Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 5/9/19
-
(ACC Mentioned) China Deeply Disappointed by US Tariff Plan
May 9, 2019 | China Daily
By Zhao Huanxin and Zhang Yunbi
China voiced deep disappointment late on Wednesday about Washington's plan to raise tariffs on Chinese imports on Friday, saying that it will take necessary counter-measures if the US tariffs increase takes effect. -
China Says It Will Hit Back Against U.S. Tariffs
May 8, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Adam Behsudi
China’s Ministry of Commerce said it would take “necessary countermeasures” against the United States if the Trump administration follows through raising tariffs on Friday. -
Chevron Phillips Narrowing in on Spot for Next $5.8b Petrochemical Expansion
May 8, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
Phillips 66 and Chevron Corp. are moving closer to deciding where to expand their chemical subsidiary on the Gulf Coast, pouring about $200 million this year in preliminary project planning and engineering, Phillips 66 Chief Executive Greg Garland said in an annual shareholders meeting Wednesday. -
(ACC Mentioned) Republicans See Possibility Of Compromise On Bill Restricting Asbestos
May 8, 2019 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Top House Republicans say they could agree to a compromise with Democrats on a bill to limit asbestos risks, though they say any deal will have to address concerns that a bill does not unduly limit production of chlorine used to treat drinking water and does not impose infeasible testing and other requirements on EPA. -
(ACC Mentioned) Pallone on Asbestos: 'Enough Is Enough'
May 9, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Courtney Columbus
A top EPA official told a key House panel the agency is working "expeditiously," but that didn't satisfy members who want what they consider to be a long-overdue ban on asbestos. -
(ACC Mentioned) The Science Denial is Crystal Clear: The EPA Ignores Scientists on Asbestos
May 8, 2019 | Union of Concerned Scientists
By Anita Desikan
We ignore scientists at our peril. Why doesn’t the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) get this? -
Democrats Grill Toxics Chief Over EPA's Narrowed TSCA Review Of Asbestos
May 8, 2019 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
House Democrats grilled EPA toxics chief Alexandra Dunn over the agency's narrow approach to addressing risks of asbestos, though Dunn declined comment on a pair of leaked internal memos regional staff wrote raising concerns about the agency's approaches and underscoring concerns raised by environmentalists and others. -
Dems Look to Bypass EPA with Asbestos Ban
May 8, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Beitsch
House Democrats hope to sidestep the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with a bill that would ban asbestos within a year. -
TSCA Science Advisory Committee Sets PV29 Peer Review Dates
May 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has announced new dates for the TSCA Scientific Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) to peer review the draft risk evaluation of pigment violet 29. -
Science Advisory Panels Prep for Rare Meetings
May 8, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly and Corbin Hiar
Two EPA advisory panels are set to hold public meetings next month, one for the first time in a year and the other for the first time ever. -
Will Greens Call It Quits on Collins?
May 8, 2019 | Politico (Morning Energy)
By Kelsey Mborrino
...E&C PANEL LOOKS AT ASBESTOS: The House Energy and Commerce Committee's environment and climate change subcommittee holds a hearing today on asbestos. -
EPA Begins Risk Evaluation Prioritization Process for 40 Chemicals
May 8, 2019 | Safety & Health Magazine
The Environmental Protection Agency, in accordance with the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, is seeking public comment on a list of 40 chemicals to prioritize for risk evaluation, according to a notice published in the March 21 Federal Register. -
Regulatory Developments: Strength in Numbers: Why Forming a TSCA Consortium Is Important
May 8, 2019 | Lexology
By Kathleen M. Roberts
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released on March 20, 2019, a list of 20 chemicals that EPA has suggested as candidates for high priority designation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as reported in our March 22, 2019, memorandum "EPA Releases List of 40 Chemicals Undergoing Prioritization for Risk Evaluation." -
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Poised to Jump into PFAS Problems
May 9, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Snider and Anthony Adragna
Frustrated by what they see as a foot dragging by the Trump administration in confronting toxic chemical contamination in drinking water, lawmakers on Capitol Hill are preparing to jump into the fray. -
House Bill Would Help Fund PFAS Removal
May 9, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Courtney Columbus
New legislation from House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) would create a grant program to provide funding for removing chemicals used in firefighting foam from drinking water. -
Industry Seeks Veto of Sweeping New York Children’s Product Bill
May 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
Industry groups are pressing New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to veto a bill to restrict toxins in children’s products, arguing that the "unworkable" measure is at odds with other states’ requirements and will not improve product safety. -
California Assembly Advances Measure Aimed at Prop 65 Private Litigation
May 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
California’s Assembly has passed a bill to require that the state’s Attorney General be notified of certain activities related to Proposition 65 private enforcement litigation. -
California Adopts Prop 65 Definition for Soluble Nickel Compounds
May 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has established a definition for soluble nickel compounds for the purposes of Proposition 65. -
California Announces Plan to Ban Chlorpyrifos
May 8, 2019 | InsideEPA
California regulators are planning to ban the pesticide chlorpyrifos by initiating a process to cancel the product’s registration in the state, a move that would end almost 20 percent of the chemical’s domestic use even as federal regulators weigh whether they will continue to allow its use. -
California Moves to Ban Brain-Damaging Pesticide as EPA Resists Court Action
May 8, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Beitsch
California, the nation’s top agricultural state, banned a common pesticide Wednesday, citing research showing it hinders brain development in children. -
Publishing CLP Inventory Notifier Identity Poses Confidentiality Risks – Cefic
May 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Caterina Tani
Cefic has raised concerns over the European Commission’s proposal to publishthe names of notifiers in the CLP inventory, calling for a "cautious approach" to protect confidential business information. -
EU Waste Amendment for Titanium Dioxide Classification Faces Opposition
May 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
EU member states, industry and an NGO have expressed strong opposition to the European Commission's plans to amend the guidance on the classification of waste to accommodate a changed CLP entry for titanium dioxide. -
From Parabens To Sulphates: Are Chemicals In Skincare Products Really That Bad?
May 9, 2019 | Refinery29
By Jacqueline Kilikita
Methylparaben, methylisothiazolinone... The phrase "If you can't pronounce it, don't use it" has circulated the beauty industry for some time now, as more of us become suspicious of the amount of synthetic chemicals and ingredients in our skincare products and the long-term effects they might have on our bodies. -
Trump to Tout Exports, Raise Money in La.
May 9, 2019 | E&E - Energywire
By Geof Koss
President Trump is expected to highlight the rise in energy exports that has occurred on his watch when he visits a Louisiana liquefied natural gas export facility next week, but is not signaling that additional executive actions on the issue are coming, according to senators who met with the president last week. -
'Illegal' Oil and Gas Pollution Rampant in Texas — Watchdog
May 9, 2019 | E&E - Energywire
By Sean Reilly and Mike Lee
Oil and gas operators in West Texas' Permian Basin are spewing millions of pounds of unauthorized air pollution, with state and federal regulators doing little to even monitor it, according to a watchdog group's report released today. -
Satellites to Track Carbon from Every Power Plant on Earth
May 9, 2019 | E&E - Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Three nonprofit organizations will use a network of satellites and artificial intelligence to track carbon emissions from every power plant in the world under a $1.7 million project announced by Google Inc. yesterday. -
North Dakota, Washington Nation at Odds over Oil Train Principles
May 9, 2019 | Rockland Register
By Gary Hoff
North Dakota officials have been pressuring Washington’s governor to veto laws requiring oil shipped by railroad to have more of its volatile gases removed. -
Proposed EPA Denial Of New York Interstate Ozone Petition Tees Up Suit
May 8, 2019 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is proposing to reject New York’s Clean Air Act petition asking the agency to directly regulate ozone-forming air pollution from hundreds of industrial sources in multiple upwind states that New York lacks power to control, teeing up the latest in a series of lawsuits over similar petition denials if EPA finalizes the decision as proposed. -
McConnell Mulls Making Senate Democrats Vote Again on Climate
May 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is readying a vote to force senators to indicate whether they back keeping the U.S. in the Paris climate agreement. -
Ways and Means Announces Climate Change Hearing
May 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Colleen Murphy
The House Ways and Means Committee will hold a May 15 hearing on the economic and health consequences of climate change. -
EPA to Wrap up WOTUS Rules by End of Year
May 8, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Snider
The Trump administration aims to finalize its repeal and replacement of the controversial Waters of the U.S. rule by end of year, a top Justice Department official said today. -
Norway to Fast Track Single-Use Plastics Ban
May 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Marcus Hoy
Disposable plastic items like cutlery, plates, and straws will be banned within twelve months, Norway’s Climate and Environment Ministry said. -
Panel Approves Bill to Boost Environmental, Mining Programs
May 9, 2019 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
Environmental health programs and mine safety regulators would get significant increases under the first fiscal 2020 spending bill approved by House appropriators yesterday.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) China Deeply Disappointed by US Tariff Plan
May 9, 2019 | China Daily
By Zhao Huanxin and Zhang Yunbi
China voiced deep disappointment late on Wednesday about Washington's plan to raise tariffs on Chinese imports on Friday, saying that it will take necessary counter-measures if the US tariffs increase takes effect.
The planned tariffs increase on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports from 10 percent to 25 percent was filed by the Office of the US Trade Representative, and the filing appeared on Wednesday in the Federal Register, the Associated Press reported.
In response, an unnamed spokesman for the Ministry of Commerce said in a statement on the ministry's website that escalating trade friction does not serve the interests of people in the two countries and the world.
Major US trade bodies have urged the Trump administration to avoid further escalating tensions by suddenly increasing tariffs on Friday, while experts said it's sensible for China to continue negotiations in a measured way.
"This is a predicament for soy growers," American Soybean Association President Davie Stephens said on Tuesday.
President Donald Trump threatened in a tweet on Sunday to increase tariffs.
Stephens, a grower from Clinton, Kentucky, said that US farmers are in a tough situation, and with depressed prices and unsold stocks forecast to double before the 2019 harvest begins in September, farmers urgently need the China market.
"We need a positive resolution of this ongoing tariff dispute, not further escalation of tensions," he said in a release posted on the ASA web site.
Nicole Kaeding, vice-president of federal and special projects at the Washington-based Tax Foundation, said that if the Trump administration follows through on the president's threat, it's US taxpayers, not Chinese taxpayers, who will pay the price — thanks to higher prices and fewer job opportunities.
The Information Technology Industry Council also warned against further raising tariffs. "Increasing tariffs will only continue to harm American consumers and businesses of all sizes and across all sectors, as well as threat en American economic growth and leadership in innovation," said Naomi Wilson, the council's senior director of policy for Asia.
US chemical manufacturers also called for sensible trade policy solutions.
Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council, said on Monday he believed the risks of continuing to use tariffs as a negotiating tactic with China are simply too high, and potential benefits remain unclear.
Several organizations, including Tariffs Hurt the Heartland — the national campaign composed of more than 150 of the largest US trade organizations in retail, technology, manufacturing and agriculture — have in recent days highlighted the negative impact of tariff increases on the US economy and job market.
They cited a report in February from Trade Partnership Worldwide as saying that increasing tariffs on $200 billion of goods to 25 percent, coupled with tariffs already in place — as well as expected Chinese retaliation — would reduce US employment by more than 934,000 jobs and push down the US GDP by 0.37 percent.
According to data from the General Administration of Customs, two-way trade between China and the US declined 11.2 percent year-on-year to 1.1 trillion yuan ($162.5 billion) in the period from January to April.
The fact that Beijing is still sending a delegation to the US for the trade talks is "very wise on China's part", said Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow and trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington.
Douglas H. Paal, vice-president of the Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said it "makes sense to continue the talks because the alternative would be a drastic signal to markets".
Vice-Premier Liu He will visit the US on Thursday and Friday to attend the 11th round of the bilateral consultations on trade issues.
http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201905/09/WS5cd32a0fa3104842260ba97f.html
-
China Says It Will Hit Back Against U.S. Tariffs
May 8, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Adam Behsudi
China’s Ministry of Commerce said it would take “necessary countermeasures” against the United States if the Trump administration follows through raising tariffs on Friday.
The short statement today noted that increased trade frictions were not in the interests of either country, according to an informal translation.
China has already imposed tariffs on roughly $110 billion worth of U.S. goods in retaliation to Trump’s tariffs. It’s unclear if Beijing would use non-tariff measures to retaliate. The U.S. exported only $120 billion worth of goods to China in 2018.
The statement was issued after the administration officially posted a notification of its plans to raise a 10 percent tariff on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods to 25 percent. The increase will go into effect on Friday, just as senior U.S. officials meet in Washington with a delegation of Chinese officials led by Vice Premier Liu He.
President Donald Trump has also said he will impose tariffs on all remaining Chinese imports that have not been hit with penalties.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/05/china-says-it-will-hit-back-against-us-tariffs-3218932
-
Chevron Phillips Narrowing in on Spot for Next $5.8b Petrochemical Expansion
May 8, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
Phillips 66 and Chevron Corp. are moving closer to deciding where to expand their chemical subsidiary on the Gulf Coast, pouring about $200 million this year in preliminary project planning and engineering, Phillips 66 Chief Executive Greg Garland said in an annual shareholders meeting Wednesday.
Garland said the two owners are still evaluating which Chevron Phillips Chemical location in the region will host the $5.8 billion expansion that is expected to create 3,500 construction jobs.
Nearly every Chevron Phillips location is under consideration, but Sweeny and Orange seem to be the front runners in the race,
Although the Cedar Bayou site in Baytown has the space for growth, Garland said there could be potential permitting limitations on building a second ethane cracker there because of its proximity to other existing crackers in the area, including Chevron Phillips' recently added ethane cracker and another cracker at separate nearby facility owned by Exxon Mobil. And Chevron Phillips' Chemical facilities at Port Arthur doesn't have the space for growth, leaving Orange and Sweeny as the ones with the best location and logistical advantages, Garland said.
Chevron and Phillips 66 expect to make a joint decision on where and when to invest by 2020 with a potential startup of a new project by 2023 or 2024, Garland said.
Despite a wave of new petrochemical projects on the popping up on the Gulf Coast, Garland said there is still plenty of demand for plastics chemicals. Cheap supplies of ethane in the region to support continued capital investments on the Gulf Coast, he added.
Strong demand has kept Chevron Phillips' new ethane cracker in Cedar Bayou running 15 percent above its original design capacity, Garland said. The cracker recently increased its production capacity to 3.8 billion pounds per a year.
In February, Chevron Phillips filed a request for state tax incentives on a potential $5 billion to $6 billion ethylene project on 1,7000 of undeveloped land near its Orange chemical plant. The project would include an ethylene cracker, at least one ethylene derivative units, a rail storage yard, utilities and related infrastructure and administrative buildings, according to state documents.
Garland said the company would "certainly be happy if Orange was selected" because of the site has room for growth and is relatively close to an access point for the Mont Belvieu chemicals and natural gas liquids hub.
Optimism despite poor first quarter
Despite a huge drop in first quarter profits, Garland struck a positive tone at the Phillips 66 shareholders' meeting held at the Marriot Westchase in Houston Wednesday. He boasted about the company's record-setting $5.6 billion earnings in 2018, boosted by strong refining profits and record-setting earnings in the company's pipeline division.
Later this year the company expects to complete the Gray Oak Pipeline project which will be capable of carrying 900,000 barrels per a day of crude from the Permian Basin and Eagle Ford to Corpus Christi and Freeport, including Phillips 66' Sweeny refinery. The Sweeny refinery is also undergoing upgrades to process an added 300,000 barrels a day of natural gas liquids by late 2020.
Phillips 66 saw its earnings plunge in the first quarter to $204 million in profit - less than half of the $524 million profits it made in the same period last year, according to its earnings results. The refiner blamed poor earnings on largely on major maintenance outages affecting five refineries and relatively higher costs for Canadian crude that cut into its margins.
Yet Garland said their signs of improvement in the gasoline crack spread – the difference between the price of gasoline and the price of crude oil that's considered an important indicator for refineries' profits – and falling gasoline inventories are helping to balance the market again.
"So 2019 should be a good year," Garland said.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Chevron-Phillips-narrowing-in-on-spot-for-next-13829339.php
-
(ACC Mentioned) Republicans See Possibility Of Compromise On Bill Restricting Asbestos
May 8, 2019 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
Top House Republicans say they could agree to a compromise with Democrats on a bill to limit asbestos risks, though they say any deal will have to address concerns that a bill does not unduly limit production of chlorine used to treat drinking water and does not impose infeasible testing and other requirements on EPA.
“I think there's definitely stomach to try to do something. We'll go from here. We’ll see where is that ground, I know that they would like to see a strong bipartisan bill,” Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee's environment panel, told reporters.
Shimkus' remarks came after a May 8 hearing before the subcommittee on H.R. 1603, a Democratic bill that would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to require EPA to ban importation to and uses of asbestos in the United States within 12 months of passage.
Shimkus' views were echoed by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC), who said during the hearing that “there is agreement that asbestos in certain forms and areas are toxic and are detrimental to health of folks in the nation, but there's gotta be some common sense injected into legislation and I hope to do that in full committee and markup.”
As currently written, the bill would also broaden EPA's narrow definition of asbestos, adding a number of additional fiber types. And it would require that EPA and the federal housing department assess existing 'legacy' asbestos in buildings around the country to determine their quantity and risks they pose.
But during the hearing, Republicans raised a number of concerns about the bill, perhaps most notably its adverse affect on the American chlorine industry and resulting impacts on clean drinking water and sanitized health care facilities, among other concerns.
“Even well-meaning legislation can be a blunt instrument for problem solving where, if not careful, Congress can create risk trade-offs that spawn unintended public health risks, institute unimplementable enforceable requirements, or require complex and hard to meet compliance obligations,” Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR), the top Republican on the full committee, said in his opening remarks.
Walden said he was especially concerned about the “immediate loss” of 36 percent of the country's chlorine production and what that would mean for hospital disinfection, drinking water treatment, and pharmaceutical production.
“The resources required could push businesses to import materials rather than make them here. Do health care costs and drinking water rates spike, does availability to these services lessen, or do gaseous chlorine shipments come to our major ports?” he said.
Walden also asked EPA toxics chief Alexandra Dunn if she read the bill language “to create a potential conflict with ... language in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),” noting that the law “requires access to chlorine chemicals for public water systems.”
Dunn replied that she would prefer to reply in writing, after getting information from EPA's water office.
Walden's concerns appear to stem from issues raised by the American Water Works Association (AWWA), which represents drinking water utilities. In a May 8 letter to committee leaders, the utility group, citing data from The Chlorine Institute, said that “more than forty percent of the chlorine supply in the United States is dependent on production methods that rely on asbestos.”
It also noted that SDWA section 1441 charges EPA with “a responsibility to assure the availability of an adequate supply of chemicals necessary for the treatment of drinking water. Actions that disrupt the supply of essential water treatment chemicals, particularly abrupt changes in supply, have important impacts on the safety and resiliency of the nation’s water supply.”
Democrats' Questions
Democrats also appeared to be seeking ways to compromise.
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), chairman of the subcommittee and one of the bill's sponsors, noted that 60 other countries have banned asbestos and addressed the chlorine concern. He asked Mike Walls, a vice president with the American Chemistry Council, to detail its concerns with the bill and how it might be amended.
“We certainly know there are alternatives... but there are no drop-in replacements,” Walls replied.
Walls also raised concerns about the bill's short one-year transition period and the enormous costs that might result. “Industry cannot respond” to the one-year time frame in the bill, he said, adding later a reasonable amount of time would be “a significant number of years.”
Republicans also questioned Dunn closely about EPA's analysis on the bill, trying to address other concerns as well. Dunn said that EPA has not taken a position on the bill, but she noted several areas where agency officials have concerns with how some of its directives could feasibly be addressed.
Duncan asked Dunn whether the bill's requirement that EPA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development issue a report within 18 months on the number of buildings containing asbestos was feasible.
“We identified this portion of the bill to be difficult to do,” Dunn replied.
Duncan asked how EPA would address it without additional funding. “That would be a challenge,” Dunn replied.
Other Republicans questioned Dunn about language in the bill appearing to require that products be tested for even trace amounts of unintentional asbestos presence.
Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) asked Dunn whether there is an agreed-upon testing method for asbestos, and what laboratories' capacity for carrying out the testing is. Dunn asked to provide more information after the hearing.
Despite these concerns, some Republicans raised their own concerns about the ongoing uses of asbestos.
Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA) seemed surprised to learn that domestic companies actively import asbestos or products containing asbestos. “You raise my concern,” he told Dunn. “If it's coming out of the country, we're not regulating it? Are we checking it when it comes in?”
And Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) noting that the construction industry has found alternatives for its former uses of asbestos, asked why it hasn't been replaced in other kinds of products. “Why in god's name do we still use this?” he asked Dunn.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/republicans-see-possibility-compromise-bill-restricting-asbestos
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pallone on Asbestos: 'Enough Is Enough'
May 9, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Courtney Columbus
A top EPA official told a key House panel the agency is working "expeditiously," but that didn't satisfy members who want what they consider to be a long-overdue ban on asbestos.
The agency will finish its risk evaluation of the deadly substance by the end of the year, Alexandra Dunn, EPA's assistant administrator for chemical safety, told the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change.
In response to a question about whether EPA would take the full amount of time to complete that process, Dunn deferred.
"I don't want to speculate on how long it will take us to act," she said. "We will act expeditiously."
Top members of the panel, however, think EPA has already had enough time to make a call on asbestos. EPA banned the substance in 1989, but a federal appeals court overturned most of the ban in 1991.
"Twenty-eight years of frustration, of sickness and loss. We have known the dangers of asbestos for decades, and frankly, enough is enough," said Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.).
"It is deeply disappointing that 40 years after EPA began work to ban asbestos and three years after we passed the Lautenberg Act to reform that statute, we need to pass another law to ban this deadly substance. But it is clear that Congress must act, and we will," he continued.
The main point of the hearing was to consider legislation sponsored by Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.), which would amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to ban the manufacture, processing and commercial distribution of asbestos. It would also extend the ban to products that contain asbestos but includes a national security exemption.
The bill, H.R. 1603, is titled the "Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act of 2019," named after a man who died of mesothelioma in 2006. His widow, Linda Reinstein, founded the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization and serves as its executive director.
The time to act is long passed, she told the panel yesterday. She criticized EPA's inaction on asbestos and urged lawmakers to advance the bill, saying the agency is "failing to do their job."
Dunn repeatedly said the agency, however, had no position on Bonamici's bill, although it did have some concerns.
In response to a line of questions from Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), the subcommittee's ranking member, she said the bill is silent on what EPA should do about existing work on asbestos. The agency hopes for "more clarity on that, should the bill advance," she said.
Mike Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs with the American Chemistry Council, said the group opposes the bill. "We believe that EPA must be given the chance to complete its ongoing assessment," he said.
The organization's opposition stems from how the legislation would affect the chloralkali industry in the United States, Walls said. Asbestos diaphragms are used in the manufacture of chlorine.
The ban would "create a significant shortage of chlorine in the U.S. market," Walls said.
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), chairman of the subcommittee, asked Dunn to respond to a recent New York Times report that EPA hadn't followed the advice of its own experts, who had last year pushed for an asbestos ban in internal memos. EPA issued a rule on asbestos in April that limited the uses of the substance but fell short of banning it.
Dunn replied that she didn't "want to comment on internal conversations amongst our staff" but that her "door remains open to any member of our staff who feels they are not being heard with regard to their professional opinions."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1060300011/search?keyword=%22American+Chemistry+Council%22
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Science Denial is Crystal Clear: The EPA Ignores Scientists on Asbestos
May 8, 2019 | Union of Concerned Scientists
By Anita Desikan
We ignore scientists at our peril. Why doesn’t the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) get this?
The New York Times (subscription required) just reported that EPA officials actively ignored the advice of its own toxicologists last year on asbestos (yes asbestos of all things!) by issuing a rule (subscription required) that placed some restrictions on asbestos but did not fully ban it. More than a dozen EPA scientists and lawyers wrote to officials urging them to ban asbestos outright.
This is not the first time that EPA under the Trump administration has been criticized in the way it deals with asbestos. By not banning it, the EPA leaves open the door for the continued import of asbestos and provides a deal that allows industry a regulated but available pathway to use asbestos products in the US.We have to listen to federal scientists
EPA scientists were disturbed by both the agency’s review process and with the rule itself. Reading through the two internal memos, it is exceedingly obvious that the EPA scientists were providing a thorough and scientifically valid evaluation of the rule and why it needed to better reflect the current science.
Specifically, the EPA experts criticized the agency’s use of a scientific methodology that was more than 30 years old. The EPA rule only looked at six asbestos fiber types as harmful to health, but the agency has known there are more than six deadly fiber types since the 1990s. This is a severe breach of methodology and runs counter to the EPA’s mission statement which states that agency will use the “best available scientific information” in environmental policy decisions. Thirty-year-old science just won’t cut it when lives are literally on the line.
Additionally, the scientists criticized the fact that only two health problems were considered during the evaluation: lung cancer and mesothelioma. This does not reflect all the ways that asbestos can harm a person. The scientists listed many more health maladies (“asbestosis and other respiratory ailments, ovarian cancer, colorectal cancer, and cancers of the stomach, esophagus, larynx and pharynx”) which should be considered in the regulation process for asbestos. When this type of health data is thrown out the window, then we cannot see the full effects of asbestos exposure, and therefore cannot enact policy decisions that is based on all the evidence.Why haven’t we banned asbestos yet?
Asbestos was once considered a miracle mineral because of its heat resistance and strength and was widely used in homes built in the 1950s to the 1970s and in thousands of products. When the science began to show just how deadly asbestos exposure can be, some of the industries that have used asbestos in their products decided that risks to their profit margins were more important than the risks to public health. The manufacturer Georgia-Pacific, a conglomerate now owned by Koch Industries and previously the maker of an asbestos-containing construction material, began a campaign to flood scientific journals with counterfeit science, articles that attempted to cast doubt on the health risks associated with asbestos exposure. Faking science to benefit industry profits is unfortunately a well-known disinformation playbook tactic that has been used repeatedly for decades.
Even now, the vice president of regulatory and technical affairs of the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group well known for its attempts to dismantle science-based regulations on chemical exposures, told the New York Times, “We ought not to be imposing regulation simply on the basis of hazard.” This is absolutely absurd – all public health regulations are enacted for the purpose of reducing hazards to people!
What is particularly tragic is that the US does not need to import asbestos, that we know that business can cope with the change. In 1989, the EPA under the George H.W. Bush administration, attempted to ban most asbestos-containing products and phased out most other uses. While this policy was overturned by the courts in 1991, we know that banning asbestos is more than possible in the US. And the fact that over 60 nations have banned all uses of asbestos, the ability of industry to cope without asbestos is simply undeniable.Asbestos is really, really bad
Since the 1920s, we’ve known that asbestos exposure is deadly. But here is the worst part – the latest science is showing that asbestos is far, far more deadly than we previously thought. For years we used to say that asbestos is responsible for the deaths of 12,000 to 15,000 Americans every day. According to the best available science, this number now about 40,000 people dying a year. These numbers exceed deaths in America caused by gun violence or vehicle fatalities. Former Assistant Surgeon General Richard Lemen, now the science advisory board co-chair for the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, said that the “mortality rate of asbestos exposures is indeed of epidemic proportions.”
This is no safe level for asbestos, even the smallest forms of exposure can result in devastating illness decades later. Take the case of Heather von St James, who was diagnosed with a life-threatening form of mesothelioma because she as a child she would wear her dad’s jacket, a jacket he used when putting up asbestos-containing drywall. St James survived the mesothelioma and is now an advocate for banning asbestos, but her story is not the norm. Mesothelioma is estimated to be fatal in 90 percent of patients over a five year period.Ban it, just ban it!
Here’s how the scientists ended their well-crafted arguments: “Rather than allow for (even with restrictions) any new uses for asbestos, EPA should seek to ban all new uses of asbestos because the extreme harm from this chemical substance outweighs any benefit — and because there are adequate alternatives to asbestos.”
Congress is taking a look at the issue, specifically the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, but the administration needs to do better on this. The American people deserve to live their lives without the threat of asbestos exposure, we need to ban this dangerous substance right away.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/anita-desikan/the-science-denial-is-crystal-clear-the-epa-ignores-scientists-on-asbestos
-
Democrats Grill Toxics Chief Over EPA's Narrowed TSCA Review Of Asbestos
May 8, 2019 | InsideEPA
By Maria Hegstad
House Democrats grilled EPA toxics chief Alexandra Dunn over the agency's narrow approach to addressing risks of asbestos, though Dunn declined comment on a pair of leaked internal memos regional staff wrote raising concerns about the agency's approaches and underscoring concerns raised by environmentalists and others.
During the May 8 hearing before the House Energy and Commerce environment panel hearing, Democrats asked Dunn to comment on internal memos, first published by the New York Times, that EPA Region 10 staff wrote in August 2018 regarding EPA's now finalized Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) on legacy uses of asbestos and its ongoing evaluation of ongoing uses of the chemical under section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as reformed by Congress in 2016.
For example, staff raised concerns about EPA's reliance on the definition of asbestos as six fiber types, as defined in Article II of TSCA in 1986. “Given the current state of knowledge, relying on the decades old [TSCA] definition of asbestos will not allow for a comprehensive evaluation of the exposure risks,” one memo states.
Such concerns underscore similar fears environmentalists and others have raised concerns that EPA has narrowed the scope of its pending risk evaluation of existing uses by excluding “legacy” uses of asbestos, many diseases that can be caused by asbestos exposure, asbestos uses governed by other statutes or agencies and TSCA's narrow definition of asbestos.
Dunn declined to comment on a question about the memos from Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), chairman of the environment subpanel. Dunn said that she didn't “want to comment on internal conversations. We encourage full disclosure among our teams. My door remains open to any member of our staff who feels they are not being heard.”
Tonko responded, “[i]t seems Region 10 staff is concerned. I hope that is considered going forward.”
Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE) later sought to enter the memos into the hearing record, to which Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), the ranking member of the subpanel “reluctantly” objected, noting that Dunn couldn't comment on the memos and the hearing was not an oversight hearing.
Blunt Rochester asked Dunn why EPA has focused its ongoing risk evaluation solely on mesothelioma and lung cancer, ignoring a number of other diseases that can be caused by exposure to asbestos.
“We are looking at the industrial uses, we will look at any health risks associated with those uses,” Dunn replied.
And Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), chairman of the energy and commerce committee, raised concern over EPA's decision to exclude exposure to legacy uses and disposal of asbestos from the risk evaluation.
“We are not ignoring the legacy asbestos problem. We do believe there are extensive federal, local and state requirements that address legacy asbestos if it is to be disturbed and disposed of,” Dunn replied.
Pallone pressed Dunn further, asking her to “acknowledge that disposal is included in the statute? How do you exclude exposure from the disposal?”
Dunn replied that a decision had been made, but it “could be questioned through the peer review process. That certainly could come up.”
Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-CA), asked Dunn about the definition of asbestos EPA is using in its risk evaluation. It limits asbestos to six forms, but critics of EPA's actions have argued that there are other forms of asbestos that are hazardous, such as Libby amphibole.
McNerney noted that the internal memo references EPA's federal court case against W.R. Grace, the company that mined Libby amphibole asbestos in Montana for decades, where the judge in 2002 ruled that Libby anphibole is asbestos and hazardous substances under the Superfund law. “I recommend that you familiarize yourself with that” case, McNerney told Dunn.
“We are using the definition of asbestos in the act,” Dunn replied.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/democrats-grill-toxics-chief-over-epas-narrowed-tsca-review-asbestos
-
Dems Look to Bypass EPA with Asbestos Ban
May 8, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Beitsch
House Democrats hope to sidestep the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with a bill that would ban asbestos within a year.
In a Wednesday hearing before the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, Democrats grilled EPA chemical staff on why the agency hasn’t taken more restrictive actions on the harmful substance three years after passing a law to give the agency more authority to regulate dangerous chemicals.
“I wish today’s hearing wasn’t necessary and this bill wasn't necessary, but asbestos is still being imported into the U.S. and still being used in this country, and still killing about 40,000 Americans every year,” said committee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.).
The EPA has been under heavy criticism for its latest action on asbestos, something the agency argues will limit the use of asbestos in the U.S. but critics say could reintroduce some asbestos products to the market.
The agency has resisted calls to ban the cancer-causing substance outright, even against the wishes of some of its staff, arguing it must continue to go through its risk evaluation process, even if lengthier than some might prefer.
The New York Times reported Wednesday that senior EPA officials ignored the advice of scientists and lawyers in restricting rather than banning asbestos.
“Rather than allow for (even with restrictions) any new uses for asbestos, E.P.A. should seek to ban all new uses of asbestos because the extreme harm from this chemical substance outweighs any benefit — and because there are adequate alternatives to asbestos,” staff members wrote in a memo from August.
The memo alarmed subcommittee Chairman Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.).
“Based on some of these communications it seems clear that numerous EPA career staff believe the agency is not fully pursuing efforts to reduce asbestos exposure, and I hope these expert voices have a role as the process moves forward,” he said.
Asbestos is still sometimes used in the construction of roads and production of chlorine, among other products, but more than 60 countries have banned the use of the substance or products that contain it.
“The U.S. must do the same,” argued Tonko, but “I have little confidence that EPA will move forward on a reasonable timeline with the only acceptable outcome: a complete asbestos ban.”
Congress banned asbestos in 1989 but a court overturned that law in 1991, allowing limited uses of asbestos to continue.
Committee Republicans accused Democrats of politicizing the issue, trying to sidestep a science-based EPA process that could help the agency avoid future litigation.
“Let me be honest here. If a Democrat was in the White House right now, my Democratic colleagues would be very skeptical of me trying to overturn a chemical review,” said ranking member John Shimkus (R-Ill.).
Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) said that although he’d like to see an end to mesothelioma, the committee needed to carefully consider what unintended consequences a ban could have.
“I’m concerned about the immediate loss of 36 percent — that’s over one third — of our national chlorine production” and the risk that would pose to hospitals and drinking water supplies, he said.
For its part, the EPA continues to stress that its rule is the first meaningful action on asbestos in 30 years.
Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, assistant administrator of the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, told the committee the rule is an “aggressive and critical step” in addressing asbestos, stressing the need to go through a measured process in considering the risk factors associated with asbestos.
Dunn told The Hill in April that the agency may eventually ban asbestos.
Committee Democrats made clear they have lost faith in Dunn’s office under the Trump administration.
“Unfortunately, it’s now clear that despite the best efforts of our committee the Trump EPA is not using the tools we gave it to regulate dangerous chemicals,” Pallone Jr. said, adding that EPA’s actions “have been so legally suspect we need to pass this bill regardless of whether EPA were to announce it’s moving forward with a full ban of asbestos.”
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/442716-dems-want-asbestos-ban-now-epa-says-it-needs-more-time
-
TSCA Science Advisory Committee Sets PV29 Peer Review Dates
May 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has announced new dates for the TSCA Scientific Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) to peer review the draft risk evaluation of pigment violet 29.
The four-day meeting is designed to allow independent review of the science underlying the draft assessment which, released in November, proposes to determine that the substance does not pose unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.
It will also include an ‘orientation’ on TSCA and how the EPA evaluates chemicals.
Alexandra Dunn, assistant administrator at the EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, characterised the meeting as "an important opportunity for the science experts on this new committee to provide their scientific and technical advice to EPA."
And it is likely to be closely watched, given ongoing and increasingly heated policy disagreement over the ways that the agency collected and determined the confidentiality of data underpinning the evaluation.
The SACC currently consists of 26 members, representing experts in toxicology, human health and environmental risk assessment, exposure assessment and related sciences.
This will be its first meeting, after the group was formed pursuant to the 2016 Lautenberg amendments to TSCA.
The PV29 peer review meeting had originally been scheduled for January, but was delayed due to the government shutdown.
A subsequent release of studies that had previously been withheld as confidential also resulted in the agency extending the comment deadline for the evaluation to 17 May.
The scientific advice and recommendations from the SACC will, together with public comments, inform the final risk evaluation. This is due by late December.
The meeting will take place from 18-21 June in Arlington, Virginia. Requests to make oral comments must be received by 28 May. A portion of the event will be closed to the public for review of confidential business information (CBI).
https://chemicalwatch.com/77323/tsca-science-advisory-committee-sets-pv29-peer-review-dates
-
Science Advisory Panels Prep for Rare Meetings
May 8, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly and Corbin Hiar
Two EPA advisory panels are set to hold public meetings next month, one for the first time in a year and the other for the first time ever.
The Science Advisory Board will gather June 5 and 6 in Washington, with an agenda that will include a discussion of EPA's semiannual regulatory agenda and an update to the agency's 2005 guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment, according to a notice set for publication in tomorrow's Federal Register.
The 45-member board advises EPA on a variety of scientific and technical issues; it has also been at the center of a bitter dispute over a 2017 membership policy that has allowed EPA leaders to recast it in a more industry-friendly direction. The meeting will be the first in roughly a year.
In a letter last month, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler pledged to work with the board but largely dismissed its plans to review the science behind some especially contentious agency proposals (Greenwire, April 23).
Later in June, the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals — an advisory panel created in 2016 by the Toxic Substances Control Act overhaul — will hold its inaugural meeting to review the science underlying EPA's controversial risk assessment of pigment violet 29, the first conducted after TSCA reform.
"This will be an important opportunity for the science experts on this new committee to provide their scientific and technical advice to EPA," chemical safety chief Alexandra Dapolito Dunn said in a news release. "This peer review ensures scientific rigor and enhances transparency of the risk evaluation process."
Last November, EPA released a draft risk evaluation of PV29, which concluded the pigment "does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment." But the health studies it based that conclusion on weren't initially available to the public (E&E News PM, March 21).
After lawmakers raised concerns about the hidden studies, EPA released lightly redacted versions and quietly updated its summaries of them, alarming public health advocates at the Environmental Defense Fund.
The panel set to review the PV29 science is heavily weighted toward industry. Two environmentalists selected for the chemicals committee turned down the offer, in part over concerns about the Trump administration's moves to restrict EPA from using certain public health studies (Greenwire, March 30, 2018).
A two-day meeting of EPA's Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee starts tomorrow in Washington. The agenda includes an update on the federal lead action plan and a discussion of ways to enhance "risk communication" to improve children's health. The meeting is scheduled to end early Friday afternoon.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/05/08/stories/1060298199
-
Will Greens Call It Quits on Collins?
May 8, 2019 | Politico (Morning Energy)
By Kelsey Mborrino
— Prominent environmental groups are facing pressure to abandon their previous support of Republican Sen. Susan Collins — an example of the increasing polarization of environmental issues ahead of the 2020 elections.
— President Donald Trump travels to Florida today where he'll visit a hurricane-ravaged Air Force base that's in the middle of Congress' debate over disaster aid.
— Interior Secretary David Bernhardt disputed a report that he had "indefinitely" shelved work on an offshore oil and gas leasing plan that could expand the coastal areas open for exploration, though work on a proposal could stretch out for years.
**A message from Biodiesel – America's Advanced Biofuel: Biodiesel – An American Innovation Driving More than 60,000 US Jobs
America’s biodiesel producers turn the nation’s surplus soybean oil, used cooking oil, and recycled fats into an $11.4 billion economic opportunity. Biodiesel is an American-made, cleaner-burning fuel that keeps transportation moving, drives our economy forward, and supports jobs across the country. Biodiesel: America’s Advanced Biofuel **IT'S WEDNESDAY! I'm your host, Kelsey Tamborrino. Holland & Hart's Kelly Johnson gets the trivia win for knowing the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park is the largest U.S. national park. For today: Who was the most recent vice president to immediately succeed to the presidency by election? Send your tips, energy gossip and comments to ktamborrino@politico.com. Follow us on Twitter @kelseytam, @Morning_Energy and @POLITICOPro.DRIVING THE DAY
CALLING IT QUITS ON COLLINS? Republican endorsements from green groups used to be routine. Now, groups like the League of Conservation Voters and Environmental Defense Fund — whose campaign arms backed Susan Collins in 2014 — will have to reckon with whether to back moderate Republicans again, Pro's Anthony Adragna reports, especially since Collins' race could determine control of the Senate after 2020.
It remains an open question whether LCV or EDF will support Collins. Keith Gaby, a spokesman for EDF Action, said his group hasn't "started looking at 2020" so far, while Tiernan Sittenfeld, the senior vice president of government affairs for LCV, said "[s]ome of Collins' recent votes have been extremely disappointing."
The Maine Republican is one of the last few tempting targets for environmental groups seeking to endorse both Democrats and Republicans. But Democrats in Maine and liberal environmental activists say the senator has betrayed her moderate reputation with votes to confirm Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court and in favor of the Republican tax law, H.R. 1 (115), that opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.
Ian Koski, a south Portland-based Democratic strategist, told Anthony it would be an "all hands on deck" effort to beat Collins and activists would aggressively push groups like LCV not to back the Republican again. "Susan Collins can't be trusted anymore and doesn't deserve to be offered another fig leaf," he said. Read more.THE WHITE HOUSE
TRUMP VISITS BASE HIT BY HURRICANE: President Donald Trump will travel to Florida today for a rally, and while there will visit the Tyndall Air Force Base — planting himself in the center of the debate over disaster aid and climate change's effect on national security.
Trump is expected to receive an update on hurricane recovery efforts at the base, the Panama City News Herald reports. The Air Force base was struck by Hurricane Michael last year, damaging hundreds of structures.
Lawmakers' disagreement over how much aid Puerto Rico should receive in a disaster aid package has stalled the flow of money for hurricane repairs at the Tyndall base. Under the House's latest disaster aid package, H.R. 2157 (116), the Air Force would receive $700 million for military construction projects related to Hurricane Michael at Tyndall.
Trump's appearance comes days after the Air Force sent Congress a revised list of the service's 10 most vulnerable installations to the effects of climate change. That list, obtained by POLITICO, ranks Tyndall as the No. 9 most vulnerable to "the consequences of severe weather events," including flooding, wildfires and drought.AROUND THE AGENCIES
EPA PLANS TO REJECT NEW YORK PETITION ON UPWIND POLLUTION: EPA will propose denying a March 2018 petition from New York seeking more pollution controls on over 350 sources in nine upwind states that New York says are preventing it from meeting ozone air quality standards, according to a pre-publication notice. The proposal follows New York's April lawsuit seeking to force EPA to act on its petition. EPA on Tuesday said the state failed to prove that the 350 sources emit pollution that violates the Clean Air Act's "good neighbor" provisions. The agency pointed to its December "CSAPR close-out" rule that found upwind states have done enough to clean up their ozone-related pollution that floats downwind.
EPA's proposed denial will be open for public comment for 60 days upon publication in the Federal Register and the agency will hold a public hearing on June 11 in Washington. EPA previously rejected similar "Section 126" petitions from Maryland and Delaware, prompting legal challenges from those states.
DEFINITELY NOT INDEFINITELY: Bernhardt said Tuesday he wasn't rushing to publish the five-year offshore drilling plan that former Secretary Ryan Zinke aimed to release last year, Pro's Ben Lefebvre reports. The secretary appeared before a House Appropriations subcommittee where he disputed the characterization from an interview he gave to The Wall Street Journal that he had "indefinitely" shelved the plan.
"I don't think that article quotes me as saying 'sidelined indefinitely,'" Bernhardt said. "Those are not words I would have used." But he added lawmakers should not expect to see any new proposal soon: "I'll promise you that a plan isn't imminent at this time."
ARCTIC TALKS STUMBLE OVER CLIMATE: Talks among the eight nations of the Arctic Council in Finland failed to yield a joint declaration on the future of the Arctic because of the United States' opposition to goals on climate change, The Wall Street Journal reports. Instead of a customary joint declaration, the nations issued a short "joint statement" noting a commitment to maintaining peace and stability in the Arctic, but omitted mentions of climate change.ON THE HILL
E&C PANEL LOOKS AT ASBESTOS: The House Energy and Commerce Committee's environment and climate change subcommittee holds a hearing today on asbestos. The hearing will examine H.R. 1603 (116), a bill to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to prohibit the manufacture, processing and distribution of asbestos and asbestos-containing mixtures.
On the roster: Assistant EPA Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Alexandra Dapolito Dunn is among those testifying. EPA last month announced it would prohibit companies from importing or selling any new asbestos products that have not been reviewed and approved by the agency. But panel Democrats have been critical of the agency's slow timeline for banning the substance.
"We understand that many stakeholders want the EPA to ban all remaining asbestos products now," Dunn will say in her opening statement. But under TSCA, the agency can't "move directly to risk management actions such as a ban — which is indeed an option in certain cases — or to any other restrictions without first completing the risk evaluation and making an unreasonable risk determination," she'll say.
FED HAS CLIMATE PLANS: The Federal Reserve has risk management procedures in place to prepare the central bank and its institutions for severe weather events that could stem from climate change, Chairman Jerome Powell told Sen. Brian Schatz in an April 18 letter obtained by POLITICO. Powell wrote that severe weather events over the short term "have the potential to inflict serious damage on the lives of individuals and families, devastate local economies (including financial institutions), and even temporarily affect national economic output and employment." Pro's Victoria Guida has more.STATE NEWS
INSLEE SIGNS CLEAN ELECTRICITY BILL: Democratic presidential hopeful and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed into law Tuesday a suite of clean energy bills, including a 100 percent clean electricity mandate by 2045, making Washington the fifth state to adopt a 100 percent clean energy target.
The bill sets three key targets — a phase-out of coal power by 2025, a 2030 deadline for utilities to become carbon neutral, and100 percent clean electricity by 2045, including renewables and non-emitting sources. "The standards alone are the most aggressive in the nation, but I think what makes the bill truly unique is the other provisions," said Lauren McCloy, Inslee's senior policy adviser for energy, on a call with reporters Tuesday.
Some of the wonkier aspects of the bill include having utilities use the social cost of carbon to evaluate resources, as well as a tiered incentive system for developers seeking a tax exemption for certain renewable energy machinery and equipment. The Washington bill is being held up by some as a model for the federal level to set energy targets with the support of labor unions and utilities. "Washington is showing the rest of the country what it looks like to lead on climate," Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said in a statement.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-energy/2019/05/08/will-greens-call-it-quits-on-collins-433722
-
EPA Begins Risk Evaluation Prioritization Process for 40 Chemicals
May 8, 2019 | Safety & Health Magazine
The Environmental Protection Agency, in accordance with the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, is seeking public comment on a list of 40 chemicals to prioritize for risk evaluation, according to a notice published in the March 21 Federal Register.
Publication of the list triggers a statutory requirement for EPA to designate at least 20 chemicals each as high and low priority by Dec. 22. A chemical identified as high priority is required to undergo a three-year risk evaluation, while the low-priority chemicals aren’t required to undergo evaluation.
Among the chemicals being considered for high-priority classification:
Seven chlorinated solvents
Six phthalates, or hormone-disrupting substances linked to several health-related issues
Four flame retardants
Formaldehyde
One fragrance additive
One polymer precursor
The 20 chemicals under consideration for low-priority identification have been evaluated previously by EPA or another government body, the notice states.
These chemicals are separate from the first 10 chemicals slated for evaluation for potential health and environmental risks under the Lautenberg Act. This past summer, EPA solicited comments on problem formation documents for the latter group of chemicals before releasing the first draft risk evaluation – for Pigment Violet 29 – in November. A Nov. 14 press release from EPA states that the agency planned to release draft risk evaluations for the remaining nine chemicals “in the coming months,” and intended to issue final risk evaluations for the first 10 chemicals by December 2019.
“EPA continues to demonstrate its commitment to the successful and timely implementation of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act,” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a March 20 press release. “We are delivering on the promise of Lautenberg to better assess and manage existing chemicals in commerce and provide greater certainty and transparency to the American public.”
Review dockets for each chemical are available online at regulations.gov. Comments are due June 19.
https://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/18382-epa-begins-risk-evaluation-prioritization-process-for-40-chemicals
-
Regulatory Developments: Strength in Numbers: Why Forming a TSCA Consortium Is Important
May 8, 2019 | Lexology
By Kathleen M. Roberts
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released on March 20, 2019, a list of 20 chemicals that EPA has suggested as candidates for high priority designation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as reported in our March 22, 2019, memorandum "EPA Releases List of 40 Chemicals Undergoing Prioritization for Risk Evaluation." Should those chemicals go forward as high priority, they will be subject to risk evaluation under TSCA Section 6. Industry stakeholder responses to this candidate list proposal and follow up actions with EPA related to risk evaluation work optimally will be conducted under existing or potentially newly formed chemical consortia.
But what if your chemical is not on the list of 20? If you want to protect or even increase your business market advantage, consider inviting your commercial rivals to join an industry advocacy group anyway. This is particularly important if you have a chemical of commercial interest on the TSCA Work Plan Chemicals list.
In today’s regulatory environment, engaging in advocacy opportunities with your company’s competitors makes sense. Consolidating experience, knowledge, and finances allows a company to achieve far more and faster than it could individually. Given that amended TSCA requires EPA to look to the TSCA Work Plan Chemicals to identify chemicals for future prioritization consideration, we know those chemicals will be subject to regulatory scrutiny eventually. So setting up and working under a consortium umbrella now makes sense. Even if your chemical is not yet on the proverbial radar screen, there is benefit of organizing with others early. Groups that wait to organize will deplete valuable limited time to form, leaving less time to engage effectively and comprehensively on EPA’s proposed actions. Organizing industry groups now means reduced cost, greater flexibility, increased time for strategic planning, and less aggravation in the long run.
Beyond prioritization and risk evaluation under Section 6, we also know that EPA anticipates industry group engagement for testing under TSCA Section 4. Within the risk framework rulemakings, EPA expressed repeatedly and clearly that it anticipates TSCA obligations will be shared collaboratively and addressed by consortia groups. Even within a general regulatory advocacy context, in many respects, EPA appropriately prefers working with industry coalitions to save time, obtain greater use and exposure information, and leverage more efficiently its own resources.
Congress explicitly included the concepts of industry consortia as part of amended TSCA legislation under Section 4, as it relates to efforts to reduce animal testing, and Section 26, in anticipation of increased Agency fee payments.
So working under a consortium umbrella makes sense. But before proceeding with group formation, there are some important factors to consider:Antitrust Protection: Members of an industry group must consider the need to protect against antitrust concerns. It is reasonable to anticipate that outsiders may be concerned with key competitors working together. It could be perceived as opportunities for dishonest companies to pursue unfair market activities, such as price fixing or monopolization efforts. To address such concerns, industry consortia must be managed in a way that ensures federal antitrust laws are followed. This can be achieved through a third-party management service, which provides administrative structure to the group, including specific meeting agendas and minutes, and competent antitrust counsel at meetings to ensure discussions or exchanges of prohibited information do not occur.Regulatory Experience: Today’s regulations are complex. It is nearly impossible for today’s company representatives to have in-depth knowledge of the myriad of regulatory statutes impacting their commercial chemical products. Having easy access to experts to assist the consortium in understanding the regulatory pressures for a specific chemical, as well as insight on strategic approaches, is invaluable.Financial Experience: As organizations consider management service providers, they should appreciate that for many regulatory programs, the amount of money to collect and disburse is not insignificant. Under TSCA Section 6, industry consortia will need to collect over $1,000,000 to cover anticipated EPA fees. TSCA Section 4 requires fee payments of about $10,000 to $30,000 -- PLUS costs associated with the specific testing required. Costs under the EPA Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, while still in hibernation but potentially could progress soon, could be over $1,000,000. A consortium should consider whether its management service provider has the ability to collect and disburse funds needed to cover required industry fees, contract testing, administrative management, and other costs associated with consortium work. In some cases, there may be federal tax implications. As such, it is recommended that consortium financial management be conducted under the auspices of a certified public accountant.Sunset Provisions: While details on the why, when, and how of setting up a new industry group is important, companies should also think about the parameters for shutting down the group when its work is completed. A consortium should be maintained only if additional work is needed. Otherwise, there should be an easy option for members to disband when the work is done.
As mentioned, companies should be thinking ahead if chemical products important to them were not on the March 20 list. The new normal is not what you think and going it alone is not smart. The time to prepare for the future of your company’s products is now, and to do that, you will need to coordinate with others in your commercial space.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=81c5b71b-d2c0-4324-bc5c-daaac88afd3b
-
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Poised to Jump into PFAS Problems
May 9, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Snider and Anthony Adragna
Frustrated by what they see as a foot dragging by the Trump administration in confronting toxic chemical contamination in drinking water, lawmakers on Capitol Hill are preparing to jump into the fray.
Over the next month, committees in both the House and Senate plan to take up legislation to address the class of nonstick chemicals known as PFAS. That includes measures directing EPA to establish mandatory limits in drinking water and to require the Defense Department, which used the substances for decades in firefighting foam, to take greater responsibility for its role in the contamination.
The issue is shaping up to be a rare area of bipartisan agreement, with bills in both chambers garnering a broad swath of co-sponsors.
PFAS contamination knows no political boundaries: the chemicals, which are linked with kidney and testicular cancer, reduced childhood immunity and other health problems, have been found at 610 sites across 43 states, according to a map released by the Environmental Working Group and Northeastern University on Monday.
“We’ve told the EPA we want an acceptable standard here and want them to set that standard,” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), whose state hassuffered from both industrial and military contamination from the chemicals.
“You’re seeing a lot of bills because you feel like foot-dragging or non-specificity is frustrating. If we’ve got something in the water that’s causing unhealthy situations, it should be alleviated quickly and it’s not going quick enough,” she said.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee's Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee has scheduled a legislative hearing for May 15 on "a series of bills" related to the chemicals.
“The American people are demanding action and many, myself included, feel the administration has not done enough to address this major environmental and public health issue,” Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), chairman of the subcommittee, said in a video message. “It has fallen to Congress to advance policies that will reduce the threat of these toxic chemicals.”
In the Senate, Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told POLITICO that staff are working on a bill they hope to get to markup.
“We’re making progress,” he said.
More than a dozen bills relating to the chemicals have been filed so far, ranging from providing healthcare for military veterans exposed to PFAS in firefighting foam to requiring government monitoring for PFAS in water supplies. More legislation is expected to be released in the coming days.
The heart of the legislative effort will relate to EPA regulations.
The agency has committed to beginning work on a drinking water limit for the two-best studied chemicals in the class, PFOA and PFOS, with the first step due to be completed by the end of the year. But that process is likely to take years, andEPA leaders only agreed to undertake it after facing intense pressure from lawmakers after POLITICO reported in January that an internal draft of EPA’s Action Plan for PFAS contained no plans to set a drinking water limit.
Lawmakers are now seeking to lock down EPA’s commitment, while broadening and speeding up their work. One bill, H.R. 2377 (116) from Rep. Brendan Boyle(D-Pa.) would require EPA to set a mandatory drinking water limit for all PFAS within two years. A Senate companion bill is expected to be filed soon.
Lawmakers are also looking to firm up the agency’s promise to designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous under the Superfund program and expand that designation to all types of PFAS. A Senate bill, S. 638 (116) from Capito and Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, and its House companion, H.R. 535 (116), would mandate the designation for the entire class within one year.
The chemicals industry has staunchly opposed efforts to handle the thousands ofdifferent PFAS chemicals as a group, arguing that there are huge differences in uses and toxicity among them.
“Because of these differences, it is inappropriate to pass one-size-fits-all regulations of PFAS as a class, which is what the Carper-Capito bill would do,” the American Chemistry Council said in a statement when the Senate Superfund bill was introduced.
Meanwhile, the House and Senate Armed Services committees are preparing to mark up their respective National Defense Authorization bills in the coming weeks, and those discussions could include efforts to ban the military’s use of firefighting foam containing the chemicals and grapple with the Defense Department’s massive liability for groundwater and drinking water contamination.
Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the upper chamber’s Armed Services Committee, told POLITICO the chemicals are “an issue of bipartisan concern.”
“First of all we have to gauge the impacts of the health and environmental quality then take some steps to try to minimize any adverse effects,” he said.
Reed and Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) were slated to huddle on the topic Wednesday evening.
While the Defense authorization bill will initially tackle only PFAS issues relating to the military, an Inhofe staffer acknowledged that it could become a vehicle for larger PFAS efforts in the upper chamber. Any of those changes would likely have to be added to bills on the floor.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/05/congress-poised-to-jump-into-pfas-problems-1418642
-
House Bill Would Help Fund PFAS Removal
May 9, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Courtney Columbus
New legislation from House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) would create a grant program to provide funding for removing chemicals used in firefighting foam from drinking water.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are widely used in industrial and commercial products and have contaminated drinking water.
The measure, H.R. 2553, is titled the "Providing Financial Assistance for Safe Drinking Water Act," or the "PFAS Drinking Water Act."
"The Trump EPA's failure to regulate the manufacture, use and disposal of PFAS chemicals has put countless Americans' health at risk, and left drinking water systems struggling to provide safe water. It is time for Congress to act," Pallone said in a statement.
"This bill will ensure communities across the country have the resources they need to eliminate the toxic chemicals from their water. Americans deserve to know their drinking water is safe," he added.
The measure would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act, requiring EPA to create a new grant program within 180 days of the bill's enactment.
Community water systems affected by PFAS contamination would be eligible to apply for the grants, which would cover the capital costs of technologies to remove PFAS from drinking water. It would authorize up to $500,000 in funding for fiscal 2021 through 2025.
Pallone's legislation is the latest in a string of PFAS proposals. Top House lawmakers say their goal is to hold hearings and bring language to the floor (E&E Daily, May 7).
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/05/09/stories/1060298629
-
Industry Seeks Veto of Sweeping New York Children’s Product Bill
May 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
Industry groups are pressing New York Governor Andrew Cuomo to veto a bill to restrict toxins in children’s products, arguing that the "unworkable" measure is at odds with other states’ requirements and will not improve product safety.
The New York legislature passed the Child Safe Products Act (S 501) last week with wide margins and bipartisan support.
Championed by the JustGreen Partnership – which is made up of over 50 organisations, including the NGO Clean and Healthy New York (CHNY) – it would ban the sale of children’s products containing certain "dangerous chemicals" and require disclosure of nearly 100 others. If signed into law by the governor, it will apply to a number of children’s products, including toys, baby products, jewellery, bedding and apparel.
But a number of industry groups have told Chemical Watch that the measure represents yet another set of requirements, one that differs from laws already on the books in Oregon, Washington and Vermont. And they are calling on the governor not to sign it into law.
Michael Behm, with the business management consultancy Stateside, said "the bill is a mess and inconsistent with other states that have also enacted disclosure laws."
And Toy Association director of state government affairs, Matthew Lenz, agreed that the inconsistent approach will make it "both challenging and costly for manufacturers to comply with."
Nate Herman, senior vice president of supply chain at the American Apparel and Footwear Association, said his organisation has proposed changes to improve its cohesion with other laws.
And although some of these have been adopted, Mr Herman said AAFA "still feels that the bill requires several common sense additions to make it effective." These include: the creation of an expert advisory panel to review proposed updates to the regulations;removal of disclosure requirements for chemicals not currently listed on other states’ lists;exemptions for chemicals present in inaccessible parts; andclarification of classes of chemicals by specific CAS numbers.
‘Oversimplify the issue’
More broadly, industry groups have protested that New York’s measure will not improve product safety.
"There’s a narrative that has been created that’s not based on any studies or science related to children’s products," said the Toy Association’s Mr Lenz.
"This narrative makes it really easy to oversimplify this issue and say this bill will protect kids, when in reality this bill in no way assesses the safety of the products concerned and therefore any claims that this is protecting kids or making products safer just isn’t accurate."
Kelly Mariotti, executive director of the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA), added that the measure is duplicative of existing regulations.
"JPMA has critical concerns with the overly broad nature of the legislation and potential negative impacts on juvenile product categories and chemicals that are already undergoing review at the federal level," Ms Mariotti said.
And, Mr Lenz agreed, the law would further complicate the federal regulatory process, as the EPA continues to implement 2016 revisions to TSCA: "It is important to allow this law time to be fully implemented to allow small businesses to avoid a patchwork of state chemical regulations."
Meanwhile, the state-wide coalition New York Businesses United for Product Safety said the legislation would "establish a burdensome, unworkable chemical regulatory programme that is not necessary." Citing concerns that New York’s leading role in chemical manufacturing has already declined, the state "cannot afford to lose even more jobs across the entire manufacturing sector and shut out large employers."
‘Big action’
Despite the criticism, Kathy Curtis, executive director of CHNY, says the bill is "big action, but appropriate action."
"Toxic chemicals continue to be present in children's products, and families can't tell which products may contribute to their children's exposure to chemicals that can have lifelong health consequences," she said. The legislation is "right action where there is wrong science", and is backed by broad agreement in the health and scientific communities.
"To make the dream of safe products for all children a reality, the Child Safe Products Act must be passed," she added.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77226/industry-seeks-veto-of-sweeping-new-york-childrens-product-bill
-
California Assembly Advances Measure Aimed at Prop 65 Private Litigation
May 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
California’s Assembly has passed a bill to require that the state’s Attorney General be notified of certain activities related to Proposition 65 private enforcement litigation.
Prop 65 requires businesses to provide ‘clear and reasonable’ warning before knowingly and intentionally exposing anyone to a listed chemical. And ‘private enforcer’ individual citizens can file litigation for alleged failure to do so.
However, bill AB 1123 passed by the Assembly this month would ensure the Attorney General is notified when there are appeals in these cases.
According to analysis of the bill prepared by the legislature, there are current requirements that the AG be informed when private lawsuits have been filed and upon settlement. But no such requirement is in effect for appellate litigation.
"As a result," it says, "the Attorney General may be unaware of pending appeals that address issues of statewide concern with respect to the enforcement or interpretation of Prop 65".
Without such notice, it adds, the AG could miss the opportunity to inform the courts of the state’s interest in the case or participate in the proceedings.
The legislation passed the Assembly on 2 May by a 58-19 margin.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77335/california-assembly-advances-measure-aimed-at-prop-65-private-litigation
-
California Adopts Prop 65 Definition for Soluble Nickel Compounds
May 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has established a definition for soluble nickel compounds for the purposes of Proposition 65.
Nickel (soluble compounds) was added to the state’s list of substances known to cause reproductive toxicity – based on developmental and male reproductive endpoints – effective from 26 October 2018.
The designation means that warning must be provided for exposure to the substance.
The state agency that oversees Prop 65 has clarified that this listing covers "compounds of nickel with solubility in water of greater than 0.1 moles per liter (mol/L) at 20°C".
https://chemicalwatch.com/77331/california-adopts-prop-65-definition-for-soluble-nickel-compounds
-
California Announces Plan to Ban Chlorpyrifos
May 8, 2019 | InsideEPA
California regulators are planning to ban the pesticide chlorpyrifos by initiating a process to cancel the product’s registration in the state, a move that would end almost 20 percent of the chemical’s domestic use even as federal regulators weigh whether they will continue to allow its use.
Cal/EPA Secretary Jared Blumenfeld announced the plan in a May 8 press release, citing evidence that the compound causes serious health effects in children and other sensitive populations at lower levels of exposure than previously understood.
“California’s action to cancel the registration of chlorpyrifos is needed to prevent the significant harm this pesticide causes children, farm workers and vulnerable communities,” he said. “This action also represents a historic opportunity for California to develop a new framework for alternative pest management practices.”
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) “intends to move forward in a responsible manner by beginning the process of canceling the registrations for products containing chlorpyrifos, and at the same time, convening a cross-sector working group to identify safer alternatives to avoid replacing chlorpyrifos with an equally harmful pesticide,” the release says.
The cancellation process could take up to two years.
Nevertheless, once the state’s plan is in place, it could end the use of as much as 20 percent of the chlorpyrifos that is used domestically, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), one of several groups that welcomed the state’s actions.
“Since California uses more chlorpyrifos than any other state, this ban will not only protect kids who live here, but kids who eat the fruits and veggies grown here,” NRDC senior scientist Miriam Rotkin-Ellman said in a statement.
But the state’s move comes even as U.S. EPA appears poised to allow continued use of the chemical. A federal appellate court ordered EPA to quickly respond to environmentalists’ objections to former Administrator Scott Pruitt’s reversal of an Obama-era proposed federal ban on chlorpyrifos, an answer that would clear the way for critics of the decision to challenge the agency in courts on the merits of the reversal.
Nevertheless, other states are also taking steps to bar the pesticide’s use. Hawaii intends to ban chlorpyrifos by the end of 2022, while last month New York’s legislature voted to ban chlorpyrifos by the end of 2021, a DPR spokeswoman notes.
During California’s cancellation process, recent DPR recommendations to county agricultural commissioners for tighter permit restrictions on the use of chlorpyrifos will remain in place. These include a ban on aerial spraying, quarter-mile buffer zones and limiting use to crop-pest combinations that lack alternatives.
But those that lack alternatives is substantial and include certain applications to alfalfa, almonds, asparagus, citrus, cole leafy vegetables, radish, rutabaga, turnips, cotton sweet potatoes, garlic, grapes, onions, peppermint and walnuts.
DPR has now determined, in consultation with the state Department of Food & Agriculture, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and Air Resources Board, “that sufficient additional control measures are not feasible,” the release says.
Environmentalists and public health groups have been pressuring California to ban chlorpyrifos for years, citing
scientific findings that the pesticide poses serious public health and environmental risks to vulnerable communities, including impaired brain and neurological development.
California officials say their plan to ban chlorpyrifos “follows mounting evidence, including recent findings by the state’s independent Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants, that the pesticide causes serious health effects in children and other sensitive populations at lower levels of exposure than previously understood."
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/california-announces-plan-ban-chlorpyrifos
-
California Moves to Ban Brain-Damaging Pesticide as EPA Resists Court Action
May 8, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rebecca Beitsch
California, the nation’s top agricultural state, banned a common pesticide Wednesday, citing research showing it hinders brain development in children.
Chlorpyrifos, known on the market as Lorsban, is sprayed on a wide variety of crops including corn and cranberries, and farmers often call it a last line of defense against certain insects.
The chemical was initially targeted for phase-out by the Obama administration after U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) scientists recommended a ban on the pesticide in 2016. But that decision was reversed under the Trump administration, and the agency has delayed taking further action, leaving bans in state hands.
California’s action comes from the state’s EPA, though state lawmakers are also considering a ban by legislation.
The agency argued the ban was needed “to prevent the significant harm this pesticide causes children, farm workers and vulnerable communities,” according to a statement.
The EPA banned household use of chlorpyrifos in 2000 due to its risks for children, and scientists recommended a full ban on the pesticide in 2016. But President Trump's former EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, ignored that advice, leaving the department in a long legal battle over the substance.
In August, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals gave the agency 60 days to implement a ban, but the Department of Justice asked the court to reconsider. In April, the court instead gave the agency 90 days to determine whether it would allow the chemical to be used on crops.
“EPA’s last re-evaluation of chlorpyrifos was completed in 2006 as part of the reregistration process. EPA is currently re-evaluating chlorpyrifos," said Michael Abboud, an EPA spokesman.
The process of banning the substance in California could take up to two years, and Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said the budget would include $5.7 million to help farmers transition to safer alternatives.
Scientists worry chlorpyrifos, a neurotoxin, affects the human nervous system much like it attacks those of insects. The pesticide has been linked to learning and memory issues and prolonged nerve and muscle stimulation.
States are increasingly taking action to ban chlorpyrifos as the EPA delays action. Hawaii and New York have already banned use of the pesticide on food.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/442748-california-bans-brain-damaging-pesticide-ahead-of-epa
-
Publishing CLP Inventory Notifier Identity Poses Confidentiality Risks – Cefic
May 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Caterina Tani
Cefic has raised concerns over the European Commission’s proposal to publishthe names of notifiers in the CLP inventory, calling for a "cautious approach" to protect confidential business information.
The comments came in a paper circulated after the meeting of the competent authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) on 20 March, which addressed the possibility of making notifiers’ identity public.
In the current version of the inventory, which includes over 6.5 million notifications for more than 135,000 substances, only chemical names are displayed, not those of notifiers.
But, according to the Commission, the anonymity of notifiers leads to too "little communication among them" and a low number of ‘agreed entries’ between notifiers and registrants, in contrast with article 41 of CLP.
Publishing the names would improve dialogue – and the number of agreed entries – as well as help clean up the CLP inventory, as requested by trade bodies, the Commission said.
Cefic pointed out that the CLP inventory contains details of chemicals manufactured or imported for the purposes product and process-orientated research and development (Ppord), which are exempted from REACH registration.
Implementing the proposal would imply a "full overview" of the portfolio of notifying companies to their competitors, who could "get insights into their research and innovation strategies", the trade body said.
Alternatively, Cefic proposed to implement a "dormant status" notification in the inventory, to allow deletion of wrong entries, and carry out information campaigns to reach companies which are "difficult to contact".Shared concerns
In its Caracal paper, the Slovakian economic ministry said publication would raise "several legal issues" to ensure protection of research portfolios.
Likewise, the Downstream Users of Chemicals Coordination group (Ducc) said it is "certainly not the norm" for formulators to make their SDS "immediately available to the public, particularly in highly competitive or innovative" sectors.
Ducc proposed that any notifier should have the option to claim confidentiality for their identity to protect interests. And, at least, there should be "an exemption from identification of notifiers for Ppord".
A further exemption, it added, should be granted to formulators which place on the market a new mixture including an (imported) substance due to be notified in the first place, but whose new concentration is below the generic threshold.
On the contrary, Finland said that disclosing notifiers’ names would "allow the sharing of common approaches, a better alignment for classification of the same substance" and enhance relevant information for classification.
However, it did support the ‘Safety net’ concept – a proposal mentioned by the Commission and included in REACH – for the protection of confidential business information where justified.Commission proposal
Disseminating names of notifiers in the CLP inventory, set up in February 2012, would encourage better discussion on classifications, increase transparency and knowledge and facilitate alignment of self-classification and labelling, the Commission said.
It also would create better competition between manufacturers and importers of the substance, which are harder to reach when substances have the same composition and are classified differently, it added.
However, the EU executive also recognised that the provisions of CLP and REACH are "not consistent" about whether notifier identity can be made public via the CLP inventory.
From a legal point of view, the Commission said, "the issue of publicising notifiers’ identity could therefore be argued both ways".https://chemicalwatch.com/77339/publishing-clp-inventory-notifier-identity-poses-confidentiality-risks-cefic
-
EU Waste Amendment for Titanium Dioxide Classification Faces Opposition
May 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
EU member states, industry and an NGO have expressed strong opposition to the European Commission's plans to amend the guidance on the classification of waste to accommodate a changed CLP entry for titanium dioxide.
The Commission circulated its draft technical guidance document on the classification of waste at the meeting of the Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) on 20 March.
This says that if waste is not "in the form or physical state" in which the substances contained in it are considered hazardous, those substances will not be included in the calculation against the concentration limits defined in the Waste Framework Directive (WFD).
It follows the Commission's update in January of the CLP proposal for titanium dioxide, which restricted the substance's classification as a category 2 carcinogen to mixtures in powder forms, arguing that titanium dioxide-induced carcinogenicity is only associated with inhalation.
This sparked a wave of criticism from NGOs accusing the Commission of ignoring scientific advice. It also led to concerns from industry over the handling of waste containing the substance when it can be in powder, solid or liquid forms.
The Commission reacted by announcing plans to amend the waste guidance and make room for titanium dioxide, only to be met with further criticism.
NGO the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) said the plans deviated from the waste classification rules and would set a "very worrisome precedent" for all hazardous substances bearing waste. The changes, it said in comments submitted after the Caracal meeting, would allow waste containing a classified substance to be treated as if it were not.
The Commission is not entitled to substantially change the waste classification rules merely to accommodate industry’s needs without proper scientific justification, the EEB added.
It urged the Commission to postpone the discussion on waste until a conclusion is reached on the interface between chemical, product and waste legislation. A public consultation took place but the Commission's Communication on future legislation is overdue.'Unpredictable' waste
The draft guidance on waste includes provisions for waste treatment operations that may result in a change in the physical state or form of the waste and consequently may influence its hazard properties and classification.
Waste managers should take this into account, it says, and take appropriate measures to ensure worker protection and the environmentally sound management of the waste.
But Hazardous Waste Europe, which represents waste treatment operations in 11 European countries, slammed this as a "complete step back" from the current hazard-based approach to assessing waste, regardless of its form or physical state.
The fate of waste is completely unpredictable, HWE said in its submission, and this is why the CLP Regulation does not apply directly to waste. The idea that a hazardous substance being embedded in a matrix makes it sufficient to reclassify waste as non-hazardous "is just disregarding the reality" of waste management.
The Commission's amendments would set a "very serious precedent" and considerably hinder the uptake of recycled materials, it said.
Like the EEB, HWE also urged the Commission to "stop the revision process" of the waste classification guidance and wait for the outcome of the discussions on the interface.
Stakeholder criticism was also directed at the way in which the Commission drafted the changes without consulting industry or EU member states.
HWE said it was "very concerned" about the lack of transparency, while the Swedish Chemicals Agency (Kemi) called for a clarification in the process by which harmonised classifications are addressed in relevant downstream legislation.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77317/eu-waste-amendment-for-titanium-dioxide-classification-faces-opposition
-
From Parabens To Sulphates: Are Chemicals In Skincare Products Really That Bad?
May 9, 2019 | Refinery29
By Jacqueline Kilikita
Methylparaben, methylisothiazolinone... The phrase "If you can't pronounce it, don't use it" has circulated the beauty industry for some time now, as more of us become suspicious of the amount of synthetic chemicals and ingredients in our skincare products and the long-term effects they might have on our bodies.
Despite being questioned by dermatologists, the natural or 'clean' beauty movement is booming in response, with consumers believing these products to be much better for their health in the long run. But is there any real reason to be worried about synthetic chemicals in skincare? Can they really harm our health? Ahead, experts weigh in on whether they are as scary as we're made to think.
Are Chemicals In Skincare Bad?
Hundreds of chemicals in skincare products have received bad press, but parabens (preservatives, which stop skincare from going off) and sulphates(surfactants, which make products lather) are probably the most talked about, with some studies and articles suggesting they can harm our skin and bodies. But how much of this is true?
"We're living in a world of 'chemophobia' and I think part of the problem comes from an inherent fear of what we don’t know, especially as long chemical names on product labels can be confusing," Dr Anjali Mahto, consultant dermatologist and author of The Skincare Bible: Your No-Nonsense Guide To Great Skin, recently wrote on Instagram. "On its most fundamental level, everything is a chemical. Water is a chemical; we are a walking, talking mish-mash of chemicals."
While it is clear there there is a lot of scaremongering out there, general medicine consultant and aesthetician, Dr Ifeoma Ejikeme explains that there is some truth in chemicals and ingredients reacting with skin. Take methylisothiazolinone, for example. This is a preservative previously proven to cause skin reactions in those susceptible to sensitivity. For this reason it is no longer used in leave-on products, but can still be found in things like wash-off cleansers. "Sensitising of the skin happens when we put things on our skin that aren’t right for it," explains Dr Ejikeme. "If you have acne for example and you use too much of certain chemicals, your skin can become sensitised. But most of us have a healthy relationship with chemicals. We understand when they are working and also when to pull back." In short, it's worth re-evaluating your skincare routine if certain ingredients cause obvious allergies and skin reactions.
When it comes to skincare, the EU has strict rules and regulations regarding which chemicals and ingredients can be used. The concentration of said ingredients is also very carefully considered, as Dr Mahto elaborates: "For chemicals in general, it is the dose that makes the poison. Many things are harmless to us in low doses but dangerous in higher ones. For example, formaldehyde is found in low doses in apples but this is not dangerous to our health. You can be pretty certain that if a beauty product enters the market in the UK it is safe for our skin and general health due to rigorous industry regulation."
Dr Ejikeme adds: "I don’t have a problem with chemicals at all, especially if they help a skin condition. But be careful about putting too much of anything onto your skin without any kind of checks and balances, especially on very young or damaged skin. That said, if your skin is healthy and you’re following a healthy skin routine but you discover one element in your hair wash or skincare routine (for example, sulphates and fragrance) and it isn’t causing a reaction, I don’t see any reason to take it out completely."
Can You Absorb Chemicals Through Your Skin?
Lately, brands, bloggers and natural skincare experts alike have been perpetuating the myth that up to 60% of chemicals or ingredients in our skincare products, such as parabens, can be absorbed into our bodies and then into the bloodstream, affecting our health and even 'disrupting' our hormones. According to Dr Mahto, this argument is weak.
"The skin does not absorb 60% of what you put onto it," Dr Mahto explained. "It would mean that we wouldn’t be able to take a bath or go swimming without swelling like a sponge, for example. The myth is often propagated by well-meaning wellness bloggers at one end, to those who are deliberately fearmongering in an attempt to sell you 'clean' or 'natural' beauty at the other."
It doesn't solely come from natural beauty lovers, though. A recent study published by the medical journal JAMA found that certain chemicals in sunscreen are absorbed into the bloodstream – further promoting the fear of chemicals – but the British Association of Dermatologists took to its official website this week to clear up any confusion. As Dr Mahto mentioned, it's all in the dose. "The amounts of sunscreen used in this study are significantly higher than the average person would use in normal circumstances," explained Dr Andrew Birnie, consultant dermatologist and skin cancer surgeon. "Sunscreen has been used by a large portion of the population for a number of decades and there has not been any epidemiological data that suggests users come to harm. People should not make the knee-jerk decision to stop using sunscreen."
In fact, our skin does a pretty great job at keeping things out, as it is essentially a barrier. Confusion may occur when brands talk about skincare penetrating the skin but according to the experts, this is entirely different from absorption. "Penetration refers to whether or not the chemical penetrates the skin barrier, i.e. how much is available at the top compared to the bottom of the skin," explained Dr Mahto. "Absorption is where the ingredient has crossed the skin barrier and reaches the bloodstream where it can travel to other parts of the body. Should this happen, the body usually has important mechanisms to excrete what we don’t need. If it was possible to absorb things into our skin in a meaningful manner, we wouldn’t need injections or tablets."
Can Chemicals In Skincare Disrupt Hormones?
Current research highlights that parabens are safe in skincare but the argument that they can mimic oestrogen and alter our hormones (you may have heard them being referred to as 'endocrine disruptors') still reigns strong. Dermatologists argue that this is mostly sensationalism.
"Many synthetic and even natural chemicals have endocrine activity but there is no convincing evidence that ingredients found in our cosmetic products have the ability to cause hormone disruption and harm our health," added Dr Mahto. Again, the concentration is important here. "Many substances found in our cosmetics that are shown to have endocrine activity are weak compared to the body’s natural hormones. Our skincare and the ingredients within it are highly regulated to ensure our safety."
And as Dr Mahto mentioned, the same goes for natural ingredients. According to Dr Ejikeme, just because a chemical or ingredient is 'natural', doesn't mean it is better than a synthetic one, or even safe. "Luckily, though, we know the therapeutic window of these chemicals and ingredients. We know how much is effective in skincare and how much can cause harm."
What To Do If You're Still Worried About Chemicals In Skincare
Skin reactions may manifest in redness, soreness, itching, dryness, swelling and welts, to name a few symptoms. If you're worried about how your skin is responding to certain chemicals or ingredients in a product, stop using it.
Your second port of call would be to visit your GP or a qualified dermatologist (always check if they are on the General Medical Council register) for help choosing skincare products that will benefit your skin without reactions in the future.
And as Dr Ejikeme mentioned, if ingredients like parabens and sulphates in your current skincare routine aren't causing any physical reactions, there is no need to get rid of your products, but both experts emphasise that choosing skincare comes down to personal preference.
https://www.refinery29.com/en-gb/chemicals-in-skincare-products-parabens-sulphates
-
Trump to Tout Exports, Raise Money in La.
May 9, 2019 | E&E - Energywire
By Geof Koss
President Trump is expected to highlight the rise in energy exports that has occurred on his watch when he visits a Louisiana liquefied natural gas export facility next week, but is not signaling that additional executive actions on the issue are coming, according to senators who met with the president last week.
Trump will visit Sempra Energy's Cameron LNG export facility in Cameron Parish on Tuesday, before traveling to a fundraiser for his reelection campaign in New Orleans later that day, said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who plans to accompany the president on the trip.
"I think there's a lot to celebrate there," Cassidy told E&E News yesterday. "The president made it a point to speak of energy dominance — because of that, we have the extractive energy and the downstream benefits of that creating an incredible number of jobs, altering geopolitics, because our LNG is now going around the world, and I would also argue beneficially affecting the environment as countries use natural gas instead of coal."
LNG exports to Europe have increased by 272% since Trump became president, according to a statement issued by Cassidy this week.
Cassidy, who along with other GOP lawmakers met with Trump last week to try to talk the president out of waiving shipping requirements in the Jones Act to ease LNG shipments, said yesterday he did not know whether the White House is planning additional executive actions. The senators later released a statement saying they believed Trump would leave the Jones Act requirements intact (E&E News PM, May 1).
Industry officials said this week they do not expect Trump to announce further steps to boost exports next week.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), who also attended the meeting, said the president didn't tip his hand, but called Trump's earlier executive order intended to expedite pipeline construction a "big step" toward reducing flaring in the Permian Basin.
"That's wasteful and bad for the environment," Kennedy said.
Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), who also met with the president, said he pitched Trump and his aides on provisions to speed up permitting for LNG facilities contained in his "Rebuild America Now Act," which he has introduced in past Congresses.
"We need to streamline those," he told E&E News on Tuesday, noting that some provisions from the bill were included in Trump's pipeline order.
In regard to Tuesday's fundraiser, former Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.) added that the event would probably include many shipbuilders and oil and gas executives. "He's well-liked in the state," Tauzin said of Trump.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/05/09/stories/1060299303
-
'Illegal' Oil and Gas Pollution Rampant in Texas — Watchdog
May 9, 2019 | E&E - Energywire
By Sean Reilly and Mike Lee
Oil and gas operators in West Texas' Permian Basin are spewing millions of pounds of unauthorized air pollution, with state and federal regulators doing little to even monitor it, according to a watchdog group's report released today.
The emissions could be creating unhealthy air in the Midland-Odessa region, the biggest urban area in the sprawling oil field.
"Residents of the Permian Basin are bearing a heavy burden when it comes to health impacts from air pollution," the Environmental Integrity Project said in the report
The Permian Basin covers 75,000 square miles of Texas and New Mexico. It's producing more than 4 million barrels of oil a day, and its output is projected to keep growing, which has been a boost to the economy in both states. But the oil boom has come with significant downsides.
EIP analyzed the data collected by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality on unplanned emissions from oil and gas production sites and the facilities that prepare oil and gas for transportation. The facilities have been emitting more pollutants during "emission events" that fall outside the levels allowed by their permits. EIP said the pollution was "illegal" because it exceeds those authorized limits.
The group found 2,194 emissions events during 2017, which released a combined total of 27.3 million pounds of sulfur dioxide across a 23-county area.
About 20% of the emissions was reported in Ector County, which includes the city of Odessa. It's the second-most-populated county in the region, with about 160,000 residents. Neighboring Ward County accounted for 30% of the emissions.
Driving the problem is widespread flaring of "sour gas," which contains hydrogen sulfide, an acid gas that can cause headaches and breathing problems at low levels and is deadly in high concentrations. Both sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide can also damage trees and other plant life (Energywire, Oct. 21, 2014).
One company, Occidental Permian Ltd., accounted for about 39% of the volume of pollution released, followed by Chevron U.S.A. Inc. at about 18% of the volume and Exxon Mobil Corp.'s subsidiary, XTO Energy Inc., at about 10%.
Chevron and Exxon didn't respond to requests for comment. The TCEQ said it had not seen the report, which was released this morning.
Occidental said its emissions are lower than the figures cited in the Environmental Integrity Project's report and it plans to refile its disclosures with the TCEQ.
"We take emissions control seriously and will continue to address these issues in a safe and responsible manner," Merritt Talbott, an Occidental spokeswoman, said in an email.
Either Texas or EPA "needs to crack down on this hazard," Ilan Levin, the Texas director of the Environmental Integrity Project and the report's lead author, said in a statement.
But while TCEQ has about 60 active air monitoring stations in the Houston area, according to the report, the agency has three in the Permian Basin. Two of them are in Odessa, but they don't monitor for sulfur dioxide.
The closest monitor that detects sulfur pollution is in Big Spring. In March 2018, that monitor reported an SO2 level of 460 parts per billion, or roughly six times EPA's hourly limit of 75 ppb.
About 35% of Ector County experienced SO2 levels above EPA's health standard between 2014 and 2017, according to computer modeling the Environmental Integrity Project conducted as part of the report.
Among other recommendations, the report urges TCEQ and the Railroad Commission of Texas, which oversees oil and gas operations, to do a better job of enforcing permitting rules. It also calls on the state to create a regional air quality monitoring network for the Midland-Odessa area.
"West Texas communities that are paying the steepest price — in terms of air quality and health — should not be left to the mercy of polluters," the report said. "State and federal regulators have an obligation to step in and protect the public from harmful emissions."
Under the Clean Air Act, sulfur dioxide is one of a half-dozen pollutants for which EPA is required to set ambient air quality standards. Short-term exposure can hurt the respiratory system; children with asthma are particularly sensitive, according to EPA. Besides contributing to acid rain, SO2 can help form tiny fine particulates, which are linked to an array of heart and lung ailments.
EPA set the current 75 ppb hourly standard in 2010; no Texas county in the basin is currently deemed in nonattainment with that threshold.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/05/09/stories/1060298777
-
Satellites to Track Carbon from Every Power Plant on Earth
May 9, 2019 | E&E - Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
Three nonprofit organizations will use a network of satellites and artificial intelligence to track carbon emissions from every power plant in the world under a $1.7 million project announced by Google Inc. yesterday.
The data gathered will give researchers a better picture of global power plant emissions, particularly in Southeast Asia, where coal consumption is on the rise and emissions data can be shoddy.
The information can be used to hold governments and companies accountable and encourage better emissions reporting, said Durand D'Souza, an analyst at London-based Carbon Tracker Initiative, one of the three organizations behind the project.
"That is what is really exciting about this project: It really changes the dynamics of campaigning and engagement," he said.
The need for better emissions data has never been greater. Global emissions rose to 33.1 gigatons in 2018, a 1.7% increase, thanks in part to growing coal consumption in Asia (Climatewire, March 26). India, Vietnam and Indonesia, in addition to China, are all bringing new coal plants online, even as utilities in the United States and Europe shutter coal plants at a brisk clip.
Carbon Tracker, WattTime and the World Resources Institute's proposal to track global power plant emissions was one of 25 projects that will be funded as part of the Google AI Impact Challenge, an initiative of the tech giant's philanthropic arm.
The project builds on a study conducted by Carbon Tracker last year. The group used commercially available satellite imagery and financial information to determine that 40% of Chinese coal plants were losing money. It will use artificial intelligence to process financial data, while using infrared and visual images to calculate power plant emissions. The ultimate goal: to establish a public dataset in the next two years, allowing users to access emissions data on any power plant in the world.
"We received thousands of applications to the Google AI Impact Challenge and are excited to be supporting Carbon Tracker, WattTime and the WRI with funding and expertise from Google," Jacquelline Fuller, president of Google, said in a statement. "AI is at a nascent stage when it comes to the value it can have for the social impact sector, and we look forward to seeing the outcomes of this work and considering where there is potential for us to do even more."
WattTime, a subsidiary of the Rocky Mountain Institute based in San Francisco, will be the project lead. The nonprofit has developed software called automated emissions reduction technology, which enables consumers to automatically schedule power consumption for smart devices like refrigerators when electricity generation is cleanest.
The information gathered by the project will help bolster AER, as the software is commonly called. Today, WattTime uses market information, weather forecasts and EPA's air markets database to make its projections. EPA's data typically lags by 60 days, however, meaning new data will give the organization a real-time picture of the U.S. grid's emissions.
AER is not the primary focus of the project. The central idea is to empower consumers by giving them better information and a choice over what type of power they consume, said Chiel Borenstein, WattTime director of operations.
"That," he said, "can have serious impact if it spreads."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/05/09/stories/1060299313
-
North Dakota, Washington Nation at Odds over Oil Train Principles
May 9, 2019 | Rockland Register
By Gary Hoff
North Dakota officials have been pressuring Washington’s governor to veto laws requiring oil shipped by railroad to have more of its volatile gases removed.
The bill awaiting Gov. Jay Inslee’s signature demands a reduced vapor pressure limit for primitive shipped by rail than North Dakota requirements or industry norms.
Proponents say it will boost safety. North Dakota officials fear it could hamper the nation’s No. 2 oil producer.
North Dakota’s three members of Congress have asked Inslee to veto the bill, along with state authorities are currently thinking of a lawsuit.
Inslee has made climate change a focus of the 2020 Democratic presidential effort. His spokeswoman says he is still reviewing the bill.
The volatility of petroleum trains drew widespread public attention following a few derailments that were volatile.
https://rocklandregister.com/2019/05/09/north-dakota-washington-nation-at-odds-over-oil-train-rules.html
-
Proposed EPA Denial Of New York Interstate Ozone Petition Tees Up Suit
May 8, 2019 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is proposing to reject New York’s Clean Air Act petition asking the agency to directly regulate ozone-forming air pollution from hundreds of industrial sources in multiple upwind states that New York lacks power to control, teeing up the latest in a series of lawsuits over similar petition denials if EPA finalizes the decision as proposed.
In the proposal, signed by agency chief Andrew Wheeler May 6 ahead of its upcoming publication in the Federal Register, EPA denies the petition in part by faulting New York for not fully considering several cost-effectiveness factors in its request. The agency also downplays the state’s claim that granting the petition is necessary to help it attain the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 75 parts per billion (ppb).
EPA will hold a public hearing on the proposal in Washington, D.C., June 11, and will take written comment through July 15 before crafting a final version, with litigation likely if the agency finalizes a denial.
Critics say that the agency is not giving states any options to address interstate pollution, because EPA has rejected requests to pursue new Clean Air Act rules on the issue and says states have other options under the air law to seek ozone cuts -- such as section 126, under which New York filed its petition. Section 126 allows states to petition EPA to regulate emissions sources in other states directly. Yet opponents of the latest petition denial say the Trump administration is rejecting those requests.
One Northeastern air regulator says, “this continues EPA’s ‘musical chairs’ approach of denying state requests under one section of the Clean Air Act . . . while pointing to other sections it deems more appropriate . . . then denying those when they come in as well. Just when you think you’ve found a place to land, EPA pulls it out from under you. In the end, it leaves the downwind states with nothing but litigation.”
New York’s March 2018 petition sought EPA regulation of upwind power plants in nine states -- Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia -- on the basis that these sources violate the Clean Air Act’s “good neighbor” provision. The air law provision requires the agency and states to address air pollution from one state that is hindering another states’ ability to attain the various NAAQS.
New York says the many upwind sources “significantly contribute” to the New York City metropolitan area’s problems attaining the 2008 ozone standard and also the tougher 2015 limit of 70 ppb.
The state and others in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic have already clashed with the Trump administration on EPA’s alleged failure to mitigate interstate air pollution, spawning several lawsuits. Should the agency finalize its decision, that denial could provide a basis for fresh litigation.
States in the region have tried several approaches to force EPA action to curb interstate emissions, but EPA has rejected all of them. States have filed several petitions like New York’s under air law section 126.
They have also petitioned EPA to expand the 12-state Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) area, where tougher emissions controls than elsewhere, though the agency has rejected that request.
And they have sued EPA to force the agency to more quickly ensure that federal implementation plans are in place for reducing interstate pollution, leading to a ruling by a federal district court imposing deadlines for EPA to issue the plans.
In response to the proposed denial of New York’s petition, Environmental Defense Fund’s (EDF) Senior Attorney Graham McCahan in a May 7 statement said the group “is deeply concerned about the harm this will cause to New Yorkers’ health, and we plan to vigorously oppose EPA’s proposal.”
Proposed Rejection
EPA in the proposal says that almost all areas outside of California will attain both the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb and tougher 2015 NAAQS of 70 ppb by 2023 -- though New York and other states disagree.
Northeastern states reject EPA’s use of 2023 as an “analytic year” to model future compliance by states with the NAAQS, because 2023 is beyond the attainment dates of areas such as New York, which fall in 2021. States in the region say EPA’s modeling is also unrealistic and overly optimistic, underestimating future ozone levels.
EPA’s proposed denial of the New York Section 126 petition relies in part on the agency’s assessment that New York will not, in fact, have any problems in 2023 attaining the 2008 ozone standard. The agency concedes that the state will still face nonattainment with the tougher 2015 standard in 2023, but denies the petition anyway based on the state’s alleged failure to fully consider cost-effectiveness factors that EPA uses when determining “significant contribution.”
Under EPA’s four-step “good neighbor” analysis, the agency determines whether a downwind area will have a problem attaining or maintaining NAAQS; decides whether out-of-state sources are “linked” to the problem area; applies a cost-effectiveness determination to see if control measures on upwind sources would be worthwhile; and only then applies control measures under section 126. While the Obama EPA has on at least one occasion imposed controls under section 126, the Trump administration has never done so.
The Trump EPA has shifted the threshold used to link upwind areas to downwind areas struggling with NAAQS attainment, by allowing states to use a contribution threshold of 1 ppb, instead of 1 percent of the NAAQS, effectively raising the bar for “linkage.” The agency is now allowing states to use this more lenient threshold in writing their own state implementation plans (SIPs) to meet the good neighbor requirement.
Applying the Obama-era threshold of 1 percent of the NAAQS, EPA concedes that sources in all nine states cited by the petition are linked to air quality problems in New York. Applying the alternative 1 ppb threshold, only six states are so linked, EPA says.
Regardless, the agency faults New York’s cost-effectiveness calculation. “New York has not sufficiently developed or evaluated the cost and air quality data and factors that the EPA has generally relied on in step 3, has not conducted any sort of multifactor analysis to determine whether cost-effective controls are available at the named sources, and has not provided any alternative analysis that would support a conclusion at step 3 that the named sources will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS,” EPA says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/proposed-epa-denial-new-york-interstate-ozone-petition-tees-suit
-
McConnell Mulls Making Senate Democrats Vote Again on Climate
May 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is readying a vote to force senators to indicate whether they back keeping the U.S. in the Paris climate agreement.
McConnell’s strategy is similar to the one he used in March to force Senate Democrats, including those hoping to win the White House in 2020, to say whether they back the ambitious climate change and green jobs platform known as the Green New Deal. That March 26 floor showdown over a resolution backing the Green New Deal ended with the Senate voting it down 0-57, and 43 Democrats voting “present” in protest.
This time the Republican leader wants a vote on the Climate Action Now Act (H.R. 9), which the Democratic-controlled House passed May 2 largely along party lines. The bill—which McConnell has already warned won’t get support of the majority Republicans—would direct the Trump administration to draw up plans for meeting the U.S. pledge to the Paris climate accord and bar President Trump from using funds to withdraw from the deal, a move the president announced in 2017.
No Vote GuaranteeMcConnell moved late May 7 to put the climate measure on the Senate floor calendar, a maneuver that bypasses committee consideration and makes the bill available to be brought to the floor at any time by the majority leader. McConnell spokesman David Popp cautioned that putting the bill on the legislative calendar “doesn’t guarantee a vote” will ultimately be held.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) a member of Senate Republican leadership, said Senate Republicans haven’t talked about timing for the showdown on the House bill, “but I’m opposed to staying in the [Paris] deal and I’d be happy to speak out against” the bill.
But Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said such a vote could indicate widespread support for a bill that essentially backs the U.S. staying in the Paris climate deal. “We welcome that vote,” he said. “I think it puts the Republicans in a tough position.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/mcconnell-mulls-making-senate-democrats-vote-again-on-climate
-
Ways and Means Announces Climate Change Hearing
May 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Colleen Murphy
The House Ways and Means Committee will hold a May 15 hearing on the economic and health consequences of climate change.
Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) announced the hearing in a May 8 release. The topic is one that Neal has previously said is a priority.
A carbon tax could come up in the discussion, among other issues.The tax would levy a fee on the production, distribution, or use of fossil fuels based on how much carbon their combustion emits. The idea is politically fraught.https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/ways-and-means-announces-climate-change-hearing
-
EPA to Wrap up WOTUS Rules by End of Year
May 8, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Snider
The Trump administration aims to finalize its repeal and replacement of the controversial Waters of the U.S. rule by end of year, a top Justice Department official said today.
Speaking at a Federalist Society conference in Washington, D.C. this afternoon, Assistant Attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division Jeffrey Clark said EPA's timeline for the process has slipped slightly, but that "by the end of the year both the step one and the step 2 rulemakings should be complete."
In its fall regulatory agenda, EPA said it expected to finalize by March its rule repealing the Obama administration's 2015 rule that defined which waters are covered by the Clean Water Act. Clark said today that EPA plans to kick that timeline to August in its upcoming spring regulatory agenda. The repeal rule was first proposed in July 2017 and EPA issued a supplemental proposal last July.
Meanwhile, EPA had planned to finalize its WOTUS rewrite by September, but Clark said today that EPA now estimates it will be completed in December. The agencies received nearly 600,000 comments on their proposal to significantly decrease the number of streams and wetlands protected under the 1972 law.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/05/epa-to-wrap-up-wotus-rules-by-end-of-year-3221855
-
Norway to Fast Track Single-Use Plastics Ban
May 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Marcus Hoy
Disposable plastic items like cutlery, plates, and straws will be banned within twelve months, Norway’s Climate and Environment Ministry said.
Although no law has yet been drafted, the Ministry said the new measures will likely be in effect by the summer of 2020. Other banned plastic items will include chopsticks, cotton swabs, and drink stirrers, according to the Ministry.
While the European Union will likely give final approval to similar bloc-wide legislation within weeks, member nations will then have two years to implement the new rules.
Norway is not an EU member but follows EU law through its membership in the European Economic Area (EEA). Although the Norwegian ban will be shaped by the EU legislation, the Ministry said that no reason exists to wait for Brussels to finalize the new bloc-wide rules.
France has already enacted a similar ban that is due to take effect in 2020.
Fast Food ForksOn May 8, Ministry State Secretary Atle Hamar confirmed that the measure would ban global fast food outlets like McDonalds and Burger King from offering plastic plates and cutlery to their customers.
“Disposable cutlery can be made of alternative materials such as wood” he said. “We assume that the market will find the most relevant alternative materials as soon as the ban is established.”
Prior to its enactment, he said, a public hearing would likely examine possible exemptions to the prohibition, such as the use of plastic cutlery on planes. The hearing stage would likely take place during the fall, he said, with the ban taking effect “before next summer.”
While he did not foresee serious consequences for most member companies, Gunnar Grini, section director at the Federation of Norwegian Industries, said that importers and wholesalers could potentially be affected.
“We don’t have detailed information about wholesalers, but our recommendation to the Norwegian government would be to just follow the European timeline,” he said.
Hunt for AlternativesWhen contacted by Bloomberg Environment May 8, neither Burger King nor McDonald’s would comment on the costs involved in replacing disposable plastic items with alternatives such as wooden cutlery.
“Examining options for replacing our plastic products is something that we are actively looking into,” Heidi Moss, a spokeswoman for Burger King Norway, said.
“However, we need to carry out thorough tests in order to ensure that the replacements are a good option for both our guests and for the environment.”
A spokeswoman for Food Folk Norge, the company that manages the McDonald’s brand in Norway, referred to a statement from the global group pledging to obtain all its food packaging from renewable, recycled, or certified sources by 2025.
According to the EU Commission, plastic items account for more than 80 percent of marine litter, while microplastics are increasingly being found in marine species and the human food chain.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/norway-to-fast-track-single-use-plastics-ban
-
Panel Approves Bill to Boost Environmental, Mining Programs
May 9, 2019 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
Environmental health programs and mine safety regulators would get significant increases under the first fiscal 2020 spending bill approved by House appropriators yesterday.
The House Appropriations Committee backed the $189.9 billion Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill in a partisan vote, 30-23. It's expected to move to the House floor in June.
A handful of amendments were adopted that would address health care and immigration provisions; none would affect environmental or mining issues covered by the bill. The panel also adopted a manager's amendment that would make technical and noncontroversial revisions.
Overall, the bill would raise spending by close to $12 billion over current levels and would be about $47 million higher than the president's budget request.
"The last shall be first," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), chairwoman of the spending subcommittee, noting the symbolism of the largest domestic bill moving first after years of the House GOP majority making it the last spending measure to advance.
The National Institutes of Health would see its funding increase by $2 billion to $41 billion. The new dollars would raise spending by $145 million at the NIH's National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which focuses on how the environment affects healthy living.
The legislation would also increase environment health program spending at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by $34 million over the current level of $226.4 million. Those dollars would go toward surveillance and detection of emerging pathogens and environmental toxins, including about $15 million for monitoring the impacts of climate change.
Additionally, appropriators would raise spending for the Mine Safety and Health Administration by about $44 million to $417 million, which would mark the agency's first increase after six years of stagnant spending.
The report, accompanying the bill, would oppose a White House plan for merging MSHA inspection divisions and would call for expanded monitoring of airborne silica standards by the agency.
The House Appropriations Committee is due to mark up two more fiscal 2020 bills today, the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs and Legislative Branch measures.Dems OK top-line increases
A push by House Democrats to increase energy and environmental spending for fiscal 2020 cleared its first hurdle yesterday, despite GOP misgivings.
The House Appropriations Committee in a party-line vote approved 302(b) discretionary spending allocations for the 12 annual appropriations bills. Those top-line allocations would call for increasing the Interior-EPA bill spending by 4.5%, while Energy-Water Development bill spending would increase by 4% (E&E Daily, May 7).
Neither bill has yet to be unveiled, although both are expected to be marked up later this month.
Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) said all 12 bills would receive increases in fiscal 2020 under the panel's allocations. The largest would go toward Military Construction-Veterans Affairs (8%), while the smallest of less than 1% would go toward Homeland Security.
"It is my hope that the Senate and White House will work quickly and in good faith to reach a budget agreement," said Lowey, acknowledging the GOP opposition to the plan. She said existing budget law would require steep cuts next year if Congress cannot come up with a bipartisan deal to reverse them.
However, Texas Rep. Kay Granger, the House's top Republican appropriator, warned the allocations do not reflect a bipartisan agreement and had the potential to spark another government shutdown. She called for negotiations with the Senate and White House rather than considering the allocations.
Granger said she was concerned that defense spending was increasing at a slower pace than domestic accounts and warned the Homeland Security proposal would not allow for adequately addressing the ongoing border crisis.
Top congressional leaders have said they are eager to reach a budget accord, which would raise the last two years of budget caps stemming from a 2011 law. However, those negotiations have yet to gather steam, and the White House's role in any talks has been ambiguous.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/05/09/stories/1060299275
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested