Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - April 25, 2019
-
EPA Seeks Experts to Review New Economic Model
Apr 24, 2019 | Inside EPA
EPA is seeking experts to peer review a whole economy model that agency economists are developing to assess rules' costs, an effort that seeks to advance long-time calls from Republicans, industry and others to adopt to better account for rules' costs though agency advisors have previously warned officials to proceed cautiously. -
Guest Column: The EPA Outlines Plans for TSCA Implementation in 2019
Apr 25, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Alexandra Dapolito Dunn
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. -
(ACC Mentioned) Washington State Targets Toxic Chemicals
Apr 24, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
Lawmakers in the state of Washington have cleared a bill aimed at protecting people and wildlife from toxic chemicals in consumer products. -
(ACC Mentioned) Washington State Gives Regulators Power to Ban Chemicals
Apr 25, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Washington state regulators will be able to review a broad range of toxic chemicals with an eye to banning their use under a bill passed by the state legislature and heading for the governor’s signature. -
NGOs Urge Investigation of 'Political Interference' in IRIS Formaldehyde Review
Apr 25, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A group of NGOs has called on the US EPA’s scientific integrity office to investigate whether political interference led the agency to suspend work on its risk assessment of formaldehyde under the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) programme. -
EPA Seeks To Update Cancer Risk Guide, Plans New Non-Cancer Guide
Apr 24, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Administrator Andrew Wheeler is asking the agency's science advisors for advice on how to update EPA's guide for assessing chemicals' cancer risks, as well as for crafting new guidance for assessing non-cancer risks and for better communicating risks, suggesting an effort to extend the administration's deregulatory approach to its risk assessment practices. -
NGOs Battle EU Commission Over POPs Flame Retardants Definition
Apr 24, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Caterina Tani
A group of NGOs is applying pressure on the European Commission to withdraw its registration for the recycling of polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants, at the 9th Conference of the Parties of the Stockholm Convention. -
CPSC Considers Changes to US Clothing Textiles Flammability Standard
Apr 25, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is seeking feedback on possible changes to its flammability standard for clothing textiles. -
Consumer Advocates Ask Court to Vacate US FDA Gras Rule
Apr 25, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
The Environmental Defense Fund and the Center for Food Safety have asked a federal district court judge to find that the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Generally Recognized as Safe (Gras) notification programme is unlawful. -
US FDA to Survey Cosmetics Manufacturers
Apr 25, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced plans to conduct a survey of manufacturing processes used in the cosmetics industry, with a particular focus on the practices companies use to ensure product quality and safety. -
UK Skill Shortage Would Make Chemicals Agency a Struggle, Experts Warn
Apr 25, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
The UK would "struggle tremendously" to set up its own chemicals agency post-Brexit because of a severe skills shortage, according to four leading toxicology experts speaking at the first session of the UK Environmental Audit Committee's inquiry into "toxic chemicals in everyday life". -
Development of Echa SVHC Database Resumes After Resources Agreed
Apr 25, 2019 | Chemical Watch
Following months of negotiations, Echa and the European Commission have agreed on the resources needed to develop a prototype of the agency’s SVHC database. -
Sweden Finds Chemicals Leaking From Squeezable Plastic Toys
Apr 25, 2019 | Chemical Watch
Tests conducted in Sweden on squeezable or 'squishy' soft plastic toys have found that they leaked chemicals that can cause irritation to the eyes and the respiratory tract. -
Colorado’s Oil and Gas Rethink Now Shifts to Rulemaking
Apr 25, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D), with the signing of a bill changing the way the state regulates oil and gas, declared an end to the wars among the industry, environmental groups, and local governments concerned about energy development within their borders. -
Indiana Denies Permit For 850 Megawatt Gas Plant
Apr 24, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Ebert
Indiana regulators have denied CenterPoint Energy Inc. subsidiary Vectren South permission to build an 850 megawatt natural gas plant in southern Indiana that would replace several coal-fired facilities. -
Court Again Rejects Fracking in Santa Barbara Channel
Apr 25, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily C. Dooley
A federal judge in Los Angeles has denied a request for a special exemption for two permits that would have allowed fracking in the Santa Barbara Channel in California. -
Judge Won't Lift Pacific Fracking Suspension
Apr 25, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
A federal judge this week declined to reconsider his freeze on hydraulic fracturing permits off the California coast. -
Freeport LNG Terminal Shows Signs of Gas Activity: Platts Analytics
Apr 24, 2019 | Platts
By Harry Weber and Ross Wyeno
Gas deliveries to the Freeport LNG export terminal in Texas appear to have started, S&P Global Platts Analytics data showed Wednesday, as two other US LNG facilities prepare to begin operations. -
Report Ranks Oil Companies by Water, Chemical Management Practices
Apr 24, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Sergio Chapa
A new report from the shareholder advocacy group As You Sow and investment advisory firm Boston Common Asset Management ranks oil companies based on their water and chemicals management practices. -
Green Groups Ask Judge to Uphold Freeze on Keystone Pipeline
Apr 24, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Environmental groups are asking a federal judge to uphold a freeze on the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, despite a new Trump administration permit that seeks to circumvent the order. -
EPA Urged to Reopen Refinery Safety Study After Explosions
Apr 24, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The Environmental Protection Agency should revisit a decades-old study to determine if it understates the risks of an oil refining chemical to workers and communities, a federal safety agency said. -
CSB Urges EPA to Assess Hydrofluoric Acid Study After Refinery Fires
Apr 24, 2019 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB)is urging EPA to reassess its 26-year-old study on the potential risks from refineries’ accidental releases of hydrofluoric acid (HF), citing two recent refinery fires as highlighting concerns over whether the facilities’ risk management plans (RMPs) are adequate to control unplanned HF releases. -
China and America's 400-Ton Electric Albatross
Apr 25, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak and Peter Behr
The White House has blacklisted the Chinese telecommunications companies that dominate the market for 5G wireless systems. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trio of Bills Aim to Reduce Oregon’s Plastic Waste
Apr 25, 2019 | Bend Bulletin
By Gary A. Warner
Three anti-plastic bills are moving through the House and Senate, hoping to avoid the Capitol’s growing midsession legislative trash pit. -
Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Bans on Plastic Bags
Apr 24, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Chris Mills Rodrigo
Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) has reportedly signed a law banning bans and fines on plastic bags. -
Lawsuit Aims to Block Denver's Ozone Downgrade
Apr 24, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
A Colorado industry group has mounted an eleventh-hour legal challenge aimed at averting a downgrade in the ozone attainment status for the fast-growing Denver area. -
House Freshmen Call for Big Federal Spending on Research
Apr 24, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Nick Sobczyk
Freshman Democrats are demanding robust funding for federal climate research programs, likely one of the few climate change policies House Democrats have a chance of forcing through the Republican Senate.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
EPA Seeks Experts to Review New Economic Model
Apr 24, 2019 | Inside EPA
EPA is seeking experts to peer review a whole economy model that agency economists are developing to assess rules' costs, an effort that seeks to advance long-time calls from Republicans, industry and others to adopt to better account for rules' costs though agency advisors have previously warned officials to proceed cautiously.
EPA announced in an April 24 Federal Register that its Science Advisory Board (SAB) “is seeking nominations of environmental economists and other experts with extensive experience building and using [computable general equilibrium (CGE)] models.”
The notice adds that the experts will form an ad hoc panel “charged with reviewing a CGE model developed by EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) for use by agency analysts for the economic analysis of environmental regulations. Experts selected for the panel will be asked to review the model code and documentation, run the model and independently verify how it works to respond to NCEE's charge questions.”
Agency science advisors in the fall of 2017 transmitted to then-Administrator Scott Pruitt a cautionary report agreeing that CGE models would be a useful supplement to the agency's economic analyses of proposed rules, but warning that there are many challenges that make the models' use infeasible.
Under pressure from Republicans, EPA had asked the ad hoc panel of experts to consider advantages and disadvantages of undertaking whole economy modeling, and in particular, to estimate both social and economic costs.
The agency has in the past used CGE models only in a handful of limited applications. Industry representatives and congressional Republicans argue that EPA's analyses regularly understate the costs of its rules, with a particular focus on EPA's air rules.
Although the advisors' 2017 report suggested it will not be easy for the agency to quickly adopt whole economy modeling, the administration's budget request for fiscal year 2018 sought a $662,000 increase for the agency's Regulatory/Economic, Management and Analysis Program, money intended in part to update agency guidelines for assessing rules' costs and benefits.
While the new CGE model could in the past have gone to a standing SAB subcommittee of environmental economists, SAB is creating a new ad hoc panel because the Trump EPA disbanded several standing committees last year, including the Environmental Economics Advisory Committee.
Review of the new model comes as several major universities are creating a new panel of environmental economists, known as the External Environmental Economics Advisory Committee in response to EPA's disbanding of SAB's standing economic panel.
Consisting of environmental economists with universities like Yale, Duke, the University of California Berkeley and others, as well as the think tank Resources for the Future, the new group “will operate independently of the federal government, reviewing proposed regulations and offering recommendations to help promote public health protection, economic cost-effectiveness and sound science,” according to an April 23 press release from the University of Southern California (USC).
“Our mission is to provide independent advice on the state-of-the-science with regard to the benefits, costs and design of the EPA’s environmental programs," Antonio Bento, a professor of public policy and economics at USC and one of the new committee's members says in the release.
The group is funded by the Luskin Center for Innovation at UCLA, Roberts Environmental Center at Claremont McKenna College and The Sloan Foundation and “intends to operate until the EPA reconstitutes an internal environmental economics advisory committee composed of independent economists.”
The new committee's effort mirrors a similar panel formed by the Association of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors last year, after Pruitt issued new policies on EPA advisory committees' membership in October 2017.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-seeks-experts-review-new-economic-model
-
Guest Column: The EPA Outlines Plans for TSCA Implementation in 2019
Apr 25, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Alexandra Dapolito Dunn
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.
'The agency is delivering results and meeting the ambitious requirements and responsibilities of the new law'
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'
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.
'The EPA will review all claims for confidentiality of a specific chemical name for all chemicals on the active portion of the TSCA Inventory'
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-the-epa-outlines-plans-for-tsca-implementation-in-2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Washington State Targets Toxic Chemicals
Apr 24, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
Lawmakers in the state of Washington have cleared a bill aimed at protecting people and wildlife from toxic chemicals in consumer products. The legislation, which Gov. Jay Inslee (D) is expected to sign, requires state agencies to identify and regulate classes of chemicals that pose a health risk to sensitive populations such as pregnant women and children and endangered species like orcas.
“The same toxic chemicals found in our homes and bodies are also found in wastewater, storm water, sediments, and fish and wildlife,” Mindy Roberts, director of the Puget Sound Program at the Washington Environmental Council, an advocacy group, says in a statement. “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 targets several chemical classes, including phthalates, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, polychlorinated biphenyls, alkylphenol ethoxylates, bisphenols, and organohalogen flame retardants. It gives the Washington State Department of Ecology authority to ban such chemicals in consumer products if the agency determines that safer alternatives are available.
“Washington state is leading the way, showing other states and the nation how to protect communities and the environment from toxic threats,” says Sarah Doll, national director of Safer States, a network of environmental health advocacy groups. “This victory is especially important given that the federal administration is failing to protect the health of people and the environment from harmful chemicals.”
An overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in 2016 gave the US Environmental Protection Agency new authorities to regulate toxic chemicals. Chemical manufacturers supported TSCA reform to stop states from creating a patchwork of different chemical laws. Environmental groups claim that the EPA is not using those authorities, so states like Washington are taking matters into their own hands, creating the very laws that chemical manufacturers fought to stop.
“By establishing a stronger, robust federal chemical regulatory program, the 2016 amendments to TSCA provide important regulatory certainty to the business community,” the American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers, says in an emailed statement. TSCA reform also “relieves state governments of the need to invest significant resources in the complex job of regulating chemicals,” the group says.
https://cen.acs.org/policy/chemical-regulation/Washington-state-targets-toxic-chemicals/97/i17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Washington State Gives Regulators Power to Ban Chemicals
Apr 25, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Washington state regulators will be able to review a broad range of toxic chemicals with an eye to banning their use under a bill passed by the state legislature and heading for the governor’s signature.
Once signed, the measure means the regulators will be the second in the nation—after California—to have the ability to enact outright bans on chemicals in consumer products deemed harmful without first getting explicit approval from lawmakers.
The bill, SSB 5135, passed on April 22 and is intended to protect not only humans, but critically endangered orca traversing the waters of Puget Sound. The killer whales consume salmon contaminated by toxic chemicals that researchers believemay have contributed to the failure of seven of 10 orca pregnancies.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) convened a task force in 2018 to recommend measures to protect the whales. The bill emerged in part from the work of the task force. Inslee spokeswoman Tara Lee confirmed that the governor will sign the measure when it reaches his desk.
“He supports efforts to protect orcas,” she said. Inslee has announced that he will run for president in 2020.
Five-Year CycleIt will likely be years before the first regulatory actions are taken by the state Department of Ecology under the measure, which lays out an exhaustive process of fact-finding and consultation with the chemical industry and outside groups.
The bill mandates that the department identify five priority chemicals every five years. Among the many considerations in prioritizing a chemical—or an entire class of compounds—are their hazardous properties, persistence in the environment, and bio-accumulation in people or sensitive species such as orca.
Once the potentially problematic chemicals are identified, the department must then identify consumer products that contain those chemicals, identify regulatory actions to reduce exposures to them, and formalize those actions in final rulemakings.
Chemical Industry ConcernsRegulatory action can be taken if the department determines that safer alternatives are feasible and available; the priority chemical is not functionally necessary in the priority consumer product; another state or nation has restricted the priority chemical; or it is necessary to protect the health of sensitive populations of people or wildlife.
“The American Chemistry Council remains concerned with the bill’s underlying presumption that the presence of any identified high priority chemical in a consumer product means that the product is potentially harmful,” the council said in an April 24 email.
“Additionally the legislation gives the Department of Ecology expanded authority to determine if a chemical is ‘functionally necessary’ if an alternative is ‘feasible and available.’ Just because an alternative is available and could be used does not mean that it is in the best interest of the consumer to use the alternative and giving the Department the right to determine the necessity of a chemical product opens the door to decisions not being based on the best available science,” the council added.
State Actions LimitedSen. Reuven Carlyle (D), chairman of the Committee on Environment and helped sponsor the measure, said: “I think we actually did a responsible job of having a balance between flexibility and following science.”
Federal amendments to the nation’s primary industrial chemicals law passed in June of 2016 can impinge on Washington state’s power.
According to the Environmental Council of the States, if the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publishes a plan called a “scope of a risk evaluation” for a chemical, states are “paused” from taking actions to control that chemical until the federal agency completes its review.
Laurie Valeriano, executive director of Toxic-Free Future, said in a statement: “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.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/washington-state-lawmakers-ok-regulatory-power-to-ban-chemicals
-
NGOs Urge Investigation of 'Political Interference' in IRIS Formaldehyde Review
Apr 25, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A group of NGOs has called on the US EPA’s scientific integrity office to investigate whether political interference led the agency to suspend work on its risk assessment of formaldehyde under the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) programme.
In a 16 April letter – submitted by the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Environmental Protection Network (EPN) – the NGOs said public documents and information obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request point to "significant and sustained political interference in the risk assessment process" of the widely used substance.
And an investigation is needed "to understand whether the IRIS formaldehyde assessment has been suppressed and set aside by any staff at the agency, or if any other losses of scientific integrity occurred", they wrote to scientific integrity official Francesca Grifo.
The development is the latest in a years-long, and recently intensifying, debate over the programme’s review of formaldehyde. Industry groups have long disputed a 2010 draft assessment that linked the substance to leukaemia, while concern has grown about efforts to suppress publication of an updated version.
The issue has come to the forefront in recent months, after formaldehyde was excluded from a DecemberIRIS programme outlook, despite reportedly having been ready to be released for peer review since autumn 2017. The omission was the result of a prioritisation exercise which, as reported in a subsequent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, saw IRIS officials conduct "a survey of programme and regional offices, asking them to reconfirm their needs for 20 assessments that were in development."
The resulting list of IRIS priorities comprised only 11 substances, and did not include formaldehyde.
But in their letter, the four NGOs have protested that this is at odds with internal agency communications they have obtained through a public records inquiry.
In a November 2017 email, leadership at the EPA’s air office told the Office of Research and Development (ORD) that it had a "strong interest in this [IRIS] review and are anxious to see it completed".
"We have consistently identified formaldehyde as a priority," said director Erika Sasser in the correspondence to the ORD’s Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta. "We greatly value the rigour of the IRIS programme’s unit risk evaluations."
And the NGOs have flagged up concern about what this exchange means in view of the subsequent decision to drop the IRIS assessment: "Since senior EPA staff knew of the air programme’s keen interest in the status of the formaldehyde assessment, its exclusion from the list of prioritised chemicals appears to be political," they wrote.
The substance also appears to be of interest to the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, given that the agency named the substance a candidate for designation as high priority under TSCA last month.
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler recently confirmed that there are no plans to complete the IRIS assessment, but rather it will be reviewed under TSCA.
"We decided that it was more important to go ahead and put formaldehyde through the TSCA programme because, at the end of the day, we can regulate formaldehyde under TSCA," he told Congress earlier this month.
Nevertheless, the NGOs’ letter calls on the scientific integrity office to investigate "why the scientific opinions of staff at OAR [Office of Air and Radiation] were not considered when prioritising IRIS assessments to release."
"Permitting the suppression of this study to persist unchecked normalises political interference at the agency and sends a message to career staff that their knowledge and expertise is not valued," they added.
The EPA’s scientific integrity policy was adopted in February 2012. It applies to all agency employees and "provides a framework to promote scientific and ethical standards and to create a proactive culture to support them."
The EPA did not respond to a request for comment by the deadline.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76756/ngos-urge-investigation-of-political-interference-in-iris-formaldehyde-review
-
EPA Seeks To Update Cancer Risk Guide, Plans New Non-Cancer Guide
Apr 24, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Administrator Andrew Wheeler is asking the agency's science advisors for advice on how to update EPA's guide for assessing chemicals' cancer risks, as well as for crafting new guidance for assessing non-cancer risks and for better communicating risks, suggesting an effort to extend the administration's deregulatory approach to its risk assessment practices.
“The agency anticipates asking for [Science Advisory Board (SAB)] advice regarding upcoming actions related to an update to the 2005 EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, creation of guidelines for non-cancer risk assessment and specific advice on improving agency risk communication,” Wheeler writes in an April 19 letter to SAB members.
Wheeler's letter responds to a 2018 request from SAB seeking to review the science underlying a series of pending deregulatory measures, though the administrator rejected all but one of the board's requests.
However, he also asked SAB for advice on how to revise EPA's risk assessment practices, including the agency's guidelines for assessing cancer risks.
Because many decisions involving chemicals are based on animal toxicology studies in which lab animals are exposed to amounts far greater than humans experience in the environment, assessors extrapolate study information to model dose-response at human exposure levels.
EPA's existing guidelines on cancer risk assessment direct that agency risk assessors use linear extrapolation -- which assume no safe level of exposure -- as a default, when there is insufficient information about how a chemical causes cancer biologically, or when the chemical is considered mutagenic. Nonlinear extrapolation can be used if there is sufficient evidence that a chemical has a non-mutagenic biological mechanism (MOA) for producing cancer.
Industry and other regulated entities have long protested the implementation of this guidance, particularly by the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program, whose assessments have rarely stepped away from the linear defaults.
Critics charge this results in overly-stringent risk analyses that drive strict policies. IRIS leaders and its proponents argue that the approach is health-protective in the face of uncertainty about how most chemicals cause cancer.
Any revision to the cancer guideline could also raise doubts about the future of two pending IRIS assessments for hexavalent chromium (Cr6) and arsenic as earlier draft versions of both assessments used linear dose-response approaches.
IRIS released a systematic review protocol for the Cr6 assessment last month and is taking public comment through April 29. According to the latest update on its agenda, EPA indicates it plans to release a draft assessment for public comment in the first quarter of fiscal year 2021.
The IRIS outlook document says the program plans to release the arsenic systematic review protocol May 17. The National Academy of Sciences, which will review the draft assessment, has scheduled a July 16 meeting to review the protocol.
Both the draft assessments have prompted significant pushback from industry and other regulated entities, who charge the substances' MOAs do not warrant linear risk modeling. They also fear that if the draft assessments are finalized in their current forms, they will drive strict -- and costly -- new regulatory requirements that will be difficult to implement.
Harmonized Approaches
The language in Wheeler's letter provides greater clarity to the scope of a new guidelines development project that the administrator's office recently asked EPA's Science Technology Policy Council (STPC) and Risk Assessment Forum (RAF) undertake.
Sources say the request, presented at a recent STPC meeting by acting research chief Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, was so confusing that STPC asked for more information before commencing the project.
Still, a document outlining the original request -- reviewed by Inside EPA in early April -- provides some examples of issues Wheeler seeks to address through new guides and is consistent with updating EPA's existing guidance on cancer and non-cancer risk assessment.
Responding to a request from Wheeler, EPA's Science Advisor recommended in the document that STPC “consider a set of hazard and dose-response issues and decide on which issues the RAF should develop harmonized approaches across the agency.”
The RAF, a group of risk assessors from various agency programs, will develop “EPA-wide guidance where risk-assessment practices diverge across EPA offices that conduct hazard and dose-response evaluations,” the document says.
But the group in the past has worked at a glacial pace, making it unlikely that the guidelines will be revised in time to address either the hexavalent chromium or the arsenic assessment -- though the internal document seeks a draft version to be completed by “late Fall” of 2019 and a final version by December 2020 “but sooner if possible.”
The internal agency document also includes several examples of issues it seeks to harmonize, including “linear vs. threshold dose response extrapolation, non-cancer hazard identifiers, and updating reference dose and reference concentration processes.”
While Wheeler's letter appears to suggest that EPA does not have guidance for non-cancer risk assessment, over the years, RAF has published numerous guides on how EPA assessors should conduct such risk analyses, such as the 2002 “Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes,” the 1996 “Guidelines for Reproductive Toxicity Risk Assessment,” and 2012's “Microbial Risk Assessment Guideline” and “Benchmark Dose Technical Guidance.”
The documents indicate Wheeler seeks to develop consistent risk assessment guidance across the agency. When EPA faced similar concerns in the 1980s -- different program offices were developing different assessments of the same environmental pollutants, resulting in different decisions on the same chemical by different parts of the agency -- EPA responded by creating the IRIS program. Former EPA scientists who developed IRIS say that the goal was to create a centralized body for creating dose-response analyses in a consistent manner. These risk estimates were then published for the program offices to use in their risk assessments.
But the Trump EPA has largely sought to sideline the IRIS program, which industry and other critics say crafts overly conservative risk estimates that drive overly strict regulations.
Meanwhile, Wheeler's letter explains in a footnote that “EPA recently formed an agency-wide Risk Communications Work Group in order to elevate and clarify how EPA communicates about risk. This is a top priority for the Administrator, and this effort may present opportunities for additional engagement with the Board.”
Improving EPA's risk communications has been a priority for Wheeler since he began serving as acting administrator last year. His efforts, however, have been undercut by questions about Trump officials' conflict of interest, and a lack of trust in the Trump EPA.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-seeks-update-cancer-risk-guide-plans-new-non-cancer-guide
-
NGOs Battle EU Commission Over POPs Flame Retardants Definition
Apr 24, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Caterina Tani
A group of NGOs is applying pressure on the European Commission to withdraw its registration for the recycling of polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants, at the 9th Conference of the Parties of the Stockholm Convention.
The new limit for the cumulative sum of all BDEs – which includes decaBDE – in articles and mixtures under the EU POPs Regulation is set at 500mg/kg. It was adopted on 18 April by the European Parliament as part of the recast of the Regulation after Council agreement in February.
In an exchange of letters ahead of the COP, which will take place from 29 April to 10 May, the seven NGOs disputed EU environment commissioner Karmenu Vella’s argument that the limit value is within that specified as the unintentional trace contaminant level, in accordance with Article 4(1)(b) of the recast.
The definition of unintentional trace contamination, the NGOs said, is "a level below which the substance cannot be meaningfully used and above the detection limit of existing detection methods to enable control and enforcement".
The group, which includes Arnika, the Centre for International Envirionmental Law (Ciel), the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) and the International POPs Elimination Network (Ipen), argued that the 500mg/kg (ppm) concentration value of PBDEs "certainly does not constitute a ‘meaningful use’ as it cannot supply a flame retardant function".
Conventional laboratory methods, such as gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry, can measure PBDEs with a 0.5-2.5ng/g (ppb) limit of detection, they said. "For this reason, the current value of 500mg/kg (ppm) does not meet the definition of unintentional trace contamination."
There is no reason, they add, to increase the limit value above 10ppm for unintentional trace contaminants.
The levels of PBDEs measured in recycled plastic products on the EU market are "too high to be consistent with unintentional trace contaminants", the group said. Data indicates that the levels in these products are the result of toxic recycling, they said.
The levels of PBDEs measured in recycled plastic products on the EU market are too high to be consistent with unintentional trace contaminants, say the NGOs
This "directly conflicts" with the convention’s prohibition on the recycling of materials containing decaBDE.
"If the European Commission insists that only unintentional trace contamination of PBDEs in articles is allowed, then the European Union should publicly withdraw its registration for the recycling of PBDEs [...] at the upcoming 9th Conference of the Parties of the Stockholm Convention."
The "principal consequence" of the PBDE recycling exemption in the Stockholm Convention, the group said, is contamination of products made of recycled plastic or foam with toxic chemicals.
To comply with the convention, the sum limit for tetra-, penta-, hexa-, hepta, and decaBDE should be 10ppm for decaBDE and other PBDE substances, giving the alternative of a maximum of 50ppm for the sum of all POP-PBDEs, the NGOs added.Waste limit
In its letter, the group also raised concerns about the 1,000mg/kg waste limit.
They argued that the original concentration limit of 1,000mg/kg (ppm) for the sum of the POP-PBDEs (tetra-, penta-, hexa-, heptaBDE) in waste, established in Annex IV of the recast, was "set inconsistently" with the conclusions of the EU’s own consultants.
The recommended lower level for each of the PBDEs (tetra-, penta-, hexa- and heptaBDE) was 10ppm. This, the NGOs said, meant a total of 50ppm for mixtures of the POP-BDEs including decaBDE – not 1,000mg/kg.
The proposed limit of 1,000ppm for PBDEs "should be strengthened to a science-based limitation of 50ppm".
While the policies have a revision clause after two years, the data on PBDE contamination in EU consumer products "should result in a prompt revision to prevent further contamination and exposure", they added.
EU consumers should be able to purchase products made of recycled materials "without having to worry that they contain substances that are globally banned due to their very harmful properties".
https://chemicalwatch.com/76763/ngos-battle-eu-commission-over-pops-flame-retardants-definition
-
CPSC Considers Changes to US Clothing Textiles Flammability Standard
Apr 25, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is seeking feedback on possible changes to its flammability standard for clothing textiles.
Among the proposed amendments is one expanding the list of fabrics that are exempt from testing under the standard to include spandex.
The agency is also taking comment on a dry cleaning procedure specified as part of the process for refurbishing plain and raised textile fabrics. The existing procedure calls for the solvent perchloroethylene.
"Staff is aware of the limited availability of, and legal restrictions on the use of, perchloroethylene solvent," says the 23 April Federal Register notice. Perchloroethylene is one of the first ten substances subject to risk evaluation under the reformed TSCA.
The CPSC is seeking comment on the testing burden and cost of performing this dry cleaning procedure, and has asked for information on potential alternatives.
General recommendations for how the agency can reduce the cost of testing requirements associated with it flammability standard for clothing textiles are also being accepted.
Comments are due 24 June.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76820/cpsc-considers-changes-to-us-clothing-textiles-flammability-standard
-
Consumer Advocates Ask Court to Vacate US FDA Gras Rule
Apr 25, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
The Environmental Defense Fund and the Center for Food Safety have asked a federal district court judge to find that the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Generally Recognized as Safe (Gras) notification programme is unlawful.
At issue is a 2016 rule that allows the use of food additives without pre-market approval, provided they meet the same safety standards of other approved substances. Notifying the FDA of a manufacturer’s decision that a substance is Gras is voluntary.
The NGOs argue in a 26 March motion for summary judgement that this ‘Gras rule’ effectively allows the industry to self-regulate, and runs contrary to the FDA’s founding mission – outlined in the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 – to ensure the nation’s food is free from harmful substances.
They have requested that the court "vacate the rule and require FDA to promulgate a rule implementing the FFDCA faithfully and in compliance with constitutional principles and statutory mandates."
In a blogpost explaining the organisation’s rationale, EDF chemicals policy director Tom Neltner says that under the Gras rule the agency has "formally and unlawfully outsourced its responsibility to the regulated entities themselves". This "makes it all but impossible for FDA to fulfill its obligations under the FFDCA."
The organisations have other concerns as well, including that the final Gras rule: undermines the legal requirement that the FDA and food manufacturers consider the cumulative effect of "any chemically or pharmacologically related …substances" in the diet;ignores evidence, presented in a 2010 report by the congressional Government Accountability Office, that the FDA does not systematically ensure the continued safety of Gras substances; anddoes not have sufficient criteria, such as spot checks and random audits, to comply with the FFDCA.Years-long battle
The motion for summary judgement last month comes as the latest development in the advocacy community’s almost two-year effort to vacate the Gras rule.
A group of five NGOs initially sued the FDA over the rule in the southern district of New York in May 2017. Four months later, the FDA moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the organisations did not have legal standing to sue.
However, in September 2018 a judge determined that two of the five plaintiffs – EDF and CFS – could "plausibly allege harm to their members", and therefore denied the FDA’s request to dismiss the case. The two organisations have since taken the case forward.Ruling ‘could take a while’
The FDA has until 28 May to respond to the NGOs’ motion.The timeline on the judge’s final ruling, however, is unclear.
"I wouldn’t be surprised if we have a decision from the judge by the end of the year," Mr Neltner told Chemical Watch. "But the judge took a long time on the first motion … so it could take a while. It could be another year."
It is also unclear what the scope of that ruling would look like, and whether a decision to vacate the Gras rule could be applied retroactively.
"If the judge rules that the secrecy [of the Gras safety determinations] means that all the prior safety decisions are not legitimate, it would call into doubt all of the [previous determinations] that industry has done in secret," said Mr Neltner.
While the current Gras rule was updated in October of 2016, the FDA has been adhering to it since it was proposed in 1997.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76758/consumer-advocates-ask-court-to-vacate-us-fda-gras-rule
-
US FDA to Survey Cosmetics Manufacturers
Apr 25, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced plans to conduct a survey of manufacturing processes used in the cosmetics industry, with a particular focus on the practices companies use to ensure product quality and safety.
The FDA says it comes as part of its "ongoing effort to add to our understanding of the cosmetic industry and manufacturing practices."
"To date, the FDA has not identified in the published literature any systematic, detailed study that could enlighten the FDA on the diversity of practices and standards employed across the cosmetic industry," it said. The survey is intended to fill this knowledge gap.
The agency says it has randomly selected around 900 manufacturers to take part. An outside contractor will be reporting only "unidentified individual responses" to the FDA, and masking information so that responders cannot be identified.
Once complete, the results will be shared with the public.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76819/us-fda-to-survey-cosmetics-manufacturers
-
UK Skill Shortage Would Make Chemicals Agency a Struggle, Experts Warn
Apr 25, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
The UK would "struggle tremendously" to set up its own chemicals agency post-Brexit because of a severe skills shortage, according to four leading toxicology experts speaking at the first session of the UK Environmental Audit Committee's inquiry into "toxic chemicals in everyday life".
"There has been a tremendous lack of funding over many years from the research councils for training students in ecotoxicology, toxicology and environmental chemistry," said Michael Depledge from the University of Exeter's Medical School.
The scientists – all of whom are on Defra's Hazardous Substances Advisory Committee (HSAC) – strongly advised that the UK should continue to follow EU chemical regulations, because the UK does not have the expertise to replace them. "Sticking with the EU would be by far the wisest thing that we could do," said John Sumpter from Brunel University London.
Andrew Johnson from research organisation the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology warned that "it would be alarming to lose a lot of the collaboration and expertise and benefits that we get from Echa, should we be put in that position". But, he added, it would be valuable for the UK to be able to review its approach to chemical regulation. "We shouldn't be afraid of getting the best knowledge and expertise from around the world, learning from that previous experience."
Chair Mary Creagh MP voiced the committee's concerns over the UK's plans post-Brexit. "In terms of the HSE [Health and Safety Executive], which would be the new chemicals regulator, we, this committee, was concerned that there would be a number of management and technical committees that would not be replicated in the way that they are under REACH. And no accredited stakeholders, NGOs and trade unions being able to attend," she said.
"The Commission's role is taken over by the Secretary of State, so it's officials advising minister and then it's ministerial fiat essentially regulating chemicals," she warned.Chemical numbers
The experts are alarmed by the rate at which new chemicals appear on the market. As members of HSAC, "one of the things that has emerged from our discussions is the fact that since 1950 there has been a 50-fold increase in global chemical production. And by 2050 we think there will be another three-fold increase, which is huge," said Professor Depledge.
"One of the challenges is to try to define a chemical environment that we would find acceptable to live in. And once we have done that we need to develop policies that would take us to that place," he added. "At the moment it is firefighting. Each chemical that comes along – probably there are about 2,000 new chemicals a year coming along – we try to make regulations for them. We can't get through them all."
Professor Sumpter called for a move away from today's testing of an endless stream of single chemicals. "The only sensible strategy probably is to say we need to be using [fewer] chemicals. And that is probably the only way to drive down exposure ... We are going in the opposite direction at the moment," he said.
The experts agreed that public education is critical. "We have made a really rather poor job of making people aware of what chemicals they are exposed to, what the risks are, how they can minimise those risks and so on. Most people are not aware of what they are exposed to," said Professor Depledge.
The Environmental Audit Committee started its inquiry in February. It is focusing on how toxic chemicals are used in everyday substances, on environmental and human health problems, and on current government regulation.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76821/uk-skill-shortage-would-make-chemicals-agency-a-struggle-experts-warn
-
Development of Echa SVHC Database Resumes After Resources Agreed
Apr 25, 2019 | Chemical Watch
Following months of negotiations, Echa and the European Commission have agreed on the resources needed to develop a prototype of the agency’s SVHC database.
The database came out of the revised waste framework Directive (WFD) that entered into force in July. It will hold information provided by companies producing, importing or supplying articles that contain candidate list substances.
They will need to submit this information for articles placed on the market from 5 January 2021. The agency has until the end of this year to develop it.
Echa told Chemical Watch that the "necessary resources" have been agreed to ensure a prototype is ready in advance of the 2021 reporting deadline. It did not provide details on the allocated resources.
The agency has confirmed that development has resumed, after work stalled due to the negotiations.
However, due to the delay, Echa says it will find meeting the 5 January 2020 deadline "very difficult" but is "committed to making it available for testing in early 2020".
It expects to have the information submission tools fully operational "well in advance" of the 2021 deadline. The prototype will "include all the elements needed for the submission of notifications by article suppliers and information processing within Echa".
While resources for the prototype have been agreed, details around the long-term needs of the database "may still require further discussions" between the agency and the European Commission, said Echa.Requirements and concerns
Industry has raised concerns about what information the agency will require them to provide. Echa said it is "striving" to confirm and publish the information requirements on its website by the summer.
Industry associations from the automotive and aerospace sectors have said the database brings with it "unnecessary burdens", while European recycling industry association, EuRIC, said it will add "little benefit".
However, three waste treatment and recycling associations told Chemical Watch recently that they supportthe database because, through the increased information it will provide, operators will be able to better manage waste streams.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76811/development-of-echa-svhc-database-resumes-after-resources-agreed
-
Sweden Finds Chemicals Leaking From Squeezable Plastic Toys
Apr 25, 2019 | Chemical Watch
Tests conducted in Sweden on squeezable or 'squishy' soft plastic toys have found that they leaked chemicals that can cause irritation to the eyes and the respiratory tract.
The Swedish Chemicals Agency (Kemi) said all of the 21 squishy toys it tested leaked irritant substances, with the highest concentrations occurring when the toy is first removed from the package. The leakage decreased over time, it added.
The results follow the European Commission's latest report on the EU's Safety Gate rapid alert system for dangerous products (Rapex), which identified squishy toys as an emerging area of concern.
There were 23 alerts in 2018 for these types of toys, 14 of them due to a chemical-related risk.
Kemi tested the toys, made from foamed polyurethane plastic, for seven types of chemicals. These were:dimetylaminoetanol;N,N-dimetylformamid (DMF);cyklohexanon;trietylendiamin;bis(2-(dimetylamino)etyl)eter);1,1,4,7,7-pentametyldietylentriamin; andxylen.
It concluded that the risks the squishy toys may pose to children are not compatible with the EU legislation on toy safety and should be removed from the market.
Kemi's tests followed similar findings in a survey last year by the Danish EPA.
Children should avoid playing with squishy toys close to the face, for example by squeezing or smelling them, and should not sleep with them, the agency said. They should not be given to babies and toddlers as they may bite or suck them and this can cause suffocation, it added.
It has also asked manufacturers to investigate the presence of harmful substances and determine whether they may pose a risk to children. Other products made of the same material should also be examined, Kemi said.
The agency called for a review of how the risk from the substances found in foamed polyurethane can be regulated in the toy safety legislation.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76832/sweden-finds-chemicals-leaking-from-squeezable-plastic-toys
-
Colorado’s Oil and Gas Rethink Now Shifts to Rulemaking
Apr 25, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D), with the signing of a bill changing the way the state regulates oil and gas, declared an end to the wars among the industry, environmental groups, and local governments concerned about energy development within their borders.
But the battle over the measure (S.B. 181) has just begun, industry and environmental groups told Bloomberg Environment. The sides remain in sharp conflict over the extent to which regulators should consider public health, safety, and the environment in issuing drilling permits to oil and gas producers.
The clash has now moved to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which will ultimately decide the rules that govern drilling in the state, and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, which oversees air pollution regulation and the state’s rules controlling methane emissions from oil and gas activities.
‘Not the end’“The signing of SB 181 into law is the beginning, not the end, with the focus of this legislation shifting to our state oversight agencies,” Dan Haley, president and CEO of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, told Bloomberg Environment in an emailed statement. “As that happens, we have to remember that we are in no way starting from scratch. Colorado’s oil and natural gas industry already adheres to the toughest regulations in the country, largely because of 15 major rulemakings that have taken place over the past 9 years alone.”
Colorado Rising, an environmental group that promoted a 2018 citizen’s initiative to restrict oil and gas activity, which was defeated by voters, will go back to the ballot box again if the regulatory agencies ultimately approve rules that fall short of the broad priorities of S.B. 181, Anne Lee Foster, spokeswoman for the group, told Bloomberg Environment.
“Prioritizing health and safety really does represent a shift of focus in Colorado, and there are lot of things that have to be done to make sure that mandate is upheld,” Foster said.
Regulating, not FosteringThe mandate in the legislation, which took effect April 16 with Polis’ signature, was a change in the mission of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission from “fostering” oil and gas development in the state to “regulating” it, with a priority on health, safety, and environmental concerns.
The law also enables local governments to have increased oversight of land use related to oil and gas activities within their communities.
The bill requires a regulatory overhaul by the two state agencies, with rulemaking hearings “a new front,” Foster said. “And there have already been shots fired by the other side.”
She was referring to an attempt by proponents of the oil and gas industry in the state — including Barbara Jean Kirkmeyer, chair of the board of county commissioners of Weld County, home to much drilling activity — to propose a ballot measure to repeal S.B. 181.
The proposal was struck down at a title-setting hearing April 17— the day after the governor signed the bill into law — because it didn’t meet the standard of constituting a single subject. But advocates for a repeal will be back, Foster said.
Kirkmeyer told Bloomberg Environment she objects to the characterization of the disagreement as a “war,” but agreed the conflict isn’t over with the signing of the bill. She and other industry supporters are working on a “Repeal SB 181" ballot measure to bring in 2019 or 2020, she said.
Chief ConcernKirkmeyer said her chief concern with the legislation is the negative impact she believes it will have on jobs and the state’s economy. While the legislature was debating S.B. 181, the process of considering drilling permits before the commission slowed substantially, she said. The commission didn’t come out and declare an actual permit moratorium, but the pace of approvals amounts to a de facto freeze, she said.
“There’s a backlog of 6,100 permits, 4,500 in Weld County alone.” The commission reported it has approved 88 site locations and 774 wells in Colorado since January. “They approved 5,116 wells in 2018,” she said. “It looks like they’re on track to have a record-breaking low year.”
Kirkmeyer said she was “not too thrilled” with draft “objective criteria” released April 19 by commission director Jeff Robbins as required by S.B. 181. The criteria describe conditions under which the director may delay oil and gas permits until the commission finishes its rulemaking.
No MoratoriumThe legislation doesn’t require delays in final permit decisions, and there are currently no permit holds or moratoriums in place, Robbins told Bloomberg Environment. Rather, the new law allows him to delay action and require additional review until he is satisfied the permit complies with the law’s intent.
Robbins listed 15 criteria, including drilling at locations within a municipality or within 1,500 feet of occupied buildings, that would trigger additional review. The current state setback—the minimum distance between wells and buildings—is 500 feet from homes and 1,000 from higher-occupancy buildings such hospitals and schools.
Additional review also would be required for projects located within a floodplain, an identified drinking water supply area, or a sensitive area for water resources, according to Robbins’ list.
Minimize ImpactsThe criteria are designed to minimize adverse impacts from oil and gas operations to public health, safety, and welfare, in addition to the environment and wildlife, Robbins said. Consideration will be given to the cumulative effects of drilling.
Other changes necessitated by S.B. 181 include a new makeup of the commission, Robbins said. The legislation will also require hiring new staff to handle increased workload, including hiring two new deputy directors. Given the wide impacts of the changes, the commission postponed its April meeting and set a new meeting in May, when the deliberations on new rules will begin.
Robbins said he hopes that the new regulatory mission of the the commission will bring people to the table in a spirit of moving forward. “I view it more as an opportunity than a battle,” he said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/colorados-oil-and-gas-battle-now-shifts-to-rulemaking
-
Indiana Denies Permit For 850 Megawatt Gas Plant
Apr 24, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Ebert
Indiana regulators have denied CenterPoint Energy Inc. subsidiary Vectren South permission to build an 850 megawatt natural gas plant in southern Indiana that would replace several coal-fired facilities.
The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission shot down Vectren’s plans, saying the $781 million project was too big and too rushed, according to an April 24 order. The new facility would have replaced four of Vectren’s five southern Indiana coal plants and would have allowed the state’s smallest utility to create the largest gas plant in the state.
The denial was unusual for regulators who traditionally have been deferential to development plans by fossil-fuel energy providers, Thomas Cmar, deputy managing attorney with Earthjustice, told Bloomberg Environment. The permit process was also unusual because unlikely bedfellows including environmentalists, the coal industry, and the state agency representing ratepayers all lined up in opposition to the permit.
“I think it was an easy case, and that we were able to reach common ground with a wide array of intervenors had a great impact,” he said.
The regulators said the utility needs to consider the costs of renewable generation—something other Indiana utilities are considering instead of creating large gas-fired plants, Cmar said. They also said that allowing the creation of a large gas plant would lock ratepayers into paying for this plant while other technologies were emerging.
Vectren receives its coal from Indiana sources. The Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor opposed the permit out of concerns it wasn’t the cheapest option for Vectren customers.
Competing With GasVectren didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. However, executives provided testimony to regulators laying out the reasoning for the project.
The company generates energy primarily through five coal-fired units which create up to 1,000 megawatts of power, Wayne Games, company vice president of power supply, testified before regulators.
Because the company is increasingly competing with more efficient natural gas sources, Vectren’s plants are being cycled up and down throughout the day, decreasing their efficiency and increasing wear on the coal units, Games said. Furthermore, the company claims it must either retire or retrofit its coal units by the end of 2023.
Vectren’s plan was to retrofit one facility, close four others, and create one large new gas plant to compete with other suppliers in the region. However, the commission questioned this logic.
The plan was premature, the commission held, because Vectren hadn’t considered other possibilities, such as creating a smaller gas-fired plant, performing a “serious effort to determine the price and availability of renewables,” or doing less-expensive updates to the coal plants that could extend their use-life.
Games said the 2023 deadline is fast approaching. But the commission said the company needs to further explore these options before getting a permit for a plant of this size.
“This is unprecedented for the Indiana utility commission,” Cmar said. “They stepped up here and showed they’re ready to engage with a more complicated energy marketplace than they’ve seen before.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/indiana-denies-permit-for-850-megawatt-781m-vectren-gas-plant
-
Court Again Rejects Fracking in Santa Barbara Channel
Apr 25, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily C. Dooley
A federal judge in Los Angeles has denied a request for a special exemption for two permits that would have allowed fracking in the Santa Barbara Channel in California.
U.S. District Court of Central California Judge Philip Gutierrez denied a request April 23 from the oil company DCOR LLC that sought reconsideration of a previous order that found that the possible harm to sea otters, snowy plovers, and other endangered species outweighed possible monetary losses arising from a delay in issuing offshore fracking permits.
The court had ruled federal permits couldn’t be issued until Endangered Species Act and Coastal Zone Management Act reviews were finished.
DCOR argued it would lose out on an estimated $27.75 million in net revenues over five years and up to $174 million if it were forced to abandon a drilling platform because it could not move forward with hydraulic fracturing activities on the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf.
In his ruling, Gutierrez called the claims “more of a parade of horribles than an argument grounded in reality” because the oil would remain in the ground and would be delayed only until environmental approvals were obtained. He also said DCOR still has outstanding environmental documents to submit.
DCOR didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
“The impacts of offshore fracking and acidizing on local wildlife have never been meaningfully analyzed,” Santa Barbara Channelkeeper Executive Director Kira Redmond said in a news release. “We need information to understand the potential impacts of these practices so that appropriate measures can be implemented to protect marine life, our coast, our communities, and our economy.”
After Channel Keeper and Environmental Defense Center sued the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and others a judge ruled in 2018 that federal authorities could not approve well stimulation treatments, such as fracking, without undertaking required environmental reviews. DCOR then sought a special exemption.
The case is Environmental Defense Center v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, C.D. Cal., No. 16-8418, order denying motion for reconsideration 4/23/19
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/santa-barbara-fracking-appeal-turned-down-by-federal-court
-
Judge Won't Lift Pacific Fracking Suspension
Apr 25, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
A federal judge this week declined to reconsider his freeze on hydraulic fracturing permits off the California coast.
Judge Philip Gutierrez for the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California last year blocked offshore regulators from approving new well stimulation treatments until they comply with the Endangered Species Act and Coastal Zone Management Act (E&E News PM, Nov. 9, 2018).
DCOR LLC, an oil and gas company that conducts fracking in the Pacific Ocean, in January asked the judge to rethink the injunction.
"Reconsideration does not give parties a 'second bite at the apple,' but that is precisely what DCOR seeks here in arguing for the first time that the Court should not have issued an injunction to remedy the ESA and CZMA violations," Gutierrez, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote Tuesday night.
Gutierrez was not swayed by DCOR's argument that the court had failed to consider at least $29.75 million in lost net revenue from an inability to frack off California's shores.
"The Court enjoined the issuance of permits only until the ESA and CZMA processes are completed," the judge wrote. "The oil will still remain in the ground, and therefore it seems likely that the profits DCOR points to will not be lost entirely, but only delayed.
"DCOR's assertions to the contrary appear to be more of a parade of horribles than an argument grounded in reality," Gutierrez wrote.
The Interior Department's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, defendants in the case, did not join DCOR's move for reconsideration.
Environmental and state plaintiffs opposed dropping the injunction.
"We're glad the court rejected DCOR's baseless request to frack off California's coast without the careful review mandated by law," Kristen Monsell, legal director for the oceans program at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement.
"This ruling ensures that oil companies can't threaten sea otters and other imperiled wildlife with dangerous offshore fracking while further environmental analysis is conducted," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/04/25/stories/1060213277
-
Freeport LNG Terminal Shows Signs of Gas Activity: Platts Analytics
Apr 24, 2019 | Platts
By Harry Weber and Ross Wyeno
Gas deliveries to the Freeport LNG export terminal in Texas appear to have started, S&P Global Platts Analytics data showed Wednesday, as two other US LNG facilities prepare to begin operations.
Deliveries to Freeport LNG were observed Wednesday from Gulf South Pipeline's recently completed Coastal Bend Header Project, with 25 MMcf of gas nominated to the Stratton Ridge Meter Station, which interconnects with the existing Stratton Ridge Pipeline that serves the liquefaction terminal, Platts Analytics data showed.
On April 18, Freeport LNG received Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approval to begin the introduction of hazardous fluids and commission the flare pilots and heating medium system. The facility has not yet received FERC approval to introduce feedgas, which would indicate the startup of initial cool-down operations and commissioning of the first liquefaction train. Since the facility is not producing its own power on-site, the recent gas deliveries are likely meant to commission non-liquefaction portions of the facility.
Freeport LNG spokeswoman Heather Browne said in an e-mail that the terminal's startup schedule has not changed. The developer previously said it expected to begin flowing feedgas in April or May, with first LNG ready to load in July.
By the end of the summer, the number of domestic liquefaction facilities in operation is set to double from three to six with the addition of Freeport LNG, Sempra Energy's Cameron LNG in Louisiana and Kinder Morgan's Elba Liquefaction in Georgia.
The startups will push even more US shale gas into the global LNG markets, which have already consolidated considerably under the weight of new supplies. While Platts Analytics expects that global LNG spreads will continue to incentivize full dispatch of contracted LNG export capacity, abnormal weather events and unplanned supply disruptions appear to be injecting increased volatility into prices.
Commissioning activities at Cameron LNG and Elba Liquefaction, meanwhile, continue. A Cameron LNG spokeswoman reiterated Wednesday that production is expected to begin later this quarter. Kinder Morgan said most recently that Elba production should begin later this week.EXPORTS ABOUND
Cheniere Energy shipped its first LNG cargo from its Sabine Pass export terminal in February 2016. Shipments began at Dominion Energy's Cove Point terminal in Maryland in March 2018 and at Cheniere's terminal near Corpus Christi, Texas, in December 2018.
Three unladen LNG tankers were anchored in the Gulf of Mexico on Wednesday south of the Texas-Louisiana border. Two were awaiting orders, while the third had a captain's destination set for Sabine Pass, Platts' trade flow software cFlow showed.
More than a dozen other US LNG export projects are actively being developed as part of an expected second wave of US liquefaction that would come online in the early to mid-2020s. One of those developers, Tellurian, said in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing on Wednesday that a trading unit based in the UK has committed to buy one LNG cargo per quarter from June 2020 through October 2022 on a delivered ex-ship basis, priced based on the Platts JKM, the benchmark price for spot-traded LNG in Northeast Asia. Tellurian, which has proposed the Driftwood LNG export terminal in Louisiana, said the transaction furthers its strategy of developing its LNG marketing activities.
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/podcasts/crude/042219-trump-saudi-relations-oil-prices
-
Report Ranks Oil Companies by Water, Chemical Management Practices
Apr 24, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Sergio Chapa
A new report from the shareholder advocacy group As You Sow and investment advisory firm Boston Common Asset Management ranks oil companies based on their water and chemicals management practices.
Released on Wednesday morning, the report reviewed the 30 of the largest publicly traded oil and gas gas companies in the United States and Canada.
Using public disclosures to evaluate 25 criteria, the report ranked the companies based on their management of water and chemicals in the horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing processes.
"Our report shows that smart use of water and chemicals continues to evolve, but more needs to be done," Boston Common Asset Management executive Steven Heim said in a statement. "Proactive companies adopt, develop, and disclose current best practices outlined in our report such as reducing freshwater use."
With a lot of exploration and production activity taking place in arid regions of the United States, how companies manage water is considered to be critical to sustainability.
"The best companies are increasing their water efficiency, re-using water from operations, using non-potable waste streams, and even treating wastewater," As You Sow Energy Program Manager Lila Holzman said in a statement.
Water is becoming the largest challenge to exploration and production efforts in the Permian Basin of West Texas and southeastern New Mexico, which are expected to produce roughly a third of U.S. oil production this year.
Even with 100 percent water reuse for completions, the report states that the current salt water disposal infrastructure in the Permian is expected to hit capacity in the near future and that failure to address this critical issue could increase costs and cause lost production.
Top scoring companies in the report included Southwestern Energy, Apache, Anadarko and Range Resources.
Bottom scoring companies included Gulfport Energy, Continental Resources, Total and EOG Resources.
Company, Stock Ticker Symbol & Score
Southwestern Energy Co. (SWN) 23
Apache Corp. (APA) 22
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (APC) 20
Range Resources Corp (RRC) 20
Occidental Petroleum Corp. (OXY) 19
Antero Resources (AR) 17
Royal Dutch Shell plc (RDS) 17
ConocoPhillips Corp. (COP) 16
Hess Corp. (HES) 15
Devon Energy Corp. (DVN) 12
Chesapeake Energy Corp. (CHK) 11
Newfield Exploration Co. (NFX) 11
EQT Corp. (EQT) 8
Energy, Inc. (NBL) 6
BP plc. (BP) 5
Chevron Corp. (CVX) 5
Cimarex Energy Co. (XEC) 5
Marathon Petroleum Corp. (MPC) 5
Cabot Oil and Gas Corp. (COG) 4
Encana Corp. (ECA) 4
Equinor ASA (EQNR) 4
Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) 4
Ultra Petroleum Corp. (UPL) 3
CNX Resources Corp. (CNX) 2
Concho Resources Inc. (CXO) 2
Pioneer Natural Resources (PXD) 2
EOG Resources, Inc. (EOG) 1
Total S.A. (FP) 1
Continental Resources, Inc. (CLR) 0
Gulfport Energy Corp. (GPOR) 0https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Report-ranks-oil-companies-by-water-chemical-13791534.php?cmpid=ffcp
-
Green Groups Ask Judge to Uphold Freeze on Keystone Pipeline
Apr 24, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Environmental groups are asking a federal judge to uphold a freeze on the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, despite a new Trump administration permit that seeks to circumvent the order.
In a a motion filed Tuesday with the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Indigenous Environmental Network, Northern Plains Resource Council and Fort Belknap Indian Community asked the court to reject requests by the Trump administration to dismiss the case.
Last month, President Trump issued a new presidential pipeline permit for the Keystone XL pipeline to replace the 2017 permit currently held up in courts due to lacking environmental review. The administration argued the old permit would therefore be moot.
Earlier this month, the federal government and TransCanada, the Canadian-based company behind the proposed project, filed requests to have the case dismissed.
“The Court should not allow this gamesmanship. This case is not moot simply because there is a new permit for the same pipeline. There is no dispute that the law requires environmental review for this project, yet State and Defendant U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (collectively 'Federal Defendants') have not remedied the violations found by the district court,” the environmental and landowner groups said in their brief.
The organizations argue the move is a transparent effort to avoid the court and would prime TransCanada to start construction of the pipeline immediately.
“The goal of this action was plain: to divest this Court of jurisdiction over the pending appeal and circumvent the district court’s orders invalidating the project’s environmental review documents and enjoining construction,” the groups wrote in their brief.
Sierra Club senior attorney Doug Hayes called the Trump administration’s move “shameless.”
“We’re urging the court to protect the American people by ensuring that construction on this dirty tar sands pipeline does not begin without a thorough accounting of the risks it would pose to our climate and communities.”
The White House did not return a request for comment.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/440548-green-groups-ask-judge-to-uphold-freeze-on-keystone-pipeline
-
EPA Urged to Reopen Refinery Safety Study After Explosions
Apr 24, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The Environmental Protection Agency should revisit a decades-old study to determine if it understates the risks of an oil refining chemical to workers and communities, a federal safety agency said.
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board said its investigations of refinery explosions at Exxon Mobil Corp. in Torrance, Calif., in 2015 and Husky Energy Inc. in Superior, Wis., in 2018 flagged significant questions about the chemical hydrogen fluoride, commonly known as hydrofluoric acid. Refineries use the chemical to produce gasoline, but an accidental release could result in a toxic vapor cloud that can cause burns, serious injury, or death at concentrations above 30 parts per million.
Companies that use hydrofluoric acid could be subject to EPA fines if the agency finds their safety documents, known as risk management plans, fail to adequately consider the risk of the chemical. The EPA could also prod companies to change how they operate if it identifies safer alternatives to hydrofluoric acid. About 50 oil refineries in the U.S. use the chemical in their operations, the board said.
The EPA isn’t required to take action based on the board’s letter. The agency said in an email April 24 that it is reviewing the board’s suggestions.
The letter is the first such request the CSB has made of the EPA during the Trump administration. The board can also issue formal safety recommendations and list the agency’s response as unacceptable if it does not comply. The CSB has issued 25 safety recommendations to the EPA, most recently in 2016. Of the requests, nine remain unfulfilled, according to agency data.
The board wants environmental regulators to examine if oil refineries have sufficient safety plans to protect against releases of hydrofluoric acid or a similar chemical known as modified hydrofluoric acid. The EPA should also look into whether oil refiners could switch to commercially-viable alternatives to the chemicals that don’t present the same risks, it said.
“Refiners, their workforce and communities that surround the refineries need assurances that the risk plans are adequate to prevent a catastrophic release,” Kristen Kulinowski, a CSB board member serving as interim executive, said in a statement April 24.
Husky Energy said its safety systems functioned correctly in preventing a release of hydrogen fluoride during the plant explosion. The company has since installed additional protective measures such as a laser detection system, a system to rapidly transfer hydrogen fluoride into a secure holding tank in an emergency, and other improvements, spokesman Mel Duvall said in an email to Bloomberg Law.
“We will continue to work with all regulators and the community to enhance safety at our facilities,” Duvall said.
The American Petroleum Institute, which represents oil companies that operate refineries, said in an email to Bloomberg Law refineries’ use of the chemical is already heavily regulated by the EPA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Coast Guard, and Department of Homeland Security.
Hydrogen fluoride “is a very well known and well understood technology,” the trade group said.
Representatives for Exxon Mobil and PBF Energy Inc., which acquired Exxon’s Torrance refinery in 2016, didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg Law’s request for comment.
Close CallsIn the Torrance and Superior investigations, explosions in the refineries’ fluid catalytic cracking units injured workers and prompted nearby residents to evacuate. The refineries’ hydrofluoric acid didn’t ignite, but the safety board said the chemical could have caught fire and caused far worse consequences.
The EPA examined the use of the chemical in a 1993 report to Congress, which lawmakers required under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. At the time, the EPA said it would monitor if new regulations were needed to control refineries’ use of hydrofluoric acid and that no new legislation was needed to address the threat.
The Husky Energy fire and explosion in 2018 prompted the company to spend at least $53 million as a result of the explosion on repairs and safety improvements, some of which was paid by the company’s insurance, according to company earnings statements.
The CSB held public meetings in Torrance and Superior to discuss the explosions with workers and area residents. Lawmakers and local officials representing areas adjacent to the facilities have also spoken out in favor of tougher action.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-urged-to-reopen-oil-refinery-safety-study-after-explosions
-
CSB Urges EPA to Assess Hydrofluoric Acid Study After Refinery Fires
Apr 24, 2019 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB)is urging EPA to reassess its 26-year-old study on the potential risks from refineries’ accidental releases of hydrofluoric acid (HF), citing two recent refinery fires as highlighting concerns over whether the facilities’ risk management plans (RMPs) are adequate to control unplanned HF releases.
In an April 24 letter to Administrator Andrew Wheeler, CSB says EPA should “initiate a review and update of its 1993 HF study to determine whether these refineries’ existing risk management plans are sufficient to prevent catastrophic releases; and, to determine whether there are commercially viable, inherently safer alternatives and to make recommendations to incorporate these technologies at U.S. petroleum refineries, if appropriate.”
The board, which is an independent federal agency that investigates chemical accidents, says in the letter that the requested review is within EPA’s power under the Obama administration’s revised Clean Air Act RMP program, which strengthened requirements for companies writing RMPs. The plans are designed to reduce risks to public health and the environment from accidental releases of pollutants, such as HF releases due to refinery fires.
CSB is making the recommendation after it completed investigations of two refinery fires over the past four years. One occurred April 26, 2018, at Husky’s Superior Refinery Company in Superior, WI, where 36 people sought medical attention including 11 injured workers. The evacuation zone was determined based on the potential risk of release of HF, which was stored on site and remained contained during the incident.
The second fire was Feb. 18, 2015 at a former ExxonMobil refinery in Torrance, CA, when a pollution control device exploded during maintenance activities and where HF was also stored.
EPA last studied HF in 1993, after Congress in 1990 directed the agency to identify potential hazards posed by the chemical, including to consider worst-case accidental releases. It found that more than 500 facilities used HF at the time including 62 petroleum refineries, and that an accidental release could disperse HF significant distances and pose a grave public threat. EPA at the time did not recommend further legislative action, saying the authorities already in place provide for the prevention of accidental releases and preparedness if they occur.
In the letter to Wheeler, CSB says it lacks statutory authority to prevent the use of HF or to order the use of any alternatives at refineries even though it is aware of new alkylation technologies being developed for use at refineries and says those may have inherent safety advantages. “We encourage EPA to broadly disseminate the results of its updated study,” the letter adds.
CSB sent the letter to several lawmakers with ties to the fire locations including Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Tina Smith (D-MN).
In a statement, CSB Interim Executive Kristen Kulinowski said, “In the last four years, the CSB has investigated two refinery incidents where an explosion elevated the threat of a release of HF. Refinery workers and surrounding community residents are rightly concerned about the adequacy of the risk management for the use of hazardous chemicals like HF. The EPA should review its 1993 HF study to ensure the health and safety of communities near petroleum refineries utilizing HF.”
The statement adds that HF is highly toxic and can seriously injure or cause death at a concentration of 30 parts per million. Refineries use it as a catalyst in the creation of a blending agency for high octane gasoline.
“The EPA is the appropriate agency to assess the adequacy of risk management for the use of chemical like HF. Refiners, their workforce and communities that surround the refineries need assurances that the risk plans are adequate to prevent a catastrophic release,” Kulinowski added.
An EPA spokesperson says the agency is reviewing the letter.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/csb-urges-epa-assess-hydrofluoric-acid-study-after-refinery-fires
-
China and America's 400-Ton Electric Albatross
Apr 25, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak and Peter Behr
The White House has blacklisted the Chinese telecommunications companies that dominate the market for 5G wireless systems.
For months, Trump administration officials have hopscotched across Europe to warn governments that China's telecom giants are duplicitous and their real aim is to spy on the West.
But one layer under the high-profile U.S.-China telecom fight are concerns about other core technology that rolls off China's factory lots. In the U.S. energy sector, China's emergence as a maker of large power transformers has grabbed the attention of industry executives and U.S. officials. Transformers are the backbone of America's power grid.
"There have been over 200 Chinese transformers that have come into the U.S. energy sector in the last 10 years," said Charles Durant, deputy director of counterintelligence at the Department of Energy. "Before that, there were zero."
Karen Evans, DOE's assistant secretary for cybersecurity, energy security and emergency response, said her office is looking at the supply-chain threat posed by transformers. "We know the risk associated with that," she said.
Yet against the backdrop of a U.S.-China trade war, security experts rush to separate fact from fiction when scrutinizing a vital grid component often sourced outside U.S. borders.
In a global economy, Durant pointed out, any transformer manufacturer could be sourcing parts from China. "The rules say you have to go to the lowest bidder," he said. "Most transformers come from overseas."Severe disruptions
Electricity flows out of step-up transformers at the high-voltage levels needed to move power over long-distance lines. Then transformers on the other end step down the voltage for delivery to homes and businesses.
They're the electrical equivalent of on- and off-ramps to major highways.
Security planning for the power grid has centered on threats to the approximately 2,000 extra high-voltage transformers that carry 345 kilovolts or power or more, since these units — often containing several hundred tons of steel, copper and aluminum — cannot easily be replaced.
"Without sufficient spares or timely access to replacements, the loss of large power transformers can result in severe disruptions for long periods of time," said Ken Collison, vice president of energy consulting at ICF International.
About 85 percent of new utility transformer orders have come from abroad in the past decade. Since 2010, domestic production has increased, but DOE reported in 2017 that only one U.S. manufacturer produced the special-grade electrical steel required for transformer cores.
Chinese producers have stepped in to fill the gap.
In 2010, JiangSu HuaPeng Transformer Co. delivered a 345-kilovolt large power transformer to a utility in Oklahoma, according to company marketing materials, teeing up a boomlet in U.S.-bound large power transformers, or LPTs. Just two years later, the Changzhou-based manufacturer boasted that it supported 10 percent of New York City's electricity load.
German conglomerate Siemens and Swiss manufacturing giant ABB Group are among the largest foreign transformer manufacturers to invest in factories in China.
"The actual iron core and copper coils [inside the transformers], I don't think the origin of that is any real concern," said Craig Stiegemeier, an ABB product manager for transformers. "ABB builds those in more than 50 countries around the world. There is nothing that inherently comes on the transformer that's at risk."
Instead, he indicated that components added to transformers such as digital monitoring devices and remote sensors could open the door to hacking. Such devices could monitor power loads, equipment temperature, oil levels or other vital signs.
"Most manufacturers have some kind of smart devices in the transformer so you can understand the condition of the equipment. If those devices are tampered with, it could have a significant cyber impact," Stiegemeier said.
For instance, a false alarm signaling the need for maintenance or replacement of a "smart" transformer could pose a hazard. So could manipulating "tap changers" that set voltage levels, or the temperature gauges that trigger fans, he said. A hacker could, at least in theory, cause a digitized transformer to overheat.
"Utilities are taking this really seriously," he said. "They are looking to the traceability of every component, potentially down to the chip level, to make sure they know what the origin of the component is."Huawei tug-and-pull
Multiple sources in the utility industry confirmed the vetting process in place for multimillion-dollar pieces of equipment like high-voltage power transformers.
Power companies typically dispatch "expert witnesses" to manufacturing plants to monitor transformer production from the outset, and various parts of the transformer, from the tap changers to the stacked-pancake bushings, undergo rigorous testing before being installed in the grid.
"If that thing catches on fire, it'll require a foam truck or better to put it out," noted Patrick Miller, managing partner at Archer Energy Solutions. "The whole substation would likely burn. That creates a much bigger problem than just a bad transformer."
Unlike China's telecom giants Huawei and ZTE, where concerns over cyberespionage or "logic bombs" are paramount in U.S. national security circles, counterfeit or faulty parts are seen as the larger threat in power transformers.
"The transformer guts are not sensitive, and they are quite 'dumb' from a connectivity standpoint," noted Chris Sistrunk, principal industrial control system consultant at cybersecurity firm FireEye. "If it has any defects or is installed incorrectly and it fails, there's always language in the contract around that stuff and dictates who is liable."
A deliberately faulty or booby-trapped component has yet to be uncovered in any Chinese equipment, whether in hardware or software. Still, U.S. national security officials say the potential for subversion is every bit as dangerous as more direct threats to supply chains.
Suspicion within the Trump administration and Congress about security risks tied to China's Huawei is a heavy burden for the company, said Paul Triolo, geotechnology practice leader at the Eurasia Group consultancy, during a recent podcast for the SupChina digital media site.
"Huawei is a global company, operating in 170 countries. If it became clear that Huawei was simply an arm of the Chinese government and was doing Beijing's bidding at every turn, then they wouldn't be able to operate as a global company," he said. "The problem here is that the company is forced to prove a negative; it's really difficult."
Chinese leaders are likely to make the case against trade protectionism and security concerns at the second Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation, which kicks off this week in Beijing. Russian President Vladimir Putin, among other global leaders, is set to attend.
"All too often in this context, the security of a product or service, or the threat from a company that sells it, is debated as if the test is binary: whether there is proof, a 'smoking gun,' so to speak, that the company in question is currently breaking the law by, say, conducting illicit surveillance," said Adam Hickey, deputy assistant U.S. attorney general, at a recent telecom conference.
"But whether a company has a culture that promotes theft, dishonesty or obstruction of justice is just as relevant," he said. "It tells you how the company will behave when it suits its interests."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/04/25/stories/1060216451
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trio of Bills Aim to Reduce Oregon’s Plastic Waste
Apr 25, 2019 | Bend Bulletin
By Gary A. Warner
Three anti-plastic bills are moving through the House and Senate, hoping to avoid the Capitol’s growing midsession legislative trash pit.
Sen. Michael Dembrow, D-Eugene, the chairman of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee, pointed recently to the impact of plastic on nature.
“We all know that single-use plastics are easy, they’re convenient and they’re relatively inexpensive — but only in the short run,” Dembrow said. “Over the long run, they bring high cost for all of us.”
Each bill has taken a sometimes confusing path through the Legislature.
“One day Styrofoam is out, the next day it’s in — out, in, out, in,” said Rep. Cheri Helt, R-Bend, about multiple rounds of votes.
Each bill had its unique subjects — and outcomes.
House Bill 2883 targets polystyrene. House Bill 2509 goes after plastic bags. Senate Bill 90 wants to curb use of plastic straws.
The polystyrene bill would bar vendors from packaging prepared foods in containers made of the material. Exempted are reusable polystyrene coolers encased in a solid plastic shell, storage containers for unprepared foods or ingredients, or material used for packing, storage or shipping.
Opponents brought up Agilyx, a Tigard company that recycles some polystyrene into new products.
Rep. Jack Zika, R-Redmond, pointed to efforts in Bend to get the Les Schwab Amphitheater to switch from plastic containers and utensils to polystyrene that could be recycled.
“Why would you ban something that can be recycled and make people use stuff that is just going to go in a landfill?” Zika said.
Legislative leaders rarely bring a bill up for a vote without knowing the outcome ahead of time. So, on April 22, Earth Day — a coincidence, Democratic leaders later said — the Styrofoam ban came up in the House for consideration.
Surprisingly, seven Democrats joined with Republicans to oppose the bill, leaving the vote count at 30-28 in favor. But 31 votes are needed for a bill to pass in the 60-member chamber. Two lawmakers were absent.
Bill supporters swiftly made a procedural gambit. The bill was technically killed off. But the absent lawmakers returned the next day, the bill was resurrected, and it passed 32-28. Zika and Helt were among those voting “no.” It now goes to the Senate.
Bans on plastic bags have proliferated around Oregon in recent years. Bend is among 16 cities in Oregon that have passed some variation. Portland, Eugene, Corvallis and Ashland are on the list, and Salem’s law becomes effective next year.
California is the only state that bans plastic bags. Hawaii’s largest counties have bans — giving the state essentially a de facto ban. New York’s ban starts next year.
The Oregon bill would prohibit retail establishments from providing customers with plastic checkout bags. It’s supported by groups such as Environment Oregon and the Surfrider Foundation. It was opposed by the group Oregon Business & Industry.
House Bill 2509 passed the House Committee on Energy and Environment on a 6-3 vote. Zika, a committee member, voted “no.”
“This would be another burden on small businesses,” Zika said.
Like the polystyrene ban, the bag ban took an unusual zigzag route on the House floor. It was called up for a vote, but during debate, lawmakers had questions about whether the ban included plastic garment bags placed over suits and other clothes. Proponents weren’t entirely sure.
The bill was sent back to the House Rules Committee to clarify that garment bags were exempt. They joined an already long list of existing exemptions in the bill, including pharmacy bags to ensure customer’s privacy and those used for the sale of fresh meat or fish packed in ice.
Reworked, the plastic bag ban is scheduled for a vote in the House on Thursday. If approved, it would go to the Senate.
In the Senate, environmentalists originally hoped to put a significant dent in the number of single-use plastic straws used in Oregon. Along the way, Senate Bill 90 was amended with pro-business ideas, including some from American Chemistry Council. Some environmentalists abandoned the bill over a provision that would block Oregon cities from passing their own, tougher statues.
As now written, the bill would simply stop food service employees from automatically giving out plastic straws with drinks. If diners ask, they can still get one. Drive-thru restaurant customers would automatically be given a straw, and straws could be put out on convenience store counters.
Whatever its drawbacks, Dembrow asked senators to support the bill because it would “create a standard that was consistent and would be effective.”
The bill passed the Senate 23-6 on April 11 and is scheduled for a public hearing in the House Committee on Energy and Environment today .
After the Senate vote, Sen. Alan Olsen, R-Canby, said he voted “yes” simply to “stop this crazy idea” from going any further than it did.
“We have really, really important things in our state to do, and this certainly wasn’t one that needed to take as much time and effort as it did,” he said.
Sen. Tim Knopp, R-Bend, who voted “yes,” was more philosophical. He said he had gone without using straws in restaurants for 15 years, “and I eat out a lot.”
“I don’t think this is a big thing for people to do, and I think it does help improve the health of our planet,” Knopp said.
https://www.bendbulletin.com/localstate/7093805-151/trio-of-bills-aim-to-reduce-oregons-plastic
-
Oklahoma Governor Signs Law Banning Bans on Plastic Bags
Apr 24, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Chris Mills Rodrigo
Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) has reportedly signed a law banning bans and fines on plastic bags.
"I want to make sure I make it easy for industry to do business in Oklahoma," Stitt said at the bill-signing on Tuesday, according to KFOR in Oklahoma City.
The bill blocks municipalities from banning or putting a tax on auxiliary containers made of plastic, cloth, paper, cardboard, aluminum and glass, the station noted, adding that Stitt stressed regulatory consistency in signing the measure.
"I just don't think that we should be putting laws and rules on business from 500 municipalities," he said, according to KFOR.
The legislation, which was approved by the state House and Senate, comes shortly after Norman, Okla., announced plans to put a 5 cent tax on single-use plastic bags.
"They are not good for the environment. They blow all over the place. The plastic bags do a lot of damage to the equipment and that's gonna drive up the cost of recycling," Norman Mayor Lynne Miller told KFOR.
Miller added that she believes the legislation steps on local authorities' toes.
"It takes away the rights we believe cities should have," she said. "There is always a lot of talk about the federal government staying out of the states' business and to some extent the municipalities feel the same way."
Oklahoma's new restriction on plastic bans comes as several other states are making pushes toward the elimination of single-use plastics.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/440448-oklahoma-governor-signs-law-banning-bans-on-plastic-bags
-
Lawsuit Aims to Block Denver's Ozone Downgrade
Apr 24, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly
A Colorado industry group has mounted an eleventh-hour legal challenge aimed at averting a downgrade in the ozone attainment status for the fast-growing Denver area.
The lawsuit, filed yesterday in state court by Defend Colorado, seeks to force a state regulatory commission to hold a public hearing to develop "the most accurate and complete inventory" possible of pollution sources affecting air quality; the group also wants a judge to declare that Gov. Jared Polis (D) broke the law by allegedly interfering in the commission's statutory obligations under the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act.
The group's ultimate target, however, is Polis' decision last month to drop a requested extension for bringing the Denver Metro/North Front Range area into compliance with EPA's 2008 ground-level ozone standard. The area, home to more than 3.3 million people, is in "moderate" nonattainment with the 75 ppb standard. Under the five-point sliding scale EPA uses to track compliance, a downgrade to "serious" nonattainment would entail stricter permitting requirements for oil and gas operations and other industries.
"Such a downgrade would deprive Colorado of the flexibility to improve its air quality based on the unique conditions in Colorado and the priorities of Coloradans," the newly filed suit says. The state had sought the one-year extension under then-Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) last June; EPA then tentatively agreed to approve it in November. In announcing the about-face, Polis said the state is "moving forward to make our air cleaner now" (Greenwire, April 1).
Defend Colorado, which describes itself as a business and industry organization, argues that emissions from foreign sources and "exceptional events" outside of regulators' direct control are responsible for the state's ozone compliance problems.
Last month, however, the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission declined to rule on the group's petition for a complete emissions inventory on the grounds that it lacked legal standing, according to the suit. The suit also accuses Polis of "unilaterally and privately" ordering state environmental officials to avoid pursuing any "demonstrations" geared to showing the impact of international emissions or exceptional events on Colorado's air quality.
A message left with Polis' office seeking comment on the suit this afternoon was not immediately returned. A commission spokeswoman also did not reply to an emailed request for comment. If the state doesn't certify by May 1 that the Denver area meets the 75 ppb standard, EPA must go ahead with the nonattainment downgrade, the suit says. Ozone, a lung irritant that is the main ingredient in smog, is spawned by the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight.
Environmental groups have applauded Polis' move. In a federal lawsuit filed last month before it was known that Polis had dropped the extension request, WildEarth Guardians alleged that EPA should have made a decision on the Denver area's compliance status in January (Greenwire, March 27). That suit is pending in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/04/24/stories/1060212833
-
House Freshmen Call for Big Federal Spending on Research
Apr 24, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Nick Sobczyk
Freshman Democrats are demanding robust funding for federal climate research programs, likely one of the few climate change policies House Democrats have a chance of forcing through the Republican Senate.
In a letter sent to appropriators last week, more than 30 members of the freshman class, led by Reps. Mike Levin (D-Calif.), Sean Casten (D-Ill.) and Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), said the fiscal 2020 spending bills that will be written in coming weeks present a chance to act on a campaign issue.
"We have an opportunity and a moral obligation to act on climate, and this responsibility must be built on the foundation of robust and sustained climate research funding," they wrote. "As the freshman class of the 116th Congress, we urge appropriators to recognize the timely nature of this crisis by robustly funding climate science in FY 2020 and beyond."
They're not the only ones with that thought. Democrats across the caucus have indicated in recent weeks that the appropriations process will be the most viable path forward for climate policy in the 116th Congress with President Trump in the White House and the GOP controlling the Senate.
Trump has for three years in a row requested massive cuts to EPA and Department of Energy research offices, including repeated proposals to eliminate the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy.
Congress is likely to reject those ideas as it has before.
And while Republicans still oppose most broad climate policy, there is bipartisan interest on both sides of Capitol Hill in funding research and authorizing expansions to DOE energy efficiency and weatherization programs.
The freshmen ticked off a long list of agencies where they want climate research funded, including DOE, EPA, the Defense Department, NOAA and NASA.
"Without strong funding for climate science programs such as these, we will not be equipped to address the greatest challenge facing our nation today," they wrote.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/04/24/stories/1060212685
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested