Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - May 17, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Wrap-Up of Federal and State Chemical Regulatory Developments, May 2019
May 17, 2019 | JD Supra
TSCA/FIFRA/TRI: EPA Issues Final SNUR For Asbestos, Will “Close Loophole And Protect Consumers”: On April 25, 2019, EPA issued a final significant new use rule (SNUR) for asbestos using the definition in Title II, Section 202 of... -
(ACC Mentioned) The World Just Took a Major Step to Curb Plastic Pollution — but the U.S. Refused to Join Effort
May 17, 2019 | AlterNet
By Amy Goodman
Nearly every country in the world except the United States took a historic step to curb plastic waste last week, when more than 180 nations agreed to add plastic to the Basel Convention, a treaty that regulates the movement of... -
(ACC Mentioned) Think Twice When Reaching for Plastics
May 17, 2019 | Gaston Gazette
By Nan Kirlin
Let’s talk about plastics. This topic is hot in the news right now. From plastic straws to plastic grocery bags, we are being told to stop accepting using plastics we only use one time. As reported in the recycling industry publication... -
TSCA New Chemicals Website Sees 'Transparency Improvements'
May 17, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has announced changes to its TSCA new chemicals statistics webpage with the aim of improving transparency. The page now includes a chart showing how many new chemical cases – including pre-manufacture... -
Court Doubtful of Green Challenge to Safety Rule
May 17, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
A federal appeals court yesterday signaled skepticism of environmental groups and public health advocates' bid to undo a Trump administration chemical safety rule. The consolidated case at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals... -
Softer EPA Rules for Toxic Chemical Review Riles Ninth Circuit
May 17, 2019 | Courthouse News
By Helen Christophi
A Ninth Circuit panel hinted Thursday it might toss parts of Trump administration rules for evaluating 80,000 toxic chemicals, allegedly written to minimize the chemicals’ health risks so they won’t be restricted or banned. -
Echa Round-Up
May 17, 2019 | Chemical Watch
CLH public consultations: The agency is looking for comments on CLH proposals for: 2-(2-methoxyethoxy)ethanol. Proposed by the Netherlands it is primarily used as an intermediate or industrial processing aid and an additive in... -
Bill Would Ban Leases in Arctic Ocean
May 17, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Rob Hotakainen
Drilling would not be allowed in the Arctic Ocean under a bill introduced yesterday by Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley, who called the idea both irresponsible and reckless. "Arctic drilling will skyrocket carbon pollution, cause... -
Congress, Look at Texas for the Facts on Fracking
May 17, 2019 | Real Clear Energy
By John Tintera
Yesterday, the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources held a hearing to investigate whether oil and gas drilling causes water pollution. It's a very important topic. If drilling pollutes our drinking water, new restrictions would... -
Colorado Completes Initial Step to Implement Oil, Gas Law
May 17, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) on Thursday issued initial guidance for implementing Senate Bill 181 enacted earlier this year, which requires regulators to revamp some oil and gas rules. -
Plastic’s Trash Crisis
May 17, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Each day the growing complex of petrochemical plants lining the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast churns out thousands of tons of miniature plastic pellets, destined for manufacturing plants around the world to be turned into everything from... -
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and NRDC Confront Federal Failures
May 17, 2019 | Natural Resource Defense Council
By Jennifer Sass
NRDC was very pleased to host the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe on their recent trip to Washington DC. The Tribe and NRDC met with various Congressional staff about their continued frustrations with the US Army Corps of Engineers... -
A Massive Gulf Oil Spill Is Finally Being Contained After More Than 14 Years
May 17, 2019 | Washington Post
By Darryl Fears
The U.S. Coast Guard said Thursday that it is finally containing and collecting oil from a massive 14-year spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the longest offshore disaster in U.S. history. More than 30,000 gallons of oil have been collected over... -
Sheen 'Barely Visible' at Site of 14-Year-Old Gulf Leak
May 17, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Michael Kunzelman
A chronic sheen has become "barely visible" since government contractors installed a new underwater system for capturing and collecting crude at a site in the Gulf of Mexico where oil has been leaking for 14 years, a Coast Guard... -
Varlen Can’t Tap Liberty Mutual for Groundwater Contamination
May 17, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Varlen Corp. isn’t owed insurance coverage for groundwater contamination at two of its industrial sites related to railroad operations, the Seventh Circuit ruled. A provision in its policy with Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. bars coverage... -
(ACC Mentioned) Scrap Collector: Plastic's 'Hidden' Climate Impacts Revealed
May 17, 2019 | Waste Dive
By Rina Li
Lately, Thea Riofrancos noted in Viewpoint Magazine this week, "climate scientists are beginning to sound like radicals" — and not without reason. An October 2018 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)... -
UARG Casts Long Legal Shadow on Air Regulations
May 17, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
In 40 years of behind-the-scenes advocacy for electric companies, the Utility Air Regulatory Group became ubiquitous in legal dockets and courtroom fights over the future of federal regulation. The group, which last week announced... -
Ewire: Cornyn Climate Remarks Underscore GOP 'Innovation' Focus
May 17, 2019 | Inside EPA
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) is pledging that Congress will no longer “ignore” the issue of greenhouse gases that cause climate change, saying he will pursue a policy agenda that is being increasingly embraced by his Republican... -
13 Major Companies Call on Congress to Accelerate Climate Legislation. Here’s Why.
May 17, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Fred Krupp
Corporate America is setting – and meeting – increasingly ambitious climate and clean energy goals. But the hard reality is that individual corporate action, no matter how big, won’t solve this great climate crisis. -
Rising Number Says Climate Change a Crucial Issue in 2020: Poll
May 17, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Jessica Campisi
Nearly 40 percent of registered U.S. voters say a candidate’s position on climate change is “very important” to them in deciding who they’ll vote for in 2020, according to a poll released Thursday. In the survey of nearly 1,100 registered...
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Wrap-Up of Federal and State Chemical Regulatory Developments, May 2019
May 17, 2019 | JD Supra
TSCA/FIFRA/TRI
EPA Issues Final SNUR For Asbestos, Will “Close Loophole And Protect Consumers”: On April 25, 2019, EPA issued a final significant new use rule (SNUR) for asbestos using the definition in Title II, Section 202 of TSCA, which defines asbestos as the “asbestiform varieties of six fiber types -- chrysotile (serpentine), crocidolite (riebeckite), amosite (cummingtonite-grunerite), anthophyllite, tremolite or actinolite.” 84 Fed. Reg. 17345. The restricted significant new use of asbestos (including as part of an article) is manufacturing (including importing) or processing for uses that are neither ongoing nor already prohibited under TSCA. Persons subject to the SNUR may not undertake any of these activities; they are required to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing any manufacturing (including importing) or processing of asbestos (including as part of an article) for a significant new use. The required notification initiates EPA’s evaluation of the conditions of use associated with the intended use. Manufacturing (including importing) and processing (including as part of an article) for the significant new use may not commence until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and taken such actions as are required in association with that determination. The final SNUR is effective June 24, 2019. More information is available online.
Ninth Circuit Issues Order Requiring EPA To Rule On Objections To Denial Of Tolerance Revocation For Chlorpyrifos Within 90 Days: On April 19, 2019, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) issued an order following an en banc rehearing in League of United Latin Am. Citizens (LULAC) v. Wheeler, No. 17-71636. The February 6, 2019, Ninth Circuit decision to grant EPA’s request for rehearing effectively vacated an August 9, 2018, decision in LULAC that had ordered EPA to revoke all tolerances and cancel all registrations for chlorpyrifos. After the rehearing, the en banc panel issued a writ of mandamus directing EPA “to issue, no later than 90 days after the filing of this order, a full and fair decision on LULAC’s objections” to an initial EPA order denying a 2007 petition to revoke all tolerances for chlorpyrifos. The en banc order states that the court has discretion to construe the Petitioners’ opening brief as a request for mandamus relief, even though the Petitioners sought judicial review of EPA’s initial denial decision without waiting for EPA to rule on their objections and even though they did not file a petition for mandamus under the applicable procedural rule. The court then states that “[c]onsidering the history and chronology of this matter and the nature of the claims, we conclude mandamus is appropriate, and we hereby GRANT the Petition for a Writ of Mandamus.” The court states that “EPA represented that it could issue a final decision with respect to petitioners’ objections within 90 days of an order issued by this court” during oral argument on March 26, 2019. The en banc ruling, however, does not discuss the jurisdictional issues presented when the Petitioners sought judicial review of EPA's initial denial decision without waiting for EPA to rule on their objections. Moreover, the ruling does not discuss the substantive dispute concerning EPA’s authority to decline to revoke the tolerances and cancel the registrations for chlorpyrifos based on the current administrative record. More information on the protracted litigation concerning chlorpyrifos is available on our blog under key words chlorpyrifos and ninth circuit.
EPA Announces Proposed Procedures For Review Of CBI Claims For The Identity Of Chemicals On The TSCA Inventory: On April 23, 2019, EPA issued a proposed rule regarding its plan to review certain confidential business information (CBI) claims to protect the specific chemical identities of substances on the confidential portion of the TSCA Inventory. 84 Fed. Reg. 16826. The CBI claims that would be reviewed under this plan are those that were asserted on Notice of Activity (NOA) Form A’s filed in accordance with the requirements in the Active-Inactive rule. TSCA Section 8(b)(4)(C) requires EPA to promulgate a rule establishing a plan to review all CBI claims to protect the specific chemical identities of chemical substances on the confidential portion of the TSCA Inventory that were asserted in an NOA Form A. This rule must be promulgated not later than one year after the publication of the first TSCA Inventory containing all “active” substance designations. TSCA also requires EPA to implement the CBI review plan so as to complete all CBI claim reviews not later than five years after such TSCA Inventory publication, with the possibility of a two-year extension. EPA states that since it released the updated TSCA Inventory on February 19, 2019, the deadline for issuing a final rule is February 19, 2020, and the deadline for completing all the CBI claim reviews is February 19, 2024. If EPA invokes the two-year extension under TSCA, the deadline for completing all the CBI claim reviews would then become February 19, 2026. As reported in our February 21, 2019, memorandum, “EPA Releases Updated TSCA Inventory,” of the 40,655 chemicals in commerce, more than 80 percent (32,898) have identities that are not CBI and fewer than 20 percent (7,757) have identities that were claimed as CBI. EPA notes that other types of CBI claims are outside the scope of the review plan under TSCA Section 8(b)(4)(C) through (E), and hence are outside the scope of the proposed rule. Those claims are governed by other statutory and regulatory provisions. Substantiation and review of CBI claims for other data elements in an NOA Form A are governed by TSCA Section 14(g) and 40 C.F.R. Section 710.37(b) and (c)(1). EPA states that substantiation and review of CBI claims for specific chemical identity in an NOA Form B -- “a forward-looking reporting form required when reintroducing an ‘inactive’ chemical substance into U.S. commerce for a nonexempt commercial purpose” -- are governed by TSCA Section 8(b)(5) and 40 C.F.R. Section 710.37(a)(2). Comments are due by June 24, 2019. More information is available in the full memorandum.
EPA Proposes TSCA CDR Revisions And Update To Small Manufacturer Definition For TSCA Section 8(a): On April 25, 2019, EPA issued a proposed rule that would amend TSCA Section 8(a) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) requirements and the TSCA Section 8(a) size standards for small manufacturers. 84 Fed. Reg. 17692. The current CDR rule requires manufacturers (including importers) of certain chemical substances listed on the TSCA Inventory to report data on chemical manufacturing, processing, and use every four years. EPA is proposing several changes to the CDR rule to make regulatory updates to align with new statutory requirements of TSCA, improve the CDR data collected as necessary to support the implementation of TSCA, and potentially reduce the burden for certain CDR reporters. Proposed updates to the definition for small manufacturers, including a new definition for small governments, are being made in accordance with TSCA Section 8(a)(3)(C) and impact certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements for TSCA Section 8(a) rules, including CDR. EPA states that the definitions may reduce the burden on chemical manufacturers by increasing the number of manufacturers considered small. Overall, according to EPA, the regulatory modifications may better address EPA and public information needs by providing additional information that is currently not collected; improve the usability and reliability of the reported data; and ensure that data are available in a timely manner. Comments are due by June 24, 2019.
D.C. Circuit Partially Denies Petition For Review Of TSCA Inventory: On April 26, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its order on petition for review of the EPA final rule on TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements (82 Fed. Reg. 37520 (Aug. 11, 2017)), which denied the petition for review on all but one claim. Petitioner Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) challenged five distinct features of the Inventory final rule: (i) EPA’s exclusion of substantiation questions regarding reverse engineering; (ii) the final rule’s criteria for “maintaining” a confidentiality claim; (iii) EPA’s choice not to incorporate certain regulatory requirements into the final rule; (iv) EPA’s failure to implement the Act’s “unique identifier” requirements in this rulemaking; and (v) the final rule’s exemption of exported chemicals from its notification requirements. More information is available in our blog.
EPA Releases Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision For Glyphosate: On May 6, 2019, EPA announced it was releasing its Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision (PID) for glyphosate acid and its various salt forms. 84 Fed. Reg. 19782. In the PID, EPA states that it “did not identify any human health risks from exposure to any use of glyphosate” but did identify “potential risk to mammals and birds” within the application area or areas near the application area and “potential risk to terrestrial and aquatic plants from off-site spray drift, consistent with glyphosate’s use as a herbicide.” Even with these potential risks, the PID states that “EPA concludes that the benefits outweigh the potential ecological risks when glyphosate is used according to label directions” and proposes certain risk mitigation strategies including: “To reduce off-site spray drift to non-target organisms, the EPA is proposing certain spray drift management measures” with specific spray drift mitigation language to be included on all glyphosate product labels for products applied by liquid spray application; “To preserve glyphosate as a viable tool for growers and combat weed resistance, the EPA is … proposing that herbicide resistance management language be added to all glyphosate labels” and to require measures “for the pesticide registrants to provide growers and users with detailed information and recommendations to slow the development and spread of herbicide resistant weeds”; Inclusion on labels of a non-target organism advisory statement to alert users of potential impact to non-target organisms; and “EPA is also proposing certain labeling clean-up/consistency efforts to bring all glyphosate labels up to modern standards.”
EPA states that these measures were discussed with glyphosate registrants, who do not oppose the proposed risk mitigation measures outlined in the PID. The public can submit comments on EPA’s proposed decision at www.regulations.gov in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0361. Public comments are due by July 5, 2019. In addition to the PID, EPA is also posting to the glyphosate docket EPA’s response to comments on glyphosate’s usage and benefits (dated April 18, 2019), EPA’s response to comments on the human health risk assessment (dated April 23, 2018), and EPA’s response to comments on the preliminary ecological risk assessment(dated November 21, 2018).
EPA Denies TSCA Section 21 Petition To Initiate A Reporting Rule Under TSCA Section 8(a) For Asbestos: On May 8, 2019, EPA denied a petition it received under TSCA Section 8(a) from the Attorneys General of Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia requesting that EPA initiate a rulemaking proceeding under TSCA Section 8(a) for the reporting of the manufacture (including import) and processing of asbestos. 84 Fed. Reg. 20062. EPA does not believe that petitioners have demonstrated that it is necessary to initiate a rulemaking proceeding under TSCA Section 8(a) to obtain additional information to conduct its risk evaluation on asbestos and any potential subsequent risk management. Given EPA’s understanding of asbestos and reporting under TSCA Section 8(a), as a result of implementation of the CDR rule and other TSCA Section 8(a) rules, EPA does not believe that the requested reporting requirements would collect the data the petitioners believe the Agency lacks. Where EPA lacks information, it has relied on models. Use of modeled data is in line with EPA’s final Risk Evaluation Rule and EPA’s risk assessment guidelines. EPA intends to provide opportunity for peer and public review of the draft asbestos risk evaluation, which EPA will use to refine the risk evaluation of asbestos.
EPA Announces Meeting Date For TSCA Science Advisory Committee On Chemicals: On May 9, 2019, EPA announced meeting dates for its TSCA Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC). 84 Fed. Reg. 20354. The purpose of the meeting is to consider and review the draft Risk Evaluation for Colour Index (C. I.) Pigment Violet 29 (PV29) and associated documents. The in-person meeting will also include a general TSCA orientation for the TSCA SACC. A portion of the in-person meeting will be closed to the public for the committee’s discussion of information claimed as CBI. As previously announced in April, the public is invited to comment on the draft risk evaluation for PV29 and related documents, including the draft charge questions, in advance of and during this peer review meeting. The TSCA SACC will consider these comments during its discussions. The four-day meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time, June 18-21, 2019. The meeting may also be available via webcast. Written comments are due May 17, 2019. Requests to make oral comments during the meeting will be included on the meeting agenda if received on or before May 28, 2019. For further details, please consult the Federal Register.
EPA Issues Notice To Manufacturers And Processors On The TSCA Inactive Inventory: On May 15, 2019, EPA announced the availability of a signed action signed on May 6, 2019, that identifies chemical substances for inactive designation according to the TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements rule. 84 Fed. Reg. 21772. Specifically, EPA states that the signed action is a companion to the first version of the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory with all listings designated as active or identified as inactive, which was posted on the EPA TSCA Inventory web page on February 19, 2019, and it will initiate a 90-day period after which substances identified as inactive will be designated as inactive. Because the action was signed on May 6, 2019, inactive designations will become effective on August 5, 2019.
Starting on August 5, 2019, manufacturers and processors are required to notify EPA before reintroducing into commerce a substance designated as inactive on the TSCA Inventory. Manufacturers and processors can notify EPA via an NOA Form B, found in EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). Upon receiving such notification, EPA will change the designation of substances from inactive to active.
EPA Extends Comment Period On Draft Guidance For Pesticide Registrants On Plant Regulator Label Claims, Including Plant Biostimulants: On May 15, 2019, in response to public requests for an extension of the comment period, EPA announced it is extending the comment period for the draft guidance document for an additional 60 days. 84 Fed. Reg. 21773. Comments are now due on July 28, 2019. More information on the draft guidance document can be found in our blog.
EPA Requests Comments On Ad Hoc Panelists For FIFRA SAP Meeting On Proposed Guidelines For Efficacy Testing Of Certain Flea And Tick Products: On May 3, 2019, EPA announced it was seeking comments on the experts who are candidates to serve as ad hoc panelists for the review of EPA’s Draft Product Performance Test Guidelines OCSPP 810.3300: Treatments Topically Applied to Pets to Control Certain Invertebrate Ectoparasitic Pests. The candidate list is available on EPA’s Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) website. Comments on the candidates are due by May 18, 2019, to the Designated Federal Official (DFO) Dr. Suhair Shallal (shallal.suhair@epa.gov). EPA is requesting these comments prior to the FIFRA SAP public in-person meeting scheduled for June 11-14, 2019, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (EDT), which will review EPA’s proposed guidelines referenced above and the supplemental document Sample Size for Pet Product Studies. 84 Fed. Reg. 15214. The charge questions to the panel are available here. More information is available in our blog.
EPA Corrects 200 ppb Level Description In Technical Amendment To Data Requirements For Antimicrobial Pesticides Final Rule: On May 3, 2019, EPA announced it was making final a single correction to the data requirements for antimicrobial pesticide products codified in 40 C.F.R. Part 158, subpart W. 84 Fed. Reg. 18993. The correction clarifies that the 200 parts per billion (ppb) level described in the antimicrobial pesticides data requirements regulations (40 C.F.R. § 158.2230(d)) “is based on total estimated daily dietary intake for an individual and not on the amount of residue present on a single food,” as EPA states was incorrectly implied by the previous regulatory text. The final rule will become effective on July 2, 2019. More information is available in our blog.
RCRA/CERCLA/CWA/CAA/PHMSA
D.C. Circuit Upholds EPA’s Decision To Not Expand Ozone Transport Region: On April 23, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected a petition from several East Coast states that would have required EPA to impose stricter ozone controls on upwind states. EPA on November 3, 2017, denied a petition submitted by several states seeking to expand the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 82 Fed. Reg. 51238. On December 9, 2013, the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont filed a petition with EPA requesting that EPA expand the OTR by adding the states of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia, and the areas of Virginia not already in the OTR to address the interstate transport of air pollution with respect to the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In its denial, EPA stated that it believes that other CAA provisions “provide a better pathway for states and the EPA to develop a tailored remedy that is most effective for addressing any remaining air quality problems for the 2008 ozone NAAQS identified by the petitioners.” The final action was effective on November 4, 2017. The states then turned to the appeals court, seeking a reversal of EPA’s dismissal of the petition. The court ruled that EPA acted legally and appropriately in rejecting the petition. It stated that achieving compliance by relying on the CAA’s “good neighbor provision,” which requires EPA to impose a federal plan on states that contribute significantly to other states’ ability to meet air quality standards, was the appropriate approach. The court stated that “EPA thus concluded that, compared to the blunt impact of expanding the region, these other tools provided more effective and efficient approaches to the ozone transport problem in light of limited agency resources.”
EPA Declines To Revise RCRA Regulation Of Oil And Gas Waste:On April 23, 2019, EPA stated that it would not revise the current regulatory status under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for wastes generated by oil and gas production. The determination came in a letter to environmental groups from Barry Breen, EPA’s Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Land and Emergency Management. Currently, EPA regulates wastes from the exploration, development, and production of crude oil, natural gas, and geothermal energy under RCRA’s Subtitle D non-hazardous waste regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 257. In 2016, the Environmental Integrity Project and the Natural Resources Defense Council sued EPA, seeking a revision in how EPA regulates oil and gas wastes. Under a settlement agreement reached in the case, EPA by March 15, 2019 (changed to April 23, 2019, due to the government shutdown) was to issue a proposed rule revising the Part 257 regulations or make a determination that the regulations did not warrant revision. EPA’s April 23, 2019, letter states that “revising the regulations is not necessary at this time.”
EPA Releases Interpretive Statement On Whether CWA NPDES Permit Program Applies To Releases Of A Pollutant From A Point Source To Groundwater: On April 23, 2019, EPA announced it was making available its Interpretive Statement addressing whether the Clean Water Act’s (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program applies to releases of a pollutant from a point source to groundwater (Interpretive Statement) for comment. 84 Fed. Reg. 16810. EPA is issuing the Interpretative statement to “provide clarity on [EPA’s] interpretation of the [CWA] given the mixed record of prior [EPA] statements and a split in the federal circuit courts regarding this issue.” EPA’s Interpretive Statement states that it “sets forth [its] interpretation of the [CWA NPDES] permit program’s applicability to releases of pollutants from a point source to groundwater that subsequently migrate or are conveyed by groundwater to jurisdictional surface waters” and “EPA concludes that the [CWA] is best read as excluding all releases of pollutants from a point source to groundwater from NPDES program coverage and liability under Section 301 of the CWA, regardless of a hydrologic connection between the groundwater and a jurisdictional surface water.” EPA also released a fact sheet on its Interpretive Statement, available online. The April 23 Federal Register notice states that the Interpretative Statement reflects EPA’s consideration of the public comments received in response to its February 20, 2018, Federal Register notice (83 Fed. Reg. 7126) which requested comment on EPA’s previous statements regarding whether pollutant discharges from point sources that reach jurisdictional surface waters via groundwater or other subsurface flow that has a direct hydrologic connection to the jurisdictional surface water may be subject to CWA regulation. EPA received over 50,000 comments from a wide range of stakeholders, many of which affirmed that additional clarity from EPA was necessary. EPA reached its conclusion based on the comments received and on “a holistic analysis of the [CWA], its text, structure, and legislative history.” EPA also references numerous policy considerations that support excluding groundwater discharges from NPDES permitting, including existing state and federal authorities and statutes that play a role in regulating groundwater quality (e.g., Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Underground Injection Control (UIC) program). EPA is soliciting public comments on the Interpretive Statement, specifically regarding what may be needed to provide further clarity and regulatory certainty on this issue. Comments are due by June 7, 2019. More information is available in our blog.
EPA Issues Draft Interim Recommendations To Address Groundwater Contaminated With PFOA And PFOS: EPA on April 25, 2019, issued interim recommendations for addressing groundwater contaminated with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and/or perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). The interim recommendations are to be applied to sites being evaluated and addressed under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) and corrective action under RCRA. The interim guidance is available online. The guidance provides interim recommendations for screening levels and preliminary remediation goals (PRG) to inform final cleanup levels for PFOA and/or PFOS contamination of groundwater that is a current or potential source of drinking water. EPA states that its recommendations are consistent with existing EPA guidance and standard practices, in addition to applicable statutes and regulations. For groundwater contaminated with PFOA or PFOS, EPA instructs its regional offices to consult on a case-by-case basis with the Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) prior to using the Fund and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) prior to taking enforcement action. The interim recommendations are as follows: sites should be screened using a level set to a Hazard Quotient of 0.1 for PFOA or PFOS individually, which is currently 40 parts per trillion (ppt); and for sites where groundwater is contaminated and is a current or potential source of drinking water, the PRG should be 70 ppt, unless a state or tribal Maximum Contaminant Level for PFOA or PFOS is in place. In situations where groundwater is being used for drinking water, EPA expects that responsible parties will address levels of PFOA and/or PFOS over 70 ppt. EPA is taking comment on the interim recommendations until June 10, 2019.
EPA Issues RCRA Guidance On Planning For Natural Disaster Debris: On May 2, 2019, EPA released the 2019 “Planning for Natural Disaster Debris” guidance. This document is an update to the version that EPA published in March 2008. It is designed to help communities create disaster debris management plans. The guidance is intended to assist communities in planning for natural disaster debris. Information is included on recommended components of a debris management plan, suggested management options for various natural disaster debris streams, case studies, and EPA’s recommended pre-incident planning process to help prepare communities for effective disaster debris management. The guidance is available online.
PHMSA To Hold Public Meeting On Emergency Response Guidebook: On May 7, 2019, the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) announced that it will hold a public hearing to solicit input on the 2020edition of the Emergency Response Guidebook (ERG2020). 84 Fed. Reg. 19999.. The meeting will be held on June 17, 2019, at DOT’s Conference Center at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 from 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. (EDT). PHMSA developed the ERG for use by emergency services personnel to provide guidance for initial response to hazardous materials transportation incidents. During the meeting, PHMSA intends to hold a public discussion of the methodology used to determine the appropriate response protective distances for poisonous vapors resulting from spills involving dangerous goods considered toxic by inhalation. PHMSA also will solicit comments related to new methodologies and considerations for future editions of the ERG. Additionally, the meeting will include discussions on the outcomes of field experiments, ongoing research efforts to understand environmental effects on airborne toxic gas concentrations, and updates to be published in the ERG2020.
PHMSA Solicits Nominees To Serve On Lithium Battery Safety Advisory Committee: On May 9, 2019, PHMSA announced that it is soliciting nominees for a new Lithium Battery Safety Advisory Committee. The announcement was published in the Federal Register on May 14, 2019. 84 Fed. Reg. 21411. The committee is mandated by Section 333(d) of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115–254) and will be established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972. The committee will facilitate communication among manufacturers of lithium ion and lithium metal cells and batteries, manufacturers of products incorporating both large and small lithium ion and lithium metal batteries, air carriers, and the federal government. This communication is intended to promote the safe transportation of lithium ion and lithium metal cells and batteries and improve the effectiveness and economic and social impacts of related regulation. No later than 180 days after the establishment of the committee, it must submit to DOT and appropriate committees of Congress a report that describes and evaluates the steps being taken in the private sector and by international regulatory authorities to implement and enforce requirements relating to the safe transportation of bulk shipments of lithium ion cells and batteries. The committee will also identify any areas of regulatory requirements for which there is consensus that greater attention is needed. Membership of the committee will consist of representatives from: Large volume manufacturers of lithium ion and lithium metal cells and batteries; Domestic manufacturers of lithium ion and lithium metal batteries or battery packs; Manufacturers of consumer products powered by lithium ion and lithium metal batteries; Manufacturers of vehicles powered by lithium ion and lithium metal batteries; Marketers of products powered by lithium ion and lithium metal batteries; Cargo air service providers based in the United States; Passenger air service providers based in the United States; Pilots and employees of air service providers; Shippers of lithium ion and lithium metal batteries for air transportation; Manufacturers of battery-powered medical devices or batteries used in medical devices; and Employees of DOT and other government agencies.
Nominations must be submitted to PHMSA by June 4, 2019.
FDA
FDA Issues Correction Regarding OTC Proposed Rule: On April 18, 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it was correcting the over-the-counter (OTC) proposed rule regarding sunscreen monograph products to improve the accuracy of the proposed rule -- specifically to make the formulas legible. 84 Fed. Reg. 16220. Comments are due by June 27, 2019.
FDA Requests Comment On Nutrition Facts Label: On April 19, 2019, FDA announced it would be soliciting comments on the collection of information for the nutrition facts label and supplement facts label. 84 Fed. Reg. 16513. FDA states that it promulgated regulations in 21 C.F.R. Section 101.9 setting forth how nutrition information is presented to consumers and the regulations also establish standards to define serving size and require that certain products provide additional information within the nutrition facts label that conveys that information to consumers.Specifically, Sections 101.9 and 101.36 list nutrients that are required or permitted to be declared; provide Daily Reference Values and Reference Daily Intake values that are based on current dietary recommendations from consensus reports; provide requirements for foods represented or purported to be specifically for children under the age of four years and pregnant and lactating women and establish nutrient reference values specifically for these population subgroups; and provide the format and appearance of the nutrition facts label. Comments are due by June 18, 2019.
FDA Announces Public Meeting For Its Preparation For ICCR-13:On May 2, 2019, FDA announced a public meeting for its preparation for the upcoming International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation Thirteenth Annual Meeting (ICCR-13) to be held at the FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 5001 Campus Dr., Wiley Auditorium (first floor), College Park, MD 20740 on June 5, 2019, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EDT). 84 Fed. Reg. 18850. FDA’s announcement states that the intention of the ICCR multilateral framework is to pave the way for the removal of regulatory obstacles to international trade while maintaining global consumer protection. Input from this public meeting will help FDA prepare for the ICCR-13 meeting that will be held July 9-11, 2019, in Montreal, Canada.FDA intends to have an agenda available by May 29, 2019.Parties interested in participating must register by May 22, 2019, by sending information (including name, title, affiliation, address, e-mail, and telephone) to Jonathan Hicks (Jonathan.Hicks@fda.hhs.gov).
FDA Releases Final Guidance For Industry On Preparation Of Food Contact Notifications For FCSs In Contact With Infant Formula And/Or Human Milk: On May 9, 2019, FDA announced the availability of a final guidance for industry titled “Preparation of Food Contact Notifications for Food Contact Substances in Contact with Infant Formula and/or Human Milk.” 84 Fed. Reg. 20370. FDA states that this guidance is intended to provide industry with its current thinking on how to prepare a food contact notification (FCN) submission for its review and evaluation of the safety of food contact substances (FCS) used in contact with infant formula and/or human milk. FCSs that would be affected by this guidance document may include infant formula packaging for both liquid (concentrate and ready to feed) and powdered formula, baby bottles, bottle inserts, nipples, and any other materials that are in contact with infant food.
NANOTECHNOLOGY
Workshop Report Published On EU-U.S. Priorities In Nanosafety: On March 5-6, 2019, a workshop on “Fostering EU-U.S. Cooperation in Nanosafety” was held. According to the workshop report, the workshop intended to answer two main questions: What should be the future research priorities in nanosafety and other advanced materials; and What are the opportunities for European Union (EU)-U.S. cooperation priorities in nanosafety.
More information, including the research priorities identified and potential instruments for advancing EU-U.S. cooperation, is available in our April 29, 2019, blog item.
ISO Issues Method To Quantify Air Concentrations Of Carbon Black And Amorphous Silica In The Nanoparticle Size Range In A Mixed Dust Manufacturing Environment: The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has published standard ISO/TS 21361:2019, “Nanotechnologies -- Method to quantify air concentrations of carbon black and amorphous silica in the nanoparticle size range in a mixed dust manufacturing environment.” The standard provides guidelines to quantify and identify particles of carbon black and/or amorphous silica in air samples collected in a mixed dust industrial manufacturing environment.
France Bans Titanium Dioxide Food Additive Beginning In 2020:On April 17, 2019, the Ministry of Ecological and Solidarity Transition issued a press release announcing that France will prohibit foods containing food additive E171 (titanium dioxide) from being placed on the market beginning January 1, 2020. The press release cites the April 15, 2019, opinion from the Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l’alimentation, de l’environnement et du travail (ANSES). ANSES reiterated its previous general recommendations on nanomaterials aimed at limiting the exposure of workers, consumers, and the environment by promoting products that are safe and equivalent products in terms of function and efficiency, without nanomaterials. According to the Ministry’s press release, an order regarding the ban has been signed and will be published as soon as possible.
Recommendations On Priorities For IARC Monographs Include Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes, Nanomaterials: An Advisory Group of 29 scientists from 18 countries met on March 25-27, 2019, to recommend priorities for the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs program during 2020-2024. IARC announced on April 18, 2019, that the recommendations were published in The Lancet Oncology, “Advisory Group recommendations on priorities for the IARC Monographs.” The list of agents previously evaluated by IARC Monographs and recommended for evaluation with high priority includes multi-walled carbon nanotubes. The list of medium priority agents includes nanomaterials, “e.g., titanium dioxide or nanosilica.”
FDA Extends Comment Period For Proposed Rule For OTC Sunscreen Drug Products: On April 18, 2019, FDA published a Federal Register notice announcing that it is extending the comment period for its February 26, 2019, proposed rule that would put into effect a final monograph for nonprescription, OTC sunscreen drug products. The proposed rule describes the conditions under which FDA proposes that OTC sunscreen monograph products are generally recognized as safe and effective (GRASE) and not misbranded. As reported in our February 21, 2019, blog item, “FDA Proposed Rule for OTC Sunscreen Drug Products Addresses Sunscreens Containing Nanomaterials,” FDA invites comment on several issues concerning nanomaterials. Comments are now due on June 27, 2019.
NIOSH Seeks Comment On Proposed Information Collection Project That Will Survey Engineered Nanomaterial Occupational Safety And Health Practices: On April 23, 2019, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) published a Federal Register notice inviting comment on a proposed information collection project entitled “Survey of Engineered Nanomaterial Occupational Safety and Health Practices.” The goal of the project is to assess the relevance and impact of NIOSH’s contribution to guidelines and risk mitigation practices for the safe handling of engineered nanomaterials in the workplace. Comments are due June 24, 2019. More information is available in our April 24, 2019, blog item.
OECD Chemical Safety And Biosafety Progress Report Includes Update On Work Regarding Manufactured Nanomaterials: The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) April 2019 issue of its Chemical Safety and Biosafety Progress Report includes an update on OECD’s work to determine the safety of manufactured nanomaterials. More information is available in our May 3, 2019, blog item.
Germany Announces Research Project To Establish Criteria For Assessment Of The Human Health And Environmental Risks Of Novel (Nano) Materials: On April 29, 2019, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) announced InnoMat.Life, a joint research project to establish criteria for an efficient assessment of the human health and environmental risks of novel (nano) materials. According to BfR, one of the main goals of InnoMat.Life is to establish criteria catalogs such that novel materials can be grouped together with regard to their hazard potential. The project takes into account the full material life cycle, from synthesis to disposal. More information is available in our May 6, 2019, blog item.
NIA Webinar On Nanosafety Available On YouTube: On May 7, 2019, the Nanotechnology Industries Association (NIA) held a webinar on “Nano in Action: Nanosafety.” Participants heard about the latest research and support tools intended to advance the development of safe materials from speakers involved in human and environmental safety research and services. The webinar also addressed how regulations and standards are evolving to build commercial and consumer confidence in nanomaterials. A list of all NIA webinars is available on NIA’s website, as well as on its YouTube channel. B&C is a proud NIA member.
EC JRC Announces Publication Of Article On Measuring Nanoparticles In Medicinal Products: The European Commission’s (EC) Joint Research Center (JRC) announced on May 10, 2019, publication of an article entitled “Measuring particle size distribution of nanoparticle enabled medicinal products, the joint view of EUNCL and NCI-NCL. A step by step approach combining orthogonal measurements with increasing complexity” in the April 10, 2019, issue of the Journal of Controlled Release. The work is part of the collaboration between U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Nanotechnology Characterization Laboratory (NCI-NCL) and the European Nanomedicine Characterization Laboratory (EUNCL). More information is available in our May 10, 2019, blog item.
ACS Will Hold Free Webinar On Working Safely With Nanomaterials In The Laboratory: On May 16, 2019, the American Chemical Society (ACS) will hold a webinar on working safely with nanomaterials in the laboratory. Chuck Geraci, NIOSH Associate Director for Emerging Technologies, will moderate a panel including: Ken Kretchman, Director of Environmental Safety, NC State University; Craig Merlic, Professor of Chemistry, University of California, Los Angeles; and Debbie Decker, Chemical and Laboratory Safety Officer, University of California, Davis.
18th Annual NanoBusiness Conference Will Be Held In June In Washington, D.C.: The NanoBusiness Commercialization Association (NanoBCA) will hold its 18th Annual NanoBusiness Conference on June 4, 2019, in Washington, D.C. Speakers will include Lynn L. Bergeson, Managing Director, B&C. A complete list of speakers is available in our April 17, 2019, blog item.
BIOBASED/RENEWABLE PRODUCTS
BRAG Biobased Products News And Policy Report: B&C consulting affiliate, B&C® Consortia Management, L.L.C. (BCCM), manages the Biobased and Renewable Products Advocacy Group (BRAG®). For access to a weekly summary of key legislative, regulatory, and business developments in biobased chemicals, biofuels, and industrial biotechnology, go to http://www.braginfo.org.
LEGISLATIVE
Representative Boyle Launches Effort To Research And Regulate PFAS: On April 29, 2019, Representative Brendan Boyle (D-PA) launched a two-pronged effort to address per- and poly-fluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS) contamination. Mr. Boyle led a bipartisan group of Representatives in urging the House Appropriations Committee to fund fully a $10 million nationwide study on the impact of PFAS contamination in Fiscal Year (FY) 2020. Mr. Boyle also sought to enact the study in the FY19 National Defense Authorization Act. Mr. Boyle also introduced a bill (H.R. 2377) that would require EPA to amend the SDWA to promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation for total PFAS substances.
House Bill Would Require Funding For Green Infrastructure Projects: On May 1, 2019, while Congressional leaders negotiated a $2 trillion infrastructure plan with the White House, Representative Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL) introduced the Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Efficiency Act (H.R. 2458). The bill would require at least 20 percent of Clean Water State Revolving Funds be invested in green infrastructure and environmentally-innovative water projects.
House Passes Legislation To Keep U.S. In Paris Climate Accord:On May 2, 2019, the House of Representatives passed its first climate change bill in a decade. The Climate Action Now Act (H.R. 9), passed by a vote of 231-190, would keep the U.S. in the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. It specifically would require President Trump to develop and update annually a plan for the U.S. to meet its nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement. The bill would require this plan to describe steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, and confirm that other parties to the agreement with major economies are fulfilling their announced contributions. In addition, the bill prohibits federal funds from being used to withdraw from the agreement. The House’s passage of the bill is largely symbolic, however, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has said that he would not bring the bill up for a vote in the Senate.
Chemical Poisons Reduction Act Of 2019 Introduced In House:On May 2, 2019, Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR) introduced the Chemical Poisons Reduction Act of 2019 (H.R. 2471). The bill would ban the use of two compounds that are used to control predator populations. Specifically, the bill would ban the use of sodium fluoroacetate (commonly known as Compound 1080) and sodium cyanide to kill predatory animals. Although EPA banned Compound 1080 in 1972, after lobbying from the livestock industry, EPA re-approved the compound for use in the “Livestock Protection Collar” (collars containing the compound that are placed around the necks of sheep and burst when punctured by a predator) in 1985. Sodium cyanide is contained within M-44 devices, which are spring-activated ejectors that deliver a dose when pulled. The top of the ejector is wrapped with an absorbent material that has been coated with a substance that attracts canines. When the device is activated, a spring ejects the poison. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and state agencies regularly use both of these poisons in their predator control programs.
House Subcommittee Holds Hearing On Bill To Ban Asbestos: On May 8, 2019, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change convened a hearing entitled “Ban Asbestos Now: Taking Action to Save Lives and Livelihoods.” Energy and Commerce Chair Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) opened the hearing, and his opening statement was withering in its criticism of EPA on its inaction on asbestos. Pallone stated: “It has been 30 years since EPA finalized that ban. And it has been 28 years since that ban was struck down in court. Twenty-eight years of frustration, of sickness and loss. We have known the dangers of asbestos for decades. Enough is enough.” The hearing focused on H.R. 1603, the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act. The bill would ban the manufacture, import, processing, and distribution of asbestos. It would also require EPA to assess and report on the risks posed by “legacy asbestos” found in buildings. Mr. Pallone stated that the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century empowered EPA to ban asbestos. “In fact, this Committee’s report on the Lautenberg Act – written under Republican leadership – states, and I’m quoting now: ‘To many members of the Committee, an important measure of TSCA reform proposals has been whether the proposal would enable EPA to take broader regulatory action to protect against unreasonable risks from asbestos. The Committee expects this legislation to enable that regulatory action.’” He added, however, that:
Unfortunately, it is 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. Asbestos is the poster-child for the problems we are seeing in the implementation of the Lautenberg Act. EPA’s actions under the Lautenberg Act have been so legally suspect that I believe we need to pass this bill regardless of whether EPA were to announce that it is moving forward with a full ban of asbestos. We don’t have time for more legal maneuvering and a drawn-out court battle while tens of thousands of people are dying. It is deeply disappointing that 40 years after EPA began work to ban asbestos under TSCA 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 so we will.
Testifying at the hearing were: Alexandra Dunn, Assistant Administrator, EPA, OCSPP; Linda Reinstein, Co-founder, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization; Rebecca Reindel, MS, MPH, Senior Safety and Health Specialist, on behalf of the AFL-CIO; Celeste Monforton, DrPH, MPH, Lecturer, Texas State University, on behalf of the American Public Health Association; and Mike Walls, Vice President of Regulatory and Technical Affairs, American Chemistry Council. Member statements, witness testimonies, and an archived webcast of the hearing are available online.
House Democrats Unleash Torrent Of PFAS Legislation: On May 8 and 9, 2019, Democrats in the House unleashed several bills aimed at addressing contamination by PFAS. Leading the charge was House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) on May 8, 2019, who introduced H.R. 2533, the Providing Financial Assistance for SDWA. The bill would authorize sweeping investments for water infrastructure, creating a grant program to upgrade the country’s drinking water systems with treatment technology that can remove PFAS. It is intended to allow affected communities to remove PFAS and other substances from their drinking water. The bill would amend the SDWA to require EPA to establish, within 180 days of enactment, a program to award grants to PFAS-affected water systems to pay the capital costs associated with eligible treatment technologies. The legislation further directs EPA to create a list of eligible treatment technologies, defined as those which can remove all detectable amounts of PFAS from drinking water. Other bills on PFAS introduced on May 8, 2019, are: H.R. 2570, which is intended to ensure that polluters pay ongoing water treatment costs associated with contamination from PFAS; H.R. 2577, a bill that would amend the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) to include PFAS on the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI); H.R. 2591, legislation that would prohibit the incineration of PFAS; H.R. 2596, which would amend TSCA with respect to manufacturing and processing notices for PFAS; H.R. 2600, a bill to regulate PFAS under TSCA; H.R. 2605, which would require EPA to issue a final rule adding as a class all PFAS substances with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom to the list of hazardous air pollutants under CAA Section 112(b); H.R. 2608, the PFAS Testing Act of 2019, which would require EPA to test PFAS chemicals under TSCA; H.R. 2626, which would encourage federal agencies to enter into agreements with states for the remediation of PFAS contamination; and H.R. 2638, a bill that would require EPA to issue guidance to minimize the use of firefighting foam containing PFAS.
Legislation Seeks To Protect Public Health And Coral Reefs From Sunscreen Chemicals: On May 8, 2019, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) introduced two pieces of legislation to address the alleged threat that sunscreen chemicals pose to coral reefs, and to study the impact of these chemicals on human health and the environment. The Oxybenzone and Octinoxate Impact Study Act of 2019 (S. 1371) would require EPA to study the impacts of those two chemicals on human health and the environment. The Reef Safe Act of 2019 (S. 1375) would require FDA to develop standards for a “Reef Safe” label for sunscreens. Companion legislation (H.R. 2588) was introduced in the House by Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI).
Appropriations Bill Would Fund PFOA/PFAS Cleanup On Military Bases: On May 9, 2019, the House Appropriations Committee passed legislation funding Department of Defense (DOD) construction programs. One of the provisions of the legislation would fund remediation for PFOS and PFOA. The FY 2020 Military Construction-Veterans Affairs bill provides $60 million for the remediation. The Committee report on the bill states that members are concerned about PFOS and PFOA contamination at U.S. military institutions. The bill only covers military installations funded through the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) account that are affected by PFOS/PFOA, but the report notes that “the issue is not limited to the Defense Department and affects many communities across the Nation.” Members are “encouraged” by EPA’s announced plan to evaluate the need for a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for PFOA/PFAS under the SDWA, as well as EPA’s consideration of designating these compounds as hazardous substances under CERCLA.
MISCELLANEOUS
ATSDR Announces Availability Of Draft Toxicological Profile For Glyphosate: On April 8, 2019, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATDSR) announced the opening of a docket on the draft toxicological profile for glyphosate. 84 Fed. Reg. 13922. ATSDR seeks comments and additional information or reports on studies about the health effects of glyphosate for review and potential inclusion in the profile. Comments are due by July 8, 2019. More information on glyphosate issues is available on our blog.
NIOSH Seeks Comment On Mesothelioma National Registry: On April 8, 2019, NIOSH announced the opening of a docket to obtain information on the feasibility of a registry designed to track mesothelioma cases in the U.S., as well as recommendations on enrollment, data collection, confidentiality, and registry maintenance. 84 Fed. Reg. 13928. The purpose of such a registry would be to collect information that could be used to develop and improve standards of care and to identify gaps in mesothelioma prevention and treatment. The FY 2019 appropriations act (H.R. 6157) charged NIOSH with initiating a feasibility study for a National Mesothelioma Registry. The conference report accompanying H.R. 6157 explicitly directs NIOSH to “initiate a feasibility study for a patient registry, which would include developing case finding methodology to determine incidence and prevalence, demographics, and risk factors.” The comment period closes on July 8, 2019.
USITC Releases Report Estimating The Economic Impact Of The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement: On April 18, 2019, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) released its report assessing the likely economic impact of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). The report is required under the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015. The report, United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement: Likely Impact on the U.S. Economy and Specific Industry Sectors, assesses the likely impact of the agreement on the U.S. economy as a whole and on specific industry sectors and the interests of U.S. consumers. The USITC investigated the impact the agreement would have on the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP); exports and imports; employment; and the production, employment, and competitive position of industries likely to be affected by the agreement. The report concludes that, if fully implemented and enforced, USMCA would have a modest positive impact on U.S. real GDP and employment. Specifically, the report estimates that USMCA would raise U.S. real GDP by $68.2 billion (0.35 percent) and U.S. employment by 176,000 jobs (0.12 percent). U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico would increase by $19.1 billion (5.9 percent) and $14.2 billion (6.7 percent), respectively. U.S. imports from Canada and Mexico would increase by $19.1 billion (4.8 percent) and $12.4 billion (3.8 percent), respectively. The elements of the agreement that would have the most significant effects on the U.S. economy are provisions that reduce policy uncertainty about digital trade and certain new rules of origin applicable to the automotive sector. The report highlights USMCA’s new international data transfer provisions, including provisions that largely prohibit forced localization of computing facilities and restrictions on cross-border data flows. Because the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) already eliminated duties on most goods and significantly reduced nontariff measures, USMCA’s emphasis is on reducing remaining nontariff measures on trade and the U.S. economy. This includes addressing other issues that affect trade, such as workers’ rights, harmonizing regulations, and deterring certain potential future trade and investment barriers. USMCA’s requirements are estimated to increase U.S. production of automotive parts and employment in the sector, but also to lead to a small increase in the prices and small decrease in the consumption of vehicles in the United States. USMCA would reduce the scope of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism, a change that, based on modeling results, would reduce U.S. investment in Mexico and would lead to a small increase in U.S. domestic investment and output in the manufacturing and mining sectors. The report is available online.
ATSDR Requests Comment On Proposed Substances To Be Evaluated For Toxicological Profiles: On April 19, 2019, ATSDR issued a Federal Register notice seeking nominations for substances ATSDR should evaluate for developing toxicological profiles. 84 Fed. Reg. 16511. ATSDR also is soliciting nominations for non- CERCLA substances. CERCLA requires ATSDR to develop a list annually of substances to be considered for toxicological profiles. ATSDR must prepare toxicological profiles for each substance included on the Priority List of Hazardous Substances (the Substance Priority list (SPL)). This list identifies 275 hazardous substances found at CERCLA National Priorities List (NPL) sites that ATSDR and EPA have determined pose the most significant current potential threat to human health. The ATSDR toxicological profile succinctly characterizes the toxicologic and adverse health effects information for these toxic substances. Each peer-reviewed profile identifies and reviews the key literature that describes a substance’s toxicologic properties. Other pertinent literature is also presented, but is described in less detail than the key studies. The focus of the profiles is on health and toxicological information; therefore, each toxicological profile begins with a relevance to public health discussion that would allow a public health professional to make a real-time determination of whether the presence of a particular substance in the environment poses a potential threat to human health. The adequacy of information to determine a substance's health effects is described in a health effects summary. Data needs that are of significance to the protection of public health are identified by ATSDR and EPA. The list of substances to be considered for toxicological profile development is available online. Nominations must be submitted by May 20, 2019.
CSB Calls On EPA To Update HF Study In Wake Of 2017 Husky Refinery Fire: On April 24, 2019, the US Chemical Safety Board (CSB) released a letter calling on EPA to review its existing hydrofluoric acid (HF) study to determine the effectiveness of existing regulations as well as the viability of utilizing inherently safer alkylation technologies in petroleum refineries. In the last four years, CSB has investigated two refinery incidents where an explosion elevated the threat of a release of HF. CSB urged EPA to review its 1993 HF study to ensure the health and safety of communities near petroleum refineries utilizing HF. CSB’s letter to EPA is available online.
CEQ Issues Instructions To Federal Agencies On Meeting Energy And Environmental Performance Requirements: On May 3, 2019, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued instructions to federal agencies for meeting energy and environmental performance requirements. 84 Fed Reg. 19056. The guidance documents are intended to guide federal agencies to comply with Executive Order (E.O.) 13834, “Efficient Federal Operations,” signed by President Trump on May 17, 2018. The purpose of the E.O. is to direct agencies on the management of federal facilities, vehicles, and operations to achieve statutory requirements, while prioritizing actions to reduce waste, cut costs, and enhance resilience of federal infrastructure and operations for effective accomplishment of agency missions. CEQ issued the following instructions: Guiding Principles for Sustainable Federal Buildings; Federal Renewable Energy Certificate Guide; Interim Guidance for Calculating Federal Compliance with Waste Diversion Goals; Federal Agency Implementation of Water Efficiency and Management Provisions; Guidance for Federal Agencies on Sustainable Practices for Designed Landscapes; Sustainable Locations for Federal Facilities: Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting Guidance; and Federal Agency Implementation of Workplace Charging: Guidance for Level 1 Charging Receptacles and EV Supply Equipment.
The instructions are available online.
ATSDR Announces Release Of Draft Toxicological Profiles:ATSDR on May 9, 2019, announced that it has released and is taking comment on several draft toxicological profiles. 84 Fed. Reg. 20359. ATSDR has released draft profiles for: Dinitrophenols; 2-Butanone; Mirex and Chlordecone; 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine; 1,2,3-Trichloropropane; Lead; and Endrin.
The draft profiles are available online. Comments on the draft profiles are due by August 7, 2019.
EPA Seeks Comment On Draft Policy For Enhancing EPA/State Actions On Enforcement: On May 13, 2019, EPA released a draft policy of “Enhancing Planning and Communication Between the EPA and States in Civil Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Work.” 84 Fed. Reg. 20882. The draft policy is available online and EPA is soliciting comments on it until June 12, 2019.The guidance is intended to set out expectations and procedures for enhancing planning and communication on civil enforcement between EPA and state agencies implementing federal environmental programs.
OSHA Issues Final Rule Revising 14 Standards: On May 14, 2019, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a final rule revising 14 provisions in the recordkeeping, general industry, maritime, and construction standards. 84 Fed. Reg. 21416. OSHA believes that the regulatory provisions it revised may be confusing, outdated, or unnecessary. OSHA expects the revisions will increase understanding and compliance with the provisions, improve employee safety and health, and save employers an estimated $6.1 million per year. This is the fourth final rule under OSHA’s Standards Improvement Project, which began in 1995 in response to a Presidential memorandum to improve government regulations.
Almost 200 Parties To The Basel Convention Approve Amendment To Include Restrictions On Plastic Waste And Hazardous Chemicals: On May 10, 2019, 180 governments adopted decisions aimed at protecting human health and the environment from plastic wastes and hazardous chemicals. Governments that are parties to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal approved an amendment to the Convention to include plastic waste. The legally-binding framework “will make global trade in plastic waste more transparent and better regulated, whilst also ensuring that its management is safer for human health and the environment,” the Secretariat of the Basel Convention wrote. At the same time, a new Partnership on Plastic Waste was established to mobilize business, government, academic and civil society resources, interests and expertise to assist in implementing the new measures, to provide a set of practical supports -- including tools, best practices, technical and financial assistance -- for this agreement. The amendment could make it difficult, if not impossible, for the U.S., which is not a party to the Basel Convention, to export plastic wastes to countries that eventually adopt the amendment. Amendments to other global agreements were also adopted. Parties agreed to amend the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants to eliminate two chemical groups, which together total about 4,000 chemicals, listed in Annex A of the Stockholm Convention, namely dicofol and PFOA and its salts and PFOA-related compounds. Listing in Annex A to the Convention obliges Parties to eliminate these chemicals from use. Amendments to the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure (PIC) for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade also were adopted by Parties. Phorate (a pesticide) and hexabromocyclododecane were added to Annex III of the Convention, making them subject to the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure, through which countries can decide on future imports of these chemicals. A further decision to approve procedures and mechanisms on compliance with the Rotterdam Convention was also adopted by the Parties. The amendments were agreed to during a two-week meeting in Geneva entitled “Clean Planet, Healthy People: Sound Management of Chemicals and Waste.” Approximately 1,400 delegates from around 180 countries converged for the meetings of the Conferences of Parties to the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions (Triple COP).
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/wrap-up-of-federal-and-state-chemical-16894
-
May 17, 2019 | AlterNet
By Amy Goodman
Nearly every country in the world except the United States took a historic step to curb plastic waste last week, when more than 180 nations agreed to add plastic to the Basel Convention, a treaty that regulates the movement of hazardous materials between countries. The U.S. is one of just two countries that has not ratified the 30 year-old treaty. During negotiations last week in Geneva, the Environmental Protection Agency and State Department joined the plastics industry in trying to thwart the landmark, legally-binding agreement. Despite this, the United States will still be affected by the agreement, because countries will be able to block the dumping of mixed or unrecyclable plastic wastes from other nations. The amended treaty will make it much more difficult for wealthy countries to send their plastic waste to poorer nations by prohibiting countries from exporting plastic waste that is not ready for recycling. The U.N. estimates there are 100 million tons of plastic waste in the world’s oceans. We speak with Pam Miller, co-chair of the International Pollutants Elimination Network and executive director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: We end today’s show with the growing crisis of plastic pollution. Nearly every country in the world, but not the United States, took a historic step to curb plastic waste last week when more than 180 nations agreed to add plastic to the Basel Convention, a treaty that regulates the movement of hazardous materials between countries. The U.S. is one of just two countries that has not ratified the 30-year-old treaty. During negotiations last week in Geneva, the Environmental Protection Agency and State Department joined the plastics industry in trying to thwart the landmark legally-binding agreement. Despite this, the United States will still be affected by the agreement because countries will be able to block the dumping of mixed or unrecyclable plastic wastes from other nations. The amended treaty will make it much more difficult for wealthy countries to send their plastic waste to poorer countries by prohibiting nations from exporting plastic waste that is not ready for recycling. Only around 9% of plastic is recycled.
AMY GOODMAN: The U.N. estimates there are 100 million tons of plastic waste in the world’s oceans. For more, we go to Anchorage, Alaska, where we’re joined by Pam Miller, co-chair of the International Pollutants Elimination Network, or IPEN. It’s a global network of NGOs dedicated to a toxics-free future. Miller is also executive director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Pam. It is great to have you in from Alaska. Can you talk about what the U.S. is refusing to do and the significance of the problem?
PAM MILLER: Yes. It was appalling really to see the U.S. government behave in the way that they did at the Basel Convention last week, especially knowing that they are not a party to the Convention and yet they tried to thwart efforts to establish plastics waste under the Basel Convention because they have a vested interest. The U.S. is the world’s largest exporter of plastics, mostly to developing nations. And this has created a global crisis of waste in countries in South and Central Asia as well as South America and Africa.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Explain how this entire process works. Is it possible for these developing countries to refuse to accept this plastic waste?
PAM MILLER: Under the new amendment to the Basel Convention, which had been proposed by Norway in 2018, yes, developing countries will now have the right to refuse imports from developed countries such as the U.S. so that they will have the right to refuse dirty plastics, mixed waste, that have created such a huge problem in so many countries, particularly in Asia where we see that, as you mentioned, most of these plastics cannot truly be recycled so they are essentially dumped on the land adjacent to communities where these plastics are burned, creating a huge health hazard to many communities in these developing nations.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: It was just last year that China put a ban on foreign waste imports. Can you talk about how much plastic waste was going to China and where that waste is now going?
PAM MILLER: Yes. So China did make this landmark decision, which was really important for their country to have the right to refuse this dirty plastic waste that’s highly toxic. These plastics are not only a physical hazard in the environment, but they’re also a human health hazard because they contain many toxic additives such as phthalates and bisphenols and persistent pollutants that are endocrine-disrupting and cancer-causing chemicals. So a country such as China made the decision, because this was such a huge problem in their country, to have the right to refuse it. Unfortunately then, the U.S. began shipping it to other countries in Asia such as Indonesia, as well as India, Malaysia and others.
AMY GOODMAN: American explorer Victor Vescovo recently broke the record for the deepest dive ever when he descended nearly seven miles into the Pacific Ocean’s Mariana Trench. On the ocean floor, he saw new species of crustaceans but he also found a plastic bag and candy wrappers. This is Vescovo speaking shortly after the dive.
VICTOR VESCOVO: It wasn’t completely surprising, although it was very disappointing to see obvious human contamination of the deepest point in the ocean. Because when I first got to the bottom, it seemed very pristine, almost like a moonscape. And I did see life.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s American Explorer Victor Vescovo. If you can respond to that, Pam, and also just describe the scope of the problem. How large are these plastic islands that are floating around the world right now?
PAM MILLER: The problem of plastics in the ocean is just immense. The plastics in the Pacific Ocean are just a huge mass of hundreds of thousands of acres of plastics in a huge plastic dump in the Pacific Ocean. So it’s an immense problem. And it’s not just a physical threat in the marine environment, but as these plastics break up, certainly we’ve all seen the images of how plastics can choke sea life such as sea turtles and marine mammals and birds, but as these plastics break up, they create an even more insidious problem. They become micro-plastics, which then can be ingested by marine animals such as fish, marine mammals and others, which then pose a threat to human health because these plastics at sea not only contain toxic additives in themselves, but when they are at sea, they absorb persistent pollutants such as PCBs, flame-retardant chemicals such as PBDEs. These are highly persistent toxics and these plastics simply continue to absorb these toxic chemicals.
Then when they are ingested by marine life, these toxics are conveyed into the bodies of these animals which then create a problem for human health because we rely on fish and other marine life as a source of food. So it’s a very serious not only physical and unsightly problem to the marine environment, but it’s also a toxic problem that we really have to solve by stopping the production of plastic upstream. The production of plastic relies on fossil fuels, and ultimately, this is also a contributor to climate change. So the entire cycle of plastics production, waste disposal and use, is really a toxic hazard.
AMY GOODMAN: And circling back to the United States refusing to sign on to this global treaty, talk more about the significance of the U.S., the most powerful player in the world. Certainly a historic polluter when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. What does it mean when they don’t sign on to a treaty that would curb plastics?
PAM MILLER: The U.S. is not a very good player in the international convention arena, including the three chemical conventions that have met over the past three weeks including the Basel Convention, the Rotterdam Convention and the Stockholm Convention. The U.S. is party to none of those treaties. However, the U.S. Department of State and EPA show up and in the case of the Basel Convention, played a very negative role in trying to persuade a small handful of countries to go against the will of the majority of the countries who really wanted to include plastics in the Basel Convention.
So the U.S. played an extremely negative role. Their position that they vocalized in the plenary sessions and also in the contact groups that met to hash out the amendments really mirrored the positions of the plastics and the chemical industry. The American Chemistry Council was there representing the major petrochemical manufacturers. There were plastic waste trade companies and associations. The U.S. position was essentially the same. So it was really not only disappointing but appalling as an American citizen in an international arena such as this to see the U.S. behaving so badly.
AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you so much for being with us, Pam Miller, co-chair of the International Pollutants Elimination Network, known as IPEN. Executive director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics. Speaking to us from Anchorage, Alaska.
https://www.alternet.org/2019/05/the-world-just-took-a-major-step-to-curb-plastic-pollution-but-the-u-s-refused-to-join-effort/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Think Twice When Reaching for Plastics
May 17, 2019 | Gaston Gazette
By Nan Kirlin
Let’s talk about plastics. This topic is hot in the news right now.
From plastic straws to plastic grocery bags, we are being told to stop accepting using plastics we only use one time.
As reported in the recycling industry publication Waste 360, at the UN Basel Convention new measures were added to restrict and provide disclosure to the plastic waste trade. What this essentially does is to inform countries in advance of plastic waste shipments headed their way and those countries will have the right to refuse those shipments.
When China banned imports of most plastic waste in 2018, countries like Indonesia, India, Vietnam and others opened their borders to these waste materials, planning to glean the truly recyclable plastics from this material. Unfortunately, what they have been accepting is a lot of junk plastics with no recyclability. Their options are to incinerate or dump this waste back in open pits or into bodies of water and we all know this ends up in our oceans.
Most countries expressed support of this measure and more than 1 million people globally signed petitions in favor of these measures. Guess who was an outlier? The United States, the largest exporter of plastic waste in the world, the American Chemistry Council (petrochemical lobbying group) and the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, a business associated with waste brokers. The United States is not a part of this particular convention and since it is not a member, will be banned from trading any plastic waste with member counties.
What does this mean to you and me?
1. The markets do not exist for many of our common plastics, but there are viable recycling options for bottles and jugs, #1 and #2 plastics.
2. Stop contributing to the single use plastic industry. Be responsible to understand where this waste is going, and refrain from its use.
3. Whenever possible, choose no Styrofoam or single use cups, straws, utensils, bags and films.
Out of sight, out of mind doesn’t apply anymore when we are finding microplastics in our seafood.
https://www.gastongazette.com/article/20190517/ENTERTAINMENTLIFE/190518519
-
TSCA New Chemicals Website Sees 'Transparency Improvements'
May 17, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has announced changes to its TSCA new chemicals statistics webpage with the aim of improving transparency.
The page now includes a chart showing how many new chemical cases – including pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) and significant new use notifications (Snuns) – there are in each step of the review process. And it contains details as to what each of those stages entails.
The updates, the agency said in a notice to stakeholders, represent "the first step in a larger effort to increase the transparency of the new chemicals programme and ensure stakeholders and the public can quickly and easily view the EPA’s progress".
This effort is consistent with a pledge made by EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler in a letter to Congress at the end of last year to improve transparency around the new chemicals programme. The agency also promised to begin publishing more information on PMNs – including attachments and health and safety studies – in the ChemView portal by the end of this month.
Current website data (until 30 April) indicates there are 470 cases undergoing review. Of these: 173 await additional information from the submitter; 32 await the submitter’s signature; 35 are in the risk assessment phase;148 are in the risk characterisation phase; and 82 are in the regulatory decision and action development phase.
Since the passage of the Lautenberg Act in June 2016, the EPA has completed reviews of 993 substances. Close to half of these (468) were subject to orders, while more than a quarter (286) were deemed ‘not likely to present an unreasonable risk’ and allowed to come to market without restriction. The balance (239) were withdrawn.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77656/tsca-new-chemicals-website-sees-transparency-improvements
-
Court Doubtful of Green Challenge to Safety Rule
May 17, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jeremy P. Jacobs
A federal appeals court yesterday signaled skepticism of environmental groups and public health advocates' bid to undo a Trump administration chemical safety rule.
The consolidated case at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concerns a June 2017 EPA rule for how the agency selects and evaluates chemicals for safety under the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA (E&E News PM, June 22, 2017).
A wide variety of groups including Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families; the Environmental Working Group; the Sierra Club; and some labor groups sued, claiming the rule fails to protect public health by giving the agency too much discretion on whether to evaluate chemical safety.
At oral arguments yesterday and in an order filed thereafter, however, a three-judge panel expressed concern that the case was filed too soon because direct harm from the so-called framework rules has yet to be felt.
Consequently, the judges ordered the challengers to submit additional briefs on whether they have standing to bring the case.
At oral arguments yesterday, Natural Resources Defense Council attorney Sarah Tallman repeatedly tried to convince the panel that there are already impacts from the rule.
In particular, she pointed to steelworkers who are exposed to uses of asbestos that she said EPA is "currently ignoring."
"Our members are exposed specifically to chemicals that EPA is already evaluating," she said. "These injuries are concrete and non-conjectural."
Judge Michelle Friedland, however, asked whether they should wait to file a lawsuit once EPA has made a final determination about a chemical or substance at issue.
Other judges on the panel similarly expressed that the real-world impact of the TSCA evaluations could be "years out."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/17/stories/1060350255
-
Softer EPA Rules for Toxic Chemical Review Riles Ninth Circuit
May 17, 2019 | Courthouse News
By Helen Christophi
A Ninth Circuit panel hinted Thursday it might toss parts of Trump administration rules for evaluating 80,000 toxic chemicals, allegedly written to minimize the chemicals’ health risks so they won’t be restricted or banned.
U.S. Circuit Judge Michelle Friedland appeared frustrated during the hearing in Seattle, when an attorney for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said the court can’t review the EPA’s framework rules. The rules allow the agency to exclude some forms of chemical exposure when evaluating the chemical’s health and environmental risks.
“If the worst one is the pacifier, but once you add the pesticides and the exposure from the air conditioning at school or whatever, the kid’s going to get cancer,” said Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee. “Doesn’t it matter if there are the other uses that are going to add to it and actually tip you over some medical threshold the pacifier itself wouldn’t?”
In 2017, the EPA issued two rules under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The rules established the processes by which the EPA prioritizes chemicals for risk assessments. The EPA decides whether to ban, restrict, or otherwise regulate a chemical based on the results.
Risk is determined by the toxicity of a chemical combined with a person’s level of exposure to the chemical, according to a coalition of environmental and public health groups led by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, which petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review in August 2017.
Other petitioners include the Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Working Group and Learning Disabilities Association of America.
The EPA issued proposed framework rules in January 2017, which the petitioners say complied with the Toxic Substances Control Act’s requirement that the agency “comprehensively” evaluate a chemical’s hazards and exposures. But the agency reversed course that spring, after the Trump administration appointed a “former chemical-industry advocate” to the EPA.
According to the petitioners, the appointee gave the EPA “unfettered discretion to exclude known or reasonably foreseen exposure pathways from consideration” so as to “exonerate chemicals based on only a partial review of known or reasonably foreseen uses and exposures.”
People are often exposed to a chemical in multiple ways, and the petitioners say excluding exposure routes leads to an underestimation of a chemical’s risks. Citing the act, they contend the EPA must examine all “conditions of use” of a chemical. This includes so-called “legacy use” – ongoing and future uses of a chemical that is no longer manufactured, processed, or distributed for those specific uses, like asbestos used in old buildings.
Defending this position Thursday, Justice Department attorney Samara Spence said the act lets the EPA exclude legacy use from its assessments. She said the EPA excluded legacy use because, with 80,000 chemicals to review, the agency concluded it will get the most “bang for its buck” by focusing on substances on the market right now.
Friedland was skeptical. “If the chemical is used in a variety of ways, shouldn’t you add them up?” she asked.
Spence said that the Ninth Circuit doesn’t have jurisdiction over this part of the framework rules, which consist of a preamble discussion of what the EPA may do on a case-by-case basis in the future.
“Is it your position we can’t ask that now? We have to ask it as to each chemical later?” Friedland asked through an incredulous sigh.
Spence said yes. “Congress gave EPA the choice; that’s plain in the statute,” she said.
“That’s what makes these claims so hard to even really talk about, they’re all what-ifs,” Spence said. “That’s why there’s a standing problem; they’re all what-ifs. What if maybe in the future EPA exercises that authority in an arbitrary and capricious way? If that ever happens, that is reviewable. At this point in time, nothing in the statute says EPA can’t do that.”
The question of whether the petitioners have standing could partly torpedo their appeal. Both Friedland and Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, a Ronald Reagan appointee, indicated the petitioners may lack standing to challenge the EPA’s preamble discussion because they hadn’t identified a concrete injury from the chemicals under review.
O’Scannlain questioned whether there had been an injury conferring procedural standing, and Friedland noted procedural standing is designed to provide “immediate” protection.
“Here you have two steps,” she told Sarah Tallman, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council representing the petitioners.
On rebuttal, Tallman reminded the three-judge panel the ongoing use of restricted substances is hurting vulnerable populations. She offered asbestos as an example – haulers who take asbestos-laden building insulation to disposal sites and firefighters who enter burning buildings containing asbestos insulation.
“We have submitted expert evidence that these kinds of exposures are harmful,” Tallman said, “so there is a reasonable probability that if EPA fails to consider those uses in its evaluations and the decisions it’s making, it will be underprotective and underinclusive.”
U.S. District Judge William Pauley III, sitting by designation from the Southern District of New York and a Bill Clinton appointee, joined Thursday’s panel.
https://www.courthousenews.com/softer-epa-rules-for-toxic-chemical-review-riles-ninth-circuit/
-
May 17, 2019 | Chemical Watch
CLH public consultations
The agency is looking for comments on CLH proposals for: 2-(2-methoxyethoxy)ethanol. Proposed by the Netherlands it is primarily used as an intermediate or industrial processing aid and an additive in aviation fuels; pyridine-2-thiol 1-oxide, sodium salt. Proposed by Sweden it is an active substance mainly used in biocidal products as a preservative and disinfectant; and methyl methacrylate methyl 2-methylprop-2-enoate. Proposed by the Netherlands, it has several uses including adhesive and sealants, and as a monomer for polymerisation or intermediate in synthesis of other chemicals.
The deadline for comments is 5 July.
Safer Chemicals conference live
The agency is providing live coverage of its Safer Chemicals conference on 21-22 May, which can be accessed from its events page. The conference includes discussions on: changes in notifying hazardous mixtures to national poison centres on 21 May; and current priorities in EU chemicals legislation on 22 May.
Reader feedback on news products
Echa is asking for feedback on the type of content and topics readers favour for its news coverage in order to improve the service.
The survey is open until 12 June.
Webpages: database of articles containing SVHCs
The agency has created webpages on the database it is developing for information on articles containing substances of very high concern from the candidate list, under the waste framework Directive.
The webpages provide background information and details about the project's next steps.
Companies producing, importing or supplying such articles will need to submit information to Echa from January 2021.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77562/echa-round-up
-
Bill Would Ban Leases in Arctic Ocean
May 17, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Rob Hotakainen
Drilling would not be allowed in the Arctic Ocean under a bill introduced yesterday by Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley, who called the idea both irresponsible and reckless.
"Arctic drilling will skyrocket carbon pollution, cause catastrophic damage to our global economy and environment, and could irreparably damage some of our most precious American natural treasures," Merkley said. "That is beyond reckless, and it's time for Congress to make this region permanently off-limits for oil and gas corporations."
The bill, S. 1523, called the "Stop Arctic Ocean Drilling Act," would prohibit any new or renewed leases for the exploration of oil, natural gas and any other minerals in the Arctic Ocean planning area.
The bill has a dozen co-sponsors, including independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The others are all Democrats: Sens. Bob Menendez and Cory Booker of New Jersey, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Kamala Harris of California, Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Chris Van Hollen and Ben Cardin of Maryland, Gary Peters of Michigan, and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.
Whitehouse said that opening up the Arctic to drilling "would be an enormous step backward at a time when we can least afford it."
"Scientists around the world are warning that the window of time for humans to prevent the most dramatic effects of climate change by reducing fossil fuel emissions and switching to cleaner energy sources is quickly closing," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/17/stories/1060350195
-
Congress, Look at Texas for the Facts on Fracking
May 17, 2019 | Real Clear Energy
By John Tintera
Yesterday, the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources held a hearing to investigate whether oil and gas drilling causes water pollution. It's a very important topic. If drilling pollutes our drinking water, new restrictions would obviously be needed to safeguard public health.
Fortunately, every available piece of scientific evidence shows that drilling -- particularly the technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking -- is safe. As a geologist who has spent decades regulating the energy industry, I've seen firsthand the extensive precautions companies take to avoid any accidents and protect our water sources. Current safety regulations are already working. There's no need to impede energy production by binding companies with additional red tape from the federal government.
Just look at my home state of Texas. It's by far America's biggest energy producer, and home to the 75,000-square-mile Permian Basin, the world's most productive oil field. The Permian and other Texas oil fields use tons of water responsibly whether for hydraulic fracturing, processing, or refining.
How responsible are Texas drillers when it comes to water management? Well, there hasn't been a single documented case of groundwater contamination associated with fracking.
This drilling technique has led to an unprecedented oil and gas revolution. In just the first quarter of 2019, Texas, for the first time ever, produced more than 5 million barrels of crude oil every day. The state accounts for an astounding 40 percent of all crude production in the United States.
The cooperation between industry and Texas state regulators is chiefly responsible for this spotless safety record.
Texas state law is as crystal clear as its water. Texas outlaws any pollution of any and all bodies of water -- whether above or below ground -- period. The law defines pollution as any change at all to water that would make it harm humans, animals, plants, property, or public health in general.
There are numerous key laws -- 13 total -- that serve as a regulatory framework to enforce the no-pollution rule. They outline rules for everything from how to drill to how to clean up a spill. They address almost every water protection concern that could arise from oil and gas production.
Take fracking, a process which requires immense amounts of water. There are rules to govern how practitioners drill, what cement and casings they use, and how they control their wells. Additionally, they are required to continually monitor pressure levels beneath the surface and report malfunctions to inspectors.
Or consider waste disposal. The Texas regulations protect surface and subsurface water from liquid and solid oil field waste. Injection wells, the shafts that carry fluids down to porous underground rock formations, are highly regulated by the EPA and encased in multiple layers of cement to protect drinking water. The EPA audits each injection well annually.
Regulators wouldn't be able to enforce these rules without a small army of state inspectors. There are hundreds of them in Texas that rove the oil fields to make sure everything is up to snuff. These "outriders" have access to all the online data they need to ensure proper inspection.
Companies are not only complying with the regulations; they are constantly finding new ways to protect water. Operators in the Permian Basin are using new technologies like "clean brine" to make produced water clean enough to reuse. They are also building pipelines to wastewater treatment or recycling facilities and reusing produced water. The reused water is not only used for more drilling, but can be used for community improvement like de-icing roads during winter.
Some companies are finding novel ways to reuse and conserve water. In 2016, one Texas-based energy company opened a 20-mile pipeline to receive treated municipal wastewater from Odessa, Texas that can be used in all its operations. Reusing municipal wastewater reduced the company's reliance on freshwater needed in Odessa for drinking, and compensates Odessa for once-useless waste.
Thanks to sensible regulations, regular inspections, and industry efforts, Texas energy companies have little impact on the state's water supply. A study by the state found that fracking accounts for less than 1 percent of total water use in the state, far less than agriculture.
Texans know what they're doing when it comes to safeguarding their drinking water. There's no need for Washington to impose additional, needless regulations when the current ones are already working perfectly.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/05/17/congress_look_at_texas_for_the_facts_on_fracking.html
-
Colorado Completes Initial Step to Implement Oil, Gas Law
May 17, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) on Thursday issued initial guidance for implementing Senate Bill 181 enacted earlier this year, which requires regulators to revamp some oil and gas rules.
COGCC Executive Director Jeff Robbins said the final criteria provide discretion that will remain in effect until all the rulemakings are completed. Included is a mandate to change COGCC’s mission from “fostering” to “regulating" oil and gas activity.
In the meantime, COGCC may delay final permit applications under the 16 criteria aimed at protecting public health, safety and the environment. In addition, the commission could determine if permits meet the intent of the new law before rulemakings are completed.
COGCC oil and gas rulemakings that need to be completed include assuring activities protect and minimize negative impacts in public health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife resources; establishing an "alternative location analysis" process for locations and facilities; evaluating potential cumulative impacts from activity; and ensuring compliance with rules covering all flowlines and inactive, temporarily abandoned and shut-in wells.
Robbins last month sought public input over draft objectives and incorporated some of the 340 public comments into the final guidance.
Colorado Oil and Gas Association CEO Dan Haley said the initial guidance does not change the "thorough and exhaustive" permitting review process already in place. The new law gives Robbins "unprecedented authority" to set criteria and "places a vast majority of permits within [his] singular oversight."
The industry, said Haley, is hoping "this repetitive examination is used to confirm details rather than to indefinitely hold up permits." The goal is for industry collaboratively to help assure the process is objective, he said.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/118406-colorado-completes-initial-step-to-implement-oil-gas-law
-
May 17, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Each day the growing complex of petrochemical plants lining the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast churns out thousands of tons of miniature plastic pellets, destined for manufacturing plants around the world to be turned into everything from soda bottles to car bumpers to the casings of smart phones.
But with the plastic industry’s meteoric rise, comes a waste stream that has far exceeded society’s ability to manage it. In the wake of stagnant recycling rates and damning scientific reports of marine life choking on plastic waste in the world’s oceans, consumers and governments worldwide are beginning to turn away from single-use plastics and plastic packaging, a massive chunk of a $1.2 trillion a year global industry that has transformed consumer culture and become an increasingly vital component of the Texas economy.
Plastic bag bans are in place in at least 32 countries, including large swaths of Europe and Africa, as well as the world’s second largest economy, China. In the United States, some 300 municipalities have similar bans, as do the states of Hawaii and California.
The next wave of regulation already is underway, as American cities from Seattle to Charleston, S.C., and a number of European nations, ban single-use plastics such as straws and flip-top meal containers in what many industry executives see as a growing threat to their future. It is also posing a threat to the broader energy sector— the mainstay of Houston’ economy — which has counted on plastics and petrochemicals made from oil and natural gas as a source of new demand to offset weakening consumption of gasoline and diesel as electric vehicles multiply.
“We’re seeing local ordinances going much further than bags,” said Matt Seaholm, executive director of the American Plastic Bag Alliance, an industry lobbying group. “They’re saying we need to get rid of it all.”
Scientists estimate the plastic waste stream at 275 million metric tons a year worldwide — about the weight of 135 million cars stacked one atop another.
Only a fraction of that plastic will be recycled. In wealthy nations such as the United States the vast majority is destined for landfills or incinerators. But in developing nations in southeast Asia, Africa and South America trash collection systems are less developed, leaving millions of tons of plastic bottles and bags unaccounted for, left to be scattered by the wind and washed by rains into the ocean.
Math problem
As new plastic plants comes online at a fast clip worldwide, that waste stream is expected to grow in kind. By 2025 U.S. production capacity for polyethylene, which is used to make bottles and bags and is the most common type of plastic, is expected to grow to more than 70 percent above 2015 levels, according to the research firm IHS Markit. And the vast majority of those new plants are being built along the Gulf Coast, tapping the glut of cheap natural gas - a feedstock for plastic production - coming from U.S. shale fields.
“We have an enormous math balance problem,” said Jan Dell, a Houston-based environmental consultant who has advised federal agencies on climate change. “Already we have a system that can’t keep up, so where’s all that new plastic going to go? The plastic industry is opening up the spigot into the sink, but the pipe isn’t getting any bigger so its going to overflow even more into the environment.”
At the center of the push for banning plastics is the worldwide failure of recycling programs, which promised to re-purpose a material that by most scientific estimates takes hundreds, if not thousands of years to disintegrate. Decades after the slogan “reduce, reuse, recycle” spread across the United States, the plastic recycling rate in the United States is 9 percent, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The rest of the world isn’t doing much better. Even in Europe, where recycling policies rank among the most comprehensive in the world, the recycling rate is only about 30 percent, said Roland Geyer, an ecology professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara.
“This linear production model — drill for the oil and gas and make the plastic, use it and put it in the ground — seems very outdated and not appropriate for a small planet,” he said. “We used to think of the planet as giant, but it is becoming an ever smaller planet, with the population density and the living standards we all have grown accustomed to.”
Scientists estimate approximately 8 million metric tons of plastic waste — nearly 20 billion pounds — end up in the world’s oceans each year. The plastic is broken down into smaller and smaller pieces by the combination of salt water, waves and sun, slowly poisoning the fish and other marine creatures that eat it.
Plastic’s environmental impact can be seen driving down any highway in America. In Laredo, residents are again seeing grocery bags and bottles strewn along roadways and clogging up creeks after the Texas Supreme Court overturned a 2015 bag ban that was the subject of a lawsuit by local merchants aligned with the plastics industry.
“It was drastic after the bag ban. We didn’t have empty lots or trees or creeks filled with plastic bags anymore. It was a very different landscape,” said Tricia Ortiz, executive director of the nonprofit Rio Grande International Study Center. “Now, we’re reversing course and the plastic bags are everywhere.”
With media coverage and activist campaigns on the rise, the plastics industry has pledged to try to do its part to solve the crisis. Earlier this year, an industry group that includes the major oil companies Exxon Mobil and Chevron, and the Houston petrochemical company LyondellBasell, pledged a combined $1 billion to expand recycling and trash operations worldwide and develop next-generation products like bio-degradable plastics.
Fears of backlash
Chet Thompson, former deputy general counsel at the Environmental Protection Agency who now leads the trade group American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, said finding a solution soon was critical, even if expanded recycling programs cut into plastic production.
“It’s better for business than not addressing it and having our demand crushed later,” he said. “Folks realize, even if it’s not their fault, none of that matters if there’s going to be a backlash that takes the form of bans.”
The world’s increasing intolerance for plastic waste is already catching the attention of the world’s financial institutions, for whom plastics was one of the great success stories of the 20th century - immortalized in the 1967 film “The Graduate” when Dustin Hoffman’s wayward character is advised by a friend of his parents, “Just one word… plastics.”
Last year, Citibank sent a report to investors cautioning that new petrochemical plants could face slower than expected demand growth, noting that packaging - the form of plastic most commonly targeted in the government bans - represented one-third of the industry’s output, surpassing construction materials, consumer products and automobile components.
At the same time, the industry’s corporate customers, wary of eliciting the attention of government and activists, are moving on their own to reduce the amount of plastic they use. Both McDonald’s and Dunkin Donuts said they will replace polystyrene cups and containers with paper versions by 2020. Coca Cola has pledged to get is plastic containers to 50 percent recycled content by 2030. The consumer products company Procter & Gamble has introduced a new “eco-box” for its line of Tide laundry detergent, which it claims uses 60 percent less plastic than standard containers.
“The consumer backlash is only going to intensify,” said Rob Gilfillan, a plastics analyst with the energy research firm Wood Mackenzie. “The pressure the industry is under means we have to taper long-term forecasts.”
Before the rise of plastics after World War II, households bought food and drinks in glass bottles, metal cans or paper bags, which tended to be reused or, if sent to landfills, broke down in a matter of decades, if not years.
But scientists discovered that by manipulating the carbon molecules in oil and other fossil fuels, they could produce synthetic substances mimicking the properties of natural materials. While wood and metal had to be harvested or mined, plastic could be produced cheaply in a factory and easily molded into whatever shape the customer demanded.
Plastic quickly took off, with production rising to the point that plastics represent more than half of all the packaging material used worldwide each year. In the United States alone, the industry generated more than $400 billion in 2017, employing close to 1 million people — more than 75,000 in Texas.
Few incentives
The problem is that plastic is so durable and cheap to make, there is little economic impetus to reuse or recycle packaging and containers. While nearly three of every four U.S. households have access to curbside recycling, more than 90 percent of plastic doesn’t get recycled. Often, it’s because the plastics are contaminated by food waste or mixed with plastics that are not recyclable, such as plastic grocery bags.
In other cases, recycling equipment is outdated and incapable of sorting the increasing volumes of paper, plastic, glass and metal that end up in a modern family’s recycling bin.
“The infrastructure is light years behind the stream mixes today,” said Steve Alexander, president of the Association of Plastic Recyclers, which represents companies that produce and buy recycled plastic.
For now, low demand for recycled plastic offers little incentive to waste management contractors to invest in better equipment. Recycling plastic, unlike metal or glass, is costly, forcing recycling firms to charge more for recycled plastic than the cost of new or “virgin” plastic pellets cost.
And demand has only weakened after China, which scientists estimate took about half the developed world’s scrap plastics in 2016, banned the importation of all but the purest forms of plastic scrap last year. At the same time the glut of cheap natural gas coming from U.S. shale formations has allowed U.S. producers to sell their plastic pellets even cheaper, further imperiling the economics of recycling.
Plastic and product manufacturers argue the world’s middling recycling efforts can be turned around through investment in technology and education campaigns. At the same time, industry lobbyists are making the case to lawmakers in Washington and state capitals that waste management policies need to be adjusted to increase recycling rates, said Scott DeFife, vice president of government affairs at the Plastics Industry Association, a trade group in Washington.
“For instance, [trash] haulers get paid by weight, not by carbon reductions or diverting waste from landfills,” he said. “I’m looking for gaps in the system where we can improve and make the system much more efficient. It’s completely doable, but we have to make some fundamental changes.”
Ultimate solution
But many scientists are skeptical whether recycling is the answer. Some are beginning to wonder whether the answer doesn’t lie in incinerators, which burn trash to generate electricity. Sweden now incinerates about 86 percent of its plastic waste, which the government has promoted as a better alternative to landfills.
Some argue the solution lies in reducing plastic consumption itself, banning the plastic packaging and single-use items that have become so fundamental to modern existence.
“Plastic recycling simply doesn’t work,” Geyer, the California ecology professor, said. “We’ve tried for several decades now, and the economics just don’t seem to work out.”
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Plastic-s-trash-crisis-13853688.php
-
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and NRDC Confront Federal Failures
May 17, 2019 | Natural Resource Defense Council
By Jennifer Sass
NRDC was very pleased to host the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe on their recent trip to Washington DC. The Tribe and NRDC met with various Congressional staff about their continued frustrations with the US Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and Energy Transfer over the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). The Tribe’s concerns are many, and are very serious, but come down to three areas of concern: Energy Transfer’s operations are unsafe, unaccountable and unlawful. Rerouted across stolen land
The Dakota Access Pipeline, owned and controlled by Energy Transfer, was initially planned along a shorter more direct route that would have crossed the Missouri River near Bismarck, north of the Standing Rock Reservation (New Yorker). Bismarck residents successfully blocked the pipeline, due to concern that a leak or spill would contaminate their drinking water supply. Without input from the Standing Rock Sioux and other area Tribes, the pipeline was re-routed south, just a half a mile from the reservation, across land that was seized without consent from the Tribe in 1958 (see 1851 Fort Laramie Treaty Sioux lands). The pipeline traverses Tribal sacred areas, burial grounds, and hunting and fishing areas—all expressly protected by treaties and reaffirmed by Congress and the courts.
Now, the oil and gas pipeline runs underneath Lake Oahe that borders the Reservation and is the sole source of the Tribe’s drinking water, giving rise to what has become the iconic slogan of the NoDAPL movement—Mni Wiconi, Water is Life—and the name of Water Protectors to the Standing Rock Tribe.
See map by Carl Sack as presented in the Independent, Nov 30, 2016.
Pipeline hazards are a problem across the industry, with over 1,700 reportable pipeline incidents including 775 significant incidents since the 2016 Pipes Act passed. But likely the worst pipeline safety violator is Energy Transfer and its subsidiary entities such as Sunoco, Rover Pipeline, and Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL).
For example, government data from the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) shows that over the last 13 years there have been over 450 spills from Energy Transfer pipelines, resulting in over $100 million in property damage from over 2.5 million gallons of hazardous liquid spilled. Energy Transfer experienced 45% more hazardous liquid spills than any other the pipeline company in this period, averaging 3 spills a month.
Just in 2017-2018, Energy Transfer corporate-wide hazardous liquid spills have resulted in over $20 million in property damage, indicating a pattern of increased harm from the company’s most recent hazardous liquid pipeline operations.
Late last year it was reported that Energy Transfer Partners and Sunoco had amassed more than 800 state and federal permit violations while building two pipelines across Pennsylvania and Ohio. Meanwhile, during construction of its natural gas Rover Pipeline, Energy Transfer subsidiaries spilled over 150,000 gallons of drilling fluid into an Ohio wetland. (Rover Pipeline is also under investigation for destroying a historic building without obtaining the proper consent and hiding it from FERC).
Energy Transfer has failed to meet even its own industry voluntary recommended practices addressing pipeline safety systems, leak detection and integrity management systems that have been developed by the American Petroleum Institute (API; for example, see API RP 1173 on safety management, AP RP 1175 on leak detection, and AP RP 1160 on system integrity for hazardous liquids). Failure to follow even these basic industry recommendations demonstrates a top-down callous disregard for the health and safety of its own employees and those whose land and livelihood its pipes traverse.DAPL unsafe
The Dakota Access Pipeline has been operating for nearly two years now, but it fails to incorporate even the voluntary API industry recommended pipeline safety practices, despite false promises in the project’s Environmental Assessment to meet or exceed such safety practices. It has already experienced 12 spills of over 6,100 gallons of highly toxic Bakken crude oil.
Shut-off valves along the Dakota Access Pipeline meant to protect Lake Oahe and the Missouri River from a serious crude oil spill lack back-up power and are not “fail safe”—although a stated requirement of the Army Corps of Engineers easement conditions. The Corps’ assessment of risk dwells in the murky world of generic incident data, a limited list of general threats, crude oil analysis that lacks the specifics toxic hazards of Bakken crude and best-case projections. Missing is the real risk data of actual ETP/Sunoco performance and any verification that the company’s systems are performing as advertised.
Emergency responders and communities across the US are left vulnerable due to the lack of transparency with pipeline operators’ Facility Response Plans. From its Mariner East 2 pipeline in Pennsylvania to Dakota Access Pipeline, Energy Transfer has redacted whole sections of vital information including key data such as worst-case discharge which responders need to have sufficient staffing and equipment for effective response to emergencies.Legal victory
In response to the December 2015 Corps’ Environmental Assessment that evaluated potential impacts of passing under Lake Oahe, several Tribes raised a long list of concerns including a lack of analysis of potential impacts on water resources and other treaty resources. Those concerns were echoed in public comments by the Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Despite these concerns by the Standing Rock Sioux and other area Tribes, and federal agencies, in July 2016 the Corps published its final Environmental Assessment concluding that there would be no significant impacts. The Tribe responded in a series of lawsuits that are ongoing. (See Earthjustice website for updates).
In a legal victory for the Tribe, a June 14, 2017 ruling suspending the project, a district court held that the federal government failed to consider the impact of a spill on the Tribes’ hunting and fishing rights, among other issues, in its environmental impact assessment:“The problem here, as the Tribe points out, is that this analysis covers only construction impacts, not spill impacts…. This limited analysis, the Court believes, is not enough to discharge the Corps’ environmental-justice responsibilities under NEPA" (see DAPL Order p. 53)"the agency failed to adequately consider the impacts of an oil spill on Standing Rock’s fishing and hunting rights and on environmental justice, and in February 2017, it did not sufficiently weigh the degree to which the project’s effects are likely to be highly controversial in light of critiques of its scientific methods and data." (see DAPL Order p. 66)
The pipeline—opposed by the Tribe since the beginning—now has capacity to move about 600 thousand barrels per day of oil over 1,000 miles from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota to refineries in southern Illinois.
With the pipeline operator such a rogue company, and now trying to increase capacity even though there has been no transparency, the Tribal community is facing tremendous health and safety risks, living under constant stress, and facing continued government failures.Government and Industry unaccountable
PHMSA data shows that since 2010 for Energy Transfer pipelines supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) and computational pipeline monitoring (CPM) systems detected pipeline right-of-way spills only 12% of the time—random observations by the public were nearly 4x more effective in detecting leaks. PHMSA studies have shown that industry leak detection is unreliable, but the agency continues to fail to require modern leak detection standards across the industry, and Energy Transfer continues to fail to meet industry recommended safety practices.
Other Federal Agencies for example EPA and OSHA have implemented a safety system approach to preventing major accidents since the 1990s. The Department of Interior implemented safety system regulations in response to the Macondo incident. PHMSA’s failure to develop safety management system regulations leaves communities in harm’s way.
It has been eight years since Congress directed PHMSA to undergo necessary rulemakings on key mandates and recommendations such as hazardous liquid safety and emergency shutoff valve requirements. It has still not done so.
Recommendations
-The authorizations for the Pipeline Safety Act and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) expire on September 30, 2019, so Congress will need to take up reauthorization legislation this spring and summer. As it does this, it should include requirements for targeted risk reduction, verification of effective safeguards and performance, the incorporation by reference of more rigorous safety standards, much stiffer penalties for safety violations and facilitated agency rulemaking capabilities.
-PHMSA can use its emergency order authority to predict and prevent imminent, industry-wide safety failures that pose a threat to life or harm to property or the environment.
-The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) must address the recommendations of the recent US Government Accountability Office report (GAO-19-542T, May, 2019), which identified numerous significant weaknesses in TSA’s failure to manage pipeline security. Problems in need of corrections include: outdated risk assessment methods; outdated pipeline security guidelines; and, failure to track security review recommendations.
-We will see how seriously the Trump Administration takes the new reauthorization mandate from Congress. But our confidence is low given the fact that a TSA representative refused to attend the recent congressional hearing on this issue, that PHMSA has proposed to cut funding for grants available to states, and that PHMSA just recently gutted other critical safety protections for offshore drilling.
-Congress must provide oversight and pressure to see that GAO’s recommendations are followed. We are pleased that Congressman Frank PalloneJr (D-NJ) is already taking measures to hold PHMSA and other federal agencies accountable (See his statement from a recent May 2019 hearing). Other members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee also raised some of our concerns, but more needs to be done to ensure federal agencies adhere to the National Environmental Policy Act, and that irresponsible pipeline owners and operators like Energy Transfer and Sunoco are held accountable for all the harm they’re doing.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jennifer-sass/standing-rock-sioux-tribe-and-nrdc-confront-federal-failures
-
A Massive Gulf Oil Spill Is Finally Being Contained After More Than 14 Years
May 17, 2019 | Washington Post
By Darryl Fears
The U.S. Coast Guard said Thursday that it is finally containing and collecting oil from a massive 14-year spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the longest offshore disaster in U.S. history.
More than 30,000 gallons of oil have been collected over several weeks since a containment system was installed about 12 miles off the coast of Louisiana, the Coast Guard said. Capt. Kristi Luttrell, who is overseeing work performed by a contractor, the Couvillion Group, called the containment a major milestone that could significantly reduce the impact of the spill, which will enter its 15th yearin September.
Luttrell entered into a contract with Couvillion last year after the company responsible for the spill, Taylor Energy, failed to follow her orders to do so on its own.
The system’s success could be a serious setback to Taylor Energy’s efforts to stop the containment effort. The company filed a federal lawsuit in December, claiming that Couvillion lacked the expertise to install a system to capture oil leaking from its wells. They broke open when Hurricane Ivan caused the walls of a deep sea canyon to collapse and sink an oil platform.
In a separate lawsuit, the company also claimed that Luttrell’s order to mount a more aggressive response to the spill was rash. It came a day after The Washington Post revealed an expert analysis that contradicted Taylor Energy’s claims that almost no oil was present at the site.
The analysis by Oscar Garcia-Pineda, a geoscience consultant who specializes in impacts from oil spills, estimated that 1.5 million to 3.5 million barrels spilled into the gulf from the Taylor Energy site over more than 14 years. Acting on that finding, as well as other scientific reports, the Coast Guard issued Taylor Energy an ultimatum to hire a company to build a device to contain the oil or face a fine of up to $40,000 per day.
Weeks of monitoring by the Coast Guard shows that Couvillion’s containment system is working, Luttrell said Thursday. The system was completed and fully operational April 29, but Couvillion started collecting oil 12 days before that.
The oil is pumped from deep-water storage tanks to a ship that brings it to shore to separate it from water. Oil that can be salvaged is sent to a licensed receiving facility, and the rest is recycled or disposed.
Recovered oil is U.S. property, Luttrell said, and proceeds from its sale are credited against Couvillion’s bill.
Timmy Couvillion, owner and chief executive of the company, said it is collecting up to 1,000 gallons of oil each day.
“We’re absolutely proud of what we’ve accomplished,” Couvillion said. Workers, as many as 100 at times, battled inclement weather and rough waters as they installed the system. They were sometimes caked in oil and had to guard against it entering their working quarters.
The large amount of oil “was no surprise at all,” Couvillion said, considering the length of the sheen on the gulf’s surface at the site and an acute smell.
As a result of the work, the oil sheen is nearly gone, but the oil is not, he said. “It is a reminder that these wells need to be plugged . . . per the federal government’s standard,” Couvillion said. He called the containment “a temporary solution to an evolving problem. We’ve contained the oil but it’s still being released into the environment.”
Todd Ragusa, a Taylor Energy spokesman, provided a company statement that said it “looks forward to receiving the information needed to confirm the Coast Guard’s statement, which, if accurate, is encouraging.”
During proceedings at the federal court in New Orleans where Taylor Energy’s case is being heard, U.S. District Judge Ivan Lemelle asked pointed questions to both the Coast Guard and Taylor Energy about why the cleanup is taking so long.
Lemelle asked the Coast Guard’s attorney at a hearing in March why the containment effort took 14 years: “This occurred in 2004. How long does it take the government to decide what to do?”
The attorney, Erica Zilioli, said new data shows that the site is ejecting more oil into the environment than previously thought. Before now, the government relied heavily on reports from contractors hired by Taylor Energy to estimate the size of the spill.
Later the judge asked Taylor Energy why it was seeking to block the containment effort. The company’s attorney, Carl Rosenblum, repeated its belief that the system would not work and stir up oil on the ocean floor.
Lemelle addressed Rosenblum directly. “Look, you tried,” he said. “But it’s still going on after all this time. Let’s get someone else to look at this.”
Based on the results the Coast Guard reported, its attorneys are preparing a motion to declare that Taylor Energy’s claims are moot and request to have the case dismissed. They anticipate filing the motion by Friday of next week.
It would be the second legal blow to Taylor Energy in as many months. In April, the Court of Federal Claims dismissed its earlier lawsuit seeking to reclaim more than $430 million remaining in a trust fund to plug 16 wells at the site.
U.S. Federal Claims Court Judge Nancy B. Firestone ruled against the company’s claim that the federal government should not be allowed to control its funds indefinitely as it determines how to address the spill.
Firestone said the trust contract is valid until the Interior Department says, in writing, that Taylor Energy “has complied with all of its obligations under the . . . agreement,” the ruling said.
A group that was allowed to join on behalf of the Coast Guard in the current lawsuit cheered the revelation of the containment system’s success.
“After 14 years, we are glad the Coast Guard is taking action to contain this runaway oil spill,” said Dustin Renaud, a spokesman for the group, Healthy Gulf. “Now we must make sure that they follow through on a permanent solution and ensure a spill like this never goes unchecked again.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/05/16/massive-gulf-oil-spill-is-finally-being-contained-after-more-than-years/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bf16e07dd91e
-
Sheen 'Barely Visible' at Site of 14-Year-Old Gulf Leak
May 17, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Michael Kunzelman
A chronic sheen has become "barely visible" since government contractors installed a new underwater system for capturing and collecting crude at a site in the Gulf of Mexico where oil has been leaking for 14 years, a Coast Guard official said yesterday.
A Coast Guard statement describes the installation of the subsea containment system as a "major milestone" in long-running efforts by the federal government to contain the leak. More than 30,000 gallons of oil has been recovered since the system began operating, government attorneys said in a court filing Tuesday.
"After monitoring the system for several weeks we have determined that the system is meeting federal containment standards," Capt. Kristi Luttrell said in the Coast Guard's statement. "At this time the system is working and the once (predominantly) large surface sheen has been reduced to barely visible."
Taylor Energy Co. ultimately is responsible for ending the leak at the site 11 miles off Louisiana's coast where one of its oil platforms toppled during a 2004 hurricane. The New Orleans-based company sued Luttrell in December, attempting to challenge her order in November to design and install a new system to capture and remove the crude before it forms slicks that often have stretched for miles.
Taylor Energy "looks forward to receiving the information needed to confirm the Coast Guard's statement, which, if accurate, is encouraging," said a statement released yesterday by a company spokesman.
Justice Department attorneys, who represent Luttrell in Taylor Energy's federal suit, said in Tuesday's court filing that the containment system's collection tanks have been pumped three times and the recovered oil has been transported to shore.
"Based on the amount of oil captured to date, the Coast Guard is preparing a standard operating procedure for containment operations and maintenance," they wrote.
The government lawyers said they intend to file a request by May 24 for the court to dismiss the case against Luttrell, arguing the company's claims are moot given the "progress of work at the site."
"It's good that they have found something that's working for now, but it's a temporary fix," said Ian MacDonald, a Florida State University oceanography professor who was an expert witness for environmental groups that sued Taylor Energy in 2012.
The federal government has cited an estimate that about 10,500 to 29,400 gallons of oil is leaking daily from the leak site. That estimate, contained in a report that the government commissioned from a different Florida State University researcher, was much higher than previous government estimates and dwarfs the company's own assessment of the leak's volume.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/17/stories/1060349709
-
Varlen Can’t Tap Liberty Mutual for Groundwater Contamination
May 17, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Varlen Corp. isn’t owed insurance coverage for groundwater contamination at two of its industrial sites related to railroad operations, the Seventh Circuit ruled.
A provision in its policy with Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. bars coverage for property damage from chemical leaks or discharges, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit said May 16.
A geologist retained by Varlen was properly barred from testifying that the spills were nevertheless covered under an exception for “sudden and accidental” releases, the court said.
The geologist failed to show that his conclusions were anything more than guesses, the court said.
Varlen conducts operations at the sites including chrome plating of parts and refueling diesel engines. The sites were contaminated with hexavalent chromium, chlorinated solvents, and diesel fuel.
The contamination at the sites cost Varlen million of dollars in damages and cleanup costs, which Varlen sought to recover from Liberty Mutual.
Judge Amy C. Barrett wrote the opinion, joined by Judges Diane S. Sykes and Amy J. St. Eve.
Swanson, Martin & Bell LLP represents Varlen.
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP represents Liberty Mutual.
The case is Varlen Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 7th Cir., No. 17-3212, 5/16/19.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/varlen-cant-tap-liberty-mutual-for-groundwater-contamination
-
(ACC Mentioned) Scrap Collector: Plastic's 'Hidden' Climate Impacts Revealed
May 17, 2019 | Waste Dive
By Rina Li
Lately, Thea Riofrancos noted in Viewpoint Magazine this week, "climate scientists are beginning to sound like radicals" — and not without reason. An October 2018 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) advises policymakers that limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius requires "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society"; a November 2018 federal assessment warns that climate change "is expected to cause growing losses to American infrastructure and property and impede the rate of economic growth over this century; and a UN report released last week reveals more that than 1 million plant and animal species are currently on the verge of extinction.
Can't get worse than that, right? Wrong. A new report by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) estimates, for the first time, plastic's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions — and the results are alarming. Once considered a relative non-issue compared to emissions from organic waste, it appears that plastic may play a more significant role in the climate crisis than previously realized. In 2019, plastic production and incineration will add more than 850 million metric tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere — the equivalent of pollution from 189 new 500-megawatt coal-fired power plants. If production and use increase as planned, these emissions could reach 1.34 gigatons per year by 2030 (equal to more than 295 500-megawatt coal-fired plants) and over 56 gigatons by 2050 — 10-13% of our entire remaining carbon budget (the amount of carbon dioxide emissions we can sustain while still having a chance of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius).
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), a trade association representing U.S. chemical companies, pushed back against the findings.
"Unfortunately, the CIEL report focuses largely on the anticipated growth of plastic production but fails to note that production is growing in response to increasing global demand for lightweight automotive parts, building insulation, and product packaging — all of which will play an important role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and helping people live more sustainably around the world," said Steve Russell, vice president of ACC's Plastics Division, in a statement.
Nevertheless, the report recommends several key actions:
-Ending the production and use of single-use, disposable plastics
-Halting development of oil, gas and petrochemical infrastructure
-Fostering the transition to "zero waste"
-Establishing extended producer responsibility as an integral part of circular economies
-Adopting and enforcing ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors — including the plastics industry
"It has long been clear that plastic threatens the global environment and puts human health at risk," said CIEL President Carroll Muffett in a statement. "This report demonstrates that plastic, like the rest of the fossil economy, is putting the climate at risk as well. Because the drivers of the climate crisis and the plastic crisis are closely linked, so to are their solutions: humanity must end its reliance on fossil fuels and on fossil plastics that the planet can no longer afford."
A Seattle resident stumbled upon a dumpster diver's jackpot last week at a local waste facility: a nearly 6-foot-high pile of prepared meals — wraps, salads and sandwiches, along with hot dogs, bell peppers and other grocery items — still in their Amazon Go packaging.
The food waste, an Amazon spokesperson suggested to Buzzfeed News, might have been the work of other parties: "Amazon Go's policy is to donate unsold food that is still in good condition to local non-profits to help support the community ... In certain circumstances, our community partners may also be discarding food but we can’t comment on the details of their practices."
Of course, it's not just the organics at issue — it's the mountains of single-use packaging getting landfilled alongside them. And while major retailersare increasingly making gestures toward sustainability, mounting public pressure — especially from PR nightmares such as the one Amazon is currently facing — might force companies to accelerate and intensify their efforts.
The rest of the world may be whipping itself into a frenzy over Game of Thrones, but here at Scrap Collector, it's all about the frothy multi-year drama unraveling between the Philippines and Canada — and just like in Westeros, something rotten sits at the core.
When we last checked in, things seemed to have taken a turn for the better: Canada, apparently shaken by President Duterte's threats of warover the 77 containers of hazardous Canadian waste festering in Filipino ports had, after six years of resistance, agreed to repatriate its trash. However, it appears that the two countries may still be a long way off from "Kumbaya" — Philippines Foreign Secretary Teodoro Locsin announced Thursday that Duterte has recalled the country's ambassador to Canada in response to a missed May 15 trash pickup deadline.
Whatever happens, we can almost guarantee it'll be more worth following than Sunday's GoT finale. International hazardous waste scandal over dragons any day, y'all.
https://www.wastedive.com/news/scrap-collector-plastics-hidden-climate-impacts-revealed/555007/
-
UARG Casts Long Legal Shadow on Air Regulations
May 17, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
In 40 years of behind-the-scenes advocacy for electric companies, the Utility Air Regulatory Group became ubiquitous in legal dockets and courtroom fights over the future of federal regulation.
The group, which last week announced plans to disband, led the charge against dozens of EPA policies deemed too costly or unworkable by industry. UARG sometimes won and sometimes lost, but consistently drove the conversation.
Housed in the law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, the organization is involved in more than 40 active lawsuits in federal appellate courts and has played a role in nearly 200 earlier cases.
In recent years, it's been under increased scrutiny, including a congressional probe, as former Hunton and UARG lawyer Bill Wehrum uses his current post as EPA air chief to roll back or reform various regulations (Greenwire, May 13).
Critics have decried UARG's refusal to disclose the identity of its members. Environmental lawyer Sean Donahue, who often represents advocacy groups against UARG in litigation, said the setup gives utilities "a measure of deniability," allowing them to attack environmental protections without risking their reputations.
Hunton Andrews Kurth has defended the organization as a way for members to collaborate and share the costs of legal and technical expertise.
Court watchers say it's hard to assess UARG's particular impact on legal debates and outcomes because it's possible other industry coalitions would have stepped in without it.
"It's not clear that some other organization or other players wouldn't have filled the void," Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Adler said.
It's undisputed, however, that the group has cast a long shadow in the world of environmental law. Through years of courtroom advocacy, backroom strategizing and more than one trip to the Supreme Court, it has touched every significant air quality initiative for a generation.
"You really could look at every major clean air rulemaking and lawsuit touching upon the utility sector for the better part of three to four decades, and I think it's all but certain that UARG would be a party or an intervenor in those cases," Natural Resources Defense Council attorney John Walke said.
Here's a rundown of some of UARG's most important legal fights:
Climate rules
In environmental and administrative law circles, UARG's biggest claim to fame is the Supreme Court case bearing its name.
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA was one of several climate-related battles the group has waged at the high court in recent years. The 2014 case focused on the Obama administration's effort to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and smaller sources.
The result was a mixed bag for UARG. The Supreme Court upheld EPA's greenhouse gas standards for sources that were already subject to Clean Air Act permitting but reeled in the agency's effort to apply those standards to smaller sites like apartment buildings and shopping centers.
The majority used the case to highlight a legal precedent that bars agencies from issuing "transformative" rules without clear authorization from Congress.
UARG and other industry groups pressed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to expand that part of the ruling, but the court rebuffed their effort.
The utility group also played a role in the Supreme Court's precursor climate case, Massachusetts v. EPA, unsuccessfully fighting a group of states that wanted the George W. Bush administration's EPA to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
In a major setback to UARG, energy companies and many states skeptical of federal regulation, the court in 2007 sided with Massachusetts and its allies, finding that EPA had authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and had to consider whether to classify them as a danger to public health and welfare.
UARG had more success in its courtroom fight against the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, a broad effort to slash emissions from the power sector. The group joined forces with hundreds of individual utilities, states, coal companies and other opponents of the EPA regulation to take it down in court.
They never got a decision on the merits — the case is on hold while the Trump administration works on its replacement program — but they did score an unprecedented Supreme Court stay that put the Clean Power Plan on ice indefinitely.
Mercury regulation
UARG has also been a lead player in legal battles over EPA's approach to regulating mercury.
Back in 2005, the group came to EPA's aid to defend its Clean Air Mercury Rule and trading system, an industry-favored approach adopted by the George W. Bush administration to cap emissions from coal-fired power plants.
Mercury that spews into the air ends up in waterways and builds up in plants and fish tissue, forming a toxic threat to people who eat contaminated food.
UARG's backing of the EPA rule wasn't enough; the D.C. Circuit eventually scrapped the regulation after finding the agency had illegally contorted its authority under the Clean Air Act (Greenwire, Feb. 8, 2008).
When the Obama administration tried another approach to regulating mercury, UARG tried to block it. At the D.C. Circuit in 2013, it argued EPA had not properly considered costs to industry before concluding it was "appropriate and necessary" to craft the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, or MATS.
The court upheld the rule in 2014, over the dissent of then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh. But Hunton lawyer Bill Brownell was before the Supreme Court the following year, arguing for industry petitioners in Michigan v. EPA that the D.C. Circuit got it wrong. The Supreme Court agreed and ordered EPA to conduct an analysis of costs.
UARG sued yet again after EPA went back to the drawing board and reaffirmed its "appropriate and necessary" finding. That case is on hold while EPA considers gutting that determination, which serves as the legal underpinning for the MATS rule (Greenwire, Dec. 28, 2018).
Conventional pollution
The bulk of UARG's courtroom action has focused on standards and permitting for conventional pollutants, especially ozone.
The utility group formed a rare alliance with environmentalists in litigation involving the George W. Bush administration's Clean Air Interstate Rule, a cap-and-trade program designed to curb air pollution that originates from power plants in one state and drifts into others. When North Carolina and Duke Energy Corp. challenged the rule on numerous grounds, UARG, the National Mining Association and environmental groups fought to preserve it.
The group wasn't so keen on the Obama administration's replacement program: the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. UARG and others fought the rule in challenges that ultimately failed at the Supreme Court in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation. The group has also challenged EPA's 2016 update to the rule. That case is still pending (Greenwire, Oct. 3, 2018).
UARG has been active in other recent cases too.
In November, for example, UARG fought to get involved in an effort by Northeastern states to get EPA to expand a regional program aimed at reducing ozone-forming pollutants that drift across state lines.
UARG explained in a request to the D.C. Circuit that many of its members operate in states the petitioners proposed to add to the Ozone Transport Region, an area required to take more aggressive steps to cut pollution.
The Northeastern states countered that UARG hadn't made any "specific allegations regarding the location of any actual plant owned or operated" by a member. The court allowed UARG to participate and ultimately rejected the Northeastern states' petition.
The following month, the group worked with Murray Energy Corp. and others trying to convince the D.C. Circuit that EPA's 2015 limits on ground-level ozone are too strict. UARG and many other critics had pushed EPA to keep the threshold for the highest acceptable level of ozone at 75 parts per billion, instead of the 70 ppb the agency adopted. The judges haven't yet decided the case (Greenwire, Dec. 18, 2018).
Friend of the court
UARG has also been a faithful friend of the court, routinely filing amicus briefs in broader cases that could affect the regulation of power plants — a common practice among other industry and advocacy groups.
In a key 2007 Supreme Court test of EPA's New Source Review program, UARG sided with Duke Energy, which had argued that certain types of power plant modifications should not trigger stricter permitting requirements. The justices ultimately ruled against Duke (Greenwire, April 2, 2007).
UARG also got involved in a 2015 case involving a complex and significant aspect of administrative law: whether agencies must involve the public when they revise interpretive rules, as required under D.C. Circuit precedent. UARG pushed to keep the standard intact, arguing that the public's ability to weigh in on agency rules that have the force of law is fundamental to the purpose of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Supreme Court disagreed.
Earlier this year, the utility group got involved in another big administrative law case, this time encouraging the court to strike down a precedent that directs judges to give deference to an agency's interpretations of its own rules.
"The appropriate role of courts and Executive Branch agencies with respect to the interpretation and implementation of legislative rules is important to the members of UARG," lawyers for the group told the court (Greenwire, Feb. 1).
The utility group must now figure out how to wrap up its work in the courtroom and agency dockets. A committee will oversee the "wind down," and member companies recently told E&E News they're unsure whether UARG will simply withdraw from active lawsuits or stick around until they are resolved.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/17/stories/1060350077
-
Ewire: Cornyn Climate Remarks Underscore GOP 'Innovation' Focus
May 17, 2019 | Inside EPA
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) is pledging that Congress will no longer “ignore” the issue of greenhouse gases that cause climate change, saying he will pursue a policy agenda that is being increasingly embraced by his Republican colleagues: “innovation” in low-carbon technologies.
“There is a growing consensus the days of ignoring this issue are over,” said Cornyn, the former No. 2 Republican in the Senate, according to the Houston Chronicle.
The senator's remarks are noteworthy given that he hails from the oil- and gas-heavy state of Texas, and because he has not had a major focus on environment issues previously.
Cornyn is also up for re-election in 2020 and has publicly said that Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-TX) closer-than-expected victory in 2018 shows that the Lone Star State is not as reliably red as it was in the past.
The senator said during a May 16 press call that he is preparing to introduce legislation that would create an “innovation agenda” to expand federal funding for carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. He praised a demonstration plant near Houston that combined natural gas-fired power with CCS. Developers of that project are hoping to build a commercial-scale facility in just over a year.
“We can do this without passing new taxes or huge new job-killing regulations,” he said.
As Inside EPA's Lee Logan reported, Republicans on the House tax-writing committee during a recent hearing expressed significant skepticism over an industry-backed carbon tax plan -- even though it would be coupled with regulatory “streamlining” -- and instead pushed for an innovation-focused policy.
Lawmakers must “find ways to make clean energy more affordable . . . not drive up traditional energy costs for families and businesses,” said Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), the ranking Republican on the House Ways & Means Committee, during the May 15 hearing.
Rich Powell, director of the conservative clean energy group ClearPath Foundation, testified at the hearing that he does not support the carbon tax plan being pushed by the Climate Leadership Council, arguing it merely helps existing low-carbon options and does little to boost cutting-edge technologies.
“I think we see much more bipartisan support for carrot-based policies than stick-based policies,” he said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-cornyn-climate-remarks-underscore-gop-innovation-focus
-
13 Major Companies Call on Congress to Accelerate Climate Legislation. Here’s Why.
May 17, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Fred Krupp
Corporate America is setting – and meeting – increasingly ambitious climate and clean energy goals. But the hard reality is that individual corporate action, no matter how big, won’t solve this great climate crisis.
In order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, we need public policies that harness the power of the whole economy to drive down emissions by putting prices and limits on climate pollution.
Businesses that are sincerely interested in protecting our health, economy and future from the ravages of climate change must join this national public policy discussion. We need companies to lead, not follow, Congress.
That’s why it’s big news that 13 major companies have now joined four nonprofit organizations, including Environmental Defense Fund, to form the core of a new effort to push for climate policy. The CEO Climate Dialogue initiative involves major food brands, powerful utilities, and one of the nation’s leading car companies. Our goal is to turn the power of the marketplace towards addressing this crisis.
Together we have proposed six Guiding Principles for federal action on climate change. These principles center on an economy wide carbon pricing policy as the best way to meet climate targets and incentivize innovation and investment in clean energy technologies and solutions – including ways to absorb or remove climate pollution from the atmosphere.
They also highlight the need for setting aggressive climate targets and designing policies that focus on outcomes, deliver predicable results, are adaptive over time, promote equity, and do no harm to our economy or our nation’s biodiversity.
Why are environmental groups celebrating these corporations’ commitment to push for action? Because to enact real change – to push it through a Congress that requires bipartisan support to pass major legislation – we need all the political power we can get. We absolutely need environmental advocates, like supporters of the Green New Deal and 100% clean energy. But we also need major economic voices.
The reality of politics is that durable and effective change comes from broad coalitions. We need them not only to enact change, but to help prevent it from being undermined next time the political pendulum swings, as it always does.
This is not the first time companies have stepped forward to help push for comprehensive climate legislation. In launching this new initiative, we are trying to learn from past experience. For instance, this group is determined to work with all those who share our goal of solving the climate challenge, and committed to working with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to develop effective policies rather than offering a predetermined policy solution.
The Guiding Principles provide a basis for companies to make their support for ambitious climate action heard on Capitol Hill, and Environmental Defense Fund will continue to work towards achieving net-zero emissions.
The most powerful tool companies have to fight climate change is their political influence. It’s great to see several starting to use it.
We are looking to recruit more CEOs from major companies who want to tackle a multi-trillion dollar threat to our economy and public health. And who need to get ahead of the competition and be ready for a changing landscape. And who have to respond investors, employees, and customers who are starting to demand climate action.
Most of all, we are looking for business leaders who want to tell their grandchildren they acted while there was still time.
http://business.edf.org/blog/2019/05/16/13-major-companies-call-on-congress-to-accelerate-climate-legislation-heres-why
-
Rising Number Says Climate Change a Crucial Issue in 2020: Poll
May 17, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Jessica Campisi
Nearly 40 percent of registered U.S. voters say a candidate’s position on climate change is “very important” to them in deciding who they’ll vote for in 2020, according to a poll released Thursday.
In the survey of nearly 1,100 registered voters, conducted by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication, 38 percent deemed climate change “very important” as a voting issue.
Of 29 issues, respondents ranked global warming 17th in order of importance, but among those who identified as liberal Democrats, it’s the third-most important issue. Among conservative Republicans, it’s the last priority when voting for president.
Forty-five percent of those surveyed also said they’d support a U.S. president declaring global warming a national emergency if Congress doesn’t take action.
So far, Democratic presidential hopefuls including Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (Texas) have deemed climate change a key part of their campaign platforms.
The poll indicates growing support for addressing climate change.
Ahead of the 2016 presidential election, the same groups found in a previous poll that global warming ranked 19th in importance in a set of 23 issues and was the sixth-most important among liberal Democrats while still at or near the bottom for conservative Republicans.
The 2019 poll was conducted between March 29-April 8. It has a margin of error of 3 plus or minus percentage points.
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/444229-rising-number-says-climate-change-is-crucial-in-2020-poll
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested