Latest news with #ToxicSubstancesControlAct
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lawmaker seeks to refine ‘overly broad' PFAS definition to allow for some pesticide use
Rather than creating a more limited definition, Maine Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Melanie Loyzim said uses of PFAS that are 'economically important' but don't pose health risks should be evaluated individually. (Photo by Getty Images) After lawmakers couldn't agree on which committee should handle her proposal to regulate forever chemicals in pesticides, Rep. Amy Arata is taking a new, more sweeping approach. The Republican from New Gloucester got approval from legislative leaders to introduce a late-session bill (LD 1982) that would change how perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS, are defined in state law. She believes the current definition is overly broad and could include chemicals that don't pose the same long-term health problems as PFAS, which have been linked to cancer and weakened immune systems. During a public hearing Monday, Arata introduced her proposal for Maine to adopt the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's narrower definition for PFAS, which was changed under the Biden administration. The proposal would narrow the definition from any fluorinated organic chemical containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom to substances containing any one of three specific chemical structures. She told the Legislature's Environment and Natural Resources committee that her bipartisan proposal is 'merely a refinement' of the existing definition. Arata is largely concerned with farmers being unable to use certain pesticides that would fall under the state's current definition. She said changing Maine's definition to align with that federal definition would still 'protect the health of Maine citizens while also allowing our farmers and other industries to be competitive nationwide.' However, Commissioner Melanie Loyzim said the Department of Environmental Protection opposes the bill because the state already has a process for people to seek exemptions to use products with PFAS that would otherwise be prohibited under the state ban that will be rolling out in the coming years. Under the state's PFAS products ban, any product containing intentionally added PFAS can not be sold in the state after Jan. 1, 2030. The department's website includes step-by-step instructions for requesting exemptions for certain products with currently unavoidable use. Rather than creating a more limited definition, Loyzim said uses of PFAS that are 'economically important' but don't pose health risks should be evaluated individually. Loyzim also argued that this change wouldn't actually create uniformity with the federal guidelines because the EPA uses different definitions based on the specific regulation, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act versus the Toxic Substances Control Act. Arata said her bill would not precipitate other changes in Maine laws related to PFAS, but Loyzim said that definition is used in multiple areas of statute including those pertaining to wastewater discharge, land application of sewage, food packaging and more. Nancy McBrady, deputy commissioner for the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry, acknowledged that farmers could be hurt by a prohibition on certain pesticides that would fall under the state's PFAS products bans, but warned LD 1982 is too broad. Rather, she suggested the Legislature pursue a narrower discussion on PFAS and pesticides in the next session. However, that conversation would likely need to go before the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee. The Maine State Chamber of Commerce argues Arata's proposal could create greater consistency and clarity for business, especially those who deal with national supply chains. The Maine Potato Board echoed this point when speaking in support of the bill. However, other environmental organizations including the Friends of Casco Bay, Defend Our Health and the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association opposed the bill. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
E&E News
13-05-2025
- General
- E&E News
EPA rejects request to ban toxic chemical at oil refineries
EPA on Monday denied a petition from environmental groups seeking a ban on the use of hydrogen fluoride at oil refineries under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The chemical, also known as HF, is used at around a quarter of refineries in the U.S. for alkylation, which increases a fuel's octane levels. But it's highly toxic, and accidental releases and near-misses in recent years have prompted environmentalists and the federal Chemical Safety Board to urge refineries still using HF to switch to alkylation methods using other substances. Details: In a response sent to the Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups on Monday, EPA called the petition 'deficient.' Advertisement The groups named prior incidents at refineries involving HF, such as the 2019 explosion at the Philadelphia Energy Solutions facility that released 2.5 tons of HF, in making their case. But the groups 'did not establish the likely duration, intensity, frequency, and number of exposures of HF involving such releases,' the agency said in its response.
New York Post
06-05-2025
- Business
- New York Post
Why do Americans need chemistry? The answer's all around us
Creating a stronger, more affordable America begins with recognizing the vital role of chemical manufacturers to the future of our nation. From national defense and energy independence to modern health care and resilient supply chains, chemistry is the driving force behind everyday products that businesses and families rely on. It brings stability to our economy, strengthens our competitiveness across global markets, and aids in technological innovation. American success relies on American chemistry, and there is one group strongly advocating for it. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is committed to working with the Trump administration and Congress to champion science-based policy solutions across all levels of government. It is calling for smarter, pro-growth, science-based regulatory processes to help foster American innovation and manufacturing. 'Chemistry creates the products and solutions our country needs every day. Growing U.S. chemical production will help make our country the world's manufacturing superpower,' says Chris Jahn, president and CEO of ACC. Advertisement ACC and its members are championing five main principles with the new administration: Drive predictable, transparent, fact-based policies that put sound science first and support responsible regulation. Foster domestic innovation that will lead to jobs, capital spending, and increased investment in research and development. Leverage chemical innovations to both protect our environment and bolster America's energy independence. Help safeguard our communities with Responsible Care®, the industry's commitment to the health, safety and security of their employees, the communities in which they operate, and the environment. Promote resilient supply chains, which are essential to keeping the economy running. Getty Images Chemistry by the numbers Advertisement Did you know that nearly all manufactured goods are impacted by the business of chemistry? This $633 billion industry is vital to groundbreaking products that make our lives and America healthier, safer and stronger. Supports nearly 25% of U.S. GDP Generates more than $32 billion in capital investment 554,000 skilled, good-paying jobs depend on chemistry Supports 4.1 million jobs in other industries The U.S. has cemented its place as the world's second-largest chemical producer and invests billions in R&D annually. Getty Images Advertisement How to unleash America's manufacturing dominance The current threat to U.S. competitiveness lies in the need for action to make critical improvements to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). ACC is urging Congress to make surgical tweaks to TSCA rather than completely overhauling it. The industry is focused on two precise actions to fix TSCA. One addresses delays in the New Chemicals Program by implementing a 90-day shot clock for EPA to complete new chemical reviews. This will hold the agency accountable and enforce the statutory deadline to review new chemicals coming to market. Currently 9 out of every 10 new chemicals undergoing TSCA review are backlogged in EPA's review process. The logjam of new chemicals waiting for EPA review is driving manufacturers overseas to introduce new chemistries. According to industry data, new chemical reviews in the U.S. can take up to six years or longer, compared to other nations where new chemicals approvals are completed in three to six months. The second fix to TSCA would provide much needed clarity by ensuring that existing chemical reviews be risk-based, apply the best available science and integrate relevant scientific information. This ensures that conclusions are based on a thorough and balanced evaluation of the available evidence for EPA regulatory decision making. Advertisement 'To the Trump Administration, you have the support of the U.S. chemical industry, and you have the support of the American people, to fix TSCA .' Chris Jahn, president & CEO, ACC Americans know chemistry is essential to how we live every day ACC recently released the results of a national, bipartisan survey on voters' opinions of the chemical industry's role in the economy, regulations, and EPA priorities. Conducted by Morning Consult, a national polling and data analytics firm, the results overwhelmingly show that Americans across the political spectrum recognize the urgent need for policymakers to strengthen TSCA to support chemical manufacturers' ability to develop advanced and sustainable chemistries, while maintaining the highest standards of safety and environmental protection. The survey's key findings indicate that Americans recognize the chemical industry as essential to: Developing lifesaving medicines and medical devices (83%) U.S. energy production (81%) Technological innovation in the U.S. (79%) Consumer products (77%) The U.S.'s competitive edge over foreign countries (76%) 'The White House, EPA and Congress have the support of the American people to prioritize policies that grow U.S. chemical production so America can be the world's manufacturing superpower. The data speaks for itself: A majority of Americans support updating TSCA and want Congress to use its authority to make improvements. To the Trump Administration, you have the support of the U.S. chemical industry, and you have the support of the American people, to fix TSCA,' Jahn added. Getty Images Innovation and the administration Demand for chemistry is expected to grow, which is why ACC is already working with the Trump administration and Congress to expand domestic chemical production to meet the needs of the nation. Jahn emphasizes that 'We are not your grandfather's chemical industry' when discussing the potential perception issue with the current Congress. 'Our Responsible Care safety and environmental performance program sets us apart. Our member companies are safer and cleaner than ever before,' Jahn explained. 'ACC and its members have a positive story to tell when it comes to safety, performance, and welcome a smarter, more efficient approach to regulations. There is a tremendous opportunity to implement policies and regulations that can put the U.S. out front when it comes to competing with foreign adversaries.' When chemistry creates, America competes. Learn more here about how the American Chemistry Council is helping build a stronger, more affordable nation. For more insights on how American success relies on American chemistry, follow Chris on LinkedIn and @JahnChris on X.
Epoch Times
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
EPA to Take Actions Against ‘Forever Chemical' Pollution
The federal government is taking several actions to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), according to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin. Also known as 'forever chemicals' because they take so long to break down, PFAS substances have been found in water, air, and soil, and have been detected in humans and animals. 'There are thousands of PFAS chemicals, and they are found in many different consumer, commercial, and industrial products,' the EPA states on The new actions announced on April 29 are centered around three principles: 'strengthening the science, fulfilling statutory obligations and enhancing communication, and building partnerships.' These include, but are not limited to, designating a PFAS agency lead, implementing a testing strategy under the Toxic Substances Control Act, addressing information gaps where not all of the substances can be controlled and measured, and providing more updates to the EPA's PFAS destruction and disposal guidance. The actions also include developing limitation guidelines for PFAS manufacturers and meta finishers, enforcing the Clean Water Act on the use of PFAS chemicals, and establishing a clear liability framework. Related Stories 4/29/2025 3/21/2025 The EPA will also develop partnerships at the state level to assess PFAS contamination risks, advance cleanup efforts where PFAS contamination is impacting the drinking water, and review and evaluate pending air emission petitions. 'I have long been concerned about PFAS and the efforts to help states and communities dealing with legacy contamination in their backyards,' Zeldin said 'With today's announcement, we are tackling PFAS from all of EPA's program offices, advancing research and testing, stopping PFAS from getting into drinking water systems, holding polluters accountable, and providing certainty for passive receivers. 'This is just a start of the work we will do on PFAS to ensure Americans have the cleanest air, land, and water.' Zeldin's efforts follow the EPA's PFAS-focused work during the first Trump administration, which included the launch of the PFAS Action Plan in 2019. That worked to identify short-term solutions as well as long-term strategies to empower states, tribes, and local communities to address PFAS at the source to ensure safe drinking water. They also follow actions undertaken by the Biden administration, which sought to protect drinking water and land from PFAS contamination and updated the agency's national PFAS testing strategy. The EPA notes that the latest efforts are in line with Zeldin's 'Powering the Great American Comeback Initiative' by advancing 'Pillar 1: Clean Air, Land, and Water for Every American, and Pillar 3: Permitting Reform, Cooperative Federalism, and Cross-Agency Partnership.'
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal laws don't ban rollbacks of environmental protection, but they don't make it easy
President Donald Trump and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin have announced their intent to reconsider dozens of current regulations in an effort to loosen standards originally imposed to protect the environment and public health. But it's not as simple as Trump and Zeldin just saying so. A few of the changes, such as reconstituting the membership of EPA's Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Act Scientific Advisory Committee or using enforcement discretion to avoid targeting favored industries, are administrative measures that can be changed with the stroke of a pen. But many, including carbon emissions standards for power plants and motor vehicles, wastewater limits for refineries and chemical plants, or air pollution standards, can only be revised in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law first passed in 1946. That process includes public notice of the proposed changes, an opportunity for the public to comment on those proposals, and a review of those comments by the responsible federal agency. There are some explicit restrictions that prevent loosening of existing environmental standards for clean air and water. In general, though, if the administration has evidence to support its claims that the protections should be reduced and the administration follows the process required by law, it is possible to loosen the restrictions. But as a former longtime senior leader at EPA and student of environmental policy, I know that process is not easy – and it's not meant to be. As examples of how the process of changing the rules and standards works, let's look at the provisions of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. Similar provisions exist in the nation's wide range of environmental protection laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act; the Toxic Substances Control Act; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and others. The Clean Air Act sets uniform national standards for air quality, and it created the rules by which states create plans to meet those standards. One section of the law, Part C of Title I of the act, is titled 'Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality.' Its provisions are meant to prevent states that meet the national standards from allowing air quality to get worse in the future. Its basic effect is to require that new sources of pollution, or existing ones that make significant equipment changes, use the best available technology that meets or exceeds the minimum federal standards for pollution control. Additional protections apply to sensitive areas like national parks. For areas that did not yet meet the standards, a set of amendments passed in 1990 included one that prevented air quality from getting worse. That provision, known as the 'anti-backsliding rule,' says that no state whose air did not meet the standards before Nov. 15, 1990, can change its plan 'unless the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions.' And once a state's air quality improves to meet the standards, the state must follow maintenance plans to make sure the air quality doesn't get worse. Under the Clean Water Act, states set water quality standards to protect drinking water and water for recreation, as well as to protect wildlife. The Environmental Protection Agency has interpreted key sections of the law to require that states ensure that whatever companies discharge into the water from factories or other operations don't degrade downstream water quality – even if the existing conditions are better than the minimum standards. Known as 'anti-degradation provisions,' these rules mean water that is currently far cleaner than the standards require can't legally be made more dirty, even if only a little bit. The Clean Water Act also contains anti-backsliding provisions that prevent new discharge permits from allowing more pollution than previous permits did. Many federal standards can be weakened, so long as the EPA follows the Administrative Procedure Act's process. Since the 1970 passage of the Clean Air Act, the national air quality standards have not been weakened. Technology standards for air and water pollution controls have tightened over time because of advances that improved performance while reducing costs. To change the rules under the Clean Air Act, the EPA must first provide evidence that the existing rules are no longer appropriate. Without that evidence, any changes may be overturned by the courts as not founded in facts – in legal terms, 'arbitrary and capricious.' The first Trump administration's efforts to change the rules failed in many court cases on this basis. This review process is also required of the EPA's intended effort to revoke the so-called 'endangerment finding,' which establishes the agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. If successful, that revocation would undo the legal grounds for carbon dioxide and methane pollution standards for motor vehicles, electric utilities, oil and gas production, and large industrial sources. Such an effort will certainly end up in court. The endangerment finding began with a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required the EPA to assess whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health and welfare. In 2009, the agency found that they did. In 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that finding, and the Supreme Court declined to reconsider the case. The Trump administration's stated plans for amending water pollution rules illustrate that rolling back protections can also mean undoing efforts to strengthen restrictions, if those efforts did not get finalized before 2025. For instance, in June 2024, the Biden administration's EPA notified the public that it intended to tighten restrictions on manufacturing plants' discharges of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS, into surface water or public sewage-treatment systems. Those are a large category of human-made chemicals, used to make products resistant to water, stains and heat, which can be harmful to human health at some levels. These chemicals don't break down easily and therefore are often called 'forever chemicals.' But the changes were never finalized, and on the second day of Trump's second term, the new administration announced that the proposal had been withdrawn. Rollbacks can also mean extending compliance deadlines for current standards. For example, the EPA has announced that it will review discharge rules for power plants. Even if the rules themselves don't change, giving power plants more time to comply with the rules can increase pollution. In general, U.S. environmental laws do not prevent the EPA from weakening protection standards. But merely announcing the agency's intention to do something doesn't make it so. In a recent executive order, Trump claimed he could take an action without public notice and comment 'because I am ordering the repeal.' But federal law specifies that the process of change requires explicit descriptions of scientific and technical reasons and evidence that justify any proposed actions, and a notice-and-comment process that involves the public. In the meantime, the existing standards remain in place, enforceable by citizen lawsuits even if the federal government decides not to enforce them. Agencies require technical and legal expertise to craft rules that can survive inevitable challenges in the courts. Many of those experts have been fired or laid off by the Trump administration, making the job of changing regulations more difficult. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Stan Meiburg, Wake Forest University Read more: 'Administrative law' sounds dry but likely will be key to success or failure of Trump's plans for government reform How the EPA administrator protects public health, air, water and the environment Environmental protection laws still apply even under Trump's national energy emergency − here's why Stan Meiburg is a volunteer with the Environmental Protection Network, a non-partisan 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. He is also a 39 year alumnus of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He is a professional colleague with Sid Shapiro, whose Conversation article is cited in this piece.
