Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - April 24, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Why Styrofoam — Amid All of Colorado’s Recycling Struggles — Is Being Targeted By Lawmakers
Apr 24, 2019 | The Colorado Sun
By Tamara Chuang
Styrofoam is the bane of any environmentalist’s leftover lunch. But even as some Colorado cities have tried to ban and food stores — including McDonald’s — have ditched polystyrene foam in favor of more sustainable containers, it hasn’t gone away. -
Former EPA Chiefs Call For ‘Reconfiguring’ Agency After Trump Rollbacks
Apr 23, 2019 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Former EPA administrators from the George H.W. Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations say the agency should be “reconfigured” once President Donald Trump leaves office, potentially reversing staffing cuts and some Trump regulatory rollbacks but also overhauling EPA to address looming challenges such as climate change. -
After CASAC Fallout, Wheeler Agrees To Narrow SAB Review Of EPA Rules
Apr 23, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Administrator Andrew Wheeler is asking EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) to review just one of six pending rules the board had sought to assess, a step that sources note is narrow but may still be intended to better control the review's outcome and prevent fallout similar to what occurred recently when hand-picked clean air advisors said they lacked expertise to review their charge. -
Critics Fret Over EPA Request for a Little Science Advice (1)
Apr 23, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
The head of the EPA is asking its science advisers to consult on a narrow piece of the EPA’s proposal to restrict what science it can use—a step critics say effectively undercuts a broader review by the experts. -
EPA Administrator Failed to Disclose Former Lobbying Client
Apr 23, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Beitsch
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler left a former lobbying client off of his financial disclosure documents, according to a new letter from House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.). -
US Toxics Agency Requests Toxicological Profile Nominations
Apr 24, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has issued its annual request for public nominations for the next set of substances for which it will develop toxicological profiles. -
Critics Sue EPA Over Methylene Chloride Rule, Citing Worker Risks
Apr 23, 2019 | Inside EPA
Labor advocates and environmental groups are asking an appeals court to review EPA's recent Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rule that bans consumer uses of paint strippers containing methylene chloride, attempting to broaden the ban to include workplace exposures. -
Guest Column: What To Expect From TSCA Implementation In 2019
Apr 24, 2019 | Chemical Watch
Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, US EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention assistant administrator, discusses what to expect in 2019 including the implementation of section 6 of TSCA. -
Washington State Passes Nation’s Strongest Legislation Regulating Harmful Chemicals in Consumer Products
Apr 23, 2019 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Jamie Nolan
The Washington State Legislature has passed precedent-setting legislation to protect people and orcas from toxic chemical pollution. Governor Inslee supported the legislation and is expected to sign it. -
Cushion Barrier Beats Chemicals in Furniture Fire Resistance Study
Apr 23, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Upholstered chairs made with a special fire-resistant barrier in the cushion were less likely to burn when exposed to an open flame than were chairs made with flame retardant chemicals, according to a study Underwriters Laboratories Inc. released April 23. -
EPA Proposal May Not Streamline Chemical Reporting After All
Apr 23, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A new electronic reporting system the EPA has suggested as part of a proposed rule revision could save chemical manufacturers time, but other aspects of the rule could be time-consuming, policy analysts said. -
Calif. Chemical Reg Changes Could Affect Many Products
Apr 23, 2019 | Law360
By Peggy Otum, Anthony Samson and Tatum Holland
Sen. Ben Allen, the chair of the California Senate's Environmental Quality Committee, recently introduced Senate Bill 392, which proposes the most significant modifications to California's Safer Consumer Products program since its inception more than a decade ago. SB 392, should it advance through the legislative process in its current form and become law, will therefore impact all types of consumer product manufacturers selling products in California. -
Judge Allows Some Claims Over GenX Contamination to Proceed
Apr 23, 2019 | Inside EPA
A federal district court judge is allowing North Carolina municipalities to proceed with some of their claims against chemical manufacturer Chemours, agreeing that the plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the perfluorinated chemical GenX was negligently discharged from a company facility, creating a private nuisance and trespass to real property. -
FDA Refuses Request To Ban Brain-damaging Chemical From Food Packaging
Apr 23, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
oday, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) doubled-down on its flawed 2005 and 2017 decisions to allow the hazardous chemical, perchlorate, to be added to dry food packaging. FDA denied a request by Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Center for Food Safety, Clean Water Action, Environmental Working Group, and Improving Kids’ Environment for a public hearing to challenge the agency’s conclusions. -
(ACC Mentioned) Your Renewable Energy Technology Is Growing Old — What’s Next?
Apr 22, 2019 | NREL
By Wayne Hicks
The cutting-edge research at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) will one day go to waste—but not into a landfill. -
Trump Said to Consider Waiving U.S. Ship Mandate for Natural Gas
Apr 24, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jenny Leonard and Jennifer Jacobs
President Donald Trump is seriously considering waiving the requirement that only U.S. flagged vessels can move goods from American ports to Puerto Rico or energy-starved areas of the Northeast, according to people familiar with the deliberations. -
EPA Leaves Oil, Gas Waste Regulation to States
Apr 24, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
Fracking and drilling waste won’t be subject to specific federal disposal requirements, the EPA decided April 23. -
EPA Rejects Petition To Update Oil, Gas Waste Rules, Sparking Criticism
Apr 23, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Sparking strong criticism, EPA has rejected environmentalists' petition seeking to revise federal waste rules for the disposal of oil and gas wastes, leaving in place generic standards that apply to all non-hazardous solid waste and deferring to existing state programs as better able to handle the management of such wastes. -
Venture Global Proposes Third LNG Project on Gulf Coast
Apr 23, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
Virginia-based Venture Global is revealing plans for its third proposed LNG export project on the Gulf Coast. -
DHS To Share List Of Infrastructure Crown Jewels
Apr 24, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak,
What parts of U.S. critical infrastructure are so vital that their impairment would trigger a national emergency? -
‘Chemical Detox for The Workplace’: Progressive Think Tank Publishes Guidance For Workers, Reps
Apr 23, 2019 | Safety+Health Magazine
A new guide from the Center for Progressive Reform is intended to help workers and their representatives find resources on chemical hazards and then use that information to “achieve a nontoxic workplace.” -
11 Protesters Arrested After Blocking Railroad Tracks
Apr 24, 2019 | Associated Press (In E&E Climatewire)
Police arrested 11 protesters who had blocked railroad tracks in northwest Portland, Ore., since Sunday and demanded local action in response to climate change. -
Ozone Pollution Region Doesn’t Need Expanding, Court Says (1)
Apr 23, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The Clean Air Act doesn’t require the EPA to expand an East Coast region struggling with chronic ozone problems unless existing programs to reduce pollution aren’t working, a federal appeals court ruled April 23. -
Critics Charge EPA Lacks Legal Justification For CSAPR ‘Close-Out’ Rule
Apr 23, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Several states and environmental groups seeking stricter EPA policies to curb interstate ozone air pollution are urging a federal appellate court to scrap the agency’s rule to “close-out” its major cross-border air trading program without requiring additional ozone cuts from states, saying EPA lacks legal justification for the rule. -
Environment Seen as Needing Help Beyond EPA Programs (1)
Apr 23, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Protecting the environment can no longer be viewed as the sole purview of EPA, senior corporate managers and former agency officials said April 23.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Apr 24, 2019 | The Colorado Sun
By Tamara Chuang
Styrofoam is the bane of any environmentalist’s leftover lunch. But even as some Colorado cities have tried to ban and food stores — including McDonald’s — have ditched polystyrene foam in favor of more sustainable containers, it hasn’t gone away.
It’s time, said Sen. Dominick Moreno, a Democrat in Commerce City who is pushing a bill that would ban restaurants and stores from using Styrofoam cups and to-go containers.
“There’s a more sustainable market for compostable, recyclable food containers and we need to utilize those more and transition away from Styrofoam products,” Moreno said during a committee hearing this week on Senate Bill 243, which would give restaurants more than four years to comply.
The state Senate will consider the bill on Wednesday.
The continued push to ban Styrofoam pits some plastics over others. The proposed law, which would go into effect in 2024, specifically bans polystyrene foam, not other plastic, like the hard-plastic, clear food containers. Those opposing the bill argued that Styrofoam is recyclable and banning foam containers that excel at keeping soup warm will cost restaurants more.
It may not even help with recycling efforts, said Tim Shestek, a senior director of state affairs for the American Chemistry Council, a trade group.
“This doesn’t mean replacement products will be recycled or reduce litter,” Tim Shestek testified during the Monday hearing. “There’s a big difference between what’s technically recyclable and what’s being recycled … None of this will be diverted from (landfills) unless that infrastructure exists.”
The reality is that nearly everything can be recycled, as long as there’s a market for it and a reliable method to do so. But consumers in Colorado don’t have access to all those options. It became even more difficult last year after China stopped accepting certain paper and plastics from the U.S. Local recyclers raised prices, while others stopped accepting certain plastics, including plastic #6, a.k.a Styrofoam.
In the Front Range, Denver’s Alpine Waste & Recycling invested in a foam crusher so it could smash Styrofoam into compact, dense blocks so they don’t fly off the truck as they’re transported to a buyer. But Alpine only takes larger foam packaging, rather than food containers which tend to arrive with remnants of food affixed, said Brent Hildebrand, Alpine’s vice president of recycling.
“Contamination in the packaging is very important and if the packaging is too dirty, we can’t recycle,” Hildebrand said. “Regarding food container type foam, while it is something we could handle, it seems to be way too dirty. We do have some that deliver their own food packaging type foam that has been cleaned and we can recycle that.”
Michigan-based Dart Container Corp., a top food-container manufacturerthat sent a representative to testify against the bill, recycles foam and shares recycling options on its site. The company cleans used foam and turns it into material for picture frames and crown molding. There’s also a map at HomeForFoam.com showing a half-dozen locations in the Denver area that accept the Styrofoam — with caveats. Some don’t accept food or beverage containers, while others say the plastic must first be cleaned by the consumer.
Environmentalists have railed against plastics and polystyrene foam for years. Plastic can take centuries to degrade and, in the meantime, it breaks apart and has shown up in the stomachs of marine life and other animals, even mealworms (though the latter appears to be a good thing).
But Coloradans do a poor job of recycling. A report last year by Eco-Cycle and the Colorado Public Interest Research Group said the state’s recycling rate flat-lined at 12%. Some of the reasons for low participation is that it’s confusing, not required in many cities and citizens often must pay extra for it.
“I actually used to work for a waste hauler,” Moreno said. “The reality is that if you don’t make recycling as convenient as possible for folks, they’re not going to do it. … The reality is most of the polystyrene foam is going to end up in our waste stream.”
Many restaurants and other food stores have switched to more eco-friendly containers, from Illegal Pete’s to Steuben’s Food Service and even McDonald’s (“As of 2018, all centrally managed guest packaging is fully out of foam, including all of the U.S.,” a McDonald’s spokeswoman said.) For those who haven’t, the bill would force them to follow suit, or else face action by the Attorney General.
Senate Bill 243 prohibits retail food establishments from using polystyrene foam in cups or containers for food eaten off the premises. But unlike a past bill killed in committee that would have allowed local governments to regulate any plastic food containers, the proposed law is limited to Styrofoam, creates a standard statewide and provides a long leeway for compliance. If passed, the law would go into effect in 2024. Other, more recyclable hard plastic containers, aren’t part of the ban.
“Keeping it as one statewide standard so it’s not a patchwork of regulations was important, along with a long implementation period so restaurant owners have time to find alternative, that was important,” said Nick Hoover, manager of government affairs for the Colorado Restaurant Association. “When we got the limit to (Styrofoam only), a statewide standard and the Jan. 1, 2024 implementation date, at that point we decided to go neutral.”
The industry would prefer no regulations. Hoover said it’s already difficult to make sure restaurant members know when new laws are introduced and adopted.
“The hard thing about communicating to restaurateurs is they don’t spend the day sitting at a computer. It’s hard to get their attention,” he said. “They’re spending 60 to 70 hours a week running their restaurant.”
In Colorado, local communities have tried on their own to tackle single-use plastics, including limiting the use of straws, plastic bags and foam food containers. But many attempts were halted after learning of an arcane state law that prevents local municipalities from banning plastic.
Some sought alternatives. Aspen, which was sued unsuccessfully over its plastic-bag ban, focuses on voluntary compliance. The towns of Telluride and Mountain Village supported an in-town business accelerator that attracted sustainability startups with a product to help solve some problems.
“Since Colorado has a local preemption against banning plastic to-go containers, state level legislation is the only option,” said Liz Chapman, a senior environmental health specialist with the city of Aspen. “From our perspective, this bill is complementary to our waste-prevention efforts.”
https://coloradosun.com/2019/04/24/as-colorado-struggles-to-recycle-styrofoam-cups-and-food-containers-may-soon-be-banned/
-
Former EPA Chiefs Call For ‘Reconfiguring’ Agency After Trump Rollbacks
Apr 23, 2019 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Former EPA administrators from the George H.W. Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations say the agency should be “reconfigured” once President Donald Trump leaves office, potentially reversing staffing cuts and some Trump regulatory rollbacks but also overhauling EPA to address looming challenges such as climate change.
“If you are in a position, then build the infrastructure of the agency again . . . Don’t jump to reinstate everything first,” former Obama EPA chief Gina McCarthy told an April 23 conference on “EPA and the Future of Environmental Protection,” hosted by American University in Washington, D.C.
McCarthy appeared on a panel on “Lessons of Leadership: Navigating EPA's Future” with past Clinton EPA chief Carol Browner and William Reilly, who was appointed by the first President Bush.
All three panelists decried the Trump administration’s deregulatory environmental agenda and said they see a need for the next Democratic president to not only reverse those policies but also to restructure EPA’s operations to prepare it for addressing climate change and other high-profile subjects.
While EPA has so far been the lead federal agency for climate policy, Reilly said “I think the agency has to be reconfigured to allow it to retain that role. . . . to respond to it with science and ethics.”
Reilly said the agency will need to rework its climate operations to focus on infrastructure and adaptation measures in order to blunt the impacts of climate-related flooding and storms he said are likely to be disastrous. “It’s scarcely entered people’s minds the catastrophe that’s going to evolve, that’s already begun,” he told reporters after the panel.
Browner added during the panel discussions that a future EPA could rework its administration of the state revolving funds (SRFs) that support state and local water infrastructure work in order to explicitly prioritize climate resiliency. She noted bipartisan support in Congress for SRF funding, and lawmakers’ refusal to cut spending on the funds even when the White House has specifically sought reductions.
“That is the one thing Congress never, ever cuts in the EPA budget,” she said.
But McCarthy said that regardless of the SRFs’ safe harbor among lawmakers, EPA’s overall budget is inadequate and in need of an overhaul. She noted Republicans have sought major cuts to other programs and blocked any major funding increases for EPA operations since the early days of the Obama administration.
“The budget is how Congress kept us down -- Democrats and Republicans,” she said.
She said EPA’s steady funding of about $8 billion since the late 2000s means it has been unable to keep up with technological advances despite such advances driving potential changes to environmental protection and compliance.
“Can we at least upgrade our equipment so we can get out of LotusNotes?” she said, referring to the once-standard software suite that was discontinued in 2013 but was still in use at the agency during McCarthy’s tenure.
Reilly echoed his successors’ calls for bolstering EPA in a post-Trump era. But in his comments after the panel he also emphasized that the agency retains many of its institutional strengths developed under prior administrations, in part due to the GOP Congress rejecting proposed budgets that would have cut the agency’s funding below $6 billion.
“To the credit of the Republican Senate, and the House, the EPA budgets have been kept relatively robust, certainly relative to what the president has proposed. . . . So that is guaranteed continued capacity at the agency,” he said.
And he touted the agency’s technical resources such as laboratory facilities for analyzing water and mobile emissions that “no one else has.”
“We shouldn’t be too quick to say that in a matter of two, two and a half years, we’ve lost our edge, our very large capability to address and understand environmental problems. We still have that.”
Public Perception
But all three acknowledged that garnering any bipartisan support for an overhaul of EPA aimed at strengthening or modernizing it could be difficult given Republicans’ general opposition to the agency’s work, even assuming a Democratic successor to Trump.
“The agency is pretty despised in parts of the country. In rural areas especially. It’s just the truth. . . I think we have to have some answers to that,” Reilly said. He said much of that opposition has been driven by Democrats’ push for broad Clean Water Act jurisdiction over “ephemeral wetlands,” which leads to permit mandates for development, mining and other activity that converts those wetlands to solid land.
That fight has led to a Trump administration proposal that would greatly narrow the CWA’s reach -- which Reilly told reporters he expects the Supreme Court to ultimately uphold. “I think the administration will prevail on their definition. . . . It‘s going to be very hard to ensure that it doesn’t become law.”
Browner, who now chairs the League of Conservation Voters’ board of directors, said “you could count on one hand” the number of Republicans who agree that human-caused climate change exists, which will make it difficult to find any common ground.
She added that during her tenure at EPA, then-Rep. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) “called me every week” to discuss potential climate policies, but has refused to engage on the subject as a senator.
Nonetheless, McCarthy said, “I don’t think we can write off the Republicans as being able to rejoin the party at some point in time.”
She continued that EPA has allowed itself to be characterized as an agency whose priority is putting limits on industry rather than protecting the environment. “The agency overall is only in the news for what we’re demanding, not what we’re doing. I think it’s really bad.”
Browner said future administrations should try to set easily understandable environmental agendas, rather than tackling long lists of issues, in order to avoid that perception. She said the next president should “have a very clear ‘here are the four things I’m going to do’” agenda that includes climate change.
Climate Predictions
Speaking to reporters on the conference sidelines, Reilly said he expects major floods and other disasters in coastal areas to force EPA’s hand on climate within two decades.
“I think it is relatively predictable that there will be a collapse of much of the Florida real estate economy, and within your lifetime. Probably within mine. We aren’t prepared for that.”
He continued that even if the government fails to enact a comprehensive adaptation policy, such disasters will lead to action from industry, starting with the real estate sector refusing to build in areas vulnerable to sea level rise.
"[I]t will probably be due to the investment community deciding not to accept the risks -- the 2 percent or so likelihood that they will get their debts repaid over the life of the mortgage. That, I think, will precipitate a profound transformation of our government. It will have to.”
Such a scenario, he said, would open the door for EPA to take new action as “an enterprise that is capable of both understanding the scope of the problem -- that means the science -- and [has] the predictive capabilities everybody wants, but [can] also deal with the investments that are required.”
“I believe EPA has the capability to be the first choice, so a lot will follow from that -- infrastructure capability, monitoring capability, and the capability to discriminate between those things that are worth protecting and those things that are going to be gone within 15 years no matter what you do. Those are all going to be consequential questions. They’re going to be very difficult political questions,” he concluded.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/former-epa-chiefs-call-%E2%80%98reconfiguring%E2%80%99-agency-after-trump-rollbacks
-
After CASAC Fallout, Wheeler Agrees To Narrow SAB Review Of EPA Rules
Apr 23, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Administrator Andrew Wheeler is asking EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) to review just one of six pending rules the board had sought to assess, a step that sources note is narrow but may still be intended to better control the review's outcome and prevent fallout similar to what occurred recently when hand-picked clean air advisors said they lacked expertise to review their charge.
One former EPA official says the agency was likely unable to reject SAB's request to review the science underlying its controversial science data transparency rule, which generally seeks to require rules to be based on studies where the underlying data is publicly available. SAB also sought to review a half-dozen climate and other deregulatory measures.
But officials may have been forced to allow the board to review just one narrow issue related to its science data rule to avoid a “disaster” similar to what occurred recently when advisors selected by the Trump EPA for the agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) said they did not have the expertise needed to review their charge.
“It's harder to control 45 people [on SAB] than seven [on CASAC]. But they've got to do something,” the former official says.
The source suggested that the March 28 CASAC meeting -- when CASAC urged the agency to reconstitute a specialized panel which Trump officials had previously disbanded, because the full CASAC lacked expertise to review particulate matter (PM) limits -- may have pushed EPA to accept some form of SAB review on the science rule.
“Following the disaster of the PM CASAC meeting, it's hard to imagine how [EPA will] move forward,” the source says.
Other sources have also highlighted concerns with the CASAC meeting, with one agency source also calling it a “disaster” and “an embarrassment of a conversation.”
But in a potential sign of the administration's concern, Wheeler, in his April 19 response, seeks to remind SAB of its place in EPA activities in his response and seeks to control the breadth of any advice the board may provide.
“SAB provides advice as requested by the EPA Administrator, and I believe it is critical for the EPA to clearly establish the scope and timing for such scientific advice,” he writes.
“The policy decisions that I and other EPA officials are responsible for making are informed by scientific considerations, including, where appropriate, advice from ... advisory bodies. But, ultimately, in exercising the authority given to us by Congress, the EPA must take account of a wide range of considerations if the judgments we make and the actions we take within the proper range of that authority are to be reasonable, defensible and consistent with our responsibilities to the American people.”
But the former EPA source notes that even if Wheeler is seeking to limit SAB's review, the board can expand any charge that it receives from the agency. “SAB doesn't have to get permission. They can go beyond the charge,” the source says. “And they can do it right there at the meeting.”
SAB Review
The dispute stems from SAB's May 31 meeting when the board voted unanimously to review the science behind pending EPA plans to scale back light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas standards, the agency's proposal to scrap production limits on high-emitting glider trucks, EPA's plan to reconsider new source performance standards for oil and gas operations, EPA's planned repeal of the Clean Power Plan, the agency's retreat from GHG requirements for new and modified power plants, EPA's controversial science data rule and its rule to revise cost-benefit analysis.
The SAB's vote was seen as a sharp rebuke of the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda.
But in his April 19 response, Wheeler rejects SAB's request to review the four climate rules and instead asks SAB to review a narrow issue related to how the science data rule could be amended to allow non-government entities to review confidential business or health data on which many studies rely.
“EPA would benefit from an SAB consultation on existing mechanisms for secure access to confidential business information and personally identifiable information as discussed in the proposal,” Wheeler says.
Critics, including an SAB workgroup, had charged that by insisting on only publicly available data, the proposed science rule would eliminate the use of studies based on confidential health and other data and undermine future rulemakings.
“The proposed rule does not include any assessment of the impact of data restrictions on existing or future regulatory programs. Without access to the restricted data, regulatory programs could become more or less stringent than they otherwise would be, with consequences for both regulatory costs and benefits,” the SAB work group said in a May 12 memo recommending the full SAB review the measure.
The former EPA official was unimpressed by Wheeler's response. “It's just how to keep data secure. It's giving [SAB] a tiny piece, and not the real issue. It doesn't pass the laugh test; it's not what they [SAB] wanted to do,” the source says.
Wheeler also sidesteps SAB's request on another one of the proposed rules it requested to review, improving economic analysis underlying rulemaking process, by suggesting other topics better suited for SAB review.
“Subsequent actions as well as updates to the Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analysis and the development of a Computable General Equilibrium model for evaluating costs, benefits and economic impacts in regulatory analyses may provide better opportunities for the board to review the technical aspects of these analyses and methodologies.”
Other Advisory Committees
Wheeler writes that EPA will re-vamp its efforts to provide SAB information in more timely and transparent ways, while also asking SAB and EPA's program offices to “work to ensure that the process for seeking scientific advice, and for establishing the scope of that advice on particular regulatory actions, properly takes account of the full suite of important EPA advisory committees.”
He adds that several of the rules SAB sought to review “have already been the subject of briefings during the most recent” Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) meetings.
For example, he notes that EPA's effort to repeal or replace the Clean Power Plan “would not benefit from SAB review. To the extent that the agency is also considering a final action, the EPA does not anticipate using any information that would be considered influential scientific information or highly influential scientific assessments,” adding that air office staff have already briefed CAAAC on these activities at its meeting last September.
Wheeler provides similar responses to the remaining rules, including its oil and gas rules, GHG rules for new and modified power plants, its light-duty vehicle GHG rules and the repeal of standards for glider trucks.
He adds that either that CAAAC has already been briefed on the rules or that CAAAC or one of its subcommittees “would be more appropriate venues for any future necessary advice.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/after-casac-fallout-wheeler-agrees-narrow-sab-review-epa-rules
-
Critics Fret Over EPA Request for a Little Science Advice (1)
Apr 23, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
The head of the EPA is asking its science advisers to consult on a narrow piece of the EPA’s proposal to restrict what science it can use—a step critics say effectively undercuts a broader review by the experts.
The specificity of the request from Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler has raised concerns among researchers and former EPA officials who say a science transparency proposal, released in April 2018, won’t get a full review from the Scientific Advisory Board (SAB). That panel of outside experts reviews the quality of scientific and technical information the EPA uses in regulations.
Wheeler, in an April 19 letter released on April 22, asks the Science Advisory Board to consult on the proposal—but only on how to ensure secure access to data used in scientific studies.
“This is very transparently an attempt to restrict science advice feeding in on this rule,” Gretchen Goldman, research director for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Bloomberg Environment.
Wheeler didn’t elaborate on his request for consultation, and the EPA declined to comment further.
But Wheeler’s letter reiterated the broader point that science advisers’ input isn’t the only factor EPA leadership weighs.
He wrote that the EPA’s regulations are informed by scientific advice, but other issues must also come into play if policies “are to be reasonable, defensible, and consistent with our responsibilities to the American people.”
Could Prompt LitigationSecure access to data is a small portion of the transparency proposal, which the researchers and former officials say should be subject to full outside review because it goes to the heart of how the EPA uses science.
The lack of a full review by the Science Advisory Board could factor into any litigation over the EPA’s science proposal, as evidence that the agency is actively resisting independent scientific advice, Goldman said.
“EPA is charged with using the best available science in several different mandates,” she said. “The more examples of EPA not doing that, the more likely that EPA will have to answer to that in the courts.”
The science transparency proposal, released by former EPA head Scott Pruitt, would bar the agency from using scientific research—including data—that isn’t or can’t be made public. That includes epidemiological studies, which use private medical information that researchers are required to keep confidential.
Scientists and environmental groups have sharply criticized the EPA’s plans, which they say could sideline pivotal science the agency uses to regulate drinking water, air quality, and toxic chemicals.
EPA’s science advisers should be able to look at any science-focused rule, particularly policies that arose from changes in the way the agency uses science, said John Bachmann, a former associate director for science policy at the EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
He said Wheeler’s move to not ask for a full Science Advisory Board review shows a “complete lack of concern” for scientific expertise.
‘Greatly Limiting’How to secure access to data isn’t an invalid issue for the board to consider, “but it’s not the crux of what their expertise and value is,” Goldman said.
She also said the Science Advisory Board should be looking at more central concerns—such as what impact the proposal would have on science the EPA can use; whether it would restrict the amount and quality of EPA science; and the costs and staff resources associated with implementing the proposal.
Wheeler’s request also runs counter to public requests for a full expert review.
At a May 2018 meeting, the Science Advisory Board “got strong public comment, and the number one thing was for SAB to weigh in on the transparency and science issue,” said Chris Zarba, former director of the EPA office that coordinates the Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.
But Wheeler’s letter is “greatly limiting an SAB review” of the science transparency proposal, Zarba said.
Wheeler’s request came as part of a broader letter addressing policies the Science Advisory Board had pledged to review at the May 2018 public meeting.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/just-a-piece-of-science-plan-needs-adviser-input-epa-head-says
-
EPA Administrator Failed to Disclose Former Lobbying Client
Apr 23, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Beitsch
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler left a former lobbying client off of his financial disclosure documents, according to a new letter from House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.).
Wheeler did not list Darling Ingredients, a company that supplies ingredients for products ranging from fertilizers to fuel to pet and livestock food, when he first came to the EPA in 2018.
However, lobbying group Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting, Wheeler’s former employer, showed that Wheeler lobbied on behalf of Darling in 2015 and 2016.
“These documents indicate that you may have improperly omitted Darling from your financial disclosure, and they raise concerns that you may have failed to identify other clients who paid for your services as a lobbyist during the period covered by your disclosure report,” Cummings wrote in the letter, which was also signed by Rep. Harley Rouda (D-Calif.).
“We will again respond to the committee through the proper channels,” said EPA spokesman Michael Abboud.
Federal law requires officials to disclose any client over the past two years that paid them more than $5,000, and Wheeler’s compensation topped that amount by about $300 in 2015. Those figures were supplied by Darling Industries in response to a request by the committee.
Wheeler has also met with representatives from Darling Industries during his time at the EPA, something an agency lawyer said did not violate ethics laws.
Wheeler, who lobbied for a number of industries regulated by the EPA prior to joining the agency first as its deputy administrator, has long been criticized by Democrats for those ties.
In February, the committee asked Wheeler to turn over more documents related to his lobbying work, but two months after the due date, the EPA has yet to comply.
“To date, you have failed to comply with the committee’s request for documents, including documents relating to your compensation from Darling,” the letter said, asking Wheeler to please let the committee know if he intends “to comply with this request voluntarily or whether compulsory means will be necessary.”
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/440299-epa-administrator-failed-to-disclose-former-lobbying-client
-
US Toxics Agency Requests Toxicological Profile Nominations
Apr 24, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has issued its annual request for public nominations for the next set of substances for which it will develop toxicological profiles.
The public have until 20 May to nominate substances found on the substance priority list (SPL) that they would like considered for review under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Cercla).
The SPL identifies 275 hazardous substances that the agency and EPA have "determined pose the most significant current potential threat to human health".
The ATSDR will also consider nominations of substances not on the list that "may have public health implications". When proposing a non-SPL substance the nominee must include a rationale for its inclusion, however.
The agency points out that all comments on the agency request will be posted unchanged so advises against including any confidential business information (CBI) in the submission.
Last August, the ATSDR announced that its 29th set of draft toxicological profiles was available for review and comment. This included the four substances: tribufos; bromodichloromethane; bromomethane; and 2-hexanone.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76757/us-toxics-agency-requests-toxicological-profile-nominations
-
Critics Sue EPA Over Methylene Chloride Rule, Citing Worker Risks
Apr 23, 2019 | Inside EPA
Labor advocates and environmental groups are asking an appeals court to review EPA's recent Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rule that bans consumer uses of paint strippers containing methylene chloride, attempting to broaden the ban to include workplace exposures.
“If dozens of confirmed deaths are not enough to get the Trump administration to protect workers from methylene chloride paint strippers, nothing short of a court order will,” Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, a staff attorney at Earthjustice representing some of the plaintiffs, says in an April 23 statement.
“There is no law, science or policy behind the exclusion of workers from EPA’s methylene chloride rule. It is a craven and illegal giveaway to companies that want to continue to manufacture and sell deadly paint strippers."
EPA's rule, published in the Federal Register March 27, reversed an Obama-era proposal to bar all uses of paint strippers containing the chemical, though the administration is also seeking comment on a related plan to create a “training, certification and limited access program” for commercial users of the substance.
In the face of widespread criticism following the package's release, EPA toxics chief Alexandra Dunn left the door open to taking future action to limit workplace risks though she stopped short of pledging to ban the chemical's commercial uses.
A proposed version of the rule, issued by the Obama administration, sought to prohibit commercial uses, after a 2013 risk assessment found the use of methylene chloride in paint strippers posed unreasonable risks to workers and consumers. The Trump administration, however, issued a narrower final rule, only targeting consumer uses of the chemical.
But labor and environmental groups have now filed two petitions in recent weeks seeking review of EPA's rule by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.
These include one filed April 19 by the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and another filed April 18 by Vermont Public Interest Research Group, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families and the mothers of two men who died after workplace exposures to the substance.
“Exposure to methylene chloride has already taken the lives of dozens of workers," Hector Sanchez Barba, LCLAA executive director, said in a statement. “We will continue to fight for the rights of working families so that Latino and immigrant workers, as well as all workers across our country, are granted the protections needed to keep them safe on the job.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/critics-sue-epa-over-methylene-chloride-rule-citing-worker-risks
-
Guest Column: What To Expect From TSCA Implementation In 2019
Apr 24, 2019 | Chemical Watch
Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, US EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention assistant administrator, discusses what to expect in 2019 including the implementation of section 6 of TSCA.
As Spring moves forward, so the EPA too continues to advance implementation of the 2016 Frank R Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act amendments to TSCA.
As assistant administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), I can confidently attest to the talent, dedication and commitment to our mission to protect public health and the environment of the staff in OCSPP’s three offices: the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) and Office of Science Coordination and Policy (OSCP). This focus and purpose will ensure that the OCSPP continues to make decisions that yield meaningful outcomes, supported by the highest and best use of science and the utmost transparency.Our implementation of TSCA receives ongoing review, commentary, and input from all stakeholders. This includes manufacturers submitting new pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) and those waiting on PMN reviews to be completed, environmental organisations seeking information about the status of new and existing chemical reviews, members of Congress, other federal agencies, states, and the greater scientific community. Regular interface with all these groups is helping ensure continued progress. Achievements to date
Nearly three years since the amendments became law, the EPA has made remarkable progress on TSCA implementation, including having successfully met all statutory deadlines, while at the same time producing high quality regulations and assessments.
With a career team of around 300 staff and an excellent management team in the OPPT, the agency is delivering results and meeting the ambitious requirements and responsibilities of the new law. The OCSPP is continuing to seek input from all stakeholders on critical implementation elements of amended TSCA.
After extensive public engagement and comment, just a portion of our record to date includes:issuing the four framework rules addressing the prioritisation and risk evaluation processes, the inventory and fees;announcing the first ten chemicals for risk evaluation and issuance of scoping and problem formulation documents for each; releasing an updated TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory that designates every substance included as either 'active' or 'inactive' in US commerce; publishing the final strategy to reduce vertebrate animal testing;finalising the mercury reporting rule; issuing three sets of guidance on confidential business information (CBI); announcing 20 high and 20 low priority chemicals to enter the prioritisation process;proposing reforms to make the chemical data reporting (CDR) rule less burdensome and more transparent;proposing the Confidential Business Information Review Plan rule; finalising the TSCA fees rule; andfinalising a ban on manufacturing and retail sales of methylene chloride for consumer paint and coating removal – the first risk management action under section 6 of new TSCA. As 2019 progresses
Throughout 2019, we will be using the policies and procedural frameworks referenced above to execute our critical task of evaluating chemicals and managing risks. There is a large amount of ongoing work and important milestones this year that we fully expect to meet. Prioritisation of next 40 chemicals
Having recently identified 40 chemical candidates for prioritisation (84 FR 10491), the EPA is currently seeking public comment. Based on this input, we expect to issue proposed and final priority designations for all 40 chemicals by the end of 2019. This is consistent with our responsibilities under TSCA to have 20 chemicals designated as high-priority and undergoing risk evaluations and 20 chemicals designated as low-priority within 3.5 years of the new law’s effective date.
Our approach to identifying candidates for prioritisation was released in September 2018. Building on the agency’s promise to work with the public to select the next chemicals for risk evaluation, this reflects public input received at a December 2017 meeting, and through the public docket a second public comment period last autumn. Existing chemical risk evaluations
The EPA is at an unprecedented and important stage in our implementation of section 6 of TSCA as we work to complete ten chemical risk evaluations. After issuing the first draft risk evaluation for Pigment Violet-29 (PV-29) in November, we proceeded in 2019 to work with the manufacturers to increase public accessibility to PV-29 studies and to refine our application of our systematic review framework. We anticipate our TSCA Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) will meet several times between June and October to complete its work on all ten risk evaluations.
As we work to refine the risk evaluations for the SACC’s review, we are undertaking many analytical steps for the first time – most importantly determining whether or not these chemicals present unreasonable risks. Describing clearly this draft determination is important, because of the statutory risk management implications of the final unreasonable risk determinations.
We are also preparing to solicit feedback from the National Academy of Sciences on our systematic review approach to TSCA risk evaluations. Finally, we are honing the process for receiving and evaluating for completeness manufacturer requests for risk evaluations, and already have interest from companies in submitting these requests. Collection of fees to defray implementation costsThe EPA is now implementing the TSCA fees rule, which allows the EPA to collect fees from chemical manufacturers and importers for certain activities under TSCA sections 4, 5 and 6 to defray implementation costs.
The agency began doing so this year, and estimated an annual average of $20m ($15.5m) in fee revenue to supplement our Congressional appropriations and support the important work we do under TSCA. Addressing PBT chemicals
The EPA believes that, as a general principle, the release to the environment of toxic chemicals that persist and bioaccumulate can be of greater concern than the release of those that do not behave thus.
In June 2019, we will meet another statutory deadline by proposing a rule addressing certain persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals identified for expedited action. The proposed rule will reduce exposures to the extent practicable for these five PBT chemicals. TSCA requires that the rule must be finalised 18 months later. Transparency of chemical informationEnsuring greater public transparency of chemical information is a top priority, and the EPA is actively working to achieve this across all areas of TSCA implementation.
Under our recently proposed rule for the TSCA CBI Review Plan, the agency will review all claims for confidentiality of a specific chemical name for all chemicals on the active portion of the TSCA Inventory. EPA is looking forward to comment on our proposal.
Additionally, in the coming months, my office will begin publishing on the internet much more information related to TSCA new chemical submissions than ever before. For example, the EPA is committed to publishing all new pre-manufacture notices (PMNs), their attachments and all relevant supporting documents in ChemView within 45 days of their receipt, following an evaluation of sensitive CBI.
The EPA is also committed to publishing notices about new chemical notifications in the Federal Registermuch faster than in the recent past, as well as publishing as soon as practicable each PMN reviewed subject to a final determination and the underlying documents.The EPA’s commitment to publish also extends to information about how the agency is complying with the TSCA CBI substantiation review requirements of the Frank R Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. The agency will also update its New Chemicals Decision-Making Framework and guidance document this year and hold a public meeting on our revision. As we work to fulfill these important commitments, as well as other related actions, my office will push for greater public transparency. Improving the TSCA new chemical review process
The 2016 amendments required the EPA to make an affirmative finding on new chemicals (or significant new uses of existing chemicals) before those chemicals can enter the market or manufacturing/processing for new uses can begin.
These new review requirements became effective immediately. And the OCSPP has been working tirelessly since, to apply the standards to all reviews ongoing at that time and keep pace with a continuous stream of new submissions.
The EPA typically receives around 1,000 new chemical submissions each year and has approximately 300-350 cases under review at any given time. Given the significant changes in TSCA and review process, it has a larger than average number of cases ongoing. However, we are firmly committed to reducing this number and ensuring that EPA continues to meet its review obligations under TSCA.We are confident that we are reviewing new chemical submissions in a manner consistent with the statutory framework, while striving to increase transparency of our decisions and rationale. Completing these reviews in a timely manner remains another top priority for the leadership in OCSPP and the agency. We are continuing to improve processes to meet new requirements in law. We also expect to release an updated version of our working approach to reviewing new chemical submissions in 2019 and will take public comment at that time.
I am proud of the work that the OCSPP has done, and will continue to do, to ensure greater chemical safety for the American people. Our actions in 2019 will continue to focus on:i) maintaining consistency with statutory requirements in TSCA;ii) increasing transparency in all our actions;iii) relying on the best available science; andiv) increasing public confidence in chemical safety.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76748/guest-column-what-to-expect-from-tsca-implementation-in-2019
-
Apr 23, 2019 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Jamie Nolan
The Washington State Legislature has passed precedent-setting legislation to protect people and orcas from toxic chemical pollution. Governor Inslee supported the legislation and is expected to sign it.
The Pollution Prevention for Our Future Act (SB 5135), sponsored by Senator Christine Rolfes (D-Bainbridge Island), is now the nation’s strongest policy for regulating toxic chemicals in consumer products. It directs the Washington Department of Ecology to identify and take action on products containing harmful chemicals that pose a health threat to sensitive populations, like pregnant women and children, and sensitive species like orcas and salmon.
Laurie Valeriano, executive director of Toxic-Free Future said, “This huge win keeps Washington state at the forefront of the nation, stopping the use of harmful chemicals in products that pollute our homes, bodies, and waters. The Washington State Legislature stood up to tremendous pressure from the chemical industry and moved forward with bold action that tackles toxic pollution.”
Toxic chemicals in products are a major source of toxic exposures for people as well as orcas and their prey. Products such as carpeting, building materials, detergents, and electronics can contain toxic chemicals associated with reproductive problems and immune suppression.
Scientists have documented that chemicals escape out of products into dust and air in our homes, travel through wastewater, and pollute the environment. This pollution from products is one reason why levels of some contaminants, such as plasticizing chemicals called phthalates, continue to contaminate Puget Sound despite years of cleanup.
“The same toxic chemicals found in our homes and bodies are also found in wastewater, storm water, sediments, and fish and wildlife,” said Mindy Roberts with Washington Environmental Council. “While orcas do not use consumer products like TVs, chemicals from these products build up in our indoor environments and eventually make their way into the outdoor environment.”
The bill sets the following major precedents:Directs state agencies to address classes of chemicals and moves away from a chemical by chemical approach, which has historically resulted in companies switching to equally bad or worse substitutes. The first chemical classes to be addressed in products include phthalates, PFAS, PCBs, alkyphenol ethoxylate and bisphenol compounds, and organohalogen flame retardants.Gives the Department of Ecology the authority to ban or restrict chemicals after determining safer alternatives are available. It also allows the agency to require disclosure of priority chemicals in key products.Establishes timelines for action in the bill and legislative oversight that will keep the program on track and making progress.
“Washington state’s legislature has taken bold action to protect public health and the environment from the dangers of toxic chemicals. Other states and the federal government should follow their lead,” said Liz Hitchcock, Acting Director of Safer Chemicals Healthy Families.
“The use of chemicals of concern in products is still far too common, posing serious long-term risk to human health and the environment,” said Cheri Peele with Clean Production Action. “The Pollution Prevention for Our Future Act will help move the market toward safer chemicals in products, which reduces business liability.”
Sarah Doll, National Director of Safer States said, “Washington state is leading the way, showing other states and the nation how to protect communities and the environment from toxic threats. This victory is especially important given that the federal administration is failing to protect the health of people and the environment from harmful chemicals.”
The Pollution Prevention for Our Future Act passed the Senate by a vote of 25-24 in March, and the House of Representatives by a vote of 60-37 last week. The Senate concurred with the House’s version of the bill by a vote of 27-22, and the bill now awaits final action by Governor Jay Inslee, whose office testified in favor of the bill.
Valeriano concluded, “We want to thank the sponsors of this groundbreaking legislation, Senator Rolfes and Rep. Doglio and the leaders in the House and Senate who helped achieve its passage including Rep. Fitzgibbon, Speaker Chopp, Majority Leader Billig and Senator Carlyle.”
https://saferchemicals.org/newsroom/washington-state-passes-nations-strongest-legislation-regulating-harmful-chemicals-in-consumer-products/
-
Cushion Barrier Beats Chemicals in Furniture Fire Resistance Study
Apr 23, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Upholstered chairs made with a special fire-resistant barrier in the cushion were less likely to burn when exposed to an open flame than were chairs made with flame retardant chemicals, according to a study Underwriters Laboratories Inc. released April 23.
Polyurethane foam in upholstered furniture can catch fire, contributing to deaths and injuries from household fires.
Furniture manufacturers can prevent fires by inserting textile barriers—in UL’s tests, one made of fiberglass—in between the foam in a chair and the cloth covering the foam.
For years, however, foam manufacturers have used flame retardants to reduce fire risk.
Questions about whether chemicals are the best way to prevent fires, increased scientific data showing that flame retardants are released during ordinary wear and tear, and concerns about potentially harmful neurological and other effects of some flame retardants have prompted efforts to reduce use of the chemicals.
“The big question is how do we protect consumers from both fire and exposure to chemical flame retardants,” Marilyn Black, president of air quality sciences at UL, told Bloomberg Environment.
Four Types of ChairsUL tested the chemicals released by and the flammability of four variations of an upholstered chair. One version of the chair used no flame retardants.
Another chair used a traditional organophosphate flame retardant that is added to foam but doesn’t chemically bind to it.
The third variation used a newer type of “reactive” flame retardant that binds to the foam, lessening the amount that gets released. That flame retardant was proprietary, so UL didn’t even know its precise identity but did know it was a “reactive” or binding chemical, Black said.
The final type of chair UL tested had no flame retardants, but used a fiberglass barrier between the foam and furniture fabric.
Chemical ExposuresThe test results that UL released show that changing the chemicals used in furniture affects the chemicals it releases, she said.
The chemical-release portion of UL’s tests showed that young children, the most susceptible population, would be the most highly exposed to flame retardants in an upholstered chair made with the traditional organophosphate flame retardant, Black said.
While it’s been known that children have higher levels of flame retardants in their bodies than do adults, UL’s study documents that upholstered furniture can be a source of their exposure, she said.
The newer type of flame retardant that binds to the foam released less of its chemical.
FlammabilityUsing a fire-resistant barrier was the best way to prevent one type of fire, those started with open flames such as matches, Black said.
The flammability portion of UL’s tests showed an upholstered chair made with a fiberglass barrier was less likely to burn than any of the other three chairs when exposed to an open flame, Black said.
All four types of chairs that UL tested, though, failed California’s fire-resistance or “smoldering” test that determines whether furniture would likely catch fire from a heat source such as a dropped cigarette. Furniture makers typically use California’s test to ensure their products can be sold throughout the country.
The failure to pass California’s standard is a concern because smoldering sources of heat are the most common sources of upholstered furniture fires, said Don Lucas, a retired combustion scientist from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
UL’s paper provides some interesting information, but its utility is limited because it tested only a few scenarios, said Lucas, who also consults for the Green Science Policy Institute, which works to reduce harmful chemicals in products.
Costs, BenefitsThe paper also doesn’t discuss how expensive it would be to include the barrier, Lucas said. He pointed to a cost-benefit analysis and related summary that California State University prepared. That analysis concluded the cost of barriers would be cost prohibitive given how few lives they would save.
UL’s research was never intended to address the cost-benefit question, Black said. Its objective was to make measured data available to interested parties so they can decide what to do with it, Black said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/cushion-barriers-could-boost-furnitures-fire-resistance-study
-
EPA Proposal May Not Streamline Chemical Reporting After All
Apr 23, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A new electronic reporting system the EPA has suggested as part of a proposed rule revision could save chemical manufacturers time, but other aspects of the rule could be time-consuming, policy analysts said.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed revisions to its Chemical Data Reporting rule (RIN:2070-AK33) would require companies that make or import chemicals above specified thresholds, generally 25,000 pounds a year, to every four years provide details such as their production volume, general ways the chemicals are used, and number of workers exposed.
The revisions would make “chemical reporting easier by streamlining complex submission,” the EPA said in its April 12 announcement.
But attorneys and other industry consultants told Bloomberg Environment the agency’s proposal would be a mixed bag in terms of saved time.
For example, an EPA proposal to replace its current Form U document with an online, electronic, or e-CDR reporting tool, could save time by pulling into the document previously reported information like a business address, said Jared Rothstein, senior manager of regulatory affairs for the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA).
But companies would have to spend time learning new codes under an international system the EPA said it would adopt to file the industrial function, commercial use, and other information about each chemical, said Kathleen Roberts, vice president of Bergeson and Campbell’s Consortia Management LLC.The proposed rule would also expand how much information on chemical function companies must provide. Chemicals in paint, for instance, can help it stay smooth, add color, or provide a matte or glossy finish.
In the short term, any new Chemical Data Reporting provision would increase burdens for companies that must report, said Lynn Bergeson, managing partner with Bergeson and Campbell PC.
Keeping PerspectiveBut in one plus for industry, the EPA proposed boosting the number of small chemical manufacturers exempted from information requirements.
The EPA currently considers a chemical manufacturer or importer small if its total annual sales are less than $40 million and the volume of the chemical it makes or imports is 45,400 kilograms (100,000 pounds) or less. The proposed rule would cap annual sales at less than $110 million.
Specialty chemical companies spend a lot of time and money updating their manufacturing processes to make a new chemical, training staff, and conducting pilot tests, according to SOCMA’s Rothstein.
But some analysts say companies should keep things in perspective.
“CDR reporting is hard, and in my view, that is okay if we wish to enable EPA to do its job,” Bergeson told Bloomberg Environment.
The EPA could have gotten better information if it had proposed requiring chemical processors—which mix chemicals into products such as paint, glue, varnish, and detergent—to tell the agency how they use chemicals, said Rick Reibstein, who serves on the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable’s board of directors. The roundtable includes federal, state, and local agencies, nonprofit groups, industry associations, and academics.
The Toxic Substances Control Act allows processors to report to the EPA, and states and environmental groups were in favor, said Reibstein, an environmental law lecturer at Boston University. Having data on processors would improve the EPA’s ability to track compounds as they move through commerce, he said.
The next CDR report submission period begins June 1, 2020. The EPA hasn’t announced the final deadline for reports, but typically allows companies several months to submit them.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/new-codes-in-epas-chemical-rule-may-cut-promised-time-saving
-
Calif. Chemical Reg Changes Could Affect Many Products
Apr 23, 2019 | Law360
By Peggy Otum, Anthony Samson and Tatum Holland
Law360 (April 23, 2019, 2:24 PM EDT) Sen. Ben Allen, the chair of the California Senate's Environmental Quality Committee, recently introduced Senate Bill 392, which proposes the most significant modifications to California's Safer Consumer Products program since its inception more than a decade ago. SB 392, should it advance through the legislative process in its current form and become law, will therefore impact all types of consumer product manufacturers selling products in California.
Background
In 2008, California lawmakers passed two bipartisan measures that sought to create a new, science-based framework for regulating chemicals in consumer products. The Green Chemistry Initiative, authorized by AB 1879 and SB 509, was the product of a collaborative effort by legislators, the administration of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and stakeholders to give the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, or DTSC, the authority to regulate potentially hazardous substances in consumer products.
The primary purpose of the initiative was to eliminate the adoption of piecemeal legislation regulating chemicals one at a time, in favor of one comprehensive regulatory framework based on scientific judgment. After 11 iterations, DTSC finalized the implementing regulations in October 2013.
The regulations, which established the Safer Consumer Products Program, immediately established a list of approximately 1,200 candidate chemicals based on the work already done by other authoritative organizations. The regulations further specified a process for DTSC to identify additional chemicals as candidate chemicals.
Not all consumer products containing candidate chemicals are subject to the regulations. Only manufacturers of so-called "priority products" — those products specifically targeted by DTSC that contain one or more candidate chemicals — fall within the ambit of regulation.
A candidate chemical that serves as the basis for a product being listed as a priority product is designated as a chemical of concern, or COC, for that product. Instead of banning the use of COCs without knowing the availability or safety of alternatives, the regulations provide manufacturers with an opportunity to determine whether the chemical is necessary and whether a safer alternative exists.
To this end, manufacturers of priority products must either remove the COC from the marketplace or conduct what is called an "alternatives analysis" — a process that compares the existing priority product with potential alternatives, using 13 factors evaluated at each stage of the product's life cycle to determine how to best limit exposure to, or the level of adverse public health and environment impacts imposed by, the COCs in the product.
After evaluating the final alternatives analysis report, DTSC is required to select what the regulations refer to as a "regulatory response" for a priority product, or choose an alternative product to replace the priority product. Possible regulatory responses include, but are not limited to, use restrictions, product sales prohibitions, engineering or administrative controls, or end-of-life product management.
Since 2013, DTSC has established a list of candidate chemicals, finalized the listing of three chemical-product combinations as priority products, and proposed the listing of four chemical-product combinations as priority products. To date, no manufacturer has prepared an alternatives analysis under the program, and thus DTSC has issued no regulatory responses.
2018 Public Health Institute Report
In October 2018, the Public Health Institute issued a report titled "California's Green Chemistry Initiative at Age 10: An Evaluation of its Progress and Promise" which evaluated the "strengths and challenges" of the Safer Consumer Products Program. To guide the Public Health Institute in its efforts, experts from business, nonprofit, academic and government perspectives were interviewed to elicit strengths and challenges of the current program.
According to the report, three significant areas of weakness have impaired the ability of the program to live up to its potential:
The pace of implementation has been slow, with relatively few priority products identified for action to date;
The program suffers from unclear authority to collect data on chemicals in products, and struggles with broader data gaps on exposure and toxicity; and
California's overall efforts and investment have so far not been sufficient to foster robust research and development of safer product chemistry.
The report made numerous recommendations to expedite the program to address these issues, including amending the statute to allow expedited action on certain product-chemical combinations, clarify and strengthen data call-in authority, and streamline and support Alternatives Analyses.
The report was discussed at length during a Feb. 12, 2019, joint hearing of the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality and the Assembly Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials. Witnesses at the hearing included representatives from DTSC, the National Resources Defense Council and the Chemical Industry Council of California. Gina Solomon, the primary author of the report, also testified at the hearing.
Only a week after the hearing, Sen. Allen introduced SB 392, with backing from the Natural Resource Defense Council and other environmental health groups.
SB 392
SB 392 adopts many of the recommendations outlined in the Green Chemistry 10-year report, including strengthening data call-in authority and establishing a procedure for bypassing alternatives analyses. But the legislation goes even further than the recommendations contained in the report by, for example, proposing to expand the list of candidate chemicals.
Expanding the Candidate Chemicals List
SB 392 would expand the candidate chemicals list under the Safer Consumer Products Program for the first time. Specifically, the bill instructs DTSC to revise the candidate chemical list by 2021 to include:
Fragrance allergens listed by the European Union in Annex III of Regulation (EC) 1223/2009;
Asthmagens for which the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists has established threshold limits for asthma;
Chemicals identified under the California Environmental Contaminant Biomonitoring Program; and
Endocrine disrupting chemicals identified by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).
This means that products containing chemicals on such lists could potentially become priority products subject to regulation under the program.
Strengthening Data Call-In Authority
SB 392 would also strengthen the data call-in authority of DTSC by requiring a manufacturer to provide information about the "ingredients and use" of consumer products to DTSC upon request and within the timeframe provided by DTSC. DTSC would be authorized to request information including: (1) ingredient chemical identity, concentration and functional use data; (2) information about the use of consumer products by sensitive subpopulations; and (3) sales data.
If a product manufacturer does not have the requested ingredient information, and cannot obtain the information from the chemical manufacturer, the product manufacturer must certify so in writing to DTSC and provide DTSC with contact information for the chemical manufacturer. DTSC may then require the chemical manufacturer to provide this information.
Additionally, the bill provides for significant fines for failure to comply with information requests — $70,000 per violation, or per day of violation for continuing violations.
Establishing a Procedure for Bypassing Alternatives Analyses
Under SB 392, DTSC may rely on "all or part of one or more publicly available" alternatives analysis for a chemical of concern, rather than requiring the completion of an alternatives analysis. This aspect of the proposal is an apparent attempt to expedite the program.
If DTSC intends to rely on an existing alternatives analysis, it must provide public notice and an opportunity for comment. Following the notice and opportunity for comment, DTSC may proceed to a regulatory response (including prohibiting the use of the chemical in the consumer product, imposing labeling requirements or imposing end of useful life requirements).
DTSC may only rely on an existing alternatives analysis if it is issued by a government agency or "credible institution with relevant expertise and without financial conflicts of interest," or if it is published in a peer-reviewed scientific publication.
Limiting Availability of the Informal Dispute Resolution Process
If DTSC provides public notice and an opportunity for comment prior to the adoption of regulation priority product, the bill provides that the dispute resolution procedures currently available in the regulations would be prohibited. Therefore, in these circumstances, if a responsible entity disagrees with DTSC's adoption of a priority product, the entity must appeal that decision to the Director of DTSC pursuant to existing available procedures.
Adding Requirements for Priority Product Work Plans
The legislation would also impose on DTSC additional requirements for its Priority Product Work Plans. These plans are required to be adopted every three years to identify the scope of products subject to potential future regulation.
Beginning with the 2021-2023 work plan, DTSC would be required to include (in addition to previously required information):
Any information DTSC has available at the time of publication about chemicals of concern in each category or subcategory of consumer products;
Additional ingredient information needed to assess the safety of consumer products and how DTSC intends to collect this information; and
Timelines (not to exceed five years) for the completion of the Safer Consumer Products Program process for at least five categories or subcategories of consumer products.
In assessing information needed to evaluate the safety of a consumer product and the appropriate regulatory response for a chemical-product combination, DTSC must consider the chemicals that are likely to be substituted into products in place of the chemical of concern to ensure that the substitutes are not also on the candidate chemical list.
Key Takeaways and Next Steps
SB 392, should it be signed into law in its current form, would significantly impact consumer product companies throughout the supply chain. First, the proposed expansion of DTSC’s candidate chemical list to include fragrance allergens, asthmagens and endocrine disruptors will mean that products that would not have otherwise fallen within the purview of the program could be subject to future regulation. Businesses should therefore assess their product inventory to determine whether any product ingredients are included on these new lists.
Second, given SB 392 would allow DTSC to use "all or part of one or more publicly available" alternatives analysis in lieu of going through the existing alternatives analysis process, businesses should keep apprised of alternatives analyses processes at government agencies or credible institutions with relevant expertise, as DTSC may rely on those analyses — rather than those prepared by manufacturers of priority products — to determine what regulatory response it will issue, if any.
And finally, businesses should pay close attention to DTSC’s Priority Product Work Plans, as the new plans under SB 392 would be required to include timelines for the completion of at least five categories of consumer products. These timelines may inform manufacturers of products within the scope of a work plan regarding whether engagement with DTSC may be appropriate.
SB 392 has been referred for hearings in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee. Given the magnitude of the legislation, the earliest it would likely make it to the governor's desk is August or September.https://www.law360.com/retail/articles/1151912/calif-chemical-reg-changes-could-affect-many-products
-
Judge Allows Some Claims Over GenX Contamination to Proceed
Apr 23, 2019 | Inside EPA
A federal district court judge is allowing North Carolina municipalities to proceed with some of their claims against chemical manufacturer Chemours, agreeing that the plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the perfluorinated chemical GenX was negligently discharged from a company facility, creating a private nuisance and trespass to real property.
But Judge James C. Dever III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina in an April 19 ordergranted Chemours' motion to dismiss several other claims related to public nuisance, trespass to chattels, negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, negligent manufacture, interference with riparian rights, and punitive damages.
The litigation, combining claims from suits by the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority and Brunswick County, NC, against Chemours and E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, alleges Chemours and DuPont discharged perfluoro-2-propoxypropanoic acid, more commonly known as GenX, from the Fayetteville Works facility into the Cape Fear River and surrounding air, soil, and groundwater.
The chemical is “a trade name for a technology that is used to make high performance fluoropolymers (e.g., some nonstick coatings) without the use” of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), an earlier generation per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) but one that is more ubiquitous in the environment than GenX.
Last year, Chemours agreed to a $13 million settlement with North Carolina officials and environmentalists, denying any wrongdoing but pledging to reduce air emissions and limit discharges to surface waters. Chemours said it agreed to the order solely “to avoid the expense, burden and uncertainty of litigation and to address community concerns about” its Fayetteville Works Facility, raising the possibility of reaching a settlement in the litigation brought by the municipal entities.
While the municipalities' case will proceed on the claims of private nuisance and trespass to real property, the claims dismissed in the April 19 ruling include the plaintiffs' contention that the defendants' conduct is negligent per se and violates the facility's Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and North Carolina's water quality standards.
Dever said that even assuming that North Carolina courts recognize a right to sue in negligence based on a violation of a NPDES permit, plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege any violations of defendants' NPDES permit.
Furthermore, the claim that alleges violation of the state's water quality standards refers to a section of state regulations that are strict liability regulations and therefore do not create a standard for reasonable care, the judge says. “It would expand North Carolina public policy to allow plaintiffs to proceed on a negligence per se theory based on an alleged violation of a strict liability regulation,” the judge says.
But the judge rejected an additional request by the defendants to stay the litigation. In addition to seeking to dismiss all the claims, the defendants alternatively asked the court to stay the matter until North Carolina's Department of Environmental Quality has resolved its inquiry into GenX and the Fayetteville Works facility. Dever, however, said none of the factors that apply to staying the matter under the primary jurisdiction doctrine apply here.
While the utilities' NPDES claims were dismissed, EPA recently cited the facility for violating the Toxic Substances Control Act.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/judge-allows-some-claims-over-genx-contamination-proceed
-
FDA Refuses Request To Ban Brain-damaging Chemical From Food Packaging
Apr 23, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
Washington, D.C. – April 23, 2019) Today, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) doubled-down on its flawed 2005 and 2017 decisions to allow the hazardous chemical, perchlorate, to be added to dry food packaging. FDA denied a request by Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Center for Food Safety, Clean Water Action, Environmental Working Group, and Improving Kids’ Environment for a public hearing to challenge the agency’s conclusions.
The group’s request had demonstrated both that the agency grossly underestimated the amount of perchlorate that gets into food from packaging and ignored its own studies showing young children’s exposure to the neurotoxin increased after its 2005 decision to allow the chemical’s use in food packaging. By taking almost two years to reaffirm its overly narrow reading of the law, the agency dodged accountability for its flawed science and is allowing exposure to perchlorate – a chemical that harms fetal and infant brain development – to continue.
Perchlorate is a known endocrine disruptor that impairs the thyroid’s ability to use iodine in the diet to make a hormone essential to brain development. For the estimated 20% of pregnant women who are already iodine-deficient, any exposure to perchlorate can pose a risk to a child’s healthy development.
“It is outrageous that FDA took almost two years to simply reaffirm its flawed interpretation of the law. The agency originally agreed that a 2014 petition to ban perchlorate was properly filed and asked for public comments. FDA then changed its view of the law in its May 2017 denialof the petition,” said Tom Neltner, Chemicals Policy Director at Environmental Defense Fund. “By denying our challenge today, FDA is avoiding an opportunity to protect kids from the irreversible harm posed by perchlorate exposure.”
Erik D. Olson, Senior Director for Health and Food at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said “pregnant moms shouldn’t have to worry when they sit down for a meal that they may be threatening the health of their babies with a toxic chemical in their food. FDA is falling down on the job. The agency should be protecting kids’ developing brains from the dangers posed by hazardous perchlorate in our food.”
“FDA’s decision to continue allowing this neurotoxic chemical in dry food packaging is a big mistake - babies bear the brunt of the risk and impact,” said Jane Houlihan, Research Director for Healthy Babies Bright Futures. “With FDA’s failure to protect children, it falls on perchlorate maker BASF to do the right thing and withdraw this unnecessary chemical from the food packaging market.”
“FDA’s actions show its callous disregard for the risks perchlorate poses to pregnant women, infants and children, and put process ahead of its mission to keep food safe,” said Lisa Lefferts, Senior Scientist at Center for Science in the Public Interest.
“Perchlorate—an ingredient in rocket fuel—harms fetal and infant brain development. It should never be used in food packaging, let alone food packaging for kids products,” said Scott Faber, Vice President for Government Affairs at Environmental Working Group, “It’s unacceptable that FDA is allowing this hazardous substance to continue to be used and won’t even allow a hearing on the science.”
“The development of the brain is like a one-way street; there is no U-turn to go back and fix the problems perchlorate exposure may have caused,” said Dr. Maricel Maffini. “It is absolutely unnecessary to use this well-known endocrine disrupting chemical in contact with food.”
FDA approved perchlorate for use in plastic packaging for food in 2005 – despite evidence that it harms fetal and infant brain development. In May 2017, the agency rejected a petition to ban the chemical as a food additive – in a decision that EDF has shown relied on flawed science. Advocates responded by challenging the move and requesting a formal evidentiary public hearing in June 2017.
An FDA report published in 2016 found that virtually all foods sampled had detectable levels of perchlorate. Even more concerning – FDA’s own studies show increased levels of perchlorate in foods such as baby food dry cereal, indicating the chemical’s intentional use in dry food packaging is the likely source of increased exposure for young children. Dry rice cereal—often the first solid food given to a baby—and barley cereal showed the greatest increase from before and after the decision.
The June 2017 objection cited the agency’s refusal to acknowledge evidence that perchlorate exposure increased significantly after its 2005 decision to allow perchlorate in packaging. Additionally, the groups cited evidence that FDA’s initial decision to approve perchlorate grossly underestimated the amount of perchlorate migrating into dry food. By denying those objections today, FDA is once again ignoring these critical details. We will consider our legal options to challenge this decision.
https://www.edf.org/media/fda-refuses-request-ban-brain-damaging-chemical-food-packaging
-
(ACC Mentioned) Your Renewable Energy Technology Is Growing Old — What’s Next?
Apr 22, 2019 | NREL
By Wayne Hicks
The cutting-edge research at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) will one day go to waste—but not into a landfill.
Every technology eventually runs into the end of its life. Photovoltaic (PV) panels and lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries become less effective and need to be replaced. Researchers at NREL are making strides toward ensuring old technology can be more easily recycled.
"We're thinking about this broadly across many technologies, but PV is the one we've been thinking about the longest at the lab," said Garvin Heath, a senior scientist and member of the Resources and Sustainability Group in NREL's Strategic Energy Analysis Center.
While hundreds of millions of tons of trash continue to be dumped into American landfills annually, a growing percentage has been diverted to recycling centers since the first Earth Day in 1970. But these centers aren't set up for renewable energy technologies. NREL is looking to answer questions such as: "What methods should be used to recycle materials from PV panels and batteries used to power electric vehicles?" and "How can that be done economically?"Demand for PV Power Raises Solar Panel Questions
Globally, the amount of energy generated by PV has risen exponentially since the early 1990s, when it barely registered, to 512 gigawatts last year. The amount is expected to hit 4.5 terawatts in 2050. Lagging that increase will come a surfeit of PV panels past their prime. In 2050, the United States is projected to have 10 million metric tons of PV waste—half of what China's problem will be, according to a report co-authored by HeathPDF. In addition to his work at NREL, Heath leads a task force on the sustainability issues of PV for the International Energy Agency.
Most solar panels today use silicon in converting sunlight into electricity and carry a 25-year warranty. More than 90% of a PV panel's weight comes from glass, plastic, and aluminum, which aren't hazardous waste. But the trace elements of silver, tin, and lead that are also part of the panels are considered hazardous, so ensuring proper disposal at end of life is important.
It's also important to recover the precious, critical, and hazardous materials in end-of-life panels. "If we can extract the materials, the potential value of those materials is considerable," Heath said.
A 2050 estimate projects that, in the United States, enough raw materials can be recovered to produce 2 billion new panels (the equivalent of 630 gigawatts) and puts the value of those materials at $15 billion. "Of course, if those materials go back into creating new modules, that's a nice circular loop," Heath said. "Not all those materials are going to be able to do that, but there's potential there."
One U.S. manufacturer, First Solar, unveiled a free PV recycling program in 2005. The company's panels differ from the more commonly used silicon panels in that they are made using cadmium telluride (CdTe), and cadmium ranks as one of the most toxic materials on the planet. First Solar recaptures about 95% of the CdTe, refines it, and then reuses it in a new solar panel through a recycling process they own and run at several facilities around the world.
A law that took effect last year across the European Union requires that at least 85% of waste from PV panels must be recovered, and 80% of that waste must be either recycled or reused. "This is just a start," said Michael Kempe, a senior scientist at NREL. "It essentially means that the frames and glass need to be recycled because that is where the mass is."
In the United States, only one state has decided what must be done with PV panels at the end of their life. In 2017 Washington approved a law requiring manufacturers to finance a takeback and recycling system at no cost to the owner. The law will take effect in 2021, at which time only PV manufacturers participating in a recycling plan will be allowed to sell their panels in the state.
Recycling PV panels will require that they first be collected and transported, which is an expensive process. Then the components must be separated, which is also expensive. The Electric Power Research Institute reports of hearing recyclers quoting prices between $10 and $30 a module just for processing. The costs are expected to come down as the amount of waste volume increases.
The price that owners of rooftop PV panels ultimately must pay will determine where that piece of technology winds up. "If they have to pay $25 to recycle it, it's going in a landfill," Kempe said. "But if they can take it to a recycling facility for free, that's where it will go. This is why it is so important for economical recycling processes to be developed and implemented."
Kempe, whose research focuses on ways to extend the lifespan of PV panels, said his goal is to see them last for 50 years. Manufacturers could make some changes to a PV panel so that it would be easier to recycle decades from now, but that's not likely to happen if it means sacrificing durability or performance. "That trumps ease of recycling," Kempe said.Battery Research Includes National Prize for Recycling Effort
A new area of research at NREL involves the ease of recycling Li-ion batteries. Those batteries are expected to become ubiquitous as more electric vehicles hit the road. Electric vehicles make up only about 1% of new car sales in the United States, but that is expected to reach 22% in 2025.
To address issues related to recycling Li-ion batteries, DOE in February unveiled the ReCell Center, a collaboration between NREL, Argonne National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and several universities. NREL's role in ReCell calls for coming up with a new design for Li-ion batteries, one that will be easy to recycle, said Ahmad Pesaran, the laboratory's energy storage chief engineer. "Right now, the way batteries are put together, it's welded. Everything's tightly together. It's not conducive to pulling part. You have to shred everything at the same time. This creates a lot of waste."
Total battery waste is forecast to reach as much as 170,000 tons a year by 2020, and currently only a handful of U.S. companies are set up to reclaim and recycle the materials used in Li-ion batteries: lithium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and graphite. But by recycling and reusing certain high-value elements—notably lithium and cobalt—manufacturers would be able to lower their costs and stave off potential shortages of those materials.
"The good thing is we already have these batteries here in the United States, so it's sort of like a virtual mine of cobalt," said Ahmad Mayyas, an NREL engineer who has written about the case for recycling Li-ion automotive batteries. "So why should these batteries go to the landfill?"
Laws are already in place across the country to keep lead acid batteries out of landfills, and according to the Environmental Protection Agency, about 99% are recycled. The lead is then used to make new batteries.
The issue of recycling Li-ion batteries is more complicated, partly because no laws exist forbidding the dumping of this spent technology. The more diverse materials used in Li-ion batteries requires careful sorting. Then there's the potential for fires if the batteries are improperly handled. "There have been fires in waste management facilities because people throw their cellphone and laptop batteries in the waste," Pesaran said.
Plus, the U.S. Department of Transportation considers Li-ion batteries hazardous to transport. "It doesn't matter if you have the best recycling approach if you cannot collect them and send them to the recycling facilities cost-effectively and safely," Pesaran said.
To help address these challenges, NREL is administering DOE's $5.5 million Lithium-Ion Battery Recycling Prize, an upcoming competition intended to find the best ways to profitably capture 90% of spent or discarded Li-ion batteries by collecting, sorting, and transporting them to recycling facilities so that the materials can be reused. Registration for the challenge closes July 31.Research Could Make Composite Materials Recyclable
Another notable NREL project involves converting a single-use plastic bottle into something more valuable and, in the process, creating an economic incentive to deter discarding. Only about 29% of plastic bottles in the United States are recycled annually, according to the American Chemistry Council. That leaves a lot of plastic tossed aside.
Gregg Beckham, a senior research fellow at NREL, and his colleagues developed a chemical process to combine the plastic commonly used for water bottles, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), with bio-based compounds. The result is a composite material that's noticeably stronger than the original plastic and can be used to make everything from snowboards to wind turbine blades.
"A water bottle you use from minutes to hours," Beckham said. "A composite material you typically use from years to decades."
Recyclers shred PET into flakes, which can then be reconstituted into other materials such as carpets and polyester clothing. But the going rate for reclaimed PET is small, at about 51 cents a pound. Turning that PET into a composite increases its worth. "The inherent value, the selling price, of the composite material will be much greater," Beckham said, estimating the number at $2.60 a pound.
When that composite material nears the end of its lifespan, however, another issue emerges. Composites can't be easily recycled, nor can they be broken down into component parts for reuse. NREL researchers want to change that.
"We're working on ways to basically put Trojan horses into a composite such that during its lifetime as a wind turbine or a snowboard, it's fine," Beckham said. "It will do its thing and will look and feel and act exactly like those materials. But at the end of its life you could dump it into acid or dump it into base or heat it up well beyond its operational temperature and then make it into something that can flow again and you can recycle it into, for example, another composite."
Derek Berry, a senior engineer with NREL's National Wind Technology Center, faces the problem of what to do with composite blades from wind turbines that have outlived their usefulness. The blades are designed to last for 20 years, but turbine operators can swap them out for newer, better models capable of generating more energy.
"The amount of new energy production annually is often worth the cost of scrapping the old blades and installing new ones," Berry said. "All of a sudden on a given wind farm you might have hundreds of blades taken down and what do you do with those blades?"
One forecast estimates there could be as much as 705,000 tons of discarded wind turbine blades in the United States by 2030. The blades often wind up at the landfill. As for recycling, that typically involves chopping them into small pieces and using that to shore up a concrete mix, for example.
Changing the chemical makeup of a blade could lead to producing ones that can be recycled and their materials reused, NREL researchers have predicted. The current process to make a blade uses fiberglass or carbon fiber mixed with a thermoset resin, which is heated to form a fiber-reinforced composite. "That is irreversible," Berry said. "You can heat that up all you want; it's not going to melt. You can burn it, but you get very little out of it. It's an irreversible process and therefore it's very, very difficult to recycle."
NREL researchers are experimenting with a thermoplastic resin system, which cures at room temperature. The result is a blade that's potentially less expensive to manufacture and capable of being recycled. "You can apply a certain amount of heat, melt it down, turn it back to liquid, and use the resin system again," Berry said.
NREL is preparing to validate how a 13-meter wind turbine blade made using the new thermoplastic system and compare the results against a baseline blade manufactured with traditional thermoset resin. The blades were both made from the same mold, which will provide a nearly exact comparison. "This will be a huge step for us," Berry said. "If everything goes well, the next step is to work with industry partners to help them commercialize the material."
https://www.nrel.gov/news/features/2019/your-renewable-energy-technology-is-growing-old-whats-next.html?utm_source=NREL+News&utm_campaign=401a007a9f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_04_22_07_46&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_807f77e7f4-401a007a9f-289459459
-
Trump Said to Consider Waiving U.S. Ship Mandate for Natural Gas
Apr 24, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jenny Leonard and Jennifer Jacobs
President Donald Trump is seriously considering waiving the requirement that only U.S. flagged vessels can move goods from American ports to Puerto Rico or energy-starved areas of the Northeast, according to people familiar with the deliberations.
The issue was debated during an Oval Office meeting April 22, following requests from Puerto Rico and pressure from oil industry leaders to ease the nearly 100-year-old Jones Act requirements, according to three people. Although top administration officials are divided on the issue, Trump is now leaning in favor of some kind of waiver, said two of the people, who asked for anonymity to discuss the private discussions.
The move—which would be fought by U.S shipbuilding interests and their allies on Capitol Hill—has been promoted as essential to lower the cost of energy in Puerto Rico and ease the flow of American natural gas to the U.S. Northeast, where there aren’t enough pipelines to deliver the product from Pennsylvania.
But even inside the Trump administration, there are fierce defenders of the Jones Act, a 1920 law requiring that vessels moving cargo between two U.S. ports be U.S.-built, -owned, and -crewed. The law was originally designed to protect the domestic shipping industry and the country’s maritime might, and supporters argue that it’s just as essential today to ensure ships are made in the U.S. Any move to weaken or waive the requirements threatens the U.S. shipbuilding industry and the jobs tied to it, they argue.
Navarro, ChaoThat divide was apparent during Monday’s White House meeting, where Jones Act supporters included Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao. Larry Kudlow, the director of the National Economic Council, pushed for waiving the Jones Act, three of the people said.
The White House press office did not respond to a request for comment.
Trump faces increasing pressure to relax the shipping requirements. Puerto Rico is seeking a 10-year waiver to allow liquefied natural gas to be delivered to the island on foreign-flagged vessels.
And energy industry leaders have pressed for changes to facilitate natural gas and petroleum product shipments between U.S. states. Among them: billionaire oil man Harold Hamm, the chairman of Continental Resources Inc. and a former Trump energy adviser. In January, Hamm complained at a Houston energy conference that the U.S. has been forced to buy LNG from Russia because there are no Jones Act-compliant tankers to transport liquefied natural gas.
American FirstKristin Thomas, a Continental Resources spokeswoman, said the U.S. Domestic Energy Producers Alliance, which Hamm founded, “is in favor of being able to ship U.S. LNG to U.S. ports,” although the group “has not waded into any issues related to Puerto Rico.”
Oil industry leaders argue that the Jones Act restrictions undermine Trump’s American “energy dominance” agenda, by encouraging imports of foreign oil and gas despite abundant supplies inside the U.S. Russian LNG was delivered to Massachusetts last year to help supply consumers in the Northeast U.S. And inland oil refiners argue requirements to use U.S.-flagged vessels boost the costs of obtaining raw crude, effectively subsidizing foreign competitors.
“The Jones Act is completely contrary to the president’s energy agenda, in large measure because it encourages the importation of energy—diesel from Europe, LNG from Russia—rather than the use of energy made in America and developed and refined by American workers,” said Mike McKenna, a Republican energy strategist. “If you’re in favor of the Jones Act, you’re in favor of damaging consumers and helping very specific interests line their pockets at consumers’ expense.”
Congressional OppositionTrump has waived the requirements on a limited basis, granting Puerto Rico a temporary reprieve in 2017, after Hurricane Maria ravaged the island. Trump also briefly lifted Jones Act requirements to ensure gasoline, diesel and jet fuel could be moved among U.S. states more quickly after the storm.
Unlike short-term, emergency waivers, longer-term exemptions could pave the way for commercial contracts to supply natural gas.
Puerto Rico’s push for a 10-year waiver drew swift pushback from the bipartisan leaders of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who in February sent a letter to the Homeland Security Department arguing there was no justification for the move. Jones Act waivers are meant to be rare, limited only to cases where there is a national defense need, and there is “no valid national defense rationale” to waive the requirements for Puerto Rico, they said.
The American Maritime Partnership, which defends the Jones Act, did not have an immediate comment. But a study commissioned and previously released by the group found that the shipping restrictions have no impact on retail prices or the cost of living in Puerto Rico.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/trump-said-to-consider-waiving-u-s-ship-mandate-for-natural-gas
-
EPA Leaves Oil, Gas Waste Regulation to States
Apr 24, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
Fracking and drilling waste won’t be subject to specific federal disposal requirements, the EPA decided April 23.
The decision leaves a patchwork of state regulations to control and monitor oil and gas industry waste.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s decision responds to a 2016 lawsuit from environmental advocates. The agency reviewed whether it was necessary to augment federal solid waste regulations to specifically address waste from drilling and fracking, among other oil and gas industry activities.
The decision was that such changes are “not necessary at this time,” according to an EPA report.
The decision leaves “generic and outdated standards” in place, a statement from the Environmental Integrity Project said.
That organization was among the environmental advocates who filed the suit in 2016. According to their initial complaint, they argued that a federal regulation would ensure that protective requirements for controlling, monitoring, and disclosing oil and gas wastes apply across the country.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-leaves-oil-gas-waste-regulation-to-states
-
EPA Rejects Petition To Update Oil, Gas Waste Rules, Sparking Criticism
Apr 23, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Sparking strong criticism, EPA has rejected environmentalists' petition seeking to revise federal waste rules for the disposal of oil and gas wastes, leaving in place generic standards that apply to all non-hazardous solid waste and deferring to existing state programs as better able to handle the management of such wastes.
EPA in an April 23 letter told environmental groups that it has decided it is “not necessary at this time” to revise Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D regulations for the management of wastes from the exploration, development, and production of crude oil, natural gas, and geothermal energy.
Subsequently, the agency also says it is not necessary for EPA to propose revisions to state plan guidelines for the management of oil and gas wastes, given it is not updating its Subtitle D regulations.
The agency says it made these conclusions after conducting a thorough literature review of government, industry and academic sources to supplement data from previous agency actions. The review “evaluated factors such as waste characteristics, management practices, damage cases and the coverage of state programs,” EPA says on its website.
EPA was required under a December 2016 court settlement with environmentalists to make a decision by April 23 on whether it would revise the regulations and state plan guidelines. Environmentalists in their suit contended EPA had failed to perform a RCRA non-discretionary duty to review its rules for wastewater, drill cuttings, residual waste, and drilling muds associated with exploration and production (E&P) every three years. The groups said the rules had not been reviewed since 1988, making the review long overdue.
But the agency's decision to leave in place what environmentalists call “generic and outdated standards that apply to all non-hazardous solid wastes” is prompting criticism from the groups.
“Today's decision not to act is the latest in a thirty-year history of EPA failing to address the environmental and health hazards of oil and gas wastes,” Adam Kron, senior attorney at the Environmental Integrity Project, says in a press release from his group and others pressing for action.
The groups in their lawsuit had contended that EPA should update its rules to address various wastes and industry practices, the press release says. These include undergound injection of fracking wastewater that has been linked to earthquakes, the distribution of fracking wastewater over roads or fields and its disposal into unlined and unstable pits and landfills leaking into groundwater and streams, the release says.
“As more communities raise alarm about threats to their air and water from nearby dirty oil and gas operations, there is another disturbing example of the Trump Administration putting polluters first and the rest of us at risk,” Jared Knicley, a Natural Resources Defense Council attorney, says in the release. “And during Earth Week? It just underscores how far out of touch Trump is, considering this will endanger clean air, clean water, and healthy communities,” he adds.
Altered Landscape
EPA concedes in a support document backing its decision that “the combined use of hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling has altered the energy production landscape,” with production in some states rising by nearly an order of magnitude over the past decade. Greater production can result in larger volumes of waste, it says.
In its review, EPA generally endorses state programs, while varied, as the avenue for addressing such wastes. It also notes that while a large amount of liquid and saturated solids from E&P are disposed of by injection into deep formations, such disposal is outside of RCRA Subtitle D regulations.
EPA says it reviewed 28 of 34 states that report oil and gas production and account for more than 99 percent of such production in the country. “The result of this review shows that states are actively engaged in addressing the challenges posed by increased E&P operations, and have been responding in part by updating their waste management programs,” it says.
The agency says state programs vary but finds they have adopted “many of the regulatory elements that are important components of waste management programs, such as requiring liners for pits, secondary containment and groundwater monitoring. This provides confidence that the scope of current state programs is robust.”
Further, EPA identified eight cases that occurred in the past six years that resulted in adverse health or environmental impacts or natural resource damages. It also identified thousands of additional incidents in state databases but found these releases were not tallied as damage cases because of the lack of evidence of adverse effects. Some reported violations did not involve releases into the environment, EPA says.
In its review of data on releases, EPA found that the two main causes in damage cases have been human error and equipment failure. “These types of releases can be appropriately and more readily addressed within the framework of existing state programs through increased inspections, improved enforcement and other targeted actions than through the imposition of addition[al] requirements under subtitle D of RCRA,” EPA says in the support document.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-rejects-petition-update-oil-gas-waste-rules-sparking-criticism
-
Venture Global Proposes Third LNG Project on Gulf Coast
Apr 23, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
Virginia-based Venture Global is revealing plans for its third proposed LNG export project on the Gulf Coast.
Called Delta LNG, the project proposed for Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana would have a peak capacity to process 24 million metric tons of liquefied natural gas, according to documents filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Venture Global last week filed a request to start permitting the LNG project along with an associated 287-mile pipeline called Delta Express Pipeline. The 42-inch pipeline would connect between Perryville, Louisiana, cross into the state of Mississippi, and then back into Louisiana to connect to the LNG plant.
If all goes according to Venture Global's plans, construction on the Delta LNG project could start as soon as late 2021 and the plant would be operating by November 2024.
The company said it would file formal plans with FERC in November this year.
This would be Venture Global's third LNG project proposal; it's already developing a 10 million-metric ton Calcasieu Pass project and 20 million metric ton Plaquemines LNG projects.
Citing strong customer demand, Venture Global in March said it would increase its total LNG capacity to 60 million metric tons, suggesting some kind of expansion or additional project was under development.
Venture Global, headquartered in Arlington, Va., is making progress on its other two Louisiana terminals. The Calcasieu Pass project has received all federal approvals and its contractor Kiewit plans to start site work soon. The terminal has 20-year supply agreements with several customers, including the international energy companies Royal Dutch Shell and BP. However the project's financing aren't yet complete, reported energy research and news firm ICIS.
Calcasieu Pass is scheduled to start shipping in 2022. Venture Global's Plaquemines project is expected to receive its final FERC authorization in August and start construction later in the year, the company said.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Venture-Global-proposes-third-LNG-project-on-Gulf-13788944.php?cmpid=ffcp
-
DHS To Share List Of Infrastructure Crown Jewels
Apr 24, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak,
What parts of U.S. critical infrastructure are so vital that their impairment would trigger a national emergency?
The Department of Homeland Security is poised to answer that question next week when officials unveil a list of roughly 57 "national critical functions."
The closely watched list will mark one of the first work products to come from DHS's new National Risk Management Center, part of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
"What are those things that actually matter — that, if interrupted, at the literal end of the day the economy would crater?" CISA Director Chris Krebs asked yesterday at a cybersecurity conference hosted by the Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C.
Multiple DHS officials have confirmed the set will include energy infrastructure, including portions of the power grid and natural gas pipelines.
Krebs told reporters on the sidelines of the conference that the functions themselves would be categorical — less specific than, say, "large power transformers" but more targeted than "power generation."
Krebs said the set of can't-lose functions would help shed light on where to prioritize cyberdefenses. DHS analysts developed the nearly five dozen items based on input from a range of private firms, including banks and nuclear power plant owners.
He cited the Triton malware as a hypothetical example. Researchers dug up that malicious tool from deep within the industrial safety systems at the Petro Rabigh refinery in Saudi Arabia two years ago, where it had infected Schneider Electric SE safety systems with an apparently deadly aim. The disclosure of the never-before-seen hack sent a shudder through U.S. oil refiners and petrochemical companies.
Several other industries rely on the same types of systems targeted by the malware.
"Let's take Triton and say, 'Look, who's potentially at play across the sectors and the national critical functions?'" Krebs said. "You could light them up. You could say, 'These 23' again.
"We just didn't visualize this the same way previously."
Krebs added that he expects the list of crucial functions to be a living document, with certain categories dropping off or reappearing from year to year.
The effort is part of a broader push by Krebs and his colleagues to cement DHS — and CISA specifically — as the central clearinghouse for securing U.S. civilian cyberspace, from .gov domains to electric power utilities.
U.S. lawmakers blew wind into the directorate's sails last year with the passage of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Act, which carved out CISA as an independent agency.
"Congress recognized, with a lot of prodding from not just the Trump administration but from the prior administration, that the federal government needs a clearly recognized single point of entry; a single point of coordination for critical infrastructure and cybersecurity risk management," Krebs said.
Sources say CISA's newfound independence has kept it at least somewhat insulated from leadership shifts at DHS headquarters, where cybersecurity stalwart Kirstjen Nielsen was ousted as Homeland Security secretary in favor of acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan, who had previously led Customs and Border Protection.
Jeanette Manfra, assistant director for cybersecurity at CISA, said in an interview Monday that the shift at the top "hasn't affected us at all."
"Acting Secretary McAleenan is supportive of our work, and things have largely continued apace," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/04/24/stories/1060207443
-
‘Chemical Detox for The Workplace’: Progressive Think Tank Publishes Guidance For Workers, Reps
Apr 23, 2019 | Safety+Health Magazine
Washington — A new guide from the Center for Progressive Reform is intended to help workers and their representatives find resources on chemical hazards and then use that information to “achieve a nontoxic workplace.”
In Chemical Detox for the Workplace: A Guide to Securing a Nontoxic Work Environment, the advocacy group recommends moving faster than OSHA and the Environmental Protection Agency to secure a safer and healthier work environment where potential exposure to toxic chemicals exists.
“Agencies like OSHA and EPA encounter serious obstacles when developing workplace protections against toxic substances, even when they have overwhelming scientific evidence of significant health risks,” Thomas McGarity, guide co-author and CPR board member, said in an April 17 press release. “The difficulty results not from a lack of data, but from intense lobbying from well-funded industries.”
The guide is divided into three main sections. The first provides tactics for reducing risks and helping injured employees. Among the subjects are how to work with an employer to use safer alternatives to toxic chemicals, as well as how to file a complaint with OSHA, submit a tip to EPA and involve the legal system.
The second provides an overview of federal laws, and the third is designed to help interested parties diminish hazards in the workplace and identify chemical information. The guide also includes case studies.
An estimated 50,000 U.S. workers die every year from work-related diseases, with most resulting from toxic chemical exposures, CPR claims, citing a 2018 AFL-CIO report. Workers who are at increased risk include those in agriculture, domestic cleaning, hair and nail salons, home repairs, building construction, and chemical manufacturing.
Although the guide does not cover every issue or situation workers may face, it is our hope that it will assist with identifying the appropriate questions to ask; initiating research on chemicals of concern in the workplace; and collaborating with other workers, unions and local organizers to take action,” Sidney Shapiro, co-author and CPR board member, said in the release.
CPR is scheduled to host a webinar on the guide at 1 p.m. Eastern on May 8.
https://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/18328-chemical-detox-for-the-workplace-progressive-think-tank-publishes-guidance-for-workers-reps
-
11 Protesters Arrested After Blocking Railroad Tracks
Apr 24, 2019 | Associated Press (In E&E Climatewire)
Police arrested 11 protesters who had blocked railroad tracks in northwest Portland, Ore., since Sunday and demanded local action in response to climate change.
The Oregonian reports the protesters were part of a local chapter of Extinction Rebellion, an environmental activist group based in the United Kingdom that has been staging climate demonstrations for about two weeks.
The Portland protesters had been occupying a small portion of track near a terminal owned by Zenith Energy, a Houston-based company that stores millions of barrels of crude oil, petroleum products and vegetable oils worldwide.
Protesters dumped topsoil and straw on the tracks Sunday and planted a garden.
The Portland Police Bureau said that officers were called by the property owners and that after several warnings to leave, protesters were arrested on second-degree criminal trespass charges.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/04/24/stories/1060206939
-
Ozone Pollution Region Doesn’t Need Expanding, Court Says (1)
Apr 23, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The Clean Air Act doesn’t require the EPA to expand an East Coast region struggling with chronic ozone problems unless existing programs to reduce pollution aren’t working, a federal appeals court ruled April 23.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied a challenge led by New York and joined by seven other states that are part of the Ozone Transport Region. They wanted the Environmental Protection Agency to expand the Ozone Transport Region by adding nine more states that are home to power plants sending ozone-forming pollution across state lines.
Congress established the Ozone Transport Region of 11 Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states to address air pollution from ground-level ozone. Power plant and automobile emissions chiefly cause this form of pollution, which is linked with aggravated asthma and other respiratory problems.
The eight states had asked the court to review EPA’s refusal in November 2017 to expand the region to prevent pollution from Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia, and areas of Virginia from worsening air quality in downwind states.
Defers to AgencyThe D.C. Circuit, in denying review of EPA’s actions, said it was deferring to the agency. The EPA had argued that expanding the region is unnecessary because ozone pollution levels are trending downward and the instances of problematic ozone concentrations remain “few and isolated.”
“In light of this undisputed trend, EPA had a sufficient ‘basis in the record’ for predicting that improvement would continue under the current regulatory regime,” Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel. “Nothing more is required under the extremely deferential review we must apply here.”
Judges Robert L. Wilkins and Gregory G. Katsas joined Randolph in ruling that the states gave them no reason to question the EPA’s judgment that its current approach for regulating “the interstate transport of ozone is a proven, efficient, and cost-effective means of addressing downwind air quality concerns that the agency has employed and refined over nearly two decades.”
More importantly, “nowhere does the statute require EPA to add States to a region unless EPA’s other options will eliminate ozone pollution,” they wrote.
The eight states that brought the challenge against the EPA are New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
The New York attorney general’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment on whether it would seek a rehearing.
‘Disappointing’ DecisionPaul Miller, executive director for the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, or NESCAUM, which includes several of the petitioner states, said the court’s decision is disappointing.
“The downwind states having been using ‘every tool in the toolbox’ under the Clean Air Act to address upwind pollution contributing to their air pollution and public health problems, and EPA has been systematically rejecting the efforts one-by-one,” Miller told Bloomberg Environment in an April 23 email.
The court’s decision to uphold EPA inaction means “downwind states are forced to not only reduce their own contributions, but to reduce even more at added cost to compensate for the contributions from out-of-state that EPA is not addressing,” Miller said.
The case is New York v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 17-01273, 4/23/19.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/court-says-epa-air-programs-sufficient-to-tackle-ozone-pollution
-
Critics Charge EPA Lacks Legal Justification For CSAPR ‘Close-Out’ Rule
Apr 23, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Several states and environmental groups seeking stricter EPA policies to curb interstate ozone air pollution are urging a federal appellate court to scrap the agency’s rule to “close-out” its major cross-border air trading program without requiring additional ozone cuts from states, saying EPA lacks legal justification for the rule.
In opening briefs filed April 19, the states and environmentalists claim the agency unlawfully ignored Clean Air Act compliance deadlines and overestimated expected future cuts in ozone pollution when it finalized the close-out of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). They want the court to vacate the rule and force EPA to craft a replacement rule mandating pollution cuts in time for the 2020 ozone season that runs April through September in New York.
The suit, State of New York, et al. v. EPA, et al., pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenges EPA’s Dec. 21 rule closing out CSAPR, a cap-and-trade program that includes curbs on ozone-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) from power plants in 22 states. The 2018 close-out says 20 states subject to CSAPR can avoid any further tightening of controls on their emissions sources that may currently contribute to problems attaining or maintaining national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in other states downwind.
While the rule does not end existing CSAPR NOx limits, it determines that EPA need not tighten those mandates again to meet the agency’s 2008 ozone NAAQS, set at 75 parts per billion (ppb). The Trump EPA has not proposed any federal trading program to help states meet the tougher 2015 ozone NAAQS, set at 70 ppb.
Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York sued over the close-out rule, as they say additional EPA mandates are vital to cut ozone and help them attain the ozone standards. They fault the agency’s finding that the states will be in attainment with the 75 ppb standard by 2023, noting that the air law imposes a mandate for them to meet the NAAQS by 2021 or risk the federal government withholding highway funds.
The states in their opening brief in State of New York says, “EPA unlawfully disregarded State Petitioners’ 2021 attainment deadline by choosing 2023 as the year for evaluating the availability and need for additional upwind pollution controls.” The agency’s “complete disregard of the 2021 statutory deadline was unlawful,” because it ignores air law requirements for states and the agency to meet NAAQS attainment dates.
“EPA’s analysis of attainment in 2023 was also based on an arbitrary premise: that no further cost-effective emissions reductions are available before then,” states say. In fact, cost-effective measures could be taken swiftly to reduce NOx emissions from “upwind” states further west, such as requiring power plants with control technology already installed to run their controls more often, the states argue.
The states further say EPA’s modeling projecting that essentially all areas of the country outside of California will meet the 2008 NAAQS in 2023 is “flawed.”
The agency “incorporated unreasonable assumptions, improperly assumed that private actors would voluntarily reduce their emissions without any enforceable requirements to do so, and disregarded record data and modeling showing significant uncertainty about EPA’s projections,” the states say.
Seven environmental groups including Sierra Club in their opening brief make similar arguments. EPA’s claim that its rule is permissible so long as it “considers” air law deadlines “flouts” the air law, the groups say. “It also is contrary to decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court establishing that the Clean Air Act’s attainment deadlines leave no room for claims of economic and technological infeasibility, and unreasonably and arbitrarily ignores harm to public health and the environment that will result from this approach.”
Further, “EPA’s claim that ozone pollution reductions are not practicable until 2023 is baseless. EPA’s own findings actually confirm that significant pollution reductions are practicable in the short term through engaging controls that are already installed, but idled; improving the performance of installed controls; shifting generation to lower-polluting and clean power sources; and installing controls on non-power plant industrial sources.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/critics-charge-epa-lacks-legal-justification-csapr-%E2%80%98close-out%E2%80%99-rule
-
Environment Seen as Needing Help Beyond EPA Programs (1)
Apr 23, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Protecting the environment can no longer be viewed as the sole purview of EPA, senior corporate managers and former agency officials said April 23.
Business sustainability efforts, partnerships between nonprofits and companies to reduce hazardous chemical use, and projects that improve local communities’ economic base are needed, according to people from IBM Corp., Xylem Inc., Walmart Inc., and the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund.
In addition, programs that improve access to both health care and clean water should be part of environmental protection in the future, said Terry Yosie, a former director of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board who has also worked for the chemical and petroleum sectors.
But the Environmental Protection Agency still has a critical role to play. It can help the private and public sector address climate change, protect water, and safeguard public health, speakers said.
For example, even if there was a carbon tax, there would be a need for other EPA programs, said Jim Nolan, senior director of regulatory affairs at BP plc.
“There’s a continuing role for EPA,” he said.
The speakers were part of the “EPA and the Future of Environmental Protection” event organized by the Environmental Law Institute, the EPA Alumni Association, and the American University College of Law.
Beyond EPA’s ScopeRegulations, by themselves, won’t solve the climate challenge, former EPA chief Carol M. Browner said.
“We need people to go much, much further,” she said. Browner ran EPA from 1993-2001 under former President Bill Clinton and now works on climate change and other issues at the consulting firm Albright Stonebridge Group in Washington.
The message that environmental protection lies partly in efforts outside of EPA’s purview was echoed by William Reilly, former EPA administrator under George H.W. Bush, and Michael Vandenbergh, who served as EPA chief of staff from 1993-1995 under Clinton.
Corporate investors will play an important role in pushing companies to address climate change, said Reilly and Yosie.
“They’re organized, sophisticated on sustainability—and money talks,” Yosie told the audience of about 300 people, including about 80 former agency staff.
But individuals, organizations, and companies that support the environment must recognize that a large part of the U.S. population no longer does, according to Reilly, from the Bush-era EPA.
Political Reality; WetlandsThe political reality today is that “rural America is not so friendly to the environment or EPA,” Reilly said, as a large part of the country views EPA as excessively intrusive and supports the idea of cutting EPA’s budget and staff by one-third. The EPA under the Trump administration has proposed cutting the agency’s budget by about a third, although Congress kept funding levels roughly flat.
“The agency is really despised in many parts of the country,” Reilly said.
One strategy to deal with that is make sure EPA’s priorities can be achieved, Reilly told reporters.
For example, he pointed to the EPA’s regulation of wetlands, and suggested the agency could narrow the definition of what bodies of water it protects. He said farmers and ranchers don’t view temporary, or “ephemeral” wetlands as playing as valuable a role as permanent ones are, he said.
EPA could work with other parties and differentiate between those wetlands that it must protect, and those that local governments are responsible for, he said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/environmental-protection-said-to-needs-updated-strategy
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested