Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 2/2/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Businesses Press Congress, White House to Improve Trade with India
Feb 1, 2017 | The Hill
By Vicki Needham
A diverse mix of 20 business groups are calling on Congress and the White House to improve the U.S. economic relationship with India. -
(ACC Mentioned) A Diverse Mix of 20 Business Groups are Calling on Congress and the White House to Improve the U.S. Economic Relationship with India.
Feb 2, 2017 | India New England News
As a new US Congress and administration start to define policies, business leaders representing nearly all sectors of the U.S. economy sent a letter to congressional leadership, urging them to work for a more robust and reciprocal U.S.-India economic relationship... -
(ACC Mentioned) Survey Seeks Data on Demand for Post-Consumer Plastics
Feb 2, 2017 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson
A new effort to study end market demand for various types of recycled plastics is under way, and organizers are seeking participation. -
(ACC Mentioned) North Carolina Ad Campaign Lets Residents Know 'Your Bottle Means Jobs'
Feb 2, 2017 | Waste Dive
By Cole Rosengren
The Carolinas Plastics Recycling Council is launching a new campaign called "Your Bottle Means Jobs" to increase recycling participation and generate more feedstock for the regional plastics industry, as reported by Plastics Recycling Update -
Democrat Boycott Delays Committee Vote on Pruitt
Feb 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
Democratic members of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee boycotted a 1 February vote to confirm Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as the next administrator of the US EPA, temporarily blocking his nomination. -
Senate Committee Suspends Rules to Approve Pruitt
Feb 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has been approved as administrator of the US EPA on 2 February by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which temporarily suspended committee voting rules to push the nomination through. -
Despite Dem No-Shows, Barrasso Pushes Pruitt Vote to Floor
Feb 2, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Republicans today pushed through President Trump's nomination of Scott Pruitt to be U.S. EPA administrator over Democrats' objections. -
Scott Pruitt, Trump’s E.P.A. Pick, Is Approved by Senate Committee
Feb 2, 2017 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
Senate Republicans pressed forward on Thursday with the confirmation of President Trump’s nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, suspending the Environment and Public Works Committee’s rules to approve the cabinet pick despite a Democratic boycott. -
Senate GOP Sends Pruitt Nomination to Floor After Suspending EPW Rules
Feb 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
Republicans on the Senate environment committee have approved the nomination of Scott Pruitt to be the next EPA administrator, though the move came after Democrats continued to boycott the vote and Republicans suspended the committee's rules to allow for a formal quorum without any minority members present. -
Senators Push EPA to Accelerate TSCA Risk Evaluation for 1,4-Dioxane
Feb 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
Senators Charles Schumer (D-New York) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) have called on the US EPA to prioritise and accelerate the risk evaluation for 1,4-dioxane, a potential carcinogen that is among the agency’s first ten chemicals to review under the reformed TSCA. -
What’s Happening at EPA This Week — and What Does It Mean?
Feb 1, 2017 | National Law Review
By Joshua P. Baldwin and Gary S. Rovner
The Trump administration is barely a week and a half old, and its intention regarding Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority and oversight has been a hot topic. Here is an update about what we know — and what we don’t. -
McGarity: Federal Proposal Would Jeopardize Public Safety
Feb 1, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Thomas McGarity
While public attention has recently been focused on the inauguration of President Donald Trump and his new administration's rapid-fire executive actions, the U.S. House of Representatives quietly passed a bill that will have a profound impact on how the federal government protects us from corporate fraud and threats to our health and safety. -
(ACC Mentioned) Toxic Chemicals Tainting Colorado Groundwater Also Found in Fast-Food Packaging
Feb 1, 2017 | Denver Post
By Bruce Finley
Invisible toxic chemicals similar to those contaminating groundwater south of Colorado Springs also are showing up in fast-food wrappers, according to a scientific study done with help from the Environmental Protection Agency. -
(ACC Mentioned) 'Silent Spring' Comes to Life in DDT-Stricken Town
Feb 2, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
For years, when spring rolled around in St. Louis, Mich., songbirds dropped to the ground, dead. -
US Study Highlights Perfluorinated Chemicals in Food Wrappers
Feb 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
US researchers have highlighted the issue of possible consumer exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in food wrappers. -
US CPSC Moves to Adopt Updated Toy Standard
Feb 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued a direct final rule to adopt the recently updated ASTM toy safety standard as the US’s mandatory standard under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA). -
Vermont Receives More Than 1m Children's Product Reports
Feb 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Vermont’s newly implemented children’s product chemical disclosure programme has resulted in more than a million manufacturer reports on the presence of substances of high concern. -
REACH May Become ‘Unmanageable’ for EU Defence Sector
Feb 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Complying with REACH could become ‘unmanageable’ for the European defence industry, if more substances critical to the sector are added to the authorisation list, according to a report by the European Defence Agency (EDA). -
Brexit Throws REACH Data Ownership into Question
Feb 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Trade bodies have expressed concern over access and ownership of REACH data once Britain exits the single market – something that was confirmed today in a UK government White Paper. -
Echa Wins Fght for Transparency in DEHP Authorisation Case
Feb 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Echa has won a key court case over its decision to release ‘confidential’ information about an application for authorisation to use the phthalate DEHP. -
Using the CRA on BLM Rule Would Increase Government Waste
Feb 2, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Ryan Alexander
Over the next week the House will consider overturning a laundry list of regulations adopted by the last administration using the Congressional Review Act or CRA. -
Gulf Coast Oil Destination Port Fourchon Considered for LNG Export Facility
Feb 2, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Port Fourchon, Louisiana's southernmost port and destination for nearly all of the Gulf of Mexico's deepwater oil production, is being considered for an $800 million liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility. -
DOE Emergency Transformer Study Moves to Trump's Queue
Feb 2, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Beh
The Energy Department has held up a congressionally mandated study on how to create an emergency stockpile of power grid transformers, seeking more analysis of worst-case natural disasters and enemy attacks that could cause crippling power blackouts... -
Executive Order Likely Delayed Until Pruitt's Confirmation
Feb 2, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden
U.S. EPA isn't waiting with bated breath for an executive order against the Clean Power Plan, according to a spokesman for the transition team. -
This Lawmaker Wants to Ease Rules on Drilling in National Parks, and Conservationists Aren’t Happy.
Feb 2, 2017 | Washington Post
By Darryl Fears
It’s safe to say that Rep. Paul A. Gosar (R-Ariz.) is no friend of environmentalists. -
Former DOJ Official Lorenzen Talks Gorsuch, Future of Environmental Law and Chevron
Feb 2, 2017 | E&E TV
Following President Trump's nomination this week of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, how might Gorsuch shape the future of environment and energy cases before the court? During today's OnPoint, Thomas Lorenzen, a partner at Crowell & Moring... -
Battle Over EPA Pick is Big Business
Feb 2, 2017 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama
Outside groups are spending millions in the Senate battle over confirming Scott Pruitt, President Trump’s nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Businesses Press Congress, White House to Improve Trade with India
Feb 1, 2017 | The Hill
By Vicki Needham
A diverse mix of 20 business groups are calling on Congress and the White House to improve the U.S. economic relationship with India.
In a letter to congressional leaders on Wednesday, the groups wrote that said that policy reforms are still needed to ensure fair competition between the U.S. and India.
"The strengthening U.S.-India relationship would be enhanced by improving economic ties across a broad range of areas to ensure fair competition for foreign and domestic companies, support innovation and intellectual property rights, and promote foreign direct investment," the groups wrote.
For several years, businesses have been pressing India to make changes that would improve the trading relationship.
While the groups acknowledged that improvements have been made in the nearly three years since Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s election in areas such as foreign investment, fossil fuel and energy efficiency policy and address infrastructure project permitting, "concrete and lasting policy changes to address a number of other longstanding issues comprehensively remain elusive.”
"As a result, the economic relationship between the United States and India remains unbalanced and significantly underperforming its potential," the groups wrote.
President Trump spoke to Modi of India last week and extended an offer to come visit Washington later this year.
The groups argue that the relationship could be strengthened by ensuring similar rules for foreign and domestic companies and more support for intellectual property rights, among others.
India remains on U.S. Trade Representative’s Special 301 priority watch list based on its record of intellectual property rights protection.
“The U.S. government, including Congress, should use all available channels to ensure fair play for businesses, investors and entrepreneurs across the United States, and to support Indian efforts that align with these goals,” the letter said.
Business organizations signing the letter include: American Chemistry Council, Biotechnology Innovation Organization, CropLife America, Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, Motion Picture Association of America, National Association of Manufacturers, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
https://origin-nyi.thehill.com/policy/finance/317474-us-businesses-press-congress-white-house-to-improve-trade-with-india
-
Feb 2, 2017 | India New England News
As a new US Congress and administration start to define policies, business leaders representing nearly all sectors of the U.S. economy sent a letter to congressional leadership, urging them to work for a more robust and reciprocal U.S.-India economic relationship, including the advancement of concrete and lasting policy reforms to address ongoing challenges in India that have negatively impacted U.S. industries and jobs, according to a statement by Alliance for Fair Trade With India.
The letter notes: “While there have been several steps in the right direction over the past two and a half years since Prime Minister Modi’s election, including foreign investment openings in a few sectors, fossil fuel and energy efficiency policy initiatives, efforts to address infrastructure project permitting and licensing challenges, and passage of legislation related to bankruptcy and tax reforms, concrete and lasting policy changes to address a number of other longstanding issues comprehensively remain elusive.”
Among the outstanding issues manufacturers face in India, the letter cites “forced localization measures; high tariffs, including some contrary to India’s WTO commitments; foreign ownership restrictions in a number of sectors, including Business to Consumer (B2C) retail; insufficient protection of intellectual property rights; long and inconsistent government approvals and licenses; and unique and onerous standards and testing procedures” that harm opportunities for manufacturers in the United States and undermine efforts to deepen the U.S.-India relationship.
The letter concludes: “The U.S. government, including Congress, should use all available channels to ensure fair play for businesses, investors, and entrepreneurs across the United States, and to support Indian efforts that align with these goals,” including strengthening dialogue channels and active use of appropriate trade enforcement tools.
Business organizations signing the letter are: Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed), American Business Conference (ABC), American Chemistry Council (ACC), American Foundry Society (AFS), Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM), Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), CropLife America, Distilled Spirits Council of the United States (DISCUS), Illinois Manufacturers’ Association, INDA, Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry, Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC), New Jersey Business & Industry Association, Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA), U.S. Chamber of Commerce (USCC), U.S. Council for International Business (USCIB).
http://indianewengland.com/2017/02/20-organizations-urge-congressional-action-improve-u-s-india-economic-relations/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Survey Seeks Data on Demand for Post-Consumer Plastics
Feb 2, 2017 | Plastics News
By Jim Johnson
A new effort to study end market demand for various types of recycled plastics is under way, and organizers are seeking participation.
Moore Recycling Associates is conducting the online survey to gather information on the post-consumer resin market in the United States and Canada.
Researchers are seeking input from manufacturers, converters, brands companies and others that have the potential to drive demand for post-consumer plastics.
“Recycling is not sustainable without robust end markets. Currently there is a wide and growing gap between supply and demand, the end market demand survey is needed to raise this issue to the forefront and initiate actions to close this gap,” said Dave Heglas, senior director of material resources at Trex Co. Inc., in a statement.
With funding from plastic industry trade groups including the American Chemistry Council, Association of Plastic Recyclers and the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, the study seeks to gather information about the demand, quality requirements and barriers for using recycled polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, PET and PVC.
“Many companies looking to incorporate recycled materials into the design of their products are not familiar with the many types of recycled plastics that are available on the marketplace. This survey will help the industry understand where recycled plastics are used and what requirements or barriers are in new applications,” said Rick Wagner, sustainability manager for Chevron Phillips Chemical Co., in a statement.
The End Market Demand Study is open now. Participants will receive immediate access to the final report when it is released.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20170202/NEWS/170209977/survey-seeks-data-on-demand-for-post-consumer-plastics
-
(ACC Mentioned) North Carolina Ad Campaign Lets Residents Know 'Your Bottle Means Jobs'
Feb 2, 2017 | Waste Dive
By Cole Rosengren
The Carolinas Plastics Recycling Council is launching a new campaign called "Your Bottle Means Jobs" to increase recycling participation and generate more feedstock for the regional plastics industry, as reported by Plastics Recycling Update. The estimated 2 million residents of North Carolina's Raleigh-Durham area will be the target audience. Starting in the spring, billboards, radio announcements, online ads and public events will encourage people to recycle two more plastic bottles per week. At the end of the campaign, progress will be measured by looking at plastic bottle recycling data from a local material recovery facility. According to the council, if every resident in the Carolinas recycled two more bottles per week, that could potentially lead to $10 million in economic benefits and create 300 jobs. This is based on an average $47 per ton disposal cost and $270 per ton market value.Dive Insight:
The council estimates that 150,000 tons of plastic bottles are discarded in the two states each year. Because of this, about 75% of the bottles used as manufacturing feedstock in the Carolinas are imported. According to the council, 1,700 people are currently employed by the region's plastics manufacturing industry and sourcing more material locally could expand job opportunities.
The $65,000 campaign has raised most of its necessary funding so far, drawing on a range of the usual industry sponsors. The Plastics Industry Association, American Chemistry Council, Association of Plastic Recyclers, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Waste Management and many other local entities are all supporting the initiative.
As seen with the recent opening of Unifi's two Repreve facilities in North Carolina plastic bottles play a key role in local manufacturing. Products such as carpeting, clothing, textiles, pipes, lumber and new bottles are all made in the region. Based on the latest Environmental Protection Agency analysis, recycling and reuse activities account for at least 757,000 jobs on a national level. This type of argument could be a valuable approach in areas that have stagnant recycling rates and are in need of a boost to their local economies.
http://www.wastedive.com/news/north-carolina-ad-campaign-lets-residents-know-your-bottle-means-jobs/435357/
-
Democrat Boycott Delays Committee Vote on Pruitt
Feb 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
Democratic members of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee boycotted a 1 February vote to confirm Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as the next administrator of the US EPA, temporarily blocking his nomination.
Committee rules say at least two members of the minority party must be present for a vote to be held. EPW Chairman Tom Barrasso (R-Wyoming) raised the possibility of changing the committee's voting rules to push Mr Pruitt's confirmation before the Senate.
"Scott Pruitt has answered more questions than any [EPA] nominee in the last three presidential administrations," said James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), the committee's former chair. "It's time we move on."
Mr Barrasso said the boycott will delay the EPA and the committee from working on a number of key issues, including the implementation of the new TSCA regulation.
"None of it is made better by this boycott, which amounts to nothing more than political theatre at the expense of working on issues that we care about," he said.
Committees traditionally vote on a nominee following a confirmation hearing. That vote serves as a recommendation for the full Senate. This then votes whether to confirm the nominee.
Mr Pruitt's nomination has been one of the more contentious battles between Senate Democrats and Republicans. Committee members questioned Mr Pruitt during a hearing on 18 January that lasted over six-hours. They then sent him more than 1,000 follow up questions. Many of these focused on the larger role the EPA should play in regulation and on the lawsuits he brought against the agency while attorney general.
Senators have continued to exchange partisan arguments both for and against his nomination in the intervening period.
EPW Democrats staff distributed a proposed rule Wednesday from ranking member Tom Carper (D-Delaware) that would add new standards requiring nominees to submit more detailed financial information.
Mr Carper expounded on this and other issues in a letter to Mr Barrasso on 31 January. He said Democrats particularly felt Mr Pruitt had not substantially answered follow up questions on conflicts of interest.
"The Committee Democrats are deeply concerned about the lack of thoroughness of Mr Pruitt's responses to our questions for the record," Mr Carper wrote.
"I ask you to direct Mr Pruitt to disclose information requested by Democratic members with the same level of transparency that this Committee has required of past nominees."
The vote boycott comes during a chaotic period in Washington following the 20 January inauguration of Donald Trump. Democrats in the Senate Finance Committee similarly boycotted approval votes for two nominees, before committee leadership suspended that panel's rules of minority party representation and approved both candidates.
Meanwhile, the EPA has been barred from communication with the public, while President Trump has issued an executive order that requires agencies to eliminate two regulations for each new one issued.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53295/democrat-boycott-delays-committee-vote-on-pruitt
-
Senate Committee Suspends Rules to Approve Pruitt
Feb 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has been approved as administrator of the US EPA on 2 February by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which temporarily suspended committee voting rules to push the nomination through.
With the committee’s approval, Mr Pruitt’s nomination will now be sent to the Senate for a vote, likely in the next few days, in what will be the final step in the confirmation process.
Committee rules state that at least two members of its minority political party must be in attendance for an official vote to take place. But the EPW committee suspended its voting rules, following a second day of boycotts from the Democrats.
Republican committee members voted unanimously to recommend the confirmation in the absence of the minority party.
The committee's Republican leaders chastised Democratic members for delaying Mr Pruitt’s confirmation, especially after he answered more than 1,200 questions during the process.
Democrats, however, argued that Mr Pruitt did not provide sufficient enough answers to potential conflicts of interest or on the overall role the agency should play in regulation.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53322/senate-committee-suspends-rules-to-approve-pruitt
-
Despite Dem No-Shows, Barrasso Pushes Pruitt Vote to Floor
Feb 2, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Republicans today pushed through President Trump's nomination of Scott Pruitt to be U.S. EPA administrator over Democrats' objections.
For the second day in a row, EPW Democrats did not show for the committee vote on the Republican Oklahoma attorney general. Consequently, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the panel's chairman, suspended committee rules and approved Pruitt's nomination to send him on to the Senate floor.
"We will not allow it to obstruct," Barrasso said. "It's unprecedented for the minority to delay an EPA administrator for an incoming president to this extent."
The Wyoming senator said Democrats on the committee have "put us in these uncharted waters."
"The minority wants political theater. The nation needs a new EPA administrator," Barrasso said.
All 11 Republicans on the committee voted in favor of Pruitt, including Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). Sessions has taken on a low profile in the Senate since he was nominated to be Trump's attorney general — he is still waiting on his confirmation vote.
GOP senators have taken a similar tack with other Trump nominees who have faced committee vote boycotts by Senate Democrats, including Steve Mnuchin for Treasury secretary and Tom Price for secretary of Health and Human Services.
Democrats on the EPW panel criticized Barrasso's move to suspend the committee's rules. In a statement, EPW ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) said, "We still have not received the relevant documents and the substantive answers we've requested from Mr. Pruitt."
"I am disappointed that our majority has decided to ignore our concerns and those of the American people, and break the Committee's rules in an effort to expedite Mr. Pruitt's nomination, but we have to stand our ground in our pursuit of the truth and in fulfillment of our Constitutional duty with respect to nominations," Carper said.
Barrasso said the move to suspend the EPW panel's rules was only temporary. Further, the committee chairman said he cleared the action with the Senate parliamentarian, who said it was "proper." At today's business meeting, the panel also approved its funding resolution and rules for this Congress. Barrasso told reporters afterward that there were no changes to the rules package that were adopted.
Republicans have boycotted committee votes on EPA nominees in the past, including for Gina McCarthy for administrator in 2013. Barrasso said that situation was different because GOP senators "were not stopping President Obama from setting up his government."
After the vote, Barrasso said it was unclear when Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would schedule a floor vote. "I haven't had the time and discussion yet," he told reporters.
He said he does not expect a Democratic floor challenge to the manner in which Pruitt's nomination cleared the committee.
"This has been vetted with the parliamentarian. This is consistent with the rules, and if any challenge is made by the Democrats, the parliamentarian will sustain what we did here," he said.
Separately, today Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said he would vote against Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.) for Interior secretary and Rick Perry for Energy secretary. Still, the chamber is likely to approve both.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/02/02/stories/1060049455
-
Scott Pruitt, Trump’s E.P.A. Pick, Is Approved by Senate Committee
Feb 2, 2017 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
Senate Republicans pressed forward on Thursday with the confirmation of President Trump’s nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, suspending the Environment and Public Works Committee’s rules to approve the cabinet pick despite a Democratic boycott.
The 11-0 vote sends the nomination to the full Senate, where Mr. Pruitt is most likely to be approved next week.
Democrats and environmental groups have waged a fierce campaign against the confirmation of Mr. Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general, who has led or taken part in 14 lawsuits aimed at blocking E.P.A. regulations, including Obama administration policies aimed at climate change.
A day after Democrats on the Senate environment committee boycotted a planned vote on Mr. Pruitt’s nomination, the panel’s Republicans reconvened on Thursday and temporarily suspended the committee’s rules, which require the presence of at least two Democrats to hold votes, and approved Mr. Pruitt.
The Democrats’ boycott and the Republican response followed the same pattern that played out this week on the Senate Finance Committee, as Democrats sought to block action on the nominations of Representative Tom Price of Georgia to head the Department of Health and Human Services, and of the financier Steven T. Mnuchin to lead the Treasury Department.
In boycotting Mr. Pruitt’s confirmation, Democrats complained that he had failed to adequately answer their questions and address their concerns about how he would run the agency charged with protecting the nation’s air, water and public health.
“The committee Democrats are deeply concerned about the lack of thoroughness of Mr. Pruitt’s responses to our questions for the record,” wrote Senator Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, the environment panel’s ranking Democrat, in a letter to the committee’s chairman, Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming.
“We believe these inquiries, and our questions for the record, elicit information from the nominee that he possesses and that he should be able to provide to the committee,” Mr. Carper wrote. “Failure on his part to do so is not only an affront; it also denies Democratic committee members, and all members of the Senate, information necessary to judge his fitness to assume the important role of leading the E.P.A.”
Mr. Barrasso dismissed Democrats’ complaints, saying, “Let’s be clear, Attorney General Pruitt has answered more questions than any past E.P.A. administrator nominee in recent memory.”
Republicans mocked the Democratic boycott.
“Democrats are just wasting time by pulling this stunt,” said Senator Shelley Moore Capito, Republican of West Virginia. “Eighty percent of life is showing up. Democrats are just wasting their lives.”
Mr. Pruitt did provide written answers to over 1,070 questions sent to him by committee Democrats, in a 252-page file. But in some cases, particularly in answer to 19 questions requesting official documents or emails, Mr. Pruitt referred lawmakers to the Oklahoma attorney general’s office and noted that they could secure the documents through the state’s open-records law.
Mr. Carper said it could as long as two years to receive those documents.
Mr. Carper and committee Democrats also complained that many of Mr. Pruitt’s answers were evasive or insubstantial. In response to a question by Mr. Carper asking him to name a single E.P.A. regulation that he supports, Mr. Pruitt responded, “I have not conducted a comprehensive review of existing E.P.A. regulations.”
Democrats also said Mr. Pruitt had not adequately addressed concerns about the potential conflicts of interest raised if, as head of the agency, he would address the same multistate lawsuits he brought against the E.P.A. as attorney general. Mr. Pruitt has declined to say whether he will recuse himself from making decisions in all cases in which he was an original party, telling Democrats simply that he would follow the recommendations of the E.P.A.’s ethics office.
“Mr. Pruitt should be clear with the committee about whether he has already sought consent from the state of Oklahoma to recuse himself or when he will do so,” Mr. Carper wrote. “The committee members should have certainty that Mr. Pruitt would be able to conduct his duties as administrator in a fair and impartial manner without being bound to or entangled in positions he has previously taken as attorney general.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-senate.html?_r=0
-
Senate GOP Sends Pruitt Nomination to Floor After Suspending EPW Rules
Feb 2, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
Republicans on the Senate environment committee have approved the nomination of Scott Pruitt to be the next EPA administrator, though the move came after Democrats continued to boycott the vote and Republicans suspended the committee's rules to allow for a formal quorum without any minority members present.
Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-WY) said at a Feb. 2 panel meeting that GOP senators took the “extraordinary step” because Democrats “took the extraordinary step of boycotting” today's meeting as well as the committee's Feb. 1 meeting.
Barrasso added that he has consulted with the Senate parliamentarian, who said the “procedure we have followed today is proper under the Senate rules, and no point of order will lie against the Pruitt nomination” when it comes to the floor, though he did not elaborate on when that would occur.
He told reporters after the hearing that “if any challenge is made by the Democrats, the parliamentarian will sustain what we did here.”
Whenever Pruitt's nomination reaches the floor, Republicans are expected to have enough votes to confirm him, given strong support in the GOP caucus, as well as at least one Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV).
In the end, Pruitt cleared the committee 11-0, with Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), President Donald Trump's nominee to be the next attorney general, attending the meeting to vote. His absence at the Feb. 1 meeting prevented Republicans from using committee rules that allow votes to occur if the full compliment of majority lawmakers is present.
But even though all 11 committee Republicans were present, Barrasso chose to suspend the committee's rules, a step he had previously said he would not take.
The procedure in the environment committee echoes bruising Cabinet confirmation battles across the Senate, including efforts by Republicans to muscle through Trump's picks to lead the Health and Human Services and Treasury departments. In those cases, Democrats also boycotted planned votes in the Finance Committee, but committee Republicans held the votes anyway after suspending committee rules.
During the Feb. 2 meeting, Barrasso stressed that Pruitt is an EPA nominee for an “incoming administration,” noting that the first agency picks under the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations were quickly confirmed.
“A new president is entitled to put in place people who will advance his agenda,” he said.
He also dismissed comparisons to Republicans' boycott of the EPW confirmation vote in 2013 for former EPA chief Gina McCarthy. “The EPW Republicans were not stopping President Obama from setting up his government,” Barrasso said, noting that McCarthy had already been confirmed as EPA air chief, and many other “political appointees were already advancing President Obama's agenda.”
Further, he noted that former EPW Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) advanced cap-and-trade legislation in 2009 “without meeting quorum requirements.”
Barrasso said the Feb. 2 move to suspend the committee's rules was in effect for only that meeting, and he expects “to conduct all further business under those rules” and hopes to “work together in a bipartisan manner” with Democrats.
He told reporters after the hearing that he had talked with Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the committee's ranking Democrat, who had informed him that Democrats would not attend.
But Barrasso suggested that he hopes Democrats' opposition to Pruitt does not get in the way of other committee business. “Tom Carper's a fine gentleman. I'm looking forward to working closely with him over the next two years,” he said.
In a statement after the hearing, Carper defended Democrats' decision to boycott, saying they had not received all “relevant documents” and “substantive” answers to their questions they've asked of Pruitt. “We cannot advise the full Senate on whether Scott Pruitt will lead the EPA in a manner that will protect the public’s heath in the absence of critical information about his record,” he said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/senate-gop-sends-pruitt-nomination-floor-after-suspending-epw-rules
-
Senators Push EPA to Accelerate TSCA Risk Evaluation for 1,4-Dioxane
Feb 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
Senators Charles Schumer (D-New York) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) have called on the US EPA to prioritise and accelerate the risk evaluation for 1,4-dioxane, a potential carcinogen that is among the agency’s first ten chemicals to review under the reformed TSCA.
The senators cited a local news report that suggested the substance is in 71% of the water supply systems in Long Island. The EPA has determined that short-term exposure may cause eye, nose and throat irritation, while long-term exposure may cause kidney and liver damage.
1,4-dioxane is used as a stabiliser in certain chlorinated solvents, paint strippers, greases and waxes. It is also a manufacturing byproduct found in cosmetics, shampoos and other personal care products.
Mr Schumer said that, due to the chemical’s prevalence in the environment, the EPA must speed up the TSCA risk evaluation to determine any potential health hazards it poses. He urged the agency to “open the floodgates and commit the resources required to swiftly investigate this serious chemical”.
“It’s unacceptable that, while the drinking water on Long Island is contaminated with a possible carcinogen, the EPA is not acting with the urgency that the situation requires in order clean up our water supply,” added Ms Gillibrand, a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Under the new TSCA, the agency is required to complete a risk evaluation of high priority substances within three years. Should it determine that a substance poses an unreasonable risk, it will have two years to promulgate rules to mitigate those risks.
As a first step, it must publish a scoping document for each of the first ten chemicals that will lay out the hazards, exposures, conditions of use and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations the agency plans to consider. It must publish these documents by 19 June.
The EPA will hold a public meeting on 14 February to solicit input on the scope of its assessments.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53319/senators-push-epa-to-accelerate-tsca-risk-evaluation-for-14-dioxane
-
What’s Happening at EPA This Week — and What Does It Mean?
Feb 1, 2017 | National Law Review
By Joshua P. Baldwin and Gary S. Rovner
The Trump administration is barely a week and a half old, and its intention regarding Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority and oversight has been a hot topic. Here is an update about what we know — and what we don’t.
1. Regulatory Freeze
On January 26, the EPA issued a rule freezing, for at least 60 days, the implementation of 30 rules that had been issued late in the term of the outgoing Obama administration. The notice pivots off of a January 20 memorandum issued by the White House, instructing agencies to freeze new or pending regulations until the new administration has had a chance to review them. While many of the pending rules relate to authorizing delegated state programs, some are more broadly applicable and would have more immediate effects if further delayed, withdrawn, or struck down.
Each frozen rule is currently scheduled to take effect on March 21, but the administration is leaving room for further delayed implementation. The rules affected include standards governing radon emissions, formaldehyde emissions, air quality, pesticides, biofuels, solid waste landfill permitting, oil and hazardous substances pollution, and aircraft emissions.
Traditionally, this type of a regulatory freeze is standard procedure for an incoming administration. During the previous two transitions, the majority of the regulations that were frozen and reviewed by both the Bush and Obama administrations ended up eventually taking effect. During the campaign, candidate Trump directed much of his rhetoric against the “job-killing” regulations of the EPA. He has since doubled down on his campaign promises by nominating Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA; Pruitt until recently had been taking part in a lawsuit against the EPA and has frequently spoken out about restricting its authority.
Congressional Review Act
Although the Congressional Review Act (CRA) is rarely effective, it could be utilized by the Republican Congress to remove some of the frozen regulations. The CRA has not been successfully used since 2001 due to the limitations of the Act, but with a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican president, it is now ripe to be used as a powerful tool for the Trump administration to remove some of the Obama-era regulations. Under the CRA, Congress can pass a joint resolution of disapproval by a simple majority. That joint resolution is sent to the president, where it can be signed or vetoed. It is likely that the Trump administration will use the time during which the regulations are frozen to review and target the regulations it views as most susceptible to being overruled using the CRA.
Rules Affected
Renewable Fuel Standard
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) would require oil companies to blend biofuels into the gasoline and diesel they produce. The RFS was created to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase the usage of renewable fuels. While the freeze on the RFS has caused some consternation in the agricultural community, the oil industry has been lobbying against the RFS for years. Oil refiners who do not meet the requirements of the RFS must buy paper credits. After the news of the freeze, the price of paper credits dropped to their lowest price since 2015.
Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood Products
The Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood Products, which were added to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), would set certain standards for formaldehyde emissions for some wood products and would create a set of rules governing testing, certification, and recordkeeping for manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. Once in effect, the rule would become the most restrictive formaldehyde emissions standard in the world and would affect both imported and domestic products.
Risk Management Program Safety Rule
Another high profile rule affected by the freeze is the Risk Management Program Facility Safety Rule. The updates to the rule would change accident prevention program requirements and emergency response requirements. The rule would also increase the availability of information to the public, as well as streamline and clarify the current rule.
Revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models
The freeze also affects the effective date of Appendix W, Revisions to the Guideline on Air Quality Models (82 FR 5182). Appendix W provides revisions to the EPA’s preferred models and techniques in determining concentrations of air pollutants.
Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5NAAQS
Locally in Wisconsin, the regulatory freeze potentially delays implementation of infrastructure requirements that are designed to ensure that the structural components of the state’s air quality management program are satisfactory under the Clean Air Act.
Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators
Another of the affected rules would modify the standards that protect pesticide applicators. The EPA has stated that this rule would increase the protection for pesticide applicators, improve the standards those applicators are held to by increasing training and supervision, and establish a minimum age for certification. The rule would revise categories of certification and expand the qualifications required to become certified.
2. Grant Program Freeze
The EPA had also temporarily frozen its grant programs at the instruction of the Trump administration. The EPA grant program awards more than $4 billion in funding every year for research, education, and environmental monitoring. The EPA resumed issuing grants late Wednesday. The freeze had caused uncertainty for a multitude of cities and states regarding the cleanup of toxic pollution. Doug Erickson, the EPA’s new communications director, stated that the vast majority of contracts and grants had been cleared and that the freeze was only a temporary pause.
3. Two-for-One on New Regulations
On Monday, January 30, President Trump signed an executive order requiring federal agencies (including the EPA) to eliminate two existing regulations for each new regulation it promulgated. The order further requires that the cost of any new regulation must be offset by eliminating regulations imposing equivalent costs to businesses, presumably creating an additional layer of oversight for new and existing rules by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). For now it is unclear how such a requirement would play out in practice. In particular, scrapping old regulations still requires compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act. In addition, many environmental statutes contain mandates to the EPA to promulgate regulations within specified time periods (many of which the EPA has already missed), presenting potential conflicts with such a broad executive order and delays that may result. At a minimum, it would appear that the implementation of this executive order will subject rulemakings to several rounds of litigation at multiple stages and, in all likelihood, slow their progress.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/what-s-happening-epa-week-and-what-does-it-mean
-
McGarity: Federal Proposal Would Jeopardize Public Safety
Feb 1, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Thomas McGarity
While public attention has recently been focused on the inauguration of President Donald Trump and his new administration's rapid-fire executive actions, the U.S. House of Representatives quietly passed a bill that will have a profound impact on how the federal government protects us from corporate fraud and threats to our health and safety.
The House passed the so-called Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017, a bill combining six legislative proposals that have been percolating since 2011. The bill would change the way federal agencies develop the standards and regulations that implement laws protecting our health, safety and the environment from risky products and activities, and our pocketbooks from fraud and other rip-offs.
In 2009, after several major food poisoning outbreaks including the contaminated peanut butter scandal that killed nine people and sickened at least 700, Congress enacted the Food Safety Modernization Act. The statute directed the Food and Drug Administration to develop regulations that require food growers, transporters, processors and importers to take adequate safety precautions. The FDA used a process known as informal rulemaking to write those regulations.
The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 established a simple model for informal rulemaking. An agency must publish a notice describing the substance of the regulation, solicit comments from the public and publish a final rule along with a "concise general statement of basis and purpose." Over the years, federal courts and various presidents have added to those minimal requirements, mandating that agencies respond to public comments, prepare analyses of regulations' impacts and obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget, among other measures.
These additions have significantly slowed the development of protective standards. For example, it took the FDA almost five years to announce the rules necessary to implement the Food Safety Modernization Act. The Environmental Protection Agency took almost four years to announce risk management standards in response to the April 2013 fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas. And it has taken other agencies even longer to develop much-needed protections that we all take for granted.
The Regulatory Accountability Act passed by the House would make the situation far worse.
In addition to codifying and adding to all of those procedural requirements for major rules, the bill would require agencies to base regulations on technocratic cost-benefit analyses and to adopt the least costly option for a rule, or explain why they did not do so.
Such a requirement turns popular protective laws on their head and prioritizes corporate profit over the health and safety of the American people, with potentially dangerous consequences.
In 1991, after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals read the Toxic Substances Control Act to include similar requirements for a regulation banning cancer-causing asbestos, the EPA abandoned the effort and declined to protect the public from any other toxic substances until Congress amended the statute 25 years later. Although agencies always consider the pros and cons of regulations, forcing them to quantify the costs and benefits of their proposals and all possible alternatives is a recipe for inaction and devalues our health and our lives.
The Regulatory Accountability Act also requires trial-like public hearings for all "high-impact" rules, which it defines as those imposing a cost on the economy of $1 billion, and for any "information quality" challenges. Faced with a similar requirement in the early 1970s, the EPA abandoned its efforts to write water quality standards for toxic pollutants in wastewater until Congress amended the Clean Water Act in 1977 to provide another way to regulate toxics.
Industry loudly complains about trial-like hearings when it comes to licensing new power plants, approving new food additives and issuing pollution permits. It makes no more sense for an agency to conduct a trial in promulgating rules than it would to require Congress to conduct a trial every time it enacts a major law.
The proponents of the bill insist that it will improve federal regulation, but the real purpose and effect of the bill is to stall the overall process - making it harder for federal agencies to adopt rules that prevent companies from harming their workers, their customers and their neighbors. The Senate should rename this bill the "Regulatory Protection Prevention Act" and place it in a file designated for radical roadblocks that should never see the light of day.
McGarity is a professor of law at the University of Texas at Austin and a board member of the Center for Progressive Reform.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/McGarity-Federal-proposal-would-jeopardize-10901649.php
-
(ACC Mentioned) Toxic Chemicals Tainting Colorado Groundwater Also Found in Fast-Food Packaging
Feb 1, 2017 | Denver Post
By Bruce Finley
Note: Story updated at 3 p.m. Feb. 1 with comment from American Chemistry Council.
Invisible toxic chemicals similar to those contaminating groundwater south of Colorado Springs also are showing up in fast-food wrappers, according to a scientific study done with help from the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Environmental Working Group study, peer-reviewed and published Wednesday in the journal Environmental Science and Technology Letters, found the perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) in grease-resistant wrappers -– including pizza box liners, sandwich and pastry packaging — from chains including Starbucks, Jimmy Johns, Taco Time, Chipotle and Quiznos. The chemicals can leach into food, potentially reaching consumers, the study authors said, urging companies to find safe alternative packaging.
Scientists from California and the Environmental Protection Agency collaborated in the research with final testing done at an EPA lab.
“We don’t have definitive answers for how much harm these chemicals are causing, but there are many reasons to be concerned,” EWG chemist Dave Andrews said.
“These fast food companies need to look at their supply chains. They need to evaluate alternatives and move away from this concerning class of chemicals because of the potential for human health impact and the fact that the chemicals do not break down in the environment,” Andrews said.
PFCs are chemical compounds used to make products resistant to stains, water, or heat. The same properties that make PFCs useful from cookware to dousing fuel fires on runways also prevent them from breaking down in the environment. EPA scientists have found PFCs contaminating water nationwide, including sites near military bases such as Peterson Air Force Base east of Colorado Springs, and have determined that PFCs now are widely dispersed in humans and wildlife. U.S. Air Force officials in November said the Department of Defense will spend more than $2 billion on studies and cleanup nationwide.
PFCs have been linked by scientists to low birth weights, cancers of the kidneys and testicles, and other problems. The effects are not well established. PFCs aren’t illegal, ranking among the most problematic of a growing number of unregulated contaminants that federal scientists are finding in water. The EPA in May issued a health advisory limit for PFCs in drinking water – 70 parts per trillion, tightened from a previous limit of 400 ppt.
Federal authorities have not followed up with legally-enforceable regulations or an advisory limit for PFCs in food packaging. However, the Food and Drug Administration last year banned three grease-resistant PFCs, including one, PFOA, that the EWG team found in fast food packaging.
Researchers say they collected 327 samples of sandwich and pastry wrappers, french fry bags, pizza boxes and other packaging from 27 restaurants in five states during 2014 and 2105. The researchers used a device that measures fluorine, a chemical indicator that PFCs may be present. About 40 percent of the food packaging samples tested positive for fluorine, and 20 of those samples were sent to an EPA lab for detailed analysis, EPA scientist Mark Strynar said. High resolution mass spectrometry was used and chemicals detected included PFCs, Strynar said.
The EPA lab tests found 70 percent, or 14 of the 20 wrappers, contained PFCs including the banned PFOA.
The study focused on newer types of PFCs with shorter carbon chains that manufacturers claim are less hazardous that older PFCs. EWG advocates contend there’s insufficient evidence those short-chain PFCs are safer.
PFCs have been used since the 1950s to make carpets, clothing, fabrics for furniture, paper packaging for food and cookware resistant to water, grease or stains. The chemicals also are used for firefighting at airfields. Over time, PFCs have spread widely in the environment, accumulating in human blood, wildlife and fish. EPA officials began investigating and in 2002 released an initial finding that PFOA might pose health risks. Manufacturers including 3M Corp. in 2002 voluntarily stopped producing PFOA.
Yet PFCs are being found at levels exceeding the health guidelines in groundwater and public drinking water supplies, such as those serving residents of Fountain, Security and Widefield south of Colorado Springs.
People are most likely exposed to PFCs by ingesting PFC-contaminated water or food and by using products that contain PFCs, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. The extent of leaching from food packaging to food has not been established. CDC scientists who measured four PFCs in blood have found wide exposure in the U.S. population, but those PFCs may not cause health harm.
A global industry group representing makers of fluorinated chemicals on Wednesday said that many companies in the United States, Europe and Japan have stopped producing some types of PFCs. “There are now specific, modern, short-chain PFAS chemicals that have been carefully reviewed and approved for use in coating food-contact papers to keep grease, oil and moisture from seeping through the packaging,” American Chemistry Council spokesman Bryan Goodman said.
“So to find these chemistries in these products is neither surprising nor alarming, as long as they are approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,” Goodman said. “Because use of short-chain PFASs in food packaging is highly and rigorously regulated, any further regulation of modern-day short-chain food packaging materials is unnecessary and would provide no further benefits to human health or the environment.”
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/02/01/toxic-chemicals-colorado-groundwater-fast-food-packaging/
-
(ACC Mentioned) 'Silent Spring' Comes to Life in DDT-Stricken Town
Feb 2, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Gabriel Dunsmith
For years, when spring rolled around in St. Louis, Mich., songbirds dropped to the ground, dead.
Locals often found them lying facedown in their yards. On occasion, they watched the birds — mostly robins — convulse and shudder until their hearts stopped beating. Sometimes cats dragged the bodies away before anyone noticed.
In 2012, residents collected 94 bird corpses and took them to a lab for testing.
"They all had died of DDT poisoning," recalled Jane Keon, a local advocate and author of the book "Tombstone Town."
The robins harbored some of the highest amounts of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) ever recorded in birds. For locals, the opening scene of Rachel Carson's 1962 classic "Silent Spring" — in which the writer portrays an American town so stricken with toxins that birds "trembled violently and could not fly" — had come to life.
Though U.S. EPA banned DDT in 1972, the chemical still taints St. Louis — and its residents.
For decades, the small Michigan town was a hub for DDT manufacturing. The former Velsicol Chemical Corp. factory remains one of the country's most polluted facilities, with two Superfund sites spanning its property.
In October 2016, U.S. EPA completed a lawn aeration program, which involved digging up dozens of yards to remove the DDT that had passed into earthworms, and then robins. Federal regulators first assumed factory smoke had dusted the town in DDT, but locals pointed to the Pine River, which ambles by the old factory site on its way through St. Louis.
Velsicol had used the river as its waste pipe, said Gary Smith, treasurer of the Pine River Superfund Citizen Task Force, a local organization advocating for cleanup. The waste was so thick the company routinely dredged the river.
Effluent "literally choked the river off," he said. "The sediment would be piled up; they had to get rid of it somewhere. They would truck it away, or move it and fill in some of the low spots [around town]."
Any family in want of extra soil could call up the company.
"For a case of beer," Smith said, "they'd drop a truckload of dirt in your yard."
Even after the lawn removal, St. Louis' problems haven't gone away.
"We're still finding some birds, and there's DDT in their brains," Smith said.
'This nasty stink'
When Smith — now 65 — was a child, his parents ran a restaurant not far from the factory gates.
Smoke "would cover the town," Smith recounted. "It tasted of salt. There was this nasty stink. Sometimes you could even light [the river] on fire."
The factory had opened in 1936 as Michigan Chemical Corp., manufacturing salt-based compounds before moving onto petroleum-derived products — such as the toxic pesticide methyl bromide — in the 1940s. By 1944, it was shipping truckloads of DDT to the U.S. military for use as an insecticide in World War II. Soldiers would douse themselves in the agent to get rid of lice and control mosquitoes.
The company's own advertising called DDT "the miracle insecticide."
By the time Velsicol Chemical, based near Chicago, bought out Michigan Chemical in 1963, it had been promising clients "uninterrupted deliveries" of 100,000 pounds of various chemicals for years.
Today, grasses sprout over the old pipes and tubing of the factory, which was demolished and buried in the early 1980s after Velsicol shut down the plant in 1978. But contamination often lurks unseen: On an active golf course beside the main 52-acre site sits Velsicol's burn pit site.
"Back then ... any excess chemical that they didn't want went over to this property, [was] dumped in the pit and burned," said Jim Hall, president of the Pine River community group.
The 5-acre burn site is part of the course's out-of-bounds area.
"Elevated levels of benzene and 1,2-dichloroethane have been found in the soils and in the underlying groundwater beneath the site," reads an EPA document.
The company's chemical bonfires long since dispersed toxins on the wind, and EPA claims the burn pit is not a current risk to human health. But the main Velsicol site is a different story.
The federal agency lists human exposure at the main site as "not under control."
The status of contaminated groundwater: "Not under control."
"[R]esidents are likely in contact with soils contaminated with polybrominated biphenyls," or PBBs, EPA said in an online notice.
St. Louis residents are used to near-constant health warnings. Their town was the epicenter of a 1970s agricultural disaster that revolved around Velsicol's PBBs, a flame retardant.
In 1973, the company mislabeled its fire retardant as a livestock feed additive, and farmers across Michigan doled it out to their animals. The next year, cows began falling ill in droves. Chicks hatched with deformed legs. When worried farmers petitioned officials, it came to light that thousands of people — mostly farm families — had already consumed PBB-laced eggs, dairy and meat. The state swiftly quarantined over 500 farms and ordered the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of animals.
Fearing liability issues, Velsicol stopped producing PBBs in late 1974.
But for the population of St. Louis, the damage was done. A state report from 1975 found toxins everywhere.
"PBB's [sic] were measured in the plant effluent, river water, fish and duck tissue, and sediments of the Pine River," the study reported. "Concentrations in local fish populations were sufficiently high that a health warning against consumption has been issued."
That advisory — now 42 years old — remains in effect today.
"Although fish consumption advisories are in place ... and warning signs are posted," a current EPA notice reads, "fishing has been observed in the river, and we believe the fish are being consumed."
Too young to die
Disease is rampant in and around St. Louis, though Velsicol has long since closed. Young girls hit puberty prematurely, and incidences of breast cancer are elevated, charges Keon. She cited kidney problems, liver cancer, brain tumors and miscarriages "like crazy."
Emory University researchers are studying the incidences of disease in St. Louis, and their data are augmented by dozens of families' stories.
When they moved into town from the countryside in 1968, Hall's family settled three blocks from the Velsicol factory.
But when the 1970s recession hit, his father struggled to find work.
"I went out as a youngster and got lawn mowing jobs in that neighborhood, paperboy jobs in that neighborhood," he recalled.
After Hall went away to college in the 1980s, his brother was diagnosed with cancer. He would eventually succumb to the disease in 1985.
"That rocked me a little bit," Hall said. "'Cause you don't know why they have all this cancer in this area."
As the years went on, Hall's concerns deepened. Multiple members of his family had thyroids removed. Then, when doctors tested PBB levels in Hall's blood, his were 20 times higher than the Michigan farm family average.
"My assumption is that I inhaled a lot," he said. "You're mowing lawns, and the dust is coming up and you don't think much of it."
Then, when Hall's daughter Jerra was born, she was diagnosed with a rare heart condition.
She died in 2005, barely 2 years old.
"Two years, two months, too little," her gravestone reads.
"There's research that shows [contamination] can go from me to my kid to my grandkid and on, even though they were never exposed," Hall said.
Velsicol itself has always been tight-lipped or even adversarial about the hazards posed by its products. In 1962, it had threatened to sue Rachel Carson's publisher, Houghton Mifflin Co., over what it called "inaccurate and disparaging" claims aired by "Silent Spring."
The company operates today as Velsicol Chemical LLC, having undergone several buyouts and a bankruptcy, and maintains factories in Memphis, Tenn., and Wuhan, China. It remains a member of the American Chemistry Council, the industry's largest trade group.
Velsicol did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this article.
A path forward, or more delays?
EPA has already sunk tens of millions of dollars into the site but hasn't moved expediently to ensure residents' health and safety, advocates say. The agency's projected costs at the plant site alone total $384 million, according to Keon.
"We butt heads with our EPA people quite a lot," said Keon.
For its part, EPA says it is proceeding cautiously. Excavating highly contaminated soils could risk releasing dibromochloropropane, or DBCP, a long-buried fumigant once produced by Velsicol.
"Just the tiniest whiff of that will sterilize a male," said Keon.
So EPA has opted for thermal destruction, a process by which contractors will stick metal rods into the contaminated areas and run an electric current through the ground, neutralizing toxins.
The Velsicol site is the largest area in the world to be targeted for thermal destruction, according to Keon. But, like most environmental restoration efforts, the operation is an expensive one — and EPA has not yet secured funding.
"EPA expects to know if funding will be provided by spring 2017," an EPA spokesperson said.
Eventually, EPA says, it will cap the site to prevent the further spread of toxins.
But residents aren't optimistic. After Velsicol shuttered the plant in 1978, it clamped clay over the site and encircled it with a slurry wall, claiming toxins would be permanently contained.
"It was more of a cover-up" than a cleanup, contends Hall.
DDT did not stay put for long. Hidden from plain site and unknown to environmental officers, contaminants migrated. By the time the leak was discovered in 1997, at least 11 million gallons of contaminated water had leaked out of the cap.
EPA was forced to dredge 670,000 cubic yards of tainted sediment in the Pine River in a move that would ultimately lower DDT concentrations in fish by more than 98 percent. State officials say the fish advisory will remain in place until a full cleanup is declared.
But with contaminants still leaking from the site, EPA has been collecting toxin-laced water and shipping it off-site as an interim measure.
"EPA continues to remove approximately 20,000 gallons per week of contaminated groundwater from the groundwater collection trench," the agency said in a newsletter released on Jan. 20.
Its second attempt at a cap may be a long time coming.
"Placing a cap over the 52 acre [sic] main plant site will be dependent upon the availability of EPA funding," said an EPA spokesperson.
The Superfund program has been mired in budget woes for years, leading many cleanups to stall (Greenwire, Jan. 21, 2008). Congress hasn't renewed the Superfund tax — which charged the chemical and fossil fuel industries for future cleanup costs — since it expired in 1995, meaning taxpayers fund an increasingly tight federal cleanup budget.
"Basically we're always begging for money," said Ed Lorenz, professor of history and political science at Alma College near St. Louis. "I think there's a lot of sympathy with these other [afflicted] communities, but the bad thing is we're sort of in competition with each other for money. And it may get scarcer" under the Trump administration.
Scott Pruitt, President Trump's pick for EPA administrator, once sued the agency to halt a cleanup effort in the Chesapeake Bay, and Trump's EPA transition leader had ties to a website promoting the use of DDT (Greenwire, Dec. 9, 2016).
As the Pine River Superfund Citizens Task Force commences its 20th year, its members say they aren't holding their breath.
"Most of the time we can laugh about it and say, 'Oh, remember when we thought we were doing a five-year commitment and then we'd be done?'" Keon said.
Many in the community have made cleanup their life's work.
"Someone asked me, 'Well, why do you still live there?'" Hall recounted. "Because I have two brothers, a daughter and a mom in the cemetary. I'll be in there, too. And I want my kids and grandkids to live in a much cleaner environment. Why should I run?
"Make it better — isn't that what we're supposed to do? Make it better," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060049448/search?keyword=%22American+Chemistry+Council%22
-
US Study Highlights Perfluorinated Chemicals in Food Wrappers
Feb 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
US researchers have highlighted the issue of possible consumer exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in food wrappers.
Led by Laurel Schaider at the Silent Spring Institute in Massachusetts, the team collected over 400 samples of wrappers from fast food restaurants in the US in 2014 and 2015.
They then used a novel technique called particle-induced gamma-ray emission (PIGE) spectroscopy to analyse samples for total fluorine. Almost half of the food contact papers and one fifth of cardboard contained detectable fluorine.
The team studied 20 samples in more detail, using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Six of the samples contained PFOA (C8); this has been phased out in the US, although is still produced in other regions.
The most commonly detected types of PFASs were carboxylic acids - such as PFOA and its six-carbon sister compound perfluorohexanoate (PFHxA) - sulfonic acids and fluorotelomer sulfonates. Meanwhile, many samples contained "unknown" PFASs.
"All PFASs, including the newer replacements, are highly resistant to degradation and will remain in the environment for a long time," says co-author Graham Peaslee from the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. "Because of this, these highly fluorinated chemicals are not sustainable and should not be used in compostable products or any product that might end up in a landfill."
"These chemicals have been linked with numerous health problems, so it's concerning that people are potentially exposed to them in food," says Dr Schaider. In 2014, for example, researchers in Canada found "significant protein binding" in tissues in rats exposed to a fluorotelomer alcohol or a polyfluoroalkyl phosphate diester (diPAP).
The authors describe the study as a "proof-of-concept" application of PIGE for rapidly screening a high number of samples. Sample preparation and analysis "take only a few minutes", they say. Because the technique detects total fluorine, it can also detect unknown PFCs.
"To find these chemistries in these products is neither surprising nor alarming, as long as they are approved for use by the US Food and Drug Administration," says the FluoroCouncil, which represents global fluoro-technology companies. "There are now specific, modern, short-chain PFAS chemicals that have been carefully reviewed and approved for use in coating food contact papers to keep grease, oil and moisture from seeping through the packaging."
Study authors include Arlene Blum from the University of California in Berkeley, Mark Strynar from the US EPA and Simona Balan from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.
The study is published in Environmental Science and Technology Letters.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53318/us-study-highlights-perfluorinated-chemicals-in-food-wrappers
-
US CPSC Moves to Adopt Updated Toy Standard
Feb 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has issued a direct final rule to adopt the recently updated ASTM toy safety standard as the US’s mandatory standard under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA).
ASTM completed significant revisions to ASTM F963, the Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Toy Safety, last autumn.
Replacement of the existing ASTM F963-11 standard with the new ASTM F963-16 will take effect on 30 April, unless the CPSC receives significant adverse comment by 6 March.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53317/us-cpsc-moves-to-adopt-updated-toy-standard
-
Vermont Receives More Than 1m Children's Product Reports
Feb 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Vermont’s newly implemented children’s product chemical disclosure programme has resulted in more than a million manufacturer reports on the presence of substances of high concern.
From 1 January, companies have been required to disclose information about products containing substances of concern to children to the Vermont Department of Health (VDH), under the Chemicals of High Concern in Children's Products Rule.
Unlike similar reporting rules in Washington and Oregon, Vermont’s requires manufacturers to report specific brand and product model information, rather than “brick code” data by product type.
During the rule development process, industry groups raised concerns that this level of specificity was unduly burdensome and would result in a huge volume of reported data.
Indeed, the resulting spreadsheet, published by VDH last month, contains 1,033,639 specific entries, at the time of publishing.
Adrienne Appell of the Toy Industry Association (TIA) said that because it is “economically not feasible” to test for all 66 chemicals, some companies may elect to report the presence of a chemical in a product. This is the case even when substances are “not actually present in measurable amounts, in order to avoid any penalties associated with not reporting”, she said.
But Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG) executive director, Paul Burns, told Chemical Watch that industry’s compliance with the rule has proven that it is possible for companies to provide information about chemicals in specific products.
"The good news is the companies have complied. They've proven that it's possible, and the sky didn't fall," he said.Data improvement needed
But Mr Burns said the online spreadsheet needs to be improved, so the data could be used to identify exactly which products and toys contain which toxic chemicals.
The use of product codes, for example, makes it challenging for consumers to determine which products are named in the report, he said.
“This may count as ‘publishing’ the data, but it does not give consumers a meaningful way of getting the specific information they need,” he added.
VPIRG now hopes to “work collaboratively” with VDH to improve the system. “There is no question that the legislative intent was to provide user-friendly data,” said Mr Burns.
Sarah Vose, state toxicologist at VDH, said the department had received positive feedback from people, and that consumers have appreciated having the information available.
https://chemicalwatch.com/52518/vermont-receives-more-than-1m-childrens-product-reports
-
REACH May Become ‘Unmanageable’ for EU Defence Sector
Feb 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Complying with REACH could become ‘unmanageable’ for the European defence industry, if more substances critical to the sector are added to the authorisation list, according to a report by the European Defence Agency (EDA).
The EDA commissioned a study to examine the impact REACH and CLP Regulations have on European defence organisations, for both government and industry. Those consulted include the EDA, member states’ MoDs, the Commission, Echa, member states’ competent authorities on REACH and CLP and the defence industry.
The main issues of REACH, it says, are caused by authorisation, exemptions granted by individual member states and complying with Article 33, which requires companies to reply within 45 days if asked by consumers or customers about the presence – above 0.1% concentration – of SVHCs in their products.
‘Strong mismatch’
Tim Becker, compliance officer for REACHLaw, the consultant which conducted the study, told Chemical Watch that authorisation was a key issue because of the long product life cycles of military equipment.
The report says there is a “strong mismatch” between the timelines of REACH authorisation for SVHCs and the long equipment lifecycles in the defence sector. The sector often requires the use of particular SVHC substances - which may be up to several decades - for production and maintenance.
This is causing defence companies, in some instances, “to implement quick substitutes of mostly lower technical performance” to avoid authorisation and replacement.
These substitutions are also being carried out to avoid dependence on a “shrinking number” of suppliers, and uncertainties associated with the possible need for several authorisation renewals. “This negatively affects the defence companies’ competitiveness and innovation potential,” the report says.
By contrast, the impact of REACH restrictions has been relatively limited and mostly indirect, the report says. This is because exemptions are often foreseen for critical aerospace and defence applications, such as for decaBDE.
Complex products
It adds that the industry finds it very difficult to comply with Article 33 for complex defence products. The requirement is an "excessive burden" compared to “the added value" it brings to the safe use of articles.
Mr Becker added: “Articles such as military aircraft, ships or tanks are very complex equipment, which may consist of many millions of component articles. So, it’s basically impossible to get the required information to be fully compliant from the supply chain on which SVHCs are contained in the article and where they are located.”
He added that this was “a big challenge”, especially for imported articles where non-EU suppliers do not have direct REACH obligations.Defence exemptions
REACH states that member states may allow for exemptions in specific cases “where necessary in the interests of defence”. As these are currently granted at national level, the report calls for a mechanism to make sure they work across borders.
“We have more international defence projects nowadays, with an increasing number of cases in which defence industries in more than one member state are involved in a transnational supply chain. Therefore it would be important that defence exemptions granted in one member state could also apply or be acknowledged in other member states for affected operations,” said Mr Becker.
Recommendations
The study also provides a number of recommendations that aim to feed into the European Commission’s review of REACH, which is due to be completed this year.
These include consideration of prolonging authorisation timelines and establishing research and development funding schemes, at the EU and national level, to promote the substitution of SVHCs in defence products.
The study also found that other European regulations on chemicals, such as the biocidal products Regulation (BPR), ozone-depleting substances (ODS) Regulations and the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs), have an impact on European defence capabilities.
The EDA said it has disseminated the report and is now in the process of liaising with stakeholders “to support further examination and implementation of the study proposals”.
In response to the report, Echa told Chemical Watch it would be looking at the issues in the context of its ongoing work to streamline the Application for Authorisation (AfA) process, together with the Commission.
A spokesperson said: “Echa is fully aware of the mentioned challenges of the practical implementation of REACH Article 33 provisions, especially in complex global supply chains or for ‘very complex products’.
“Those have been discussed in the context of the ongoing process for the updating of Echa’s guidance on requirements for substances in articles, of which the main objective is to provide to the widest audience clear and practical advice on how to implement REACH substance in articles-related provisions.”
https://chemicalwatch.com/53320/reach-may-become-unmanageable-for-eu-defence-sector
-
Brexit Throws REACH Data Ownership into Question
Feb 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Trade bodies have expressed concern over access and ownership of REACH data once Britain exits the single market – something that was confirmed today in a UK government White Paper.
On 1 February MPs voted by a large majority to allow prime minister Theresa May to get Brexit negotiations under way. The bill now faces further scrutiny in the Commons and the House of Lords before it can become law. This is expected to happen before 31 March.
But now that the UK has sealed its exit, "the question is who owns this [REACH] data and the registration dossiers?" asks trade body techUK.
"What status, if any, will [the data owner] have in the UK? We would be concerned about any impact on the functioning of supply chains if this issue is not resolved."
Its comments, and those of other organisations, have been submitted to an inquiry into the future of the UK's chemical regulations by the House of Commons' Environmental Audit Committee.
The Chemical Industries Association (CIA) says that existing agreements may not allow the use of data for UK REACH compliance purposes. This would result in "businesses having to pay twice (for EU REACH and UK REACH) unless a mutual recognition system is agreed".
The UK may need to negotiate a deal which allows its businesses to retain ownership of the dossiers, techUK says. Although this would necessitate access to the single market and "naturally implies a continued relationship of some kind with Echa with which registrations are filed".
In its White Paper the government says it will pursue an "ambitious and comprehensive" free trade agreement (FTA) and a new customs agreement.
Aerospace, defence and security group ADS says when seeking to negotiate a new long-term FTA, it is essential the government takes into account the "significant levels" of trade, knowledge sharing and regulatory convergence the UK is involved in at a European level.
In its comments to the inquiry, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) says that once the UK leaves the single market, stakeholders' "primary concern" is to ensure that equivalent standards are maintained to facilitate trade and market access. And some businesses see an opportunity for the UK to be able to achieve "better regulatory outcomes" in developing a tailored UK regulatory regime.
Registration security
Trade bodies have also questioned what Brexit will mean for UK businesses, which have made over 5,000 registrations under REACH. The CIA says Britain will need to consider the status of existing REACH registrations during the negotiations and before exiting "to ensure that they do not become invalid".
It adds that a process will need to be established to facilitate continued access to the EU market without the need to re-register substances.
A recent Chemical Business Association (CBA) survey revealed that a sample of 55 member companies had registered 75 substances as an importer and 61 substances as a manufacturer. This data applies to the first two REACH deadlines covering high volume substances. "The commercial viability of lower volume substances to be registered in 2018 is now in even more doubt given the range of post-Brexit uncertainties," the CBA says.
Transposition of REACH
The UK government has said it will convert the body of EU law into British law once it leaves the EU under a 'Great Repeal Bill'.
"We are preparing to make sure we use 'the Repeal Bill' to translate chemical legislation into UK law and see that how that works in Brexit," Gabrielle Edwards, deputy director of EU Environment at Defra told the UK Chemicals Stakeholder Forum on 31 January. "More detailed discussion will come over next few months."
While most trade bodies are in favour of the UK remaining part of REACH, the CIA says it is now "clearly recognised by government that many aspects of REACH are inoperable once the UK exits the EU".
"Effective transposition of REACH into UK law to ensure regulation does not create barriers to access and supply of chemicals is also likely to be of interest to other member states,” " it says.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53302/brexit-throws-reach-data-ownership-into-question
-
Echa Wins Fght for Transparency in DEHP Authorisation Case
Feb 2, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Echa has won a key court case over its decision to release ‘confidential’ information about an application for authorisation to use the phthalate DEHP.
Czech chemicals manufacturer, Deza, sued Echa in 2014, after the agency agreed to issue previously undisclosed information about its application for authorisation to NGOs ClientEarth and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB).
The two NGOs requested access to reports on chemical safety and analysis of alternatives, included in Deza’s application. They argued that the documents, disclosed by Echa during a public consultation in 2013, were “incomplete” and “keeping them secret prevents scrutiny of the reasons for continuing to use such a dangerous substance”.
According to an EU General Court ruling on 13 January, the company had attached to its authorisation application a ‘confidential’ and a ‘non-confidential’ version of the required documents - several of which were made available in the public consultation.
In its judgment, the court rejected Deza’s arguments to have Echa's decision annulled, saying the principle of the widest possible public access to documents from EU institutions “applies to documents submitted by companies to Echa under the [REACH] authorisation process”.
The judgment added that “the publication of the Dnel [derived no-effect level] and information regarding risk characterisation are essential for the public to be aware of the risk of using DEHP”. It said the method of derivation of safe exposure data should also be published.
‘Huge win’
ClientEarth lawyer Alice Bernard said the ruling was a “huge win” for transparency which "confirms that commercially valuable information is not automatically secret, and that companies wanting to use dangerous chemicals must disclose essential information on the risks to their health and the environment.”
Once it has received the documents from Echa, ClientEarth says it will “assess whether the agency should have released more information and [if] Deza’s authorisation to use DEHP should be challenged in light of this new information”.
Although Echa has agreed to grant the company an authorisation to use DEHP – which has hormone-disrupting properties – the decision has yet to be approved by the European Commission. Once it is adopted, ClientEarth could request the Commission carries out an internal review of its decision, Ms Bernard said.
Deza, on the other hand, could challenge the judgement by lodging an appeal before the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
Echa says the ruling is “important in principle” but, in the meantime, the level of detail that is disclosed in the public consultation for REACH authorisation applications has increased.
“Authorisation applicants may still ask for non-disclosure of certain information they claim [as being] confidential business information (CBI) as part of the public consultation, or in case of access to documents requests. But the main elements of the applications are made public,” Echa said.
ClientEarth, the EEB and Health Care Without Harm supported Echa's decision in court.
Separately, ClientEarth is suing the Commission over its controversial Decision to grant authorisations to three companies for uses of DEHP in recycled PVC until 2019.
During a pesticides case last year, the ECJ ruled that public interest overrides the confidentiality of company data, when it comes to access to information about chemicals.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53312/echa-wins-fight-for-transparency-in-dehp-authorisation-case
-
Using the CRA on BLM Rule Would Increase Government Waste
Feb 2, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Ryan Alexander
Over the next week the House will consider overturning a laundry list of regulations adopted by the last administration using the Congressional Review Act or CRA. If successful, this would mark only the second time Congress has overturned a rule using the CRA, and for good reason. The CRA is a sledgehammer approach to ending government regulation – it prevents adoption of any similar rule, ever, unless Congress explicitly passes legislation to allow it. In at least the case of the new methane rule, Congress should not swing the sledgehammer. Doing so will only lead to an increase in government waste.
In November, the Bureau of Land Management finally issued a rule addressing the waste of natural gas from oil and gas wells on federal lands. It replaces a six page notice to federal leaseholders issued in 1979. Throughout a rulemaking process that began in 2011 and included a series of forums and hearings across the country, the BLM received in excess of 300,000 comments from the public.
Over the last three decades oil and gas drilling has changed dramatically, with the advent of new techniques like hydraulic fracturing and dramatically increased production, making the old rules woefully inadequate. Over the years, multiple investigations and reviews of the BLM’s management of onshore oil and gas resources have concluded that too much natural gas was being wasted during drilling, and that BLM needed to address the problem.
Besides the waste of a valuable resource, the vague language of the original notice meant that almost no royalties were paid on this lost gas, which has a market value of about $330 million annually. In 2011, the Government Accountability Office put Management of Federal Oil and Gas Resources on its list of “high risk” government programs - those with “greater vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.”
Opposition to a particular government regulation should not mean overlooking potential waste, fraud, and abuse at the expense of taxpayers. The oil and gas industry argues that companies, not the BLM, should decide when to pay a royalty on gas that is lost during drilling. This is a ridiculous claim, one a private landowner would balk at. Taxpayers own this resource, and it is insulting and irresponsible that we would defer to the oil and gas industry to tell us when it will pay for it. Moreover, the system created by the 1979 rules includes minimal oversight, meaning the industry can tell us whatever it wants, which helps explain why it is on the list of “high risk” programs.
The BLM methane rule is on the short list of regulations Congress is considering undoing with the CRA. If it does, the BLM will not be allowed to issue any rule in the future that would update the old ones. Only Congress would be allowed to take up the issue. Given Congress’s abysmal track record on even passing annual spending bills – something no-less than the Constitution calls for – this would effectively make the more than 35-year-old rule permanent. As production on federal lands continues to expand and the price of natural gas recovers from historic lows, this will lock in taxpayer losses.
No regulation is perfect, but rather than throwing the good out with the bad, Congress should remember that the new administration has the power to revise the BLM’s rule. If Congress repeals it through the CRA, the BLM will be unable to do anything about wasted gas. This is not in the best interests of taxpayers. The BLM has an important role to play in the management of federal lands, and taking it out of the game is both irresponsible and a bad way of doing business.
Ryan Alexander is the President of Taxpayers for Common Sense.
http://www.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/317419-using-the-cra-on-blm-rule-would-increase-government
-
Gulf Coast Oil Destination Port Fourchon Considered for LNG Export Facility
Feb 2, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Port Fourchon, Louisiana's southernmost port and destination for nearly all of the Gulf of Mexico's deepwater oil production, is being considered for an $800 million liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility.
The proposed Galliano facility by Energy World (USA) Inc. would produce up to 2 million metric tons/year of LNG and operate a separate, small-scale liquefaction plant to fuel offshore supply vessels powered by LNG. As designed, the facility would be built on a 150-acre site near port-owned property near Belle Pass, which is outside the existing port development, according to the Greater Lafourche Port Commission (GLPC).
"While it is still very early in the planning and regulatory process, we are excited to be able to tell the community and our tenants about this potential opportunity to continue to keep Port Fourchon at the very cutting edge of the oil and gas services industry," GLPC Executive Director Chett Chiasson said. "We feel that this is a great addition to the suite of vessel services that are offered by our tenants and greatly enhances our capability and versatility as the premier services hub for the oil and gas industry."
Last year a unit of Harvey Gulf International Marine Inc. opened small-scale LNG marine fueling terminal in Port Fourchon, said to be North America's first.
Port officials have been working with Energy World since last April, and if it moves forward, the project would be "the largest single initial investment in the history of both Port Fourchon and Lafourche Parish."
Energy World's U.S. subsidiary is part of Australian-based Energy World International Ltd. (EWI), which develops, constructs and operates infrastructure, power generation and energy-related projects. EWI has a controlling interest in Energy World Corp. (EWC). EWC has LNG operations in Australia and Indonesia, with projects underway in Papau New Guinea, the Philippines, Hong Kong and Sir Lanka .
"The Energy World family of companies has over 20 years' experience in the safe production, storage, transportation and delivery of LNG to its customers in Australia, Indonesia and the Philippines, and we are looking forward to bringing this expertise to Port Fourchon," said Energy World USA President Kevin Blount.
"With the recent arrival of Energy World's LNG carrier Ocean Quest at our LNG hub terminal in the Philippines, we have completed a key part of our vision for bringing clean and economic energy to Asia," EWC CEO Stewart Elliott said. "Energy World is now in complete control of its own destiny from gas in the ground to liquefaction or spot market purchases, transport, storage, regasification and the production of electricity, providing access to offtake agreements for the LNG we produce.
"The LNG produced at Port Fourchon will initially be exported to our own gas-fired power plants right across the Asia-Pacific region and also be sold into U.S. domestic markets for marine applications. Eventually, we hope to export to Jamaica and the wider Caribbean, where Energy World is separately proposing to develop a LNG hub terminal and gas-fired power plants consistent with our goal of delivering clean and affordable electricity to developing countries on a global platform."
"With as much as our workers and residents have been hurting lately, this project could be a great opportunity for our local economy, bringing hundreds of jobs during the construction phase, and dozens of good-paying permanent jobs once they are up and running, which will result in Lafourche Parish being able to hang on to our young families and workers," said Lafourche Parish President Jimmy Cantrelle.
In the coming weeks, GLPC plans to begin a waterway suitability assessment with the U.S. Coast Guard to ensure that current and future port activities would not be adversely affected by operating the facility. The assessment also would serve to support Energy World's application for project approval to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The "existing tenants are the heart and soul of our community's economic development and future growth," into which Energy World would be welcomed, said GLPC Board President Perry Gisclair. "We take our role as advocate for our existing tenants and the offshore service industry seriously, and we are working very closely with both the U.S. Coast Guard and Energy World to ensure that vessel traffic in and out of the port will continue to grow through this development and our other expansion plans stretching far into the future."
With the assistance of the director of economic development for Lafourche Parish, the South Louisiana Economic Council is working with the Louisiana Department of Economic Development to identify potential business and tax incentives for Energy World.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109271-gulf-coast-oil-destination-port-fourchon-considered-for-lng-export-facility
-
DOE Emergency Transformer Study Moves to Trump's Queue
Feb 2, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Beh
The Energy Department has held up a congressionally mandated study on how to create an emergency stockpile of power grid transformers, seeking more analysis of worst-case natural disasters and enemy attacks that could cause crippling power blackouts, according to people familiar with the project.
The study was supposed to be completed by the Obama administration. The issue now lands in a crowded in-basket for President Trump's designated DOE secretary, former Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry, assuming he is confirmed. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved Perry's nomination Tuesday, but no date for full Senate consideration has been announced.
Congress directed DOE to make the transformer stockpile study as part of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act in December 2015. There was no opposition to the measure, reflecting lawmakers' anxieties about potentially catastrophic blackouts caused by the simultaneous loss of a number of the transformers, which move power across the nation's synchronized grid systems.
A plan to build specially designed transformers for emergency deployment could mesh with Trump's pledge to expand infrastructure spending and U.S. manufacturing output and jobs. Trump transition team members were briefed recently about the DOE study, according to a source familiar with the project.
An earlier strategy for coping with the transformer issue produced a prototype of an emergency replacement transformer called "RecX," developed by the Department of Homeland Security, the Electric Power Research Institute and the power equipment manufacturer ABB. The prototype has been successfully tested at a Houston utility, but utilities have not followed with orders, officials said.
DOE has solicited industry and outside expert views on whether a national transformer stockpile is needed and, if so, how it should be funded. The National Association of State Energy Officials commented to DOE that U.S. manufacturers currently supply about 15 percent of the nation's demand for mid- and large-sized transformers, and for the largest units, the reliance on foreign suppliers is even greater.
The ABB model was made in St. Louis, and several manufacturers say they are eager to offer their versions of spare transformers.
A year ago, DOE assigned the technical part of the study to a team led by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and with other researchers from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville; Sandia National Laboratories; the Electric Power Research Institute; and Dominion Virginia Power.
The Oak Ridge report was completed but was not immediately delivered to Congress, as DOE officials kept it to do additional analysis. The final DOE report was recently completed and approved by the department, according to a source not authorized to speak on the record. A DOE spokesperson said no update on the project was currently available.
DOE has previously concluded that large power transformers (LPs) — many of them beyond their peak ages — could be damaged by severe weather, natural disasters, geomagnetic pulses from solar storms, physical attacks and, most perilously, by shock waves from the explosion of a nuclear weapon in the atmosphere. "The loss of critical LPs could disrupt electricity services over a large area of the country," DOE has said.
DOE has cited a proposal by the Western Area Power Administration for a transformer stockpile program in which the federal government would purchase 110 large transformers for $324 million, providing a backup reserve for some 20,000 LPs.
At a congressional hearing yesterday, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on energy, asked industry panelists about the transformer vulnerability and industry spare capabilities.
"One of the concerns that a number of us have raised is that if there were some issue — a transformer was taken down — because of the lack of uniformity between a variety of different units that may be taken out of business, how long it would actually take to get new transformers into place," Upton said.
For example, MidAmerican Energy Co. in Des Moines, Iowa, took on a demonstration in 2015 of how it could expedite a transformer relocation. With the rail, rigging and permitting requirements, it still took 45 days (Energywire, Nov. 23, 2015).
The Edison Electric Institute has a program to supply spare units in a national emergency. The Oak Ridge study reportedly assessed that the greater challenge was not locating replacement transformers, but in moving the bulky, 100-ton-plus units to new locations and bringing them online.
"Having the equipment is one thing, moving it is another," Scott Aaronson, EEI executive director for security and business continuity, said at the House hearing. "These things are quite literally hundreds of thousands of pounds and very hard to move."
He said it's an example of the grid industry's efforts to coordinate emergency measures with other interdependent industries.
The supplies of a second type of transformer called step-up units that move power from generation stations onto the grid are not adequate, the study is said to have concluded.
The Oak Ridge study reportedly did not examine the consequences of various threats to transformers, and DOE officials decided that additional detail was critical. Transformer losses due to a major earthquake, for example, could have a very different replacement timetable if road or rail systems and connecting power lines were also severely damaged.
Now the issue passes over to the Trump administration's Energy Department. It will also inherit an uncompleted preparation of an emergency plan that would give the secretary of Energy wide-ranging authority to issue emergency orders to protect and bring back the grid, following declaration of a presidentially declared crisis. Congress called for this plan as well in the FAST Act.
A third project in the works is a study ordered by President Obama at the end of last year to test electronic devices that could block rogue currents from a solar storm or electromagnetic pulse burst from damaging transformers.
Reporter Blake Sobczak contributed.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/02/02/stories/1060049425
-
Executive Order Likely Delayed Until Pruitt's Confirmation
Feb 2, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Emily Holden
U.S. EPA isn't waiting with bated breath for an executive order against the Clean Power Plan, according to a spokesman for the transition team.
"We don't anticipate an executive order coming out before we have a new administrator, but it doesn't mean it couldn't happen," said Doug Ericksen, who is handling agency communications temporarily.
Ericksen added that the transition team is "getting things ready for the new administrator," which it hopes will be Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R).
"We don't know what the Senate's going to do, but we're getting ready for that," Ericksen said.
Some sources have suggested that the White House doesn't want to attack the federal climate regulation now and jeopardize Pruitt's confirmation. Democratic senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee yesterday boycotted a panel vote to send his nomination to the floor. At least two members of the minority party must be present to constitute a quorum, according to committee rules that the chairman could suspend (Greenwire, Feb. 1).
Twenty-four of the Republican attorneys general who are challenging the Clean Power Plan in federal court sent Trump a letter weeks ago saying that "an executive order on day one is critical."
They said the order should state that the rule is unlawful and unenforceable (E&E News PM, Dec. 15, 2016).
The attorneys general also want Trump's EPA chief to take formal administrative action to roll back the rule, which could take years. The group asked the administration to review lawsuits to determine whether they should ask the courts to halt its consideration of the rule or resolve the cases. Finally, they said Congress should propose legislation addressing "the issues giving rise to the Rule," a likely nod to EPA's endangerment finding.
If Pruitt is confirmed, he and his air chief will oversee efforts to rescind or replace the Clean Power Plan. Ericksen said he thinks the White House is vetting and formalizing the list of potential deputies for EPA now.
"It won't take very long for the new administrator to get people lined up for those positions," Ericksen said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/02/02/stories/1060049428
-
This Lawmaker Wants to Ease Rules on Drilling in National Parks, and Conservationists Aren’t Happy.
Feb 2, 2017 | Washington Post
By Darryl Fears
It’s safe to say that Rep. Paul A. Gosar (R-Ariz.) is no friend of environmentalists. He boycotted Pope Francis’s speech to Congress in 2015 because the pontiff addressed climate change. He received a score of 3 percent that year from the League of Conservation Voters, significantly below the House average of 41 percent.
But his latest move came as a surprise to many. Gosar submitted a resolution Monday that threatens to repeal the National Park Service’s authority to manage private drilling for oil, gas and minerals at 40 national parks, according to the National Parks Conservation Association. Under what are known as the 9B rules, the Park Service, which controls the surface of natural parks, can decline drilling rights to parties that own resources beneath the surface if it determines that the operation would be an environmental threat.
“The resolution is just the latest in a series of moves by federal lawmakers to weaken environmental protections for national parks under the Congressional Review Act,” said the association, a nonprofit watchdog for parks. “If these repeals are signed into law … it will not only stop these protections, it will also prohibit agencies from issuing similar rules and protections in the future, unless directed by Congress.”
The parks that have “split-estate ownership” of surface and underground resources include Everglades National Park, Mammoth Cave National Park and Theodore Roosevelt National Park, the association said.
Gosar called claims that he’s trying to open the parks to more drilling “utterly false.” His resolution “simply seeks to block a midnight Obama [administration] regulation implemented in November” that he said targets the livelihoods of existing drilling operations in national parks.
The lawmaker was referring to an update to the 9B rulesdrafted by the Park Service a week before Trump was elected in November. At that time, then-Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis bemoaned that 60 percent of drilling operations allowed in parks were exempt from the regulations.
Jarvis also said a cap on financial assurance that went toward cleaning up any mess caused by drilling operations, $200,000, was inadequate to cover the true cost to restore the land. Finally, the Park Service had no authority to require compensation when operations strayed outside the boundaries of where they were limited to operating.
The park service eliminated the exemptions, removed the cap on financial assurance and authorized compensation to taxpayers when operations went outside their boundaries.
Gosar said his resolution targets the changes, not the 9B rules drafted in 1970. “Extremist groups are stoking unsubstantiated claims that H.J.Res.46 will allow significantly more drilling in our National Parks. “Once this fundamentally-flawed Obama regulation is rolled back, these private and state-controlled operations will continue under the same environmental regulations that have worked well for the past 38 years.”
Why were conservationists spooked by Gosar’s targeted resolution? Once upon a time, the six-year congressman was widely considered an outlier. He was elected to Congress as part of a 2010 tea party wave, sometimes angering the Republican leadership with statements that appeared to undermine them. But in this Congress, his stature is rising.
On Tuesday, the day after his resolution was referred to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, he was selected to chair its Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals. In a statement, he said: “We are in a prime position to foster America’s energy revolution, and I intend to empower my colleagues to take real action and enact practical solutions.
“By listening and engaging with our nation’s energy producers and consumers, this Subcommittee can reduce the unnecessary and job-killing red tape that continues to hold back economic development.”
Gosar’s elevation to subcommittee chairman, coupled with President Trump’s vow to push for more energy development on land controlled by the federal government, is cause for concern among environmentalists.
“This was a real surprise for us,” said Nick Lund, senior program manager for conservation at the parks association. “That they would this quickly go after drilling in national parks … I don’t know what this means for this Congress, and where this administration is going.”
As far as Gosar’s concerned, it’s an extreme overreaction. But the reaction could be related to his own earlier reaction to the Pope’s statements about climate change.
“The Earth’s climate has been changing since God created it, with or without man,” Gosar said. Climate scientists say that’s true to some degree, but human influence has greatly accelerated global warming since the start of the industrial age.
Gosar, who is Catholic, went on to criticize Pope Francis for condemning “anyone skeptical of the link between human activity and climate change and adopted the false science being propagated by the left.” In fact, the science includes thousands of peer-reviewed studies by top scientists throughout the world with only a few dissenters.
“If the pope wants to devote his life to fighting climate change then he can do so in his personal time,” Gosar said. “But to promote questionable science as Catholic dogma is ridiculous.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/01/this-lawmaker-wants-more-drilling-in-national-parks-and-he-just-became-more-powerful/?utm_term=.a4aab790e9a3
-
Former DOJ Official Lorenzen Talks Gorsuch, Future of Environmental Law and Chevron
Feb 2, 2017 | E&E TV
Following President Trump's nomination this week of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, how might Gorsuch shape the future of environment and energy cases before the court? During today's OnPoint, Thomas Lorenzen, a partner at Crowell & Moring and a former assistant chief in the Environment and Natural Resources Division at the Department of Justice, explains how Gorsuch could compare to the late Justice Antonin Scalia in his interpretation of the law. Lorenzen, who has opposed U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan on behalf of electric cooperatives, also talks about Gorsuch's record on energy and environment cases.
Monica Trauzzi: Hello, and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. With me today is Thomas Lorenzen, a partner at Crowell & Moring and a former assistant chief in the Environment and Natural Resources Division at the Department of Justice. Tom has opposed EPA's Clean Power Plan on behalf of electric co-ops. Tom, it's nice to have you on the show.
Thomas Lorenzen: Pleasure to be here again.
Monica Trauzzi: So, Tom, we have a new Supreme Court nominee finally. President Trump has chosen Judge Neil Gorsuch from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. What are your initial impressions?
Thomas Lorenzen: Neil is someone I worked with when he was at the Department of Justice. I was very impressed with him then. I am very impressed with him as a judge. He is definitely a conservative in the mold of Justice Scalia. People may not always agree with where he's going to go in the law, but I don't think anyone disputes that he's highly qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.
Monica Trauzzi: Right, and initial reactions seem to indicate that this choice by the president won't move the court too far from where it was prior to Justice Scalia's passing. How might he compare to Scalia, though, on how he handles energy and environment cases?
Thomas Lorenzen: Well, what I have experienced of Judge Gorsuch is that he's not driven by outcomes but by certain legal principles. He is skeptical of excessive government power, executive power. He has questioned the Chevron doctrine. There's an area where he might, in fact, differ significantly from Justice Scalia. Justice Scalia was actually a proponent of Chevron, felt it kept the law from ossifying by having it being dictated by judges. A Justice Gorsuch would be expected to sort of push back against that and say it violates the separation of powers. So there is a significant difference. In terms of outcomes, one can't really guarantee from Judge Gorsuch's legal philosophy how cases will turn out. You look at the cases he decided on the 10th Circuit, just as many of them were sort of pro-EPA as were anti-EPA. He goes where the law takes him, as he said from the podium last night.
Monica Trauzzi: Some environmental groups have suggested that he might take the court to the far right, saying he's a threat to the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. Could he be more aggressive with his interpretation of those laws?
Thomas Lorenzen: He could. I expect he will despite his views about Chevron and how that differs from Scalia, being adherent to Justice Scalia's statement in the majority opinion in [Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA], that the court is going to demand clarity from Congress when EPA is using a statute to try and find powers to regulate vast swaths of the economy. He's going to be looking for clear direction and not, I suspect, be willing to give EPA the benefit of the doubt where the language is too vague.
Monica Trauzzi: His mom was EPA administrator under President Reagan, some controversies there. Is that just an interesting nugget that folks like us in the energy and environment world like to know, or do you think there's something significant there?
Thomas Lorenzen: I think it's a fascinating nugget. What's more, I think, indicative of where he'll go is that he comes from sort of a conservative pedigree. His mom served in, I believe it was — well, I don't even remember which White House, whether it was Reagan or Bush, but he comes from those roots and that sort of philosophy about the limited role of federal government. I expect we will see that in his opinions.
Monica Trauzzi: Next steps, obviously this goes before the Senate. We were talking before the show about how that might actually go. We've already seen boycotts happening with Democrats for Trump's Cabinet nominees. How do you think the confirmation will go?
Thomas Lorenzen: I think it will be difficult. I think he will be asked a lot of questions trying to discern what his opinions are on various issues of the day, ranging from environmental regulation to Chevron to immigrant rights and abortion. But I expect, as with past sophisticated nominees, and he is definitely a sophisticated nominee, he will say that he's not going to comment on cases that may come before the court, just as Chief Justice Roberts did when he was successfully before the Senate during his confirmation.
Monica Trauzzi: And President Trump has already said that he thinks Majority Leader McConnell should go for it when it comes to the nuclear option. Do you think he will? Get to that point?
Thomas Lorenzen: I think the president may have jumped the gun. I'm not sure that that will be necessary. You know, I've not talked with Chuck Schumer about this, but the Democrats are not in a position of power here. I think that their role may be more effective in really pressing Judge Gorsuch on his views of the issues than simply trying to block his nomination altogether because that right to filibuster Supreme Court nominees may be something they need later on down the road when they face a nominee who's potentially, in their views, more extreme.
Monica Trauzzi: And any guesses on a timeline, or is it too difficult to tell?
Thomas Lorenzen: I think it's too difficult to tell at this point. There have been so many efforts to slow down nomination processes. We're seeing this with the Cabinet secretaries. We saw a suspension of Senate rules in, I think it was the Finance Committee today to get two of the nominees through. So far that hasn't happened with the Environment Committee and AG Pruitt's nomination to be administrator, but all of those things are going to build up, and I expect to see the same thing with Judge Gorsuch.
Monica Trauzzi: All right. It'll be interesting to watch for sure.
Thomas Lorenzen: It will indeed.
Monica Trauzzi: Thank you for coming on the show. Nice to see you.
Thomas Lorenzen: Great to see you.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2197/transcript
-
Battle Over EPA Pick is Big Business
Feb 2, 2017 | The Hill
By Timothy Cama
Outside groups are spending millions in the Senate battle over confirming Scott Pruitt, President Trump’s nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
More than $3 million in spending and other actions on both sides are coming from nonprofit organizations that do not have to disclose their donors.
The Environmental Defense Action Fund has spent $1 million opposing Pruitt, while NextGen Climate Action, the group founded by billionaire activist Tom Steyer, says its ad bill is seven figures.
The National Association of Manufacturers is the biggest spender in favor of Pruitt with a seven-figure ad campaign of its own.
The fierce battle reflects the high stakes of Pruitt’s nomination.
If confirmed, he would carry out Trump’s agenda of rolling back all of former President Barack Obama’s major climate change regulations, along with Obama’s major regulation asserting federal jurisdiction over small waterways, like ponds. He could also target the EPA’s limits on mercury pollution from power plants and on ground-level ozone, a byproduct of some pollutants from burning fossil fuels.
“It’s a rare thing to have this much aggression against a Cabinet nominee. Usually, Cabinet nominees are confirmed rather quickly, especially in these regulatory agencies,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston.
“It’s only because Pruitt has been so outspoken on climate change issues and so aggressive that we’ve seen this play out.”
Anti-Pruitt forces scored a small victory Wednesday when Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee boycotted a committee vote to approve him, denying the GOP the quorum it needed to move forward with the vote.
But overall, Pruitt’s confirmation seems likely.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) is the only Republican to voice any concerns about him, and he’ll need only 51 votes to be confirmed; the GOP holds 52 seats in the Senate.
The expensive battle over Pruitt, Oklahoma’s attorney general who frequently sued Obama’s EPA, also reflects the growth of political nonprofit spending, which has coincided with an explosion of campaign funding through super PACs.
“There is now a permanent infrastructure of both super PACs and dark money groups that can turn on the spigot and open the sluice to have the money come pouring in at any given moment,” said Meredith McGehee, a veteran of political finance and ethics who serves as the head of policy at Issue One.
“We have an entire apparatus of groups that, with the tap of a key, can tap into huge numbers of donors, activists, et cetera,” she said.
The League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club have sponsored smaller campaigns opposing Pruitt, while America Rising Squared has done extensive public relations in support of Pruitt.
In addition, Protecting America Now, a nonprofit group, was founded after Pruitt’s nomination and solicited industry donations for the express purpose of supporting his nomination and his agenda, according to a flier obtained by The Hill.
None of the major spenders have to disclose their donors, and in the case of Protecting America Now, the flier highlighted the nondisclosure of donors as a benefit.
Kate Doner, listed as the group’s fundraiser, did not respond to requests for comment.
Pruitt isn’t the only Trump nominee who is the subject of a major advertising campaign.
Attorney general nominee Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Education secretary nominee Betsy DeVos and Health and Human Services Secretary nominee Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) have also attracted advertising, organizing and other efforts.
“It is the first set of nominations of the dark-money era,” said Keith Gaby, spokesman for EDF Action.
EDF Action has not opposed any EPA nominee before, but Gaby said it felt obliged to battle Pruitt.
“He seems to have been deliberately chosen as the most provocative, anti-EPA choice Trump could have made,” Gaby said.
Gaby pointed to the “dark money” supporting Pruitt’s confirmation as evidence of his strong allegiance with industries like oil and natural gas. Greens and Democrats have hounded Pruitt for his industry connections and his fundraising for various political groups such as the Republican Attorneys Generals Association and a pair of PACs connected to him.
“It does nothing but confirm our suspicion that Pruitt will be up to no good on behalf of special interests, when special interests are clearly funding a dark-money campaign to put him in place,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
Jeremy Adler, spokesman for America Rising Squared, was equally critical of the environmental groups opposing Pruitt.
“Their message and agenda were rejected by the American people, and despite losing at the ballot box, they’re still prescribing the same dangerous agenda that would hurt families, drive up costs on them and eliminate millions of jobs,” said Adler.
“That’s why they’re opposing Scott Pruitt, because they know he’s an impediment to their extreme agenda,” he said.
Observers see the high interest in Pruitt’s nomination as a preview of things to come, both in terms of how outside groups will be involved in EPA fights under Trump and how groups will battle over Cabinet nominees in the future.
“There’s a pent-up demand to be able to challenge the president on policy,” said Rottinghaus. “There were concerns and fears in the party that they didn’t go far enough to really take apart his policy agenda. This is an opportunity for these groups to go after him on policy and not on personality.”
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/317472-battle-over-epa-pick-is-big-business
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested