AM ACC Clips Report - April 16, 2019

Industry and Association News

1. EPA Begins 'Disruptive' Regional Office Shuffle Despite Enforcement Fears

   Apr 16, 2019 | Inside EPA

   By Dave Reynolds
   
   
   EPA is launching a long-planned reorganization of its regional offices in a bid to improve coordination between agency headquarters and its regions, despite fears from some agency staff that the “disruptive” shuffle could weaken enforcement and claims that EPA has not taken adequate steps to minimize the overhaul's adverse impacts.

TSCA News

2. EPA Proposes TSCA CDR Revisions and Update to Small Manufacturer Definition for TSCA Section 8(a)

   Apr 16, 2019 | The National Law Review

   By Bergeson Campbell
   
   
   On April 12, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a proposed rule that would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) requirements and the TSCA Section 8(a) size standards for small manufacturers.
3. See EPA’s Proposed Review Plan for TSCA Confidential Business Information

   Apr 16, 2019 | EHS Daily Advisor

   By William C. Schillac
   
   
   In its latest action to implement the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the EPA has proposed regulations under which it will review claims by businesses that information about chemical substances on the confidential portion of the TSCA Inventory must be protected from disclosure to the public.

Chemical Management News

4. (ACC Mentioned) PFOA Is Out, But Replacement Prompted Concerns

   Apr 16, 2019 | Albany Times Union

   By Dan Freedman
   
   
   Even before Rensselaer County became Ground Zero for drinking water contamination from PFOA, the chemical industry developed what it insisted were safer compounds to replace Teflon and others found in common "nonstick" cookware and other consumer items.
5. EPA Head Closes Door On Formaldehyde IRIS Assessment

   Apr 16, 2019 | Chemical Watch

   By Lisa Martine Jenkins
   
   
   US EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler told a US House of Representatives hearing that the agency’s Integrated Risk Information System assessment of formaldehyde will not be released. Work on the assessment has been ongoing for nearly a decade
6. Canada Provisionally Clears Three Triazines

   Apr 16, 2019 | Chemica Watch

   The Canadian government has provisionally concluded that three substances from the triazines and triazole group, are not harmful to human health or the environment at current levels of exposure.

Energy News

7. Warren Pledges To Ban New Fossil Fuel Production On Federal Lands

   Apr 15, 2019 | PoliticoPro

   By Zack Colman
   
   
   Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Monday that if elected president, she would ban new fossil fuel exploration on public lands on her first day in office as a part of her strategy to fight climate change.
8. Natural Gas Needed for California Decarbonization, Energy Policy Report Says

   Apr 15, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence

   By Richard Nemec
   
   
   Renewables and battery storage are only part of the equation leading to meeting California's aggressive decarbonization goals, according to a report presented at a seminar at Stanford University on Wednesday by former Department of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.
9. Natural Gas Industry Calls For New Nominee

   Apr 15, 2019 | E&E News PM

   By Jeremy Dillon
   
   
   The natural gas industry pressed the White House today to fill the empty slot on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to enable billions in infrastructure project permitting to move forward.
10. Executive Order Could Avert Next Major Energy Crisis

    Apr 15, 2019 | RealClearEnergy

    By Matthew Kandrach
    
    
    Across the country, scores of coal plants are shutting down and many nuclear plants are at risk of closing. Consequently, natural gas is in great demand for electricity production. But serious supply problems have developed from a shortage of gas due to a failure to overturn moratoriums on the construction of new pipelines. This problem dwarfs anything likely to happen with the rest of the power sector.

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

11. Green Groups Confident Trump Will Obey Power Plant Court Order

    Apr 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By David Schultz
    
    
    Environmentalists are confident the Trump administration will obey a court order and strengthen regulations set during the Obama era on effluent from power plants, despite the administration’s earlier attempts to roll back the regulations.
12. CASAC Formally Calls For EPA To Revive Special PM Panel

    Apr 15, 2019 | Inside EPA

    As expected, EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) is formally requesting that the agency reconstitute its special panel to assist in the review of particulate matter (PM) federal air standards and draft a new science assessment for review, after the committee harshly criticized EPA staff’s approach to the review.
13. Environmentalists Sue EPA To Force Coke Oven Air Toxics Standards

    Apr 15, 2019 | Inside EPA

    Environmentalists have followed though on their threat to sue EPA in a bid to force issuance of revised Clean Air Act toxics standards for coke ovens used for iron and steelmaking, saying the ovens emit known carcinogens and that the agency is years behind schedule in complying with an air law mandate to revise the standards.
14. Trump Fed Pick: No To Climate Science, Yes To Carbon Tax

    Apr 16, 2019 | E&E Energywire

    By Scott Waldman
    
    
    One of President Trump's picks for the Federal Reserve Board recently endorsed a carbon tax to address climate change.

Industry and Association News

1. EPA Begins 'Disruptive' Regional Office Shuffle Despite Enforcement Fears

   Apr 16, 2019 | Inside EPA

   By Dave Reynolds

   EPA is launching a long-planned reorganization of its regional offices in a bid to improve coordination between agency headquarters and its regions, despite fears from some agency staff that the “disruptive” shuffle could weaken enforcement and claims that EPA has not taken adequate steps to minimize the overhaul's adverse impacts.

   “This will be very beneficial to all the states,” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said of the shuffle. The action is being initiated April 15 for three regions, ahead of full implementation in all regions later this month.

   The changes will bring “more continuity, more cohesiveness” to collaborations between EPA headquarters and regional offices and states, Wheeler told the Environmental Council of the States' (ECOS) spring meeting on April 8 in Arlington, VA.

   As reported by Inside EPA, Wheeler first announced the reorganization in a Sept. 6 email to staff, saying the restructuring would divide each of the 10 regional offices into eight divisions to more closely mirror the design of headquarters and boost coordination with its air, waste, water, enforcement and other divisions.

   Last week, the agency chief then sent an email to all agency employees announcing that the reorganization is starting April 15 in Regions 3, 6 and 10, with the remaining regions starting April 28, according to a copy of the message obtained by E&E News.

   But the reorganization plan has drawn a variety of criticisms, including that it is a one-size-fits-all approach for regions with diverse challenges, and that its overhaul of existing enforcement chains of command will bolster political leadership's ability to push reduced regional enforcement and more-lenient compliance oversight.

   Last month, an agency source told Inside EPA that the change will cause “chaos,” particularly in several regions that have run enforcement efforts out of program-specific offices, such as air, waste, water and toxics, rather than a dedicated enforcement division, and that EPA has failed to adequately address staff concerns.

    “This is one of the most concerning things for [EPA staff] that has happened in years,” the source said, referring to staff reassignments resulting from realignment, as well as fears the reorganization will lead to a further weakening of enforcement. “You don’t put people in new jobs and not have just complete and utter chaos.”

   Another agency official says that any agency reorganization will almost inevitably result in a certain amount of grief among staff, but also acknowledged that questions have been raised about whether management has followed proper procedures in advancing the plan.

   “Reorganizations are always disruptive,” the second EPA source says, adding that employees often “don’t like the change, and they don’t want to be asked to different kinds of work."

   But the source adds, “there is some question about whether they are really following the procedures and the processes, and that is a pretty big foul for the unions if you don’t.”

   Realignment 'Chaos'

   EPA management has made some pledges to support staff through the reorganization process, including that the move will not lead to staffing reductions or pay cuts, according to a Feb. 25 memorandum of agreement (MOU) between the agency and one of its unions, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE).

   But the first agency source has said that EPA is pushing ahead with the realignment despite staff concerns, and that the union is unable to negotiate whether realignment occurs -- instead it can only negotiate how implementation of the administration’s plan affects employees.

   As part of the effort, EPA is reassigning enforcement directors and moving other staff to new positions for which they may have little or no training, creating what the agency source called “chaos” at the regional level.

   The change comes as EPA’s fiscal year 2018 enforcement report shows a series of key metrics for penalties and pollution cleanups at historic lows, which drew criticism from House Democrats in a February hearing.

   The realignment is part of the Trump administration’s wide-ranging effort, led by EPA Chief of Operations Henry Darwin, to improve agency efficiency, through a variety of steps, including Lean business concepts and streamlining regional oversight of state permitting and enforcement processes.

   According to EPA’s website, Lean principles and methods eliminate waste and accelerate processes, though union officials have faulted Lean as a step toward achieving staff reductions.

   In his remarks to ECOS, Wheeler said that Darwin’s experience as a former Arizona environment chief improved his understanding of Lean management techniques and that his effort to bolster EPA’s use of those methods will further strengthen the agency’s collaboration with states.

   “I believe that implementation of Lean management across the agency will be one of the longest-lasting changes that happens in this administration,” Wheeler told the ECOS meeting. 

   https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-begins-disruptive-regional-office-shuffle-despite-enforcement-fears
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

TSCA News

2. EPA Proposes TSCA CDR Revisions and Update to Small Manufacturer Definition for TSCA Section 8(a)

   Apr 16, 2019 | The National Law Review

   By Bergeson Campbell

   On April 12, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a proposed rule that would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) requirements and the TSCA Section 8(a) size standards for small manufacturers. The current CDR rule requires manufacturers (including importers) of certain chemical substances listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory) to report data on chemical manufacturing, processing, and use every four years. EPA is proposing several changes to the CDR rule to make regulatory updates to align with new statutory requirements of TSCA, improve the CDR data collected as necessary to support the implementation of TSCA, and potentially reduce the burden for certain CDR reporters. Proposed updates to the definition for small manufacturers, including a new definition for small governments, are being made in accordance with TSCA Section 8(a)(3)(C) and impact certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements for TSCA Section 8(a) rules, including CDR. EPA states that the definitions may reduce the burden on chemical manufacturers by increasing the number of manufacturers considered small. Overall, according to EPA, the regulatory modifications may better address EPA and public information needs by providing additional information that is currently not collected; improve the usability and reliability of the reported data; and ensure that data are available in a timely manner. Publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register will begin a 60-day comment period. A prepublication version of the proposed rule is available here.Summary of Proposed Rule

   EPA is proposing several amendments to the current CDR rule requirements. These amendments include:

   Changing requirements for making confidentiality claims, including to identify when upfront substantiation is required, update the substantiation questions, and identify data elements that cannot be claimed as confidential to align with the Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Act);

   Replacing certain processing and use codes (industrial function and commercial/consumer product use) with codes based on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) functional use and product and article use codes, including adding reporting of the OECD-based functional use codes for consumer and commercial use information;

   Adding the requirement to report the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code(s) for the site of manufacture;

   Modifying the requirement to indicate whether a chemical is removed from the waste stream and recycled, remanufactured, reprocessed, or reused with the requirement to indicate whether a chemical is removed from the waste stream and recycled;

   Adding a requirement to identify the percent total production volume of a chemical substance that is a byproduct;

   Requiring that the secondary submitter of a joint submission report the chemical specific function along with the percentage of the chemical in the imported product;

   Adding a voluntary data element to provide a public contact;

   Modifying the definition of “parent company” to clarify the definition, add the requirement to report a foreign parent company, when applicable, and codify reporting scenarios;

   Simplifying the reporting process for co-manufacturers by enabling a multi-reporter process for reporters to separately report directly to EPA within the e-CDRweb reporting tool;

   Allowing reporting in specified metal categories for inorganic byproducts;

   Adding exemptions for specifically identified byproducts that are recycled in a site-limited, enclosed system and for byproducts that are manufactured as part of non-integral pollution control and boiler equipment; and

   Clarifying regulatory text by removing outdated text, consolidating exemptions, and making other improvements.

   Additionally, EPA proposes to update the size standards definition for small manufacturers for reporting and recordkeeping requirements under TSCA Section 8(a).

   EPA states that it is also giving notice of some aspects of the Lautenberg Act amendments that may impact, more broadly, TSCA submitters. For example, under TSCA Section 14(e)(1)(B), EPA is charged with implementing a ten year “sunset” provision for confidentiality claims. EPA states that, because the small manufacturer size standard under TSCA Section 8(a) impacts the CDR rule more than other TSCA Section 8(a) reporting rules at this time, EPA included these two actions as one proposed rule. EPA recognizes that the changes made to the small business definition will impact current and future TSCA Section 8(a) reporting rules, however, and intends to promulgate these amendments as two separate actions.

   EPA states that it is taking “other, non-regulatory steps to minimize the burden on all reporters, including small entities, by improving the reporting application and database to be user-friendly and dynamic, consisting of straightforward questions that include fill-in-the-blank (number) fields, check boxes, and drop-down menus.” In addition, EPA is replacing the current preformatted Form U with a customized report based on the actual information submitted by a site through e-CDRweb, the electronic reporting tool. EPA notes that although these changes are not discussed further in the proposed rule, “they are an important component of the effort to reduce burden and modernize the data collection system.” EPA is adding an addendum to the current CDR rule Information Collection Request (ICR) (Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 2070-0162) for the regulatory changes proposed. In addition to the changes outlined in this proposed rule, if needed, EPA states that it will provide a second addendum to the ICR to address non-regulatory changes.

   According to the proposed rule, as was done for previous CDR collections, EPA will provide industry with the opportunity to test and comment on the updated e-CDRweb prior to the 2020 CDR submission period. EPA states that it anticipates holding a webinar to introduce the revised e-CDRweb to the regulated community directly following promulgation of the final CDR revisions rule. During the webinar, EPA will issue a general invitation to interested parties to participate in a short testing period of the revised e-CDRweb. EPA will open the testing period within four months after issuing the final rule, and currently anticipates that testing will occur in the February to March 2020 timeframe. Because of resource constraints, the testing period will be limited to 25 participants. For additional information, contact Susan Sharkey, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, at sharkey.susan@epa.gov. EPA states that it will also post information to the CDR website.Why EPA Is Taking This Action

   According to the proposed rule, EPA is proposing revisions to the CDR rule for three primary reasons: to align with Lautenberg Act amendments to TSCA; to improve the CDR data collected as necessary to support the implementation of TSCA; and to reduce the burden for CDR reporters pursuant to TSCA Section 8(a)(5).

   The Lautenberg Act amended the TSCA requirements associated with confidentiality claims, including identifying the data elements eligible for confidentiality claims and when substantiation of claims is required. EPA proposes revisions to the CDR rule to address these changes.

   EPA proposes to modify the definition for small manufacturers, as a result of the Lautenberg Act’s amendment of TSCA Section 8(a)(3)(C), which requires EPA, after consultation with the Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), to review the adequacy of the standards for determining which manufacturers and processors qualify as small manufacturers and processors for purposes of TSCA Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3). EPA published a determination that revision of the TSCA Section 8(a) size standards for small manufacturers was warranted in a Federal Register notice published November 30, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 56824). EPA’s determination, supporting documents, and comments received can be found in Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0675. This proposed change may reduce the burden for some manufacturers that would be considered small manufacturers under CDR and other TSCA Section 8(a) rules relying on the small manufacturer definition in 40 C.F.R. Part 704.3.

   EPA states that it is also proposing to make some changes to the CDR data reporting so the information collected is tailored to meet better its overall information needs and align them with specific needs for prioritization and risk evaluation under TSCA Section 6. TSCA Section 2 specifies that “adequate information should be developed with respect to the effect of chemical substances and mixtures on health and the environment and that the development of such information should be the responsibility of those who manufacture and those who process such chemical substances and mixtures” (TSCA Section 2(b)(1)). These proposed changes include the addition of data elements, such as a site-specific NAICS code and how much of a chemical is a byproduct; modification to multi-reporter submission requirements, including adding a process for jointly reporting co-manufactured chemicals; and changes to current data elements, such as codes used for reporting processing and use information. In addition, according to EPA, proposed changes to the parent company reporting requirements would increase EPA’s ability to protect confidential information while better enabling EPA to make information publicly available; and the addition of a voluntary public contact would direct inquiries from the public to a designated individual rather than to the technical contact. These changes would help to meet EPA’s requirement under TSCA Section 26(h), in carrying out TSCA Sections 4, 5, and 6, to make scientific decisions consistent with the best available science, improve the CDR data collected as necessary to support the implementation of TSCA, and improve EPA’s ability to provide effectively public access to the information. Furthermore, these changes would meet EPA’s objective to obtain new and updated information relating to potential exposures to a major subset of chemical substances listed on the TSCA Inventory.

   EPA states that, at the same time, it is interested in reducing the burden on industry while maintaining EPA’s ability to receive the information it needs to understand exposure to these chemicals (TSCA Section 8(a)(5)). EPA used experiences from the 2016 CDR submission period, concerns identified by users of CDR information, and burden-reduction suggestions made as part of public comment opportunities, including public comments solicited in conjunction with Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190 and 82 Fed. Reg. 17793, April 13, 2017) and as part of the renewal of the ICR (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0648 and 83 Fed. Reg. 36928, July 31, 2018). In addition, EPA identified ways to reduce the burden specifically for manufacturers of inorganic byproducts as part of an extensive negotiated rulemaking effort, which included participation by all stakeholder groups, and subsequent public comment period in 2017 (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0597 and 82 Fed. Reg. 47423, October 12, 2017). Taking into account these experiences and stakeholder input, EPA proposes the following changes to reduce burden: the new ability to report alternatively inorganic byproducts within defined metal categories, the introduction of two new exemptions related to byproducts, a revised approach to reporting for co-manufactured chemicals, and the harmonization of function and product codes with those used by other countries.

   Additionally, EPA received comments that modernizing the CDR data collection and public access to the database would reduce reporting burden and facilitate ease of use by reporters and the public (81 Fed. Reg. 90843 (Dec. 15, 2016); Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0597 and Refs. 1, 2, and 3). These comments were used to develop this proposal and to inform other, non-regulatory changes that EPA plans to make to the reporting process.Estimated Incremental Impacts of This Action

   EPA states that it evaluated the potential costs and benefits of revising CDR reporting requirements and modifying standards for small manufacturers in CDR and other TSCA Section 8(a) reporting. Some aspects of the proposal increase the burden and cost while other aspects decrease the burden and result in cost savings. Overall, EPA estimates that the combined impact of all the proposed amendments would decrease the total burden and result in a cost savings to industry and government reporters. These analyses are briefly summarized below:CDR revisions economic impacts summary. The proposed amendments are estimated to result in an overall net decrease in burden with associated cost savings. The estimated changes include increases in rule familiarization, compliance determination, and form completion. The future cycle burden and costs or cost savings are listed by type of change:
    For changes to modify or add reportable data elements (e.g., processing and use codes, NAICS codes, byproduct percentage, chemical function, public contact, and parent company), the incremental burden is expected to increase by 45,000 hours with an associated cost increase of $3.5 million.
    For changes to claiming confidentiality, the incremental burden is expected to decrease by 340 hours with an associated cost savings of $0.03 million.
    For changes to add byproducts exemptions, the incremental burden is expected to decrease by 68,000 hours with an associated cost savings of $5.2 million.
    For changes to implement consolidated category reporting for certain inorganic metals, the incremental burden is expected to decrease by 13,000 hours with an associated cost savings of $1.0 million.
    For changes that affect CDR reporting eligibility (targeted to certain sites with varying reductions to the number of chemicals reported per site), the incremental burden is expected to result in a net decrease by 81,000 hours with associated cost savings at $6.3 million. There are increases in burden and costs for several requirements, such as the need to assess whether exemptions apply (compliance determination) and the need to familiarize oneself with modifications to the rule (rule familiarization), estimated at 3,000 hours with an associated cost of $0.24 million. The changes to form completion in the aggregate, however, are estimated to result in an overall net decrease in burden and cost savings due to decreases in the number of sites reporting and/or the number of chemical reports from a site. These decreases are due to the proposed byproduct exemptions and consolidated category reporting.

   In sum, EPA states that the overall incremental impacts to industry and government reporters result in a net decrease in burden and cost savings. Estimates include rule familiarization, compliance determination, and CDR form completion. Note that estimated changes to recordkeeping burden and cost are negligible and estimated at zero. An estimated 5,660 sites are expected to report during the next CDR submission period in 2020. The total incremental burden reduction and cost savings are estimated at a 36,000 hour reduction and $2.79 million cost savings. On an annualized basis using a three percent and a seven percent discount rate over a ten-year period, the annualized incremental cost savings is estimated at $0.66 million and $0.65 million per year, respectively.TSCA Section 8(a) small manufacturer definition economic impacts summary. The proposed modified standards for small manufacturers would affect TSCA Section 8(a) rules, including CDR. These rules use the TSCA Section 8(a) small manufacturer definition to identify the entities exempted from reporting or for other reduced reporting requirements. The impact from the proposal is focused on the CDR rule and may impact whether a site is required to report or the number of chemicals a site would report. There is no measurable impact to other TSCA Section 8(a) rules either because EPA has not received any chemical reports for the rule for an extended period of time or because the rule uses a different definition that is not being changed by this proposal. According to EPA, the proposed definition results in a cost savings.
    Impact of proposed small manufacturer definition. The proposal is estimated to eliminate reporting entirely for 93 industry sites and reduce reporting by eliminating the need to report at least one chemical for additional 129 industry sites. This reduction in reporting is in addition to the sites already not reporting because they meet the current small manufacturer definition.

   Under this proposed definition, incremental future cycle burden reductions and cost savings are estimated at 64,000 hours and $5.0 million, respectively, over a four-year CDR reporting cycle. On an annualized basis, using a three percent and seven percent discount rate over a ten-year period yields net annualized incremental cost savings of $1.2 million and $1.2 million per year, respectively. This proposal also includes a small government exemption.Impact of proposed small government definition. The following government entities report under CDR: seven municipalities, one county-level public utility district, and one tribal entity. Under the proposed small government definition, four government entities would be exempted from the need to report. The burden and cost savings associated with the exempted entities, in future reporting cycles, are included in the estimates for the proposed definition with incremental future cycle burden reduction and cost savings estimated at 500 hours and $39,000 respectively, over a four-year CDR reporting cycle.Total economic impacts summary for proposal. The amendments in the proposed rule may affect the number of reports submitted during a submission period and the burden to prepare a report. EPA estimates that the combined impact of all of the proposed amendments would decrease the total burden and cost to industry associated with CDR reporting. Tables 1A and 1B in the proposed rule present the summaries of burden and cost impacts, respectively, for the proposed CDR revisions and TSCA Section 8(a) small manufacturer definition update. In the tables, EPA presents estimates for the CDR four-year first cycle and the future cycle. In the first cycle, higher burdens and costs are incurred, because all reporters need to familiarize themselves with the changes and may take longer to complete reporting activities. After the first cycle, and for future cycles, experienced reporters (85 percent) are familiar with the changed requirements. In addition to estimates that cover the four-year CDR cycle, Tables 1A and 1B present annual estimates. These annual estimates are the four-year estimates divided by four. EPA acknowledges that activities may be spread unevenly across the four years. On an annualized basis, using a three percent and seven percent discount rate over a ten-year period yields a net annualized incremental cost savings of $1.85 million and $1.83 million per year, respectively, for the overall proposed rule.Commentary

   As we noted in our “Forecast for U.S. Federal and International Chemical Regulatory Policy 2019” document, EPA has made changes in the last four cycles of CDR (or its predecessor, the Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule). This is the fifth set of modifications in as many reporting cycles, and the final changes will be implemented less than a year before reporting is required in 2020. So while these proposed changes may ultimately prove helpful to the reporting community, the reality is that regulated stakeholders will bear an increased burden in the near future.

   The exception to this will be those entities captured under the existing definition of “small business.” The current monetary thresholds for determining small business status under CDR are $40 million in sales if the subject chemical volume is less than or equal to 100,000 pounds; or $4 million in sales regardless of volume. EPA is proposing to adjust the $40 million standard to $110 million and the $4 million standard to $11 million. While EPA indicated that it considered different options for defining small businesses under CDR, we applaud the decision to propose an approach that simply updates the numbers in the current standard, as that will make it easier for stakeholders to understand and apply within their own businesses.

   In terms of other changes proposed, while we recognize EPA’s general desire to harmonize reporting codes with OECD, we note that one of the more challenging aspects of CDR reporting is identifying the “top ten,” the unique three code combinations for the subject chemicals’ process or use, industry sector, and industrial function under Form U, Part IIIA. With the proposed change to align reporting codes with OECD codes, companies cannot rely on code combinations reported in the past. EPA also intends to add function code reporting for commercial and consumer products under Part IIIB; these codes would also align with OECD codes. In the notice, EPA mentions that the OECD codes are more specific than the current CDR codes. Whether this specificity will help or hinder companies’ efforts is yet to be seen.

   The notice also covers issues related to confidential business information (CBI) reporting and substantiation requirements under amended TSCA. While EPA’s review of the CBI substantiation process expected under CDR is not unexpected, stakeholders should take note that EPA believes the following reporting elements under CDR are NOT eligible for CBI protection:

   Use, sector, and function of reported chemical in industrial processing;

   Whether the reported chemical is used in commercial or consumer products;

   Commercial or consumer product category for reported chemical;

   Function of chemical in commercial or consumer products; and

   Whether the reported chemical is used in children’s products.

   There is also a proposal to change the current approach for joint submissions between U.S. companies and their foreign suppliers, in which the foreign suppliers would also need to report chemical-specific function information along with chemical composition. While a relatively minor change, we note that this would require outreach education by U.S. entities to ensure their foreign partners appreciate this change.

   Most of the remaining proposed modifications focus on reporting of byproducts that would not be exempted from CDR. As EPA and others came to appreciate during the negotiated rulemaking efforts in 2016, the recycling of byproducts that would otherwise be disposed of as waste cuts across many industries and is very complicated. A one-size-fits-all approach is simply unworkable.

   We applaud EPA’s consideration of exempting certain byproduct recycling processes that occur within enclosed systems from reporting obligations. We support the concept of a petition process to request consideration of other exemptions in the future.

   We appreciate the option of reporting of recycled inorganic metal byproducts by category. We note, however, that the additional stipulations for this option (reporting in weight versus volume and exclusions from category listing) may impact stakeholders’ interest.

   We anticipate that EPA’s proposal to require total percentage of product volume of a reported chemical from byproduct recycling processing could be of concern to the reporting community. As noted, recycling of byproducts that would otherwise be disposed of as waste is complicated and often involves extraction of chemicals from mixtures with complex and variable components. Impacted stakeholders should consider carefully this proposed modification and provide EPA with clear and concise input as to any challenges or difficulties associated with it.

   Given that the next CDR reporting cycle is coming up next year, we hope EPA staff can move quickly to issue a final rule and complete testing on the new electronic system. We also hope that this upcoming adjustment in CDR will be the last for a while, so companies can set their internal processes with the confidence that no further changes are forthcoming.

   Return to headline | Return to top

3. See EPA’s Proposed Review Plan for TSCA Confidential Business Information

   Apr 16, 2019 | EHS Daily Advisor

   By William C. Schillac

   In its latest action to implement the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the EPA has proposed regulations under which it will review claims by businesses that information about chemical substances on the confidential portion of the TSCA Inventory must be protected from disclosure to the public.
   
   The scope of the proposal would be limited to manufacturers (including importers) and processors that filed Notice of Activity (NOA) Form As as required by the Agency’s Active-Inactive Rule (August 11, 2017, Federal Register (FR)).

   TSCA confidential business information (CBI) is information for which a business has made a claim of business confidentiality. Once in the EPA’s hands, this information is protected from disclosure until the business withdraws the CBI claim, until the CBI claim expires, until the EPA determines that the claim is not entitled to confidential treatment, or as authorized under TSCA and EPA regulations.

   Under the proposal, the EPA would review each specific chemical identity CBI claim and substantiation and approve or deny those claims consistent with the procedures and substantiation criteria in TSCA sections 8(b)(4) and 14 and 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. The proposal also includes provisions clarifying the duration of protection for approved CBI claims.Affected Entities

   The 2017 Active-Inactive Rule allowed regulated entities to maintain an existing CBI claim without a substantiation, as the review plan had not been established. The rule also allowed businesses to voluntarily submit CBI substantiations for chemical substances on the confidential portion of the TSCA Inventory. Manufacturers and processors that voluntarily provided substantiations pursuant to the NOA-collection provision of the Active-Inactive Rule, or that identified a previous substantiation for the claim made to the EPA during the 5-year window established by the Agency, would be exempt from the current proposed requirements.Substantiation and Review
   

   The EPA is proposing to require that nonexempt manufacturers and processors substantiate any CBI claim for a specific chemical identity by submitting answers to seven questions regarding, for example, the harm the business would suffer if the CBI were disclosed and how the business has already acted to protect the information. The substantiation must be accompanied by a certification that all information included in the submittal is true, and the certification must be signed by an authorized official of the business.

   The EPA says it would carefully consider the facts provided in the substantiations, any pertinent previously issued confidentiality determinations, and other reasonably available information the
   Agency finds appropriate to determine the information’s entitlement to confidential treatment. The EPA intends to follow the criteria for confidentiality determinations set forth in 40 CFR 2.208 and 2.306(g).Denial and Recourse

   When a CBI claim is denied, the Agency would notify the submitter of its intent to disclose the specific chemical identity and of the EPA’s reasons for denying the claim. The Agency says it would not disclose the specific chemical identity until 30 days after the date on which the submitter receives the denial notice. Submitters can challenge the EPA’s denial of a CBI claim by commencing an action to prevent disclosure in an appropriate federal district court.
   As noted, the proposal covers only CBI claims made in conjunction with the Active-Inactive Rule. Other types of CBI claims—for example, for reintroducing an inactive chemical substance into U.S. commerce—are addressed under other parts of TSCA and subject to different federal CBI regulations.

   TSCA directs that the EPA must issue its final CBI review rule by February 19, 2020; the Agency’s TSCA deadline for completing all the CBI claim reviews is February 19, 2024. The EPA is proposing to require that all substantiations be filed no later than 90 days after the effective date of the final rule.

   https://ehsdailyadvisor.blr.com/2019/04/see-epas-proposed-review-plan-for-tsca-confidential-business-information/
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

4. (ACC Mentioned) PFOA Is Out, But Replacement Prompted Concerns

   Apr 16, 2019 | Albany Times Union

   By Dan Freedman

   Industry says 'GenX' is safer for humans; Gillibrand and others aren't so sure

   WASHINGTON — Even before Rensselaer County became Ground Zero for drinking water contamination from PFOA, the chemical industry developed what it insisted were safer compounds to replace Teflon and others found in common "nonstick" cookware and other consumer items.

   But scientists, environmental advocates and lawmakers argue that it's the industry's claims that don't stick.

   Nowhere is the science of fluoropolymers watched more closely than in Hoosick Falls, where the Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics plant has been determined to be a prime source of PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) contamination in drinking water.

   A Hoosick Falls resident, Michael Hickey, famously Googled “Teflon” and “cancer” in 2014 after his father died of kidney cancer at age 68. As first reported in the Times Union, his research ultimately brought the negative health implications of PFOA to the surface. The village turned off its spigots and reverted to bottled water supplied by Saint-Gobain in December 2015, and Saint-Gobain funded a filtration system the following year.

   The Environmental Protection Agency in 2015 succeeded in getting Saint-Gobain and other producers of non-stick plastics to phase out use of PFOA and similar compounds.

   In their place, Saint-Gobain and the rest of the industry turned to so-called “short-chain” chemicals that they believed were safer because they do not accumulate in the human body as much as PFOA does.

   But multiple studies on mice and rats have shown the new products posed many of the same health threats as chemicals they’re replacing.

   The studies, cited by the federal Environmental Protection Agency last November, found liver and kidney toxicity, immune system compromise, delays in genital development and cancer.

   Saint-Gobain, headquartered in France, uses PFOA substitutes in its products — though it is not entirely clear which ones.

   The primary substitute now on the market has been branded GenX. First produced by DuPont in 2009, GenX has become the chemical industry’s go-to ingredient for the making of fluoropolymers like Teflon for non-stick cookware, as well as a host of other products.

   GenX, PFOA and many other chemicals are all categorized in the PFAS class (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl) of substances.

   Chemours, an offshoot of DuPont, entered into a consent decree last year with North Carolina environmental authorities and advocates after GenX was detected in the state’s Cape Fear River and nearby wells. The decree required Chemours to pay a $12 million fine plus $1 million in investigative costs, and curtail wastewater discharges until they can be demonstrated not to contain contaminants.

   Chemours committed to investing over $100 million to reduce discharges of GenX and all PFAS compounds by 99 percent or more by the end of this year.

   Much like the chemicals it was designed to replace, GenX is hard to eradicate once it gets into the environment, especially groundwater. But unlike PFOA and its sister chemical PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, a key ingredient in the fabric protector Scotchgard), GenX does not last as long in the human body.

   Chemical industry representatives argue the new kinds of PFAS products are distinct from the older ones found not only in Hoosick Falls but nearby Petersburgh and in the Hudson Valley city of Newburgh.

   “The large body of data that has been developed by universities, government agencies, independent laboratories, and industry scientists supports the conclusion that today’s PFAS products do not present a significant risk to human health or the environment,” said Robert Simon of the FluoroCouncil, a branch of the American Chemistry Council, a trade group that represents manufacturers of fluoropolymer products.

   The FluoroCouncil’s website states that one of its “primary goals is to support a global transition toward short-chain chemistries that limit environmental impacts.”

   Lawmakers and environmental advocates counter that like their more toxic precursors, GenX and other forms of PFAS pose significant risks — even if they are not fully understood yet.

   “Access to clean drinking water is a right,” said U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand earlier this month at a hearing convened by the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, “and protecting clean water must be central to the work we do — all of us.”

   Gillibrand, whose upstate home in Brunswick is about 20 miles from Hoosick Falls, is working on legislation that for the first time would place PFAS chemicals, including GenX, on the government’s Toxic Release Inventory. Manufacturers using them would have to publicly report when the chemicals are released into the environment.

   “These chemicals are such a huge class, and there are new ones emerging every day,” said Maureen Cunningham, senior director for clean water for Environmental Advocates of New York. “We react only when there is a problem; we have to adopt the precautionary principle. “

   The “short-chain” effect — passing more quickly through the human body — may not make a major difference, said Alexis Temkin, toxicologist for the Environmental Working Group in Washington.

   “There are no good studies on how they behave in humans,” Temkin said. And whatever the speed of passing through humans, “they definitely are very persistent in the environment.”

   In Newburgh this past weekend, authorities were fighting a spill of fire-fighting foam into a local creek. The foam, which years ago would have contained PFOS, now relies on a “short-chain” compound.

   PFOA and PFOS have appeared on the EPA’s Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule list, requiring water systems serving communities with populations of more than 10,000 to check for it. But GenX is not on the list, which is issued every five years and is not slated to be updated till the 2020s.

   And in any case, a municipal water system like the one in Hoosick Falls has fewer than 10,000 customers and would not be required to run the checks.

   “Because we are not testing for GenX, we don’t know if there’s a problem,” Cunningham said.

   Early in 2018, officials in the village of Hoosick Falls suspected GenX use and brought in an expert from North Carolina involved in GenX detection there to analyze its ground samples. Testers from New York state did the same.

   Neither detected GenX.

   But the testing did uncover amounts of PFBA (perfluorobutanoic acid), a “short-chain” compound comparable to GenX. Testing also revealed traces of PFPeA (perfluoropentanoic acid), yet another “short-chain” substance.

   Neither chemical was detected in drinking water, indicating the filtration systems are working as they should.

   A spokeswoman for Saint-Gobain declined to say which “short-chain” chemicals are in use in Hoosick Falls, stating such information is “proprietary and business confidential.”

   https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/New-age-chemicals-implicated-in-same-13769294.php
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. EPA Head Closes Door On Formaldehyde IRIS Assessment

   Apr 16, 2019 | Chemical Watch

   By Lisa Martine Jenkins

   US EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler told a US House of Representatives hearing that the agency’s Integrated Risk Information System assessment of formaldehyde will not be released. Work on the assessment has been ongoing for nearly a decade.

   "We are not planning to release an evaluation under IRIS, we are planning to release one under TSCA," Mr Wheeler told the Energy and Commerce committee on 9 April. His announcement comes less than a month after formaldehyde was named a candidate for designation as a high priority substance for evaluation under TSCA.

   The designation indicates that the EPA believes it should prioritise evaluating the substance – which is used widely in building materials and as a preservative – to determine if it presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment If designated a high priority, the agency will begin its risk evaluation process on formaldehyde at the end of this year.

   Mr Wheeler’s announcement will raise NGO fears that the proposed designation means that the IRIS assessment will not be finalised.

   "We decided that it was more important to go ahead and put formaldehyde through the TSCA programme because at the end of the day we can regulate formaldehyde under TSCA," he told lawmakers at the hearing on the EPA’s 2020 budget. "You cannot regulate a chemical under IRIS."

   Mr Wheeler cited the length of the IRIS assessment process – "a minimum of 18 months" for formaldehyde – as a factor in the agency’s decision.

   In response to questions by Representative Paul Tonko (D-New York), the EPA head indicated that the work already completed on the IRIS assessment would inform formaldehyde’s risk evaluation under TSCA.  

   However, the timeline is the subject of dispute. Richard Denison, lead senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), said Mr Wheeler had "provided no basis for his 18-month claim."

   Dr Denison says 18 months should be enough to finish the IRIS assessment in time for it to "serve as a point of reference for the TSCA office", since the latter has a deadline of completion between December 2022 and June 2023.

   The revelation that the formaldehyde assessment will not be published comes after nearly a decade of controversy on the subject. As far back as 2010, industry disputed a draft assessment linking the substance to leukaemia. And last year, there were concerns that the agency was intentionally burying the report.

   Just this month, the April update of IRIS’s ‘programme outlook’ indicated that the agency was open to restarting the formaldehyde assessment. It was listed among other non-priority assessments that "have been suspended but may be restarted."

   https://chemicalwatch.com/76492/epa-head-closes-door-on-formaldehyde-iris-assessment
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. Canada Provisionally Clears Three Triazines

   Apr 16, 2019 | Chemica Watch

   The Canadian government has provisionally concluded that three substances from the triazines and triazole group, are not harmful to human health or the environment at current levels of exposure.

   The conclusion comes in a draft screening assessment of the following substances, published on 13 April:amitrole – use as herbicide currently being phased out in Canada;sodium dichloroisocyanurate (NaDCC) – used in pest control, water treatment, cleaning and disinfectant products; andhexa(methoxymethyl)melamine – used in food packaging materials and other commercial products.

   Since no consumer products were found to contain amitrole, it was classed as having low risk of ecological exposure alongside NaDCC. Hexa(methoxymethyl)melamine was classed as having a high risk due to its overall persistence and use.

   Ecological hazard potential was also reviewed. Amitrole and hexa(methoxymethyl)melamine were provisionally determined low risk, while NaDCC was classed as high risk due to its potential ecotoxicity.

   Amitrole is classified as a probable human carcinogen by the US EPA and there is potential carcinogenicity in the case of hexa(methoxymethyl)melamine. These two substances had health effects of concern to humans but are not considered harmful at current levels of exposure.

   Overall the assessment concluded that the substances do not meet the criteria in section 64 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (Cepa) on the basis that they are not entering the environment in a quantity or concentration, or under conditions that have, or may have, an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or human health.

   There is a potential risk if there were any change in the exposures or commercial use patterns. Stakeholders are encouraged to provide information on the follow-up activities for amitrole and hexa(methoxymethyl)melamine in particular.

   The government has launched a 60-day public consultation, ending on 11 June, and is expected to publish the final screening assessment in April 2020.

   Two other substances in the triazines and triazole group were previously determined to be of low concern to human health and the environment : s-triazole and triallyl cyanurate. One other substance in the group – RDX – will be evaluated in a future screening assessment.Inorganic substances

   In a separate draft screening assessment published this month, a further 21 substances were also identified by the Canadian government as not being harmful to human health or the environment at current levels of exposure. It concluded that the following substances did not meet any of the criteria in section 64 of Cepa:silicon carbidecarbonic acid, barium salt (1:1)molybdenum oxidemolybdenum sulfideCI pigment red 109tinberylliumiodinepotassium iodidesodium iodidehydrogen peroxidevanadium, trichlorooxo-sulfuric acid, barium salt (1:1)water-d2barium chloridevanadium oxideumberbarium hydroxideiodideCI pigment yellow 42mercury, diiodobis(5-iodo-2-pyridinamine)-, dihydriodide

   https://chemicalwatch.com/76522/canada-provisionally-clears-three-triazines
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

7. Warren Pledges To Ban New Fossil Fuel Production On Federal Lands

   Apr 15, 2019 | PoliticoPro

   By Zack Colman

   Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Monday that if elected president, she would ban new fossil fuel exploration on public lands on her first day in office as a part of her strategy to fight climate change.

   The Democratic candidate's policy statement regarding management of federal lands, which make up about one-quarter of all U.S. land, comes ahead of her visits to South Carolina, Colorado and Utah.

   "It is wrong to prioritize corporate profits over the health and safety of our local communities," Warren wrote in a Medium post. "That’s why on my first day as President, I will sign an executive order that says no more drilling — a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases, including for drilling offshore and on public lands."

   Warren framed her position on federal land management as preserving the resources for the benefit of taxpayers, and in contrast to the Trump administration's federal lands policy, which she described as focused on extracting resources and boosting businesses. Warren also said she would use the Antiquities Act to re-establish prior boundaries for two Utah national monuments created by former President Barack Obama that were subsequently shrunk by President Donald Trump, and she pledged to increase public access to federal lands while also harnessing them for their climate-fighting potential.

   "America’s public lands belong to all of us," Warren wrote. "We should start acting like it — expanding access, ending fossil fuel extraction, leveraging them as part of the climate solution, and preserving and improving them for our children and grandchildren."

   Her public lands stance makes Warren one of the first 2020 contenders to lay out in greater detail her views on fossil fuels and fighting climate change amid the more general conversation that has mostly focused on whether candidates support a Green New Deal, the ambitious set of aims pushed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

   But like the Green New Deal, Warren's public lands plans include proposals that would require funding, but little detail on where to find it.

   Among Warren's plans are a call to offer free access to all national parks, while also fully funding lands management agencies to address an $11 billion deferred maintenance backlog. The park entrance fees are designated to helping fund park operations, and conservation managers have warned the nation's most popular parks are suffering from heavy visitor traffic. Fossil fuel leases and production royalties also generate considerable revenue for states, tribes and the federal government.

   Still, many of the plans Warren laid out offer more specifics than many of her competitors in a crowded race where Democrats are looking to distinguish themselves on climate.

   Warren contended the U.S. could generate 10 percent of its overall electricity from renewable sources on federal land alone, 10 times the current level. In total, U.S. electricity generation in 2018 from solar, wind and geothermal sources on federal, state and private land accounted for 11 percent of the nation's power generation.

   On the regulatory front, Warren said she'd reinstate an Obama administration rule limiting releases on federal land of methane, the main component of natural gas and a potent greenhouse gas.

   "The Trump Administration is busy selling off our public lands to the oil, gas and coal industries for pennies on the dollar — expanding fossil fuel extraction that destroys pristine sites across the country while pouring an accelerant on our climate crisis," she said.

   Trump's moves to shrink Utah's Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase-Escalante established in the waning days of the Obama presidency have become a political lightning rod, drawing criticism from environmentalists and local indigenous tribes. Republicans lawmakers, especially those in the Utah delegation, and mining interests havesupported it.

   "These lands are part of our national fabric, sacred to tribes and beloved by American families," Warren said of Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears.

   Warren also said she would prevent the transfer of any other federal lands to states or private entities, as some conservatives have called for. She also said supported permanent funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a federal cost-share program designed to open more lands to conservation and recreation, and she said she would halve the amount of federal land currently off limits to the public.

   https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/04/warren-pledges-to-ban-new-fossil-fuel-production-on-federal-lands-1356166
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

8. Natural Gas Needed for California Decarbonization, Energy Policy Report Says

   Apr 15, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence

   By Richard Nemec

   
   

   Renewables and battery storage are only part of the equation leading to meeting California's aggressive decarbonization goals, according to a report presented at a seminar at Stanford University on Wednesday by former Department of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.

   Subscription required for full article.

   https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/118043-natural-gas-needed-for-california-decarbonization-energy-policy-report-says
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. Natural Gas Industry Calls For New Nominee

   Apr 15, 2019 | E&E News PM

   By Jeremy Dillon

   The natural gas industry pressed the White House today to fill the empty slot on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to enable billions in infrastructure project permitting to move forward.

   In a joint letter, the American Gas Association, the American Petroleum Institute and other natural gas groups urged President Trump to fill the vacant seat left by the death of former Chairman Kevin McIntyre at the beginning of this year with a new nominee.

   The commission currently has two Republican and two Democratic commissioners. That divide has caused some projects to stall over partisan differences on environmental and climate impacts.

   "The lack of a full commission can delay the approval of pending projects, such as natural gas infrastructure projects, thereby hindering the advancement of critical infrastructure," the groups said in the letter.

   FERC's approval process is a key element of unleashing the Trump administration's "energy dominance" on the world stage, including through the movement of natural gas through pipelines and export terminals.

   The White House signed an executive order last week to speed up the approval process for energy infrastructure in a sign of its seriousness about further unleashing the United States' energy potential.

   "A full complement of FERC commissioners is critical to achieve the administration's goal to streamline the review and permitting of natural gas infrastructure projects," the groups said.

   The White House had centered its nominee search on former NRG Energy Inc. General Counsel David Hill for much of the year, but it decided to move away from officially nominating Hill in March after a lobbying campaign from some of Washington's highest federal energy officials, including current Chairman Neil Chatterjee (Greenwire, April 12).

   A new nominee has yet to emerge.

   Democrats also will have an opportunity to fill a vacancy from their side of the commission. Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur will not seek another term, which expires at the end of June. She can keep serving until the end of the calendar year.

   Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) identified Allison Clements as the Democrats' preferred choice, although the White House has not made any direction about its acceptance of her as a nominee (E&E News PM, Feb. 5).

   https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/04/15/stories/1060165967
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. Executive Order Could Avert Next Major Energy Crisis

    Apr 15, 2019 | RealClearEnergy

    By Matthew Kandrach

    Across the country, scores of coal plants are shutting down and many nuclear plants are at risk of closing.  Consequently, natural gas is in great demand for electricity production.  But serious supply problems have developed from a shortage of gas due to a failure to overturn moratoriums on the construction of new pipelines.  This problem dwarfs anything likely to happen with the rest of the power sector.

    Natural gas is a wonderful fuel – clean burning, produced domestically, and plentiful – and power plants fueled with natural gas have many advantages. Current trends, however, indicate that serious stresses are building due to a shortage of gas pipelines.  If natural gas can’t get to market, no one will drill for it.  This could mean trouble for an industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars.  And it could expose consumers of natural gas to much higher gas and electricity prices and loss of reliability.  Some parts of the country, particularly the Northeast and mid-Atlantic, have already had warnings about the negative economic impacts of pipeline shortages.

    In New York state, for example, existing natural gas infrastructure is not capable of meeting demand – and Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s opposition to the construction of new pipelines in the state has resulted in a severe lack of capacity, causing several natural gas utilities to implement a moratorium on new residential and commercial connections.  A moratorium could devastate economic development in New York.

    The case for building more pipelines is strong.  A rapid scale-up of natural gas production is needed to meet increasing national demand for electricity just as most of the coal and nuclear power fleets are being phased out. Last year LNG from Russia was delivered to Boston to meet consumer needs for natural gas during a cold snap, because a pipeline to carry gas to New England from the prolific Marcellus shale a few hundred miles away in Pennsylvania couldn’t be built.

    Some politicians, including Gov. Cuomo, have said they want energy companies to focus more on renewable power sources, instead of building more gas plants and pipelines.  Although solar and wind energy are emission-free, it is a matter of common sense that when faced with difficult environmental challenges, the more options that are available, the more likely emissions will be reduced.  In fact, the switch from coal to natural gas nationally has reduced carbon emissions from electricity production to mid-1980’s levels.  

    The United States has been a laggard rather than a leader in energy decision-making. Implementing a natural gas agenda will require political leadership capable of neutralizing the longstanding opposition of people for whom the biggest dragons to be slain are the construction of new pipelines or the natural gas industry itself.  A failure to act will drive away investment in natural gas production and cost thousands of jobs.  It will also compromise environmental objectives. And it will increase the price of natural gas, which would harm consumers of natural gas and electricity and put U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas at a competitive disadvantage with other countries.

    A key question, then, is what should be the federal government’s role in the siting and construction of new pipelines?  The most sensible approach would be for the Administration to issue an executive order that would open the door for more natural gas pipelines.

    This new agenda would be a clear departure from more than three decades of controversy, timidity, and indecision in U.S. infrastructure policy.  It is one of the unfortunate legacies of the years of policy drift that now, at the very moment that environmental concerns are building and the need for low-carbon energy sources is growing more urgent, the ability of natural gas to respond to this need is in doubt.And that could become problematic.

    Matthew Kandrach is President of CASE, Consumer Action for a Strong Economy, a free-market oriented consumer advocacy organization.

    https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/04/15/executive_order_could_avert_next_major_energy_crisis_110424.html
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

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

11. Green Groups Confident Trump Will Obey Power Plant Court Order

    Apr 16, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By David Schultz

    Judges order Trump administration to beef up Obama-era power plant effluent regulations

    Environmentalists say ruling was strong enough that administration can’t roll back regulations now

    Environmentalists are confident the Trump administration will obey a court order and strengthen regulations set during the Obama era on effluent from power plants, despite the administration’s earlier attempts to roll back the regulations.

    The current effluent standards give power plants too many exemptions from using the latest pollution control technology, according to a unanimous April 12 ruling from a panel of federal appeals court judges.

    The judges, all three Republican appointees, ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to redo these standards, which the Obama administration first set in 2015.

    Although environmentalists filed this lawsuit under a Democratic president, a Republican administration with strong ties to the power industry is now tasked with rewriting them.

    The Trump administration has already indicated it thinks its predecessor was too harsh on the industry when it developed these standards, which regulate what plants have to do to dispose of the toxic byproducts from coal-fired power generation.
    Specific, Thorough

    Despite this, the environmental activists who brought this lawsuit said the court ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was so specific and thorough that any attempt to weaken the standards would violate the judges’ orders.

    “They cannot move forward with the rollback they’ve been planning without taking this decision into account,” Thomas Cmar, a lawyer with Earthjustice and a lead attorney on this case, told Bloomberg Environment. “The court’s decision makes clear that the rule needs to be made stronger, not weaker.”

    The judges’ strongly worded opinion chastised the EPA for crafting the effluent standards in a way that allowed power plants to use what they described as antiquated technology to manage their wastewater.

    The Obama administration’s standards allow effluent to be managed “using the same archaic technology in place since 1982,” Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote. “It was as if Apple unveiled the new iMac, and it was a Commodore 64.”
    ‘EPA Blew It’

    The EPA made an arbitrary distinction, said Abel Russ, an attorney with the Environmental Integrity Project who also worked on the case. “EPA blew it. I don’t know how else to describe it.”

    Russ also said he’s confident the administration will be unable to use this ruling as an opening to weaken the effluent standards.

    “The only thing EPA can do is improve it, they can’t make it worse,” he said. “I think they should probably go back to the drawing board and reconsider their whole strategy.”

    The EPA declined to comment on the record.

    American Electric Power and Duke Energy, which were also a parties to the case, are still unsure of how tighter effluent standards could affect their business, Tammy Ridout and Shannon Brushe, the companies’ spokeswomen, respectively, told Bloomberg Environment.

    The environmental plaintiffs include the Sierra Club, which has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg Environment is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg.

    The case is Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 5th Cir., No. 15-60821, 4/12/19.

    https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/green-groups-confident-trump-will-obey-power-plant-court-order
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. CASAC Formally Calls For EPA To Revive Special PM Panel

    Apr 15, 2019 | Inside EPA

    As expected, EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) is formally requesting that the agency reconstitute its special panel to assist in the review of particulate matter (PM) federal air standards and draft a new science assessment for review, after the committee harshly criticized EPA staff’s approach to the review.

    In an April 11 letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, the full CASAC confirms the conclusions reached by the panel at its latest teleconference March 28, where the group debated EPA’s integrated science assessment (ISA) prepared to support its review of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for PM. Much of the focus is on fine particulate (PM2.5), blamed for most of the health damage caused by particles.

    EPA air chief Bill Wehrum scrapped a specialized subpanel used previously to assist in PM NAAQS reviews, in an effort to streamline the process. But this move appears it may backfire if EPA acts on CASAC’s recommendation and recruits a new panel to review a second draft ISA.

    On the heated call, CASAC Chairman Tony Cox, a noted skeptic of EPA’s risk assessment methods, clashed with the committee’s only research scientist, Mark Frampton, over Cox’s broad criticism of EPA’s approach. Cox is strongly critical of EPA’s methodology for determining whether air pollution exposures cause specific health problems.

    The letter, written by Cox, reflects many of his objections, but is shorter than a draft version and does acknowledge differences of view among CASAC members. “Overall, the CASAC finds that the Draft ISA does not provide a sufficiently comprehensive, systematic assessment of the available science relevant to understanding the health impacts of exposure to particulate matter,” the letter says.

    CASAC recommends that EPA issue a second draft of the ISA -- an outcome Wehrum has sought to avoid as he strives to meet a tight deadline for completion of the NAAQS review by December 2020.

    The second draft should address “lack of comprehensive, systematic review,” Cox writes. Further, it should remedy “inadequate evidence for altered causal determinations,” specifically EPA’s findings that there is likely to be a “causal relationship” between long-term PM2.5 exposure and nervous system effects; between long-term ultrafine particulate exposure and nervous system effects; and between long-term PM2.5 exposure and cancer.

    Also, CASAC calls for “clearer discussion of causality and causal biological mechanisms and pathways -- specifically including pulmonary inflammation,” among a host of other recommendations to remedy perceived failings.

    Cox writes that, “Some members of the CASAC strongly recommend that all key conclusions in the final ISA be supported by explicit, and in principle, verifiable tests (e.g., statistical tests or experimental results),” reflecting his narrow view of causality, and Frampton’s rejection of it.

    EPA is now recruiting a new member of the committee to replace Timothy Lewis, a former U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ environmental specialist. EPA is seeking skills in ecology, specifically. A list of nine candidates for the post reveals a wide range of skills, including in ecology, atmospheric chemistry and toxicology.

    https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/casac-formally-calls-epa-revive-special-pm-panel
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. Environmentalists Sue EPA To Force Coke Oven Air Toxics Standards

    Apr 15, 2019 | Inside EPA

    Environmentalists have followed though on their threat to sue EPA in a bid to force issuance of revised Clean Air Act toxics standards for coke ovens used for iron and steelmaking, saying the ovens emit known carcinogens and that the agency is years behind schedule in complying with an air law mandate to revise the standards.

    Earthjustice on behalf of several environmental groups filed suit April 15 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to declare EPA is violating the air law, and to set an “expeditious” deadline for the agency to either revise the standards, or to declare that any changes to the standards are not required.

    Critics say the existing coke oven air rules issued in 2005 are too weak, and that revisions to the standards are necessary to target toxic emissions from the units including benzene, arsenic and lead.

    The lawsuit follows through on a Feb. 13 notice of intent to sue the groups sent to the agency, saying it had failed to undertake Clean Air Act-mandated reviews of existing air toxics rules for coke ovens.

    The air law’s residual risk and technology review (RTR) provisions require EPA to review its air toxics rules for specific industry sectors eight years after they are issued. If EPA finds remaining risks to public health, or that new, cost-effective control technologies are available, or both, it can tighten the standards.

    But for coke ovens and coke oven batteries, EPA missed these deadlines for review in August and April of 2013, respectively, the environmental groups said in their notice. They warned the agency that unless it launched an RTR rulemaking for its two coke oven air toxics rules, the groups would sue to force the reviews.

    The complaint follows through on that threat, and EPA will have to decide whether to fight the suit or enter into a consent decree with groups in which it would negotiate a deadline for deciding on the RTRs.

    EPA has missed a host of RTR deadlines under the air law, prompting environmental groups to file deadline suits that are typically resolved through consent decrees.

    Among such recent agreements, the agency and environmentalists agreed to a settlement imposing deadlines in 2021 and later to review several agency air toxics rules, ensuring the 2020 presidential election will decidewhether a re-elected Trump administration will continue leaving such rules unchanged or a potential Democratic administration might tighten them.

    For the coke oven air toxics rule suit, the environmental groups do not specify what deadline the court should impose for the RTRs but says the reviews should be done “expeditiously.”

    “EPA determined years ago that coke ovens produce known carcinogens and that millions of residents in nearby towns and cities breath these carcinogens in. This is just one in a long litany of EPA’s failure. It’s time EPA does its job to review and revise standards for coke ovens in order to protect these people and meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act,” said the plaintiff groups in an April 15 statement on the suit.

    https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-sue-epa-force-coke-oven-air-toxics-standards
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. Trump Fed Pick: No To Climate Science, Yes To Carbon Tax

    Apr 16, 2019 | E&E Energywire

    By Scott Waldman

    One of President Trump's picks for the Federal Reserve Board recently endorsed a carbon tax to address climate change.

    Stephen Moore, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, argued for years that a carbon tax would benefit the economy if it resulted in fewer environmental regulations and if it were offset by a lower income tax rate.

    Moore has a history of rejecting climate science and has suggested that government scientists at NOAA, NASA and other science agencies are exaggerating the effects of warming. In January at a LibertyCon debate, he said that "the greatest threat against liberty today in the world is the climate change fanaticism."

    But at the same conference, Moore said he would have no problem with a carbon tax because it's "just a consumption tax of energy." He said he would make a deal with Democrats: Moore could accept a carbon tax if Democrats agreed to a flat tax on income, the kind where most Americans would pay the same rate.

    "I think there is a deal to be made," Moore said. "I obviously am a skeptic on a lot of this climate change stuff, but look, if we could have a deal where we basically said a carbon tax for an 18% flat tax, yeah, let's talk about that. But the left doesn't want that. This is the point I'm making — the left wants everything. They want a carbon tax; they want 100 percent renewable energy; they want environmental regulations; they want to get rid of automobiles. My point is, why don't we do a deal where there's a carbon tax in exchange for something like a low flat-rate income tax that would vastly benefit the American economy?"

    Trump announced on Twitter earlier this year that he would nominate Moore to the Fed, but he has yet to make it official. Trump also said he would nominate Herman Cain, a former Republican presidential candidate, to the prestigious economic posting. Since then, four Republican senators have said that they won't support Cain, effectively ending the nomination before it began.

    Moore recently told E&E News that he does not think the Fed should incorporate climate science into its work because it is not tasked with addressing "political" issues (Climatewire, April 9).

    Moore's openness to a carbon tax would put him in line with a number of conservative economists, including Kevin Hassett, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. Recently, Hassett told reporters that he has not backed off his long-standing support for a carbon tax to offset greenhouse gas emissions (Climatewire, March 20).

    Like many of his fellow economists, Moore has been more receptive to carbon taxes in the past.

    Though Moore rejects climate science, he has acknowledged the need to price carbon pollution and has stated that the price consumers pay for energy does not reflect the costs of carbon emissions to the environment. In a book he co-authored with Arthur Laffer in 2010, "Return to Prosperity: How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status," the authors acknowledged that carbon dioxide has negative consequences.

    "In the case of carbon emissions, there is a consumption problem," they wrote. "When consumers use energy, or products created from energy, the prices do not reflect the costs of the carbon emissions to the environment: consequently consumption is higher than optimal once the full costs of the product are taken into account. The appropriate policy response is a tax on carbon emission themselves, which for practical purposes boils down to a tax on the consumption of oil, other fossil fuels, or products where carbon gases are emitted as a by-product, the source of the market distortion, but not on trade or production, the source of adverse economic impacts."

    More recently, however, Moore has soured on carbon taxes.

    In the months leading up to his likely nomination, Moore wrote dozens of tweets critical of carbon tax proposals. In particular, Moore has targeted conservative ideas on climate change.

    In his Twitter missives, Moore often tags Grover Norquist, the conservative anti-tax crusader. Moore saves the brunt of his criticism for the Climate Leadership Council and RepublicEn for promoting a carbon tax plan that includes a dividend to consumers, who would feel the costs of higher energy prices.

    Moore called it a tax scam and said it would become "one of the largest income-redistribution schemes in modern history." He also accused the conservative groups of working with young people who held a climate strike and school walkout last month to draw attention to climate inaction.

    "The reality is that even a #carbontax perfectly administered is a poor substitute for the strong tax and regulatory reform that is currently possible," Moore tweeted. "The plan proposed by @TheCLCouncil [Climate Leadership Council] would not cut a single tax rate, meanwhile giving the left a massive new tax regime."

    Moore's previous enthusiasm for a carbon tax shows that he recognizes it can be implemented without economic harm, said Alex Bozmoski, managing director at RepublicEn.

    "I was really encouraged to see that although Stephen Moore is not motivated by climate risk to price carbon, when it comes to economics, he does understand the economic and innovation benefits of swapping a tax on pollution with a tax on productivity, investment and labor," Bozmoski said.

    The plan by the Climate Leadership Council has bipartisan support, said Carlton Carroll, the group's spokesman. That includes all former Fed chairs, both Republicans and Democrats, and 15 former chairs of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. About 3,500 economists have endorsed it, Carroll said.

    "Economists and businesses have largely agreed that carbon fees are the way to reduce emissions, and what our plan does is it combines a carbon fee with a carbon dividend to send the proceeds back to the American people, and that is a game-changer as far as climate policy," he said. "In order to make the climate fee politically popular, all the money needs to be returned to the people."

    https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/04/16/stories/1060167235
    

    Return to headline | Return to top