Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 12/12/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Donald Trump Names Dow Chemical Co.'s Andrew Liveris to Head New Manufacturing Council
Dec 10, 2016 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
President-elect Donald Trump on Dec. 9 named Dow Chemical Co. Chairman and CEO Andrew Liveris to head his incoming administration’s new American Manufacturing Council. -
Political Drama over Who'll Run Trump's DOE
Dec 9, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender
With two Democratic senators in the running to become President-elect Donald Trump's Energy secretary, the politics surrounding the pick are complicated. -
Trump Said to Offer Cathy McMorris Rodgers Post to Head Interior
Dec 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Billy House and Jennifer A. Dlouhy
President-elect Donald Trump has asked Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the highest-ranking Republican woman in the U.S. House, to be his Interior secretary, according to two sources familiar with the matter. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Proposes First Federal Toxic Chemical Ban in Decades to Close Out 2016
Dec 10, 2016 | U.S. Pirgs
By Anna Low-Beer
Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency was granted increased authority to regulate chemicals on the market. Under an updated federal toxics law, the EPA must review 10 chemicals currently on the market for safety, and they’ve already gotten started. -
Toxics: EPA Floats Possible Nominees for TSCA Advisory Panel
Dec 9, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA is floating for public comment a list of 29 candidates it is considering as possible nominees to a new advisory committee it is establishing to review risk evaluations and methodologies under the revised Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA)... -
US NGO Calls for Manufacturing Restrictions on PBDEs
Dec 12, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The International Joint Commission (IJC) has recommended restrictions on the manufacture, use and sale of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and PBDE-containing products in the Great Lakes Basin. -
(ACC Mentioned) For DuPont and Chemours, Millions Ride on the Word ‘Among’
Dec 9, 2016 | Bloomberg
By Tiffany Kary
For DuPont Co. and its Chemours Co. spinoff, hundreds of millions of dollars hinge on the interpretation of the word “among.” -
Chemical Reform in Action: EPA Moves to Ban Solvent Used by Dry Cleaners, Consumers
Dec 12, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jack Pratt
For the first time in more than two decades, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency this week moved to outlaw specific uses of a dangerous chemical: Trichlorethylene, or TCE. The ban will protect us from a substance tied to cancer, Parkinson’s and a host of other serious health issues. -
Only Minor Changes to EPA Final Formaldehyde Emissions Rule
Dec 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A final rule limiting formaldehyde emissions from composite wood, which the Environmental Protection Agency is set to publish Dec. 12, has no substantive differences from a version of that rule the agency released in July, according to a Bloomberg BNA analysis. -
EU Endocrine Disruptor Debate Continues Ahead of Possible Vote
Dec 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Union has spent the best part of a decade debating how to better regulate chemicals with endocrine disrupting properties, but ahead of a meeting Dec. 21 that could vote on criteria to identify the substances, the bloc remains as divided as ever over the issue. -
Donald Trump, in Louisiana, Says He Will End Energy Regulations
Dec 9, 2016 | New York Times
By Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Michael D. Shear
President-elect Donald J. Trump promised on Friday that his administration would strip away “job-killing restrictions” on energy production and encourage the construction of refineries in the United States, as he campaigned for Republican candidates... -
Finally, Some Good News for Deepwater
Dec 9, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By David Hunn
The oil and gas industry likely won’t spend more on exploration next year than it did this year, according to a report released Friday by the energy research firm Wood Mackenzie. Still, thanks to lower costs and increased efficiency, the business is poised to return to profitability. -
Penn State Taking Deeper Look at Water Quality's Relation to Shale Development
Dec 9, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
A new $1 million National Science Foundation (NSF) grant is helping a cross-disciplinary team of Pennsylvania State University researchers study the possible environmental effects of Marcellus Shale development by examining methane concentrations in the state's... -
Obama Permanently Blocks Drilling on 40,000 Miles Offshore Alaska
Dec 9, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Esther Whieldon
President Barack Obama today permanently blocked oil and gas drilling in 40,300 square miles off the coast of Alaska. -
Ohio Shale Gas Production Up Again in 3Q
Dec 9, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Ohio's unconventional natural gas production continued to grow in 3Q2016, increasing by nearly 46% from the year-ago period, while low oil prices demonstrated their impact again as the state reported a decline in that production for the third consecutive quarter. -
Metrom Rail: AURA PTC System
Dec 9, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
Executives at transit agencies across the country face mounting pressure to adopt positive train control (PTC) systems to improve passenger and worker safety. However, many existing PTC solutions present serious implementation and budgetary hurdles for transit railroads. -
Transition Document Points to Major Shakeup — Sources
Dec 9, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
President-elect Donald Trump's transition team is pondering wide-scale changes at the Department of Energy and zeroing in on employees who may have helped advance the Obama administration's climate policies, according to a landing team document obtained by E&E News. -
Trump Pledges 'Open Mind' on Environment
Dec 12, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Robin Bravender
President-elect Donald Trump pledged to keep an open mind on environmental issues even as his recent environmental announcements have outraged greens. -
Trump Transition Team for Energy Department Seeks Names of Employees Involved in Climate Meetings
Dec 9, 2016 | Washington Post
By Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin
Donald Trump’s transition team has issued a list of 74 questions for the Energy Department, asking agency officials to identify which employees and contractors have worked on forging an international climate pact as well as domestic efforts to cut the nation’s carbon output. Donald Trump’s transition team has issued a list of 74 questions for the Energy Department, asking agency officials to identify which employees and contractors have worked on forging an international climate pact as well as domestic efforts to cut the nation’s carbon output. -
EPA SO2 Science Assessment Weakens Findings on Human Health Harms
Dec 9, 2016 | Stuart Parker
By Inside EPA
EPA's second draft integrated science assessment (ISA) for its review of the sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) weakens several findings of adverse health effects contained in an earlier draft in response to criticism from science advisors... -
Dismantling EPA Regulations Hurts Both Health and Economy
Dec 10, 2016 | The Hill - Contributors Blog
By Amanda D. Rodewald
This week, we learned that President-elect Donald Trump will appoint Scott Pruitt, the Republican attorney general of Oklahoma, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Pruitt is well-known for his adversarial relationship with the agency he may soon lead. -
As Al Gore Told Donald Trump . . .
Dec 10, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Holman W. Jenkins Jr.
During the decades we’ve been waiting for actual climate data to validate or invalidate our climate models (we’re still waiting), at least one phenomenon has been reliably observed. -
Obama Admin Asks Justices to Pass on WOTUS, Wetland Cases
Dec 12, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
The Obama administration urged the Supreme Court this week to decline reviews in two cases challenging the government's reach on water issues. -
N.Y. Attorney General Must Respond to Exxon in Climate Probe
Dec 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tom Korosec and Erik Larson
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman was ordered by a federal judge in Texas to respond to Exxon Mobil Corp.’s requests for information about his probe into what the company knew about the effect of climate change on its business...
Congressional Hearings - There are no relevant hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Dec 10, 2016 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
President-elect Donald Trump on Dec. 9 named Dow Chemical Co. Chairman and CEO Andrew Liveris to head his incoming administration’s new American Manufacturing Council.
At an evening rally in Grand Rapids, Mich., Trump introduced Liveris as the council’s leader and said the group would work to help revitalize manufacturing in the United States.
“They will be tasked with finding ways to bring industry back to America, industry and manufacturing back to America,” Trump said.
Trump told the crowd that Liveris would name the other members of the council next week.
Liveris said he was honored by the appointment, and announced at the rally that Dow would be building a new innovation center at its Midland, Mich., headquarters.
In a statement, Dow said the innovation center will add 100 newly created jobs while repatriating 100 jobs from other Dow facilities around the world to Midland.
Other states had courted Dow, and in May Michigan officials were worried that the company would choose to invest elsewhere.
“We chose Michigan, our home for more than 119 years because of the highly skilled workforce in the state and because we believe the incoming Presidential administration understands the importance of R&D investment and its multiplier impact on U.S. manufacturing jobs,” Liveris said in the statement.
In June, Dow said it would cut 2,500 jobs globally, or about 4 percent of its workforce, as part of its acquisition of Dow Corning.
At the rally, Liveris specifically linked the innovation center to Trump.
“Tonight, in honor of the president elect and his being here to thank you all, we’ve made a decision, we’re going to invest a new state of the art innovation center, in Michigan,” he said.
“This decision,” Liveris said, as Trump walked over the two men clasped hands, “this decision is because of this man, and these policies.”
“We’re going to use American hard work and American brains and we’re going to fight for the Dow company out of the USA,” Liveris said. “President elect Trump, I can’t tell you, I tingle with pride listening to you.”
Liveris said the council would work on pro-manufacturing policies to make it easier to invest and do business in the United States.
“Not a red tape country but a red-carpet country for American businesses,” Liveris said. “America first, as you said.”
Dow said it’s created more than 6,000 jobs in the United States in the last four years, with a “significant portion” coming from investments in the Gulf Coast, where Dow is spending more than $6 billion on new facilities.
At the rally, Trump echoed the strong themes on trade from his campaign, and told the crowd that “no state has been hurt worse by our trade deals than the state of Michigan.”
He said his administration would “withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, renegotiate NAFTA and stand up to foreign cheating and fight for every last American job and every last job that belongs in Michigan.”
Chemical industry associations, however, have defended trade deals and said “sound trade frameworks” are important to realizing the full potential of the $175 billion being invested in U.S. chemical production because of shale gas.
The Washington-based American Chemistry Council in a Nov. 9 post-election statement said “we agree that trade should be fair, and also know firsthand that trade can unlock potential in our economy and create jobs here at home.”
ACC has previously said it supports the Trans-Pacific trade pact and a new trade agreement being negotiated between the United States and Europe, and said they are important steps in its trade agenda. Liveris is a previous chairman of ACC.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20161210/NEWS/161219998/trump-names-dow-chemicals-liveris-to-head-new-manufacturing-council
-
Political Drama over Who'll Run Trump's DOE
Dec 9, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Robin Bravender
With two Democratic senators in the running to become President-elect Donald Trump's Energy secretary, the politics surrounding the pick are complicated.
Among the contenders for the job are Democratic Sens. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. A source close to the transition told E&E News earlier this week that they're both "being seriously considered" for the top DOE post. A third candidate, North Dakota Republican Rep. Kevin Cramer, met with Trump this week to discuss the DOE job.
The Senate's top Republican appears to envision a scenario playing out where Heitkamp and Cramer both get new jobs and the GOP bolsters its majority in the upper chamber.
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) met with Cramer earlier this week to discuss the prospect of him running in a special election to fill Heitkamp's seat, should she join the Trump administration, according to a source close to Cramer. That source said McConnell is encouraging Cramer to declare his candidacy early to get a jump on the race.
The moderate Democrat Heitkamp is up for re-election in 2018, and her seat in heavily Republican North Dakota is seen as a vulnerable one for Democrats. If she leaves the Senate before her term expires, a new North Dakota law would require a special election within 95 days to fill the vacancy.
Cramer — the state's lone congressman — is expected to have a decent shot at winning that seat. Trump handily won the state's electoral votes in the presidential race, and North Dakota elected a new Republican governor last month.
Heitkamp met with Trump in New York last week, and Trump's transition spokesman, Jason Miller, said then, "She comes very highly recommended, very highly qualified, is a proven leader and would be an asset in any role or capacity."
Heitkamp expressed concerns this week about Trump's nominee to lead U.S. EPA, Oklahoma Republican Attorney General Scott Pruitt. "I'm still learning about him, but I have serious concerns about his record of opposing the renewable fuel standard, which is critical for farmers and jobs across North Dakota," Heitkamp said after Pruitt's nomination was announced.
Meanwhile, Manchin is scheduled to meet with Trump in New York on Monday after their planned meeting for today was pushed back.
"I think it would be too premature to go and say that specific administration roles are being discussed with either," Trump spokesman Miller told reporters last week. "Obviously, Senators Heitkamp and Manchin are both very highly respected political leaders who have a lot to contribute to the national conversation and how we move our country forward."
Selecting Manchin for the DOE job wouldn't offer Republicans the same political benefits in the Senate.
The West Virginia Democrat is also facing a tough re-election battle in 2018. But in Manchin's case, the governor would appoint a replacement if he were to leave the Senate before his term is up. Democrat Jim Justice was just elected to take over the governorship from outgoing Democratic Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin.
Meanwhile, Cramer may be more interested in the DOE post than a Senate run, and he's gotten the endorsement of Harold Hamm, an oil tycoon and Trump energy adviser.
Hamm said last week, "Kevin's a great guy, and he'd be a perfect candidate. I've put his name forward for DOE. ... He'd be a perfect candidate for that job," he said during an interview with CNBC. "He'd certainly do a better job in that post than me" (E&E News PM, Dec. 1).
Cramer "has been having pretty close conversations with transition, and he really enjoyed his discussion with the president-elect," said the source close to Cramer. "He's loyal to the president-elect, and if he gets the opportunity to serve in the administration, I think he'd be really excited about it."
Former Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry — who has previously said he wanted to eliminate DOE — also could be picked to lead it (Greenwire, Nov. 21). The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this week that Perry is the leading contender for that job.
Trump is expected to make his decision about DOE after his Monday meeting with Manchin.
Spokespersons for McConnell and Cramer did not respond to requests for comment.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/12/09/stories/1060046982
-
Trump Said to Offer Cathy McMorris Rodgers Post to Head Interior
Dec 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Billy House and Jennifer A. Dlouhy
President-elect Donald Trump has asked Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the highest-ranking Republican woman in the U.S. House, to be his Interior secretary, according to two sources familiar with the matter.
In picking the six-term Republican from Washington state, Trump would be putting a Westerner who favors opening more areas to oil and gas development in charge of the agency that makes those decisions for 20 percent of the U.S. McMorris Rodgers, 47, has been House Republican Conference chairwoman, the fourth-ranking party leader, since 2013.
Her voting record in Congress has gained low ratings from environmental and conservation organizations, though her campaign website promotes her role helping to write bipartisan legislation passed in December to modernize the U.S. energy system, including by speeding hydropower development, which is important to her state.
She supported a provision ending the 1975 ban on the export of U.S. oil, voted to allow Indian tribes to use biomass as a stable energy source, and backed a bill rejecting an expanded definition of “navigable waters” under the Clean Water Act. She also helped write legislation on funding for wildfire disasters.
Even so, the League of Conservation Voters gave McMorris Rodgers a zero score in the group's 100-point National Environmental Scorecard reflecting votes in 2015. Her lifetime pro-environment score is 4 percent with the group, which bases its findings on lawmakers’ votes on the group's top issues including energy, global warming, public health, public lands and wildlife conservation, and spending for environmental programs. The average U.S. House score in the group's ratings for all House members was 41 percent.
Western Tradition
In picking McMorris Rodgers, Trump is following the tradition of turning to a Western politician to lead the department whose footprint is biggest in that part of the country.
Nine of the last 10 confirmed Interior secretaries hailed from Western states; the outlier was Donald Hodel of Virginia, who served as both President Ronald Reagan's Energy secretary and his Interior secretary.
The Interior Department has a broad-ranging role overseeing energy development, grazing, recreation and other activities on more than 500 million acres of land—about a fifth of the U.S. It also regulates energy development on the outer continental shelf, including offshore wind farms and drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
Trump's frequent criticism of restrictions throttling U.S. oil and gas development includes a swath of measures emerging from the Interior Department. Energy developers have criticized its handling of endangered species, recent Bureau of Land Management mandates governing oil and gas wells on public land and limits on coal mining.
He has vowed to immediately reverse a temporary ban on the sale of new federally owned coal that was imposed by Obama's Interior Department in January.
The next Interior secretary also will face oil industry pressure to open up new coastal areas for drilling, including Arctic and Atlantic waters that were excluded from the Obama administration's recently released plan for selling offshore leases from 2017 to 2022.
‘Slap in the Face’
Environmentalists bristled at the pick, though McMorris Rodgers did not earn the same fiery criticism they leveled at Trump's decision to nominate Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.
Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food and Water Watch, described the selection as “a slap in the face of science.“
“As secretary of the Interior, McMorris Rogers would be tasked with protecting and preserving our treasured national parks and public lands for the sake of future generations and our country's long-term environmental health,” Hauter said in an e-mailed statement. “Yet based on her voting record, McMorris Rogers seemingly holds a blatant disregard for our environment and the sanctity of these fragile places. She sees these lands as nothing more than a revenue source for polluting fossil fuel drillers.“
Because of her track record supporting energy development on federal lands and waters, McMorris Rodgers is like posting a “for sale” sign on our public lands, said Gene Karpinski, head of the League of Conservation Voters. “She simply should not be put in charge of stewarding America's wildlife, national parks and other majestic landscapes.“
‘Hopeful’ Vision
McMorris Rodgers is among just 22 Republican women serving in the 435-member House, and would have been the only woman in House GOP leadership in the next Congress.
She was chosen to give the Republican rebuttal to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address in 2014, winning acclaim within her party for her understated and smooth manner as she shared a “more hopeful Republican vision.“
McMorris Rodgers showed her political toughness in her first bid for the conference chairwoman's job, winning a hard-fought race against Representative Tom Price of Georgia, who has been named by Trump to Secretary of Health and Human Services.
The race came as the party was dealing with a disappointing November 2012 election and deciding on its future path. Price was the choice of those who wanted to retrench into tea party conservatism, while McMorris Rodgers presented a more moderate face. Price had been backed by Paul Ryan, then the party's 2012 vice presidential nominee and the Budget Committee chairman. At the time, she was conference vice chairwoman.
Though she won, there were bruises. The Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent watchdog, recommended that the House Ethics Committee investigate whether she improperly used official funds in the leadership race and for campaign-related activities. The committee said in March 2014 that it was reviewing the matter but didn't appoint a special investigative panel. The ethics panel hasn't formally dropped the matter.
McMorris Rodgers, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, hasn't been a major policy leader in the House, but she has been active on issues relating to research and support for disabled people.
She underscored her staunch opposition to abortion in January 2015 when she supported legislation that would have barred terminating pregnancies after the 20th week. Other Republican women helped scuttle a vote on the bill, contending its exceptions for rape and incest were too narrow. McMorris Rodgers later helped negotiate a compromise version.
Party Loyalty
Her political views place her in the mainstream of House Republicans. McMorris Rodgers has voted for the party's position more than 95 percent of the time, according to a Washington Post database.
She voted for Trump, though she also criticized him for his crude remarks about women in a 2005 video that became public during the campaign. “It is never appropriate to condone unwanted sexual advances or violence against women,’’ she said in a statement.
McMorris Rodgers was born in Oregon; her family later became fruit farmers in eastern Washington. She earned a bachelor's degree in pre-law at Pensacola Christian College in 1990 and a master's in business administration from the University of Washington.
She is married to Brian Rodgers, a retired Navy commander, and is the only lawmaker to give birth three times while in Congress. One of their children, Cole, was born in 2007 with Down syndrome.
She began her political career as an aide to a member of the Washington state House, and was appointed to his seat in 1994 when he moved to the state Senate. She served in the state House for more than a decade, including a stint as minority leader, before running for Congress.
—With assistance from Brian Nutting and Greg Giroux
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101590781&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101590781&jd=101590781
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Proposes First Federal Toxic Chemical Ban in Decades to Close Out 2016
Dec 10, 2016 | U.S. Pirgs
By Anna Low-Beer
Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency was granted increased authority to regulate chemicals on the market. Under an updated federal toxics law, the EPA must review 10 chemicals currently on the market for safety, and they’ve already gotten started.
This week, after naming the first 10 chemicals it will review, the EPA proposed the first federal toxic chemical ban in 27 years. That’s a big deal.
The chemical that’s on the chopping block? Trichloroethylene (TCE), which is used as a degreaser and a spot removal agent in dry cleaning.
TCE is “carcinogenic to humans by all routes of exposure” according to a toxicological review based on thousands of scientific studies and was also classified as a carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. In addition to its ties to cancer, the chemical also poses health risks to the central nervous system, kidney, liver, immune system, male reproductive system and developing fetuses. TCE can be inhaled or absorbed through our skin. Workers can be exposed when it is used in the dry cleaning process, and consumers can be exposed via aerosol degreasing products.
Despite health concerns, the U.S. has continued to use TCE in massive quantities — about 255 million pounds a year, and the chemical industry has continued to advocate for the chemical. In 2013, the American Chemistry Council wrote a letter to the EPA complaining about the agency’s risk assessment of TCE, and another trade association whose members manufacture TCE argued that it would be an overreach for the agency to regulate it.
TCE’s threat to human health, like many chemicals we interact with regularly, is well documented. But because of our weak federal regulatory system, thousands of chemicals on the market are untested and linked to health concerns. Armed with a new authority to regulate these chemicals, the EPA has a real chance to protect families across the country from toxic exposure.
“For the first time in a generation, we are able to restrict chemicals already in commerce that pose risks to public health and the environment” said Jim Jones, assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “I am confident that the new authority Congress has given us is exactly what we need to finally address these important issues.”
This is a great first step from the EPA; the agency followed the science and decided to protect public health. They are also set to review nine other chemicals under the same standard, including asbestos and 1,4-dioxane, both of which are linked to cancer. Asbestos is still used in construction materials, clothing and automotive parts, and 1,4-dioxane is commonly found in products we apply to our bodies like shampoo, despite ties to health problems.
We are hopeful that the EPA will continue to take bold steps to eliminate dangerous chemicals that flood our everyday products and protect hundreds of thousands of American families in the process.
http://www.uspirg.org/blogs/blog/usp/epa-proposes-first-federal-toxic-chemical-ban-decades-close-out-2016
-
Toxics: EPA Floats Possible Nominees for TSCA Advisory Panel
Dec 9, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA is floating for public comment a list of 29 candidates it is considering as possible nominees to a new advisory committee it is establishing to review risk evaluations and methodologies under the revised Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), though it is not clear whether the incoming Trump administration will seek to overhaul the panel.
“The Agency, at this time, anticipates selecting approximately fourteen members to serve on the Committee,” EPA says in a Dec. 9 Federal Register notice. The agency says it is taking comment on the list of 29 candidates for 30 days through Jan. 8.
Under the revised TSCA, EPA must within one year of the law's June 22 effective date, establish a science advisory committee on chemicals to provide independent advice and consultation with respect to the scientific and technical aspects of issues related to implementation of the reform law. The agency initially set a goal of establishing a committee by mid-December, but it appears it will not be on pace to do so.
EPA published its request for nominees on Aug. 26 and took comment through Oct. 11. According to the FR notice, EPA says it received approximately 100 nominees, and narrowed that down to its 29 candidates by considering interest and availability; absence of financial conflicts of interest; absence of appearance of a loss of impartiality; scientific expertise; and background that would contribute to diversity of scientific viewpoints on the committee, including professional experiences in government, labor, public health, public interest, animal protection, industry or other groups.
The list includes nine members that currently sit on EPA's existing chemical safety advisory committee, and is comprised of toxicology, public health, and other experts, including Holly Davies, senior toxicologist with the Washington Department of Ecology, Panos G. Georgopoulos, Ph.D., environmental and occupational health professor at Rutgers School of Public Health, Gary Ginsberg, a senior toxicologist with the Connecticut Department of Public Health, Alan Kaufman, a senior vice president of technical affairs with the Toy Industry Association, Kenneth Portier, vice president of American Cancer Society's statistics and evaluation center, and others.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/toxics-epa-floats-possible-nominees-tsca-advisory-panel
-
US NGO Calls for Manufacturing Restrictions on PBDEs
Dec 12, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The International Joint Commission (IJC) has recommended restrictions on the manufacture, use and sale of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and PBDE-containing products in the Great Lakes Basin.
The US-based NGO's recommendations come as part of a larger report based on the work of the Great Lakes Water Quality Board. This NGO advises the IJC on the progress of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the Canadian and US governments.
"It will take sustained efforts from governments, industry and citizens to rid the lakes of these substances," said Lana Pollack, chair of the IJC's US Section.
"To keep these toxins out of the lakes and protect human health we have to control the full lifecycle of these products, from initial design to final disposal."
PBDEs were once widely used as a flame retardant in commercial and consumer products, such as electronic devices, appliances and carpets. However, many governments have already banned, or are phasing out, their use. Exposure to PBDEs has been linked to a number of adverse health effects including thyroid hormone disruption, permanent learning and memory impairment, behavioural changes, hearing deficits and possibly cancer.
The ICJ report recommends federal, state and provincial governments:
· develop and implement a binational strategy to reduce PBDEs in the Great Lakes before the end of 2017;
· guide industry on methods to assess PBDE substitutes and encourage the use of alternative methods;
· increase PBDE monitoring in the environment to assess the effectiveness of the policies; and
· develop a plan to reduce and eliminate potential releases of PBDEs in products during the recycling and disposal stages.
The US and Canadian governments designated PBDEs as a chemical of mutual concern (CMC) in May under Annex 3 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
In a binational progress report, issued in September, the governments said they are working to develop joint strategies for addressing CMCs. This may include research, monitoring, surveillance and pollution prevention and control actions.
Binational strategies for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and the flame retardant hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) are the first scheduled for development. Subsequent strategies will take into account lessons learned.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51591/us-ngo-calls-for-manufacturing-restrictions-on-pbdes
-
(ACC Mentioned) For DuPont and Chemours, Millions Ride on the Word ‘Among’
Dec 9, 2016 | Bloomberg
By Tiffany Kary
For DuPont Co. and its Chemours Co. spinoff, hundreds of millions of dollars hinge on the interpretation of the word “among.”
A Cincinnati appeals court heard arguments Friday that will affect the fate of thousands of lawsuits by people who drank water contaminated with a Teflon ingredient called C-8, or PFOA, from DuPont’s Parkersburg, West Virginia, plant.
Other companies exposed to consumer lawsuits also have millions riding on the verdict, industry groups say.
The appeal could be a critical turning point in a legal battle that has already stretched on for 15 years. DuPont is seeking to re-open a dispute that both sides thought was resolved by a 2004 settlement. The pact created a science panel to study 80,000 residents and set parameters for who could sue DuPont and for what ailments -- kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, hypercholesterolemia, and pregnancy-induced hypertension.
But the agreement was where “among” became contentious. The pact allowed those diseases because it found a “probable link” with C-8. It defined probable link as “it is more likely than not that there is a link between exposure to C-8 and a particular human disease among class members.” That wording has become the focus of the current appeal, in which DuPont says a lower court’s “idiosyncratic” interpretation of the “among” in that phrase improperly barred it from making arguments to a jury about the dosage levels of some individuals allowed to sue under the settlement.
As a result, DuPont says the appeals court should overturn a jury’s $1.6 million verdict in favor of a woman with kidney cancer, the first of 3,500 similar suits to go to trial.Plain English
Lawyers for the woman, Carla Marie Bartlett, say the agreement was written in plain English, which the judge properly enforced, and that if DuPont succeeds, it will render the 2004 settlement meaningless, setting the clock back to 2001 for Bartlett and the thousands of others suing.
“DuPont hasn’t conceded that C-8 at any level causes disease,” John Nalbandian, a lawyer for Bartlett, told the court Friday. “They don’t believe it causes anything. They don’t want to say C-8 is capable of causing these diseases, even though that is what they agreed to in the settlement.”
DuPont countered that Bartlett’s lawyers characterized the study in a way that confused the jury.
“The science panel report became the Wizard of Oz,” said Pierre Bergeron, an attorney for DuPont. “All powerful but no one can peek behind the curtain.” At Stake
At stake is whether DuPont is likely to settle the 3,500 cases, and for how much, with hundreds of millions of dollars in the balance, said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Brandon Barnes. DuPont spun off Chemours in 2015 and assigned the new chemical company responsibility for covering damages from such lawsuits. Chemours has since indicated it might not.
Chemours shares fell 3.6 percent at 1:50 p.m. in New York.
Thomas Claps, a litigation analyst at Susquehanna Financial Group, said in a research note just after the hearing that he expects DuPont will lose given the appeals judges’ skepticism. “Further, we believe that the parties will reach a global settlement” of the remaining cases in the next six to eight months for a “base case” of $550 million, with Chemours ultimately paying less than that.
Also at issue is the fate of other companies subjected to similar lawsuits. Three trade groups -- the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American Chemistry Council and American Tort Reform Association -- argued in court filings that more companies would like to use the novel structure in the 2004 settlement, but won’t if the precedent set in the Bartlett case is allowed to stand.
“The district court’s error has severe consequences for businesses that find themselves frequent litigants in toxic-tort cases,” the groups said, citing estimates that Merck & Co. spent $1 million a day litigating Vioxx suits, and that 61 cents of every dollar in asbestos litigation goes to costs other than payouts to plaintiffs.Leach Agreement
The science panel’s finding meant that DuPont was permanently freed from all suits but the 3,500. The judge Friday said the company may lose that benefit if it won the appeal. “What is to keep the other 75,000 people who were excluded from the class as a result of the science panel from suing you based on another epidemiological study?” the judge asked.
The 2004 settlement, called the “Leach Agreement” after a plaintiff in the original 2001 lawsuit, spurred eight years of studies of blood samples and health records of 70,000 people in West Virginia and Ohio exposed to C-8.
Unlike most toxic tort cases, where epidemiologists try to determine how much of a chemical it might take to cause diseases, the science panel looked at which diseases were prevalent in an already defined group. Their study would establish whether there was a “probable link” between the chemical and about 40 health problems.
If one was found, people with the disease could sue DuPont, which agreed that it wouldn’t contest whether C-8 was capable of causing the linked disease. Its only defense at trial would be whether exposure had caused a disease in a specific individual.Six Ailments
In November 2012, the panel announced the six ailments that would make sufferers eligible for litigation with DuPont.
Three years later, Bartlett’s case went to trial. Dupont argued that her obesity had caused her cancer, not C-8, because her exposure was too low. Her lawyers said that DuPont’s promise in the Leach Agreement meant it shouldn’t be able to argue that amount of C-8 exposure matter.
DuPont says that “among” means it should be allowed to argue that some of the plaintiffs didn’t have enough exposure to the chemical to cause disease. If the plaintiffs had wanted it otherwise, they should have used the words “in every individual class member,” DuPont said.Dosage Levels
Bartlett’s lawyers argued that the entire point of the agreement was to exclude arguments about dosage levels by setting a baseline exposure as a prerequisite.
The judge sided with Bartlett. Now DuPont seeks to make the argument again at the appeals level.
DuPont is also asking the appeals court to find that the lower court erred in finding that Ohio’s 2004 tort reform law that capped damages at $250,000 didn’t apply. The lower court found it didn’t because plaintiffs had incurred the alleged injuries before then. But DuPont said it should apply because they didn’t file their actual claims until later.
The appeal is Carla Marie Bartlett et al v. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, 16-3310, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The case on appeal is In re Du Pont de Nemours and Company C-8 Personal Injury Litigation, 13-md-2433, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio (Columbus).
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-09/for-dupont-and-chemours-millions-are-riding-on-the-word-among
-
Chemical Reform in Action: EPA Moves to Ban Solvent Used by Dry Cleaners, Consumers
Dec 12, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jack Pratt
For the first time in more than two decades, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency this week moved to outlaw specific uses of a dangerous chemical: Trichlorethylene, or TCE. The ban will protect us from a substance tied to cancer, Parkinson’s and a host of other serious health issues.
The little-noticed announcement was the first such action the EPA took since Congress passed bi-partisan chemical safety legislation that President Obama signed into law in June.
TCE is not a household name, but your dry cleaner may use it to get grease stains out of your shirt or pants. It’s also used by consumers who clean auto parts, bikes, guns and other items requiring them to get tough on grease.
Products containing this hazardous chemical are available at your local mega-store or online shopping sites. Somewhat incredibly, at least one brand advertises its version as “low toxicity.”
Concerns about TCE have been known for a long time, and most uses have been banned in Europe.
Yet, the EPA was long hobbled by America’s badly broken chemical safety law until it was reformed this summer. The new law allows the agency to finally move ahead and restrict toxic chemicals such as TCE.
Too many dangerous chemicals remain in use, however, which is why it’s critical the EPA keeps up the pace. My colleague and our chemical expert Jennifer McPartland explains what’s at stake on our EDF Health blog.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2016/12/09/chemical-reform-action-epa-moves-ban-solvent-used-dry-cleaners-consumers
-
Only Minor Changes to EPA Final Formaldehyde Emissions Rule
Dec 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A final rule limiting formaldehyde emissions from composite wood, which the Environmental Protection Agency is set to publish Dec. 12, has no substantive differences from a version of that rule the agency released in July, according to a Bloomberg BNA analysis.
Using a computer-enabled search, Bloomberg BNA identified more than 2,000 style changes, primarily different fonts being used for the version of the rule scheduled for publication in the Federal Register, compared to the prepublication version the agency released July 27. Bloomberg BNA also found several dozen minor changes, such as updated references to standards issued by the American National Standards Institute.
The four-month delay between the agency's prepublication version of the rule and the Federal Register notice had prompted concerns the agency might have changed substantive provisions of the regulation.
The final rule (RIN:2070-AJ44) limits formaldehyde emissions from hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard, particleboard and finished goods, such as kitchen cabinets, that could be made from these composite wood products. Composite wood manufacturers have a year to comply with the emissions limits, which mirror similar requirements already set by California's Air Resources Board.
The rule limits emissions from some laminated products, and it opens the door to expanding the list of laminated products that would be exempt from the requirements. Laminators have until Dec. 12, 2023, to comply, the EPA said, adding the agency recognizes it could take “considerable time” to find suitable replacement resins.
The rule also requires supply chain communication and establishes a third-party certification program to evaluate compliance with the regulation's emission standards.
Law Mandating Rule Passed After Katrina
Formaldehyde is used in the resins that play a critical role in making composite wood products.
Congress required the EPA to set emission limits for formaldehyde limits through the 2010 Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act (Pub. L. No. 111-199). The law came in response to thousands of families displaced by Hurricane Katrina, which hit the Gulf Coast in 2005, having to live in trailers that released high levels of formaldehyde.
Formaldehyde can irritate the skin, eyes, nose, and throat. High levels of exposure may cause some types of cancers.
A nationwide outcry to limit formaldehyde emissions arose again in 2015 following a “60 Minutes” report that alleged Lumber Liquidators Inc.'s China-made laminated wood flooring exceeded California's limits. In March, Lumber Liquidators agreed to pay $2.5 million as part of an administrative settlement with the California Air Resources Board.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101590766&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101590766&jd=101590766
-
EU Endocrine Disruptor Debate Continues Ahead of Possible Vote
Dec 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
The European Union has spent the best part of a decade debating how to better regulate chemicals with endocrine disrupting properties, but ahead of a meeting Dec. 21 that could vote on criteria to identify the substances, the bloc remains as divided as ever over the issue.
Endocrine disruptors are substances that could interfere with the hormone systems of living organisms, potentially disrupting reproduction and raising the risk of cancer. The EU adopted laws in 2009 and 2012 that required criteria to be drawn up to identify endocrine disruptors so that they could be banned from pesticides and biocidal products, respectively.
After delays and a case at the Court of Justice of the European Union, which found the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, in breach of EU law for missing deadlines for publication of the criteria, proposed criteria were published in June.
According to the commission's proposal, substances should be considered endocrine disruptors for regulatory purposes if they have “an endocrine mode of action” that is causally linked to “an adverse effect relevant for human health.”
The proposed definition is based on a World Health Organization standard that defines an endocrine disruptor as “an exogenous substance or mixture that alters function(s) of the endocrine system and consequently causes adverse health effects.”
Environmental groups have criticized the proposed EU criteria on the basis that they would require a link to be proved between the endocrine disrupting properties of a substance and negative health effects, which could lead to some endocrine disruptors still being approved for use.
Vote Uncertainty
Under EU procedural rules, the commission could adopt the definition for pesticides if it secures the approval of the EU Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, a panel made up of delegates sent by the governments of the EU's 28 countries.
For biocides, a slightly less bureaucratic procedure applies, under which the commission can adopt the criteria after the committee has given a nonbinding opinion.
The committee will meet Dec. 21 and could vote on the criteria for pesticides, though it is far from certain the vote will go ahead.
Graeme Taylor, public affairs director of the European Crop Protection Association, which represents pesticides manufacturers, told Bloomberg BNA Dec. 9 that EU countries were split on the issue and “depending on the mood they have in the room” on Dec. 21, “they may or may not take a vote.”
A number of countries believe that agreement on the criteria is too important to be decided by a regulatory committee. After a meeting of EU environment ministers in October, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden said in a statement that the issue of endocrine disruptors was “at the heart of public and political interest,” and the criteria should be agreed at ministerial level.
Hans Muilerman, chemicals coordinator for advocacy group the Pesticides Action Network Europe, told Bloomberg BNA Dec. 9 that if regulatory committee members see Dec. 21 “that they have no chance of getting a qualified majority vote,” the issue could ultimately be referred to ministers.
Hazard Versus Risk
The basic divide over endocrine disruptors is whether they should be judged on the basis of their intrinsic hazards, or whether they should continue to be approved based on the adequate management of their risks.
The balance of hazards and risks in the criteria could determine the number of substances banned from EU approval as pesticides or biocides.
The commission has made some modifications to the proposed criteria since they were published in June, but, the draft criteria for pesticides still represents “primarily a hazard-based proposal,” Taylor said.
This, and the subsequent disqualification of pesticides, could have a “very significant impact” on pesticide approvals, which would undermine EU agricultural productivity, he said.
The statement that Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden issued in October and some other countries support, however, said substances should be considered endocrine disruptors if, in line with the pesticides and biocides laws, they “may cause adverse effects in humans.”
“This includes both substances that lead to and are presumed to lead to adverse effects due to endocrine disruption,” the countries’ statement said.
International Concerns
Ahead of the Dec. 21 meeting, the subject of endocrine disruptors will be raised at a Dec. 19 meeting of EU environment ministers, though this will be part of a broader debate on “the sound management of chemicals,” a Council of the EU official who asked not to be named told Bloomberg BNA Dec. 9. The council is the EU institution in which EU national governments meet.
Environment ministers Dec. 19 would issue guidelines on the broader issue of chemicals management, which would “cover, among other issues, the endocrine disruptors,” the council official said.
Discussions on the proposed criteria also have been complicated by non-EU countries raising issues via the notification mechanism of the World Trade Organization's Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement. Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, India and the U.S. have filed comments on the criteria in respect of biocides and pesticides approvals.
In a notification published in August, the U.S. criticized the criteria for identification of endocrine disrupting pesticides on several grounds and even raised the issue of whether “a policy change to establish definitive criteria to identify endocrine disruptors is required.”
In its filing, the U.S. government said, “A hazard-based approach raises significant questions with respect to the soundness of the EU's approach, and raises questions under its international obligations.”
First Criteria Worldwide
European Commission environment spokesman Enrico Brivio told Bloomberg BNA Dec. 9 that the proposed criteria were “based on science,” and the EU regulatory system was “the first worldwide to define such scientific criteria in legislation.”
Although it is unclear if a vote will take place Dec. 21, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) have been tasked with producing guidance on implementing the criteria “so that they can be applied immediately when they enter into force,” Brivio said. The guidance could be available by mid-2017.
There is “wide consensus” on the WHO definition of an endocrine disruptor, on which the proposed EU criteria are based, Brivio added.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101590770&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101590770&jd=101590770
-
Donald Trump, in Louisiana, Says He Will End Energy Regulations
Dec 9, 2016 | New York Times
By Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Michael D. Shear
President-elect Donald J. Trump promised on Friday that his administration would strip away “job-killing restrictions” on energy production and encourage the construction of refineries in the United States, as he campaigned for Republican candidates in a state heavily dependent on the oil and gas industry.
“We will cancel the job-killing restrictions on the production of American energy,” Mr. Trump said in an airplane hangar in Baton Rouge, the day before Louisiana voters go to the polls to vote for Senate and House candidates. “We haven’t had refineries built in decades, right? We’re going to have refineries built again.”
His comments came a day after he had announced his selection of ScottPruitt, Oklahoma’s attorney general, as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Pruitt is a staunch ally of the energy industry who has teamed up with companies to undercut the Obama administration’s climate regulations.
Mr. Trump pledged to enact a “massive” tax cut for the middle class, roll back Obama-era regulations, pass a $1 trillion infrastructure program and build a wall on the southern border to prioritize American people and jobs.
“We’re going to rebuild our country with American hands by American workers,” Mr. Trump said, adding that his administration would be guided by “two simple rules: Buy American, and hire American.”
“Our country is being drained — drained of jobs,” Mr. Trump said.
He also suggested that he would make broader cultural changes, arguing that desecrating the American flag should be outlawed or bring a penalty.
“I think it’s a disgrace, O.K.?” Mr. Trump said of burning or stamping on the United States flag. “I’m a big believer in free speech, but maybe we’re going to be putting something in” to address the issue, he said. “I think we’re going to have to do something about that.”
The Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that flag burning was a form of free speech protected under the First Amendment.
Mr. Trump, who has been traveling the country on a thank-you tour reliving his victory on election night, took time to gloat over his onetime critics in the Republican Party.
“Remember the ‘never Trumpers’? They’re on a respirator right now, they’re gasping for air,” Mr. Trump said. “Some of them are saying, ‘I’d only vote for Trump — I love this guy.’ ”
Mr. Trump, who often encouraged supporters’ angry chants during the campaign, tried to quiet booing at his mention of President Obama on Friday.
“President Obama, who, by the way, I’ve gotten along with so well,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to jeer. “No, no, no, he’s really doing great. He’s been so nice.”
It was the second appearance in a row at which Mr. Trump appeared to attempt to calm, rather than rile up, his audience, a departure from his behavior during the race. In Des Moines on Thursday night, as supporters booed and hissed at protesters who had unfurled a banner and were shouting about the Ku Klux Klan and fascism, Mr. Trump said it was “all right” and quickly moved on with his speech.
In Michigan, several hours after he spoke in Louisiana, Mr. Trump once again relived election night, offering thousands of boisterous fans who filled an arena in Grand Rapids a long soliloquy on his electoral victory.
The president-elect formally introduced Betsy DeVos, his nominee for education secretary, who is from Michigan. Ms. DeVos vowed to listen to parents and students, saying that if she is confirmed, she will “make education great again.”
He also brought Andrew N. Liveris, the chief executive officer of the Dow Chemical Company, to the stage to announce an investment that Mr. Trump said would bring 700 new jobs to Michigan. Mr. Liveris will serve as the head of Mr. Trump’s manufacturing council, the president-elect said.
But Mr. Trump spent just a fraction of his hourlong speech on his policy agenda. He listed his campaign promises, including school choice, fairer trade, reduced regulations, a border wall, fewer restrictions on drilling, lower taxes and a promise to create “millions and millions of great paying jobs.”
Mr. Trump got some of his biggest cheers when he wished the crowd a merry Christmas, then mocked department stores that he said refuse to write those words on their walls. “We’re going to start saying ‘merry Christmas’ again,” he said.
But for most of the time, he walked the crowd through a minute-by-minute retelling of how he watched the returns come in on election night. He said his children had all-but written him off after exit polls showed Hillary Clinton ahead.
“All of a sudden, ‘Breaking news: Donald Trump has won the state of Florida,” he bellowed. “Then we went right up that coastline.”
Mr. Trump was interrupted repeatedly by protesters, who were ushered out of the arena by security officials. Each time, the crowd chanted “U.S.A., U.S.A.” and at one point, Mr. Trump ordered: “Get them out of here!” prompting more cheers from the crowd.
“Where do these people come from?” the president-elect asked the crowd.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/politics/donald-trump-in-louisiana-says-he-will-end-energy-regulations.html?_r=0
-
Finally, Some Good News for Deepwater
Dec 9, 2016 | Fuel Fix
By David Hunn
The oil and gas industry likely won’t spend more on exploration next year than it did this year, according to a report released Friday by the energy research firm Wood Mackenzie. Still, thanks to lower costs and increased efficiency, the business is poised to return to profitability.
The two-year oil price downturn has transformed the industry, the report says, making it smaller and companies leaner.
Exploration investment next year may not crest this year’s $40 billion, and may fall further. The number of wells drilled will likely stagnate. Layoffs, however, are now mainly in the past, WoodMac said.
The major oil companies — Exxon, Chevron, and others — and a few “bolder” independent oil producers will drill “most of the wells to watch,” WoodMac said. The best discoveries will come from new frontiers, despite many companies’ recent emphasis on existing oilfields.
More than half of the year’s oil and gas production will come from deep water, Andrew Latham, the firm’s vice president of exploration, said in a statement. Well costs may fall under $30 million, making drilling economical even if oil stays at roughly $50 per barrel.
“The industry is focusing on acreage capture and re-loading for the longer term,” Latham said.
Companies will look for under-supplied markets in 2017, the report says, and avoid “over-supplied” Liquified Natural Gas projects and high-cost frontiers, such as offshore Arctic.
Conventional exploration by the major oil companies improved to nearly 10 percent last year, WoodMac said. “The rest of the industry is heading in the same direction,” Latham said. “Fewer, better wells promise a brighter future for explorers.”
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/12/09/finally-some-good-news-for-deepwater/
-
Penn State Taking Deeper Look at Water Quality's Relation to Shale Development
Dec 9, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
A new $1 million National Science Foundation (NSF) grant is helping a cross-disciplinary team of Pennsylvania State University researchers study the possible environmental effects of Marcellus Shale development by examining methane concentrations in the state's private water wells, rivers and streams.
Geoscientists from the university have long studied methane concentrations near shale gas drilling sites, putting together large datasets from samples taken by researchers and government agencies, among others. The College of Information Sciences Technology is using data-mining techniques and developing computer models to look at those concentrations and see how they relate to other factors such as distance from unconventional wells and faults.
While methane occurs naturally in waterways, the research will give a better indication of how those concentrations occur and why. The computer models and data-mining techniques are being used to analyze where methane concentrations are higher than they're expected to be near natural sources like faults. Geoscientists can focus on those hot spot areas once they've been identified.
The researchers believe their work could help inform how unconventional development, older wells and orphaned and abandoned wells affect the environment. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and others have said there are likely hundreds of thousands of plugged and unplugged abandoned wells that could be leaking in the state.
The NSF's Interdisciplinary Research and Education program provided funding, while the U.S. Geological Survey and the DEP provided additional data for the project.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108688-penn-state-taking-deeper-look-at-water-qualitys-relation-to-shale-development
-
Obama Permanently Blocks Drilling on 40,000 Miles Offshore Alaska
Dec 9, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Esther Whieldon
President Barack Obama today permanently blocked oil and gas drilling in 40,300 square miles off the coast of Alaska.
In an executive order, Obama invoked largely untested presidential authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to permanently block offshore drilling in the Northern Bering Sea, specifically the Norton Basin planning area and portions of the St. Mathew-Hall planning areas.
In November, Interior issued its road map for offshore oil and gas drilling and removed two other offshore parcels in the Arctic from lease sales planned for the next five years.
"This withdrawal furthers the principles of responsible public stewardship entrusted to this office and takes due consideration of the importance of the withdrawn area to Alaska Native tribes, wildlife, and wildlife habitat, and the need for regional resiliency in the face of climate change," the executive order said.
Environmentalists have been pushing the president to permanently ban drilling in the waters of the Arctic and Atlantic before he leaves office. They argue that permanent protections are available using section 12(a) of the OCSLA. Similar to the Antiquities Act, which presidents can use to create national monuments to permanently protect parcels of land from development, Section 12(a) does not include language that allows future presidents to undo the withdrawal of offshore areas from future leasing.
The announcement largely matches a proposal sent to the White House by the Association of Village Council Presidents, Kawerak Inc. and the Bering Sea Elders Group, according to the Alaska Dispatch News.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Ohio Shale Gas Production Up Again in 3Q
Dec 9, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Ohio's unconventional natural gas production continued to grow in 3Q2016, increasing by nearly 46% from the year-ago period, while low oil prices demonstrated their impact again as the state reported a decline in that production for the third consecutive quarter.
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) said the state's horizontal shale wells produced nearly 360.7 Bcf of natural gas in the third quarter, up from the 247.5 Bcf reported in the year-ago period and the 334.3 Bcf reported in 2Q2016. Shale oil production dropped 34% year/year to about 4 million bbl. That's down from 5.7 million bbl in 3Q2015 and 4.8 million bbl in the second quarter.
Sustained low oil prices and the downward pressure they've put on natural gas liquids (NGL) forced many of the Utica Shale's leading operators to shift almost entirely to dry gasearlier this year, where more prolific wells and lower breakeven prices have helped them weather the commodities downturn.
ODNR said the third quarter report lists 1,492 horizontal shale wells, of which 1,464 reported oil and gas production. The average amount of oil produced during the quarter was 2,701 bbl, while the average amount of natural gas produced was 246.4 MMcf. The average number of third quarter days in production was 85. State law does not require the separate reporting of NGLs and condensate, those are included in oil and gas totals.
ODNR's latest data shows 2,319 Utica wells have been permitted and 1,860 have been drilled. In the Marcellus, 44 wells have been permitted and 29 have been drilled.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108691-ohio-shale-gas-production-up-again-in-3q
-
Dec 9, 2016 | Progressive Railroading
Executives at transit agencies across the country face mounting pressure to adopt positive train control (PTC) systems to improve passenger and worker safety. However, many existing PTC solutions present serious implementation and budgetary hurdles for transit railroads.
In response to these challenges, Metrom Rail, a developer and integrator of rail safety technology, has released a new, modular and cost-effective PTC solution that can be implemented without significant impact on train throughput.
Designed for transit lines that don't share track with freight trains, the AURA Positive Train Control System provides collision avoidance, speed and signal compliance, precision berthing, and worker protection in above and underground environments. Its modular design ensures seamless integration with new and existing transit-rail systems. Further, it utilizes wireless sensor systems that do not require centralized back-office operations.
"PTC technology is vital to improving the safety of passenger rail," said Jim Marchi, co-founder and chief executive officer of Metrom Rail. "Unfortunately, many of the solutions available today require extensive infrastructure overhauls and significant spending. Further, they often take many years to fully implement, which delays needed safety improvements. AURA utilizes the most advanced technology to solve these critical safety challenges for transit agencies."
A timely update to train safety technology
The AURA PTC System offers ease of installation. It also ensures signal compliance, speed limit adherence, separation enforcement and position monitoring by sounding a warning if a train operator violates operation rules. If, in response, the operator takes no action, the AURA system will decelerate or stop the train.
Additionally, the AURA system comes equipped with a data recorder to enable transit agencies to monitor train and operator activity and performance.
"As technology innovators with experience in aerospace and health care, Jim and I have developed a knack for questioning the status quo and developing alternatives to legacy systems," said Rick Carlson, co-founder and chief operating officer of Metrom Rail. "After helping a majority of the Class I freight railroads for the past four years, we are excited to bring transit agencies a more practical solution to enhance efficiency and improve safety."
The full AURA System includes stand-alone collision avoidance and worker protection products in addition to the comprehensive PTC solution. All Metrom Rail solutions are developed in-house and can be easily customized to address the specific needs and requirements of transit agencies, company officials said.http://www.progressiverailroading.com/rail_product_news/details/Metrom-Rail-AURA-PTC-system--50274
-
Transition Document Points to Major Shakeup — Sources
Dec 9, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
This story was updated at 4:28 p.m. EST.
President-elect Donald Trump's transition team is pondering wide-scale changes at the Department of Energy and zeroing in on employees who may have helped advance the Obama administration's climate policies, according to a landing team document obtained by E&E News.
Trump advisers, according to a list of 74 draft questions being circulated by the transition team at DOE, are peppering the agency with questions about the nation's multibillion-dollar loan guarantee program, the validity of work at the U.S. Energy Information Administration and which programs are critical to the president's climate agenda.
Advisers also appear to be researching which employees or contractors attended any of the Conference of the Parties under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change or interagency working group meetings on the "social cost of carbon."
One career staffer who asked not to be named said the questionnaire looked like a "hit list" and called the focus on past attendance at specific meetings troubling.
"It makes me incredibly uncomfortable and concerned," the staffer said. "There are some questions about staff that seem completely unnecessary — like asking only for staff that have attended meetings [when there are] not even registration lists."
DOE officials would not comment on the document, but two sources close to the transition effort said the questionnaire is authentic.
At least 15 of the questions within the form are dedicated to EIA, the agency's statistical arm known for generating its web of energy data into short- and long-term predictions of how markets will move. "EIA is an independent agency in DOE. How has EIA ensured its independence in your data and analysis over the past 8 years?" advisers asked in the document. "In what instances do you think EIA's independence was most challenged?"
The staffer said the transition team's questioning of EIA was worrisome. EIA is "incredibly independent and most often are pretty reserved in their analysis, but take up a huge portion of the questions," the source said.
While in draft form, the questionnaire hints at Trump's plans for the Department of Energy, including downsizing, reviving the long-stalled Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, finding ways to keep at-risk nuclear reactors operating and shelving programs aimed at bolstering renewable energy research.
With 158 political appointees, the agency oversees the nation's sprawling labs, the nuclear arsenal, and more than 13,000 employees and contractors.
Energy insiders trying to read the tea leaves have pointed out the transition effort is being led by Institute for Energy Research President Thomas Pyle, who in the past has called for scrapping the loan guarantee program and offices within DOE to save money (E&ENews PM, Dec. 2).
Trump advisers also asked whether there are any statutory restrictions to reviving Yucca Mountain, a position possibly fueled by Jack Spencer of the Heritage Foundation, who is also on the transition team (Greenwire, Dec. 6).
Reports about the transition document prompted an immediate response from Democrats in the House and Senate and green groups.
Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts in a letter to Trump said any attempt to demote, sideline, terminate or otherwise discriminate against federal civil servants for attending climate-related meetings would violate federal law that protects employees against "such wrongful acts of retaliation." The Office of Personnel Management, he added, sets clear guidelines on employment decisions regarding federal employees.
Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, issued a statement denouncing the questionnaire, calling the effort a "witch hunt and a loyalty test" rolled into one. "This environmental McCarthyism is dangerous and should not be tolerated," Pallone said. "The transition team should reconsider these apparent attempts to intimidate Energy Department employees who were simply working to fulfill the climate objectives of the Obama administration."
Sierra Club Global Climate Policy Director John Coequyt echoed that sentiment. "It looks like Trump and his administration are planning a political witch hunt which has no place in American government: purging or marginalizing anyone who has worked on the issue of climate change," Coequyt said in a statement. "And that's at the same time they are looking for ways to eliminate the very scientific infrastructure we need to monitor changes to our planet and its climate."
The Nuclear Energy Institute also weighed in about the importance of federal involvement to stave off plant closures. The industry has seen a string of premature closures in recent years as operators struggle with cheap gas, low demand and rising costs. The Trump team questioned what could be done to save the plants.
The industry group appeared to spotlight a statement in the transition team's question about what could be done to prevent premature closure of U.S. reactors.
While state solutions for at-risk plants are cropping up in New York and Illinois, the lobbying group said those are only a "bridging strategy" to larger fixes that are needed. "For the long-term well-being of our nation, nuclear energy must be recognized as an essential part of America's industrial and electrical infrastructure," NEI's chief operating officer, Maria Korsnick, said in a statement.
The team is also seeking information on what mechanisms exist to help national laboratories commercialize their scientific and technological prowess.
One source close to the transition effort said Trump's team is meeting with leaders from all 17 national labs Wednesday.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/12/09/stories/1060046977
-
Trump Pledges 'Open Mind' on Environment
Dec 12, 2016 | E&E Daily
By Robin Bravender
President-elect Donald Trump pledged to keep an open mind on environmental issues even as his recent environmental announcements have outraged greens.
Asked in a "Fox News Sunday" interview that aired yesterday about the environment, Trump said, "I'm still open-minded. Nobody really knows." Trump added that he's "somebody that gets it. And nobody really knows. It's not something that's so hard and fast."
Trump has recently met with climate change activists Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, giving environmentalists reason to believe Trump might change his tone after his campaign-trail rhetoric gave them cause for concern.
But Trump has also named a top foe of U.S. EPA climate policies to lead the agency — Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) — and pledged support for pipeline projects staunchly opposed by environmentalists.
Trump said his Cabinet picks at EPA and other agencies aren't a sign that he wants to demolish the Obama administration's legacy.
"No, no. No, I don't want to do that at all," Trump said. "I just want what's right. EPA, you can't get things approved. People are waiting in line for 15 years before they get rejected, OK? ... So, we're going to clean it up. We're going to speed it up. And, by the way, if somebody is not doing the right thing, we're not going to approve."Paris deal, Dakota Access, KXL
Trump said he's "studying" the Paris climate deal but plans to act quickly on that as well as the hot-button Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines.
On the Paris deal, Trump said, "I don't want that agreement to put us at a competitive disadvantage with other countries. As you know, there are different times and different time limits on that agreement. I don't want that to give China or other countries signing agreements an advantage over us."
He declined to offer specifics on Dakota Access — a project stalled by the Obama administration amid protests.
He said, "Perhaps that'll be solved by the time I get there, so I don't have to create enemies on one side or the other. But I will tell you when I get to office, if it's not solved, I'll have it solved very quickly."
Trump added of the pipeline, "I think it's very unfair. So it'll start one way or the other."
Trump spokesman Jason Miller told reporters last week, "With regard to the Dakota Access pipeline, that's something that we support construction of and will review the full situation when we're in the White House to make the appropriate determination at that time" (Greenwire, Dec. 5).
On Keystone XL, Trump said, "You're going to have a decision fairly quickly. And you'll see that." The incoming Trump administration is widely expected to reverse the Obama administration's decision rejecting the project's permit application.Biden slams Pruitt pick
Vice President Joe Biden criticized Trump's pick for EPA administrator yesterday during his appearance on CNN's "State of the Union."
"My general rule is, the president gets to choose who he wants or she wants for their Cabinet members, unless either they are taking over the job with the express purpose of not enforcing the law in that area, like, for example, the new guy — I don't know him at all — the EPA," Biden said of the Pruitt selection.
"Well, if he's going not to enforce the Clean Air and Clean Water Act, in the name of jobs, then that's not a guy you vote for," Biden added.
Biden also brushed off a question about whether he might have fared better than Hillary Clinton as the Democrats' presidential candidate.
"Oh, I don't know. They would probably have eaten me alive. Who knows what would have happened?" Biden said.
"I learned how to become popular," Biden added. "Now that you're not running for president, boom, man, you're the most popular guy out there. ... It's so easy to go back and Monday-morning quarterback."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/12/12/stories/1060046993
-
Trump Transition Team for Energy Department Seeks Names of Employees Involved in Climate Meetings
Dec 9, 2016 | Washington Post
By Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin
Donald Trump’s transition team has issued a list of 74 questions for the Energy Department, asking agency officials to identify which employees and contractors have worked on forging an international climate pact as well as domestic efforts to cut the nation’s carbon output.
The questionnaire requests a list of those individuals who have taken part in international climate talks over the past five years and “which programs within DOE are essential to meeting the goals of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan.”
Trump and his team have vowed to dismantle specific aspects of Obama’s climate policies, and Trump has questioned the reality of climate change. The questionnaire, which one Energy Department official described as unusually “intrusive” and a matter for departmental lawyers, has raised concern that the Trump transition team is trying to figure out how to target the people, including civil servants, who have helped implement policies under Obama.
Thousands of scientists have signed petitions calling on the president-elect and his team to respect scientific integrity and refrain from singling out individual researchers whose work might conflict with the new administration’s policy goals. This potential clash could prompt a major schism within the federal government, with many career officials waging a battle against incoming political appointees.
While there have been many instances of political appointees and career scientists clashing in various administrations, what is novel is the request for the names of so many individual scientists, and the fact that it comes during the transition period, before the Trump administration has even taken power. This may be a signal of even more intense politicization after the inauguration.
Yale University environmental historian Paul Sabin said in an interview that previous administrations have worked to install like-minded energy and environmental experts in key agencies, often at the expense of employees from previous administrations.
“But what seems unusual is singling people out for a very specific substantive issue, and treating their work on that substantive issue as, by default, contaminating or disqualifying,” Sabin said, adding that officials can now track a civil servant’s past activities “in such a systematic way.”
During Ronald Reagan’s time, when his political appointees sparred with officials at the Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, Sabin noted, “it would have been so much harder to collect it on paper and track it down.”
Trump’s transition team did not respond to a request for comment. White House deputy press secretary Eric Schultz told reporters that he could not speak to the questionnaire directly, saying, “If you have questions about activity that the president-elect’s team is doing, you should check in with them and try and figure out why they’re doing it.”
But Schultz added: “All I can tell you is that President Obama is enormously proud of the work of civil servants and federal workers across the administration, that over the past eight years they’ve worked to make this country stronger. And they don’t do so out a sense of great pay or because the hours are great. They do so out of a sense of patriotism. And the president’s proud of their record.”
The questionnaire was first reported by Bloomberg News. The Washington Post has obtained its own copies of both the initial document and one with some of the agency’s replies filled in, in addition to confirmation from other people in the department that the documents are legitimate.
Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.), a physicist, warned that the questionnaire “threatens to undo decades of progress we have made on climate change,” and Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) said punishing civil servants for their work under previous administrations “would be tantamount to an illegal modern-day political witch hunt and would have a profoundly chilling impact on our dedicated federal workforce.”
The document spanned a broad area of Energy Department activities, including its loan program, technology research program, responses to Congress, estimates of offshore wind and cleanup of uranium at a site once used by the military for weapons research. In many cases, the inquiries meshed with the priorities of conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation, which held a meeting on energy and environment issues in Washington on Thursday, as well as priorities outlined in a recent fundraising pitch sent by the American Energy Alliance (AEA), a wing of the Institute for Energy Research.
Thomas Pyle, who heads the AEA, leads Trump’s Energy Department transition team. In a recent fundraising pitch, Pyle wrote supporters: “After eight years of the Obama administration’s divisive energy and environmental policies, the American people have voted for a change — a big change. We expect the Trump administration will adopt pro-energy and pro-market policies — much different than the Obama administration’s top-down government approach.”
One question zeroed in on the issue of the “social cost of carbon,” a way of calculating the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions. The transition team asked for a list of department employees or contractors who attended interagency meetings, the dates of the meetings, and emails and other materials associated with them.
The social cost of carbon is a metric that calculates the cost to society of emitting a ton of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The Obama administration has used this tool to try to calculate the benefits of regulations and initiatives that lead to lower greenhouse gas emissions.
At Thursday’s Heritage meeting, senior fellow David Kreutzer attacked the idea of using the social cost of carbon during the regulatory process. He said it “actually can be considered a fiction, the way it’s produced in the [Environmental Protection Agency] right now,” adding that it “is supposedly a measure of the damage done to the world economy for each ton of carbon emitted in a given year.” Kreutzer is a member of Trump’s EPA transition team; Trump recently named Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, who is suing the EPA over its environmental regulations, to head the EPA.
Another question appeared to delve deeply into the mechanisms behind scientific tools called “integrated assessment models,” which scientists use to forecast future changes to the climate and energy system. It also asked what the Energy Department considers to be “the proper equilibrium climate sensitivity,” which is a way climate researchers calculate how much the planet will eventually warm, depending on the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.
“My guess is that they’re trying to undermine the credibility of the science that DOE has produced, particularly in the field of climate science,” said Rob Jackson, a Stanford climate and energy researcher, in response to the question about the integrated assessment models.
The questionnaire also appeared to take aim at the national laboratories, which operate with a high degree of independence but are part of the Energy Department. The questionnaire asked for a list of the top 20 salaried employees of the labs, the labs’ peer-reviewed publications over the past three years, a list of their professional society memberships, affiliations, and the websites they maintain or contribute to “during work hours.” Researchers at national labs focus on a range of issues, including renewable-energy development and climate analysis.
Career Energy officials who are the designated liaisons to the Trump transition team are allowed to disclose only publicly available information, unless it is in the context of a classified briefing to transition team members who have obtained security clearance through the White House. A response to the question about the top 20 salaried employees read: “DOE does not collect this information. This would require a call to the Labs, and the information is not available publicly.” The department gave a similar to reply to questions about professional society memberships, websites they maintain or contribute to, and paid and unpaid positions.
The transition team questionnaire also asked how to keep open aging nuclear power plants, restart the controversial Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site shelved by Obama and support the licensing of small modular reactors.
It included 15 questions for the Energy Information Administration, some of them routine but some questioning the way the agency uses data about energy production.
The questions called to mind past cases of conflicts between Republican administrations and federal agency scientists, on the environment and other matters.
In Reagan’s first term, Anne Gorsuch was appointed to head the Environmental Protection Agency amid a major push for regulatory rollback. But after Gorsuch resigned amid controversy in 1983, Congress opened investigations into supposed “hit lists” at the agency used to track the views of members of scientific advisory boards, according to contemporary news reports.
During the George W. Bush administration, there were complaints that scientific documents had been edited to raise doubts about the science of climate change and that researchers had been prevented from speaking openly to the media and sharing their expertise.
In late 2010, the Obama administration issued governmentwide “scientific integrity” guidelines aimed at shielding federal scientists from political interference, part of an effort to distinguish itself from the Bush administration. The four-page memo, written by John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, included a prohibition against agency leaders or public affairs officers asking or demanding federal scientists to alter or suppress their findings. It also instructed agencies to “involve science and technology experts where appropriate” to craft “policymaking of the highest integrity.”
Energy Department officials have not yet decided how to respond to the questions targeting the agency’s climate activities, according to federal officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
“With some of these questions, it feels more like an inquisition than a question, in terms of going after career employees who have been here through the Bush years to Clinton, and up to now,” said one current Energy Department employee. “All of a sudden you have questions that feel more like a congressional investigation than an actual probing of how the Department of Energy does its job.”
Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy, called the memo’s demand that Energy officials identify specific employees “alarming.”
“If the Trump administration is already singling out scientists for doing their jobs, the scientific community is right to be worried about what his administration will do in office. What’s next? Trump administration officials holding up lists of ‘known climatologists’ and urging the public to go after them?” Halpern asked.
He added that lawmakers have attacked executive-branch scientists in the past for doing “work they find inconvenient. It seems that they are about to get accomplices in the Department of Energy. But don’t expect the federal workforce to simply roll over. The new administration will find thousands of federal workers who still believe in their departmental mission and will work hard to resist attacks on their peers. Scientists outside government are standing by to expose these actions and fight back.”
Christine McEntee, the executive director of the American Geophysical Union, a large society of Earth scientists, added in response to the questionnaire that “we don’t know at AGU the intent of all these questions, but if you look at them without knowing that intent, they are raising alarm for us.”
McEntee said that in general, when it comes to politics and science under Trump, “we’re hearing a lot from members, they’re quite concerned.” At the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco next week, where more than 20,000 scientists gather annually, there will be sessions on the consequences of the election for science and on giving publicly funded scientists legal advice on how to respond to requests for their communications, she said.
The Trump transition team’s meetings with Energy Department officials so far have excluded political appointees, one current official said.
At the Defense Department, Trump transition officials are having multiple meetings a day with Pentagon personnel but in some cases have asked Obama administration political appointees not to attend those meetings, officials there said.
Chris Mooney, Brady Dennis and Missy Ryan contributed to this report.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/09/trump-transition-team-for-energy-department-seeks-names-of-employees-involved-in-climate-meetings/?utm_term=.e3d05fbe4f2c
-
EPA SO2 Science Assessment Weakens Findings on Human Health Harms
Dec 9, 2016 | Stuart Parker
By Inside EPA
EPA's second draft integrated science assessment (ISA) for its review of the sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) weakens several findings of adverse health effects contained in an earlier draft in response to criticism from science advisors, further undermining the case for any strengthening of the NAAQS.
The ISA is an early part of the Clean Air Act-mandated process for reviewing the NAAQS every five years, and is used to inform a policy assessment outlining options on potentially revising the limit. But the SO2 ISA published in the Dec. 9 Federal Register strengthens its findings on human health effects of SO2 from the prior 2008 ISA with respect only to one category of health harm -- respiratory effects from long-term exposure.
For this category, EPA changed its assessment from “inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship,” to “suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship.” These classifications are made using EPA's “causal framework.” For SO2, EPA has only asserted a “causal” relationship for respiratory effects from short-term exposure, and this finding is unchanged from the ISA for its 2008 NAAQS review.
In the first draft of the new SO2 ISA, EPA moved its assessment of more categories from the “inadequate” to the “suggestive” classification. These were: short-term cardiovascular effects, reproductive and developmental effects, total mortality from long-term exposure, and cancer from long-term exposure.
The second draft of the ISA now classifies the evidence as “inadequate” to infer causal relationships from these exposures.
The change could undermine any calls to tighten the SO2 standard, which EPA last set in 2010 using a novel one-hour averaging time at 75 parts per billion (ppb). That replaced the prior standard, set in 1971, of 140 ppb over 24 hours or 30 ppb annually. Implementation of the 2010 standard has been challenging, however, given a lack of air pollution monitors located near sources that can measure short-term plumes of SO2.
In addition, the GOP-led Congress next year as well as President-elect Donald Trump's administration are expected to be unwilling to pursue significant strengthening of EPA's six NAAQS, which includes the SO2 standard, as well as standards for ozone, particulate matter, and other “criteria” pollutants.
CASAC's Concerns
EPA in weakening its conclusions about the harmful effects of SO2 appears to be responding to criticism from its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC).
During a Jan. 27-28 conference call to discuss the first draft ISA, members of the committee expressed concern that EPA's use of the causal framework resulted in a overstatement of health effects.
“There is this tendency to emphasize positive associations a little stronger than the literature really suggests,” said panelist John Balmes, of the University of California, San Francisco, on the call.
In an April 15 letter to EPA on the first draft ISA, CASAC says, “CASAC is not convinced that the current evidence supports a change in the determinations (from 'inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship' to 'suggestive but not sufficient to infer as causal relationship') for long-term SO2 exposure and total mortality, reproductive/developmental effects, and cancer. This is due to potential copollutant confounding and lack of toxicologic evidence to support biological plausibility.” Confounding is the influence on EPA's analysis of other pollutants that may be responsible for effects attributed to SO2.
Further, “CASAC does not concur with the change in the determination (from 'inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship' to 'suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship') for short-term SO2 exposure and cardiovascular effects due to potential confounding from co-pollutants,” the letter says.
The revised ISA will inform EPA's policy assessment document outlining options for the agency to either alter the NAAQS or leave it unchanged. Under the NAAQS' five-year review cycle, EPA should have issued a new rule for SO2 in 2015, but is already several years behind schedule. The Trump EPA, which will be led by Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R), a strong critic of EPA regulation, will therefore have to decide on whether to change the NAAQS.
EPA is taking public comment on the new draft ISA until March 20.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-so2-science-assessment-weakens-findings-human-health-harms
-
Dismantling EPA Regulations Hurts Both Health and Economy
Dec 10, 2016 | The Hill - Contributors Blog
By Amanda D. Rodewald
This week, we learned that President-elect Donald Trump will appoint Scott Pruitt, the Republican attorney general of Oklahoma, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Pruitt is well-known for his adversarial relationship with the agency he may soon lead.
Since 2011, he has sued the EPA to stop critical protections for public health, including regulations to reduce soot and smog in our cities; laws to protect our water and air; and emission standards for mercury, arsenic, acid gases, ozone, carbon dioxide and other pollutants from power plants.
He also has challenged the centerpiece of the U.S.'s climate change strategy, the Clean Power Plan, in a pending lawsuit.
Despite failing in each of these efforts, Pruitt has been relentless in his attempts to dismantle federal regulations to protect human health and the environment.
But what would be the cost if he succeeds?
The global burden of unhealthy environments is staggering. A 2016 report by the World Health Organization estimates that 12.6 million deaths each year are attributable to environmental risks — including air, water, and soil pollution exposures and climate change. That amounts to a sobering 23 percent of all global deaths and 26 percent of deaths in children under 5. The majority of these deaths (6.5 million) are attributable to air pollution, according to a report by the International Energy Agency.
The air we breathe has become the world's fourth-greatest threat to human health.
In addition to the personal loss borne by families and friends, these deaths carry tremendous economic burden, costing the global economy approximately $225 billion in lost labor income in 2013 alone.
Americans do not escape this risk. Combustion emissions remain a major source of air pollution, with small particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone causing over 200,000 premature deaths each year in the U.S. alone, according to a 2013 study in Atmospheric Environment.
Moreover, according to EPA data, over 74 million Americans are exposed to PM2.5 concentrations exceeding safety standards and more than 131 million people live in regions that are not compliant with maximum allowable ozone levels.
We must do more to protect people from these clear risks.
And yet that is not the message we hear from Trump or his nominee to head the EPA.
In a statement released Thursday from his transition team, Trump said:
"For too long, the Environmental Protection Agency has spent taxpayer dollars on an out-of-control anti-energy agenda that has destroyed millions of jobs, while also undermining our incredible farmers and many other businesses and industries at every turn."
In that same release, Pruitt claimed that:
"The American people are tired of seeing billions of dollars drained from our economy due to unnecessary EPA regulations."
Are the costs of reducing the global and national health burden due to unhealthy environments too great?
To the contrary: several studies show that environmental regulations save us far more than they cost. Not only do they prevent premature deaths, but such regulations help us avoid heart attacks, respiratory illness, hospital and emergency room visits and lost work days.
On top of that, these regulations often create jobs.
One study by the White House's Office of Management and Budget found that the annual benefits of major federal rules over a decade ranged between $193 billion to $800 billion, with costs of only $57 billion to $84 billion. EPA air regulations were the greatest source of these benefits.
An analysis by the Economic Policy Institute also found that for each major EPA rule enacted by the Obama administration, annual benefits exceeded costs by $10 billion to $95 billion per rule and generated more new jobs than were lost. One example was the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which had estimated costs (approximately $8 billion) that were dwarfed by the $28 billion to $77 billion in annual benefits.
Likewise, a study by the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation estimated the costs of implementing the Clean Air Act at approximately $65 billion, while its estimated benefit was expected to reach $2 trillion for the decades between 1990 and 2020.
This we know: a healthy environment is the foundation for public, community and individual health and prosperity. We don't need altruism as justification for supporting environmental regulations; it's simply in our best interest to do so.
By protecting our environment, we protect the health and well-being of current and future generations, and provide a powerful stimulus to our economy.
Amanda D. Rodewald is the Garvin Professor and director of conservation science at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, faculty in the Department of Natural Resources at Cornell University and faculty fellow at Cornell University's Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/309808-dismantling-epa-regulations-hurts-both-health-and
-
As Al Gore Told Donald Trump . . .
Dec 10, 2016 | Wall Street Journal
By Holman W. Jenkins Jr.
During the decades we’ve been waiting for actual climate data to validate or invalidate our climate models (we’re still waiting), at least one phenomenon has been reliably observed. This is the political domestication and co-optation of the once-vexing global warming hypothesis.
A pioneering shaman of this transmutation was BP CEO John Browne, who in the 1990s declared his company “beyond petroleum,” then proceeded on a series of mergers that made it an even bigger petroleum company. GE, Ford, DuPont and others quickly lined up behind a U.S. cap-and-trade bill. There can be something for everybody in treating carbon dioxide as a problem, they realized. That is, as long as nobody is so crazy (wink, wink) as to actually try to slow down materially the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere.
Which brings us to President-elect Trump’s meeting this week with Al Gore.
Details weren’t released but we can be pretty sure of the message Mr. Gore delivered. It’s the message he’s been delivering since President Obama’s election in 2008: Climate change no longer requires any painful root-canal actions. No need for unpopular energy taxes or giving up our energy-rich lifestyles.
The problem can be solved with handouts to the green energy lobby. Who doesn’t like distributing handouts?
A credulous piece in the New York Times tells us Elon Musk makes a “compelling case” that Tesla would be better off without federal subsidies yet the paper doesn’t tell us what the case is. Here it is: Mr. Musk would certainly be better off without federal fuel-mileage mandates that cause his competitors to make and dump electric cars on the market at a $9,000 loss. But those rules aren’t going away even under President Trump. And there is no sign Mr. Musk is eager to do without his own subsidies. He was last seen berating the California Air Resources Board for failing to create enough “zero-emission” credits to suit Tesla.
A new study from Arthur D. Little finds that, over its lifecycle, an electric car will generate just 23% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than a gasoline-powered car. If every car on earth were electric, this translates into a mere 1.8% decline in total emissions.
Yet even a small electric car will cost its owner $20,816 more to own and operate than a comparable gas-powered car, and its total “human toxicity”—mainly due to heavy metals and graphite—will be three to five times greater.
This is hardly the first study to demonstrate that electric cars solve no environmental problem. Will it make a difference? No. We’re way beyond that now.
News reports say Ivanka Trump organized the Gore meeting, undoubtedly due to her keen nose for the social incentives that make complying with the climate narrative a no-lose proposition for the kind of people who have a Manhattan socialite’s ear.
Kara Alaimo, an assistant professor of public relations at Hofstra University, in a Bloomberg News op-ed this week stated that Exxon sells a product that “scientists have proven threatens the continuation of human life on earth”—an idiotic statement that no scientist would make and yet is the kind of thing that passes uncontested these days.
Which is ironic since the science has just started to get interesting again.
In its latest report, issued in 2013, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change expanded the range of uncertainty regarding future warming—and in the direction of less warming.
It abandoned its central forecast, in its 2007 report, of 3 degrees Centigrade of warming. Now it issues no central forecast.
It said in 2007 that a warming as slight as 1.5 degrees was “very unlikely.” Now it puts the bottom stop at 1 degree.
The latest climate models are backing off on the size of “climate sensitivity.” This implies climate change will be smaller and less severe than earlier estimates.
Even less noticed, it implies a higher, more astronomical cost for avoiding any given amount of warming.
If climate sensitivity is high, you might have to avoid only 50% of future emissions to avoid 2 degrees of warming. If climate sensitivity is low, as increasingly seems the case, you might have to avoid 100% of future emissions to avoid just 0.5 degrees of warming.
Don’t expect to hear about this in the mainstream media for a decade or so, and then only because today’s editors and reporters have retired. The climate reporting industry has long since given itself over to propaganda rather than actually reporting on climate science.
The larger lesson here isn’t about climate change. It’s about democratic sclerosis. It’s about the endless multiplication of vested interests that taxpayers and consumers are forced to support in our supposedly free society.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/as-al-gore-told-donald-trump-1481326892
-
Obama Admin Asks Justices to Pass on WOTUS, Wetland Cases
Dec 12, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
The Obama administration urged the Supreme Court this week to decline reviews in two cases challenging the government's reach on water issues.
The justices are being asked to let stand the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that it has jurisdiction to hear the litigation over the joint U.S. EPA-Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Rule and an 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals case over the method federal officials used to determine that a South Dakota farm contained wetlands.
The agriculture community has pushed the Supreme Court to take up both cases, casting the agency decisions in question as examples of regulatory overreach.
A wide array of industry groups and states oppose the Clean Water Rule — also called the Waters of the U.S. rule, or WOTUS — which would redefine what waterways and wetlands receive automatic protection under the Clean Water Act.
Currently at issue in the Clean Water Rule litigation is whether the case should be heard by federal appellate courts or local district courts.
The jurisdictional dispute centers on whether the rule is an "effluent limitation" or "other limitation" that directly affects permitting for the challengers in the case — Clean Water Act classifications that allow challenges to bypass district courts and go straight to appeals courts.
In February, the 6th Circuit panel ruled 2-1 that it had jurisdiction to hear challenges to the rule. It also issued a nationwide stay of the rule pending the resolution of the legal challenges.
The National Association of Manufacturers appealed the jurisdiction decision to the Supreme Court, seeking to keep the litigation in district courts. In October, 31 states filed a brief supporting the petition, arguing that they've been "forced to litigate duplicative complaints" in district and appeals courts (Greenwire, Oct. 14).
In a brief filed Wednesday, the Justice Department reiterated its position that the legal challenges belonged in appeals courts. The 6th Circuit "correctly held" that it had jurisdiction to hear the litigation, the Justice Department said.
DOJ noted that five district courts have concluded that they lack jurisdiction to review the rule. The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also decided to punt challenges of the rule to the 6th Circuit.
Foes should wait until the case has been decided on merits to take their jurisdiction claims to the Supreme Court, the government argued.
"Further review is not warranted" at this point, DOJ said.Foster v. Vilsack
Government attorneys also urged the high court to reject a case over a wetlands determination in South Dakota's prairie pothole region.
In Foster v. Vilsack, Arlen and Cindy Foster, who raise cattle and grow crops, are seeking to overturn the Department of Agriculture's finding that 0.8 acre of their Miner County farm qualifies as wetlands. The USDA determination limited the Fosters' eligibility for farm assistance programs.
USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service based its wetlands decision on a proxy site with wetland plants 33 miles away. The Fosters sued, arguing that the reference site was not "in the local area," as required by a 2010 USDA guidance document.
The 8th Circuit in April ruled in favor of the government, deferring to the NRCS interpretation that "local area" refers to one of dozens of major land resource areas in the country.
Farm and free-market groups have urged the Supreme Court to take up the case, seeing the lawsuit as a chance to eliminate or scale back the long-standing Auer doctrine, a legal standard under which courts give deference to agency interpretations of rules.
The 8th Circuit decision didn't explicitly cite Auer. But the Fosters, who are represented by the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, argued in their Supreme Court petition that the legal doctrine was at the heart of the case (Greenwire, Sept. 26).
In its brief Wednesday, the government faulted the Fosters for not raising questions about the Auer doctrine during the 8th Circuit proceedings.
"This case does not raise any question about the circumstances under which courts should apply Auer deference," the government brief said. "Instead, this case presents a fact-specific question about whether a particular reference site was a reasonable proxy."
The government said the appeals court "correctly upheld the agency's determination that a small portion of their land is a wetland."
It takes the votes of four justices for the Supreme Court to take up a case.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/12/09/stories/1060046985
-
N.Y. Attorney General Must Respond to Exxon in Climate Probe
Dec 12, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tom Korosec and Erik Larson
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman was ordered by a federal judge in Texas to respond to Exxon Mobil Corp.’s requests for information about his probe into what the company knew about the effect of climate change on its business ( Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Healey, N.D. Tex., No. 16-cv-00469, 12/8/16).
Schneiderman is leading a multistate probe into whether Exxon, through its public statements, misled investors about climate change for decades. Irving, Texas-based Exxon sued the attorney general on its home turf, claiming the investigation into whether it violated state laws is politically motivated.
Amy Spitalnick, a spokeswoman for Schneiderman, said the attorney general will immediately seek to put Friday's order on hold while it asks the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans to reverse it.
“Exxon's unprecedented litigation in Texas represents nothing more than a blatant attempt to avoid accountability under New York law in New York courts where -- just today, in open court -- Exxon again acknowledged the legitimacy of our investigation and agreed to comply with the Attorney General's subpoenas,” Spitalnick said.
On Dec. 7, in court filings seeking the order to question and obtain documents from Schneiderman, the energy giant quoted his remarks from a conference in March during which he said “morally vacant” forces were challenging President Barack Obama's environmental agenda. The attorney general has repeatedly called Exxon's challenge unfounded and argues a deposition would force him to reveal his strategy in the probe.
‘Troubling Precedent’
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey was previously ordered by the same judge to appear in Dallas for a deposition. U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade rejected her claim that allowing the target of a state probe to “investigate the investigator” would set a “troubling precedent.” Kinkeade on Dec. 8 also rejected Healey's request to put that order on hold while she appeals.
Exxon initially cooperated with Schneiderman's probe, providing more than 1 million documents before ultimately suing on the company's home turf to stop the New York investigation.
With Washington divided along party lines over the state probes, House Republicans are seeking to subpoena the state attorneys general, both Democrats, to derail their investigations.
The dispute is coming to a head days after Exxon Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson met in New York with President-elect Donald Trump for a possible role as secretary of state. On Dec. 8, Trump nominated Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, an oil-industry champion and opponent of the Obama administration's climate agenda, to head the Environmental Protection Agency.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101590782&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101590782&jd=101590782
Congressional Hearings - There are no relevant hearings to report at this time.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested