Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - April 19, 2019
-
NAFTA 2.0 Would Offer Slight Economic Boost, ITC Analysis Says
Apr 18, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Sabrina Rodriguez
The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement is likely to provide a slight boost to the American economy, the U.S. International Trade Commission said today in a long-anticipated analysis of the Trump administration’s signature trade achievement. -
EPA Official Says Sgency May Ban Asbestos
Apr 18, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Beitsch
An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official said the agency may ban asbestos near the end of the year. -
New EPA Asbestos Rule Falls Short of Full Ban
Apr 18, 2019 | EcoWatch
By Olivia Rosane
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) passed a new rule on asbestos Wednesday that it says will "close the door" on new, unapproved uses. But public health advocates warn the rule could actually open the door to increased use of the carcinogenic fibrous material. -
US EPA Restricts Some Asbestos Products
Apr 18, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
The use of asbestos-containing products that are discontinued in the US, such as building materials reinforced with the mineral, will be more difficult under a new Environmental Protection Agency rule. -
Court Rejects Navy's Bid To Reverse Landmark PFAS Monitoring Ruling
Apr 18, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit has denied the Navy's petition for rehearing of a precedential ruling allowing residents near two military facilities to pursue medical monitoring claims after they were exposed to pefluorinated compounds, saying the military failed to raise its sovereign immunity arguments earlier in the case. -
Feature: Does the EU Pic Regulation Provide 'Consent' To Outsource Harm?
Apr 19, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The chemical ethylene oxide made US headlines in February, after the Illinois EPA ordered a Sterigenics’ medical supply sterilisation plant shut down over concerns about potentially carcinogenic emissions. -
Toward Fire Safety Without Chemical Risk
Apr 18, 2019 | Science Magazine
By Jacob de Boer and Heather M. Stapleton
Halogenated flame retardants are used widely in consumer products such as carpets, textiles, and electronics to reduce the risk of fire. -
EU Update Allows Plastic Waste Exemption for Flame Retardant
Apr 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
A new European Union law that updates the bloc’s implementation of international rules on persistent organic pollutants offers enough flexibility to enable reusing materials containing the highly hazardous chemicals, plastics recyclers said. -
EU Parliament Urges Next Commission To ‘Swiftly’ Tackle EDCs
Apr 19, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Caterina Tani
MEPs have approved a resolution which turns up the pressure on the next European Commission to "swiftly" tackle endocrine disruptors, especially in toys, cosmetics and food contact materials. -
FERC Approves LNG Projects In Texas, Louisiana
Apr 18, 2019 | Chron
By James Osborne
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the construction Thursday of two new LNG export terminals in Port Arthur and Calcasieu Parish, La, continuing what is exported to be a years long expansion in U.S. natural gas exports. -
U.S. FERC Approves Two New LNG Export Terminals in Texas and Louisiana
Apr 19, 2019 | Reuters
By Scott DiSavino;
The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on Thursday approved construction of two proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals, Tellurian Inc’s Driftwood in Louisiana and Sempra Energy’s Port Arthur in Texas. -
Former EPA Air Chief Sees Standing Bar For Lawsuits Over MATS Rollback
Apr 18, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Former Bush EPA air chief Jeffrey Holmstead is warning environmentalists and Democratic states that they lack legal standing to challenge the agency’s effort to scrap the “appropriate and necessary” cost-benefit finding underpinning the Obama-era utility air toxics rule, because they cannot show any injury from undoing the finding. -
NYC Passes Sweeping Climate Bill Likened To 'Green New Deal'
Apr 18, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
New York City approved a sweeping climate legislation package Thursday that is being compared to the Green New Deal. -
Carbon Price Not a Must-Have for Climate Plan, Inslee Says
Apr 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, the Democratic Party’s self-described 2020 climate candidate, doesn’t think a carbon price is “absolutely necessary” to combat climate change—at least in the short term. -
21 AGs Oppose Mercury Rule Changes
Apr 18, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Maxine Joselow,
In a last-ditch plea, a coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general is urging EPA not to withdraw the legal justification for its landmark limits on power plant mercury emissions. -
Industries Defend EPA Policy Easing Air Permitting Requirements
Apr 18, 2019 | Inside EPA
A broad coalition of industry groups is defending EPA’s policy that allows for the use of “significant impact level” (SIL) screening tools in Clean Air Act permitting, fighting a lawsuit from environmentalists that claims use of SILs helps companies to avoid onerous, but necessary, permit reviews for some projects.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
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
-
NAFTA 2.0 Would Offer Slight Economic Boost, ITC Analysis Says
Apr 18, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Sabrina Rodriguez
The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement is likely to provide a slight boost to the American economy, the U.S. International Trade Commission said today in a long-anticipated analysis of the Trump administration’s signature trade achievement.
The report examines which sectors would win or lose under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. It also analyzes the impact on consumers. As expected, the deal shows little economic gains for the U.S. from the pact, but notes that "USMCA would likely have a positive impact on U.S. trade, both with USMCA partners and with the rest of the world."
The ITC estimates that USMCA would raise U.S. GDP by $68.2 billion, or 0.35 percent.
Many lawmakers have said they wouldn’t make up their minds on how they would vote on the deal until they read the independent agency’s report. The results could help drive debate on the pact on Capitol Hill and in the 2020 election campaigns.
Release of the ITC report removes one of the remaining procedural hurdles before Congress can consider USMCA. The report is required under the trade promotion authority legislation, which allows President Donald Trump to submit trade deals to Congress for a straight up-or-down vote without amendments.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/04/nafta-20-would-offer-slight-economic-boost-itc-analysis-says-3098358
-
EPA Official Says Sgency May Ban Asbestos
Apr 18, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Beitsch
An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official said the agency may ban asbestos near the end of the year.
Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, assistant administrator of the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said the agency will complete its risk assessment of asbestos within the three years set out by Congress by the end of 2019.
“If there is any unreasonable risk, the EPA will regulate, and our regulation could take the form of a ban,” Dunn told The Hill.
While asbestos is not widely used in the U.S., some products that contain asbestos are imported into the U.S. for the manufacture other products, including chlorine, some automotive parts, and in the oil drilling process.
But the dangers of asbestos have long been documented: the carcinogen causes illnesses like lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis.
Dunn’s comments come on the heels of releasing a controversial rule Thursday that limited the use of asbestos but stopped short of the ban that many environmental and health groups have called for.
Critics characterized the new rule as a middling effort that didn’t do enough to bar a substance almost universally regarded as dangerous.
“This new rule makes it more difficult for industry to resume some abandoned uses of asbestos, but that is a half step at best,” Melanie Benesh, legislative attorney at the Environmental Working Group, wrote in a press release. An outright ban “is the only way the public can trust industry will never again be able to use this dangerous material that has literally killed tens of thousands of Americans.”
Dunn said critics are getting ahead of themselves -- EPA can only ban asbestos after a thorough risk review, which they started in 2016 after action from Congress gave the agency greater power to review chemical safety.
“Yesterday’s action closes the door on uses that we do not want to ever see return to the U.S. marketplace,” she said. “We don’t have the authority to go directly to a ban. We have to evaluate risk; EPA has to follow the law.”
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/439611-epa-official-says-agency-may-still-ban-asbestos
-
New EPA Asbestos Rule Falls Short of Full Ban
Apr 18, 2019 | EcoWatch
By Olivia Rosane
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) passed a new rule on asbestos Wednesday that it says will "close the door" on new, unapproved uses. But public health advocates warn the rule could actually open the door to increased use of the carcinogenic fibrous material.
The Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) would require any company seeking to manufacture or import asbestos for any of 15 discontinued purposes would need to get the approval of the EPA. The regulation also includes a blanket rule requiring review for "any use of asbestos not previously identified," The New York Times reported.
"Prior to this new rule, EPA did not have the ability to prevent or restrict certain asbestos products from being reintroduced into the market," EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement reported by The New York Times.
However, some public health advocates worry that the rule creates a mechanism by which companies can introduce new uses of asbestos as long as they get approval.
"This toothless regulation requires companies to seek approval from EPA to resume manufacturing, importing, and processing of asbestos for 15 obsolete uses. It does not ban these uses, but leaves the door open to their return to the marketplace. To think that any company would willingly attempt to resurrect these 15 obsolete asbestos uses is ludicrous. That EPA would enable it is unconscionable," Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization President Linda Reinstein said in a statement.
Reinstein also noted that the rule does not cover existing uses of asbestos, such as its use by the Chlor-Alkiki industry. It also does nothing about the asbestos left in schools, homes and offices from when the material was widely used as an insulator and flame retardant.
Assistant administrator at the EPA's chemical office Alexandra Dunn told CNN that the agency was still reviewing current uses of asbestos and might propose additional regulations or bans. A few days before the new rule was announced, Wheeler told the House Energy and Commerce Committee he would ban current uses, The New York Times reported, but health advocates like Reinstein argue that Wednesday's rule does not qualify.
Consumer protection groups have spent a decade lobbying for a law change that would empower the EPA to fully ban asbestos, which kills between 12,000 and 39,275 Americans each year. When an amendment to the Toxic Substances Control Act was finally passed in 2016, requiring the EPA to assess and regulate chemicals and enabling it to do so based exclusively on their health and environmental impacts, advocates hoped a ban was in sight.
Asbestos was added to the first 10 chemicals to be assessed under the amendment, but when the EPA first issued its proposed SNUR in June 2018, advocates were disappointed. Some employees voiced concerns the rule could open the door to new asbestos uses.
The final rule is stronger than the original proposal, The New York Times pointed out, because it requires approval for any new use, not just one of 15 former uses. Some public health advocates do think it is a good start.
"Most of the things coming out of the EPA these days aren't good," retired EPA employee and current Environmental Protection Network member Gary Timm told CNN, "but their asbestos work is so well documented." However, he also thought a full ban would be a logical next step.
Environmental Working Group legislative attorney Melanie Benesh also thought a full ban was in order.
"This new rule makes it more difficult for industry to resume some abandoned uses of asbestos, but that is a half step at best," Benesh said in a statement. "Administrator Wheeler should use the authority under the new Toxic Substances Control Act law and ban all uses of asbestos. That is the only way the public can trust industry will never again be able to use this dangerous material that has literally killed tens of thousands of Americans."
https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-asbestos-rule-2634944150.html
-
US EPA Restricts Some Asbestos Products
Apr 18, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
The use of asbestos-containing products that are discontinued in the US, such as building materials reinforced with the mineral, will be more difficult under a new Environmental Protection Agency rule.
The action, announced April 17, does not affect ongoing uses of the carcinogenic material, including asbestos diaphragms installed and periodically replaced in some US chlor-alkali manufacturing plants. The rule also falls far short of health and environmental activists’ call for the EPA to ban all asbestos products.
Instead, the new rule requires any company that wants to reintroduce a discontinued asbestos product to the US market to notify the EPA. The agency will then evaluate the planned uses of the product to determine whether they are safe for human health and the environment. As needed, the EPA will prohibit the products or place restrictions on them before approving their use.
The rule will “close the door on certain asbestos products to prevent them from returning to the marketplace without EPA’s review,” says Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, head of the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
But Linda Reinstein of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization calls the rule “toothless” because it leaves the door open for companies to resurrect obsolete uses of asbestos in the US.
https://cen.acs.org/policy/regulation/US-EPA-restricts-asbestos-products/97/i16
-
Court Rejects Navy's Bid To Reverse Landmark PFAS Monitoring Ruling
Apr 18, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit has denied the Navy's petition for rehearing of a precedential ruling allowing residents near two military facilities to pursue medical monitoring claims after they were exposed to pefluorinated compounds, saying the military failed to raise its sovereign immunity arguments earlier in the case.
“In its petition for rehearing, the Navy for the first time argues that the Giovannis’ and Palmers’ claims do not satisfy [the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act's (RCRA)] limitation of its waiver of sovereign immunity to claims 'respecting control and abatement of solid waste or hazardous waste disposal and management.' By failing to raise it, the Navy has forfeited that argument, and we decline to consider it, '” Circuit Judge Kent Jordan says in an April 18 order on behalf of himself and the other two judges who issued the original ruling last year.
Jordan, in a separate April 18 order, says the Navy's request for rehearing by the full 3rd Circuit is also denied, noting that a majority of the judges of the circuit did not vote for rehearing.
The ruling highlights the looming potential liability the Navy and the other military services face as they grapple with growing concerns about contamination from per- and polyfluoroakyl substances (PFAS), a class of chemicals used widely in fire-fighting foam and other products.
One top Defense Department (DOD) official has estimated that the department faces as much as $2 billion in cleanup liability stemming from releases of PFAS, though it is not clear what cleanup standards that estimate assumes.
In the meantime, DOD and the services are fighting efforts by EPA and states to impose strict standards. For example, Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan earlier this month strongly defended his department's stance that the acceptable risk level for remediating groundwater contaminated with PFAS should be much weaker than the 70 parts-per-trillion (ppt) level that EPA favors, raising doubts that officials will be able to quickly issue a long-promised groundwater cleanup policy.
The ruling also appears likely to bolster efforts by citizens living adjacent to sites contaminated with PFAS to require responsible parties to fund medical monitoring to ensure cleanups are protective in the long term and prevent adverse health effects associated with the ubiquitous contaminants.
In the litigation, the Navy has similarly argued the decision by the three-judge panel last year in Kristen Giovanni, et al., and Dorothy Palmer, et al. v. Navy opens up the military to potentially tens of thousands of claims and could cost the government millions of dollars.
Plaintiffs have alleged that 70,000 current residents as well as additional past residents and former workers were exposed to PFAS at the two military sites at issue in the suit.
DOD has ongoing cleanups at 59 properties in the states covered by the 3rd Circuit -- Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware.
CERCLA Limitations
In the ruling last year, Jordan and Circuit Judges Anthony Scirica and Stephanos Bibas unanimously agreed with the plaintiffs that their claims, originally brought under a state law, could move forward because RCRA section 6001(a) unequivocally waives sovereign immunity to state law claims for injunctive relief.
The ruling also addressed issues of sovereign immunity under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), with Jordan and Scirica agreeing with a lower court that CERCLA section 113(h) barred the plaintiffs from seeking a study on the health effects of exposure to PFAS.
But the judges found the plaintiffs' medical monitoring claim is not a challenge under CERCLA and is not barred by sovereign immunity, and therefore remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Bibas filed a concurring opinion that reaches most of the same conclusions as the majority but disagrees with the reasoning to determine the Giovannis' and Palmers' claims are not barred by section 113(h).
The Navy earlier this year sought rehearing of the case, arguing the panel decision is the first in the country to hold that RCRA unequivocally waives the federal government’s sovereign immunity for state-law medical monitoring claims. “Yet, like plaintiffs, the panel never grappled with statutory text that limits the scope of RCRA’s waiver,” the Navy said.
The Giovannis and Palmers urged the court to reject the petition, arguing the Navy was misreading the court's holding that its sovereign immunity is waived.
“Rehearing en banc is unwarranted because the Navy fails to present an issue of exceptional importance; indeed, both bases for the Navy’s request--that the Court did not fully analyze RCRA's waiver provision and issued an unduly broad holding--are unsound,” the plaintiff-appellants said. -
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/court-rejects-navys-bid-reverse-landmark-pfas-monitoring-ruling
-
Feature: Does the EU Pic Regulation Provide 'Consent' To Outsource Harm?
Apr 19, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
EU law allows companies to legally transport dangerous substances to developing countries.
The chemical ethylene oxide made US headlines in February, after the Illinois EPA ordered a Sterigenics’ medical supply sterilisation plant shut down over concerns about potentially carcinogenic emissions.
Sterigenics called the EPA decision "indefensible", arguing that the decision was based on flawed air samples creating "needless fear". The Illinois Department of Public Health recommended further studies using a larger population base and additional sites, but the Willowbrook facility remains shut. The arguments are now tied up in court proceedings.
The US case stirred debate in the EU over the Prior Informed Consent Regulation, commonly known as the Pic Regulation, which applies to industrial chemicals and pesticides that are banned or severely restricted by EU legislation. The regulation aims to promote cooperation in the international trade of hazardous chemicals.
Ethylene oxide is used in the US to make antifreeze, adhesives, detergents, polyester, fumigants and pesticides, and as a sterilisation agent for medical equipment. The US EPA characterises it as "carcinogenicto humans" by inhalation.
In the EU, it is also used in plant protection products, laboratory chemicals, inks and toners, and fertilisers. According to the harmonised classification and labelling approved by the EU, it is toxic if inhaled and may cause cancer and genetic defects, as well as skin and respiratory irritation.
Despite the warnings, EU countries may ship ethylene oxide abroad if the importing country gives 'prior informed consent'. Some NGOs consider the practice flawed, however.An 'egregious practice'?
Pic is "an egregious practice" that needs to be stopped, says Joe DiGangi, senior science and technical adviser at the International POPs elimination network (Ipen).
"Substances that are dangerous in the EU are not somehow safe in Côte d'Ivoire," he adds. Regardless of the UN Rotterdam Convention which Pic implements, Mr DiGangi says exports of banned substances should "simply be prohibited".But EU companies argue that they are following the law and supplying much-needed chemicals to developing nations.
It isn't clear how widespread the practice is. Echa was notified of 14,000 tonnes of shipments for ethylene oxide in 2017 – but the actual volumes could be higher as companies aren’t required to notify after their first exports. The agency’s database and report do not list company names, only the substances and the EU countries in which the shipments are notified.
Other examples of this legitimate trade include ethylene dichloride, the EU trade bloc's most exported toxic chemical in 2017 with notifications at about 346,000 tonnes. A precursor for PVC, it is identified by the EPA as a "probable human carcinogen". The European Parliament and Council of Ministers have formally adopted a proposal that will add ethylene dichloride to the list of substances recognised as causing cancer in the workplace.'Pic list'
The 'Pic list' is an array of toxic substances controlled under the Regulation that includes pesticides, hazardous carcinogens, endocrine disruptors and toxic metals, among others.
Some are either phased out in the EU or face severe restrictions. Yet NGOs argue that they are absorbed by developing nations, most of them ill equipped to manage the risks posed to human health and the environment.
Lead is one such example. The poisonous metal, used in a variety of consumer and manufacturing products from batteries and jewellery to shipbuilding and construction, is generally classified in the EU as toxic to reproduction (fertility and development) and toxic following prolonged and repeated exposure (adverse effects on several organs). There are lead restrictions for consumer products and toys and, in March, the EU General Court ruled that a European Commission Decision to allow a company to sell pigments for paints containing lead chromates in the EU was illegal.
Yet, about 13,000 tonnes of lead were notified for shipments in 2017 to developing countries including Ghana, Jordan, Vietnam and Nicaragua.Creosote, used as a preservative and antiseptic, is another carcinogen banned in the EU for consumer use since 2003 and severely restricted for industrial use since 2011. Echa was notified of more than 100,000 tonnes of exports to developing countries as well as to the US, Canada and Australia.
Cameroon, Oman, Pakistan, Senegal and others received 140,000 tonnes of benzene, a carcinogen restricted in the EU under REACH which is predominantly used to make pesticides, plastics, resins, synthetic fibres, drugs and other products. The EU also imported benzene in 2017, however, mainly to Belgium, Italy and Poland.
The list goes on with Pic’s inventory featuring more than 200 chemicals, many of them shipped to developing countries with regulations that may not be as sophisticated as those in Europe. So what is behind this practice?Border control
Pic, in place since 2012, calls on exporters to use proper labelling, provide directions for safe handling and inform purchasers of known restrictions or bans. Annex III generates data on 50 of the most harmful substances subject to the Pic procedure. That means trades are on record. Importing countries can exercise their right to refuse certain chemicals and governments can control their borders for harmful substances.
Yet the big question remains: should chemicals deemed dangerous in the EU be sold to other regions?
Bob Diderich, head of the OECD's environmental, health and safety division, says many importing countries lack the regulatory framework to implement the same kind of restrictions as those in the countries of origin.
"We are of course aware of the lack of capacity and legislation in many developing countries to handle the information they get," says Gunilla Ericson, senior adviser, international unit at the Swedish chemicals agency (Kemi).
"That is why our work with developing countries is focused on institutional capacity development and building and implementation of national legislation for sound chemicals and waste management."Dangerous trade
"It is easy to find substances banned in the EU for safety reasons, but still manufactured and exported to countries with weak regulatory controls," says Ipen's Mr DiGangi. "It is also easy to find substances that are not banned but extremely dangerous being exported all over the world."
Many Pic chemicals – more than two-thirds of Rotterdam’s Annex III – are strong pesticides. They represent the biggest chemical exposure in developing countries, mainly due to the large proportion of people working in agriculture. Pesticides are needed to fight crop diseases that are typical in warmer climates.
Mercedes Vinas, head of Echa’s submission and processing unit, says that in many countries there is also malaria or endemic disease, which requires "far stronger and effective products" than those available in the EU.
What’s important, says Ms Vinas, is that authorities are informed about the substances they take into their country and know how to use them safely: "And then it is up to them to decide whether they agree with the import."
Importing countries should, in theory, exercise their right to reject chemicals they cannot adequately control, but this only applies to substances listed in Annex III of the Convention. Many of the EU Pic chemicals, including lead, are not in Annex III.To ban or not to ban
The purpose of Rotterdam is not to ban the exports. The idea, Echa’s Ms Vinas says, is to help developing nations with "capacity building" for risk management and access to information.
Echa provides hands-on training to authorities in importing countries on how to implement international conventions and put a chemical management system in place, she says. Customs officials can use the agency’s data on the chemicals.
Rolph Payet, executive secretary of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, adds that Rotterdam "expressly specifies" the right of the parties to take action that is more stringently protective of human health and the environment than called for in the Convention. It is not clear how often that happens, however.
The 'Pic list' consists of 207 chemicals in Annex I subject to varying degrees of notification procedures. Only in 47 of those substances is the full Pic procedure applied under the Convention. For the rest, an export notification, and at most an explicit consent from the importing country, is sufficient.
Much of the information is not open to public scrutiny. Echa publishes aggregate tonnages for each substance, rather than information about individual countries. Companies report their first yearly exports and, if they get the green light, can export for the rest of the calendar year, Ms Vinas says.
Compliance is an issue. A 2018 enforcement project led to 14 prosecutions in the EU, with a failure to notify Pic exports found in 10% of the companies inspected.
Industry responsibilityIpen's Mr DiGangi wants multinational producers to withdraw substances globally if they are banned in any country. Will they do that?
BASF, which produces benzene and creosote among others, said it is "aware" of its responsibility in the international trade and export of all Pic substances and "in strict compliance" with the Regulation.
Dow Chemical, a major producer of ethylene oxide and ethylene dichloride, did not respond to a request for comment.
As for Sterigenics, the Willowbrook, Illinois facility remains closed. "We are taking all appropriate legal actions to resume operations," the company told Chemical Watch.
The OECD's Bob Diderich says the organisation will submit a proposal to develop an indicator counting the number of countries that have a regulatory framework for industrial chemicals. It would be added to an existing suite of indicators for measuring Saicm implementation – the UN policy framework to promote chemical safety worldwide.
If it is accepted, a baseline report may be ready for September 2020.
https://chemicalwatch.com/75365/feature-does-the-eu-pic-regulation-provide-consent-to-outsource-harm
-
Toward Fire Safety Without Chemical Risk
Apr 18, 2019 | Science Magazine
By Jacob de Boer and Heather M. Stapleton
Halogenated flame retardants are used widely in consumer products such as carpets, textiles, and electronics to reduce the risk of fire. It has been known for more than 20 years that these compounds can leach into the environment, with particularly high concentrations recorded in fish and marine mammals. Concerns have also been raised about carcinogenic and endocrine-disrupting effects in humans. Some brominated flame retardants—in particular, polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) commercial mixtures and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD)—have been banned or phased out in some jurisdictions, and the possible use of alternative flame retardants has been investigated. Yet, over the past 20 years, global production of flame retardants has continued to rise without a decrease in halogenated flame retardant production. It is time for a critical evaluation of flame retardant use.
In the late 1980s, scientists began to develop analytical methods and gather the first screening data on flame retardants in the environment in Europe, Japan, and North America. Concern among environmental scientists rose when Norén and Meyronité reported rising concentrations of PBDEs in human milk (1) and de Boer et al. detected PBDEs in sperm whales stranded in the Netherlands (2). Soon after, more studies documented increasing PBDE trends in fish, sediment profiles, sewage sludge, aquatic birds, and human tissues (3).
Intensive discussions between scientists, regulatory authorities, and the international bromine industry, represented by the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum, followed but did not lead to reductions in the global use of halogenated flame retardants. Instead, repeated regrettable substitutions were made, in which one halogenated flame retardant was phased out and replaced by another halogenated flame retardant, for which less information on exposure pathways and potential environmental and health effects was available (4, 5). All substitutes showed harmful effects, although these effects were sometimes slightly different from those of the compounds they had replaced.
In the meantime, a suite of other halogenated flame retardants was introduced; about 75 different brominated flame retardants are on the market, and many of them have been detected in the environment (6). For each of these compounds, scant information was available on their environmental behavior at the time of introduction, because years of research are needed to collect information and support a thorough risk assessment. Such risk assessments have been carried out in the past for single compounds or for well-defined mixtures but are much more difficult to conduct when the effects of multiple substances are cumulative (7).
Even after a detailed risk assessment of the flame retardant tris-(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate (TDCIPP) found it to present a potential risk for children (8), the compound was not taken from the market but only voluntarily removed from children's pajamas. More than three decades later, this same chemical became a popular replacement for pentabromodiphenyl ether (PentaBDE) in U.S. furniture, including baby and juvenile furniture (9).
Recent research has drawn attention to human exposure to flame retardants in indoor environments such as homes, with children receiving greater exposure than adults (6). Furniture and electronics appear to be substantial sources of flame retardants in indoor dust and air, as well as in cars (6). Scientists are now increasingly investigating the importance of dermal absorption and inhalation as primary uptake routes compared with diet.Policy and Regulations
The European Union (EU) issued bans on the production and use of PBDEs and HBCD starting in 2002. More recently, several frameworks and directives have been developed in Europe, including the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), the Restriction of Hazardous Substances, and the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment directives. The current Community Rolling Action Plan of the European Chemicals Agency envisages further possible restrictions on a series of flame retardants, including TDCIPP. These are hopeful signs, but EU frameworks do not yet take account of mixture effects (7).
In 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the manufacturers reached a voluntary phase-out agreement of PentaBDE and octabromodiphenyl ether (OctaBDE). Several U.S. states prohibited the use of these flame retardants in some products sold in their home states. In 2017, a group of organizations petitioned the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to restrict the use of additive, nonpolymeric, halogenated flame retardants in children's products, furniture, and electronics enclosures on the basis of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. This approach was unusual in that it requested a ban on an entire class of chemicals. The CPSC must now determine whether it considers halogenated flame retardants to be hazardous as a class. It is currently establishing a Chronic Hazard Advisory panel to make this determination.
Other parts of the world have seen far less regulation of halogenated flame retardants. In January 2018, China added decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE) and HBCD to its list of priority substances, which may imply restrictions in productions or limitations of discharges. Taiwan and Japan have placed restrictions on the use of PBDEs and HBCD. Although India signed the United Nations Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, in which PBDEs and HBCD are officially labeled as such, no comprehensive legislation for these and other flame retardants exists.
The recent United Nations Global Chemicals Outlook II (10) predicts that the volume of chemicals used worldwide will double in the coming decade. It would be prudent to be more selective in the use of flame retardants and to potentially limit this increase. Flame retardants are needed in airplanes, cars, insulation, and electronics, but there are many questions around the need for flame retardants in furniture, children's products, and even products like flags. In the case of residential furniture, the use of flame retardants provides an additional ∼30 s to escape from a flashover (the near simultaneous ignition of directly exposed flammable material in an enclosed area); however, this benefit must be considered against the increase of carbon monoxide and smoke produced by some flame retardants (11).Production Developments
The production and sale of flame retardants is a billion-dollar industry. In 2016, the estimated worldwide consumption of flame retardants was 2.3 million metric tons (see the figure) (12); the estimated annual growth rate is 3%. Overall production of halogenated flame retardants, excluding chlorinated paraffins used for other purposes, has been stable over the past 20 years at just over 500,000 metric tons (12).Global production of flame retardants
Global flame retardant production increases by around 3% per year. Production of halogenated flame retardants is not decreasing, despite concerns regarding environmental and health impacts.
Some changes have occurred over this time. For example, the bromine industry has started production of a brominated polybutadiene-polystyrene flame retardant, which should reduce exposure concerns because it is less likely to leach out of a polymer, compared with small-molecule flame retardants used as additives. The phosphorus industry is hoping to phase out the use of tris-(2-chloroisopropyl) phosphate (TCIPP) in isolating metal panels containing foam cores and to replace TDCIPP with phosphorus-substituted poly-ols (poly-P-poly-ols) in the automotive industry. However, production of many flame retardants that are harmful to human health and the environment continues.
The European research project ENFIRO has recommended alternatives for persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic flame retardants (13). These alternatives have a better environmental profile and include metal-based compounds, such as zinc stannate, zinc borate, and aluminum diethylphosphinate, as well as melamine polyphosphate. The EPA has used the Design for the Environment program to provide information on alternatives for PentaBDE in polyurethane and DecaBDE in electronics (14).A Better Way Forward
The production of potentially hazardous and environmentally unfriendly flame retardants continues even when better alternatives are available. Intense pressure from authorities, and sometimes the general public, can motivate industry to change, but governments have been slow to act. Any regulatory changes will likely raise concerns about impacts on fire-related fatalities and damages. However, environment-friendly alternatives are available and just as safe as the halogenated flame retardants (13), and many applications do not require the presence of a flame retardant.
Authorities should ban persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic flame retardants as soon as safer alternatives become available. It may be even better to only allow flame retardants on the market that have been adequately tested for human toxicity and environmental impacts. Such a focus on the design phase will be required to adhere to requirements for a circular economy, such as readiness of materials for recycling (13).
The need for flame retardants in some materials may not be as high as industry lobbyists suggest. The data used to support the implementation of flammability standards, particularly for furniture and televisions, may be flawed or misinterpreted (15). No one wants to compromise fire safety, but to protect human and environmental health, it is crucial that the use of flame retardants is critically evaluated to determine where they are needed and where they are not.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6437/231
-
EU Update Allows Plastic Waste Exemption for Flame Retardant
Apr 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
European Parliament ratifies new law to update EU implementation of persistent organic pollutants rules
Law sets thresholds for presence of hazardous ‘decaBDE’ in plastic waste, in recycled plastic
A new European Union law that updates the bloc’s implementation of international rules on persistent organic pollutants offers enough flexibility to enable reusing materials containing the highly hazardous chemicals, plastics recyclers said.
European Parliament lawmakers voted 443-51, with 55 abstentions, to ratify the new law April 18, which implements in the EU the provisions of the United Nations Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).
The law brings the EU into line with recent Stockholm Convention developments, including the additions in 2017 of the brominated flame retardant decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE) and short-chain chlorinated paraffins to its list of substances that should no longer be produced or used.
The new law includes exemptions that allow plastic waste and recycled plastics to contain decaBDE up to certain thresholds, however. DecaBDE is heavily restricted in the EU under the bloc’s REACH law (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals) and under laws on chemicals in electrical and electronic goods.
The new law also tightens restrictions on some other substances and introduces various procedural updates, including putting the Helsinki-based European Chemicals Agency in overall charge of the EU’s implementation of the Stockholm Convention.
Parties to the Stockholm Convention agree to stop production and use, or otherwise restrict, a number of highly hazardous substances that accumulate in the environment and the food chain.
Lawmakers v. EnvironmentalistsThe exemptions in the new law for decaBDE caused a rift between some EU countries that favored the exemption, and some lawmakers and environmental groups that wanted tighter controls on the substance.
The exemption allows decaBDE in plastic waste up to a limit of 1,000 parts per million and in recycled plastic up to 500 parts per million.
The exemption for the substance in waste means that waste can be prepared for recycling, while the exemption in recycled plastic represents an allowance for traces that are technically impossible to eradicate, Chaim Waibel, an adviser to industry group Plastics Recyclers Europe, told Bloomberg Environment April 18.
“The output of the recycling is almost decontaminated,” and without the thresholds, plastic containing decaBDE would likely be incinerated, Waibel said.
DecaBDE has largely been phased out but can still be found in plastic in such old products as televisions and computer monitors. There is a market for the recycled plastic for products such as plastic automotive components that consumers usually don’t come into contact with, Waibel said.
In products such as old-style televisions, decaBDE can be present in concentrations of about 150,000 parts per million, but most of it can be removed during treatment, said Christer Forsgren, environmental and technical director at Swedish recycling company Stena Metall AB.
Exported WasteThe allowances for decaBDE go against the letter of the Stockholm Convention and could lead to the substance making its way into consumer products produced from recycled plastic, according to Jindrich Petrlik, head of the toxics program at Czech environmental group the Arnika Association.
In addition, the threshold for decaBDE in waste “also allows export of POPs-contaminated wastes outside of EU, which is a kind of new environmental colonialism,” Petrlik said in an email April 18.
Contamination has been found at e-waste sites in West Africa, for example, Petrlik said.
The new law contained “ambitious and fundamentally realistic targets for the phasing out of POPs,” said Jack Berringer, spokesman for Julie Girling, a British lawmaker who led the European Parliament’s work on the new EU law.
The Parliament’s vote finalizes the work on the new law. It must still be signed off by the Council of the European Union, which represents the bloc’s member countries, which will be done as a formality at a forthcoming meeting.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/eu-stockholm-convention-update-allows-decabde-exemption
-
EU Parliament Urges Next Commission To ‘Swiftly’ Tackle EDCs
Apr 19, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Caterina Tani
Vote applies pressure for 2020 action in toys, cosmetics and FCM sectors
MEPs have approved a resolution which turns up the pressure on the next European Commission to "swiftly" tackle endocrine disruptors, especially in toys, cosmetics and food contact materials.
On 18 April, the European Parliament approved the resolution, tabled by all political groups, calling on the next EU executive to sharpen its focus in these three sectors and to develop a horizontal definition of EDCs no later than June 2020.
The move passed by an overwhelming majority with 447 MEPs in favour, 14 against and 41 abstentions.
The resolution is not legally binding and does not have any immediate practical effect. It rather expresses a political position, which could be seen as the current Parliament’s last memento for the next Commission.
MEPs said the Commission's proposed EDC strategy is "not adequate" to address the threat posed by EDC exposure to health and the environment, and that it "does not deliver" what is required in the 7th EAP.
So far the European Commission has set criteria to identify EDCs only for biocides and pesticides.MEP criticismAhead of the vote, Maltese MEP Miriam Dalli said that besides excluding toys and cosmetics, the strategy "leads to a fragmented patchwork of national legislation" which affects both consumers and producers.
But Transport commissioner Violeta Bulc replied that "different treatments of substances do not mean an incoherence threat per se".
Even though the Commission "agrees that there should be coherence", it needs to see "whether and what changes are necessary" before modifying the legislation, she added.
Ms Dalli also criticised the Commission’s continuous delays. "Postponing concrete actions is not a luxury we can afford,'' she said.
British MEP Julie Girling said that the EU executive’s "investigation and validation of data needs to be speeded up".
The current lack of action is "absolutely incredible", French MEP Michèle Rivasi said. EDCs, she added, are a "world threat" and their exposure is increasing, as demonstrated by "thousands" of scientific publications.
She asked for the next Commission to deliver an action plan which would pick up on what Parliament has been – EDCs should be eliminated in the same way as CMRs.
So far only eight substances have been identified as endocrine disruptors in EU databases, Belgian MEP Frédérique Ries said, adding that a definition "of what EDCs are" does not exist.
Commissioner Bulc told MEPs "already started to work on each action and we will step up, implementing existing policies relevant for EDCs".In a press release, NGO the Endocrine Society said: "We applaud this resolution sending a strong political signal, based on latest science, that it is high time for the EU to take serious action to address the cumulative impact of our daily exposure to chemical mixtures on public health." Under fire
While this is the last call by the current Parliament to the European Commission to act on EDCs, the pressure is not new.
The Commission has come under fire from Parliament several times during the past few years. In January 2019 MEPs from the environment committee blasted the Commission over its lack of practical measures on EDCs.
And in May 2016 the Parliament proposed a motion of censure saying the EU executive had failed to comply with its legal obligation to publish scientific criteria for defining EDCs.https://chemicalwatch.com/76699/eu-parliament-urges-next-commission-to-swiftly-tackle-edcs
-
FERC Approves LNG Projects In Texas, Louisiana
Apr 18, 2019 | Chron
By James Osborne
WASHINGTON - The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the construction Thursday of two new LNG export terminals in Port Arthur and Calcasieu Parish, La, continuing what is exported to be a years long expansion in U.S. natural gas exports.
The decision signaled that FERC commissioners had reached a lasting resolution on their disagreement earlier this year over LNG projects' impact on climate change change, something that had delayed a decision on the Calcasieu Pass LNG facility before it was ultimately approved in February.
FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee crowed about the decision on Twitter, while also taking a jab at Russia, which is competing against the United States to expand its own natural gas exports into Europe.
"The strategic implications of today's historic #LNG project approvals will benefit not only the US but the world. This has been one of @POTUS' top #energy priorities. It's a great day for America & a bad day for Russia!," Chatterjee wrote.
The Driftwood LNG facility in Louisiana, developed by the Houston company Tellurian, is expected to reach a capacity of 27.6 million metric tons of LNG per year. The Port Arthur Liquefaction Project, which is to be built on the site of an LNG import facility, is projected to have an export capacity of 13.5 million metric tons per year. That project is owned by Sempra Energy of San Diego.
The commission approved the terminals by a vote of 3-1, with Richard Glick, a Democratic appointee, opposed.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/FERC-approves-LNG-projects-in-Texas-Louisiana-13778077.php?cmpid=ffcp
-
U.S. FERC Approves Two New LNG Export Terminals in Texas and Louisiana
Apr 19, 2019 | Reuters
By Scott DiSavino;
The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on Thursday approved construction of two proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals, Tellurian Inc’s Driftwood in Louisiana and Sempra Energy’s Port Arthur in Texas.
Demand for LNG around the world has exploded, rising by 9.8%to a record high for a fifth consecutive year in 2018, as countries, like China and India, seek cleaner alternatives to burning coal to meet their growing energy needs, according to data from the International Gas Union (IGU).
Driftwood and Port Arthur are just two of dozens of LNG export terminals under development in the United States, Canada and Mexico. With so many plants under development, analysts have said that most will likely not be built over the next decade.
Tellurian said it planned to make a final investment decision on its $30 billion Driftwood project, which includes pipelines and production fields in addition to the liquefaction plant, in 2019 with first LNG production expected in 2023.
Sempra has said it planned to make a final investment decision on Port Arthur around the first quarter of 2020.
Driftwood is designed to produce 27.6 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) of LNG or about 4 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd) of natural gas. The first phase of the project will likely comprise 16.6 MTPA, Tellurian has said.
One billion cubic feet of gas is enough to fuel about 5 million U.S. homes for a day.
Port Arthur is designed to produce 13.5 MTPA of LNG or about 1.8 bcfd of gas.
“Today’s orders show FERC is making a lot of headway on processing LNG applications in a more efficient manner, and I’m proud of the work that we are doing,” FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee said in a statement.
Over the past year, some officials in U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration, including Energy Secretary Rick Perry, have urged FERC to speed up its process of reviewing pending LNG export applications to boost gas exports as part of the president’s energy dominance strategy.
“LNG exports can help increase the availability of inexpensive, clean-burning fuel to our global allies who are looking for an efficient, affordable, environmentally friendly source of generation,” Chatterjee said.
The United States, a net importer of LNG before Cheniere Energy Inc shipped its first cargo from Sabine Pass in Louisiana in February 2016, became the third-biggest exporter of the supercooled fuel by capacity in 2018, behind Australia and Qatar.
Looking at only the plants currently under construction, U.S. LNG export capacity is expected to rise to 8.5 bcfd by the end of 2019 and 10.0 bcfd in 2020, from 5.2 bcfd now.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lng-tellurian-sempra/us-ferc-approves-two-new-lng-export-terminals-in-texas-and-louisiana-idUSKCN1RU1SG
-
Former EPA Air Chief Sees Standing Bar For Lawsuits Over MATS Rollback
Apr 18, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Former Bush EPA air chief Jeffrey Holmstead is warning environmentalists and Democratic states that they lack legal standing to challenge the agency’s effort to scrap the “appropriate and necessary” cost-benefit finding underpinning the Obama-era utility air toxics rule, because they cannot show any injury from undoing the finding.
Holmstead, speaking April 18 at an event in Washington, D.C., hosted by the D.C. Bar, called EPA’s proposal to rescind the finding yet leave the broader power plant mercury and air toxics standards (MATS) in place a “clever” way to “thread the needle” because critics likely will struggle to sue over simply scrapping the finding.
Environmentalists argue that undoing the finding is inextricably linked to the fate of MATS, and that EPA lacks legal authority to rescind the finding without first meeting stringent Clean Air Act criteria to “de-list” power plants as an emissions source category subject to the law’s section 112 air toxics regulatory program. A group of former agency employees says EPA cannot undo the finding without also scrapping the overall MATS.
But Holmstead doubts these arguments and says that rescinding the finding is a distinct regulatory move from which it would be difficult for opponents to prove any direct harms that a lawsuit could resolve.
During his time at EPA, Holmstead -- now an attorney with Bracewell -- authored the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), a mercury emissions trading program that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled unlawful in New Jersey v. EPA in 2008. The court faulted the agency’s attempt to delist power plants under section 112 and instead regulate them under the cap-and-trade regime under the air law’s separate section 111(d). When the Obama administration took office, it developed MATS as a response to the ruling under its section 112 authority.
Coal company Murray Energy led legal attacks on MATS, resulting in a 2015 Supreme Court ruling that faulted the agency for not considering costs in its initial finding that the rule was appropriate and necessary under the air law, which is required before proceeding to regulate under section 112. EPA then issued a supplemental finding that accounted for the costs and benefits of the rule, and still concluded that MATS was necessary.
But the Trump administration after taking office has moved to dismantle Obama-era coal sector regulations, and took comment through April 17 on its plan to scrap the finding underpinning MATS.
Holmstead said that by striking down the appropriate and necessary finding, the Trump EPA avoids having to defend in court the Obama EPA’s 2016 supplemental cost finding, which it disagrees with in principle because of its reliance on “co-benefit” reductions in emissions not directly regulated by MATS.
Murray Energy is already suing the agency in the D.C. Circuit over that supplemental finding, but the suit has been held in abeyance pending EPA’s rulemaking to undo the cost-benefit finding.
Standing Hurdle
Yet with MATS fully implemented, most utilities do not want the rule itself struck down, because they would stand to lose money on large investments already made in compliance, Holmstead noted.
For example, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), representing investor-owned utilities, and allied utility groups and labor unions are urging EPA to keep MATS in place, and drop its proposal on the finding. But the former air chief’s arguments would seem to envision a hurdle for EEI to have standing to sue if EPA finalizes its plan.
Major environmental groups such as Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club, meanwhile, back states’ argument that EPA must explicitly meet the strict air law criteria to de-list power plants as a source of air toxics in order to rescind the appropriate and necessary finding.
However, Holmstead told Inside EPA at the D.C. Bar event that he “cannot see” how environmentalists and states can argue that meeting the delisting criteria is necessary to revoke the finding, given that New Jersey does not speak to that issue. Nor does he think Murray Energy can get around the New Jersey holding requiring de-listing to scrap MATS itself. “I don’t think there is any way for them to challenge that,” he told the audience.
He doubts that environmentalists or states could demonstrate injury -- and hence standing to sue -- over undoing the finding, unless EPA actually choses to scrap the overall MATS rule as well.
Holmstead added that the chances of the Supreme Court again hearing a MATS challenge are very low, given that most of industry, the agency, environmentalists and others all support keeping the standards in place. The high court in 2015 found that EPA’s original finding wrongly excluded any consideration of implementation costs, resulting in EPA’s 2016 supplemental version that offered two different ways to consider cost.
And EPA Deputy General Counsel Justin Schwab said at the D.C. Bar event that New Jersey “squarely held” that the appropriate and necessary finding and the listing of source categories are separate issues.
Environmentalists’ Push-Back
Speaking at the same event, Earthjustice attorney Jim Pew disagreed with Holmstead, saying it is premature to debate whether critics would have standing to sue, as this will depend on the shape of EPA’s final action. EPA’s proposal solicits comment on several possible courses of action, including scrapping MATS entirely.
In April 17 comments, the Environmental Protection Network (EPN), a group of former EPA employees including top officials who crafted the MATS rule, says that EPA cannot plausibly rescind the underlying finding that supports MATS without also scrapping the entire air toxics regulation.
EPN urges EPA to withdraw the proposal, saying that if EPA were to attempt withdrawing the finding, it would require an entirely new and more-accurate accounting of the rule’s costs and benefits. And new analyses show the rule’s actual benefits far outweigh the costs, EPN argues.
EPA in its proposal keeps its effort to rescind the Obama-era finding separate from the “de-listing” process. The agency does not propose to de-list power plants, and relies on New Jersey v. EPA, which the agency says would preserve MATS even absent the prerequisite appropriate and necessary finding.
But environmentalists in their written comments argue that the de-listing process is directly linked to the agency’s proposal. “Essentially, EPA cannot deregulate a source category until emissions from none of its constituent sources pose a threat to human health or the environment. At a minimum, because EGUs have been listed by EPA, the Agency must at least satisfy the section 112(c)(9) criteria to deregulate them,” they say.
Further, “EPA does not -- and cannot on the record it has before it -- propose to make the section 112(c)(9) finding, so the listing and MATS must remain in place, even if EPA were to reverse the appropriate and necessary determination,” they say. The D.C. Circuit in New Jersey “specifically rejected EPA’s contention that it possesses inherent authority to reverse an earlier administrative determination such as the appropriate and necessary finding--a contention EPA repeats in the current Proposal,” environmentalists say.
A coalition of 20 mostly Democratic state attorneys-general makes similar arguments in its comments. “The Clean Air Act’s plain text, structure, and legislative history confirm that Congress intended EPA to make a single threshold decision about whether regulation of power-plant hazardous air pollution is appropriate and necessary,” they say.
“As the D.C. Circuit made clear in New Jersey, absent a court order, once EPA makes its appropriate and necessary finding and lists power plants, the only way for EPA to reverse course is by making the risk-based determinations required by section 112(c)(9) to demonstrate that no power plant poses an unacceptably high risk to human health or the environment.” The air law “unambiguously prohibits EPA from reconsidering its appropriate and necessary finding outside of the procedures defined in section 112(c)(9),” states say. -
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/former-epa-air-chief-sees-standing-bar-lawsuits-over-mats-rollback
-
NYC Passes Sweeping Climate Bill Likened To 'Green New Deal'
Apr 18, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
New York City approved a sweeping climate legislation package Thursday that is being compared to the Green New Deal.
In a 45-2 vote, the city legislature passed the Climate Mobilization Act, which aims to enact the largest carbon reduction measures of any city globally.
At the heart of the package is a bill that would require New York’s largest residential and commercial buildings to reduce carbon emissions 40 percent by 2040 and 80 percent by 2050. In comparison, the Green New Deal resolution introduced in Congress aims to get the U.S. electric grid running on 100 percent green energy by 2030.
The NYC bill’s requirements focus on buildings over 25,000 square feet, which represent just 2 percent of New York’s real estate yet account for about half of emissions from all buildings in the city. Overall, 70 percent of emissions in the city come from buildings.
Buildings that would be bound to the new emissions regulations include One World Trade Center and Trump Tower.
A report by the environmentalist group, Climate Works for all Coalition, ranked the Trump Tower as the fourth biggest energy user amongst all buildings in New York City.
Other measures included in the comprehensive climate package include requirements for certain structures to build green roofs or be equipped with solar panels, measures to ease the construction of wind projects, and a requirement for the city to study how to shut down its 24 utility-scale power plants to be replaced with renewable energy sources and storage.
Supporters claim the bill would produce 40,000 new jobs, of which nearly 25,000 would be in construction.
“I am proud to be a co-sponsor of Introduction 1253 as it sets ambitious, comprehensive standards on New York City’s worst polluters, old buildings. By modernizing buildings to raise efficiency standards we will dramatically cut pollution long term,” said Council Member Ben Kallos, in a statement.
“Retrofitting for efficiency and sustainability will reduce our City’s carbon footprint and create thousands of much-needed, good paying jobs.”
The bill now awaits NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio's (D) signature.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/439602-new-york-city-passes-own-green-new-deal
-
Carbon Price Not a Must-Have for Climate Plan, Inslee Says
Apr 18, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
Washington governor, 2020 candidate will unveil climate plan in a few weeks
Inslee says he isn’t ruling out carbon price but not ‘absolutely necessary’
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, the Democratic Party’s self-described 2020 climate candidate, doesn’t think a carbon price is “absolutely necessary” to combat climate change—at least in the short term.
Inslee said April 18 he wouldn’t rule out pursuing carbon pricing as president, but he pointed to “dozens of regulatory actions” that the next administration could take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition the U.S. to clean energy.
His state is implementing many of those regulatory actions in some form, including financing clean energy infrastructure, he said in remarks to the National Conference of Lawyers Committed to Addressing the Climate Emergency.
Inslee, who announced his 2020 presidential run March 1, has billed himself as the “climate candidate.” He is calling for a national mobilization to tackle global warming, and said he will unveil his comprehensive climate policy plan in a few weeks.
But that plan might not center on setting a specific carbon price through a tax or fee. Inslee said he would consider a carbon price, but said it wasn’t “absolutely necessary” to cut emissions.
That breaks with the prevailing opinion of many climate experts and economists that contend a nationwide price on carbon would be the most effective way to draw down the country’s emissions.
Washington’s Ballot MeasureInslee said instead that a pillar of his climate plan would be removing subsidies for fossil fuel companies.
The “most tangible, achievable short-term effort to set some price on carbon” would be to “eliminate the $27 billion of ill-gotten subsidies” to the fossil fuel industry, Inslee said.
Inslee’s reticence to champion carbon pricing, however, may be influenced by his state’s experience with the issue.
Washington voters in November 2018 killed a ballot measure that would have set a $15 per metric ton carbon fee, starting in 2020 and rising $2 annually, on fossil fuels sold or used in the state and electricity generated or imported into the state. An earlier initiative in 2016 also failed.
Large fossil fuel operators in the state, including BP Plc, Phillips 66 Co. and Andeavor, spent millions to fight the measures.
Climate DebateInslee, though, said he is the only candidate in the Democratic field who can show climate accomplishments. He touted Washington’s $6 billion renewable energy industry and noted several bills on which the legislature is working, including a bill setting a 100 percent clean electricity standard.
The Washington governor is also petitioning the Democratic National Committee to host a primary debate centered solely on climate change.
“I think it’s really important to drill down” and have all the candidates present their specific plans to tackle the issue, Inslee said.
“To govern is to choose,” he added. “The first goal is to set a priority, and I’m setting this priority very clearly.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/carbon-price-not-a-must-have-for-climate-plan-inslee-says
-
21 AGs Oppose Mercury Rule Changes
Apr 18, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Maxine Joselow,
In a last-ditch plea, a coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general is urging EPA not to withdraw the legal justification for its landmark limits on power plant mercury emissions.
"EPA's proposed revised finding is unlawful ... and must be withdrawn," the attorneys general wrote in regulatory comments submitted yesterday. "It contradicts the text, structure and purpose of the Clean Air Act."
Yesterday was the last day of the public comment period on EPA's proposal to reconsider whether regulating releases of mercury and other hazardous pollutants from power plants is "appropriate and necessary" under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
The agency originally deemed such regulations "appropriate and necessary" in 2012, and that determination formed the legal underpinning of what are formally known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
EPA air chief Bill Wehrum has sought to frame the agency's reconsideration as a response to cost concerns raised by a 2015 Supreme Court ruling. But environmentalists and other critics fear the move could pave the way for significantly weakening the standards.
In addition to targeting EPA's proposal on legal grounds, the attorneys general raised ethical concerns about the involvement of Wehrum and EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler. Wehrum represented several power producers at his old law firm, while Wheeler is a former coal industry lobbyist.
"EPA has tainted this rulemaking process by failing to address apparent ethical violations resulting from EPA Administrator Wheeler's and Assistant Administrator Wehrum's participation in the rulemaking," the attorneys general wrote.
"Because Messrs. Wheeler and Wehrum advocated on behalf of industry to repeal or revise the MATS Rule prior to joining EPA, their participation in this rulemaking may violate the Ethics Pledge they each signed upon their appointment to EPA," the attorneys general added.
Signing yesterday's missive were attorneys general from Massachusetts, California, New York and other blue states that have served as a bulwark against the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda.
"Only the Trump Administration and the coal lobbyists running EPA would try to gut the rules that protect children and pregnant women from mercury and toxic air pollution," Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D) said in a statement. "This proposal blatantly violates federal law and the right of all Americans to breathe clean air."
In addition to Democratic attorneys general, the move to withdraw the long-standing "appropriate and necessary" determination is opposed by the Edison Electric Institute and other power industry trade groups. In a recent letter to Wehrum, those groups noted they had already made significant investments in complying with MATS (Greenwire, March 27).
Other last-minute commenters didn't mince words.
"I STRONGLY protest this proposal which is a giant knife to the heart of public health for Americans," wrote a commenter identified as Rebecca Leas. "This proposal makes a mockery of the President's claim 'make America great again.' Rather, it would be 'make America sick again.'"
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/04/18/stories/1060179161
-
Industries Defend EPA Policy Easing Air Permitting Requirements
Apr 18, 2019 | Inside EPA
A broad coalition of industry groups is defending EPA’s policy that allows for the use of “significant impact level” (SIL) screening tools in Clean Air Act permitting, fighting a lawsuit from environmentalists that claims use of SILs helps companies to avoid onerous, but necessary, permit reviews for some projects.
In a legal brief filed April 15, the industry coalition rejects claims by Sierra Club that EPA’s April 2018 guidance establishing SILs for both ozone and particulate matter is unlawful. The coalition counters that the guidance is not binding on regulators, and says that air permit writers must consider other factors as well before exempting industrial projects from further air permit analysis.
“The Guidance merely provides recommended SILs and supporting documentation that permitting authorities may to use in individual permit decisions. Permitting authorities remain free to use different SILs, or not use them at all,” industry groups say in their brief, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Sierra Club v. EPA, et al.
SILs are threshold levels of additional air pollution, below which a source’s emissions may be considered de minimisand discounted under the Clean Air Act new source permitting program, avoiding the need for air permit applicants to conduct a more in-depth analysis of the cumulative impacts of their planned projects.
This helps industry avoid onerous and expensive permit reviews for projects that will have a “miniscule effect on air quality,” say the industry groups, which include refining and utility groups, chemical industry and forestry groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
But environmentalists charge that using SILs allows regulators to unlawfully permit emissions that may “cause or contribute” to violations of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Regulators must examine whether relying on a SIL results in a violation of NAAQS or the “increment” in a given area, environmentalists argue. Increment is the maximum allowable increase in air pollution that is available.
In their intervenor brief on behalf of EPA, the industry groups say environmentalists have mischaracterized EPA’s guidance as a directive to air regulators to exempt projects from further air permit analysis. Forcing regulators to rely on SILs would violate D.C. Circuit precedent in prior litigation on SILs, environmentalists argue.
“The Guidance recommends a source should generally not be deemed to ‘cause, or contribute to’ a violation if its impact is statistically indistinguishable from the status quo,” the industry groups say, calling this a “reasonable interpretation” of the Clean Air Act. The air law does not define “cause or contribute to” and therefore the court should afford EPA discretion to resolve this ambiguity, the groups say.
“In arguing that the Guidance is arbitrary and capricious and authorizes NAAQS or increment violations, Sierra Club misconstrues EPA’s SILs program and ignores permitting authorities’ independent obligation to justify their [air law] analysis for each permit on a case-by-case basis.” SILs are “not dispositive” of whether a proposed source will cause or contribute to NAAQS or increment violations. “That determination must be made in each case by the permitting authority on a permit-specific record,” the groups say.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/industries-defend-epa-policy-easing-air-permitting-requirements
Industry and Association News
TSCA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
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