Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 10/11/2018
-
Trump’s War on Children’s Health Escalates at Wheeler’s EPA
Oct 11, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis and Robert Coleman
Under President Trump, the Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly betrayed its responsibility to safeguard the health of children. But in recent weeks, the hostile actions of the president and Andrew Wheeler, the EPA’s acting administrator... -
Senate Approves DOJ Environment Pick
Oct 11, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Trump administration has a new leader for environmental litigation. -
US EPA Round-Up
Oct 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The EPA has formally published its prioritisation approach for identifying chemicals as potential candidates for TSCA risk evaluation. -
(ACC Mentioned) Class Action Lawsuit Takes Aim at US PFAS Manufacturers
Oct 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
An Ohio firefighter has brought a national class action lawsuit against more than half a dozen chemical manufacturers on behalf of Americans exposed to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). -
Congress Considers US-Wide Furniture Flammability Standard
Oct 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US Senate has begun considering bipartisan legislation to adopt California's flammability standard for upholstered furniture nationwide. -
Amazon Announces Chemicals Management Policy
Oct 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Online retail giant Amazon has announced a chemicals management policy which includes its first restricted substance list (RSL) and plans for new transparency efforts. -
Ad Campaign Target’s Trump’s Mercury Rule Proposal
Oct 11, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A new television advertising campaign frames the Trump administration’s plans to change a major mercury regulation as a threat to children and pregnant women. -
Toxic Metal Cadmium Found in Chain Stores' Jewelry for Adults
Oct 11, 2018 | AP (In CBS News)
Jewelry with the toxic metal cadmium is showing up on the shelves of national retailers including Ross, Nordstrom Rack and Papaya, according to newly released test results. -
Member States to Evaluate 96 Chemicals in 2019-21
Oct 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa has published its draft list of 96 substances to be evaluated under the Community Rolling Action Plan (Corap) for the period 2019-2021. -
Echa SVHC Database Will 'Add Little Benefit to Waste Operators'
Oct 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Echa's plans for a database on candidate list substances in articles would place "unnecessary burdens" on industry and add "little benefit" to waste operators, according to automotive, aerospace and recycling sector groups. -
ECHA Updates Reach Brexit Advice to Companies
Oct 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa has updated its advice to companies on Britain's withdrawal from the EU, with new information on authorisation and registration of substances under REACH. -
Unilever Backs Global Ban on Animal Testing of Cosmetics
Oct 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
Unilever has stated its support for a global ban on animal testing of cosmetics as part of a collaboration with animal protection NGO Humane Society International. -
Echa Round-Up
Oct 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa is looking for comments on harmonised classification and labelling proposals for the following substances: -
Envi Committee Approves EU POPs Recast
Oct 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Parliament’s Environment Committee has voted overwhelmingly in favour of a recast of the persistent organic pollutants (POPs) Regulation. This includes 12 additional amendments to the original proposal. -
Ewire: Kavanaugh Dissent May Aid Oil Sector Fight Against E15 Waiver
Oct 11, 2018 | Inside EPA
Oil groups have pledged to file suit over any EPA rule that allows year-round sales of 15 percent ethanol (E15) fuel blends -- a policy recently directed by President Donald Trump -- and they might have an ally in newly confirmed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. -
Senate Democrats Ask EPA for More Public Engagement on ACE
Oct 11, 2018 | Inside EPA
A coalition of 23 Senate Democrats is urging acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to add 60 days to the public comment period for the agency's proposed Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) utility greenhouse gas rule and to offer more public hearings in addition... -
EPA Faulted for Relying on State Methane Rules but Not Tallying Emissions
Oct 11, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
EPA's claims that it can rely on state programs to limit methane leaks at oil and gas operations in lieu of federal rules are drawing fire from environmentalists who say that EPA's analysis for its methane rule rollback proposal fails to quantify the pollution cuts... -
West Texas an ‘Extraction Colony’ as Oil, Gas Exports Surge
Oct 11, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Kiah Collier, Jamie Smith Hopkins and Rachel Leven
Drilling booms have come and gone in this oil town for nearly a century. But the frenzy gripping it now is different. Overwhelming. Drilling rigs tower over suburban backyards. There’s a housing crunch so severe that rents are up 30 percent in the last year alone. -
Goldman Sachs: Shale Will Drive Global Oil Growth Through 2021
Oct 11, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Rye Druzin
A new report says U.S. shale oil and gas will continue to drive supply growth through at least 2021, though some signs point to the limits of shale resources. -
Wheeler Bumps More Academics from Advisory Panel
Oct 11, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
EPA acting chief Andrew Wheeler yesterday dramatically reshuffled the lineup of a key air quality advisory panel with what he called "highly qualified" new appointees drawn mainly from state and local regulatory agencies.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Trump’s War on Children’s Health Escalates at Wheeler’s EPA
Oct 11, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Alex Formuzis and Robert Coleman
Under President Trump, the Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly betrayed its responsibility to safeguard the health of children. But in recent weeks, the hostile actions of the president and Andrew Wheeler, the EPA’s acting administrator, have escalated into nothing less than a war on children’s health.
Since early summer, the White House and Wheeler have made a barrage of decisions that will directly harm the health of America’s children, including generations not yet born. Here are the ones we know about – keeping in mind that some only came to light because of journalists’ investigations:
Fighting to keep legal a nerve-agent pesticide that causes brain damage in kids
One of the first decisions of the Trump EPA was former chief Scott Pruitt’s scuttling of a scheduled ban of the highly toxic pesticide chlorpyrifos. The agency’s own scientists said it was dangerous to children even at very low levels. Exposure to chlorpyrifos disrupts the brain’s nervous system, causing tremors and diminished IQ levels in children.
The chemical agriculture and pesticide industries hailed the decision, but public health advocates, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, pleaded with the EPA to enact the ban as scheduled. On Aug. 10, a federal appeals court ruled that Pruitt’s decision violated federal law and ordered the EPA to ban chlorpyrifos within 60 days.
But Wheeler and Trump are fighting back. The EPA has refused to obey the court’s order. On Sept. 25, the Justice Department filed a petition on behalf of the agency, calling on the court to overturn its earlier ruling and leave chlorpyrifos legal.
Repealing the rule that reduces air pollution from neurotoxic mercury
On Sept. 30, The New York Times and The Washington Post detailed Wheeler’s scheme to repeal an Obama-era rule that has cut emissions of mercury and other heavy metals, such as lead and arsenic from coal-fired power plants, by 70 percent.
Mercury is a potent neurotoxin known to harm the nervous systems of children and fetuses. Mercury in the air settles in the ocean, where it is ingested by tuna and other fish. When people eat the fish, they also ingest mercury, which can be passed from mother to fetus in the womb.
Repealing the Clean Power Plan, which would have protected kids from respiratory disease
On Aug. 21, Wheeler released the Trump administration’s replacement for the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which sought to significantly reduce dangerous, ozone-depleting pollution from power and petrochemical plants.
In 2015, the Obama EPA estimated that the Clean Power Plan could prevent between 1,500 to 3,600 premature deaths annually and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children. Trump’s EPA later increased the estimated number of preventable premature deaths to 4,500 a year.
The proposed repeal would mean 36,000 premature deaths and more than 600,000 cases of childhood respiratory disease each decade, according to Harvard University experts on the human impact of public health policies.
Dismissing EPA’s top children’s health official
On Sept. 25, Wheeler abruptly and with no apparent reason placed the EPA’s top children’s health official on administrative leave. Dr. Ruth Etzel was made to hand in her badge, key and cellphone, and sent home.
A leader in children’s environmental health for 30 years, Etzel had been tapped in 2015 by President Obama to run the Office of Children’s Health Protection, whose stated goal is to “ensure that all EPA actions and programs address the unique vulnerabilities of children.” Her dismissal came amid rumors that the office she headed will be closed.
Sidelining Etzel is “the opening gambit in a plan by this administration to dismantle EPA’s Office of Children’s Health Protection,” said Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, one of the nation’s leading pediatric experts and the dean of global health and director of the Children’s Environmental Health Center at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
Refusing to adopt health-protective standards for widespread drinking water contaminants
On June 20, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, or ATSDR, released a study concluding that the “minimal risk level” for exposure to toxic fluorinated chemicals, known as PFAS, should be up to 10 times lower than the level recommended by the EPA.
Studies have linked the two most notorious PFAS chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, to reduced effectiveness of childhood vaccines, developmental defects and other serious health problems, including cancer. EWG estimates that PFAS chemicals may contaminate the drinking water of more than 100 million Americans.
The White House and the Pruitt EPA sought to block release of the ATSDR study, fearing a “public relations nightmare.” Since its release, a number of states have acted to set much lower legal limits or health advisories for PFOA, PFOS and some other PFAS chemicals.
But under Wheeler, the EPA has stuck with its previously recommended level for PFOA and PFOS, which is not legally enforceable, and has issued no health guidance on other PFAS chemicals.
Ignoring the impacts of climate change on children’s health
On Oct. 3, E&E News reported that the White House had removed key language documenting the heightened risks that climate change presents to children from a draft EPA proposal to repeal a rule to reduce heat-trapping chemicals leaking into the atmosphere. Among the passages struck from the original rule from the Obama administration:
Impacts to children are expected from heat waves, air pollution, infectious and waterborne illnesses, and mental health effects resulting from extreme weather events. In addition, children are among those especially susceptible to most allergic diseases, as well as health effects associated with heat waves, storms and floods.
Once a coal lobbyist, always a coal lobbyist
Wheeler’s actions came as no surprise. Before he was tapped to replace Scott Pruitt, who was forced to resign in disgrace, Wheeler was a top lobbyist for the coal industry. One of his clients was coal giant Murray Energy, which paid Wheeler and his firm more than $3 million to represent the company in Washington. Before his time as an advocate for the fossil fuel industry, Wheeler was a longtime top aide to Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the leading climate change denier in Congress.
“In normal times, a zealous fossil fuel apologist and the top official in charge of protecting children’s health from pollution would be two separate people with conflicting agendas,” said EWG President Ken Cook. “But this is the Trump administration, where a former top coal lobbyist now runs the EPA.”
“At every step since taking over the agency, Wheeler has done the bidding of polluters and foiled efforts to safeguard children’s health,” said Cook. “When Wheeler’s time at EPA ends, more children will be exposed to dangerous pollutants, but Wheeler will no doubt return to the warm embrace of the fossil fuel industry, with an ‘atta boy’ for a job well done."
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/10/trump-s-war-children-s-health-escalates-wheeler-s-epa#.W794KmgzZ3g
-
Senate Approves DOJ Environment Pick
Oct 11, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Trump administration has a new leader for environmental litigation.
The Senate voted 52-45 to confirm Jeffrey Bossert Clark to head the Environment and Natural Resources Division at the Justice Department.
Senators mostly voted on party lines to approve Clark, whose nomination has been pending since June 2017. Two Democrats broke ranks to support the nominee: Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Claire McCaskill of Missouri.
As assistant attorney general for ENRD, Clark will lead the federal government's litigation positions in cases dealing with pollution control laws, public lands, natural resources, wildlife and tribal issues.
Many Democrats have slammed the Kirkland & Ellis LLP lawyer for his statements on climate change and environmental regulation.
Clark represented BP PLC in litigation over the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the Chamber of Commerce in efforts to challenge the federal government's authority to regulate carbon emissions.
He will replace Jeffrey Wood, a staffer for then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who has served as acting head of ENRD since the beginning of the Trump administration.
Green groups quickly denounced Clark's confirmation. Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook said he harbored "blatant hostility" toward environmental protections.
"The guy who defended the company that caused the worst oil spill in U.S. history is not likely to aggressively go after corporate environmental outlaws," Cook said in a statement after the vote.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/11/stories/1060102335
-
Oct 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
TSCA prioritisation approach published in Federal Register
The EPA has formally published its prioritisation approach for identifying chemicals as potential candidates for TSCA risk evaluation.
The approach considers both the near-term steps for identifying the next 20 substances to be reviewed under the updated law, and the longer-term process for identifying candidates within "the larger TSCA active chemical universe".
The immediate focus will be on substances included in TSCA’s 2014 work plan. In the longer-term, the goal is to organise the roughly 40,000 substances active in US commerce into ‘bins’ for prioritisation. Engagement with the public and transparency will be part of these processes.
The docket is open for public comment on the approach until 15 November. In addition 73 dockets are open until 1 December 2019, to submit comment on each of the work plan chemicals that are not already undergoing EPA review. A separate docket will allow the nomination of non-work plan candidates.
Snur withdrawal notice formally published
The agency has also published in the Federal Register a withdrawal notice for a 17 August batch of 27 TSCA significant new use rules (Snurs) issued under a direct final rule.
This type of rule must be withdrawn if the EPA receives ‘significant adverse comment’. Having received this, the agency is now addressing the 27 Snurs through a traditional rulemaking process.
Michigan PFAS community engagement event held
After an initial lineup of five events this summer, the EPA added an additional PFAS community engagement event in Michigan. It took place on 5 October, in Kalamazoo.
The format of the event was a round-table discussion with various stakeholders affected by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs).
Michigan is among states that have conducted testing and identified levels of PFAS in drinking water far exceeding the EPA’s recommended 70 parts per trillion (ppt) level. Among EPA officials, a PFAS action team and congressional representatives at the meeting, there were several participants dealing specifically with water issues.
Previous events on the controversial class of substances were held in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Colorado, North Carolina and Kansas as part of the EPA’s PFAS action plan
https://chemicalwatch.com/70988/us-epa-round-up
-
(ACC Mentioned) Class Action Lawsuit Takes Aim at US PFAS Manufacturers
Oct 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
An Ohio firefighter has brought a national class action lawsuit against more than half a dozen chemical manufacturers on behalf of Americans exposed to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs).
The complaint alleges that companies have contaminated plaintiffs' blood and bodies with PFASs, which has resulted in a "massive, undisclosed human health experiment". Substances named include both long- and short-chain substances like PFOA and PFOS, as well as GenX, PFHxS, PFNA and PFBS.
The suit was brought by Kevin Hardwick, a fireman for more than 40 years, who claims he was exposed through firefighting foams and equipment treated or coated with perfluorinated flame retardants. The claim says it is brought on behalf of a nationwide class of US residents who "have a detectable level of PFAS materials in their blood serum".
The plaintiff argues that PFAS substances are demonstrably present in approximately 99% of the US population, and that they present potential adverse health concerns. Newer, short-chain PFASs "present the same, similar, and/or additional risks to human health as had been found in research on other PFAS materials".
The lawsuit further states that manufacturers rely on the claim that there is a lack of definitive evidence of adverse human health effects resulting from PFAS, but that they "knowingly, willfully, purposefully, intentionally, recklessly, and/or negligently refuse to fund or conduct any scientific study … or work of any kind that is extensive or comprehensive enough" to confirm if there is a causal connection".
The case therefore seeks the establishment of an independent ‘PFAS Science Panel’, funded by the defendants, tasked with conducting studies to determine results that "shall be deemed definitive and binding on all the parties".
The suit is being heard in a US district court in Ohio. Companies named in it are:
· 3M and Dyneon;
· Archroma;
· Arkema;
· Asahi Glass Company (AGC);
· Chemours;
· Daikin;
· DuPont; and
· Solvay.
The defendants have yet to file responses to the initial complaint.
DuPont told Chemical Watch that that the company is aware of the lawsuit "and believe the allegations are without merit".
"DuPont acted responsibly based on the health and environmental information that was available to the industry and regulators about PFOA at the time of its usage. We will vigorously defend our record of safety, health and environmental stewardship," DuPont said.
Jon Corley, a spokesperson for the ACC's FluoroCouncil, said that "a large body of data on newer C6-based PFAS has been developed and provided to regulators in the US and globally as part of their chemical review processes," including the US EPA and Food and Drug Administration. Several of the companies named in the lawsuit are members of the industry group, which was unable to comment on pending litigation.
'C8 Science Panel'
The request for a 'PFAS Science Panel' is along the lines of a ‘C8 Science Panel’, formed in the early 2000s by a settlement agreement in a class action suit brought against DuPont by communities with water that had been contaminated with PFOA.
The panel’s work resulted in dozens of published studies and identified ‘probable links’ between PFOA and a variety of diseases, such as kidney and testicular cancer, thyroid disease, and ulcerative colitis.
The use of PFOA – a ‘long-chain’ PFAS – has largely been phased out in the US under a voluntary stewardship programme for eight of its main manufacturers – the majority of whom are also named in the class-action case.
Manufacturers continue to defend the safety of the short-chain replacement substances that were brought to market in its place.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70961/class-action-lawsuit-takes-aim-at-us-pfas-manufacturers
-
Congress Considers US-Wide Furniture Flammability Standard
Oct 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US Senate has begun considering bipartisan legislation to adopt California's flammability standard for upholstered furniture nationwide.
Passage of the Safer Occupancy Furniture Flammability Act (S3551 or Soffa) would see California's 2013 Regulation, TB 117-2013, become the federal standard.
The US does not currently have a flammability standard for the products. In its absence, California's approach has served as the de facto national standard.
California updated its regulations five years ago to remove an 'open flame' test that manufacturers almost always met through the use of added flame retardants, which have been the subject of consumer concern in recent years for their potential to pose negative health effects. Following the state's action, many furniture companies moved away from using the substances.
For more than a decade, the US Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) has been in a rulemaking process to consider a national mandatory flammability standard for upholstered furniture.
Industry groups petitioned the agency in 2015 to adopt the amended California standard as a mandatory national approach, but the agency has not yet determined whether it will follow this route, or if it will adopt requirements that include an open flame test.
The CPSC has indicated plans to act on a federal standard during the 2019 fiscal year.
Furniture manufacturers, flame retardant industry diverge
Furniture groups have welcomed the bill's introduction.
Thomas Reardon, executive director of the commercial furniture association Bifma, said the legislation would prevent a patchwork of differing flammability requirements in the US: "It is bipartisan, common sense, and addresses both the safety issues of fire risk and the need to eliminate exposure to hazardous flame retardant chemicals."
CEO of the American Home Furnishings Alliance (AHFA), Andy Counts, added that California's standard "is a proven and effective standard that helps protect consumers and reduces the risk of upholstered furniture fires."
But a spokesperson for the North American Flame Retardant Alliance (Nafra) told Chemical Watch that fire fatalities and injuries involving upholstered furniture items remain a serious concern, and that the legislation would "undermine product safety for consumers".
"A preferred approach would be to direct the CPSC to expeditiously develop an appropriate national fire safety standard that takes into account all furniture fire sources," they added.
Introduced by Roger Wicker (R–Mississippi) and Richard Blumenthal (D–Connecticut), the bill has been referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70957/congress-considers-us-wide-furniture-flammability-standard
-
Amazon Announces Chemicals Management Policy
Oct 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Online retail giant Amazon has announced a chemicals management policy which includes its first restricted substance list (RSL) and plans for new transparency efforts.
The policy, made public on Amazon’s responsible sourcing page, states that part of the company’s commitment to quality is avoiding chemicals of concern in products. It defines these as chemicals that meet CMR criteria, or that are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT).
"We strategically prioritise which chemicals of concern to focus on based on product type, customer concerns, and the availability of safer alternatives," it adds.
News of the approach comes nearly two years after Amazon ranked poorly in a 2016 ‘retailer report card’ by a US NGO campaign.
The company – one of the world’s largest retailers – signalled last year that it would become the first solely e-commerce business to develop a chemical policy. But as Chemical Watch reported earlier this year, its online sales model presents challenges for getting its third-party sellers to conform.
RSL
As part of the policy, the company has introduced an RSL that identifies 54 chemicals it is seeking to avoid in Amazon-owned private brand baby, household cleaning, personal care and beauty products sold in the US. It aims to expand the product categories, brands and geographies covered over time, it says.
The RSL was developed based on science and customer feedback, says Amazon, and will be reviewed and updated periodically. It focuses in particular on:
· phthalates;
· nonylphenol (NP) and nonylphenol ethoxylate (NPE) surfactants;
· parabens;
· formaldehyde-releasing preservatives; as well as
· toluene and triclosan.
Amazon says that it began its reformulation efforts with its own brand products because it has "the most control over how these products are developed".
But according to the company, the RSL represents "a baseline list of chemicals of concern that all brands should work to phase out and eliminate".
And more broadly, the company’s policy encourages manufacturers to "phase out potentially hazardous chemistries and adopt green chemistry alternatives," such as those identified in the US EPA’s Safer Chemicals Ingredients List (Scil).
Transparency
With regards to transparency, the policy sets a goal of making health and sustainability data "as easy for customers to access and interpret as price and customer reviews" for products.
To further this aim, the company says, in 2019 it will "work to achieve fuller ingredient disclosure" for its own brands.
And it is looking to add website features to make it easier for customers to access information about product ingredients and third-party certifications, such as Safer Choice, Made Safe, Green Seal and Cradle to Cradle.
"We hope that making this information more readily available for customers will encourage additional brands to move away from potentially hazardous chemistries in their products and adopt safer chemistries," it adds.
‘Welcome news’
Mike Schade, director of the Mind the Store campaign at Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, applauded Amazon for "taking its first step" toward managing potentially harmful substances in products.
Of note, he said, is that Amazon’s RSL aligns well with substances being restricted by retailers like Target, CVS Health and Rite Aid: "It is valuable for retailers to send similar market signals on chemicals of concern they are challenging suppliers to eliminate."
Toxic-Free Futures’ Ivy Sager-Rosenthal agreed the policy is "welcome news to customers", and praised the retailer for falling in the footsteps of others like Target and Walmart.
But the NGO pressed the company to expands its efforts to address other substances and product types, such as flame retardants in electronics, and PFASs in clothing and food packaging.
Mind the Store added that Amazon should expand its efforts beyond a "relatively limited array" of private brand products, to address such "low-hanging fruit" as banning the sale of paint strippers containing methylene chloride and N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP), as other retailers have done.
Both NGOs have also called for clear timeframes, goals and metrics to ensure the policy is working.
"As one of the biggest retailers in the world, Amazon has the power to lead on eliminating toxic chemicals in its products," said Ms Sager-Rosenthal. "Hopefully this new chemical policy is a start, but not the end, of Amazon’s efforts to protect the health of consumers and the environment."
"We hope their new policy signals a real commitment to getting tough on toxic chemicals, and look forward to its implementation and expansion in the year ahead," added Mr Schade.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70958/amazon-announces-chemicals-management-policy
-
Ad Campaign Target’s Trump’s Mercury Rule Proposal
Oct 11, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A new television advertising campaign frames the Trump administration’s plans to change a major mercury regulation as a threat to children and pregnant women.
Moms Clean Air Force, a program of the Environmental Defense Fund, launched the television ads Thursday to push back against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) forthcoming proposal to weaken the justification for its 2012 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which regulate coal-fired power plant pollution.
After quoting a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics on the disproportionate impact to children and developing fetuses from mercury pollution, the ad says Trump and EPA chief Andrew Wheeler “Donald Trump and EPA chief Andrew Wheeler are pushing a plan that will allow more mercury pollution.”
“Will your member of Congress let it happen,” the ad asks.
It is planned to run for two weeks on television stations in Washington, D.C., as well as Arizona, Minnesota and Ohio. Those three states have a number of closely-watched House and Senate races next month, including races that could decide whether Democrats obtain a majority of seats in the lower chamber.
The EPA announced last week that it would soon propose to change the cost-benefit analysis justification for the mercury rule.
The Obama administration said the rule would cost about $9 billion, with benefits about 10 times that.
But all but about $6 million of the benefits were “co-benefits,” which came from reducing other pollutions, like particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. Wheeler wants to stop counting the co-benefits, which could make the rule more expensive than its benefits and undermine its justification.
The coal industry has already complied with the rule by shutting down plants or upgrading them.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/410957-ad-campaign-targets-trumps-mercury-rule-proposal
-
Toxic Metal Cadmium Found in Chain Stores' Jewelry for Adults
Oct 11, 2018 | AP (In CBS News)
Jewelry with the toxic metal cadmium is showing up on the shelves of national retailers including Ross, Nordstrom Rack and Papaya, according to newly released test results.
Analysis done for the nonprofit Center for Environmental Health revealed some jewelry sold with women's dresses and shirts was nearly pure cadmium, which can cause cancer and reproductive harm after prolonged exposure.
Consumer advocates were hopeful cadmium had disappeared from the U.S. jewelry market following changes prompted by a 2010 Associated Press investigation that found Chinese manufacturers were using the metal to make kids' jewelry. States including California outlawed cadmium in children's jewelry, and testing by the center found the chemical had virtually disappeared from jewelry by 2012.
No laws address cadmium in adult jewelry, however, and last year the center decided to check those products. Lab testing found 31 adult jewelry items purchased from retail stores were at least 40 percent cadmium, and most were more than 90 percent, according to results shared exclusively with the AP.
California's law allows no more than 0.03 percent cadmium in children's jewelry. The precise health risk from the tested jewelry is unclear because researchers did not assess whether small amounts shed when the jewelry is handled and worn.
Over time, cadmium accumulates in the body and can damage the kidneys and bones. Most exposure happens by ingesting small amounts or by breathing it, most commonly through tobacco, which can contain cadmium. Researchers also have documented some absorption through skin contact, though the phenomenon is not well-studied.
Michael Harbut, a practicing doctor who as a university professor has researched cadmium's cancer-causing properties, noted that contact can trigger skin rashes including psoriasis.
"Cadmium is bad," said Harbut, who teaches at Michigan State University's College of Human Medicine. "Given a choice between wearing something with cadmium in it, or wearing something without cadmium in it, I would take the product without cadmium."
The Oakland-based nonprofit bought all the test samples in the San Francisco Bay Area this year or last. The extent to which contaminated jewelry is in stores elsewhere isn't clear, though a national retailer would not typically limit a product to just one region.
The center said the problem should not be underestimated because of the limited market sampling.
"If you're the person that buys and is wearing that jewelry, you don't really care whether it's a common problem or a rare problem," said Caroline Cox, senior scientist at the center. "You have a problem."
Brent Cleaveland, executive director of the Fashion Jewelry and Accessories Trade Association, said he does not believe the test results suggest a larger problem. Most major retailers have a stringent system for testing and analyzing what they sell, he said.
Most of the tainted items were sold at Ross, which operates more than 1,400 stores in 38 states. One pendant from a necklace chain was 100 percent cadmium, according to the testing.
In a written statement, Ross said it is committed to protecting its customers and has "addressed this issue with our supplier." The retailer would not say whether it pulled suspect jewelry from stores.
The brands found with high cadmium levels in Ross stores include Tacera and Vibe Sportswear.
Xinwei Xie, chief executive officer at Trend Textile Inc., which owns Tacera, declined to comment when reached by phone. The Skate Group Inc., which owns Vibe Sportswear, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Papaya said it considers cadmium in its products a serious problem. It operates more than 100 retail locations nationwide.
Steven Kim, an attorney representing Papaya, said the company has recalled the products where contamination was found and stopped buying from the manufacturer in China.
"Our manufacturers are required to represent and warrant that their products are in legal compliance," Kim said. "Papaya is very strict and stops doing business with any manufacturer which fails to comply."
Nordstrom spokeswoman Emily Sterken said the company is "reaching out to these vendors to make them aware of the situation and get more information on these items."
The Center for Environmental Health has long used California law to force companies to reduce levels of harmful materials in consumer products, including cadmium and lead in jewelry.
Under the state's Proposition 65, businesses must inform consumers about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer or other reproductive harm. The nonprofit has settled Proposition 65 claims against 36 companies, including Gap Inc. and Target Corp., which agreed to not sell jewelry with more than 0.03 percent cadmium.
That limit for children's jewelry took effect after the AP reported in 2010 that some Chinese jewelry manufacturers were substituting cadmium for lead, the use of which Congress clamped down on following a string of imported-product safety scandals.
The jewelry industry helped write voluntary U.S. standards following the AP investigation, but the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission did not mandate any cadmium limits.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/toxic-metal-cadmium-found-in-chain-stores-jewelry-for-adults/
-
Member States to Evaluate 96 Chemicals in 2019-21
Oct 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa has published its draft list of 96 substances to be evaluated under the Community Rolling Action Plan (Corap) for the period 2019-2021.
Of the eighty-seven substances already in the Corap update from March, member states identified eleven to be withdrawn because of new information or changes of circumstance.
Meanwhile, twenty chemicals have been newly allocated to national authorities. Most of these are suspected of having more than one cause for concern. Of the twenty:
· ten are suspected of having persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) or very persistent or very bioaccumulative (vPvB) properties;
· six are potential carcinogens;
· six are suspected of being reprotoxic;
· three are potential endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs);
· three are possible mutagens; and
· two are suspected sensitisers.
The current plan is for 28 substances to be evaluated in 2019, 43 in 2020 and 25 for 2021, Echa said.
The agency has urged registrants of any of the substances in the list to coordinate actions with co-registrants and contact the evaluating authority. Downstream users of a listed substance should also review the available information and share it with registrants, it advised.
In particular, Echa said it is important that the use and exposure scenarios, as well as the exposure estimations, are up to date and clearly documented within registrants’ chemical safety reports.
For the 28 substances planned for evaluation in 2019, relevant dossier updates should be made before March of that year, it added.
Next steps
Echa’s Member State Committee will discuss the draft Corap in mid-October and will prepare an opinion on the draft plan in February 2019.
Based on the opinion, the agency will adopt and publish the update for 2019-2021 in March.
From the date of publication, member states have one year to prepare a draft decision requesting further information from the respective registrants to clarify potential concerns identified during evaluation.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70980/member-states-to-evaluate-96-chemicals-in-2019-21
-
Echa SVHC Database Will 'Add Little Benefit to Waste Operators'
Oct 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Echa's plans for a database on candidate list substances in articles would place "unnecessary burdens" on industry and add "little benefit" to waste operators, according to automotive, aerospace and recycling sector groups.
The proposal to develop the database came out of the revised waste framework Directive that entered into force in July. A consultation on the database closed on 9 October.
The proposed database would contain information submitted by companies producing, importing or supplying articles that contain candidate list substances. They will need to submit this information for articles placed on the market from 5 January 2021.
The aim of the database is to strengthen supply chain communication as foreseen under REACH and contribute to the EU's circular economy package. Primary users of the database would be waste treatment operators and consumers.
The database, as set out in the revision of the Directive, requires a company, at a minimum, to declare the presence and name of any SVHCs in an article. However, Echa has published a 'draft scenario' which includes proposals for the database, including unique identifiers for each article and more detailed information such as the concentration limits of SVHCs in the articles.
Steve George, chair of the REACH and chemicals management working group of the European aerospace and defence industries association (ASD), told Chemical Watch that the implications of this "article-centric approach" has very wide consequences that will result in "widespread non-compliance across all industry".
Mr George, who is also the REACH programme executive at Rolls Royce, said this is due to the "implicit requirement to redesign long-established design and production working practices, together with changes to associated company IT infrastructure."
And Timo Unger, environmental manager at Hyundai, told Chemical Watch the database will require all of industry to change their "parts development, purchasing and quality systems to name just a few". A car, he says, consists of hundreds of thousands of articles and to obtain unique identifiers for each article and then input information about those that contain SVHCs is not possible.
A car manufacturer could potentially have millions of articles in its product portfolio, he says. "No industry system can manage this level of information and so systems would need to be redesigned."
"This is likely to cost billions of euros," he said.
Mr Unger agreed that the database requirements present risks of non-compliance because this additional data is "very difficult to collect, especially from non-EU suppliers and in particular for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)".
He added that the database pushes the idea of a 'one-size-fits-all' solution. "You cannot compare a milk bottle with a car. The same information requirements for complex products cannot be the same as those for simple products, it just doesn’t make sense," said Mr Unger.
Waste operators
The European recycling industry association (EuRIC) has also raised concerns. In a position paper it says the amount of information needed to be made available by such a database is "likely to be overwhelmingly high".
"The level of detail needed by recyclers depends very much on the type of articles at stake and the treatment process for this article," the paper adds.
It explains that waste treatment officers will only benefit if the data can easily be accessed by product and sub-product categories. This will allow managers at waste treatment facilities to "easily access the necessary information and adapt the treatment processes, if necessary".
In addition, the database will not solve the issue of legacy substances in articles, says EuRIC. "Manufacturers will only declare the SVHC content of articles put on the market when the substance in question is formally identified as an SVHC."
This means, it adds, if a substance is identified as an SVHC, and is present in an article already placed on the market, recyclers will not get any information on the substance.
However, EuRIC supports the principle behind the database and welcomes the idea that it will "centralise information", "improve the traceability of substances in waste streams" and its potential to improve the safety of workers in recycling facilities.
The sector groups, along with other stakeholders, all participated in the consultation on the database. Echa is inviting member state representatives and other stakeholders to its workshop in Helsinki on 22-23 October. Here participants will discuss the agency's scenario document and next steps.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70985/echa-svhc-database-will-add-little-benefit-to-waste-operators
-
ECHA Updates Reach Brexit Advice to Companies
Oct 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa has updated its advice to companies on Britain's withdrawal from the EU, with new information on authorisation and registration of substances under REACH.
The advice includes five new Q&As prepared on the basis that Britain will leave the bloc on 29 March 2019. If both parties conclude a withdrawal agreement and a transition period is implemented, Echa said it will amend the Q&As accordingly.
The agency said it does not plan to significantly expand its Q&As ahead of the withdrawal date, but advises companies to check for updates in the coming months
The following five questions and answers – summarised by Chemical Watch – have been added:
Q: My company is substance manufacturer located outside the EU/EEA. We have appointed an only representative (OR), located in the UK. What do we need to do to prepare for the UK’s withdrawal?
A: You can appoint a new OR in the EU27/EEA. This must happen before the withdrawal date and Echa must be notified.
Q: My company is a substance manufacturer located outside the EU/EEA, which places the chemical on the EU/EEA market through a UK-based importer. What do we need to do to prepare?
A: Imported substances will need to be registered by a EU27/EEA based legal entity.
Q: My EU27-based company purchases a mixture from a UK-based company. Under the REACH and CLP Regulations, what impact will Brexit have on these supplies?
A: You will need to ask your UK-based supplier if they will appoint an OR. If not, you will need to submit the registrations as an importer yourself.
Q: My UK-based company is a chemical importer. We would like to keep supplying our customers in the EU27/EEA following the UK’s withdrawal – what are our options?
A: You may consider transferring your registration to an EU27/EEA-based legal entity.
Q: My company is a UK-based chemicals manufacturer. We would like to keep supplying customers in the EU27/EEA. What are our options?
A: You have three options: transfer your registration to an EU27/EEA legal entity; appoint an OR; or your customers can continue sourcing from you by registering the substances themselves, as importers.
Last month, the British government published guidance on REACH in the event Britain leaves the EU without a trade deal. The UK’s Chemical Industries Association and Cefic also produced a joint briefing note with advice to companies.
Echa said it will publish new Q&As related to the Biocidal Products Regulation (BPR) soon.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70986/echa-updates-reach-brexit-advice-to-companies
-
Unilever Backs Global Ban on Animal Testing of Cosmetics
Oct 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
Unilever has stated its support for a global ban on animal testing of cosmetics as part of a collaboration with animal protection NGO Humane Society International.
The Anglo-Dutch corporate giant says it is backing HSI’s global #BeCrueltyFree initiative, which aims to ban animal testing for cosmetics across the globe within five years.
"The organisations hope that this new collaboration will accelerate policy change in the cosmetics sector globally toward a shared goal of animal testing bans in 50 major beauty markets worldwide by 2023," HSI said in a statement.HSI and Unilever have also launched an initiative to encourage companies and regulatory authorities to make safety decisions for cosmetics based on non-animal test methods. The initiative will invest in training for safety scientists in the use of non-animal, "next generation" risk assessments.
Unilever, which reported revenue of €53.7bn for 2017, is the first among the beauty sector’s top 10 to actively support legislative reform to prohibit animal testing of cosmetics, HSI said.
Unilever operates across 190 countries, manufacturing everything from Vaseline to TRESemmé. In 2017, it created Unilever Cosmetics International, consisting of Calvin Klein Cosmetics and Unilever Prestige, the latter dedicated to fragrance and beauty brands.
Dove
Separately, Unilever announced that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) has awarded cruelty-free accreditation to Dove, the company's largest "beauty and personal care" brand. The accreditation recognises Unilever is commited to refrain from conducting any tests on animals anywhere in the world for the Dove brand.
Peta has listed Unilever as a "company working for regulatory change", indicating that Unilever conducts no tests on animals, for any of its brands or products, unless specifically required to by law.
In May, the European Parliament voted to adopt a resolution calling for a global ban on animal testing of cosmetics by 2023. The practice has been banned in the EU since 2013, but is still allowed in most other regions.
European industry association Cosmetics Europe has said that implementing a global ban would be difficultfor several reasons. In particular, not all hazard endpoints are associated with validated non-animal test methods, which means it is already hard to bring new products to the market.
Furthermore, it would be challenging to get countries that now require the use of animal testing of cosmetics – such as China – to change their approaches, the association told Chemical Watch in March.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70981/unilever-backs-global-ban-on-animal-testing-of-cosmetics
-
Oct 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
CLH consultations
Echa is looking for comments on harmonised classification and labelling proposals for the following substances:
· imidacloprid – proposed by Germany. Comments are invited on acute toxicity and on environmental hazard classes;
· azamethiphos – proposed by the UK. Comments are invited on selected physical hazards as well as those on human health and the environment, except respiratory irritation and hazardous to the ozone layer hazard classes;
· tetrakis(2,6-dimethylphenyl)-m-phenylene biphosphate – proposed by the UK. Comments are invited on skin corrosion/irritation and on skin sensitisation hazard classes;
· 3-aminomethyl-3,5,5-trimethylcyclohexylamine – proposed by Germany. Comments are invited on the acute toxicity via the oral and dermal routes, serious eye damage/eye irritation, skin sensitisation and hazardous to the aquatic environment hazard classes; and
· 6,6'-di-tert-butyl-2,2'-methylenedi-p-cresol – proposed by Denmark. Comments are invited on the reproductive toxicity hazard.
The deadline for comment is 12 December.
Testing proposals
The agency has launched 42 new public consultations on testing proposals for 17 substances. The deadline to comment on these is 19 November.
There are currently 55 public consultations open on testing proposals.REACH restriction proposals
Echa is considering two proposals to restrict substances.
One, submitted by Italy earlier this month, is a proposal to restrict N,N-dimethylformamide. The other, submitted by Echa, is to restrict five soluble cobalt salts.
Echa said that its scientific committees are performing a conformity check on the dossiers, which will be published on the agency's website within two weeks.
A six-month consultation will start in mid-December if the dossiers pass conformity.
Updated list of CLH substances available
The agency has updated its list of hazardous substances with harmonised classification and labelling to take account of the Commission's update in the 13th adaptation to technical progress (ATP) to the CLP Regulation, it says.
The official source for this information remains the Official Journal of the European Union, however.Advance notice of data protection email
The agency will be sending out an email shortly that will ask for confirmation of continued interest in receiving the Echa weekly and newsletter.
Without such written agreement, Echa will not be able send out any communications from December. This is required under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which will apply to EU institutions and agencies from 11 December.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70973/echa-round-up
-
Envi Committee Approves EU POPs Recast
Oct 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The European Parliament’s Environment Committee has voted overwhelmingly in favour of a recast of the persistent organic pollutants (POPs) Regulation. This includes 12 additional amendments to the original proposal.
The Commission's proposed changes would align regulatory procedures of the Regulation with requirements of the Lisbon Treaty and give Echa new tasks. They would also introduce recent decisions taken within the framework of the Stockholm Convention and the POPs Protocol.
On 10 October, MEPs voted by 52 votes to three in favour of the proposed amendments. There were no abstentions. The draft report will now go to the next plenary from 22-25 October when Parliament will vote.
Prior to the vote, a group of NGOs called on the Envi committee to reject the amendments.
In a letter addressed to MEPs, they said that some of the changes would "weaken the Regulation substantially". In some cases, they added, these would "violate" the EU’s international obligations under the Stockholm Convention.
A key concern was that the recast would "authorise" the recycling of waste containing POPs into new products "without adequate controls, despite numerous studies showing that this practice leads to POPs contamination in consumer goods" including children's products.
But a spokesperson for Rapporteur Julie Girling said the NGOs' claim was not accurate. "The use of POPs in these plastics is not permitted and any such plastics found to contain POPs will not have originated from within the EU."
'Limited impact'
The POPs recast is the latest update of the Regulation first adopted in 2004 and brings the annexes in line with decisions made at the 2015 and 2017 Stockholm Convention conference of the parties.
The 12 additional amendments, tabled in May, are aimed at aligning the text with that of the REACH to ensure clarity and consistency, and to ensure that "decisions are based on scientific evidence", according to a draft report.
These amendments also seek to clarify and, in some areas, strengthen the new role of Echa, the report says. MEPs tabled 44 further amendments to the draft report containing the 12 amendments.
The Commission's original proposal in March said the recast introduced only "technical amendments" and therefore a formal consultation of stakeholders was not deemed necessary. The overall impact of the review is "expected to be limited" it added.
The recast was triggered when the toxicology committee for the Regulation ceased to exist in 2015 due to changes to its legal basis, creating the need to adapt the provisions concerning comitology.
The recast also proposes a role for Echa's Enforcement Forum in coordinating the enforcement tasks specified in the Regulation.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70984/envi-committee-approves-eu-pops-recast
-
Ewire: Kavanaugh Dissent May Aid Oil Sector Fight Against E15 Waiver
Oct 11, 2018 | Inside EPA
Oil groups have pledged to file suit over any EPA rule that allows year-round sales of 15 percent ethanol (E15) fuel blends -- a policy recently directed by President Donald Trump -- and they might have an ally in newly confirmed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
As Politico reports, Kavanaugh authored a dissent in a 2012 case that unsuccessfully challenged EPA's “partial” waivers that allowed use of E15 in model year 2001 and newer vehicles, limiting the waivers due to uncertainty about potential damage the fuel could cause older engines.
“On the merits, I conclude that the E15 waiver violates the statute,” he wrote in Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) v. EPA. “The waiver might be good policy; if so, Congress has the power to enact a new law permitting E15. But under the statute as currently written, EPA lacks authority for the waiver.”
As Inside EPA reported at the time, GMA was dismissed because a majority of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that food and oil groups challenging the partial waivers lacked standing to sue. The full D.C. Circuit later denied en banc review of the ruling, and Kavanaugh again dissented from that decision. The Supreme Court declined to review GMA in 2013.
Kavanaugh was confirmed as the latest Supreme Court justice earlier this month, following 12 years on the D.C. Circuit. His heated confirmation came just as Trump directed EPA to issue a new rule waiving fuel volatility limits for E15 during summertime months.
Currently, E15 is barred from sale from June 1 to Sept. 15 due to air quality concerns, and the Trump-directed waiver would allow for year-round sales.
Oil sector groups have strongly opposed this move, arguing that only Congress can grant such a waiver. They point to prior EPA statements that it lacks authority for such a waiver.
Now, industry opponents of the waiver are citing Kavanaugh's dissent in GMA to argue that -- should the issue reach the high court -- the agency might be on shaky ground.
In that dissenting opinion, Kavanaugh argued that EPA “ran roughshod over the relevant statutory limits.” The Clean Air Act requires that EPA only grant waivers to fuels that will not cause or contribute to the failure of cars made after 1974, the judge wrote. But EPA acknowledged E15 could harm some engines built before MY01, and therefore limited its waiver to cars built after that date.
But he said this violates the air law's requirement that new fuels not harm “any” vehicle built after 1974. “EPA’s E15 waiver thus plainly runs afoul of the statutory text. EPA’s disregard of the statutory text is open and notorious -- and not much more needs to be said,” he wrote. “If Congress wanted to authorize this kind of partial waiver, it could easily have said so (and going forward, could still easily do so).”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-kavanaugh-dissent-may-aid-oil-sector-fight-against-e15-waiver
-
Senate Democrats Ask EPA for More Public Engagement on ACE
Oct 11, 2018 | Inside EPA
A coalition of 23 Senate Democrats is urging acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to add 60 days to the public comment period for the agency's proposed Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) utility greenhouse gas rule and to offer more public hearings in addition to the single one the agency held early this month in Chicago.
The proposal would modestly curb power plant GHG emissions and replace the more stringent Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP) that EPA separately proposed to withdraw.
The current comment deadline is Oct. 30, and the lawmakers seek to extend that until the end of the year, citing requests from constituents.
However, it is doubtful that EPA will grant the request. EPA extended the comment period for its proposal to freeze Obama-era vehicle GHG standards by just three days, after receiving multiple requests from automakers, states and others for more time.
The senators note in their Oct. 9 letter that before finalizing the CPP, the Obama EPA conducted “an unprecedented two-year outreach and engagement process with states, tribes and stakeholders,” that included holding four public hearings, talking to more than 3,000 interested parties and allowing a 167-day comment period.
“Our constituents should be given an equal opportunity to evaluate and weigh in on a proposed replacement,” the letter says, noting that the current public comment period is just 61 days.
The “opportunities for public comment are woefully inadequate given the serious legal, environmental, and human health concerns raised by the proposed rule,” which they say is “effectively comprised of three rules in one: the best system of emissions reduction determination; the delegation of additional authority to states to regulate carbon dioxide emissions; and revisions to the separate Clean Air Act new source review program, which “potentially enables coal-fired power plants to evade upgrading pollution controls.”
Each of those proposals would justify its own extensive public input period, the senators argue.
The letter also notes that ACE will result in the release of at least 12 times more GHGs from the energy sector, compared with the CPP, over the next decade, in addition to additional criteria emissions that will prompt 1,400 extra premature deaths.
“Due to these concerns, we request that you extend the comment period” to Dec. 31, “and that you hold at least three additional public hearings to discuss the proposed rule -- including in areas that stand to be most affected by the impacts of climate change, such as [those impacted by] coastal flooding, drought and wildfires.”
The letter was signed by Sens. Ed Markey (MA), Tom Carper (DE), Ron Wyden (OR), Richard Durbin (IL), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Chris Van Hollen (MD), Tina Smith (MN), Jeff Merkley (OR), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Maggie Hassan (NH), Ben Cardin (MD), Richard Blumenthal (CT), Michael Bennet (CO), Tom Udall (NM), Tammy Duckworth (IL), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Mazie Hirono (HI), Kamala Harris (CA), Robert Menendez (NJ), Jack Reed (RI), Cory Booker (NJ), Bernie Sanders (VT) and Dianne Feinstein (CA).
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/senate-democrats-ask-epa-more-public-engagement-ace
-
EPA Faulted for Relying on State Methane Rules but Not Tallying Emissions
Oct 11, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
EPA's claims that it can rely on state programs to limit methane leaks at oil and gas operations in lieu of federal rules are drawing fire from environmentalists who say that EPA's analysis for its methane rule rollback proposal fails to quantify the pollution cuts -- or lack thereof -- from the state programs.
Even as they argue that the state rules are no substitute for federal requirements, advocates are urging states to bolster their oil and gas emissions controls in response to EPA's proposed relaxation of its methane new source performance standards (NSPS) for the sector.
“The largest oil and gas states have weak rules when it comes to air pollution from oil and gas operations,” says one environmentalist. The question is “whether states will step up” in response to EPA's proposal.
There are signs that some states are poised to issue tougher standards in the coming months, though the trend is not uniform and major oil- and gas-producing states such as Texas likely will continue enforcing standards that environmentalists view as far too lax.
Part of EPA's NSPS rollback, released Sept. 11, would recognize compliance with state methane programs as equivalent to the federal rules. But critics say EPA has not done enough to show that the state programs are actually equivalent to the agency's own rules, particularly in terms of the emissions cuts they would achieve.
“Our comments are probably going to push very hard [for EPA] to do a quantitative analysis,” says another environmental advocate, citing a lack of information in the proposal on the pollution reductions really achieved by state programs.
EPA's plan would soften the NSPS in several ways, including by weakening monitoring requirements for methane leaks and easing schedules for repairing leaks. The proposal is widely seen as the first step of an effort to eliminate methane-specific requirements on new oil and gas sources to bar future controls on existing facilities.
The plan's provisions regarding state rules would allow operators in some states to follow state requirements for monitoring, repair and record keeping in lieu of the NSPS, with some variation in how it treats the state programs. It would allow such equivalency for well sites and compressor stations in California, Colorado, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and for well sites in Texas and Utah.
A supporting memo recently inserted into the regulatory docket, dated April 12, details which state rules -- including multiple regulations in some states -- EPA believes are equivalent to the proposed NSPS changes.
But one state source and numerous environmentalists are blasting EPA's contention that many of the state programs it is citing are stringent enough to be deemed equivalent with the current NSPS or any reasonably stringent federal replacement.
“One example is Texas,” says the first environmentalist, citing the country's largest gas-producing state. Despite EPA's suggestion that the Lone Star State's leak detection and repair programs for well sites are equivalent to EPA's proposal, the source says the program only covers roughly 5 percent of hundreds of thousands of well sites in the state because it imposes a 10-ton volatile organic compound (VOC) annual emissions threshold for being subject to the rules.
While the VOC content of different wells varies widely depending a well's gas composition, the source notes that the existing NSPS does not include an emissions threshold. It requires semi-annual inspections at all well sites, with the proposed NSPS rollback relaxing that frequency to annually, or once every two years for a new category of low-production wells.
Such concerns highlight the lack of quantitative analysis of emissions covered -- and reduced -- by state programs, which the second environmentalist says is a conspicuous gap in EPA's approach. Even so, groups are still working to “wrap themselves around” the specifics of EPA's proposal.
Stronger Programs
“EPA needs a [more rigorous] process” for deeming state programs equivalent to federal rules, with many oil and gas states already eyeing measure to strengthen programs, or being urged to do so.
EPA's proposal could have two, potentially conflicting, implications. First, it could boost pressure for some states to initiate or accelerate implementation of controls that, directly or indirectly, curb methane. Conversely, other states with statutory or other restrictions against exceeding federal environmental rules might face new pressure to scale back their programs or drop plans to strengthen them.
Observers note, however, that states have varying statutory or other restrictions on going beyond federal rules, and that the prohibitions may apply only to some environmental programs and can allow exceptions. In that vein, a 2014 analysis by the National Conference of State Legislatures notes that state agencies in Pennsylvania may not exceed federal standards under a state executive order, but that this limitation does not apply if there is a “compelling and articulable interest.”
The first environmentalist notes that limitations on state controls have not precluded state action in cases in which the state wants to move forward. “We have seen that play out in Colorado, Ohio, Wyoming and Pennsylvania,” the source says.
A Sept. 28 report in Wyoming Public Media, for example, notes that the sixth-largest gas producing state has been considering revisions to its guidance for presumptive best available control technology that would include a requirement for semi-annual leak inspections at new or modified oil and gas wells.
Pennsylvania, which is second only to Texas in gas production, took steps in June to adopt the country's first general permits that would require methane limits at new unconventional oil and gas operations, standards tougher than the current NSPS.
Colorado air pollution division director Gary Kaufman -- whose state is cited as a leader by both EPA and environmental groups regarding methane controls -- said in September the state “will not waver” in curbing oil and gas emissions despite EPA's proposal. Colorado ranks fifth in gas production.
In contrast, a third environmentalist cites neighboring New Mexico is a laggard -- relative to states like California, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Wyoming and parts of Utah -- in curbing emissions. New Mexico, which includes a portion of the oil- and gas-heavy Permian Basin, is the ninth-largest gas producer.
The outcome of New Mexico's gubernatorial election next month will be crucial to determining if the state issues tougher oil and gas methane controls, the source says.
The contest features two sitting members of Congress -- Republican Steve Pearce and Democrat Michelle Lujan Grisham -- though Lujan Grisham has a 7-point lead in the latest average of polls and many political observers are projecting her to win.
The two candidates hold starkly different positions on oil and gas methane emissions. Pearce backed language on Capitol Hill to scuttle the Obama-era Bureau of Land Management rule to limit methane waste on public lands. Lujan Grisham's campaign platform includes a pledge to “make New Mexico a national leader in methane mitigation.”
“We have no idea what will be possible and realistic” regarding future methane rules until after the election, the third environmentalist source says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-faulted-relying-state-methane-rules-not-tallying-emissions
-
West Texas an ‘Extraction Colony’ as Oil, Gas Exports Surge
Oct 11, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Kiah Collier, Jamie Smith Hopkins and Rachel Leven
Drilling booms have come and gone in this oil town for nearly a century. But the frenzy gripping it now is different. Overwhelming. Drilling rigs tower over suburban backyards. There’s a housing crunch so severe that rents are up 30 percent in the last year alone.
This boom is engulfing the rest of West Texas, extending to areas drilling hasn’t touched before. As communities welcome new jobs and business, they’re struggling with an onslaught of problems from air pollution to student homelessness.
In December, companies in the Permian Basin — an ancient, oil-rich seabed that spans West Texas and southeastern New Mexico — produced twice as much oil as they had four years earlier, during the last boom. Forecasters expect production to double again by 2023.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and others say the drilling spree is ushering in a new era of American energy independence, but American demand isn’t driving it. Foreign demand is.
__
This story is part of a collaboration between the Center for Public Integrity, the Texas Tribune, The Associated Press and Newsy.
__
In late 2015, Congress cut a deal to lift 40-year-old restrictions on the export of crude oil. Three years later, the U.S. has surpassed Russia as the world’s top oil producer. The International Energy Agency predicts that American oil — most of it from the Permian — will account for 80 percent of the growth in global supply through 2025.
Hydraulic fracturing — better known as fracking — made this boom technologically possible, but exports are the reason there’s so much new drilling. U.S. refineries built for heavier varieties of oil than the Permian produces can’t handle the enormous new quantities of Texas light crude. Instead, companies are shipping it abroad.
The lifting of the export restrictions “is tantamount to one of the most important things that’s ever been done for the industry,” said Tim Dove, chief executive officer of Pioneer Natural Resources, based near Dallas.
But the country is not “energy independent” in the way most Americans would conceive of the idea. Nor can anyone promise that America, as Abbott put it in a recent tweet, “will NEVER AGAIN depend on Foreign Oil Cartels for energy.”
That’s because the U.S. is still importing oil: 1.4 billion barrels in the first half of this year alone, a third of it from the foreign oil cartel known as OPEC.
The country will keep buying oil from other nations indefinitely even as it sells more abroad, the U.S. Energy Information Administration forecasts.
The Texas Tribune and the Center for Public Integrity investigated the scope and impacts of energy exports as part of a collaboration with Newsy and The Associated Press.
In Texas, the boom is sending a lot of money into state and local coffers. Oil and gas tax revenue is up more than 50 percent this year. Said James LeBas, a Texas Oil and Gas Association economist: “When oil and gas is doing well, the state is doing well.”
Still, climbing production hasn’t boosted local tax revenues fast enough to address the problems that come with it, from crowded classrooms to wrecked roads. Schools, police departments and hospitals are struggling to keep employees lured by better-paying oilfield jobs.
Texas regulators, long criticized for being too industry-friendly, also aren’t aggressively tracking or policing problems that accompany the boom. For example, the Texas portion of the Permian — roughly the size of Georgia — has only a few air pollution monitoring stations, leaving residents largely in the dark about what’s in the air they breathe.
And the industry is consuming water in the arid region at an unsustainable rate. Permian Basin operators used eight times as much water to frack and drill last year as they did in 2011; the ultimate consequences are unknown because Texas doesn’t require companies to disclose basic information that would allow scientists to understand the risks.
People with no say in these decisions are stuck with the consequences, said Coyne Gibson, who lives in a part of the Permian that had little oil and gas activity until a few years ago.
“The bitter, cynical way to look at this is, West Texas becomes an extraction colony for the fuel resources for the rest of the world,” said Gibson, a Big Bend Conservation Alliance volunteer who once worked in the oil and gas industry.
Globally, there are major trade-offs, too. Scientists warn this drilling rush almost certainly will worsen climate change by increasing the world’s fossil fuel use at a fraught time. They say drastic reductions in greenhouse gases are needed to avoid intensifying climate-linked disasters already pummeling the planet.
Two massive wildfires in California this summer were among the largest in state history. Record-high temperatures in Japan killed more than 100 people in July. September’s Hurricane Florence was the most devastating storm ever to hit the Carolinas, while Texas communities are still struggling to recover from Hurricane Harvey, which shattered U.S. rainfall records last year.
“Every additional gigaton of carbon that we produce as a global society carries with it a very real cost,” said Katharine Hayhoe, who directs the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/west-texas-an-extraction-colony-as-oil-gas-exports-surge/2018/10/11/2f818190-cd62-11e8-ad0a-0e01efba3cc1_story.html?utm_term=.eccd29bf01f4
-
Goldman Sachs: Shale Will Drive Global Oil Growth Through 2021
Oct 11, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Rye Druzin
A new report says U.S. shale oil and gas will continue to drive supply growth through at least 2021, though some signs point to the limits of shale resources.
The report by Goldman Sachs says U.S. shale resources are expected to continue to grow by 1 million barrels a day through 2021, which would put the country at more than 13 million barrels a day of oil production.
In 2018 through July the U.S. has produced, on average, 10.5 million barrels a day.
Goldman Sachs said several factors would point to a Shale Tail, or when U.S. shale oil and gas production becomes less of an influence on global oil markets. They include fewer barrels of oil in the ground than initially estimated, decreases in the amount of oil coming out of each well, and a flattening of production growth.
In 2018 through July the U.S. has produced, on average, 10.5 million barrels a day.
Goldman Sachs said several factors would point to a Shale Tail, or when U.S. shale oil and gas production becomes less of an influence on global oil markets. They include fewer barrels of oil in the ground than initially estimated, decreases in the amount of oil coming out of each well, and a flattening of production growth.
One region where some indicators reflect the beginning of a Shale Tail is the Eagle Ford Shale. Goldman Sachs said the amount of oil in the South Texas region is being revised down.
Of the major shale plays the Eagle Ford and the Bakken in North Dakota are closest to becoming legacy plays, where production would have peaked. Goldman Sachs says the Eagle Ford and Bakken have less than 30 years of resource life, compared to the more than 90 years for the Permian.
Goldman Sachs expects Eagle Ford and Bakken production growing slowly or plateauing through 2025. The analysis says peak production growth in the Eagle Ford and Bakken were seen in 2013 and 2012, respectively.
https://www.chron.com/g00/business/energy/article/Goldman-Sachs-Shale-will-drive-global-oil-growth-13298996.php?i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuY2hyb24uY29tL2cwMC9idXNpbmVzcy9lbmVyZ3kvP2kxMGMuZW5jUmVmZXJyZXI9JmkxMGMudWE9MSZpMTBjLmR2PTE0&i10c.ua=1&i10c.dv=14
-
Wheeler Bumps More Academics from Advisory Panel
Oct 11, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
EPA acting chief Andrew Wheeler yesterday dramatically reshuffled the lineup of a key air quality advisory panel with what he called "highly qualified" new appointees drawn mainly from state and local regulatory agencies.
But in naming five new members to the seven-member Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, Wheeler also displaced several academic researchers, prompting accusations that he's trying to influence the outcome of a closely watched review of EPA's air quality standards for particulate matter.
"You don't have the expertise, period," said Chris Zarba, who headed the EPA office that oversaw the committee's work before retiring early this year. Zarba is now part of a network made up largely of former agency employees opposed to the Trump administration's environmental policies.
The committee, usually referred to by its acronym, CASAC, is charged with advising EPA during legally required reviews of the standards for particulate matter, ozone and four other common pollutants targeted by the Clean Air Act. With the appointments announced late yesterday, all seven members have been named by either Wheeler or Scott Pruitt, his predecessor as EPA chief.
The new appointees, culled from the ranks of three dozen nominees:
· Mark Frampton, professor emeritus in medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center's Pulmonary and Critical Care division.
· Sabine Lange, section manager, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's toxicology division.
· Tim Lewis, supervisory research ecologist, Army Corps of Engineers.
· Corey Masuca, principal air pollution control engineer, Jefferson County (Ala.) Department of Health.
· Steven Packham, inhalation toxicologist, Utah Department of Environmental Quality.
Four of the five are replacements for members whose terms expired last month; a fifth takes the place of Larry Wolk, another Pruitt appointee who has since left his post as executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment for a job in the private sector. The committee's chairman remains Tony Cox, a Colorado consultant named to the post last year whose clients have included industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute.
In the news release announcing the appointments, EPA said the committee "will serve as the body to review key scientific assessments for the ozone and particulate matter" standards. Under a fast-track schedule set earlier this year, both those reviews are set for completion in late 2020.
Among administration critics, the release's wording prompted speculation that EPA is disbanding a separate 24-member panel, made up almost entirely of academic researchers, that is charged with providing additional expertise during the assessment of the particulate matter standards.
As of this morning, however, several panel members said they had not gotten any official notification of such a development, and the list of panel members remained posted on EPA's website. Asked whether the agency is in fact abolishing the panel, EPA spokesman John Konkus in an email repeated the language in the news release.
The new appointments appear to reflect the impact of a Pruitt directive imposed last fall to guide the selection of members for CASAC and other EPA advisory committees.
That directive set a loose goal of expanding the ranks of members who come from state, local and tribal governments. More controversially, it also barred current EPA grant recipients from serving on agency advisory committees. Pruitt also effectively ended a tradition of reappointing first-term CASAC members to a second three-year term. Three of the academic scientists who were not reappointed fell into that category. One of them, Lianne Sheppard, a biostatistics professor at the University of Washington, is a plaintiff in one of three pending lawsuits that challenge the ban on service by grant recipients.
The appointments could also show the influence of EPA deputy air chief Clint Woods. Before going to work for EPA last year, Woods headed the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, which mainly represents regulators from the South and West. Lange, Masuca and Packham all work for agencies that are association members.
Asked in an email this morning whether he had weighed in during the selection process, Woods referred the question to Konkus.
"EPA went through the standard vetting process for interested applicants that included input from a range of offices at multiple levels," Konkus wrote.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/10/11/stories/1060102327
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested