Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 12/2/2016
-
TSCA and Asbestos—a New Approach or One That Reveals the Same Old Problems?
Dec 1, 2016 | National Law Review
By J. Michael Showalter
On November 29, EPA announced that it will review the hazard and exposure risks caused by asbestos. Asbestos will be one of the first ten substances to be evaluated under the TSCA amendments commonly referred to as the Lautenberg Act -
(ACC Mentioned) Endocrine Disruptors: A Denial of the State of the Science - Part 2 of 3
Dec 1, 2016 | Environmental Health News
By Stéphane Horel
"The current scientific knowledge:" It is this that the European Commission assures it is using to justify its much criticized choices in the regulation of endocrine disruptors. -
(ACC Mentioned) Endocrine Disruptors: The Interference of the United States - Part 3 of 3
Dec 1, 2016 | Environmental Health News
By Stéphane Horel
The United States does not hide it. In some cases, they would like to write European law instead of leaving it to Europe. Among the cases: endocrine disruptors, these chemicals that are present in our everyday environment and capable of hijacking the hormonal system of living beings. -
Endocrine Disruptors: The Manufacture of a Lie
Dec 1, 2016 | Environmental Health News
By Stéphane Horel
Everything, or almost everything, is contained in a few words: “(Endocrine disruptors) can ... be treated like most other substances of concern for human health and the environment.” -
Reform Bill Conferees Talk Efficiency, Plan Another Meeting
Dec 1, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Geof Koss
Top Senate energy reform bill conferees huddled this morning with two key House members. They plan another meeting for later today. -
Lawmakers Still Negotiating Conservation Fund Overhaul
Dec 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Negotiations continue over Land and Water Conservation Fund provisions in energy legislation, and headway toward an overhaul compromise may be in the pipeline, key lawmakers told Bloomberg BNA Dec. 1. -
Rep. Walden Triumphs in Race for E&C Gavel
Dec 1, 2016 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
Oregon Republican Greg Walden will be the next chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, beating out the more senior Rep. John Shimkus based in part on his success in leading the House's GOP campaign arm for the past four years. -
Sources: Manchin Eyed for Energy Secretary Job
Dec 2, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
President-elect Donald Trump's transition team is considering Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia for the Energy secretary job, according to three sources close to the discussions. -
Trump Names 'Mother in Love with Fracking' to EPA Landing Team
Dec 1, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Anthony Adragna
Donald Trump's transition team announced the addition of staunch pro-fracking advocate and EPA critic Amy Oliver Cooke to his EPA landing team today. -
Trump Supports Completion of Dakota Access Pipeline
Dec 1, 2016 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Valerie Volcovici
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday said for the first time that he supports the completion of a pipeline project near a North Dakota Indian reservation, which has been the subject of months of protests by tribes and environmentalists. -
North Dakota's Pipe Dreams Are the Key to Its Future
Dec 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Philips
Construction of the 1,172-mile Dakota Access Pipeline is all but finished. The only thing left to build, said its owner, Energy Transfer Partners, will be about 1,100 feet of pipe to be laid beneath Lake Oahe, a sliver of water south of Bismark, N.D -
Investors Take a Stand on Dakota Access Crude Oil Pipeline
Dec 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amanda Albright
Investors—and their investment dollars—are joining the rallying cry around indigenous rights at Standing Rock. -
ACS Journals Enact New Safety Policy
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jyllian Kemsley
American Chemical Society journals will have a new safety reporting requirement starting in 2017: Authors must “address and emphasize any unexpected, new, and/or significant hazards or risks associated with the reported work,” says an ACS Central Science editorial... -
U.S. House Passes RESPONSE Act
Dec 1, 2016 | RailwayAge Magazine
The House of Representatives approved Nov. 29 the RESPONSE Act of 2016 (S. 546), a bill "to enhance emergency responder training for incidents involving hazardous-materials rail transportation." -
Litigation: Environmentalists Reject 'Exceptional' Rule Link to Ozone Suit
Dec 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are rejecting claims from EPA that its revised “exceptional events” rule – which gives states regulatory exemptions for excess air emissions released during “exceptional” events such as wildfires – is relevant to legal arguments... -
Former DOJ, EPA Officials Say Trump Likely Bound by Equity Precedents
Dec 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Former Department of Justice (DOJ) and EPA officials say President-elect Trump would have limited power to reverse the Obama administration's long-running effort to elevate the role of environmental justice (EJ) as a factor in EPA decisions -
Former Agency Lawyer Schnare Seen as Key Figure in Trump EPA Transition
Dec 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves and Doug Obey
David Schnare, a staff attorney at EPA for 33 years who is now general counsel of the free-market Energy & Environment Legal Institute (EELI) and a critic of agency climate regulations, is playing a key role in President-elect Donald Trump's EPA transition team... -
Fearful of Trump, Environmentalists Call on His Children to Help Save the Planet
Dec 1, 2016 | Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin
The League of Conservation Voters called on Donald Trump’s three oldest children on Thursday to ensure that their father protects the environment, citing an open letter they and the president-elect signed in 2009 urging President Obama to act on climate change.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
TSCA and Asbestos—a New Approach or One That Reveals the Same Old Problems?
Dec 1, 2016 | National Law Review
By J. Michael Showalter
On November 29, EPA announced that it will review the hazard and exposure risks caused by asbestos. Asbestos will be one of the first ten substances to be evaluated under the TSCA amendments commonly referred to as the Lautenberg Act. As we have discussed elsewhere, TSCA now requires EPA to produce a risk evaluation work plan for these substances by June 2017 and complete its evaluation within three years following. If EPA determines any of these substances pose unreasonable risks, then EPA must take further action to mitigate any risks.
Asbestos is different from the other substances on EPA’s list and poses different challenges from the others, which all are more traditional industrial chemicals. In contrast to the other chemicals, “asbestos” is not really manufactured itself even when it’s used in products because in raw form it exists in nature; has been the focus of massive product liability litigation for a generation; and presents a different set of compliance challenges for industry.
Certain types of “asbestos”—usually defined as a group of silicate minerals with fibrous properties—have historically been component parts of many industrial products because asbestos functions as an insulator. Litigation over asbestos-containing products has driven more than 100 companies bankrupt. Plaintiffs in these cases argue that asbestos in commercial products causes chronic health conditions like asbestosis and mesothelioma.
Yet EPA has never banned asbestos. More than 25 years ago, EPA sought to phase out the use of asbestos in commercial products but was defeated by the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1991), which held that EPA had failed to adequately justify the ban. Since then, no regulatory or legislative ban has been enacted.
Instead, as of today, TSCA limits “asbestos-containing materials” to be those containing more than one percent asbestos. See 15 U.S.C. § 2642. TSCA further defines “asbestos” to include only six particular varieties of asbestos, namely chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite, anthophyllite, tremolite, and actinolite. See id. § 2642(3). In the most significant criminal litigation about asbestos—United States v. W.R. Grace et al.—a primary defense was that the “asbestos” fibers at issue were not among the substances that had been defined as “asbestos” but instead were winchite and richterite (also known as “Libby vermiculite”).” See United States v. W.R. Grace, 455 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (D. Mt. 2006). While the Ninth Circuit rejected this argument in favor of an undefined yet broader definition of “asbestos,” see United States v. W.R. Grace, 504 F.3d 745 (9th Cir. 2007) (rejecting the “six-fiber” definition in favor of one from the Chemical Abstract Service Registry, under which “asbestos” is “a grayish non-combustible material”), the TSCA definition has never been changed.
This creates some confusion surrounding EPA’s November 29 announcement, which refers to just “asbestos.” EPA’s 2014 Work Plan, referenced in the announcement, in turn refers to “asbestos & asbestos-like fibers.”
Should asbestos be regulated by EPA, and if so, how? There are several open questions:
First, how should EPA regulate a natural substance like asbestos? By any definition, asbestos is a natural material and is ubiquitous in the environment. That raises questions like how any ban could be implemented. While some substances can be “banned” simply by halting production, the same cannot be said for asbestos. Because asbestos occurs in nature, requiring product manufacturers or producers to certify that their product contains zero asbestos may not be feasible. Other countries have addressed this problem in different ways: European regulations generally ban manufacturers from adding asbestos to products, while Australian regulations specifically exclude naturally occurring asbestos not added for a particular application.
Second, how should regulations treat “non-asbestiform” minerals like serpentine, which is the California state rock? When “asbestos” has been regulated in the past, the regulations accounted for the fact that there are some minerals which are chemically similar to asbestos but also occur in different physical configurations or morphologies. In 1992, OSHA determined that non-asbestiform rock particles could be appropriately excluded from the definition of asbestos because they did not pose similar health effects. See OSHA, Final Rule: Occ. Exposure to Asbestos, 57 Fed. Reg. 24310. Legislators have tried and failed to distinguish among these substances. Nine years ago, the Senate passed Senate Bill 742, which included mineral definition criteria that would separate asbestiform from non-asbestiform minerals. It is not clear yet whether these efforts will continue.
Third, how will EPA address the “six-fiber” definition of asbestos in TSCA? EPA sought throughout the Grace litigation to use a broad definition of asbestos. We don’t now know what precisely will constitute “asbestos” for EPA’s TSCA evaluation.
Fourth, how will regulators deal with pressures from parties whose primary interest in asbestos relates to product liability litigation? Regulators should use sound science to decide how to regulate asbestos and other products. And there’s a danger that the medical doctors, geologists, and toxicologists with expertise in asbestos issues who have appeared in asbestos personal injury litigation will be perceived as partial to one side or the other.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/tsca-and-asbestos-new-approach-or-one-reveals-same-old-problems
-
(ACC Mentioned) Endocrine Disruptors: A Denial of the State of the Science - Part 2 of 3
Dec 1, 2016 | Environmental Health News
By Stéphane Horel
"The current scientific knowledge:" It is this that the European Commission assures it is using to justify its much criticized choices in the regulation of endocrine disruptors. Yet, the Endocrine Society, a major scholarly society, believes that the Commission "ignores [the] state of science." How can such a hiatus be explained?
o document its considerations, the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, responsible for the file at the Commission, carried out an impact assessment of more than 400 pages, which was published in June after having been under lock and key as a state secret. To what specific “scientific knowledge” does it refer?
Above all, the Commission cites the opinion issued by one of its official agencies, the European Food Safety Authority, in 2013. This opinion is indeed the basis of its regulatory proposal. But the decision-making process began in 2009 and the "scientific knowledge" on endocrine disruptors has evolved considerably since then.
The Endocrine Society produced a review of the science in 2015. It examined 1,322 publications that had been published since its last review, which was actually in 2009. Conclusion? They do not leave “any doubt that EDCs [endocrine disruptors] are contributing to increased chronic disease burdens related to obesity, diabetes mellitus, reproduction, thyroid, cancers, and neuroendocrine and neurodevelopmental functions."
In 2013, some 20 researchers working for nearly two years under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) had reached similar conclusions. Their report sounded the alarm bell on a "global threat that needs to be resolved."
"Controversial interpretation"
These recent additions to “scientific knowledge” are indeed mentioned in the Commission's impact assessment but disqualified on the basis that they do not deserve to be taken into consideration. "Evidence is scattered and its interpretation controversial," the assessment report says, "so that a causal link or even a possible association between ED [endocrine disruptors] exposure at environmental levels and the diseases is not agreed among experts.”
In the wake of this damning reception, it reduces the Endocrine Society to a "stakeholder" who has issued a "statement." As for the WHO/UNEP report, “scientific criticism to the general methodology used … was raised,” it indicates, citing a number of publications which it says show that the controversy "seems not resolved." But what publications would be sufficiently authoritative as to be able to knock down the work carried out by the most respected specialists in the field?
Notably, the Commission's negative comments are based on "critical comments," published in 2014, challenging the methods and conclusions of the WHO/UNEP report. Among the ten authors of the comments, seven are working for two consulting companies, Exponent and Gradient Corp, which specialize in scientific issues and are known as "product-defense firms."
But, most importantly, it was industry that sponsored the article through its lobbying organizations: the chemical sector with the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) and the American Chemistry Council and the pesticides sector with CropLife America, CropLife Canada, CropLife International and the European Crop Protection Association.
"Urban legend"
None of this can be unknown to the Commission services. Not only do these sponsors appear clearly in the declaration of interests at the end of the article, but industry itself sent it to them. Cefic sent it by e-mail to about 30 European officials involved in the case on March 17, 2014. In a message consulted by Le Monde, the industrialists explain that they have "commissioned a consortium of scientific experts to independently review the WHO-UNEP report," fearing, in particular, that "despite its serious shortcomings it was being used to call for more precautionary chemicals policy."
Other publications cited in the impact study include a two-page article, one of whose signatories is a person better known for his role as a consultant to the tobacco industry than for his competence on this topic. Among its co-authors are toxicologists paid by the chemical, pesticides and plastic industries.
Another article has again two consultants out of the three authors and talks about endocrine disruptors as an "urban legend" posing “imaginary health risks.” Making fun of the "hypothetical" effects of endocrine disruptors, such as the "reduced penis length and size," they pose the question of "whether the whole issue of EDC is more within the competence of Dr. Sigmund Freud than that of toxicology."
Can these texts really be incorporated into "scientific knowledge?" Why does the Commission give so much credit to documents that resemble lobbying material?
In a momentous editorial published today [November 29, 2016] in Le Monde, independent scientists express concerns about a "distortion of the evidence by industrially sponsored actors." Signed by a hundred experts from two very different fields - endocrine disruption and climate change - their text notes the "dangerous consequences for the health of people and the environment" of this strategy of "manufacturing of doubt."
Editors Note: This article was originally published by Le Monde on November 29. This version is translated by the Health and Environment Alliance and is republished with permission. We are also republishing other parts of the investigation: The manufacture of a lie (Part 1) and The interference of the United States (Part 3).
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2016/dec/endocrine-disruptors-a-denial-of-the-state-of-the-science
-
(ACC Mentioned) Endocrine Disruptors: The Interference of the United States - Part 3 of 3
Dec 1, 2016 | Environmental Health News
By Stéphane Horel
The United States does not hide it. In some cases, they would like to write European law instead of leaving it to Europe. Among the cases: endocrine disruptors, these chemicals that are present in our everyday environment and capable of hijacking the hormonal system of living beings.
Since 2009, the European Commission has been working on the issue of their regulation. The topic is all the more sensitive as this regulation will be unprecedented, imposing new standards for the rest of the world. All trading partners who want to continue exporting their products to the EU, including the United States, will have to comply with them.
In highly technical documents, the American government expresses its position with unreserved criticism and requests that verge on political interference. Of particular note is this text, conveyed to the Commission on January 16, 2015, within the framework of a consultation on the various regulatory options envisaged. It says: "If the Commission were to be provided with evidence supporting an option not among (those) presented, would this be considered?”
The question is convoluted but the implication is clear: the United States does not only propose rewriting the law but disputes the very principle of the regulation as far as endocrine disruptors are concerned.
The origin of the tension is the European regulation on pesticides of 2009. Very strict, it foresees a ban on pesticides that have endocrine disrupting properties. This principle of "hazard assessment" a priori antagonizes the U.S. government. "Implementation of any hazard-based ‘cut off’ option," it writes, “could have severe implications for EU imports of U.S. agricultural goods." Contrary to the political will of Europe, the U.S. government calls for a return to the traditional philosophy of "risk assessment," which is undertaken a posteriori.
This U.S. pressure on the EU actually began in June 2013 at the meeting of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade. The U.S. representative shared the “concerns” of his government, but also those of its industry, which feared "significant and unwarranted dislocations in trade.”
In the months that followed, the American concern spread to another WTO committee specifically responsible for pesticides and food. The “aggressive and well-orchestrated attacks” are recorded in a European Commission internal note of August 2015 seen by Le Monde. No one can be mistaken, there is a threat of prosecution looming.
It is in these WTO committees that the question of non-compliance with “international sanitary and phytosanitary measures,” known as SPS, is raised.
A report in March 2016 says that Canada considers the regulation "only served to undermine international trade in agriculture and contravened the fundamental principle of the WTO SPS agreement, which was to base measures on scientific risk assessments and not to maintain them without scientific justification." Indeed, the U.S. has brought other countries onto its side: by summer 2016, the heterogeneous alliance included more than twenty countries, including China, Togo and Jamaica.
Given that the proposal that causes so much bitterness was adopted in 2009, why did the U.S. wait until 2013 to complain about it within the framework of the WTO? Because 2013 was in fact a pivotal moment in the European decision-making process on endocrine disruptors. At the beginning of 2013, the Commission set on a very different path. Its Directorate-General (DG) for the Environment, which was leading on the dossier, had just proposed its chosen option.
Drawing on the classification used for carcinogenic chemicals, it would allow substances to be divided into two categories: ‘suspected’ or ‘known’ endocrine disruptors. This option is supported by the scientific community, non-governmental organizations and certain member states, including France, while industry is violently, and openly, opposed to it.
A lobbying blitzkrieg against it took place in June 2013. It was a letter from CropLife America, the lobbying organization for the U.S. pesticide industry, which first suggested to the U.S. authorities that they challenge the option with the help of WTO rules.
“The U.S. Government should defend itself using the authority of the SPS Agreement under WTO if the EU pursues its proposed new regulatory regime …. without an approach based on risk assessment,” wrote CropLife America, May 10, 2013, to the office of the U.S. trade representative. The letter added: "CLA stands ready to provide supporting documentation."
Surprisingly, the hostility of the U.S. and its allies has changed little while the position of the Commission has changed radically.
The option of DG Environment, which has since been divested of the file, was buried in July 2013. The new proposal from the Commission announced on June 15, 2016—even though it is judged very protective of the interests of companies—continues to satisfy neither the industry nor the critics at the WTO. A delegation of ambassadors to the EU came to the office of the European Commissioner for Health in July 2016 to express their discontent.
At the end of August, a final warning shot came via WTO. While Canada evoked a "negative, unnecessary and unjustified impact on trade," the U.S. government continued to challenge the "soundness of the EU's approach." As "supporting documentation:" the letters of several industrial organizations including the American Chemistry Council and CropLife America.
Editors Note: This article was originally published by Le Monde on November 29. This version is translated by the Health and Environment Alliance and is republished with permission. We are also republishing other parts of the investigation: The manufacture of a lie (Part 1) and A denial of the state of the science (Part 2).
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2016/dec/endocrine-disruptors-the-interference-of-the-united-states
-
Endocrine Disruptors: The Manufacture of a Lie
Dec 1, 2016 | Environmental Health News
By Stéphane Horel
Everything, or almost everything, is contained in a few words: “(Endocrine disruptors) can ... be treated like most other substances of concern for human health and the environment.” It is on this simple phrase, which comes from the conclusion of an opinion from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2013, that Brussels bases its plan to regulate endocrine disruptors, these ubiquitous substances capable of interfering with the hormonal system, often at low doses.
The proposal, which is due to be voted on by the Member States soon, has not only France, Denmark and Sweden united against it but also all the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who consider that it does not protect public health and the environment.
The key phrase on which the regulatory edifice proposed by the Commission is built had been drafted even before any scientific expertise had really begun.The expert scientific community, embodied by the Endocrine Society - a scholarly society that brings together some 18,000 researchers and clinicians specializing in the hormonal system – is also battling against the proposal. This opposition is surprising given that the European Commission insists that it relies on science, in the form of the scientific expertise of EFSA.
The explanation for this singular hiatus is found in a series of internal documents of the European administration obtained by Le Monde. They show, without ambiguity, that the key phrase on which the regulatory edifice proposed by the Commission is built had been drafted even before any scientific expertise had really begun.
Written conclusions in advance
In December 2012, EFSA was already presenting "conclusions/recommendations" in an e-mail to the experts it had assembled to carry out this work.It said: "…endocrine disruptors and their adverse effects should be treated just like any other chemical of concern for human health or the environment." The key phrase is already there. Yet, the very first meeting to set up work was held only a few days before. At the end of March 2013, three months later, the phrase figures in the conclusions of the opinion published by the agency.
"For sure, the conclusions were written beforehand, if not on paper, but in the heads of some of the participants," a source close to the file at the time told Le Monde. The Commission itself did not respond to our questions. EFSA reacted with an assurance that it had properly fulfilled its mandate.
EFSA's "Scientific Committee took stock of the various views from a number of experts and forums," the European agency said when questioned.
The “EFSA phrase," harmless for the uninitiated, has, in fact, a considerable weight. Because if endocrine disruptors were actually substances that are just like any others, then there would be no need for strict regulation.The pesticide industry, which is most affected by the issue, has clearly understood the point. Its main lobbying organizations - the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA), CropLife International, CropLife America - or the German agrochemical groups BASF or Bayer, repeat ad libitum the "EFSA phrase" in arguments and correspondence with the European institutions that Le Monde has seen.
In fact, the famous phrase is of major importance for European regulation on plant protection products. It was in 2009 that the European Parliament voted a new “pesticides regulation.” According to this legislation, pesticides a priori identified as "endocrine disruptors" would no longer be allowed to enter or remain on the market except when the exposure is considered negligible.
This provision only needs one thing if it is to be applied: the adoption of scientific criteria to define endocrine disruptors – that is, what Brussels is proposing today. But since endocrine disruptors are chemical substances like any others – it’s the "EFSA phrase" that prompts the question: why prohibit them a priori?"Major breach" in health protection
The Commission has therefore made an amendment to the text. Now, it is sufficient to assess the risk that they present on a case-by-case basis if problems arise after they have been placed on the market - and therefore a posteriori. Is this change at the cost of the spirit of the 2009 regulation?
This amendment would open a "major loophole" in the protection of health and the environment, says EDC-Free Europe. This coalition of NGOs accuses the Commission of wanting to distort the intention of European law.
But above all, this amendment to the 2009 regulation poses a democratic problem: it is much as if the officials have taken the initiative to draft an implementing decree that had nothing to do with the intention of the elected representatives.The European Parliament is also of this opinion. In a copy of a letter seen by Le Monde and dated September 15, the chairman of the Parliament's Environment Committee wrote to the Health Commissioner, Vytenis Andriukaitis, who is responsible for the file, saying that the project: "exceeds the implementing powers of the Commission" by amending "essential elements" of the law. Similarly, in their note of October 10, France, Denmark and Sweden do not say anything different, judging that the Commission has no right to change "a policy choice by the legislator."
This rebuke is all the more unfortunate because it comes when the Commission is already in a state of illegality on this issue. The European Court of Justice actually condemnedthe Commission in December 2015 for violating EU law: the Commission had been required to settle the question of the criteria to identify endocrine disrupters before the end of 2013.
However, the Commission remains unfazed by the shower of criticism. It offers an assurance that it has fulfilled the condition which authorizes it to "update" the regulation: to take into account the evolution of "scientific knowledge," namely the famous little phrase of EFSA. It is that phrase on which its justification rests.
But why should EFSA have written, in advance, a conclusion in breach of the scientific consensus? An internal Commission document obtained by Le Monde sheds some light on the intentions of the Directorate General for Health and Food Safety (DG Health), which is now responsible for the matter at the Commission.
A meeting report records in black and white that, as of September 2012, DG Health intends to disregard the will of elected representatives in Europe. The health directorate said then that it "did not oppose even the idea to go back to regulating based on risk assessment" and was "ready to change entirely" the part of the regulation concerned.
The same document states further on that DG Health will have to "talk with EFSA to try and accelerate the preparation" of its opinion. At this point, EFSA's opinion did not exist ... The agency had only just been asked to set up a working group on endocrine disruptors.
A "mortified" message
The very special conditions in which this working group operated can be read in e-mails exchanged by EFSA experts and officials. One month before the release of the EFSA report, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) published a joint report on endocrine disruptors.
A mortified EFSA expert sent a message to the whole group: "It is almost embarrassing to compare the current draft report with the WHO-UNEP report … when WHO-UNEP comes to the conclusion that traditional risk assessment of chemicals is not fit for purpose to assess (endocrine disruptors), we are exactly coming to the opposite conclusion."
This scientist considered it essential that the conclusions be radically changed. The EFSA official overseeing the work of the expert group agreed.
The "current conclusions where we explain that [endocrine disruptors] should be considered like most other chemicals [...] puts us in isolation compared to the rest of the world, and may be hard to defend," he writes. However, when EFSA's opinion is published on March 20, 2013, it continued to include, unperturbed, the little phrase.
"This should be a science-based procedure ... evidence-based policy-making,” says Axel Singhofen, an adviser to the Greens-European Free Alliance in the European Parliament. "But what we see here is policy-based evidence-making."
Editors Note: This article was originally published by Le Monde on November 29. This version is translated by the Health and Environment Alliance and is republished with permission. We are also republishing other parts of the investigation: A denial of the state of the science (Part 2) and The interference of the United States (Part 3).
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2016/dec/endocrine-disruptors-the-manufacture-of-a-lie
-
Reform Bill Conferees Talk Efficiency, Plan Another Meeting
Dec 1, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Geof Koss
Top Senate energy reform bill conferees huddled this morning with two key House members. They plan another meeting for later today.
After this morning's roughly 40-minute sit-down — which included House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), along with Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) — Cantwell said the main topic was the efficiency titles of the competing House and Senate bills.
"We were kind of filling them in on all the work that's been done by House and Senate members," Cantwell told reporters.
The meeting was cut short because Upton had to leave to give a speech, but Cantwell said the group plans to meet again in the evening.
Upton and Pallone did not speak to reporters after the meeting, and Murkowski made a hasty exit by entering an unmarked door that led into the Senate dining room, which is off-limits to reporters.
Asked about the tenor of the morning meeting, Cantwell said, "They didn't get into any major substantive roadblock that I can see."
She added: "Staff is going to work in the meantime on any differences, and anything that are outstanding differences we would bring back tonight."
Murkowski and Cantwell met yesterday with House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) and discussed issues under that panel's jurisdiction. Upton was tied up with House debate and passage of his medical innovation bill (E&E Daily, Dec. 1).
Cantwell today said yesterday's huddle included a "big discussion" over the Land and Water Conservation Fund, with both sides trading reform ideas. "We said we would look at them," she told reporters of Bishop's suggestions.
Caught entering the chamber to vote this afternoon, Murkowski said she had just gotten off the phone with an unnamed member about the conference and planned to update Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) about the status of the talks.
"We're still working it," she told E&E News.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/12/01/stories/1060046516
-
Lawmakers Still Negotiating Conservation Fund Overhaul
Dec 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Negotiations continue over Land and Water Conservation Fund provisions in energy legislation, and headway toward an overhaul compromise may be in the pipeline, key lawmakers told Bloomberg BNA Dec. 1.
House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) is continuing to push for an overhaul of federal land acquisition spending, stressing the need to hone focus on the federal property maintenance backlog.
That has been a sticking point between him and environmental groups, who have a Capitol Hill ally in Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), but Bishop signaled recent talks have been productive.
“There was progress, I think, on their part towards what we're talking about here,” he said, referring to Cantwell and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). “Whether it's enough to be acceptable to me I don't know.”
Energy Negotiations
The fund, which provides state assistance grants for conservation development on top of federal acquisitions, is a critical portion of high-profile energy legislation negotiations. Proponents say the fund, which is derived from offshore energy development revenue, plays an important role in preserving the environment.
Two different versions of that legislation (S. 2012) passed the House and Senate earlier this year, and both included Land and Water Conservation Fund reauthorization. Yet a recent House proposal stripped that authorization provision.
The legislation includes expedited export provisions for liquefied natural gas exports, as well as a range of energy efficiency initiatives. Murkowski and Cantwell have pushed strenuously for a compromise this session, which is scheduled to wrap up in roughly a week.
Cantwell said the provisions would help to boost the outdoor economy, which she described as a “juggernaut” growing at breakneck speeds with potential serious benefits for state revenue.
“So I think there was a lot more coming together on the fact that we want all of these areas, whether they are parks and existing structures or new adds on [or] adjacencies to continue to help us grow that outdoor economy,” she told Bloomberg BNA, adding that her staff was set to meet with Bishop's the evening of Dec. 1, following a meeting the day before.
Reform in the Docket?
Bishop prefers to eliminate the use of the fund for acquisition through eminent domain and condemnation among other directives, which were capture in a bill he introduced in 2015. The legislation also would carve out spending for land maintenance and operations.
House Natural Resources ranking member Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) told Bloomberg BNA he'd struggle to support those changes, arguing they are intended to replace lost appropriations at the Interior Department.
“We oppose that. We don't want to lose any of its original function, its original purpose,” Grijalva said. The Interior Department is tasked with that maintenance, he said.
Meanwhile, the energy legislation includes a new fund, dubbed the National Park Service Maintenance and Revitalization Conservation Fund. That repository, which also would draw revenue from offshore production, would pay for “high-priority deferred maintenance needs of the [National Park Service] that support critical infrastructure and visitor services.” None of those funds would be used for acquisition, according to the bill.
More Changes Said Needed
Still, Bishop said more changes are necessary, noting that he doesn't care about the length of Land and Water Conservation Fund authorization.
“Right now it is a very wasted, corrupt, useless program,” he told Bloomberg BNA. “If you make it so it actually solves some of the problems and gives us revenue streams to actually deal with these issues, this could be the coolest problem in the history of the world.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101207532&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101207532&jd=101207532
-
Rep. Walden Triumphs in Race for E&C Gavel
Dec 1, 2016 | E&E Daily
By George Cahlink
Oregon Republican Greg Walden will be the next chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, beating out the more senior Rep. John Shimkus based in part on his success in leading the House's GOP campaign arm for the past four years.
The House GOP Steering Committee yesterday selected Walden in a closed-door, secret-ballot vote that will be ratified by the entire Republican conference this morning. He replaces Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who was term-limited after serving six years as chairman of a panel with broad authority over federal energy and environmental policy.
Walden told reporters in brief comments afterward that his focus would be "patient-centered health care and on allowing us to use America's great energy resources and other reforms in partnership with our governors, the Senate and the Trump administration."
Before slipping into his first floor Capitol office to cheers from his staff, Walden said it was too soon to say what legislation he would move first.
Former Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas) also was in the running for the post, but the race came down to a contest between Walden and Shimkus, a 10-term Illinois lawmaker.
Walden was seen as the front-runner going into the race given his past four years heading the National Republican Congressional Committee. In that post, he not only raised hundreds of millions of dollars for the party but also defied expectations by limiting Republican losses in this past election cycle.
"Certainly I have worked hard on behalf of the conference," Walden said when asked if his NRCC work was a deciding factor.
Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), a member of the Steering Committee and Energy and Commerce, said it was a very tight contest with both Walden and Shimkus making strong cases at the meeting. He said Walden's work at the NRCC was "certainly a major factor" in his selection.
"This is my first time on the committee, but people who have been on the committee for many terms said it was the most difficult chairmanship decision they've had to make," Cramer added.
Walden, 59, has served nine terms in Congress representing a rural eastern Oregon district. His most recent work on the committee has focused on technology and telecommunications policy as chairman of the Communications and Technology Subcommittee.
"This was tough. John Shimkus and Joe Barton are good friends and they are excellent legislators. They will have roles where they will continue to be leaders," Walden said.
Walden will have to perform the tricky task of finding roles for two former chairmen — Barton and Upton.
Barton, who has been chairman emeritus since giving up the gavel in 2010, said he would like a more active role on the committee and would like to lead a subcommittee in the next session of Congress.
Subcommittee assignments are not expected until the committee roster is finalized in January.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/12/02/stories/1060046544
-
Sources: Manchin Eyed for Energy Secretary Job
Dec 2, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
President-elect Donald Trump's transition team is considering Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia for the Energy secretary job, according to three sources close to the discussions.
The conservative Democrat “is being considered to show the coal people how serious Trump is about coal,” one source said.
Manchin told POLITICO Thursday afternoon that he and his staff haven’t been contacted by Trump’s transition team and he didn't have any trips to New York City on his calendar. But Manchin, who is up for reelection in 2018 in a state that has become increasingly more Republican over the past decade, also didn’t dismiss the notion of taking DOE’s top job in the Trump administration.
“If I can do anything that would help my state of West Virginia, and my country, I would be happy to talk to anybody,” he told POLITICO. “Other than that, I haven’t heard anything ... I have nothing scheduled.”
Just last month, Manchin was named the vice chair of the Senate Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.
Earlier today the Trump transition announced that North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, another Democrat, would be making a trip to Trump Tower Friday.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Trump Names 'Mother in Love with Fracking' to EPA Landing Team
Dec 1, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Anthony Adragna
Donald Trump's transition team announced the addition of staunch pro-fracking advocate and EPA critic Amy Oliver Cooke to his EPA landing team today.
Cooke currently works as executive vice president and director of the Energy Policy Center at the Independence Institute, a free-market think tank in Colorado. Her biography says she's known for provocative messaging like "Mothers In Love with Fracking" and "I’m an energy feminist because I’m pro-choice in energy sources."
In addition, her biography said she worked with the Competitive Enterprise Institute "to expose Colorado’s phantom carbon tax and the real cost of the state’s renewable energy mandate." CEI's Myron Ebell is leading Trump's EPA landing team.
In a blog post Wednesday, Cooke said the EPA should expect big changes after Trump's election: "In 2017 the EPA will be very different under a President Trump administration. During the campaign, Mr. Trump said the Clean Power Plan is DOA," she wrote.
Trump's team also today announced Martin Dannenfelser Jr. would join the Energy Department's landing team. He formerly worked for the Energy Innovation Reform Project, which describes itself as "a market-based approach to advanced energy innovation."
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Trump Supports Completion of Dakota Access Pipeline
Dec 1, 2016 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Valerie Volcovici
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday said for the first time that he supports the completion of a pipeline project near a North Dakota Indian reservation, which has been the subject of months of protests by tribes and environmentalists.
A communications briefing from Trump's transition team said despite media reports that Trump owns a stake in Energy Transfer Partners, the company building the pipeline, Trump's support of the pipeline "has nothing to do with his personal investments and everything to do with promoting policies that benefit all Americans."
"Those making such a claim are only attempting to distract from the fact that President-elect Trump has put forth serious policy proposals he plans to set in motion on Day One," said the daily briefing note sent to campaign supporters and congressional staff.
Activists have spent months protesting plans to route the $3.8 billion Dakota Access Pipeline beneath a lake near the Standing Rock Sioux reservation, saying the project poses a threat to water resources and sacred Native American sites.
On Thursday, U.S. military veterans were arriving at a camp to join thousands of activists braving snow and freezing temperatures to protest the pipeline.
Republican Trump has been a vocal supporter of another high-profile pipeline project, Transcanada's Keystone XL, which Democratic President Barack Obama denied a permit for last year.
Republican North Dakota Senator John Hoeven said he met with Trump's transition team to discuss the delayed pipeline.
"Today, Mr. Trump expressed his support for the Dakota Access Pipeline, which has met or exceeded all environmental standards set forth by four states and the Army Corps of Engineers," Hoeven said in a statement.
"It is important to know that the new administration will work to help us grow and diversify our energy economy and build the energy infrastructure necessary to move it from where it is produced to where it is needed," he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2016/12/01/us/politics/01reuters-usa-trump-pipeline.html?_r=0
-
North Dakota's Pipe Dreams Are the Key to Its Future
Dec 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Matthew Philips
Construction of the 1,172-mile Dakota Access Pipeline is all but finished. The only thing left to build, said its owner, Energy Transfer Partners, will be about 1,100 feet of pipe to be laid beneath Lake Oahe, a sliver of water south of Bismark, N.D. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is reviewing the easement application by Energy Transfer, which spent much of the past two years quietly laying miles of pipe in four states before running into a national protest movement camped out near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.
To the protesters, stopping the pipeline is an assertion of American Indian rights and a means of ensuring that an oil spill never threatens aquifers. There are also economic and environmental stakes that reach beyond Standing Rock. Without the Dakota Access Pipeline, North Dakota's abundant but hard-to-reach oil resources likely won't be fully developed, potentially leaving millions of barrels in the ground.
About 200 miles northwest of the protest camp, the pipeline coils around the town of Williston, following a semicircle around the heart of the Bakken oil field, which stretches from North Dakota into eastern Montana. For years the Bakken was the fastest growing source of crude in the U.S., with output jumping to a peak of 1.2 million barrels a day in December 2014, from less than 100,000 in 2005. The boom turned North Dakota into the second-largest oil-producing state in the U.S., behind Texas.
Unlike Texas, which has pumped oil for more than a century and is home to thousands of miles of pipelines, North Dakota never had a reason to build much energy infrastructure. As oil gushed out of remote areas miles from any town or pipeline, wildcatters, middlemen and traders raced to get it out by truck, train and barge. By 2015, 800,000 barrels of crude a day were being railed out of North Dakota.
Moving oil by train costs a lot more than pumping it through a pipeline, but when world crude prices hovered around $100 a barrel—as they did for several years—there was enough profit to go around. Now that prices have fallen, those transportation costs have become critical. Refineries on the East Coast, once among the biggest buyers of Bakken crude, have reverted to importing foreign oil rather than paying to ship it halfway across the country.
With oil prices below $50 a barrel, the lack of cheap transport has crimped Bakken production, raising questions about the viability of North Dakota's oil industry. Production in the state has declined 20 percent over the past two years. That is almost double the drop in Texas and Oklahoma, which have much easier access to pipelines and can get their oil to refiners for less money.
The $3.8 billion Dakota Access is supposed to fix that problem. It will be North Dakota's first oil superhighway, capable of moving about half a million barrels a day out of the Bakken and into southern Illinois, home to a handful of refineries. From there, the project will link to existing pipes that connect to the oil storage hub in Cushing, Okla., and to the Gulf Coast, home to the largest refinery system in North America.
Estimates vary, but the transport costs of sending oil through the Dakota Access will be below $10 a barrel compared with as much as $25 without it, according to Lynn Helms, director of the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources. That is “the difference between survival and shutdown for a lot of North Dakota producers,” said Philip Verleger, an energy consultant and former director of the office of energy policy at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The real benefit of Dakota Access, Helms said during a Nov. 16 press conference, is “giving a known value to the transport costs, as opposed to costs that can be all over the map and change very quickly.”
While the election of Donald Trump gives the energy industry a powerful ally, there is no set date for the pipeline's completion. The Army Corps hasn't indicated when it might come to a decision on the Lake Oahe easement application, though it has given protesters until Dec. 5 to vacate their encampment. Energy Transfer said it expects the pipeline to be in service sometime in the first quarter of 2017, but analysts and traders are starting to think it will be later. Mark Rossano, an energy strategist at Elevation Securities, said he thinks the pipeline might not be operational for 18 months.
Drilling basically has stopped in North Dakota. As of the end of November, only 38 oil and gas rigs were operating in the state compared with more than 200 in 2014. But cheap oil has forced North Dakota's producers to get lean fast. According to Rossano, the average cost to bring a new well online has fallen to $5 million, from about $17 million a few years ago. Some of the best wells in the Bakken can produce oil for about $15 to $17 a barrel, according to the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources. That is on par with some of the most profitable oil fields in the world, including those in the Middle East. Yet without an efficient mode of transport, that oil will have trouble making it to market. “That's why Dakota Access is so essential to locking in the future production of the Bakken,” Rossano said.
That future production unnerves environmentalists. Ensuring “decades of low-cost transport on Dakota Access would have huge climate implications by making it far more likely that oil from the Bakken will come out of the ground and be burned,” said Doug Hayes, a staff attorney with the Sierra Club, which opposes the pipeline. A report from Oil Change International said the amount of oil Dakota Access would move each day would have the same carbon footprint as 30 U.S. coal plants.
Some energy experts said Dakota Access is already a failed project. Cathy Kunkel, an analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, said the pipeline is no longer needed, given how much production has fallen in the state. In a report she co-authored in November, Kunkel predicted that a continued slump in oil prices will lower Bakken's production to less than 800,000 barrels a day by the end of 2017. “At that point, existing pipelines and refineries could handle the region's entire oil output,” she wrote.
The report also cited Aug. 18 testimony in federal court from a Dakota Access official who claimed that Energy Transfer had committed to finishing the pipeline by Jan. 1, 2017. Missing that deadline will allow companies that had signed contracts to use the pipeline to terminate their commitments, he said. That could cost Energy Transfer hundreds of millions in lost revenue. In an e-mail, a company spokesperson disputed this, saying the termination date is “further out,” but declined to give specifics.
The bottom line: Without the Dakota Access pipeline, millions of barrels of North Dakota oil could stay in the ground.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101207511&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101207511&jd=101207511
-
Investors Take a Stand on Dakota Access Crude Oil Pipeline
Dec 2, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amanda Albright
Investors—and their investment dollars—are joining the rallying cry around indigenous rights at Standing Rock.
Pension plans and shareholder groups concerned about the Dakota Access Pipeline have started submitting proposals to the energy companies building the pipeline as well as to the lenders behind it, urging the companies to better disclose the risks to their business from the controversial investment.
The third largest U.S. pension plan, the $178.6 billion New York State Common Retirement Fund, is one of the investors leading the charge. In a shareholder resolution filed last month with Marathon Petroleum Corp., which said in August that it would buy a minority stake in the pipeline, the pension plan said that Marathon should disclose to investors how it does due diligence on environmental and human rights risks, including indigenous rights risks, when it comes to its acquisition decisions.
A failure to fully assess human rights risks can lead to “reputational, regulatory and financial loss,” the resolution reads.
The $3.8 billion project, which has seen protests escalate since the summer by members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and supporters over the pipeline's proximity to the tribe's water supply and culturally significant sites, is part of a 1,172-mile (1,886-kilometer) network that's been stalled due to the conflict.
Pushing for Change
“There are material risks for investors here,” said Kathryn McCloskey, director of social responsibility for United Church Funds, which co-filed the resolution with the New York pension plan. A spokesman for New York State Common Retirement Fund declined to comment beyond the resolution itself.
Energy Transfer Partners LP owns the project jointly with Phillips 66 and Sunoco Logistics Partners LP. Marathon and Enbridge Energy Partners LP announced a joint venture in August that would also take a minority stake in the pipeline.
Spokesmen at Marathon and Enbridge declined to comment. Jeff Shields, a spokesman for Sunoco Logistics, said the company has not received any shareholder resolutions on the pipeline. “We look forward to completion of the project and operating the pipeline in cooperation with our partners,” he said in an e-mail.
An Energy Transfer spokeswoman declined to comment and referred Bloomberg to a Sept. 13 memorandum about the pipeline by Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Kelcy Warren. A spokesman for Phillips 66 declined to comment when asked about investor responses to the project, adding that “we believe the rule of law should be followed with regards to the permitting process, and we are working with our project partners and other key stakeholders to find a resolution that will allow construction to proceed under Lake Oahe.”
Other investors are also pushing the issue. Boston Common Asset Management, for example, said last month on its website that it is helping to craft shareholder proposals for Marathon, Phillips 66 and Enbridge that it expects will be filed in coming weeks. The fund is focusing on these companies because the other major partners in the pipeline are limited partnerships and therefore can't receive proxy proposals from shareholders, Boston Common said.
“You're seeing the recognition that best practice for companies is to view indigenous peoples and nations as business partners and not obstacles,” Steven Heim, director of ESG Research for the asset management firm, said in an interview.
The uproar over the pipeline is part of a broader environmental and social debate over whether there is a need for more fossil fuel conduits across the U.S. and whether these projects trample over the rights of indigenous people. About 250 companies globally in the oil, gas, mining, forestry, paper and agriculture industries, with a combined market value of about $2.7 trillion, have a risk of running into indigenous rights issues, according to a risk analysis in 2009 by Experts in Responsible Investment Solutions, a London-based non-profit that researches ESG issues.
Project Lenders
While some investors are raising their concerns with the energy companies themselves, other shareholder groups are going directly to the lenders funding the disputed pipeline. As You Sow, an Oakland-based nonprofit, has co-filed a shareholder resolution at Wells Fargo & Co., which provided a $120 million loan to the Dakota Access pipeline project, according to Bloomberg data.
“What we're looking for is just a frank discussion with the banks,” said Danielle Fugere, president and chief counsel at As You Sow. “Are they looking at the potential for stranded assets? We're also asking them if they have indigenous persons programs in place.” The group has also co-filed proposals at Marathon and is planning another at Phillips 66, Fugere said.
Rebecca Adamson, founder and president of First Peoples Worldwide, which advocates for funding local development projects in indigenous communities, estimates that at least eight shareholder resolutions have been filed with energy companies and banks involved in the pipeline.
The largest lenders involved in the pipeline include Citigroup Global Markets Inc., TD Securities USA LLC, Mizuho Bank Ltd., and Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd., according to Bloomberg data.
“TD has been listening to concerns from the community about DAPL and we will continue to advocate that Energy Transfer Partners (ETP) engage in constructive dialog and work toward a resolution with community members, including the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe,” TD said in a Dec. 1 statement on its website.
Citi released a Nov. 30 statement that said it was “concerned” about the situation at the pipeline and that it “supports the federal government's efforts to engage tribal governments on how their views can be better incorporated into project review processes, and we will closely follow the outcomes of those consultations.”
TD said it has retained law firm Foley Hoag LLP, an independent human rights expert, on behalf of the lenders to conduct a review and make recommendations to improvements to Energy Transfer's and Sunoco Logistics’ social policies and procedures. Foley Hoag confirmed that it would be working on the review.
Representatives at Wells Fargo and Mizuho did not respond to requests for comment. A spokesman for Mitsubishi declined to comment.
Indigenous Rights
Some lenders are even taking the matter into their own hands. Norwegian bank DNB ASA said last month that it was conducting an evaluation of how indigenous people's rights were being treated during the resolution of the conflict. DNB Capital provided a $120 million loan to the project, Bloomberg data show.
“We seek to reassure that the project is in accordance with our own guidelines and values. If our initiative does not provide us with the necessary comfort, DNB will evaluate its further participation in the financing of the project,” Harald Serck-Hanssen, DNB's group executive vice president and head of large corporates and international, said in a statement.
The backlash over the Dakota Access crude pipeline may discourage companies from pursuing the construction of similar projects in the future without considering the impacts, said First Peoples Worldwide's Adamson.
“Until the market starts rewarding the good companies and penalizing the bad ones, you're going to continue to have these huge social push-backs,” she said. “The market knows this and now it's going to have to do it.”
With assistance from Emily Chasan, Justin Morton and Meenal Vamburkar.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101207531&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101207531&jd=101207531
-
ACS Journals Enact New Safety Policy
Dec 1, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jyllian Kemsley
American Chemical Society journals will have a new safety reporting requirement starting in 2017: Authors must “address and emphasize any unexpected, new, and/or significant hazards or risks associated with the reported work,” says an ACS Central Science editorial describing the change (2016, DOI: 10.1021/acscentsci.6b00341).
ACS Publications editors and staff took a closer look at how the journals addressed safety after a “confluence of events” that included high-profile accidents and a survey of safety policies of chemical journals (J. Chem. Health Saf. 2016, DOI: 10.1016/j.jchas.2015.10.001), says Sarah Tegen, vice president for global editorial and author services at ACS. ACS also publishes C&EN. Previously, individual journals set their own safety policies.
The journals’ Peer Review Advisory Group (PRAG) developed the new wording to make it clear that good safety practice is vital while also being broad enough to be applicable across all the fields that the journals represent, Tegen says.
Reaction from journal editors has been positive. “There is a strong sense that this is the right thing to do,” says Inorganic Chemistry editor-in-chief and PRAG member William B. Tolman.
Beyond including the language in guidelines for authors and reviewers, ACS is leaving individual journal editors to decide how the new requirement is implemented. Tolman, for example, has already added a required check box in a form filled out by Inorganic Chemistry reviewers that asks whether authors have appropriately addressed safety. “It’s a simple and easy way to get the journal community to start paying attention to it,” he says.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i48/ACS-journals-enact-new-safety.html
-
U.S. House Passes RESPONSE Act
Dec 1, 2016 | RailwayAge Magazine
The House of Representatives approved Nov. 29 the RESPONSE Act of 2016 (S. 546), a bill "to enhance emergency responder training for incidents involving hazardous-materials rail transportation."
The RESPONSE (Railroad Emergency Services Preparedness, Operational Needs, and Safety Evaluation) Act establishes a temporary subcommittee under the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Advisory Council to provide recommendations and advice regarding emergency responder training related to hazardous materials incidents involving railroads. This bill, an amendment to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, was reported out of the Senate in May 2016.
The RESPONSE Subcommittee is charged with developing recommendations, as appropriate, for improving emergency first responder training and resource allocation for hazardous materials incidents involving railroads after evaluating the following topics:
• The quality and application of training for local emergency first responders related to rail hazmat incidents, with a particular focus on local emergency responders and small communities near railroads.
• The effectiveness of funding levels related to training local emergency first responders for rail hazmat incidents, with a particular focus on local emergency first responders and small communities near railroads.
• The strategy for integrating commodity flow studies, mapping, rail and hazmat databases and other relevant data for local emergency first responders and increasing the rate of access to the individual responder in existing or emerging communications technology.
The subcommittee will be composed of members from various government agencies, including the Federal Railroad Administration, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and FEMA. The subcommittee will also include non-governmental members, including those from affected industries, technical experts, and emergency responder training providers.
“Rail safety is critical to the transport of goods and services through our country,” said U.S. Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.), Chairman of the Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee. “I believe the RESPONSE Act will succeed in improving the safety of our nation’s rail network.”
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/safety/us-house-passes-response-act.html
-
Litigation: Environmentalists Reject 'Exceptional' Rule Link to Ozone Suit
Dec 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are rejecting claims from EPA that its revised “exceptional events” rule – which gives states regulatory exemptions for excess air emissions released during “exceptional” events such as wildfires – is relevant to legal arguments over the merits of the agency's tougher 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).
In a Nov. 30 filing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, attorneys for the American Lung Association, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Physicians for Social Responsibility push back on agency claims that the rule is “irrelevant to the legal question raised by Industry and State Petitioners’ challenge.”
EPA had highlighted the rule's effects in a letter that argued the measure could help states with high levels of naturally-occurring or foreign-sourced ozone – known as “background” ozone – comply with the NAAQS, which EPA set at 70 parts per billion (ppb), down from the prior level of 75 ppb set in 2008.
States then countered that the exceptional events rule is inadequate to help meet the tougher ozone standards, arguing it does not go far enough, and helps to prove their point that the 2015 NAAQS is unattainable.
But the environmental petitioners say the exceptional events rule has no bearing on the merits of the ozone NAAQS. “The Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly and correctly held the Clean Air Act unambiguously directs that only health and welfare effects caused by a pollutant in the ambient air are relevant in the standard-setting process, foreclosing Industry and State Petitioners’ contrary contention that standards must reflect what is thought to be 'achievable.'”
http://insideepa.com/daily-feed/litigation-environmentalists-reject-exceptional-rule-link-ozone-suit
-
Former DOJ, EPA Officials Say Trump Likely Bound by Equity Precedents
Dec 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Former Department of Justice (DOJ) and EPA officials say President-elect Trump would have limited power to reverse the Obama administration's long-running effort to elevate the role of environmental justice (EJ) as a factor in EPA decisions, because EJ has become firmly embedded through several legal and regulatory precedents.
Those precedents will persist even if Trump were to revoke President Clinton's 1994 Executive Order (EO) 12898 that started the EJ program, and that the Obama administration in particular ramped up, according to remarks that Barry Hill -- a former director of EPA's EJ office -- gave at a Dec. 1 Environmental Law Institute (ELI) event.
“It may not be so problematic if the executive order is taken away. . . . The toothpaste is out of the tube. It's not going back in the tube,” Hill told the event “State of Environmental Justice: Obama Administration Retrospective,” in Washington, D.C. He explained that EPA's equity policies have led to precedents in rulemaking and litigation that existing federal and state environmental laws require considering EJ to some extent.
Trump does not appear to have made direct statements on EPA's equity program, but his general vow to scale back the agency's work suggests the potential for reducing -- or at least complicating -- its EJ work.
At the same ELI event, Quentin Pair, a retired DOJ attorney who has represented the department on the Federal Interagency Workgroup on Environmental Justice (IWG), added that even if Trump's appointees seek to scale back formal action on EJ, career staff will still have freedom to apply its principles.
“The next administration, they may want to cut budgets, and they may want to reduce authorities, but environmental justice is so well ensconced in the career people,” Pair said.
EPA under Obama has emphasized EJ in a host of policy decisions, most recently through the final EJ 2020 Action Agenda that sets out goals for making equity a factor in decisionmaking across all agency offices.
But Pair noted during the panel that “there is no environmental justice law” requiring it to craft such strategies, meaning Trump -- who has called for scaling back or eliminating a host of EPA programs -- could kill the agenda and other dedicated EJ actions with the stroke of a pen.
Equity Principles
“There are certainly limitations to what an executive order can do, and now we have a president-elect who has suggested that he will overrule certain executive orders,” said panel moderator Benjamin Wilson, an attorney and former member of EPA's National Environmental Justice Advisory Council.
But Wilson, Pair and Hill all noted that EPA rules and guidances that incorporate EJ principles into the implementation of environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act (CWA) have created a structure where regulators are required to consider equity to a degree regardless of directives from the EJ office such as its action agenda.
Hill said the transition from Presidents Clinton to George W. Bush emphasized the need for EJ advocates to find statutory support for equity considerations, since the Bush administration de-emphasized EJ but did not explicitly overturn EO 12898.
“That's why it was more important to look at the environmental laws that EPA administers, and to argue that environmental justice is embedded in them,” Hill said.
And they continued that court rulings have created new obligations for regulators; for instance, in response to an audience question, the speakers noted that citizen groups have challenged CWA permits for failing to protect vulnerable communities, and brought litigation over air toxics releases under the Clean Air Act.
“If we can continue to push this idea forward, there's a chance that the public health and environmental concerns in these communities can be addressed,” Hill said.
Further, Hill said rights groups have been able to use the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and similar state laws known as “little NEPAs” to require government entities to consider equity in their actions.
“In California, the community does not have to say 'environmental justice.' . . . It's how you use the 'little NEPA' to address community and environmental health concerns,” Hill said.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/former-doj-epa-officials-say-trump-likely-bound-equity-precedents
-
Former Agency Lawyer Schnare Seen as Key Figure in Trump EPA Transition
Dec 1, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves and Doug Obey
David Schnare, a staff attorney at EPA for 33 years who is now general counsel of the free-market Energy & Environment Legal Institute (EELI) and a critic of agency climate regulations, is playing a key role in President-elect Donald Trump's EPA transition team, sources say, joining with fellow climate skeptic Myron Ebell who is already emerging as a lightning rod for criticism.
Several sources say that Schnare also appears to be under consideration for an appointment at the agency, although none suggested he is a contender for EPA administrator. In contrast, many environmentalists and others have said that Ebell -- who is director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) -- is in the mix of critics of agency regulation who could be nominated to lead the Trump EPA.
One source says Schnare “likes EPA about as much as Myron does,” referring to Ebell's outspoken derision of the agency, in particular its various Clean Air Act regulations targeting climate change. Environmentalists have already launched a campaign attacking Ebell's statements and urging against any “normalization” of his policies.
A second source says any consideration of putting Schnare in a position to affect environmental policy “shows a complete untethering” of Trump transition team leadership.
However, the first source notes it is unlikely that the team has given serious thought to any EPA appointment beyond a potential administrator, which it has not yet announced. That means choices for nominations to a host of other political slots at the agency, including the head of the air office, remain undecided.
Schnare declined to confirm if he is a member of the transition team, telling Inside EPA Dec. 1 that he cannot talk “for legally enforceable reasons.” The transition team did not respond to a request for comment.
At events to debate the Trump transition earlier this week, speakers suggested that the decision to name Ebell to lead the EPA transition shows the next president will push back on climate regulations, much as he vowed to do so on the campaign trail. Schnare's role could further underscore that approach given his background.
Schnare in comments last year suggested a new administration could scrap EPA's finding that greenhouse gases endanger health and welfare -- a battle that Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, recently told ProPublica is akin to “running toward a machine gun” because “scientific support was very strong when it was issued in 2009; it has become much stronger since then.”
At a Feb. 10 American Constitution Society event -- days after the Supreme Court stayed EPA's power plant GHG rule -- Schnare asked moderator Lisa Heinzerling of Georgetown Law, who helped craft the finding as head of EPA's policy office, whether a new administration could update the science and reverse it.
Heinzerling responded that it “would be very difficult in almost every conceivable way -- procedurally, legally and substantively.”
Senior EPA Attorney
Schnare, who has a law degree and a Ph.D., left EPA in 2012 as a senior attorney.
In addition to his role at EELI, he also directs the Center for Environmental Stewardship at the free-market Thomas Jefferson Institution, which his EELI biography describes as “Virginia's premier independent public policy foundation,” and runs his own law firm, Schnare & Associates, Inc.
At EELI, Schnare strongly criticized EPA's July 25 final aircraft GHG endangerment finding but conceded that litigation over it, which requires regulating the sector's emissions, was unlikely to succeed.
He also brought unsuccessful litigation over Colorado's renewable energy law and argued to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit that it violated the dormant Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
Schnare also strongly supported a Mississippi bill in 2015 that was designed to thwart EPA's power plant GHG rule, urging lawmakers to defy what he called a costly and illegal regulation and told the state legislature in February 2015 that “This is a rule with blood on its hands” because he said the mandate would kill people in the state.
Schnare's ethics have come under fire in the past, according to a 2012 Mother Jones article over his role in litigation to recover emails from University of Virginia (UVA) climate scientist Michael Mann.
The school said it had increasing doubts about an agreement to allow Schnare and another attorney, Chris Horner, access to the records because of concerns they would not review them as disinterested legal experts but instead would use the information to advance their political mission and attack Mann.
UVA added in a court filing that Schnare had misrepresented himself by claiming that he had already left his job at EPA when the order in the case is issued in May 2012, when Schnare noted in a Sept. 29, 2012, email that he was only leaving his job the next day.
The climate views of Trump's eventual nominee for EPA chief will be critical, sources note, especially since Trump last week signaled a possible softening of his campaign rhetoric against climate policy, telling the New York Timesthat he would keep an “open mind” to the United Nations Paris Agreement. On the campaign trail he vowed to “cancel” it.
But statements from his top advisers appears to undercut Trump's recent remarks. Incoming Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said Nov. 27 that Trump's default position is that climate science is “a bunch of bunk.”
No 'Pollution Limit He Likes'
Schnare's views on climate policy mesh closely with Ebell's. During the United Nations climate talks nearly one year ago in Paris, Ebell shared some of his views during a Dec. 9, 2015 conversation, including that he -- then with CEI -- was at the talks “to expose weaknesses” of U.S. leadership on the climate talks and to argue that the agreement was “in fact a treaty” that requires Senate ratification.
“We'll have won if we convince the Congress that it's a treaty,” a step that Trump could pursue if he submits to the deal to the Senate -- where it will not win 60 votes needed for ratification -- as a way to kill it.
Ebell also said the framework of the agreement, which requires five-year reviews and ever-increasing commitments, “is just step one” of a process that will bring “many other stepsisters” if it took effect, and that President Obama was seeking to thwart the will of Congress by unilaterally pressing forward under executive authority, and seeking to obligate the Congress, the next president and the courts that the agreement “will prevail, over the view of the American people.”
Ebell's views on climate are prompting increasing criticism from environmentalists and even some Republicans.
For example, David Jenkins, president of Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship, wrote Nov. 29 in Morning Consult, “There is nothing prudent nor conservative about Ebell and his agenda. Ebell, a fervent advocate for polluters, has never met a pollution limit he likes. His life's mission seems to be opposing environmental laws and attacking any scientific conclusion that finds pollution harmful, including climate change.”
Jerry Taylor of the Niskanen Center, a free-market think tank, told a Nov. 30 Progressive Policy Institute carbon tax event in Washington, D.C., that “anything is possible” on climate under Trump given the president-elect's seemingly shifting policy positions. But he expressed skepticism that Trump will embrace action on GHGs.
“He believes he was elected by blue collar white populists from the rust belt states who don’t give a damn about climate change . . . honestly he probably is not too far off,” said Taylor. “Given that reality, you are asking him to knife his constituents. Especially on an issue that he doesn't care that much about”
Taylor acknowledged Trump's remarks to the Times on climate but cautioned, “I don’t know why we would pay more attention to that then the screaming chimpanzee we heard on the campaign trail on climate . . . where he was very explicit over and over and over again. . . . Or if you look at the people he put in charge of his transition.”
'Difficult To Predict'
Also at a Nov. 29 Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies climate change event, Roberton Williams of Resources for the Future said Trump's agenda on climate “is very difficult to predict.”
He said, “The only indication we have so far are the sort of rumors of who is going to be picked to head the EPA and what he's done in terms of picking someone to lead the EPA transition” -- which is Ebell -- and said “those early signs are not good . . . and I don’t mean not good in the sense of I disagree on policy. There are a lot of people out there who I disagree with on policy that I think would be reasonable choices for an administration that I may disagree with politically. But what you want is somebody who is going to be sort of honest, well informed, open to dialogue,” Williams said, then offered a “quick personal anecdote” about Ebell.
Williams said he attended a meeting several years ago at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) to discuss carbon taxes and that someone leaked the agenda to Ebell, who then called AEI donors to “put pressure” on them to have the organization stop hosting such discussions. “So it is not 'stop promoting a carbon tax' it is 'stop hosting discussions of a carbon tax,” Williams said. “That I find troubling” he added.
“There are a lot of people out there who are staunch conservatives who support a carbon tax or something like it. There are a lot of people who are staunch conservatives who disagree with a carbon tax. And there is something very reasonable in their positions. But those are people who are willing to have a discussion and I think trying to shut down discussion is a very bad sign. This is reading a lot into one pick of one person for transition. But nonetheless, not a great sign so far,” Williams said.
Meanwhile, the Sierra Club is seeking to call out coverage of what it calls the “normalization” of Ebell, saying in a Dec. 1 statement that he is “not a 'climate contrarian' or 'skeptic' as the media has irresponsibly taken to calling him. He's one of the single greatest threats our planet has ever faced. Simply put, Ebell doesn't believe in science. He's urged Americans to 'love climate change.' And he's poised to roll back every single environmental protection we've fought so hard to achieve.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/former-agency-lawyer-schnare-seen-key-figure-trump-epa-transition
-
Fearful of Trump, Environmentalists Call on His Children to Help Save the Planet
Dec 1, 2016 | Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin
The League of Conservation Voters called on Donald Trump’s three oldest children on Thursday to ensure that their father protects the environment, citing an open letter they and the president-elect signed in 2009 urging President Obama to act on climate change.
Thursday’s letter — which was signed by LCV President Gene Karpinski and the chair of LCV’s board of directors, Carol Browner, who served as Obama’s climate czar during his first term — highlights the extent to which environmentalists are concerned about the direction of the next administration. On Wednesday, more than 2,300 scientists, including 22 Nobel laureates, sent a letter to Trump and GOP congressional leaders urging them to respect scientific integrity once they take the helm of the executive and legislative branches in January.
Karpinski and Browner note that the four Trumps signed a letter addressed to Obama and published in the New York Times in November 2009 that cautioned, “If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.”
“Seven years later the stakes have never been higher in the global fight against climate change,” Karpinski and Browner write in Thursday’s letter.
None of Trump’s children spoke extensively about the issue of climate change during the campaign, though Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump are avid hunters. Donald Jr. told a group at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership’s meeting this summer that the campaign had “broken away from a lot of traditional conservative dogma on the issue, in that we do want federal lands to remain federal,” a position his father outlined in a Field & Stream interview nearly a year ago.
The Trump campaign could not be reached for comment Thursday.
On the question of climate change, however, the president-elect has given little indication that he will pursue the kinds of policies that LCV and other groups support. Donald Trump has vowed to boost fossil fuel production in the United States, particularly within the coal industry, and at a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire during the GOP primaries, he mocked the idea that global warming is a threat. At that event, LCV volunteer Meghan Andrade asked Trump what he would do to address the issue, to which he replied: “Let me ask you this — take it easy, fellas — how many people here believe in global warming? Do you believe in global warming?”
After asking three times “Who believes in global warming?” and soliciting a show of hands, Trump concluded that “nobody” believed climate change was underway except for Andrade.
“Well, it’s a very interesting” question, Trump said. “You believe, right? You believe?”
Referring to that incident, Karpinski and Browner write, “On Election Night, your father said he wants to be a president for all Americans. It’s pretty simple. For your children’s future and the future of all Americans, we must honor the United States commitments under the Paris agreement and reduce greenhouse gas emissions at least 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050, and we must defend the Clean Power Plan, the single largest step our nation has taken to address climate change.”
They also specifically point to some of those being considered by Trump to head key environmental agencies or to serve as top advisers — including the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Myron Ebell, former Alaska governor and GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin and former Texas Commission on Environmental Quality chair Kathleen Hartnett White — as people who “should make it nowhere near his administration. Our planet simply can’t afford to give polluters free rein to pollute our air and water and even sell off public lands.”
It is unclear how much leverage the nation’s environmental groups — including LCV, which endorsed Hillary Clinton for president before a single primary ballot was cast and spent $10 million in an effort to help her win the White House — have when it comes to Trump or his three oldest children, who serve as some of his top advisers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/01/fearful-of-trump-environmentalists-call-on-his-children-to-help-save-the-planet/?utm_term=.bbc1f0520aff
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested