject to a more deliberative review process by DOE.
The agency noted in the final rule that small-scale exports are typically sent from existing facilities and travel shorter distances.
"DOE has appropriately decided that it does not need to continue to conduct such time-consuming and costly reviews for small-scale projects with minimal/no environmental impacts," LNG Allies President and CEO Fred Hutchison said in a statement.
Republicans on Capitol Hill also praised DOE's move. Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) have introduced bills that would formally amend the Natural Gas Act to streamline small-scale approvals.
"I'm glad the Trump Administration and the DOE decided to move ahead and finalize a rule allowing these exports," Johnson said in a statement yesterday. "It's a major win for Eastern and Southeastern Ohio that I represent, and for strengthening ties with our allies abroad."
Cassidy and Rubio also issued statements offering their praise.
"I applaud the Trump Administration for recognizing the benefits of our proposal and putting it into practice," Cassidy said.
Rubio added: "This policy, which Sen. Cassidy and I have touted through our Small-Scale LNG Access Act, will boost a growing segment of Florida's economy as well as expand and strengthen U.S. ties with our Caribbean and Latin American partners."
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) raised concerns about the Senate bill earlier this year, saying it could undermine DOE's ability to study whether applications are in the public interest. Cantwell's office did not comment on the finalized DOE rule, but a spokesman said the senator's position has not changed.In the public interest?
DOE's fast-track plan has plenty of critics.
The Industrial Energy Consumers of America, which lobbies on behalf of energy-intensive manufacturers, warned last year that the proposal could result in higher natural gas prices for U.S. consumers. The group declined to comment yesterday on the final rule.
Environmental groups have also flagged concerns. In comments last fall, the Sierra Club argued that the rule could raise domestic prices and increase natural gas production, threatening air quality and contributing to climate change.
The final rule acknowledges that increased exports could incrementally accelerate gas production and transmission, and it references a 2014 DOE study that identifies specific environmental risks that could follow.
"These environmental concerns do not lead DOE to conclude, however, that the proposed small-scale exports of natural gas are not in the public interest and/or should be prohibited," the agency wrote. "Rather, DOE believes the public interest is better served by addressing these concerns directly — through federal, state, or local regulation, or through self-imposed industry guidelines where appropriate — rather than by prohibiting exports of natural gas."
DOE also noted that demand for U.S. natural gas comes from many countries currently relying on dirtier-burning diesel and fuel oil. But environmentalists have questioned whether U.S. LNG shipments to those countries could crowd out renewable energy options.
Kelly Martin, director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Dirty Fuels campaign, said DOE's approach amounts to a handout to natural gas producers.
"The only people who will benefit from more gas exports are fossil fuel industry CEOs, while Americans are left with higher energy costs and increased air and water pollution," she said. "America should be a leader in the global movement toward clean, renewable energy, not polluting our communities at home so we can export more dirty fuels abroad."
The group did not say whether it plans to challenge the new regulation in court.
Critics of LNG exports also worry that the small-scale rule could be a slippery slope to similar efforts to fast-track big projects. Indeed, export advocates have been pushing for such a change. In comments on the proposed rule last year, the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas and the American Petroleum Institute argued that the agency should take it a step further.
"We believe this [proposal] is a step in the right direction and will help to encourage the domestic and global benefits that U.S. natural gas exports provide," they wrote. "However, we also believe that liberalizing all natural gas exports (not just small-scale) is the only way to ensure that the benefits of natural gas exports will be fully realized."
DOE said in today's final rule that requests to speed up permitting for bigger projects are beyond the scope of the small-scale regulation, but noted that suggestions for further streamlining are welcome.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/07/25/stories/1060090431

Return to headline | Return to top
BLM Takes Steps Toward Seismic Testing in ANWR

Jul 24, 2018 | E&E Energywire

By Pamela King

The Bureau of Land Management appears to be moving forward on an application to conduct seismic testing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
BLM's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) register currently indicates that the agency is in the "preparation and planning" stage on a proposal by SAExploration Inc. to gauge the hydrocarbon potential of the ANWR coastal plain (Greenwire, May 31). BLM has yet to complete its broader analysis of a program to hold two lease sales in the 1.6-million-acre region, which is also known as the 1002 Area (Greenwire, April 19).
SAExploration proposes to begin seismic exploration this winter, deploying two camps of up to 160 workers throughout the coastal plain, according to a seven-page document included in the NEPA register.
The separation of the seismic proposal from the leasing process raised concerns among conservation advocates, who have called to keep oil and gas development out of ANWR altogether.
"The seismic part of this work should be part of the overall leasing environmental impact statement," said Nicole Whittington-Evans, Alaska regional director for the Wilderness Society. "To separate it out is really an unfortunate way to move forward."
Defenders of Wildlife criticized the SAExploration proposal for interfering with essential wildlife needs.
"Polar bear conservation is incompatible with the environmental destruction that oil rigs will bring to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," said Jenny Keatinge, senior federal lands policy analyst for the environmental group. "We join the majority of Americans in opposing fossil fuel development, including destructive seismic testing, in the most important onshore denning habitat for this imperiled species in the United States."
BLM did not respond to a request for comment.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/07/25/stories/1060090983

Return to headline | Return to top
Engie Invests in ‘Digesters’ Producing Gas from Household Waste

Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Francois De Beaupuy

Engie SA, France’s former natural-gas monopoly, invested in an Israeli manufacturer of devices that produce gas from household waste.
Engie bought a 13 percent stake in HomeBiogas, a startup whose “digesters” produce cooking gas from food scraps, the utility said July 24. Engie has been divesting fossil-fuel assets and expanding in renewables, betting on increased demand for clean energy amid falling costs and tighter emission regulations.
The digesters can produce as much as two hours of cooking gas a day with as little as 2 kilograms of food scraps, as well as some organic liquid fertilizer as a byproduct, Engie said in a statement, without valuing the deal. Customers may get a return on investment in one year if the device is used regularly.
HomeBiogas targets households in developing countries that still burn charcoal and wood as cooking fuel, as well as homeowners in developed nations who want to reduce their carbon emissions.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/engie-invests-in-digesters-producing-gas-from-household-waste

Return to headline | Return to top
Here's How Trump's 'Greatest' Tariffs Can Hike Emissions

Jul 25, 2018 | E&E Climatewire

By Zack Colman

The oil and gas industry is looking for a mind reader.
It thought that companies pursuing projects to help President Trump reach his "energy dominance" goal might get a free pass when it comes to his controversial steel tariffs. That might not be the case. At least one pipeline builder is wrestling with Trump's competing messages: Pump more oil, but your steel will cost more.
A ruling by the Commerce Department earlier this month has sent the industry into a frenzy, after the agency rejected a request by Plains All American Pipeline LP to be exempted from paying new steel tariffs imposed by Trump. It underscores the tension between oil and gas firms and a White House that shares its vision for expanded fossil fuel development while simultaneously erecting trade barriers.
The company wants to build three pipelines to unleash a glut of oil from the booming Permian Basin in Texas. The Commerce Department rejected the request for an exemption because it said a domestic steel supplier could meet the company's needs for a $1.1 billion pipeline stretching 550 miles. The company had already contracted for steel from a supplier in Greece (Energywire, July 20).
"The Plains decision demonstrates what we've been saying from the beginning, that the exemption process is not transparent, not predictable, and is absolutely likely to have incorrect and bad outcomes," said Christopher Guith, senior vice president for policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Global Energy Institute. "This is a perfect example."
Industry groups contend that the Trump administration's process for getting an exclusion from the 25 percent tariff on imported steel and the 10 percent tariff on imported aluminum is a black box. The Plains All American episode is laying bare the frustrations between energy firms and Trump on trade, which also extend to renegotiations on the North American Free Trade Agreement and other policy matters like the renewable fuel standard and an emerging plan to aid ailing coal and nuclear power plants. The pipeline would transport up to 670,000 barrels of oil per day to the Gulf Coast, where it could be exported abroad.
The tariffs are also raising concerns in Congress. The House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade held a hearing yesterday on the exclusion process.
"I'm worried that these tariffs are going to halt investment in these projects, and ultimately, that's going to cost jobs," said Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-Minn.).
The Commerce Department ruling would add $40 million to the cost of the pipeline being built by Plains All American. The company plans to move forward, Chief Operating Officer Willie Chiang said during the hearing.
But Chiang and other industry executives worry about a chilling effect. They're also raising concerns about quotas, which could result in materials from a foreign supplier being cut off before a project is finished. Chiang explained that the industry is "interconnected," so logjams from insufficient pipelines could curb production.
"This is not going to stop this pipeline, but the question will be, what is the effect of this going to be on future investment?" said Stephen Comstock, tax and accounting director at the American Petroleum Institute.
That could be significant for projects with tighter margins, such as natural gas pipelines. That could boost coal by leaving natural gas projects on an island, with not enough pipelines and other infrastructure to carry gas to population centers. That could result in higher greenhouse gases if coal supplants natural gas power plants.
Slowing the construction of pipelines could have a more immediate effect on the climate: Oil bottlenecks in the Permian are increasing the use of flaring. Burning methane, a byproduct of producing oil, is a potent contributor to global warming. Existing pipelines are mostly at capacity, so the state regulator — the Texas Railroad Commission — is weighing whether to ease restrictions on flaring natural gas.
While many oil and gas companies operating in the Permian have taken steps to limit flaring, "other producers are now counting on the [Railroad Commission] to give them a free pass to waste and pollute in order to keep the oil spigot flowing," Colin Leyden, the Environmental Defense Fund's senior manager of state regulatory and legislative affairs, wrote in a recent blog post.
EDF said some companies waste 10 percent of gas through flaring.
The Commerce Department said in its rejection to Plains All American that a domestic provider, Berg Steel Pipe Corp. in Florida, could produce steel for the project, known as Cactus II.
Cactus II could help relieve some of the pressure in the Permian by expanding pipeline capacity, said Lee Fuller, executive vice president with the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
"If you don't have the pipeline takeaway capacity and it is going to result in more gas being flared than the Railroad Commission wants to allow, then the commission can throttle production," Fuller said. "It's something they're all wrestling with down there."
Plains All American sought a specific length and type of pipeline steel for its project, through a request for proposals. No companies in the United States answered the offer. Berg Steel said it could offer a similar, but different, style and length of pipeline. Commerce determined that it was close enough to the needs of Plains All American. So it rejected the company's request to be excluded from Trump's new tariffs on foreign steel.
A Commerce official said three U.S. steel producers and the American Line Pipe Producers Association, a trade group, "represented that substitute products are readily available from U.S. suppliers in sufficient quality and quantity."
Industry groups scoffed at the decision, saying the government was essentially making investment decisions for private companies.
"How this affects other projects moving forward will depend upon whether the specific pipeline-grade steel, diameter and length called for by those individual projects is available in a way that makes sense for those projects," said John Stoody, vice president of government and public relations with the Association of Oil Pipe Lines.
Stoody said the two types of pipelines operate the same functionally. It's a point Berg Steel made in its case to Commerce, saying the options are "interchangeable products and fit for use in the same applications" and that Plains All American made a decision to buy steel from a foreign company "based on price and price alone."
Industry, though, questions whether domestic suppliers will manufacture the type of steel it needs.
"The steel industry will say we can make the steel and then the exclusion is denied, but I don't know if anyone has figured out whether they can make all the steel that is requested in all the exclusions," Fuller said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/07/25/stories/1060090987

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

CSX Will Pay $2.7M For Oil Spill, Fires in 2015 Train Derailment

Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Andrew M. Ballard

CSX Transportation Inc. will pay $2.2 million in penalties for damages caused by a 2015 train derailment in West Virginia under a deal the company reached with prosecutors.
CSX also will pay an additional $500,000 to fund upgrades to a water treatment facility near the site of the incident as part of the consent decree filed July 24. The penalties and payments under the agreement are on top of cleanup and restoration efforts that Jacksonville, Fla.-based CSX already has taken. .
“The 2015 CSX train derailment in Mount Carbon, West Virginia caused significant damage and disruption to that community,” and the settlement holds CSX accountable, Susan Bodine, the Environmental Protection Agency’s assistant administrator for enforcement and compliance assurance, said in a July 24 statement.
“As a matter of policy, CSX doesn’t comment on matters of litigation,” Christopher B. Smith, a company spokesman, told Bloomberg Environment July 24.
River Polluted
Part of a 109-car train carrying more than 3 million gallons of crude oil derailed on CSX tracks in February 2015, and several tank cars ignited, setting one home on fire and forcing the evacuation of residents of Mount Carbon. The accident released oil from some of the tank cars into the Kanawha River, Armstrong Creek, and the surrounding environment.
Local officials declared a state of emergency, and nearby water intakes were closed and residents were evacuated. Prosecutors charged CSX with violating the federal Clean Water Act as well as West Virginia’s Water Pollution Control Act and Groundwater Protection Act.
As part of orders previously issued by federal and state regulators, CSX already has taken steps to remedy the damage and disruption caused by the oil spill, the EPA said in a statement. The Fayette County treatment plant upgrades are expected to improve surface water quality in the Kanawha River.
Of the total penalties included in the consent decree, $1.2 million will go to the U.S. and $1 million to West Virginia. The consent decree is subject to a 30-day public comment period and approval by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia before it becomes final.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/csx-will-pay-27m-for-oil-spill-fires-in-2015-train-derailment

Return to headline | Return to top
Railroad Company Settles For $2.2 Million Over Fiery Derailment And Oil Spill

Jul 24, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Miranda Green

A railroad operator is settling with the government for $2.2 million in penalties over the 2015 derailment of an oil tanker in a small West Virginia town that spilled thousands of gallons of oil and burst into flames.
CSX Transportation will pay the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) $1.2 million in penalties and will pay the state of West Virginia $1 million for state and federal water pollution violations related to the oil spill in Mount Carbon, W.Va., officials announced Tuesday.
The February 2015 derailment of 109 railcars carrying nearly 29,000 in Bakken crude oil led to explosions, property destruction and hundreds of resident evacuations.
The Federal Railroad Administration determined that the cause of the crash was a broken rail. Officials found that the CSX railroad company and its contractor, Sperry Rail Service, missed the broken rail during two inspections in the months before the derailment.
“The 2015 CSX train derailment in Mount Carbon, West Virginia caused significant damage and disruption to that community,” Susan Bodine, assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, said in a statement Tuesday. “Through this settlement EPA, DOJ, and the State of West Virginia are holding CSX Transportation accountable for these consequences.”
The settlement comes after the EPA found that some of the oil discharged from the crash flowed into the neighboring Kanawha River and Armstrong Creek, threatening fish and bird habitat and drinking water supplies. The event led at least two water treatment plants to shut down while portions of the river also caught fire.
At the time, the spill led to a number of questions about the safety of transporting crude oil by train, including concerns that local communities were frequently unaware of what was being carried on trains passing through nearby.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/398575-railroad-company-settles-for-22-million-over-fiery-derailment-and

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) New Group Urges Trump To Support Kigali

Jul 25, 2018 | Amonnia21

By Michael Garry

A new coalition of conservatives and businesses in the U.S. is focused on persuading President Trump to support the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, the global agreement to phase down the production and use of HFCs.
Announcing its formation this week, the Let America Lead coalition (https://www.letamericalead.com) pledged to work with “conservative leaders at the local, state and national level, manufacturers and businesses, and working Americans across the country to demonstrate to President Trump why support for the Kigali Amendment is a win for American workers and urge him to send it to the U.S. Senate for ratification.”
Founding members of Let America Lead include the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry Council and the American Council for Capital Formation.
“President Trump’s record demonstrates his commitment to making leadership decisions based on their ability to deliver for American workers and American families,” said George David Banks, President Trump’s former adviser on international energy and environment policy, who is serving as a senior advisor to Let America Lead. “Our nation’s manufacturers - large and small - serve as the foundation of our nation’s strength and will see positive benefits from the Kigali Amendment.”
Banks added that the coalition “will help President Trump hear from people he values most why it [the Kigali Amendment] is such a powerful opportunity to level the playing field for America.”
The announcement follows a recent series of public statements of support for Kigali Amendment ratification by conservative groups and politicians. In May, the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute and the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy released a new economic study demonstrating the job creation and economic growth benefits of ratification. But members of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, oppose ratification.

The Kigali Amendment, approved in October 2016 in the Rwandan capital by 197 countries, including the U.S., goes into effect January 1, 2019, in countries that have ratified it. To date, 40 countries have announced ratification.
Under the amendment, developed countries will initiate a 10% reduction of HFCs in 2019, leading up to an 85% cut in 2036 (compared to a 2011-2013 baseline). Developing countries are given more time to implement the phase down.
http://www.ammonia21.com/articles/8442/new_group_urges_trump_to_support_kigali

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Trade Groups To Trump: Back Obama's Climate Plan

Jul 24, 2018 | Axios

By Ben Geman

Axios' Amy Harder reports ... Powerful industry associations including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce launched an advocacy group Monday that's urging President Trump to back an Obama-era climate policy.
The details: The new coalition called Let America Lead says the Obama initiative — a phase-down and replacement of coolants that emit powerful greenhouse gases — makes America competitive and creates jobs.Of note: Climate change isn’t mentioned.
The big picture: The Obama administration helped broker a 2016 amendment to the Montreal Protocol, the 1987 international treaty to repair the ozone layer.The Kigali amendment seeks to phase out hydroflourocarbons, a class of chemicals in air conditioning and refrigeration that are ozone-friendly but spew heat-trapping gases.The goal is to replace them with products that neither degrade ozone or warm the earth.
What’s next: The amendment requires Senate approval, which is a component of the campaign. But the Trump administration has yet to submit the Kigali amendment for Senate ratification.Backers of the new campaign include the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Chemistry Council.
https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-generate-c90c12fc-6dbc-4e6f-b7da-94a216718295.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Cement Makers Won’t Need More Air Pollution Controls, EPA Says (1)

Jul 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Andrew Childers and Amena H. Saiyid

Current emissions standards sufficient to protect public health, agency says
Clarified monitoring provisions will improve compliance
Cement manufacturers such as LafargeHolcim Ltd. won’t have to deal with any new toxic pollution control requirements for at least another eight years.
Current hazardous air pollutant emissions standards for the manufacture of the widely used Portland cement are sufficient to protect public health, and a more stringent standard isn’t necessary, the Environmental Protection Agency said in a final rule to be published in the Federal Register July 25.
Portland cement, the most commonly used type of cement, is a basic ingredient of concrete, mortar, stucco, and nonspecialty grout.
The rule would affect 91 Portland cement manufacturing facilities nationwide, according to the EPA.
Jim Schermbeck, executive director for Dallas-based Downwinders at Risk, said he is disappointed the EPA won’t consider requiring the cement industry to install controls for toxic air pollution that are commonly found in plants in Europe. He said the Dallas-Forth Worth area alone has three cement facilities located just south of the larger metropolitan area.
“I do think there will be a legal challenge on a number of issues, including the agency’s inability to require controls that can reduce these emissions,” Schermbeck said.
Costly Controls Spared
The agency’s action spares the industry the prospect of installing costly new controls for pollutants such as mercury, dioxins, and hydrogen chloride at their facilities.
“There are no developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions” to the national emissions standards that require using control technologies to help reduce toxic air pollution, the agency said.
Using data and information that cement industry submitted, the EPA reached the best conclusion based on law and science, the Portland Cement Association in Washington told Bloomberg Environment July 24.
“The agency’s additional efforts to correct and clarify requirements will improve monitoring, compliance and implementation of the rule,” said Holly Arthur, the association’s spokeswoman, adding that the cement industry’s gains in energy efficiency and sustainable manufacturing practices have helped reduce its environmental impacts.
LafargeHolcim told Bloomberg Environment it deferred to the association’s statement.
Missed Deadlines
The EPA is required every eight years to review toxic air emissions standards for various industries, such as manufacturers of Portland cement, but it is a deadline that the agency rarely meets.
The final rule also updates the monitoring requirements for cement manufacturers and will improve compliance with pollution control requirements, according to the EPA.
Making Portland cement is an energy-intensive process that entails grinding and heating raw materials such as limestone, clay, sand, and iron ore and then baking that mixture in a rotary kiln, which the agency said is the main source of toxic air pollution.
The risk that the Portland cement manufacturing process poses is acceptable, according to the EPA.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/cement-makers-wont-need-more-air-pollution-controls-epa-says-1

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentions) Ewire: Major Industry Groups Back HFC Treaty

Jul 24, 2018 | Inside EPA

Several heavyweight industry trade associations are mobilizing behind a campaign to persuade President Donald Trump to embrace an Obama-era international agreement to curb refrigerants that act as potent greenhouse gases, urging him to submit the deal to the Senate for a ratification vote.
Axios reports on the creation of a new political coalition, known as Let America Lead, which wants Trump to embrace the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, which sets a global phase-down schedule for hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).
The deal is backed by much of the refrigeration and chemical industries, as well as environmentalists. Now, several major trade groups are adding their backing: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Chemistry Council and the American Council for Capital Formation.
These groups are focusing on how the Kigali deal could make American industry more competitive, and are not focusing on the climate change-related aspects of the agreement.
That strategy echoes previous advocacy on the issue from a group of 13 Senate Republicans, and a wide range of refrigeration and air conditioning groups.
Despite the widespread backing from Trump allies, a coalition of more than 20 national and state conservative groups has urged Trump to “reject” the Kigali deal, charging it would lead to “higher costs for households, motorists and businesses that rely on air conditioning and refrigeration.”
The advocacy over Kigali comes amid ongoing uncertainty over EPA's regulations targeting HFCs. States and environmentalists are suing the agency over its decision not to enforce 2015 limits on HFCs, arguing the agency is unlawfully dropping the requirements through a guidance document.
The guidance responds to an adverse court ruling that partially vacated the 2015 rule, though critics say EPA is going beyond the court's ruling and would allow large numbers of commercial refrigeration systems to switch to HFCs.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-major-industry-groups-back-hfc-treaty

Return to headline | Return to top
Curbelo Tax Plan Offers 'Template' For Further Capitol Hill GHG Discussion

Jul 24, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Doug Obey

After years of Capitol Hill gridlock on climate change, a newly unveiled carbon tax bill from Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) offers a “template” for further discussion on thorny issues including a proposed “moratorium” on EPA rules in exchange for a tax and how to establish enough certainty for both industry and environmental groups.
“This bill is open for amendment. This is not a leave it or take it bill,” Curbelo said at a July 23 National Press Club event to formally unveil the legislation, H.R. 6463.
Dubbed the MARKET CHOICE Act, Curbelo's bill is noteworthy for being both the first major legislative climate mitigation proposal from a House Republican since 2009. The legislation is cosponsored by Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), according to a Curbelo press release.
Even so, the bill underscores that lawmakers remain at the earliest stages of confronting climate change, despite decades of international negotiations and regulatory fights over the issue.
Curbelo's remarks at the event highlighted the political two-step lawmakers must perform to build Republican support for such efforts. He began his pitch with the prospect of using carbon tax revenues to help fix the nation's ailing transportation infrastructure.
“People waste away a significant portion of each day stuck in traffic,” Curbelo said, subsequently citing climate change as “another” issue facing the country.
Curbelo's tax would start at $24 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, increasing 2 percent annually. Much of the revenue would be used for the highway trust fund, allowing lawmakers to eliminate the federal gas tax.
Curbelo argued that skeptics of the notion that Congress can enact a carbon tax are ignoring signs of progress -- including that seven House Republicans last week declined to support a non-binding resolution opposing a generic carbon tax. He maintained his bill will be a catalyst for further discussion.
“Once more members have an opportunity to analyze it, study it . . . you are going to see more movement away from that reflexive, knee-jerk reaction to the idea of carbon pricing,” he said.
While many observers will dismiss the bill out of hand, “many others will offer constructive criticism,” he said.
A fact sheet released in tandem with Curbelo's announcement confirms several previously reported details of the plan, including that it would direct 70 percent of revenue to the highway trust fund and that modeling predicts the plan to achieve at least a 27 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2025 and a 30 percent reduction by 2032. Those figures are relative to 2005 levels.
It also outlines a “rolling, performance-based moratorium” on finalizing or enforcing stationary source Clean Air Act regulations on GHGs, with the exception of some methane emissions, upon enactment that would extend to as long as 2033.
That moratorium -- as opposed to outright preemption of EPA's authority -- is included in a bid to address concerns that the carbon tax would not be as effective as modeled. In addition, the bill would require an automatic $2-per-ton increase to the tax every two years if national emissions fall behind goals.
But the moratorium does not apply to vehicle regulations and, according to the bill text, specifies that EPA “may” grant a waiver to California to curb vehicle GHGs under the state's existing authority to exceed federal vehicle standards.
Conservative Critics
But the roll-out also illustrates the sticking points that await any serious effort the enact a carbon tax proposal in the coming months or years. Curbelo was forced to issue a point-by-point rebuttal of an attack by Americans for Tax Reform, including allegations that the plan gives “unfettered power to the EPA chief to impose carbon taxes” and establishes “abusive penalties for non-payment of carbon taxes” on Americans.
Curbelo's rebuttal includes commentary that the claim of unfettered EPA power “neglect[s] to mention that those paying an emissions fee are exempt from EPA emissions reductions, provided emissions goals are met.”
And on the tax penalties, the rebuttal says the attack “Falsely implies the penalty is on all Americans. Since the tax is on producers of emitting products, the penalty is on producers of those emitting products. The penalty is to discourage tax evasion.”
More broadly, Curbelo's $24 tax is roughly half that of prior carbon tax proposals, including one from a group of former Republican administration officials and a separate plan from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).
A source with Resources for the Future (RFF) says the group is developing additional modeling of how legislation could increase carbon tax rates over time if expected GHG cuts fail to materialize.
More broadly, the RFF source suggests Curbelo's bill will serve as a “template” for future discussions on how a carbon tax plan would work in practice, including Curbelo's provision for a “border tax adjustment” on imported goods.
Some environmentalists and public health advocates are already offering criticism of Curbelo's proposal for its moratorium on stationary source climate rules, which would start upon enactment and be retained until 2033 if emissions goals are met in 2025 and 2029.
“Trading away enforceable pollution reductions required by the Clean Air Act in exchange for Curbelo's carbon tax scheme is extremely misguided,” American Lung Association's Paul Billings said in a July 23 tweet.
Should the country fail to meet the bill's GHG goals, it is not clear how quickly EPA could restart its regulatory process under the terms of the moratorium, given the multi-year process that was involved in the development and initial implementation of EPA's Clean Power Plan utility GHG rule -- a process stopped by a Supreme Court stay of the rule and the Trump administration's ongoing efforts to replace it with a much weaker standard.
Early Praise
But Curbelo during his remarks cited the moratorium provision -- which could allow a return of EPA rules -- as depriving environmental critics of the bill of an “excuse” to oppose the measure out of concern that it would not sufficiently cut GHGs.
For the moment, some environmental groups are giving Curbelo credit for stepping out on the climate issue.
“We can now talk about meaningful solutions,” Environmental Defense Fund's Nathaniel Keohane said at the Press Club event, expressing hopes that years of political gridlock on federal climate legislation might be “nearing its end.”
Keohane in subsequent comments to Inside EPA praised Curbelo's bill for not repealing EPA's underlying GHG authority. Instead it includes the “principle” of a performance-based carbon price. That is better than “just setting a price” and hoping it “works out.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council in a July 23 press release called Curbelo's plan “one of the first credible proposals by a congressional Republican to address climate change,” but added that it is “only a conversation starter. It falls far short of what’s needed to protect our climate.”
The group argued the plan should invest more in energy efficiency, renewable power and electric vehicles, and that it should not limit Clean Air Act rules.
The precise allocation of carbon tax revenues would presumably be a matter for significant Capitol Hill negotiations should a carbon tax plan ever gain momentum.
But Niskanen Center's Joseph Majkut at the event said Curbelo's proposal is noteworthy for setting aside specific funding for “public investment,” noting that most right-of-center climate proposals have been revenue neutral.
He added that “if it were to become law it would certainly be the biggest carbon pricing system” in the world, by a factor of two or more.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/curbelo-tax-plan-offers-template-further-capitol-hill-ghg-discussion

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested